Clean energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs in most US states

We can produce enough fossil fuel to be independent if needed and there is enough with new technology to last us hundreds of years. The hysterical environmentalists want to stop this.

 

It is not evident to you? It is to everyone else.

 

High labor costs are the hallmarks of an inefficient production process.

 

okay...so you didnt want to discuss it....anyways, imo the future of energy is hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear fusion. Not wind mills and electrical outlets. And the supply of fossil fuels is enough to get us there.

 

Is this where you guys call writing off losses a subsidy?

 

How about a free lease to drill on federal lands that should have paid us 50 billion?

 

Look at what you just said, so when the price fluctuates per barrel the price fluctuates at the pump but as you post the fed and state tax stays "Constant"? What I was saying is in this state stations or I should say convenience stores don't make much more than 10-13 cents a gallon after the wholeseller and the fed & State get theirs!

 

There are none. You haven't posted any, OP hasn't posted any. You're full of ****.

 

There's a saying: "show, don't tell." Because, "I totes know what I'm talking about" isn't an argument, and it's silly to expect anyone to be swayed by it.

Ok, here's some math.

You can't actually get 100% of a country's power from nuclear fission, because the reactors are hard to throttle up and down to follow daily load fluctuations. But France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear plants (using a special load-following design) so that's a technologically-realistic target.

The US uses about 4000 terawatt-hours of electricity per year. Which means we could readily get 3000 TWh/yr from nuclear power. That's an average generation output of 342.5 gigawatts.

Load-following nuclear plants do not run at full capacity all the time, and therefore have capacity factors in the upper 70% range. But to be conservative (and to make the numbers come out pretty) I'll say 71.3% capacity factor. That means we need 480 gigawatts of nuclear capacity, which is 400 nuclear reactors at 1.2 GW each. (For reference, there are already over 500 nuclear reactors in the world.)

Let's assume we want all new nuclear plants, in order to get the best possible safety features and to incorporate load-following technology that is not used in the US's existing reactor fleet. At a ballpark price of $5 billion per reactor, that comes out to $2 trillion. I think it would be much cheaper than this if we capture some economies of scale, but that's a fairly conservative estimate.

Before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl ended new reactor orders, the growth rate of nuclear power was the fastest energy source transition in history. But today, opposition and increased safety requirements mean longer construction times. It would probably take 30-50 years to build that many nuclear plants, although if you streamline permitting, build all reactors to the same design, and immediately launch a large nuclear engineer training program you could do it in perhaps 20 years...

...In comparison, building a "smart grid" to simply allow large-scale renewables development is estimated to cost about $1 trillion. And the renewables to accompany the smart grid cost somewhere between "slightly more than nuclear power" and "4x more than nuclear power" depending on the technology and grid storage requirements. A recent concentrated-solar-thermal plant in Arizona (which is the only new renewable that can provide constant, reliable power output) cost $1.7 billion for 200 MW, or about twice as much per unit capacity as a new nuclear plant. So the nuclear option is almost certain to be much cheaper. This is empirically proven: France's electricity costs half as much as in Germany or Denmark (the two global "leaders" in renewables), and France emits dramatically less carbon dioxide than either of them...

https://www.quora.com/How-many-nuclear-reactors-would-be-required-to-power-the-United-States

When you put together all the necessary costs, no. See above.

Sounds like you missed my point. Your argument fails on form. You essentially are saying, "if you oppose government subsidies of [x], then you actually oppose [x] itself", or if you wanted to be picky, "if you oppose government subsidies of [x], you actually oppose [x] itself if [x] wouldn't do as well without subsidies."

You put "clean energy" in x. I put "religion" in x, to demonstrate a point. Your argument, by its very structure, is flawed.

 

Whoa, incredible! For the U.S. this sounds amazing.

 

If Trump actually cared about creating more jobs for Americans, he'd be far more successful pushing for new jobs in the renewable energy field than the antiquated fossil fuel industries. That's what Hillary tried telling West Virginians, but they were so opposed to change they refused to listen. Hillary's ideas for WV would have been far superior to Trumps' over the long haul. Too bad they couldn't see it.

 

They couldn't see giving up jobs that paid over 50K per year and who cares what that loser, crooked Hillary thinks.

 

Does the OP remember that her "clean energy" jobs are generally temporary rip offs like Solyndra. Who pocketed all that money with nothing to show for it. It was part and parcel of how Obama blew 10 trillion dollars that we didnt have in the first place with nothing to show for it.

 

Not evident to you either. So it must be a lie.

 

Your opinion. That's what I've been saying.
Perhaps fuel cells and nuclear fusion is the future. They won't happen either without gov't subsidizing. How far off are they? How long do we endure fossil fuels if others are out there?
Is any technology associated with wind and solar a carry over to fuel cells or nuclear fusion.

 

Ah, so you are not aware and claim anything you don't want to see as a lie. Liberal logic 101.

 

suppose theyre useful to keep liberals happy while the rest of us actually produce energy. And no. Its not my opinion. If you dont want to look up and answer my questions a couple posts back, its not my problem. The military is already implementing hydrogen fuel cells.

 

You know, it's never a mystery when we see the arguments of some on here come and go. It's because they never actually had an argument to begin with.

By the way, this is a circle graph by the OP; https://www.scribd.com/document/343243328/Sierra-Club-Clean-Energy-Jobs-Report-Final-1, showing actual percentages just in case you decide to recognize there is in fact something posted as actual information that you seem to have the need to conveniently ignore.

 

Janitorial jobs exceed jobs in the film industry in most U.S. states. That doesn't mean that the film industry is unimportant. It's a silly statistic that you are using.

 

And your logic, make a claim, but offer up nothing but an uninformed opinion.
That's not logic though, that's uneducated.

 

You want me to verify your opinion. That's silly.

 

So your comments are uneducated since you are unaware of current events. I agree.

 

feeling lazy and after your little name calling stunt, not worth my time.

 

Name calling? Saying it's silly for you to want me to verify what you claim?
I knew it wasn't worth my time to verify your claim. There would be nothing to find. And you can't find it to show us.

 

ya posting a definition of felonious. Hardly relevant, extremely childish, to be expected from someone named a synonym of *******. And look man, theres a thing now called "the news ". If you want to be selectively ignorant regarding obamas support of the green industry, thats not my problem.