Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-11-2019, 01:23 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
6.6 trillion is what medicare for all, universal basic income & a green new deal would cost combined.

Also that 3.2 trillion for medicare for all is highly misleading. The US already spends something like 2.2 trillion on tax revenue to fund health care. That money would just be rolled into a M4A program. The remaining funds would be diverted from private funds into public funds. I have no problem in paying more in taxes if it means less private spending.

That article is very misleading because it makes M4A sound like 3.2 in new spending on top of existing spending, which was the goal (to mislead people). That makes me question the entire article.

But back to alternative energy.



Where did they get 100k per home? Residential solar is down to $3 per installed watt, and the average home only needs about ~8 kilowatts of solar to be energy independent. Thats $24,000, not $100,000. And that is for residential solar which is much more expensive than larger scale solar projects which are closer to $1/watt. Also as was mentioned, with economies of scale that size, prices will go down.

If you assume you need 8kwh on average per home, and there are 126 million residential homes, and it is industrial scale solar at $1/watt, that works out to $8000 per home and about $1 trillion total, not $1.4 trillion per year for a decade. Of course, who knows if its remotely realistic to install that much solar.

Is there some other aspect of being net zero I'm not seeing? Replacing all the internal combustion cars with electric cars needs to be done too.
The estimates I have seen is that the US federal government spends 1.2 trillion and states spend about 500 billion on healthcare per year. So total new spending would be 1.5 to 1.7 trillion per year. Since the question was the total cost and not the new spending cost I think the total cost of 3.2-3.5 trillion per year is the relevant number.

The numbers I have seen for residential solar per watt is $5-%6 per installed watt. There are places that have it for cheaper but that includes government subsidies to get it down to $3-4 per watt. At current prices the price for just residential building is 5-6 trillion dollars. I assume that economies of scale could bring panel costs down significantly but the opposite is likely true for installation. Something like 2% of homes currently have solar and in order to get the other 98% done in 10 years the number of electricians will have to skyrocket. Since it takes time to train electricians, for the first few years, their wages will likely skyrocket, increasing the total cost.

The number of cars in the US is 276 million and the cost before subsidies of the Nissan Leaf is $30,000. To replace all of the cars with the base Nissan Leaf would cost 8.2 trillion dollars. Once again it would be cheaper to manufacture them once the factories scaled up but it would be hugely expensive to change all the existing car factories to electric car factories.

Another aspect would be replacing airline travel with high speed rail. The high speed rail in California has tripled in estimated cost and is likely to cost at least 100 billion dollars. Given that California has around 10% of the US population it would seem reasonable that the cost for the entire country to switch would be at least 1 trillion dollars. To do it in ten years would mean that the laws for construction permitting and environmental impact statements would have to be massively changed.

To get rid of all 94 million cows in the US at the going rate of $3,000 per cow would cost 282 billion dollars.
  #52  
Old 02-11-2019, 01:39 PM
Omar Little's Avatar
Omar Little Omar Little is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Within
Posts: 12,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
How about building giant CO2 scrubbers? Or paint everything white so it reflects the sun? Giant umbrellas? Paint the moon black?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
It's good to see that you're here for a serious conversation.
Dale Sams suggestions are about as serious as doing away with air travel.
  #53  
Old 02-11-2019, 02:03 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
The estimates I have seen is that the US federal government spends 1.2 trillion and states spend about 500 billion on healthcare per year. So total new spending would be 1.5 to 1.7 trillion per year. Since the question was the total cost and not the new spending cost I think the total cost of 3.2-3.5 trillion per year is the relevant number.

The numbers I have seen for residential solar per watt is $5-%6 per installed watt. There are places that have it for cheaper but that includes government subsidies to get it down to $3-4 per watt. At current prices the price for just residential building is 5-6 trillion dollars. I assume that economies of scale could bring panel costs down significantly but the opposite is likely true for installation. Something like 2% of homes currently have solar and in order to get the other 98% done in 10 years the number of electricians will have to skyrocket. Since it takes time to train electricians, for the first few years, their wages will likely skyrocket, increasing the total cost.

The number of cars in the US is 276 million and the cost before subsidies of the Nissan Leaf is $30,000. To replace all of the cars with the base Nissan Leaf would cost 8.2 trillion dollars. Once again it would be cheaper to manufacture them once the factories scaled up but it would be hugely expensive to change all the existing car factories to electric car factories.

Another aspect would be replacing airline travel with high speed rail. The high speed rail in California has tripled in estimated cost and is likely to cost at least 100 billion dollars. Given that California has around 10% of the US population it would seem reasonable that the cost for the entire country to switch would be at least 1 trillion dollars. To do it in ten years would mean that the laws for construction permitting and environmental impact statements would have to be massively changed.

To get rid of all 94 million cows in the US at the going rate of $3,000 per cow would cost 282 billion dollars.
Hello people of 1912. Did the naysayers sound like this to you?
  #54  
Old 02-11-2019, 02:07 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,424
The naysayers in 1912 were the ones saying the Titanic could never sink.

Regards,
Shodan
  #55  
Old 02-11-2019, 02:12 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Hello people of 1912. Did the naysayers sound like this to you?
I know right! "Titanic isnt unsinkable! Pittdown Man is a hoax!" Losers.

Edit: Damn you Shodan.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 02-11-2019 at 02:12 PM.
  #56  
Old 02-11-2019, 02:13 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Naw, you don't got it. As usual. Your metric butt load of straw doesn't get my post in the least. Which seems to be par for the course with you, especially lately. You bring so much straw and horseshit into this post it's hard to know where to start

Since you seem to have trouble understanding, ... green idiots on your side

Finally, just on a personal note...why the fuck do you think and keep posting that I'm a Trump fan, or even aligned with that idiot at all? ...
Wow. First off, far from attacking you personally, I carefully excised your name from the Quote box. I attack ideas, not Posters.

Consider it a compliment that I chose to pivot off your comment, rather than that of a less coherent right-winger.

The question I posed — and I'm at a loss to imagine why this wasn't clear — is whether we, as a nation, should move to mitigate global warming or not. The details of AOC's proposal are almost irrelevant: look at posts by Exapno Mapcase to understand why. She's pulling her weight if she gets young people enthused about working for a better country, a better world, and a better future.

So — and I hope you can answer this question without just insulting me again — should we applaud Miss Ocasio-Cortez and hope to move forward, probably with better ideas than hers, perhaps pushing for nuclear solutions to complement her plans? Or should we focus on denigrating the young Congresswoman and her progressive ideals, and thereby implicitly serve the vested interests pushing for coal and other dirty energy sources?
  #57  
Old 02-11-2019, 03:06 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar Little View Post
Dale Sams suggestions are about as serious as doing away with air travel.
Something which isn't actually in the proposal.
  #58  
Old 02-11-2019, 03:33 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The naysayers in 1912 were the ones saying the Titanic could never sink.
As in the other thread, I reject your bad analogies. Whether any particular technology can work is of a wholly different order than whether political goals are feasible if the political will exists.

