• OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    18 days ago

    To be fair, wind is also a form of solar power. (Wind being caused by the difference in heat between the different hemispheres/poles & the rotation of the earth)

    So wind & solar power are indirect & direct long-range nuclear energy sources, respectively.

        • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          18 days ago

          That comes from the energy from earth’s rotation. That energy is left over from the formation of the sun.

          • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            18 days ago

            Plus nuclear wouldn’t work without fissionable elements, which wouldn’t be here without supernovae aka dying suns.

            • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              18 days ago

              Which is why we need to finally develop fusion, to free us from the tyranny of power of stellar origin!

              …if you ignore the fact that fusion is basically replicating what a star does, that is

              • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                17 days ago

                “Watch and dispair, oh mighty stars, how we have enslaved your children to release us from your tyranny!”

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              17 days ago

              So nuclear power is not like solar at all…… it’s GALACTIC POWER! maybe COSMIC POWER!

              • the_tab_key@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                17 days ago

                Erm, the sun was formed in the center of a nebula and the planets formed out of the remaining mass that didn’t collapse into the sun. Yes, the gravity of the sun influenced how the remaining mass interacted and formed into planets with rotation, but it is not wholly a direct result of the sun itself, rather the angular momentum of the original nebula.

              • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                17 days ago

                lol this is so pedantic it’s mindbogglingly fun. I would argue you’re confusing “gravitational effects” with what people are describing as “the sun’s output from nuclear fusion”.

  • _____@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    18 days ago

    wind and solar are not popular for conservatives because they were left talking points first. which obviously means it’s wrong, libtards owned yet again

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 days ago

      Their biggest problem is that there’s not big money in them. Once you have solar power on your house, you don’t need to keep paying them every month. Where’s the fun in that for the rich?

    • hovercat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 days ago

      If you go far enough right, solar and wind are extremely popular. Very much leads to some weirdness when I was researching solar for my house, and kept stumbling into prepper communities and the like.

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      18 days ago

      I mean Natural Gas is as natural as Iron or Coal. The problem is extracting and burning it is causing issues.

    • _stranger_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      They’re both Orbital Fusion.

      We should try to harness the power of the tides, since that’s lunar gravity driven.

      um…

      Moon Rodeo Power?

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    17 days ago

    If you’re falling to the myth of being a strong independent … person …. Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, solar and wind are local energy sources without foreign dependencies, and scale both up and down. This should be right up their ally.

    I don’t want to be on the Texas electrical grid because of all their blackouts: Deisel generators are noisy and I have to depend on someone to fill the tanks, but I can put solar on my roof and batteries on the side of the garage and be independent. Zero fuel costs. zero have to depend on anyone. —— why isn’t this their line?

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      I work in municipal development and permitting.

      Texas has had a HUGE surge in solar panel and backup generator installation over the past 4 years.

      But the power companies have taken notice. The biggest part of a lot of power bills now isn’t usage, but fees for being connected to the grid at all. And connection to the grid is required for a Certificate of Occupancy if you’re in a city, and to get insurance or a mortgage even if you’re in the county where permits aren’t required.

      You can’t even create a legal lot in Texas without having electrical service to the lot.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      17 days ago

      Texas conservatives making rational decisions based on real properties of the physical world?

      At least Texas can still give us great comedians too!

    • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      I’m not sure if there is a word for fundamentalist in the context of economics the way there is for religion. What ever it is that is the answer to:

      —— why isn’t this their line?

      A fundamentalist needs certain axioms and won’t come back to check if they line up with reality. This makes it nessesary for certain things to just be false no matter what.

  • slingstone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Yeah, I experience a bit of cognitive dissonance whenever I remember conservatism and conservation have very little overlap.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        17 days ago

        In conservation, you want to protect and restore the natural world.

        In conservatism, you want to protect and restore the social hierarchy.

        Seems to fit?

  • thefartographer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    18 days ago

    What if the left “cancels” solar because its power source causes cancer? Also, something something starts fires in blue states.

  • Alk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    Does the right like nuclear? I thought they didn’t. It’s pretty clean efficient energy, though it has been overtaken in recent years by wind and solar for cost.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      Maggie Thatcher was one of the earliest politicians to talk about global warming. She did it to prop up nuclear, which was losing the narrative at the time to Greenpeace and the like.

      They like nuclear in so far as they can use it to beat certain elements of the environmental left over the head. Conservative governments have come in gone in both the US and UK, and they’ve done very little to actually build out nuclear power.

      • ManOMorphos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        If you mean they both agree to shutter old facilities and not replace them with modern nuclear plants, that’s correct. The anti-nuclear sentiment in the US is very strong.

        The politicians don’t like it due to cost and time building, while constituents are still very afraid of nuclear disasters (especially the latter, the view on its safety is 30 years behind).

    • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      Yeah, they love it and are constantly criticizing the left for chasing renewables as a solution to our energy needs and (for the less extreme ones who accept it’s real) climate change.

        • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          18 days ago

          Yeah, attitudes have really cooled about nuclear power over the years. We might be in a different climate position right now if we hadn’t shied away from it decades ago.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            18 days ago

            Climate, and geopolitical too. Look at France vs Germany in the last few years.

      • ManOMorphos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 days ago

        It’s interesting to see people are starting to like the idea of it more, but to me it’s useless lip service until they start building new plants. I’d imagine they’d like it a lot less if they started building a nuclear power plant within 20 miles of their house.

      • Shiggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        In what world does a 51% approval rating count as loving it? 67% feels like a stretch to even call a consensus.

        • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          18 days ago

          Well they don’t seem to love it as much as they love coal and oil, that’s for sure, but they have been very loud about their support of nuclear in recent history.

          It’s become much more bipartisan too.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      I’m not too big a fan of nuclear due to the cost. I imagine the right salivating at the opportunity to extract billions of dollars per project

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    17 days ago

    I used to challenge conservatives on their nationalism and patriotism whenever it came to infrastructure and renewable energy. The idea was they should get behind efforts to beat, say, China at building rail and ports. We should be the standard bearer for solar, wind, and nuclear!

    Turns out they aren’t patriots and they’re bad at nationalism. They’re just lazy and racist.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    18 days ago

    The “right” aren’t right though, they’re wrong. They should be called “far-wrong” instead of “far-right”, imo, as their stances on many things show.

  • Ricky Rigatoni 🇺🇸@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    17 days ago

    Tell them that they need to stop using wind and solar or else in 100 yesrs we’ll run out of wind and sunshine. We’re talking about “adults” who have the toddler mentality of “DON’T TELL ME NO 😡”.

  • Kompressor @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Maybe if we change the angle like “WE’RE TAKING THE SUN’S ENERGY AND THERE’S NOTHING IT CAN DO ABOUT IT” if we’'re being mean to the sun maybe they’ll like it better.