# "we're here to back her up in pushing for 100 percent renewable energy." \[translation request\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2018, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561 "2018-11-15T15:29:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/41 "2018-11-15T21:16:07Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Aren’t “renewables” in this sense sources of electric power generation by definition? So why the yammering about campfires and matches? How is that taking her for her word? No. Renewables can be combustion from the renewable sources such as waste based diesels or heaters (like the burning of the olive pits for the heating, a financing project of the daughter affiliate in the maghreb of who I work for). This meeting certain technical criteria as set in the COP process and with the entities like the Green Climate Funds. The 100% renewables push by the green Left I find to be harmful as it is pushing beyond where the actual technology that is economically / financially viable can support at this time, which is damaging as it gives reason to the (mostly american) anti-action factions. It would be better to set a goal that is more lower but aggressive than to set a goal that is in fact completely unfeasible from the economic point of view. If a target is the 100 per cent of the electrical production, this may be realistic for some circumstances and countries (if it is counting also the nuclear from the idea of the non carbon) but it is damaging as a goal if it is all the energy consumption as it sets ups for the failure or the pushing of the policies that will cause the serious backlashes. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/42 "2018-11-15T21:28:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Needless to say, we **can** achieve a 100% renewable energy grid. [Plans exist already](https://www.iflscience.com/environment/here-s-roundmap-get-us-run-100-renewable-energy-2050/). the electricity grid =/= total energy usage. ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/43 "2018-11-15T22:35:34Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > No. > > The 100% renewables push by the green Left I find to be harmful as it is pushing beyond where the actual technology that is economically / financially viable can support at this time, When Kennedy proposed that Americans go to the Moon, it was beyond where the technology was economically / financial viable at that time. That’s why they are goals, something to strive toward. The change to renewables will not happen overnight, but it will happen a lot faster with some political will. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/44 "2018-11-15T22:43:23Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s fair, I didn’t mean to be dismissive of your post. Apologies. > > It’s an argument against the notion that attempting 100% renewable energy is “odd”. No, we can’t copy Norway’s exact model. If you look at the Jacobson plan I linked to, it breaks down as follows for the US in 2050: > > 14.5% residential rooftop solar > 19.5% solar plants > 11.5% concentrating solar plants > 11.8% commercial and government rooftop solar > > 21.3% onshore wind > 17.1% offshore wind > > 1.1% wave devices > 0.4% geothermal > 2.8% hydroelectric > > Note that it doesn’t propose copying Norway’s grid, but instead playing to the US’ strengths of lots of space and sunshine (hence, 57.3" solar). > > She didn’t say anything unreasonable, but yes, anything above 18% is a win, especially in the current political climate. This plan would require an enormous central planning bureaucracy and would completely obliterate the quasi free market in energy. There would be no ability for the bureaucracy to assess alternatives through economic calculation. It would be a boondoggle on par with the Soviet disasters of the 20th century. I could see something like his working in a comic book however. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/45 "2018-11-15T22:45:36Z")
> [@Doubticus](#): > > When Kennedy proposed that Americans go to the Moon, it was beyond where the technology was economically / financial viable at that time. That’s why they are goals, something to strive toward. The change to renewables will not happen overnight, but it will happen a lot faster with some political will. Going to the moon was a big waste of resources that would seem puny in comparison to the mammoth waste of resources that would occur if the US govt centrally planned the energy production of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/46 "2018-11-15T22:54:02Z")
> [@Doubticus](#): > > When Kennedy proposed that Americans go to the Moon, it was beyond where the technology was economically / financial viable at that time. That’s why they are goals, something to strive toward. The change to renewables will not happen overnight, but it will happen a lot faster with some political will. A discrete project under the full control of a single department of the government and the complete change in the energy source of a modern economy are not the things that are comparable. It is like comparing making a cake at the home and setting up a large catering company, saying once you made the cake at home, so obviously you can do a catering for 10 thousand people. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/47 "2018-11-15T22:54:57Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I’m assuming she includes replacing combustion engines with electric motors. This was a bit of a joke, but will we be permitted by her ideal government to burn surface fuels for other purposes or will we have to find renewable alternatives? So you’re taking her at her word by putting words into her mouth that she never said? This is why we can’t have nice arguments. Non-renewable fuels are coal, oil, and gas. They come with known environmental issues that will add to the most overwhelmingly important crisis of the century, global climate change. Any time you talk against renewables you must by default be advocating the continued use of coal, oil, and gas, and possibly the _increased_ use of those fuels since the global market is ever expanding. The U.S. government, BTW, is not going to ever centrally plan anything, so take that argument away unless you really do want to hear mocking laughter. If that’s your position, come out and say it directly. If that’s not your position, then what the hell is it? Lay it out in so many words. ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/48 "2018-11-15T22:55:22Z")
