• OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    They like geothermal though, for the simple reason that it’s actually cheaper in the long run. Also solar is nice because you can live off the grid. But otherwise it’s not very popular among conservatives because the cost effectiveness in the long term isn’t quite there. They aren’t motivated by the idea of green energy, it’s a simple cost calculation.

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 hours 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
    3
    ·
    8 hours 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 😡”.

  • thefartographer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    13 hours ago

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

  • _____@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    17 hours 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
      9
      ·
      10 hours 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
      2
      ·
      9 hours 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.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    19 hours 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
          14
          ·
          14 hours 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
            5
            ·
            12 hours 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
              3
              ·
              10 hours 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

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      19 hours 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 hours 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?

  • Asetru@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I’m honestly wondering this. Renewables reduce dependency on foreign countries, so using them can be interpreted as a patriotic act. They make sense, geostrategically, not just for saving earth but also for reducing the leverage other countries have over yours. This could be something that both, green activists and nationalists, can jointly agree on. I don’t get it.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Energy Dominance! is new buzz word. You are right that “energy security” best solution is to never have to pay for fuel again. Such talk is woke radical left climate alarmist talk, even though that was the word the O&G industry told us to reduce reliance on energy imports.

      Energy dominance means the goal is to destroy the planet, but think of the shareholder value created by extorting the planet into US approved energy consumption. War and extortion are just more radial left woke words to distract from achieving energy dominance.

    • vanderbilt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      The mistake was applying logic to a position they didn’t use logic to arrive at. Their talking heads say renewables bad. The thought process ended there.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        This. Tbh most conservatives I’ve talked to say shit like “solar would be great if it were viable/cheaper to install,” they’re not against it really, they just don’t think it works well enough yet, which is largely due to the efforts of lobbyists.

        • The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          15 hours ago

          I firmly believe that without lobbyists pushing us into red or blue boxes, we’d all find common ground on a lot of important issues.

          I’ve known some conservatives who are very much into solar power in a sort of independent/self-sufficient/pseudo-prepper type of way.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Even works down to the state level. My state, Wisconsin, has no coal mines, no oil wells, and no natural gas wells. The closest thing we have to any of it is the best sand for fracking. Otherwise, every dollar of energy we spend ends up leaving the state one way or another.

      Unless, that is, we do something intelligent, like building an offshore wind farm on Lake Michigan. Though I’m sure someone will complain that we’re killing the whales.

  • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Bunch of NIMSS types on the right. Doubt they’d go for “far-field nuclear”

    Now, something like “Ultra far east super nuclear warhead”…that might work.

  • Alk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours 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 hours 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.

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

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

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

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 hours ago

    They don’t mind being under someone’s thumb for basic necessities as long as that someone is an unaccountable business owner.