Sanders introduces bill to transition the US to 100% clean energy by 2050

[Born To Slay 10,996]

10 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Well hopefully people(progressives) start taking these elections seriously next time & go out & vote(and not for a damn dead ape either)!   

 

Oh they ****ing better, I'll be legit voting in every election the second I'm eligible to vote.

[Economy 52,844]

42 minutes ago, Feslon said:

I want it to be 2050 now 

Im gonna be 67 then. No thanks  

[Reginald 13,841]

I love Bernie <3 It's so admirable that he stands by his vision, even knowing that he (probably  ) won't be around in 2050 to see it fully realized. Hero! 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

2 minutes ago, Reginald said:

I love Bernie <3 It's so admirable that he stands by his vision, even knowing that he (probably  ) won't be around in 2050 to see it fully realized. Hero! 

He does it because he cares about us, the future generation. He's a very special man. I need him to run to 2020. He's the man to save our country.

[IamChromatica 2,025]

46 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

You want to pay more for your electric bill? 

Ok.....

Coal is the cheapest source of energy on Earth by farrrr. This would be so expsensive unfortunately  

Renewable energy is actually on an upward trend in becoming the cheapest source of energy. I just hope that with new technology, the cost of maintenance and machinery would go down for solar/wind. We're getting there.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar

https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/

[Joschua 539]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

You want to pay more for your electric bill? 

Ok.....

Coal is the cheapest source of energy on Earth by farrrr. This would be so expsensive unfortunately  

The alternative to clean energy literally destroys our ecosystem. At some point, what was once cheap energy becomes expensive cleanup. There is an opportunity cost to using cheap and dirty fuel and we cannot bury our heads in the sand forever.

[Economy 52,844]

31 minutes ago, Feslon said:

Renewable energy is actually on an upward trend in becoming the cheapest source of energy. I just hope that with new technology, the cost of maintenance and machinery would go down for solar/wind. We're getting there.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar

https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/

Problem is, these figures often dont exclude government subsities for clean energy that helps it compete

 

If the Government subsitizes it then its misleading to the people to say its as cheap as Coal because the economic cost is still there only part of it is being covered by tax dollars and u dont directly see it as energy bill

 

Still tho, i think we need to invest in green energy for the Environments sake. Im just pointing out the other side of the story and detail that many people in favor of green energy conviniently like to leave out when bringing up statistics

 

Also Natural Gas is a lot cleaner than Coal and its very cheap and aboundant these days. Since the transition to renewables is slow, Natural Gas can help replace some Coal for the time being I believe!  

[Sid 6,755]

1 hour ago, MJHolland said:

You want to pay more for your electric bill? 

Ok.....

Coal is the cheapest source of energy on Earth by farrrr. This would be so expsensive unfortunately  

Not at all. We have unlimited free energy from the sun that powers all life on Earth and is capable of providing more than enough energy to power any gadgets we have and dream up in the future. By 2050 clean energy collection and storage technology will be at a point where it's the most economical and more importantly, most sustainable option. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

43 minutes ago, Feslon said:

Renewable energy is actually on an upward trend in becoming the cheapest source of energy. I just hope that with new technology, the cost of maintenance and machinery would go down for solar/wind. We're getting there.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar

https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/

It's gonna take way longer than 50 years for renewables to be as plentiful as coal, and I don't think they'll ever beat the price. 

The USA has the cheapest energy in the world because we use coal. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

37 minutes ago, Joschua said:

The alternative to clean energy literally destroys our ecosystem. At some point, what was once cheap energy becomes expensive cleanup. There is an opportunity cost to using cheap and dirty fuel and we cannot bury our heads in the sand forever.

I never said it wasn't destroying our planet lol. I know the facts. 

But a Dem lawmaker shouldn't me tampering with the free market. We can incentivize clean energy, but we should just make arbitrary cut off dates. 

This comes days after Sanders introduces a 15 dollar min wage bill. Does he realize that while NYC, Seattle, and Vermont may be able to sustain that wage, but economies like Alabama's and Mississippi's would be absolutely destroyed?

This just proves he's so out of touch with middle America and sound economic policies. He's just trying to push an agenda and seems super super progressive so millennials like him...

8 minutes ago, Ruth Hogben said:

Not at all. We have unlimited free energy from the sun that powers all life on Earth and is capable of providing more than enough energy to power any gadgets we have and dream up in the future. By 2050 clean energy collection and storage technology will be at a point where it's the most economical and more importantly, most sustainable option. 