The UK is on target to get renewable energy to 30% by 2020. 40.7%: Gas-fired power stations 28.1%: Renewables 22.5%: Nuclear plants 1.3%: Coal-fired power stations 7.4%: Electricity imports > **[Positive UK renewable energy percentage in Q2 2018 - YouGen](https://yougen.co.uk/2018/08/08/positive-uk-renewable-energy-percentage-in-q2-2018/)** > > Earlier this year, we reported how wind power generated... Big investments in huge fleets of wind turbines located some miles off shore. They are monsters but their construction out at sea neatly fits in with the steady decline in off-shore Oil and Gas business. Part of the UK renewable energy comes from burning ‘biomass’ in the form of wood chips imported from the US and Canada. The biggest coal power generating plant in the UK is Drax at 3.9 GW and this quite a long way towards being converted from coal to biomass. The move away from coal has been very dramatic. In the UK the Coal industry was the source of some monumental political battles between the government and the miners in the 1980s which the government eventually won and that led to the steady and deliberate decline of the industry for political reasons. Emerging technologies like grid batteries for storage and smart meters to attenuate demand could make the whole generation system a lot easier to manage. Energy demand is actually going down because of LED lighting. DC Grids are becoming viable. The auto business is moving towards EV. There are a lot of advances, everything to play for. Most of the big economies have developed energy policies to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewables, preferably from low carbon sources. There is a lot to do both on the generation and the demand side. Each country has its own set of circumstances dictated by geography and existing infrastructure. But many of the policies were developed following the Stern report in 2006, which was the wake up call that climate change would have an economic impact that had to be planned for long term. > **[Stern Review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review)** > > The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a 700-page report released for the Government of the United Kingdom on 30 October 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern, chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE) and also chair of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) at Leeds University and LSE. The report discusses the effect of global warming on the world economy. Although not the first economi... On the contrary there are also vested interests that each country has to bear that may slow progress. In the US that would be the Koch Brothers. The US should be leading the way in renewable power generation, it has huge natural resources. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/49 "2018-11-15T23:03:20Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > So you’re taking her at her word by putting words into her mouth that she never said? This is why we can’t have nice arguments. > > Non-renewable fuels are coal, oil, and gas. They come with known environmental issues that will add to the most overwhelmingly important crisis of the century, global climate change. > > Any time you talk against renewables you must by default be advocating the continued use of coal, oil, and gas, and possibly the _increased_ use of those fuels since the global market is ever expanding. > > The U.S. government, BTW, is not going to ever centrally plan anything, so take that argument away unless you really do want to hear mocking laughter. > > If that’s your position, come out and say it directly. If that’s not your position, then what the hell is it? Lay it out in so many words. I never put words in her mouth. She said “energy”, this includes ICE autos right? Right. Thanks. Fossil fuel technology is probably one of the top 10 greatest technological advancements in human history. Before they were developed, life was cold, brutal and short for nearly everyone. In Europe, humans hibernated through the winter as recently as the 19th century. Since then, billions use them to keep themselves warm and not many people die due to climate. I favor a free market in energy production coupled with an adequate recognition of property rights in courts that will hold companies responsible for pollutants. This would do away with acceptable thresholds for pollutants and force a move to cleaner energy production without central planning. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/50 "2018-11-15T23:17:23Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Going to the moon was a big waste of resources that would seem puny in comparison to the mammoth waste of resources that would occur if the US govt centrally planned the energy production of the United States. For the cost of the futile and disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the US could have put 6KW of solar power on every house in the country, generating over 720 TWH of electricity per year. The total US generating capacity is around 4,000 TWH. