Well, just like I dislike all the powerful interests in big oil, there are way too many hands, particularly in big government, that wants to shoe horn in anything 'green'. The lifespan of windmills and solar panels aren't what they need to be. The materials used to make them take fossil fuels to mine and don't easily recycle. And truly it's a shame because in the electrical field we were hyped about this tech for a while, because we could finally compete with the oil industry. But all the hype was bunk and couldn't produce a 1/10th of the output promised. Personally I think those who REALLY looks into green energy for more than hip or trendy reasons usually conclude nuclear is the future. And the main opposition usually get their sources from the tv show Chernobyl.
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. Renewable energy became a big hit but it's debatable whether it's even able to produce enough to cover the manufacturing and maintenance costs (I'm talking both monetary and environmental – the metals don't mine themselves). Greenwashing has infiltrated many industries, from energy and transportation (*cough* Tesla *cough*) to cosmetics and fashion, but upon deeper investigations a lot of those business aren't very green at all.
I also agree that nuclear seems like the best option right now. That said, don't you think that solar or wind can, with more research and technological advancement, become viable? I don't have the education and experience you do so I'm just wondering. A 100 years ago it seemed utterly impossible that we could create a powerful computer that would fit in our hand, but we did, and the progress was rapid. Can there even be such a leap in this field?
Well, anything is possible on paper. Solar and wind have become more efficient, but not in the leaps and bounds we would need to see. We would need to see a new tech breakthrough in energy storage (batteries) before this can become anything more than posturing to look good. Nuclear isn't an obvious answer to this problem by the way. But if we want to do something that is actually good and see tangible results that don't end up in a dump in 20 years, we are going to have to get serious about nuclear. Solar and wind are just not at that level yet, and reality is it may never be. But so long as it's propped up by media and government interests, you mostly get fed BS and people eat it up.
Here's my two cents (euro obviously). Wind power is still better than fossil fuel, or you could say it's a better use of fossil resources due to the production. I think the reason it's propped up before nuclear is because of this 2008 meta study, that concludes that while nuclear use less fossil fuel it still uses more than renewables.
https://journalistsresource.org/environment/nuclear-power-greenhouse-gases/
I also agree that nuclear seems like the best option right now. That said, don't you think that solar or wind can, with more research and technological advancement, become viable? I don't have the education and experience you do so I'm just wondering. A 100 years ago it seemed utterly impossible that we could create a powerful computer that would fit in our hand, but we did, and the progress was rapid. Can there even be such a leap in this field?
https://journalistsresource.org/environment/nuclear-power-greenhouse-gases/