"Our goal is to ensure the right of everyone to cross the Atlantic on a regular basis" is not the same as "every single attempt to cross the Atlantic will always be successful."

Naysayers fail because they look through the wrong end of the telescope.
  #59  
Old 02-11-2019, 03:56 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
As in the other thread, I reject your bad analogies.
1912 wasn't my analogy.
Quote:
Whether any particular technology can work is of a wholly different order than whether political goals are feasible if the political will exists.

"Our goal is to ensure the right of everyone to cross the Atlantic on a regular basis" is not the same as "every single attempt to cross the Atlantic will always be successful."
Well, that's certainly correct.

The GND seems to want to ensure that everyone can cross the Atlantic on a regular basis, and thinks this can be done by issuing everyone a rowboat.

Regards,
Shodan
  #60  
Old 02-11-2019, 03:57 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
1912 wasn't my analogy.
Well, that's certainly correct.

The GND seems to want to ensure that everyone can cross the Atlantic on a regular basis, and thinks this can be done by issuing everyone a rowboat.

Regards,
Shodan
Ion powered solar rowboats.

And speaking of naysayers....where's my jet backpack, flying car and fusion power?

On the flip side, Ironically (is it?) didn't Cecil say cloning would never happen?

Last edited by Dale Sams; 02-11-2019 at 03:58 PM.
  #61  
Old 02-11-2019, 04:27 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Ion powered solar rowboats.
And free health care.

And they won't be ion powered. All we lack is the political will to run a tube up the rectum of every cow in America, and run them on methane. A win-win!

Regards,
Shodan, Purveyor of Bold New Concepts in Bovine Flatulence to Power Our Future
  #62  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:10 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Fine by me, include the cost of savings in the overall cost.

For example, there are something like 125 million households in the US. Assume you gave each one $20,000 worth of solar panels, thats about $2.5 trillion. Rooftop solar is about $3/watt, but industrial scale solar is closer to $1/watt. I have no idea how much it'd cost to cover residential households with pure solar and that is only part of climate change (agriculture, industry and transportation are all important too). But for the sake of argument, assume 2.5 trillion to cover all houses in solar (which is probably a very high estimate but oh well).

But then after that all the households get free energy for the next 30 years, if not longer.

Then again, who knows if there are enough raw materials to build that many solar panels.
Okay first of all, we aren't just talking about panel costs. To get to zero fossil fuels, you also have to replace every gas furnace in the country with some form of electric heat, I guess. That's a major retrofit - I just installed new high efficiency gas furnaces in my house, and just that alone cost $22,000.

Then you get to remove all the gas stoves and replace them with electric, at $1000 a pop or so. And don't forget all those gas water heaters that will be going to the land fill - maybe 50 million of them or so. Add another $1000 to replace the residential heaters - I have no idea how much the giant heaters for apartments, office buildings and factories cost, but it's going to a lot. Don't forget we have to convert all the factories and warehouses and other infrastructure buildings as well.

How about windows? The GND calls for retrofitting every building in America for energy efficiency. Replacing the windows in my house with new triple pane glass would easily cost $20,000, and maybe a lot more - I haven't priced that in quite a while.

Then there's the problem of electrical infrastructure. Efficient electric heating requires 220V power, and lots of houses are not well equipped with 220V, or with an electrical service that could handle the sudden increase of electrical energy required to power everything that was once gas powered with electric. And if we're going to use distributed electrical heat, houses will need to be re-wired.

Then there are all the industrial gas heaters, fossil-fuel powered smelters and on-site generators, etc. Manufacturing and other production activities consume about 45% of our fossil fuels, and they are already highly optimized for their power sources. Forcing them all to move to electric may not even be feasible, let alone cost effective.

Another cost would be the rapid loss of jobs in the fossil fuel industry, and in any industry that relies on it. All those gas stations will need to be boarded up and their staff let go. All the people who maintain the current gas powered infrastructure will have to be retrained or layed off.

I could go on all day. The problem with grand plans written by technical know-nothings is that they have no idea how many details they will have to solve, and how much that will cost.

Let me give you a simple example: The switch to corn crops from wheat fields had lots of cost estimates by economists studying the problem from 10,000 ft, but I guarantee you not a single one of them counted the cost of retrofitting every wheat silo with new chutes, because corn is more slippery than wheat and when wheat ramps are used the corn moves too fast and gets pulverized. The 'experts' had no idea about this cost, but lots of farmers did.

The devil is always in the details, and when you are talking about the wholesale destruction and rebuilding of an entire nation's infrastructure, you can be sure that there will be many details. It would be the biggest engineering project in the history of humanity by several orders of magnitude.
  #63  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:19 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
But then after that all the households get free energy for the next 30 years, if not longer.
Minus, of course, the cost of maintenance and the amortized cost of replacement when the panels wear out or the electronics fail.

The actual way to look at the cost of solar power is to take the up-front cost of the system, then amortize it across the life of the system, including interest. Because one of the problems with Solar is that you have to pay all the money up-front instead of investing it in something else, whereas with gas you pay for it as you use it. The cost of $1 in gas burned 20 years from now is nowhere near $1 today. So to compare apples to apples, you either have to apply time discounting to the cost of the gas, or calculate the cost of your solar installation including the opportunity cost of the money used to pay for it.

Quote:
Then again, who knows if there are enough raw materials to build that many solar panels.
No. Not even close. Especially rare earth elements, but even steel and copper and other materials will be in short supply -especially since at the same time we're building all this stuff we're also supposed to be retrofitting every building in the country and doing all the other crap in that useless document.

And let's not forget the energy it's going to take to build all those new panels, their steel mounting hardware, all that new electrical cable, 50 million new steel water heaters, all those new baseboard heaters or whatever is supposed to replace our furnaces, yada yada. I'm not sure this plan wouldn't make global warming WORSE in the short term.
  #64  
Old 02-11-2019, 06:30 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Whose Green New Deal have you been reading? Tom Green's? Seth Green's? The closest plank in the Green New Deal I can find is the exact opposite of this.
Taking productive people out of the economy and giving them a 'living wage' to sit on their asses does not reduce your costs - it increases them dramatically. An economy isn't driven by 'wages'. It's driven by its capacity to provide the goods and services the people desire. People who are not in the work force but who ARE drawing wages taxed from other people who are is a net drain on economic productivity.

Forget all those ideas about 'stimulus'. To the extent that it ever made sense, it only made sense during times of slack demand. When you already have record low unemployment, all the people needed to build the green dream will be people poached from other jobs, presumably where they were adding to the productive capacity of the country. You need to figure in those costs as well.

in addition, you have to figure in the costs of the inevitable hikes in the prices of raw materials, and what effect that will have on every other industry that might need those materials. If the price of steel doubles because of a spike in demand caused by the need to make 100 million electric cars, billions of tons of steel supports for solar panels and windmills, 50 million water heaters, 50 million electric stoves and god knows what else, the price of everything else made of steel will go up dramatically, lowering our standard of living.

