Why do conservatives hate renewable energy?

[Magical Realist]

Why do conservatives hate renewable energy?

Author Kevin Drum Published on August 19, 2023 – 12:35 pm

"I am reminded this morning of the odd contempt that conservatives have for renewable power—There's no sun at night! The wind doesn't always blow!—paired with their seemingly inexhaustible love of nuclear power, which survives even $17 billion overruns on $14 billion nuclear plants.

I myself have mixed views on nuclear. On the one hand, new Gen 4 technologies hold out the hope of reliable, modestly priced, carbon-free power. On the other hand, waste disposal can't be blithely waved away and existing construction of nuclear plants is wildly expensive. It's hardly a slam dunk for either side.

So why the endless love from right-wingers? And why the equally endless mockery of solar and wind? Even if you're deeply invested in pretending that climate change is a big liberal delusion, clean energy is still something to root for, isn't it? At the very least it reduces air pollution of all kinds, and who's against that? And it's hardly a secret that modern, utility-scale renewable installations include battery storage that allows them to provide electricity all day long.

But conservatives nevertheless jump gleefully on any reported hiccup with renewable energy. They even hate electric vehicles. Ron DeSantis has enshrined this in his "Declaration of Economic Independence," and red states are passing regulations to rein in charging stations and increase EV registration fees for no reason other than an inchoate grudge against anything "green."

The obvious answer to all this, I suppose, is that the libtards like solar, wind, and EVs, so MAGAnauts don't. Ditto in reverse for nuclear power. It seems like there has to be more to it than just this, but I sure can't figure out what it might be."--- https://jabberwocking.com/why-do-conserv...le-energy/

[Syne]

One word... practicality.
Renewables, EVs, etc. have yet to demonstrate that they are sufficiently reliable or scalable.
It just comes down to reality, which leftists are notoriously unfamiliar with.

[Magical Realist]

One word... practicality.
Renewables, EVs, etc. have yet to demonstrate that they are sufficiently reliable or scalable.
It just comes down to reality, which leftists are notoriously unfamiliar with.

LOL What's impractical, unreliable, or unscalable about solar and wind energy? It appears the data contradicts that myth.

https://www.germanwatch.org/en/87482

"Another misconception is that renewables are not able to provide energy access for all at all times. While it is true that renewables depend on weather conditions, security of supply does not depend on them but results from integrated energy systems, including storage facilities and a variety of power sources. Apart from being large in number and geographically widespread, these need to be local, abundant, available, and affordable.[28] Renewable energy is a reliable source: it will always be present.

Furthermore, building up an energy system based on domestic renewable energy sources is less risky than remaining dependent on energy imports in terms of energy security. With a greater share of renewables in their energy mix, LMICs can diversify their energy supply and protect themselves from fluctuating prices of imported fossil fuels and changing international laws and trade agreements. In view of ever-growing energy needs in emerging economies [29], global energy demands ballooning by 30% by 2035 [30], and highly volatile prices on international fossil fuels markets, renewables thus represent a solid strategy to achieve energy security. This is especially the case in a world where limiting energy access is used as a weapon in conflicts or wars and fragile supply chains are disrupted due to external shocks.

In addition, fossil energy infrastructure will very likely turn into stranded assets as there are hardly any investors left to finance conventional coal power plants. For other fossil fuels such as oil and fossil gas, the IEA predicts that no new fields are needed, apart from existing or approved exploration sites, and that – because of gradually declining demand - many fields are expected to be closed for some time or even permanently until 2030, which will be reflected in by a decrease in investment.[31]

Renewables have proven to be an appropriate base energy source in many LMICs. In South Africa for example, the development of the largest baseload renewable energy project on the African continent is on the way. The project is aimed to be one of the worldwide largest solar and battery facilities, expected to provide major benefits for both the economy and energy sector.[32] However, they must be connected through a suitable energy grid. With falling prices for electricity storage [33], LMICs can add large-scale battery storage, especially for solar PV and wind power.[34] This is a great opportunity to leapfrog to state-of-the-art power generation technologies and combine off-grid and on-grid solutions. Thereby, LMICs can secure clean, affordable, round-the-clock power even in remote areas, which is an essential prerequisite to achieve the SDGs. [35]

In short, renewables are more than able to provide enough energy for everyone and on a constant level. In order to benefit from this carbon-free, competitive, and reliable power, LMICs must set up ambitious policy targets to promote renewable energy generation and technology development. Besides Vietnam, Morocco’s introduction of solar and wind energy into their energy mix presents a good example."

[confused2]

The problem with nuclear power plants is that every time you increase or decrease the core temperature you get little cracks forming. To pay off the huge capital cost they need to work for 50 years or more so they need to run at a constant temperature which means a constant power

What you need is an energy storage system to buffer the output of the nuke .. like this:

The project features a 345 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage
system. The storage technology can boost the system’s output to 500 MW of power when needed,
which is equivalent to the energy required to power around 400,000 homes. The energy storage
capability allows the plant to integrate seamlessly with renewable resources and is the only advanced
reactor design with this unique feature.

https://www.terrapower.com/downloads/gro...elease.pdf

The amazing CC alerted me to designs of this type but I couldn't find her post .. there may be more (and better) designs using this design philosophy around.

[Syne]

Notice how they're putting the "worldwide largest solar and battery facilities" in an area where population, farming, and wildlife land use is relatively limited.
Energy security of imported sources?
US produced more fossil fuel than any country in history during Biden's tenure
And that's with an administration that's otherwise strangling production.

The infrastructure is already in place for fossil fuels, and even just providing the infrastructure for EVs has proven to be a problem.

[Magical Realist]

The infrastructure was already in place for horse and buggies, and even just providing the infrastructure for automobiles was proven to be a problem.

"When I first contemplated the application of gasoline for vehicles, I had a bicycle plant in Cleveland. Because bikes interested me, my mind naturally turned to something a rider wouldn’t have to push and keep pushing if he was trying to get some place. But the great obstacle to the development of the automobile was the lack of public interest. To advocate replacing the horse, which had served man through centuries, marked one as an imbecile. Things are very different today. But in the ’90s, even though I had a successful bicycle business, and was building my first car in the privacy of the cellar in my home, I began to be pointed out as “the fool who is fiddling with a buggy that will run without being hitched to a horse.” My banker called on me to say: “Winton, I am disappointed in you.”----
https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017...tomobiles/

[Syne]

Mooncalf thinks that's an apt analogy.

[confused2]

Notice how they're putting the "worldwide largest solar and battery facilities" in an area where population, farming, and wildlife land use is relatively limited.

?
Population density S. Africa: 48.1/sq. km
Population density UK: 279/sq. km

[Syne]

Notice how they're putting the "worldwide largest solar and battery facilities" in an area where population, farming, and wildlife land use is relatively limited.

?
Population density S. Africa: 48.1/sq. km
Population density UK: 279/sq. km

Thanks for illustrating my point. Africa has a much more limited land use than the UK.

[confused2]

.. an area [of S. Africa] where population, farming, and wildlife land use is relatively limited.

So to make use of land that isn't used (or relatively limited use) .. wouldn't solar farms seem like a sensible way to make better use of the land?
I fail to see any logic to the opposite conclusion .. can you explain?
FWIW there's a less than glowing report about the Kenhardt project here:
https://dailyfriend.co.za/2024/01/19/bat...rwhelming/
The site takes up 10 sq km. National parks in S. Africa take up 37,500 sq km so even 50 such sites would leave the lions with 37,000 sq km to do their thing in.