A windpower first

[Hay Dude]

From here:

https://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i51/Long-History-US-Energy-Subsidies.html

View attachment 743665

Kinda makes sense since fossil fuels have been around 80 more years and they represent exponentially larger amounts of energy resources than renewables.
With the graph showing that renewables have received about 1/10th the subsidies of fossil fuels. I’d bet the ratio of subsidy to energy output is MUCH higher with renewables.

 

[Egon]

Be aware that the oil companies major profit comes from the sale of crude oil. The refined crude and ensuing sales outlets may be mostly franchised operations!

 

[buckeyefarmer]

And the thread keeps popping in political references, so please discontinue that or it will be closed. Thanks.

Please

 

[etpm]

I am very curious what these extremely toxic materials are. Do you have any specific citations?
Thanks

The extremely toxic materials are mainly the same materials that are radioactive. The waste from nuclear power plants consists mainly of uranium, which is about 95% of the waste, then plutonium, then other actinides, which are also radioactive. Plutoniun is one the most chemically poisonous elements. Uranium is also quite chemically poisonous, though not as near as bad as plutonium. The other actinides that make up the waste are also chemically poisonous. Uranium 238 is the most common isotope of uranium. It is not very radioactive. If a chunk was encased in plastic you could handle it safely for long periods of time. But the bare metal if handles will cause skin damage. Not from the radioactivity though. Breathe the dust and it can cause terrible health problems. Plutonium is much more chemically toxic than uranium. I am sorry, I will not provide specific citations. I have done this in the past and then folks ask me how well my citations can be trusted and so on. This ends up nowhere. However, this information is available from many sources easily. If you trust the US government then you will trust the papers published by the US. If you trust Lawrence Livermore Labs then you will trust the stuff they have published. If you trust the Fermi Institute then the same applies. But there are papers published in the UK that have this same info. In any case, the chemical toxicity comes mainly from the materials being heavy metals. By heavy metals I mean metals heavier than lead, not iron or zinc or the like.
Eric

 

[MossRoad]

Kinda makes sense since fossil fuels have been around 80 more years and they represent exponentially larger amounts of energy resources than renewables.
With the graph showing that renewables have received about 1/10th the subsidies of fossil fuels. I’d bet the ratio of subsidy to energy output is MUCH higher with renewables.

What I'm getting at is they all had/have subsidies. I don't necessarily like it, but them's the breaks, and that's the way things have always worked in this country.

As for 80 years... more like 4000.

Alternative Energy | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Solar, Wind, Fossil Fuels, Gas, Coal, Hydroelectricity, Biomass, & Nuclear | Britannica

Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels? Learn the pros and cons of the debate.

alternativeenergy.procon.org