In addition, all of the industries that make things like water heaters and stoves are sized to basically produce the amount demanded for replacement of existing stuff. If you are going to junk it all immediately, there is no way those industries could handle the demand - and the spike in material costs will make all of that stuff even more expensive.


Quote:
Most of what I've read, including on the site I linked to, are idealistic goals rather than practical plans. The purpose today appears to shift the discussion toward a new mentality. Notice that no timeline is ever given for reaching those goals. Putting a dollar figure on it is irrelevant. That makes as much sense as putting a dollar figure on Civil Rights in 1955.

Here's an idealistic plan - I think we should have a 'WWII-style' mobilization to cure all disease. All we need to do is send ten times as many people to med school, give unlimited funding to all research on diseases, and there you go. My plan says it can be done in ten years. So shouldn't we get right to work implementing it? If you don't agree, you must be a disease denier.
  #65  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:00 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,645
Oh, please. You realize we only have that many cows because the government subsidised the everliving crap put of corn? There's a reason why America has an obisety problem, and it's the corn industry. Between high fructose corn syrup and corn fed beef, it's no wonder Americans are so fat.

We give big agriculture billions of dollars a year so that they can fatten up our children. Enough is enough, we could pay for half of these programs by stopping these massive subsidies to an industry that's already one of the largest in the nation and doesn't need government support. We can keep subsidizing small business farms, but currently most of the money goes to the agriculture giants.

Without artificially cheap corn (what happened to the free market?) You'd find a lot less cows in America pretty dang quick.
  #66  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:40 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Forget all those ideas about 'stimulus'. To the extent that it ever made sense, it only made sense during times of slack demand. When you already have record low unemployment, all the people needed to build the green dream will be people poached from other jobs, presumably where they were adding to the productive capacity of the country. You need to figure in those costs as well.
I remember how conservatives screamed that the incredible shrinking unemployment figures under Obama were meaningless because so many more people were in low-wage, part-time, and no-future jobs. Did all those people get lifetime middle-class employment under Trump when I wasn't looking?

Conservatives have no plans for the future at all. None. They avert their eyes whenever the subject comes up and change the subject to attacking liberals. Part of the appeal of the GND to liberals is that it offers hope, a vision of a utopian future, via a number of paths and programs that we can start on immediately. That specifics have to be provided, and that no utopia will ever be achieved I stipulate at the beginning. People want hope; conservatives offer only fear. Fear works in the short-term. That term is over.

That fighting global warming is the best and highest use of resources should be a given. The amazing thing is that doing so is the only path out of the current despair over the loss of what used to be called semi-skilled jobs, i.e. jobs that don't need a college education. (An education, not just the diploma that too many employers use as a marker.) Millions of jobs are needed for all those trades mentioned in GND. (You'll need millions more to build seawalls as the oceans rise. Trump will want one around Mar-a-Lago. I guarantee it.)

The world will not be changed overnight. Nobody except conservatives building mental seawalls of straw horses think that what's being proposed is something that won't stretch over decades. Trillions will be needed, true. Last I looked, we're already spending trillions, both as a government and a society, without good returns for that money.

Hope. That's good policy and good politics.
  #67  
Old 02-11-2019, 07:50 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Oh, please. You realize we only have that many cows because the government subsidised the everliving crap put of corn? There's a reason why America has an obisety problem, and it's the corn industry. Between high fructose corn syrup and corn fed beef, it's no wonder Americans are so fat.

We give big agriculture billions of dollars a year so that they can fatten up our children. Enough is enough, we could pay for half of these programs by stopping these massive subsidies to an industry that's already one of the largest in the nation and doesn't need government support. We can keep subsidizing small business farms, but currently most of the money goes to the agriculture giants.

Without artificially cheap corn (what happened to the free market?) You'd find a lot less cows in America pretty dang quick.
That and because losing weight is really really hard. Seems like every year science is discovering a new reason why its so hard to get the weight off and keep it off. If it were just a matter of 'ignore hunger, eat less'....pishhhh ez peazy.
  #68  
Old 02-11-2019, 08:46 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
That and because losing weight is really really hard. Seems like every year science is discovering a new reason why its so hard to get the weight off and keep it off. If it were just a matter of 'ignore hunger, eat less'....pishhhh ez peazy.
Yep -- we keep finding out just how addictive the crud that the same agribusiness sector we're funding so hard is feeding us is. No wonder they're doing so well.
  #69  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:01 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Wow. First off, far from attacking you personally, I carefully excised your name from the Quote box. I attack ideas, not Posters.

Consider it a compliment that I chose to pivot off your comment, rather than that of a less coherent right-winger.

The question I posed — and I'm at a loss to imagine why this wasn't clear — is whether we, as a nation, should move to mitigate global warming or not. The details of AOC's proposal are almost irrelevant: look at posts by Exapno Mapcase to understand why. She's pulling her weight if she gets young people enthused about working for a better country, a better world, and a better future.

So — and I hope you can answer this question without just insulting me again — should we applaud Miss Ocasio-Cortez and hope to move forward, probably with better ideas than hers, perhaps pushing for nuclear solutions to complement her plans? Or should we focus on denigrating the young Congresswoman and her progressive ideals, and thereby implicitly serve the vested interests pushing for coal and other dirty energy sources?
You quoted me (without attribution) then ranted about right wingers and Trumpists, and I'm supposed to take that as...what? A generic rant, not pointed at me? And this, after several threads where you'd said similar things, the last one getting us BOTH a freaking warning.

Anyway, I responded to Exapno Mapcase post up thread if you want to check it out. Again, I'm asking you to not label me a Trump supporter or some one wearing a MAGA hat. You can, of course, think or believe what you like, but if you aren't taking me to the Pit please leave that shit out of future posts. Those are, to me, deadly insults that seriously rile me.


(And I didn't see anything I wrote AS an insult...the opposite. But I'll be the bigger guy here and apologize for any insult you saw. It wasn't my intent to insult, but to respond forcefully to labeling me a right winger and a Trumpist...as well as to try and continue my own points in this debate)
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 02-11-2019 at 09:03 PM.
  #70  
Old 02-11-2019, 09:51 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
That is like asking 'what good is new born baby for?'

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#40ac0709d440
This is the kind of meaningless statistic that just pisses me off. The Sahara desert is 9 million square kilometres in area. 1% would be 90,000 square kilometres. Understand the scale of that - a 90,000 square kilometre industrial project covering every inch of the ground with steel and solar panels. And that's your idea of an example of how EASY this is?

And of course, the Sahara is the best-case scenario for sun energy, and it's located far away from anyone who actually needs the poweer, so we obviously aren't going to build power stations in the Sahara.

And once you get away from the best place on Earth for solar power, things look a lot worse. For example, the Sahara desert gets about 6.5 kWh per square meter of solar energy in the summer, and 5 kWh per square meter in the winter. The numbers are close because the Sahara is fairly near the equator.