If you actually think solar energy is a viable renewable energy source, I don't feel the need to engage in a debate with you...

Solar energy is nowhere near ready to be implemented on a large scale. You should do some research on the matter.

Nuclear is by far the way to go. This one day could be as cheap as coal. 

[Qualle1 1,385]

2 hours ago, donutellha said:

thats going to be a long and rough transition though i wish it well

Germany is already inside of this "energie transition" and it is going really well!

I am extremely happy and very proud that all nuclear power plants will be deactivated at the end of 2022.

The energy transition is our pathway into a future that is secure, environmentally-friendly, and economically successful. We have decided to fundamentally alter Germany’s energy supply: away from nuclear energy and fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. By 2025, at least 40 to 45 % of our energy is to be sourced from renewable energy, and we want to raise this to at least 80 % by 2050. Also, we are aiming to use energy more and more efficiently.

Source:

http://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/energy-transition.html

[Cuntyanne 100]

The "100 by '50 Act" yeah, pretty ****ingg much Bernie, sis.  All of us in here will be in our early 50's by then. Don't worry Bernadette, we'll be gone by thens 

[Sid 6,755]

2 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

If you actually think solar energy is a viable renewable energy source, I don't feel the need to engage in a debate with you...

Solar energy is nowhere near ready to be implemented on a large scale. You should do some research on the matter.

Nuclear is by far the way to go. This one day could be as cheap as coal. 

 

Nope - Tesla will be selling solar shingles that cost less than the price of a regular roof later this year. Solar energy is here to stay. For the average consumer, solar shingles are a more realistic option than building a nuclear plant in their backyard. You're right about nuclear power though, by 2050 when we have large-scale implementation of clean energy systems we will probably be seeing more of these around than solar panels. Once we're to that point it'll be much cheaper startup & maintenance to use mainly molten salt reactors. 

So any way you look at it, a combination of solar, nuclear and wind power will be able to provide us with more than enough power. Coal will seem archaic and prices will not skyrocket like coal industry hacks would have you believe.

I personally believe this bill is lukewarm, incremental and generally not what we need however. It's a good start... but if the rate of change we're going for is plunking down a couple solar farms and calling it a day, we'll burn to a crisp before we ever get clean energy. I don't think this bill even mentions nuclear power. We've got to get to a point where we have a WWII-level mobilization of clean energy systems. WWII was funded with over 41% of the economy set aside. This bill calls for less than 1%  I hope we figure this out before it's too late.

[Economy 52,844]

34 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

I never said it wasn't destroying our planet lol. I know the facts. 

But a Dem lawmaker shouldn't me tampering with the free market. We can incentivize clean energy, but we should just make arbitrary cut off dates. 

This comes days after Sanders introduces a 15 dollar min wage bill. Does he realize that while NYC, Seattle, and Vermont may be able to sustain that wage, but economies like Alabama's and Mississippi's would be absolutely destroyed?

This just proves he's so out of touch with middle America and sound economic policies. He's just trying to push an agenda and seems super super progressive so millennials like him...

If you actually think solar energy is a viable renewable energy source, I don't feel the need to engage in a debate with you...

Solar energy is nowhere near ready to be implemented on a large scale. You should do some research on the matter.

Nuclear is by far the way to go. This one day could be as cheap as coal. 

Curious. Why not support Natural Gas then?

 

It is relatively cheap, abundant and it pollutes less than Coal

 

Yeah its not quite as cheap as coal but still cheaper than most renewables, its reliable and kills environment less

 

I personally am VERY in favor of relying on Natural Gas instead of Coal while we slowly transition to renewables

 

Also nuclear pisses me off. Thorium is more plentyful than Uranium and Thorium also produces less radioactive waste per KW than Uranium

 

But because industry and powerplant technology was already formed around uranium, no one has bothered to put in the innitial investment to start using it and mining it

 

It would take cordinated effort as no power producer will build a power plant based on it if theres no supply being mined. But no one wants to start mining it with no customers. Endless cycle that doesnt break!

[Qualle1 1,385]

41 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

If you actually think solar energy is a viable renewable energy source, I don't feel the need to engage in a debate with you...

Solar energy is nowhere near ready to be implemented on a large scale. You should do some research on the matter.

Nuclear is by far the way to go. This one day could be as cheap as coal. 

I am very sorry, but you seem to have absolutely no clue what you are talking about...