Why do conservatives hate renewable energy?

[Syne]

I didn't say otherwise. I literally said "they're putting the "worldwide largest solar and battery facilities" in an area where population, farming, and wildlife land use is relatively limited." I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. To the complete contrary, that's a place it makes the most sense. But by contrast, and for the exact same reasons, it makes much less sense where demand on land use is so much higher.

[confused2]

I didn't say otherwise. I literally said "they're putting the "worldwide largest solar and battery facilities" in an area where population, farming, and wildlife land use is relatively limited." I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. To the complete contrary, that's a place it makes the most sense. But by contrast, and for the exact same reasons, it makes much less sense where demand on land use is so much higher.

You are assumed (at least by me) to be the forum poster boy for conservatives and/or 'Republicans' .. thank you for clarifying your views as atypical - they are what they are.

In the context of the OP "Why do conservatives hate renewable energy" .. we have Trunp and "Drill baby drill" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GiTR--XuM and no answer.

I suspect the answer might be pension funds which may be (literally) grounded in fossil fuels. Could that be it?

[Syne]

Why would that be atypical? Most conservatives are practical. That means that if the land is otherwise unused, why not experiment with alternative means of power generation in more remote areas, where building power plants and supplying fossil fuels would be more impractical? It's not like Republicans/conservatives are against renewables themselves. They are against power sources that are unproven, not readily scalable, more expensive (especially for the poor) than current sources, and/or require big government subsidies or vast new infrastructure spending.

The OP article is a gross parody of conservative/Republican views on renewable energy.

In the US, very few pensions exist anymore, and those that do are likely leftist unions.

[confused2]

The OP article is a gross parody of conservative/Republican views on renewable energy.

..we still have Trunp and "Drill baby drill" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GiTR--XuM and no answer.

[Yazata]

I'm a 'conservative' I guess, though 'populist' might be more accurate.

I don't "hate" renewable energy. I like it, though I have to say that I remain somewhat doubtful about it's practicality and scalability.

And I naturally become even more skeptical when things like this, which once were objective technical matters, are politicized into political causes and crusades. It inevitably turns into a matter of morality (hence of feelings) and turns divisive (are you one of us, or one of them?)

[Syne]

The OP article is a gross parody of conservative/Republican views on renewable energy.

..we still have Trunp and "Drill baby drill" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GiTR--XuM and no answer.

How is drilling for oil inherently against renewable energy?
Are their uses mutually exclusive?

[Yazata]

It's entirely possible that renewable energy might be a better long-term solution (the practicality and scalability issues arise here).

But it's nevertheless stupid to prevent ourselves from exploiting our own domestic fossil fuel resources while the great majority of our transportation and power generation are still fossil fuel driven. The alternative would seem to be to buy fossil fuels from the Middle East, which only exposes ourselves to geopolitical risk.

Assuming that we do ever transition to 100% renewables, it will be a difficult, costly and decades-long process.

[Syne]

Even if we take the horse-and-buggy argument seriously, it took decades to build the infrastructure to fully accommodate the automobile. And guess what, it was never forced by government. The automobile just proved it was better. Why can't renewables prove their place in the market without large subsidies and governmental force?

Why are renewables a crusade? Is it because they will never prove themselves cheaper, more abundant, or more efficient?

[confused2]

Why are renewables a crusade?

[Image: 260px-Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg.png]

[geordief]

Why are renewables a crusade?

[Image: 260px-Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg.png]

Your caption is too indistinct for  me to read... but nothing that couldn't be fixed with a sharpie (or an injection of some kind).

Disappointing that the rate of increase in CO2 concentration  shows no sign of leveling off yet in what I can make of your chart.

It seems to me that the horse may well have bolted despite the  changes (good even if ineffective from the pov of preventing the consequences of global warming)  we are making and that the world will look extremely  different for our grandchildren (mass migrations on  the cards )