But let's take a look at the U.S. Southern California gets about the same as the Sahara in the summer, but drops to about 3.5 kWh/square meter in the winter, because of its higher latitude. but the northern U.S, where major centers of population and energy use are, is much worse. Portland Oregon only gets a max of about 5kWh/m2, and in winter only gets about 2.8 kWh/m2. So multiply your area needs accordingly.

Here in Canada, our idiot left-wing government thinks solar is the way to go, and we're busy subsidizing the hell out of it. But solar insolation in Edmonton where I live maxes out at about 5, but drops all the way to 1.2 in December. So if we want to build solar here, we're starting with roughly half the energy the Sahara or Southern California get. And what's worse, we get almost no solar power in the dead of winter when our energy needs are greatest. To generate 100% of our energy from solar, we would have to overbuild to the point where we have five times as much solar power capacity in the summer than we need.

The Sahara desert factoid is meaningless, other than it was intended to make the problem look smaller than it is. And even then if you look at the actual size they are talking about, you realize just how impossible it would be to do.


Quote:
At a political level California has just legislated a move to 100% renewables, while at home South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT are on track to be net 100% renewables in the next few years.
More misleading 'facts'. Tasmania gets a large portion of its electricity from renewables - because they have huge amounts of hydro power. And that is not without its problems:

Tasmanian energy crisis: Hydro Tasmania in uncharted territory as dam levels continue to drop

Tasmania had to force industrial production to cut back energy use, and they also had to import hundreds of gas turbines to make up the slack.

As for Southern Australia, I'm not sure you want to use that as an example.

South Australia has the highest power prices in the world

Quote:
Carbon and Energy Markets director Bruce Mountain crunched the figures and found South Australia’s power is three times more expensive than in the US and 50 per cent higher than the UK.

He told news.com.au he compared prices in South Australia and other parts of Australia to countries in Europe.

“I know the most expensive prices are in Europe, US prices are much lower and the only other contender is Japan but I know prices are higher in Europe,” he said.
South Australia is rich in wind resources, and that's where it gets most of its renewable power. Solar power, despite a major push and huge rebates and a carbon tax and the most expensive electricity in the world, only amounts to about 7.5% of their electricity needs.

Germany has often been held up as an example of how to push renewable energy. Germany also has the highest power prices of any major country in Europe (I think Liechtenstein is slightly higher). Germany is also now having to buy energy from its neighbors and is in the process of building a pipeline for Russian natural gas. Way to put your energy in the hands of Putin, Germany.

Germany is a good example of what happens when you try to force renewables in a place where they don't make much sense. Germany now has so much solar that on a bright summer day, it can get 100% of its power needs from renewables. And yet on an annual basis, solar only makes up about 6.5% of their energy needs. The reason is because intermittent sources of power need to be backed up with baseload power that can be ramped up when intermittent sources drop offline. So you have to essentially maintain two infrastructures. Not only that, but coal and gas fired energy plants are not as efficient when run at lower duty cycles, which offsets the gains from the renewables.

So if these are your examples of how to do it, I'll take a pass.

Quote:
Many still think that 100% renewables can’t be done. In 2017 ANU, Energy Networks Australia and CSIRO joined the ranks of Australia’s leading institutions on energy that have now done their own plans to show Australia can reliably achieve 100% renewables. This takes the number of 100% renewables plans for Australia to more than 10.
Let's put a pin in that until they are ACTUALLY at 100%, not just promising to do it. And then let's see how much people are paying for that.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 02-11-2019 at 09:53 PM.
  #71  
Old 02-11-2019, 10:46 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I remember how conservatives screamed that the incredible shrinking unemployment figures under Obama were meaningless because so many more people were in low-wage, part-time, and no-future jobs. Did all those people get lifetime middle-class employment under Trump when I wasn't looking?
I'm sorry - I thought we were talking about the Green New Deal, and not Obama's job creation. And do you think the people that would be needed for high tech industrial construction projects would be drawn from the ranks of Baristas and Wal-Mart greeters? But while we're at it, it might be useful for you to check out the big 'green jobs' program Obama pushed - and how much was spent and how many 'green jobs' were created.

Quote:
Conservatives have no plans for the future at all.
Millions of Conservatives have plans for the future. They just don't have plans for YOUR future. See, people on the right generally believe that economies grow organically as complex systems, and central planning doesn't work. So why should they have a lot of big plans for how to run the economy?

Quote:
Part of the appeal of the GND to liberals is that it offers hope, a vision of a utopian future, via a number of paths and programs that we can start on immediately.
If that piece of garbage of a plan gives you hope, well, good luck to you. Because what it says to me is, "If this is the left's idea of how to solve global warming, we're all doomed."

Quote:
That specifics have to be provided, and that no utopia will ever be achieved I stipulate at the beginning. People want hope; conservatives offer only fear. Fear works in the short-term. That term is over.
This is such a bullshit argument. I can just imagine if the Republicans produced a document that said all taxes would be eliminated in ten years, and a 100 foot high wall would be built around the country to Make America Great Again, and that the government would be completely funded by voluntary donations. You'd call them completely bonkers. And if my response was, "Well, we have to work out the details, but it gives us HOPE, and we can start right away," you'd think I was an idiot.

Quote:
That fighting global warming is the best and highest use of resources should be a given.
And yet, you are perfectly okay with losing a huge amount of political support for doing anything by demanding that it also include a whole bunch of intersectional bullshit like guaranteed incomes and free education for all.

If you honestly think that global warming is an existential problem that we must focus on like a laser beam, you'll take every leftist who tries to marry it to a laundry list of intersectional goals and take them to the woodshed. Because they are doing far more harm than good by saying, "If you want to save the planet from global warming, you must also abandon everything you believe and become a good progressive." This is insane. It would be like the Republicans saying that global warming is incredibly important, but if you want to stop it you also have to agree to cutting taxes for the rich, building a 500 foot wall around the country to Make it Great Again, and demolishing the Department of Education. If you heard someone say that, I'm guessing you'd be questioning whether they really cared about Global Warming, or if they were just using it to push what they've always wanted anyway.

Since that's ultimately the war you need to win against those who don't agree with you, it is crazy to marry the Most Important Issue in the World to a package of plans for which there is much less agreement. Nonsense like that from Ocasio-Cortez hurts the cause of climate change, because it feeds into the worst stereotypes
and fears among the people you need to win over, that Global Warming is at best a legitimate problem but being used by the left as a hammer to foist their idea of society on everyone else, or at worst that it's a hoax cynically deployed for the same reason.

If you want to do something about global warming while still living in a Democracy, this is a devastating political path.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 02-11-2019 at 10:48 PM.
  #72  
Old 02-11-2019, 10:58 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,866
Sam, I love your admission that conservatives have no plans for how to run the economy. Can we borrow that for bumper stickers?

Coming soon! Many more things that you will scorn!
  #73  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:05 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
This is the kind of meaningless statistic that just pisses me off. The Sahara desert is 9 million square kilometres in area. 1% would be 90,000 square kilometres. Understand the scale of that - a 90,000 square kilometre industrial project covering every inch of the ground with steel and solar panels. And that's your idea of an example of how EASY this is?
Since that is a straw man, I could had ignored the rest. And could had been a good enough reply.