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/51 "2018-11-15T23:20:59Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I favor a free market in energy production coupled with an **adequate recognition of property rights in courts that will hold companies responsible for pollutants**. This would do away with acceptable thresholds for pollutants and force a move to cleaner energy production without central planning. (Bolding mine) As a wise man once said: > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I could see something like his working in a comic book however. Two things. Part of the problem here is that energy companies _aren’t_ being held responsible for pollutants. At all. In fact, given various projections of the cost of climate change, if we _were_ to hold energy companies responsible for their pollutants, they would essentially cease to exist. And one of the parties in the US is actively _against_ holding them responsible in any way - y’know, the guys who think global warming is a hoax. Also, ever heard the expression “a pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Why yes, punishing people who pollute once they’ve polluted is a possibility. It doesn’t actually solve the problem of pollution, though - it just means that people lose money on doing so. But, as said, we’re nowhere near actually doing that. In europe, we’re a little closer, and in Germany, the tax on gas is about 6 bucks a gallon. Would you be in favor of that sort of tax on unleaded gasoline? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/52 "2018-11-15T23:30:49Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > That’s fair, I didn’t mean to be dismissive of your post. Apologies. No worries. I’m already over it. 🙂 > [@](#): > > It’s an argument against the notion that attempting 100% renewable energy is “odd”. No, we can’t copy Norway’s exact model. If you look at the Jacobson plan I linked to, it breaks down as follows for the US in 2050: > > 14.5% residential rooftop solar > 19.5% solar plants > 11.5% concentrating solar plants > 11.8% commercial and government rooftop solar > > 21.3% onshore wind > 17.1% offshore wind > > 1.1% wave devices > 0.4% geothermal > 2.8% hydroelectric > > Note that it doesn’t propose copying Norway’s grid, but instead playing to the US’ strengths of lots of space and sunshine (hence, 57.3" solar). > > She didn’t say anything unreasonable, but yes, anything above 18% is a win, especially in the current political climate. I’m not really in disagreement with you on the main point, but it is still “odd”. Odd just means unusual. How many countries are in the same category as Norway? Norway is unusual in this respect. And again, your cite is for electricity, not all sources of energy. So, expecting to get to 100% renewable energy is odd. I’m not sure why you want to hold onto the idea that it’s not “odd”, but if you really do, I’ll agree to disagree. It’s a minor point and we’re in agreement on everything else. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/53 "2018-11-15T23:55:38Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > I’m really not sure why it’s even an issue to nitpick her anyway. She’s a Freshman Representative that will have exactly zero power. Right, but an earlier poster in this thread called her a “leader.” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/54 "2018-11-16T00:24:08Z")
> [@XT](#): > > We can’t do other things that other countries do when you compare them in an apples to oranges way and handwave away the differences. Norway is a sparely populated country that also has some advantages wrt renewable energy due to it’s small size and concentrated population that the US doesn’t have, seeing as how we are a continent sized nation with hundreds of millions of people spread out over that continent. The US can’t realistically achieve 100% renewable energy over the entire country no matter how smart we are because it’s not possible, especially when you take nuclear off the table. Even WITH nuclear it would be very difficult and would cost the world. Providing power for 5 million people is fairly easy…we do that all the time in large cities. Providing power for 320 million people spread out across a nation the size of the US is a bit more difficult. Or, to put it another way, come back when Canada gets to 100% renewable energy and call us dumbasses. Canada, of course, has a much smaller population, but when THEY figure out how to power up a continent sized nation even with their more limited population then you can say the US population are idiots 'cause we can’t. Wait. Are we not doing it because it’s impossible or are we not doing it because we can’t figure out how to? You seem to be trying to make both arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/55 "2018-11-16T00:43:58Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I never put words in her mouth. I disagree: it’s pretty much all you’ve done. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/56 "2018-11-16T00:55:49Z")
I’m just wondering about the correlation between people who claim to be taking this speech as negative and people who claim “You didn’t build that” meant Obama hates small-business owners. I’m guessing _r_ \> 0.80 ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/57 "2018-11-16T01:24:13Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > For the cost of the futile and disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the US could have put 6KW of solar power on every house in the country, generating over 720 TWH of electricity per year. The total US generating capacity is around 4,000 TWH. That’s truly a shame. I agree the government is a poor custodian of society’s resources. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I disagree: it’s pretty much all you’ve done. No. What I did was ask for some different interpretations. Some think it is hyperbole to be dismissed. Some think it is a laudable goal and others are posting their favorite plans. I provided a strict interpretation of the text for a jumping off point. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/58 "2018-11-16T01:39:34Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I provided a strict interpretation of the text for a jumping off point. Into the abyss of not waning to learn new things, as we can see from the previous and current posts. Like for example, that government can help. Otherwise we should continue to worry about things like cholera or other bad things before there were water works and sewage systems in the big cities of developed nations nowadays. [https://www.choleraandthethames.co.uk/cholera-in-london/the-great-stink/](https://www.choleraandthethames.co.uk/cholera-in-london/the-great-stink/) > [@](#): > > Disregarding the motives behind the renovation, London’s most important river was finally getting the care it so rightfully deserved. The reformation of the Thames included not only the implementation of a sewage system—to be designed by the English civil engineer Sir Joseph Bazalgette—but also a construction of embankments along its sides. With these reforms, the Great Stink slowly began to dissipate and Londoners could breathe proper sighs of relief—not only for the clear air, but also for the other benefits that accompanied the integration of change. Not only did the Thames gradually evolve into one of the cleanest rivers in the world but the implementation of a functioning sewage system also aided in the elimination of several waterborne illnesses that had plagued London for centuries. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/59 "2018-11-16T02:37:01Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Wait. Are we not doing it because it’s impossible or are we not doing it because we can’t figure out how to? You seem to be trying to make both arguments. Seems clear enough to me. We can’t be like Norway because, well, we aren’t like them. We can’t figure that out because, again, we aren’t Norway. It’s like asking why Norway isn’t like the US. Why doesn’t Norway have a big fleet or Hollywood? Aren’t they smart enough to figure out how to do that? We have them after all. As for 100% renewable energy in the US, it’s not impossible. It’s just really unfeasible from a practical perspective. You’d need to get a bunch of nuclear power plants built as well as solar panels and wind used to it’s maximum. It’s a matter of scale, really…the US has built more power generation wrt renewables than Canada actually uses in it’s entirety…and I believe California generates more renewable energy than Norway produces in it’s entirety. Building 100% renewable energy generation in the US would simply cost more than we would be willing to spend, both economically and politically, at least if we are talking about on any sort of realistic time table. We aren’t going to built a few hundred nuclear power plants…or even a few dozen. Hell, we aren’t going to complete one any time soon. We aren’t going to build vast solar arrays in the deserts and smart grids to get the power to where it’s needed on a scale that will make solar more than a niche energy source…in America. We probably won’t be building solar panels on every house either. Just a few people, such as myself (bet you don’t have solar on your house, and if you do you are probably one of few in your neighborhood). Why? Because it costs too much for most people. We aren’t going to build vast wind farms because in many places that are tier 1 locations we have either already tapped it or NIMBY. We aren’t going to be building any new hydro-electric plants because we have tapped out most of the good places decades ago, and frankly environmentalists won’t allow it (rightfully IMHO). We could tap geo-thermal in some locations better than what we are, but we probably won’t and it wouldn’t make a huge difference. What we will do is what we have been doing…slowly building renewables where it’s economically feasible. Folks like me will adopt solar for our homes and dream of Tesla Powerwalls when they can afford it. Other folks will slowly buy electric cars as the envelope on their capabilities continue to expand. Maybe one day the US will build a new fission power plant or two…we can always dream. But we aren’t going to suddenly jump from where we are wrt fossil fuels use to anything remotely like renewables taking their place because the US uses a staggering amount of energy, and that sort of capacity simply costs more than we are willing to pay…economically or politically. When I see the US clearing the way for nuclear power plants to be built in quantities capable of even keeping the current percentage of production stable, let alone increasing it, when I see the ability to economically store solar and wind available on the scales we’d need it, when I see other alternatives come forward…hell, when I see electric cars at a price point and even in the ballpark for capabilities close to current ICE/fossil fuel vehicles, well THEN I’ll think it’s possible. Until then 100%…or even 50%…is a pipe dream on any sort of timescale not measured in decades. Might as well hope for fusion or consider orbital microwave beamed power as feasible or even possible. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t build renewable energy…but then, we are doing that already, and it continues to inch up. At one time wind and solar were like 1% (and nuclear was almost 30%). While nuclear has fallen, the other two have stepped up (wind is 30% in California today). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/60 "2018-11-16T02:45:35Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I never put words in her mouth. She said “energy”, this includes ICE autos right? Right. Thanks. Not in the quote you gave. The word energy doesn’t appear. You are putting words into her mouth. And they are nonsense. > [@](#): > > Fossil fuel technology is probably one of the top 10 greatest technological advancements in human history. So was the steam engine. Are you out there campaigning for them? > [@](#): > > central planning. There you go with “central planning” again. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez never used those words either, did she? Who introduced them into the thread? You. You ludicrously labeled a statement by engineers that 100% renewable power supplies are engineeringly feasible by 2050 as achievable only by central planning and then insinuated that A O-C was advocating that. There aren’t enough eyeroll smilies on the whole Internet for you. Nope. You don’t get get away with it. Let’s have an honest debate about real things that people actually say in place of your straw men, fearmongering, ignorance, and poisoned wells. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561.md?page=4)