Manhattan Institute is a conservative think-tank (but certainly not fringe). While we can debate the numbers they use in this presentation, it does give an interesting view on the energy it takes to create "renewable" along with impact on the waste stream. Point being, any energy strategy should be balanced and evaluate the entire impact of each source.
Energy Source Implications
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Manhattan Institute is a conservative think-tank (but certainly not fringe). While we can debate the numbers they use in this presentation, it does give an interesting view on the energy it takes to create "renewable" along with impact on the waste stream. Point being, any energy strategy should be balanced and evaluate the entire impact of each source.
this was a good summary. battery limitations will be an issue for maybe an eternity.
as an investor in renewable energy companies, how do you balance the reality of these limitations against the reality that the sector is still a huge focus of investment and being pushed forward anyway
I typically do not invest in sectors that I don't know much about, so I can't help you there.
I have an interest in government waste and false narratives....lol
I invested in Geo thermal technology which is renewable. Many states are getting all their electricity this way.
So you think we should follow the science? People actually think our leaders have an idea of what they are doing. The sheer stupidity of thinking we are somehow polluting the world less by buying oil from the Middle East tells you all you need to know. If these jackasses had a good clear plan for 1.5 trillion most people would be on board, they are simply lining their pockets. I’m not certain how accurate the video is, but I do know that the majority of scientists and intelligent thinkers are fully aware we need alternative solutions outside of wind and solar. I believe we need to spend money on these alternatives in a carefully funded way. 90% of Americans don’t even comprehend the definition of a trillion dollars. Maybe we should be looking at 25 bills no longer than 100 pages in length.
I’m not advocating any form of energy and I’m skeptical of everyone because most will try to advance their point of view based on their position to benefit the most. I think the video raises good points that it’s not just about the cost of energy, but also he must consider the costs to create and environmental implications.
Even affects the ability for farmers to be competitive as solar field operators can lease land for a lot less because they get subsidies from the government. I try to listen to all points of view and evaluate all aspects. Anything that looks too good to be true probably is. My gut tells me that we need a multi pronged strategy that includes all forms of available energy.
Exactly right and the mix should include nuclear and more geo thermal. I was reading recently about an alternative metal battery not requiring lithium to produce batteries. I’m not against spending 1.5 trillion. I’m against spending it all at once, I would like to see a plan over 10 years rewarding companies based on results.
Yes, this is how it should be done rather than using scare tactics about the world ending or just saying “we have to do something “ without any consideration about cost (and taxes).
Why is it an either or situation. We need to decrease our dependency on oil. Do we all agree with that? If so, isn’t alternative energy part of the solution? Isn’t electric vehicles prt if it? If we don’t seek out alternatives, we won’t ever find it. Thus, encouraging development of alternative energy sources.
I think in the future we will heat our homes still through natural gas and use solar for our electrical source and we will mostly be driving electric cars. That’s lessening our dependency on oil. Moreover, that’s less demand which will result in lower prices.
Perhaps, through this encouraging alternative sources, one day we will find the absolute solution. Until that day we will have mixture of energy sources still decreasing our dependency on oil which is a good thing.
I think in the future we will heat our homes still through natural gas and use solar for our electrical source and we will mostly be driving electric cars. That’s lessening our dependency on oil. Moreover, that’s less demand which will result in lower prices.
Perhaps, through this encouraging alternative sources, one day we will find the absolute solution. Until that day we will have mixture of energy sources still decreasing our dependency on oil which is a good thing.
Exactly. As long as it’s done responsibly without scaring people with stupid predictions.
I think we all agree. I'm a value guy so I cannot stand watching opportunities being wasted. Example, I would hate to see an excellent energy solution with no funding 2 years from now because we wasted money and didn't plan accordingly.
Since the end of the world has been predicted every 20years by the UN since 1970 and we are still here got to be wary of proposals to spend trillions in the hope that the climate change problem will be allievated. Now AOC predicts world will end in 12 years unless we spend trillions to eliminate fossil fuels.I am predicting she and all the doomsayers who agree with her will be wrong again.If I am right I will go down in history as the great anti boy crying wolf on climate change bringing untold problems to the climate change religion LOL
That video was extraordinarily disingenuous.
He talks about efficiency noting limitations of solar and wind, but mentioned nothing about the efficiency of fossil fuels that really are not much better? He talks about the "PR campaign" of solar with gains that will be coming, not sure exactly what he is referring to but could it be the 5x gains in efficiency and 10x reduction in costs over the last 20 years?
I recall similar videos from conservative think tanks years ago which focused a lot more on the cost to produce the energy. That wasn't really discussed in this one. Maybe has something to do with the fact that the cost to produce energy from solar and wind has been declining rapidly?
Wind and solar need cement steel and plastic? Of course, where was the comparison to power plants, pipelines, mining activities etc? Worried about the wildlife biodiversity? LOL. That's a good one.
How about the environmental and health costs associated with burning fossil fuels?
I am all for a fully balanced evaluation of our energy needs, but that video wasn't that.
Call it disingenuous or slanted; sure. But the considerations about evaluating the investment costs and overall environmental impact are valid. We should look at all sources of energy in the same fashion. So we agree on a fully balanced evaluation before allocating billions of dollars based on the world ending soon?
Yes, I just don't agree with the implication that there wasn't a balanced evaluation prompting the call for investments in renewables in the first place. We are beyond that point now.
How often do you see any of that discussed when politicians call for investment? Like just about never???
Sure. I'd love to have the kind of environment where politicians give us well thought out honest discussions. It's a shame I don't expect it from them, but I don't expect it on any issue really, like immigration policy or energy policy. I'm only going to get what one side is pushing.
Any well thought out discussion on the topics is happening outside of politics.
Agree, but then why do we let them spend OUR MONEY like drunken sailors on what they think are the right investments?