However... It was a straw man because I Never said it was going to be easy, hard, but doable. (And as one should notice, your point there is even more "starwmanny" when one notices that the author there does not say that it would be easy either) And the point was spectacularly missed regarding what I meant by this being like a "new born baby."

Suffice to say, even when complaining about other renewables that have issues the overall point stands, the technology to make this possible is available and it is bound to get better once we do gear up most of industry towards that goal.

There is also the fact that you grabbed one headline about the Australia energy and forgot this bit:

https://www.news.com.au/finance/busi...d8949f34a64c83
Quote:
SOUTH Australia now has the most expensive electricity in the world providing a powerful incentive for households to install solar systems.
Quote:
Meanwhile, new analysis show payback periods for solar and battery systems has dropped to about seven years in some states including South Australia.

Solar Choice, a rooftop solar comparison and brokerage service, calculated average payback costs for solar and battery storage this month based on the current price hikes for electricity prices. It found Perth had the fastest payback rate taking into consideration tariff rates and system costs. It was followed by Brisbane and Adelaide.
Bolding mine. The article indeed is actually more in support of what needs to be done and there should be less of an opposition since solar is getting cheaper and that is good news rather than calling it misleading or meaningless. In fact it supports what I said when I mentioned the "new born baby" the current relative small gain was indeed acknowledged right out of the bat, but it seems that it was better for you to post a point that looked as if that was a personal affront to... something I guess, but it is really silly to dwell on the present as if it change is impossible or not happening, like in Germany:

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/doss...d-energiewende
Quote:
Electricity storage is next feat for Germany’s energy transition
Quote:
The battery boom in German households

The main driver of the current battery hype is a sharp price decline in Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries due to their wide use in consumer electronics, and increasingly in electric cars. In less than five years, battery costs have more than halved in Germany, and there is no end in sight for further decreases.

“The total cost of energy-storage systems should fall 50 to 70 percent by 2035 as a result of design advances, economies of scale, and streamlined processes,” forecasts business consultancy McKinsey. IRENA even expects a price drop of 50 to 66 percent in installed battery storage by 2030.

Given these market forces and the increasing extension of the Energiewende into mobility and heating, German energy industry experts surveyed by the Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW) expect demand for power storage to increase substantially in the years to come. Over 70 percent said they believe batteries will be the fastest growing segment in the next ten years, while heat storage ranked second.

“Batteries will come. Deal with it,” says battery expert Kai-Philipp Kairies, director of technical consulting at RWTH Aachen University, one of Germany’s largest technical universities.

Private households in Germany have already started to embrace the technology. Around half of all new residential solar PV systems are now installed in conjunction with a battery. Perhaps surprisingly, economic considerations cannot account for the spread of residential battery systems, because they usually reduce the profitability of stand-alone solar panels, according to Aachen university researcher Kairies [read the full interview here.].

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-11-2019 at 11:08 PM.
  #74  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:27 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Since that's ultimately the war you need to win against those who don't agree with you, it is crazy to marry the Most Important Issue in the World to a package of plans for which there is much less agreement. Nonsense like that from Ocasio-Cortez hurts the cause of climate change, because it feeds into the worst stereotypes and fears among the people you need to win over,
Decades of discussions on the issue showed to me and many others that the extreme right and corporations with an ax to grind were actively lying to many people on the right and... they still continue with the fearmongering and lies. That many continue fall for it is the really sad part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
that Global Warming is at best a legitimate problem but being used by the left as a hammer to foist their idea of society on everyone else, or at worst that it's a hoax cynically deployed for the same reason.
We are here because instead of seeing progress, many on the right decided that an ignorant doofus on this issue and in many others would make a great leader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If you want to do something about global warming while still living in a Democracy, this is a devastating political path.
No, this is just ignoring the elephant in the room, while it stomps on any progress that was made before.
  #75  
Old 02-11-2019, 11:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
I will have to make one correction there: Make that complaint to be: We do have a problem when 'many on the right decided that a willful ignorant doofus on this issue and in many others would make a great leader.'

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-11-2019 at 11:48 PM.
  #76  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:03 AM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,521
We are talking about political policy and how to build consensus, not who is a poopy head. Trump's anti-global warming populism is a symptom as much as a cause. He pushes it because it's a popular position on the right, and part of the reason is because people on the left have tried to use it to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change but IS highly polarizing.

Can you not see the damage that is doing to your own cause? You are basically telling people that if they support climate change policy they must also leave their own tribe and join you on a whole host of other, unrelated issues.

Or put another way, the intersection of a Venn diagram containing all the people willing to vote for global warming policy AND a host of progressive social and economic policies to go along with it is one hell of a lot smaller than just the circle containing people that can be convinced to vote for climate change mitigation.

Imagine if Republicans had a habit of tying, say, the right to own a gun to anti-abortion policy, and told people that if they vote for one they must vote for the other. Do you think that would be a more effective policy for second amendment rights than if they just left out the part about outlawing abortion?
  #77  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:49 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
We are talking about political policy and how to build consensus, not who is a poopy head. Trump's anti-global warming populism is a symptom as much as a cause. He pushes it because it's a popular position on the right, and part of the reason is because people on the left have tried to use it to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change but IS highly polarizing.

Can you not see the damage that is doing to your own cause? You are basically telling people that if they support climate change policy they must also leave their own tribe and join you on a whole host of other, unrelated issues.
The tribe here is the one that looks at science and not misleading information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Or put another way, the intersection of a Venn diagram containing all the people willing to vote for global warming policy AND a host of progressive social and economic policies to go along with it is one hell of a lot smaller than just the circle containing people that can be convinced to vote for climate change mitigation.
So it was with Prohibition, took awhile, but in the end many did drop a party because it was being nonsensical in the extreme.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Imagine if Republicans had a habit of tying, say, the right to own a gun to anti-abortion policy, and told people that if they vote for one they must vote for the other. Do you think that would be a more effective policy for second amendment rights than if they just left out the part about outlawing abortion?
Imagine?

Last edited by GIGObuster; 02-12-2019 at 12:49 AM.
  #78  
Old 02-12-2019, 02:27 AM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
The tribe here is the one that looks at science and not misleading information.
Again, you seem more interesting in pointing fingers and blaming Republicans than say, getting something done to help curb global warming.

But to the extent that the left is mostly responsible for the anti-nuclear attitudes in the country and the costly regulations and lawsuits attacking the nuclear industry, and given that they are doing it in ignorance, I'd say that one wrong belief may just doom any kind of effective approach to global warming. Because nuclear is critically important, and the left in Europe, Canada and elsewhere are actively working to not just stop new nuclear construction, but to de-commission existing nuclear plants. That will be disastrous for Co2 emissions.

