Is it possible to power America solely by wind turbines and solar panels?

>First Native American President.
Thomas Jefferson already claimed

>nuclear is the way to go.
yes but not dangerous high pressure systems, LFTR passive systems, put a unit in the basement of every home, very safe, very hard to make materials for weapons

No.

No. While it's good for supplementing, you need large, steady power supplies for major grids, and until the day comes when fusion becomes a viable option, that means nuclear fission power.

If we were spending half as much on nuclear as we were spending on subsidizing solar, wind, and fossil fuels we could have tripled our installed nuclear capacity over the last twenty years.

Side issues are high tech & medical labs need 100% consistent power.. it’s one of the Golden rules of 1st world. It’s a way to back room know a countries ability to make 1st tier weapons & other things

most democrat candidates seem to be running on how they would tank the economy to implement their communist dictatorship
im ok with it americans dont deserve freedom anymore

Why bother, America seems to be running alright on bullshit.

Yes and no the question isnt as simple as is made out to be theres way to much power fluctuations in centrliazed power grid for majority wind and solar without work arounds plus the amount of land it takes up is enormous. That being said it does have its place like having solar on your resinetial dwelling.

More like one in every town with the power output

Anyone suggesting it doesn’t understand how electrical generation works nor how the grid has to run.
>look up spinning or ready reserves
>every watt needs to be constantly available and synced
>warren is another idiot

fpbp

not without much cheaper energy storage

^^^^
also, the amount of windmills is so big it would take an area like the size of Cali to hold them all
>think of the animals that would kill

with current technology it is just not a serious proposition
>it's all about $, social control and political power

No.
You can have enough power with solar panels for a house, but not for a factory.
But you can aim for a hybrid solution :
Solar panels on all homes, floating wind turbines (never put them on land), and complement your system with higher output systems, such as dams and nuclear power plants.
But if we can build stable and safe fusion reactors, the energy is no longer a problem. And we already have an experimental prototype called ITER that is very promising. Oc, the technology is far from mature, but we are getting closer.

None of this addresses fundamental facts about the grid.

Is this the best pic they could get out of her?

There is country called Finland that went all in on wind power and now there is turbine all over Finland. Before, Finland was almost energy independent.
It turns out that the turbines only move sometimes and when the wind is not blowing or they get ice covered the turbines are like the goggles and do nothing. Even at peak performance they do not generate enough electricity to power tiny Finland which is only big as my dick.
Now Finland has to buy electricity from Russia. Very embarrassing.
Fuck wind and solar.

Did we really do that?

Yes, in 2013 or so, and you do not hear about it because it was a humiliating failure.

It would require heavy investment in energy storage systems and power delivery. I think people have a 1 track mind. There are so many ways of going about things, and sometimes there's no single best way to do it but a combination.
If our goal is to curb the burning of fossil fuel for what ever reason, be it pollution, climate change, foreign oil dependence, oceanic acidification, or whatever... there are a bunch of different ways to go about that.
Hydro electric, geothermal, tidal, nuclear, biofuels etc. But some of the biggest impacts the average person can have is simply to stop buying things we don't need, and conserve electricity. A surprising amount of energy is spent just making simple shit like clothes, save money, go to a thrift shop. Don't run out and buy a new hybrid, the energy cost to produce one is sometimes higher than the energy saved by driving one, unless you plan to own it for a fairly long time. Some of this shit is counter intuitive, and not just lets just build a bunch of solar panels.
I'm all for cutting subsidies for fossil fuel companies, it is not necessary, oil and gas are extremely profitable and they don't need subsidies. I wouldn't advocate heavily subsidizing solar either, who knows maybe nuclear fusion just needs one big break through, and if we put a trillion dollars in solar it would just be a big waste. And waste is the very thing we want to avoid.
There is no one best path, and combating things like climate change can also be supplemented by weather manipulation. Yea, some of the AJ retards will think we are trying to turn the frogs gay or some shit, but really, it wouldn't be that hard to seed some clouds and cool off areas that are getting too warm. A little extra CO2 is actually good for plants to grow, if we can counter the effects of the extra warming, pump water from areas prone to flooding into areas prone to drought. A lot of shit could be done, but there is just not enough profit motive to do it.

Supplementing our existing power plants with a little bit of solar is not a bad idea, since solar panels produce their most energy at times of peak energy usage, but we would obviously need energy storage if start replacing our existing plant with pure solar. The trick would be to find a balance of different sources, conservation efforts, fossil fuel and nuclear, these all have their place along side combating the effects of burning fossil fuels. The trick is to create financial motivation, which I think a little extra tax on fossil fuels, (at the very least getting rid of subsidies) is better than outright banning fossil fuels.

nobody has ever made me cringe as hard as that femoid cringlord

No. We need coal.

What an ugly creature

She is a native

>cheap
It'd cost me 100k to put solar on my roof & it's not as if Im living in a mansion, is the US just outrageously priced compared to the rest of the world or what?

Bullshit.

Yes, we just have to cover the entire surface with wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries to store energy.

Not true, solar on average runs about $20k before the tax incentives.

Probably not, I wonder if we’ve fully utilized our hydro-electric capabilities. Could also shove some nuclear in the less densely populate states. Coals shutting down in Wyoming, replace it with nuclear and put some of those guys back to work. Take a little from the defender budget, letPutin spin his tires on weapons development we all know how well that worked out for them last time.

>not true
thats what I was quoted at by 3 different companies that install panels about 2 years ago, I find it difficult to believe it dropped by 80k in two years but I wouldn't be upset if it did.

There are two really big problems with wind, and solar.

1. Variability
With the electric grid power most be produced when it's used, and t's not always sunny, or windy. All current solution to this problem are inadequate including energy storage where current technologies are not up to handling such massive scales, and seasonal variations especially in places with harsh winters.

2. Power Density
Wind, and solar, have low power density which results in a much larger need for land, materials and labor then with other energy sources. This is especially problematic when rare materials are used such as the silver in solar panes.

Until these two issues are adequate addressed 100% wind and solar is just a pipe dream.

Yes.

you will never get the energy it took to build the panels back out of them

let that sink in

Not enough energy and too expensive, retards.

3. Spinning Reserves
The grid needs to have enough power generation to cover all changes in demand, at the ready on a seconds basis. This means for every megawatt of solar, you need a megawatt of something hanging in the background in case of partly cloudy days. This is the single biggest issue with wind and solar.
>The spinning reserve is the amount of unused capacity in online energy assets which can compensate for power shortages or frequency drops within a given period of time. Traditionally, the spinning reserve is a concept for large synchronous generators. If the largest generator in the power system is tripped, the remaining generators should increase their output to recover the power shortage. So, some generators in the power system are required to operate below their rated value to prepare for unexpected demand or contingencies. The more reserve is needed, the operating points of generators are further away from the rated value and thus are less efficient. Also, if the generators work under inefficient conditions, CO2 and other emissions will increase.
sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/spinning-reserve