Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by brian-armstrong on Thursday November 17, 2016 @03:11PM (#12981022)

We (the US) are in a good position to lead the renewables industry, and part of that is dogfooding what we make. But that dogfooding is harder if our domestic nonrenewable prices are low. Yes that means that, for now, those products aren't fully competitive. But they could get there with scale, and we get that scale by rolling them out domestically. It helps us build this industry in the long term.

China is also jumping on this opportunity, by the way. I saw an article recently that competitive solar will be a big focus point for its electronics industry.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by malnourish on Thursday November 17, 2016 @03:40PM (#12981306)

This is exactly what I think we should be doing (as a nation). We should be pushing innovation and becoming a leader in R&D for green energy. It seems like a fantastic way of creating jobs and I have a hard time comprehending why people are so resistant to it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by brian-armstrong on Thursday November 17, 2016 @03:53PM (#12981438)

I hate to beat this drum, but it comes down to money. Oil and coal spend so much money spreading false information about the issues, so it's hard for people to be informed about what our options actually are.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by indlebe on Thursday November 17, 2016 @04:16PM (#12981674)

Not to mention that Oil and Coal are sources of energy where western corporations directly profit. Not so much with solar and nuclear.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by Delmania on Thursday November 17, 2016 @04:17PM (#12981691)

Fear. Put yourself in the shoes of a 50-year-old coal miner who's had the same job since he was age 18. You lose your job, and the town in which you live is starting to decline because the major source of money is gone. You have no idea how your going to pay for your bills and food.

Do you really think such a person is going to be enthusiastic for retraining for a new, competing with younger people, and moving? Or do you think this person would rather support politicians who promise to restore the coal mining industry?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by malnourish on Friday November 18, 2016 @10:31AM (#12987389)

The thing is, we're not going to get rid of coal and oil for quite a while, even if we do convert mostly to green energy we won't (for better or for worse) abandon the infrastructure we already have. I say this as conjecture, but it seems reasonable unless otherwise shown.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by reality_czech on Thursday November 17, 2016 @04:16PM (#12981686)

China pretty much destroyed the US solar panel manufacturing market. If the US wants to "lead the renewables industry," ironically for you, the only way to do it is probably Trump-style protectionism. Otherwise China will continue to wipe out the next crop of Solyndras with its subsidies and other dirty tricks.

Of course, we can always put solar panels on top of things. That's a thing. They're doing that in Africa too. But the profits mostly go to solar panel manufacturers in China. And solar panels can't sustain a heavy industrial base... you need coal or nuclear for that, as other industrial nations know very well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by andrei_says_ on Thursday November 17, 2016 @03:46PM (#12981358)

I tend to believe that if we stop subsidies for dirty energy sources, the market will take care of the rest.

So it comes down to policy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Global warming: The state of the climate in 2016 by maxxxxx on Thursday November 17, 2016 @03:33PM (#12981230)

The US would be in great position to take the lead here. For example, I don't understand why not every house in Southern California is covered with solar panels. Instead Trump's program seems to be to burn as much coal and oil as possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]