As someone who is listened to by other people on the left, the most effective thing you could do to help curb global warming would be to insist and argue to your own side that nuclear be a major part of the solution, and that unrelated left-wing dream ticket items like UBI and open borders be strictly isolated from climate policy. In fact, if you want to actually gain support rather than score internet points against your enemies, you'll work to make sure that carbon taxes are truly revenue neutral, and that you keep social justice completely out of the climate debate.

Quote:
Imagine?
Unless I missed it, there was nothing in that article about tying abortion policy to 2nd amendment policy. Which makes it a complete irrelevancy.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 02-12-2019 at 02:30 AM.
  #79  
Old 02-12-2019, 03:26 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
This is the kind of meaningless statistic that just pisses me off. The Sahara desert is 9 million square kilometres in area. 1...

And of course, the Sahara is the best-case scenario for sun energy, and it's located far away from anyone who actually needs the poweer, so we obviously aren't going to build power stations in the Sahara.
That will be news to my investment bank, Mr Sam Stone. They are funding the Moroccan developments which with the expanded actual live interconnection to the Spain will indeed be feeding EU grid.

Being critical of this Green New Deal is one thing, being an ideological is another, although it reminds me of your sageness over the Iraq and that wisdom.

the Sahara is not in fact "best case" for the solar in any case. Of course in the investment house i work for, we do not get our analysis from the ideological american right wing sources.


Quote:
The numbers are close because the Sahara is fairly near the equator.
... the Sahara ranges from the eastern sides of the Atlas mountains in the Maghreb, which is the same latiude as the American Carolinas, rarely I have seen them called "fairly near the equator" but if that is your metric then about half of the USA is "fairly near the equator".

The equator runs through in Africa the Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo which for your north american reference is about 2,500 KM from the southern edge of the Sahara (roughly). Fairly close....

In fact the majority of the Sahara is exactly the same latitude range as the Southern USA approximatley like from the North carolinas to the Florida in span, roughly.

the Sahara reference may be silly but that makes no excuse for completely wrong information and assertions.

Quote:
Germany is a good example of what happens when you try to force renewables in a place where they don't make much sense. Germany now has so much solar that on a bright summer day, it can get 100% of its power needs from renewables. And yet on an annual basis, solar only makes up about 6.5% of their energy needs. The reason is because intermittent sources of power need to be backed up with baseload power that can be ramped up when intermittent sources drop offline. So you have to essentially maintain two infrastructures. Not only that, but coal and gas fired energy plants are not as efficient when run at lower duty cycles, which offsets the gains from the renewables.
No


Germany is an example of where a policy incoherency badly thought through can undercut. The German baseload problem is an incoherency from the German overreaction to the Japanese overreaction and the Grunen anti-nuclear jihad to shut the German nuclear plans.

It is also incorrect to flatly assert that the coal and gas are ineffecient on variable cycles - the coal is and the older gas base yes, but it is not at all true to say this in general.

I suppose I can understand the Left in the USA leaning so heavily to strong assertions on the solar when they are facing the negative arguments based on understandings ten years out of date.
  #80  
Old 02-12-2019, 03:32 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
We are talking about political policy and how to build consensus, not who is a poopy head. Trump's anti-global warming populism is a symptom as much as a cause. He pushes it because it's a popular position on the right, and part of the reason is because people on the left have tried to use it to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change but IS highly polarizing.

Can you not see the damage that is doing to your own cause? You are basically telling people that if they support climate change policy they must also leave their own tribe and join you on a whole host of other, unrelated issues.
This is a true analysis, but it seems to me that the highly ideological position in the north america - the USA essentially on their right (not at all the same in the Europe) on Denialism is a major contributor, at least as much as any of the Green hard Left pushing.
  #81  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:02 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Again, you seem more interesting in pointing fingers and blaming Republicans than say, getting something done to help curb global warming.
Now that is really a silly statement that ignores more than a decade of the sorry history of Republican efforts to not do a thing and now to reverse progress. That is really a beam in the Republican eye compared to the more like a mote in Demotratic one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/o...trump-gop.html
Quote:
What kind of party would show such support for a leader who is not only evidently corrupt and seemingly in the pocket of foreign dictators, but also routinely denies facts and tries to criminalize anyone who points them out?

The answer is, the kind of the party that, long before Trump came on the scene, committed itself to denying the facts on climate change and criminalizing the scientists reporting those facts.

The G.O.P. wasn’t always an anti-environment, anti-science party. George H.W. Bush introduced the cap-and-trade program that largely controlled the problem of acid rain. As late as 2008, John McCain called for a similar program to limit emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

But McCain’s party was already well along in the process of becoming what it is today — a party that is not only completely dominated by climate deniers, but is hostile to science in general, that demonizes and tries to destroy scientists who challenge its dogma.

Trump fits right in with this mind-set. In fact, when you review the history of Republican climate denial, it looks a lot like Trumpism. Climate denial, you might say, was the crucible in which the essential elements of Trumpism were formed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
But to the extent that the left is mostly responsible for the anti-nuclear attitudes in the country and the costly regulations and lawsuits attacking the nuclear industry, and given that they are doing it in ignorance, I'd say that one wrong belief may just doom any kind of effective approach to global warming. Because nuclear is critically important, and the left in Europe, Canada and elsewhere are actively working to not just stop new nuclear construction, but to de-commission existing nuclear plants. That will be disastrous for Co2 emissions.

As someone who is listened to by other people on the left, the most effective thing you could do to help curb global warming would be to insist and argue to your own side that nuclear be a major part of the solution, and that unrelated left-wing dream ticket items like UBI and open borders be strictly isolated from climate policy. In fact, if you want to actually gain support rather than score internet points against your enemies, you'll work to make sure that carbon taxes are truly revenue neutral, and that you keep social justice completely out of the climate debate.
And more ignorance about my position. I'm on the record of supporting nuclear power as a part of the solution, but with the knowledge that the solution does involve going over the NIMBY toes of many that in the end will oppose nuclear deployments when they will notice that the solution will involve the many times demonized government. I can also notice that you completely missed that recent resolutions to support new nuclear developments passed recently with democratic support too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Unless I missed it, there was nothing in that article about tying abortion policy to 2nd amendment policy. Which makes it a complete irrelevancy.
Like if the majority of white evangelicals are not in favor of both anti-abortion and firme the NRA and like if they did not help elect the ignorant in chief.
  #82  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:03 AM
Ale Ale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 5,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, that's silly. If the goal is impossible, then we need not waste our time - we should pursue mitigation strategies, or something that is less but has a reasonable chance of success.
We haven't gotten far enough to say how much the GND will cost, so we can't compare the cost to the cost of doing nothing, or pursuing mitigation.
AFAICT you are making the same mistake as the authors of your cite complain about - confusing feasible with possible. I could only read the abstract - if you could cut and paste the parts where they show that we could replace everything with solar panels, that would help the discussion.
Quit trying to change the subject. If nuclear power is relevant to the discussion of climate change, and it is, and if it has some chance of working better than alternatives, and it does, then address it. "How come you don't bring it up when it isn't relevant" is not a counter-argument.
Your imagination isn't relevant. Ms. AOC is on record that she wants the US to eliminate nuclear energy, and this GND is mostly her idea. Now, maybe this is another thing AOC is lying about, or intending to mislead about, or she doesn't know what her bill is supposed to do, but that hardly matters.

If the GND doesn't explicitly say that nuclear power should be our main focus, and that alternative energy is the way to go, then the GND is not worthwhile even as a statement of principle. Maybe AOC thinks we can run the world economy on moonbeams and pixie dust, but we can't. But "the world is coming to an end in twelve years unless we do something, and never mind if it will work or not" is not how to approach a serious problem.

YMMV, but unless you drive an electric car or don't mind walking to work in the dark while the Chinese make things worse anyway, it shouldn't.

Regards,
Shodan
The analogy I like to use regarding climate change and nuclear power is a sinking ship.
There's a hole in the hull, the waves are already lapping the decks and everyone is running around like headless chicken trying to device a way to save themselves other than the bleeping life boats, because reasons.
Worse than that, the lunatics are chopping up the lifeboats as fast as they possibly can.

Of all the stupid things humanity has done through history, this tops the list.
  #83  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:13 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ale View Post
The analogy I like to use regarding climate change and nuclear power is a sinking ship.
There's a hole in the hull, the waves are already lapping the decks and everyone is running around like headless chicken trying to device a way to save themselves other than the bleeping life boats, because reasons.
Worse than that, the lunatics are chopping up the lifeboats as fast as they possibly can.

Of all the stupid things humanity has done through history, this tops the list.
Of course, as I noted many times before, the solution will have to involve a lot of education and government based deployment of next generation nuclear power, like when it was done in France with then new nuclear plants. Unfortunately, funding and making those things a reality is seen as socialism by many of those lunatics.
  #84  
Old 02-12-2019, 06:28 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Oh, please. You realize we only have that many cows because the government subsidised the everliving crap put of corn? There's a reason why America has an obisety problem, and it's the corn industry. Between high fructose corn syrup and corn fed beef, it's no wonder Americans are so fat.

We give big agriculture billions of dollars a year so that they can fatten up our children. Enough is enough, we could pay for half of these programs by stopping these massive subsidies to an industry that's already one of the largest in the nation and doesn't need government support. We can keep subsidizing small business farms, but currently most of the money goes to the agriculture giants.

Without artificially cheap corn (what happened to the free market?) You'd find a lot less cows in America pretty dang quick.
Which is why the green new deal is not going after agricultural subsidies?

No they have attached things that have nothing to do with global warming to the proposal. They can’t help themselves.
  #85  
Old 02-12-2019, 07:07 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,978
One thing I've noticed about all these green power source ideas is they look at production, not usage.

For example here in Kansas City they have this "Power and Light" district. We have this huge indoor stadium. All require MASSIVE amounts of energy for lights and air conditioning. For green energy plans those buildings and projects would have to be shut down during times when solar power is low (like at night). People would have to be required to turn off their HDTV's because they use so much power. Major factories would have to shut down. Amusement parks would have to shut down.

Actually they did some of these back in WW2.

Now our power company has tossed around the idea of charging more for electricity during peak times or charging more for "energy hogs" but nothing much has come of it.

So my point is, it would take a major change in our usage of power for these plans to work.
  #86  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:35 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Of course, as I noted many times before, the solution will have to involve a lot of education and government based deployment of next generation nuclear power, like when it was done in France with then new nuclear plants. Unfortunately, funding and making those things a reality is seen as socialism by many of those lunatics.
Unfortunately, these statements are largely incorrect. It is true that anti-nukes need to be better educated on the science, but it is not the case that the left will support nuclear power if the government takes it over, nor is it true that the right is the main source of opposition to nuclear power.

Unless you would like to produce a cite of the left in support of nuclear power providing it is socialized. Since we are discussing the GND, mention where the distinction is made, or where AOC has come out in support of next-generation nuclear energy, or something like that.

Regards,
Shodan
  #87  
Old 02-12-2019, 08:53 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
... For green energy plans those buildings and projects would have to be shut down during times when solar power is low (like at night). People would have to be required to turn off their HDTV's because they use so much power....
If power is more costly at some times than at other times, isn't it good to charge more when it's costly? And does "electricity would be priced higher at night" translate into "people would be required to turn off their HDTV's"? Did I miss the news? Is that what the new greenies are proposing? Requiring that appliances be turned off?

Built into the cost of cigarettes today is a reserve for future lung-disease lawsuits against the cigarette manufacturer. That's what a carbon tax is for — to have the price of carbon fuels reflect their true costs. Germany has high taxes on power to incentivize efficiency and carbon avoidance. Is this why their electricity is expensive? If so, that high price is a feature, not a bug!

Speaking of carbon tax, what do we mean by "revenue neutral carbon tax"? Does that mean that the revenue cannot be used to reduce the deficit, or to repair infrastructure, but must be used on further tax cuts for the wealthy? In my proposal, revenue from the carbon tax would accrue to the SocSec Trust Fund and there would be corresponding reductions in payroll taxes. Does my proposal qualify as a "revenue neutral carbon tax"?
__________________
Some or all of the above statements may be intended as sarcastic.
.
andros had more faith in an American jury than I had; and he was right. I'm happy to lose a bet and hope this trend continues.
  #88  
Old 02-12-2019, 10:26 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
If power is more costly at some times than at other times, isn't it good to charge more when it's costly? And does "electricity would be priced higher at night" translate into "people would be required to turn off their HDTV's"? Did I miss the news? Is that what the new greenies are proposing? Requiring that appliances be turned off?

Built into the cost of cigarettes today is a reserve for future lung-disease lawsuits against the cigarette manufacturer. That's what a carbon tax is for — to have the price of carbon fuels reflect their true costs. Germany has high taxes on power to incentivize efficiency and carbon avoidance. Is this why their electricity is expensive? If so, that high price is a feature, not a bug!

Speaking of carbon tax, what do we mean by "revenue neutral carbon tax"? Does that mean that the revenue cannot be used to reduce the deficit, or to repair infrastructure, but must be used on further tax cuts for the wealthy? In my proposal, revenue from the carbon tax would accrue to the SocSec Trust Fund and there would be corresponding reductions in payroll taxes. Does my proposal qualify as a "revenue neutral carbon tax"?
Cigarettes cost more because of lung damage. Money will flow to those damaged.

Makes sense.

Carbon costs more because of climate damage. Money will flow to....social security.

Doesn’t make sense. Carbon tax is just another taxation scheme to benefit the politically connected.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 02-12-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #89  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:36 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
For example here in Kansas City they have this "Power and Light" district. We have this huge indoor stadium. All require MASSIVE amounts of energy for lights and air conditioning. For green energy plans those buildings and projects would have to be shut down during times when solar power is low (like at night).
Eh what?

No - not at all this is a weird distortion (even of the not very clear or very thought through GND proposal).

The imagined resolution on the part of the 100 percent renewable is not such things have to shut in nighttime for the sake of God, it's that the storage technologies and other sources non intermittant will bridge over production falls.

The idea that such would should be shut in these ideas is simply complete nonsense

Quote:
Now our power company has tossed around the idea of charging more for electricity during peak times or charging more for "energy hogs" but nothing much has come of it.
What kind of backwards ignorant power company does not charge for peak usage times in this modern age???!!!

This is simply the rational demand based economic pricing....

Quote:
So my point is, it would take a major change in our usage of power for these plans to work.
It is more the point that it seems more likely you have not a very good understanding of the power pricing economics and policy even as it is now applied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Cigarettes cost more because of lung damage. Money will flow to those damaged.

Makes sense.

Carbon costs more because of climate damage. Money will flow to....social security.

Doesn’t make sense. Carbon tax is just another taxation scheme to benefit the politically connected.
Although it is quite useles to correct this, for the factual record, the carbon tax concept is in fact a concept developed first by market economists for achieving a pricing in of the costs of the carbon emissions that are not captured by direct pricing - the well studied Externalities issue. It was not, for the factual clarification, an idea of the greeny Left, who in fact have distrusted the market mechanism.

What direction or substitution of the revenues it might generate is a separate question from its structure.
  #90  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:16 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Hello people of 1912. Did the naysayers sound like this to you?
If the naysayers of 1912 had been listened to when they told people that government trying to remake societies and economies through central planning would end in disaster, tens of millions of deaths could have been prevented and the lives of billions of people would have been better.
  #91  
Old 02-12-2019, 12:53 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
If the naysayers of 1912 had been listened to when they told people that government trying to remake societies and economies through central planning would end in disaster, tens of millions of deaths could have been prevented and the lives of billions of people would have been better.
Rather, I think if someone had clued in the Czar that perhaps trying to keep the boot on the neck of the people and maintain complete authoritarian control would result in him and his entire house being shot in a dank basement, THAT might have saved 10's of millions of lives. WWI though still would have happened, and it wasn't become of the various socialist movements in Europe that it did (assuming that's what you were referring too).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #92  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:02 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,447
I've been thinking about this green new deal a bit and I think something my wife said last night has struck a cord. Basically, we were talking about it and I was saying how unrealistic it is, and her paraphrased response was 'I don't really care...it's blowing up the Republicans and exploding their heads left and right. It's worth it for that alone!'. And from that perspective, I think this is the equivalent of a Trumpian move by the left/progressives. It doesn't matter that it's unrealistic or even stupid. It's making the base all fired up and, even better, it's blowing up the other side. Plus, maybe like with Star Trek, it will actually get some folks to think...well, how COULD you do that? Maybe we could try this...or that...or something else...?

In that perspective, I say...well done! And the bonus is, always, it's blowing up a lot of my conservative family and friends and making their heads explode too.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #93  
Old 02-12-2019, 01:08 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I've been thinking about this green new deal a bit and I think something my wife said last night has struck a cord. Basically, we were talking about it and I was saying how unrealistic it is, and her paraphrased response was 'I don't really care...it's blowing up the Republicans and exploding their heads left and right. It's worth it for that alone!'. And from that perspective, I think this is the equivalent of a Trumpian move by the left/progressives. It doesn't matter that it's unrealistic or even stupid. It's making the base all fired up and, even better, it's blowing up the other side. Plus, maybe like with Star Trek, it will actually get some folks to think...well, how COULD you do that? Maybe we could try this...or that...or something else...?

In that perspective, I say...well done! And the bonus is, always, it's blowing up a lot of my conservative family and friends and making their heads explode too.
And now we are in agreement.
  #94  
Old 02-12-2019, 04:50 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I've been thinking about this green new deal a bit and I think something my wife said last night has struck a cord. Basically, we were talking about it and I was saying how unrealistic it is, and her paraphrased response was 'I don't really care...it's blowing up the Republicans and exploding their heads left and right. It's worth it for that alone!'. And from that perspective, I think this is the equivalent of a Trumpian move by the left/progressives. It doesn't matter that it's unrealistic or even stupid. It's making the base all fired up and, even better, it's blowing up the other side. Plus, maybe like with Star Trek, it will actually get some folks to think...well, how COULD you do that? Maybe we could try this...or that...or something else...?

In that perspective, I say...well done! And the bonus is, always, it's blowing up a lot of my conservative family and friends and making their heads explode too.
By George, I think he's got it.
  #95  
Old 02-12-2019, 11:37 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Unfortunately, these statements are largely incorrect. It is true that anti-nukes need to be better educated on the science, but it is not the case that the left will support nuclear power if the government takes it over, nor is it true that the right is the main source of opposition to nuclear power.
Ok then that leads to the realization that when one sees 65% or so of the population opposed to a new nuclear plant or nuclear dump that all those people are all liberals? Nope, a good chunk of that are conservatives. The point was that since the left's numbers are usually around 30%, we have a lot of moderates and conservatives that would had made a difference many times in the recent past. But that is not what I saw. Mostly lukewarm support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Unless you would like to produce a cite of the left in support of nuclear power providing it is socialized. Since we are discussing the GND, mention where the distinction is made, or where AOC has come out in support of next-generation nuclear energy, or something like that.
I'm on the record in favor of nuclear energy, it is easy to just jump to the early fact sheets or releases that were dismissed, but the more recent versions of the GND do not dismiss nuclear power.

https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/why-...nuclear-power/

Quote:
This antinuclear stance might have been toned down to help get people who support nuclear into the coalition. Booker and Warren, for instance, have voted to fund research on advanced nuclear power.
Quote:
Conservatives have long feared that climate action was just a Trojan Horse for a bigger government with more social-welfare programs. Now, after voting for years to kill market-based climate policies, they’re getting a taste of just what they had feared.
That bold by me part is a bit that should never be forgotten, we arrived to the need of plans like the GND because of the idiocy and nonsense of the recent and current Republican "leadership".
  #96  
Old 02-13-2019, 03:17 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,433
There are recently developed nuclear reactor designs that are more efficient than, and safer than, earlier reactors. Do they also help address the problems of nuclear waste? Perhaps delaying investment in reactors until these new designs were available will appear, in hindsight, to be smart.

We have separate "candidates' lanes" for gays, Hispanics, blacks, ultra-liberals, etc. I hope some D candidate stands up and jumps into the empty-looking "rational thinkers' lane", starting with a positive outlook on nuclear power. We don't let anti-vaxxers dominate public policy of vaccines; why let fringey fools veto nuclear power? (And, since the GOP's entire platform is to appeal to stupidity, it would be amusing to watch them pivot to anti-nuke as soon as the D's go pro-nuke.)

On the problem of nuclear waste, aren't countries like France and Finland in the business of disposing of waste for money? Why isn't the U.S. using their services? Perhaps if the money involved were big enough, Nevada would want to underbid them.
  #97  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:41 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,433
I see on the news that McConnell wants the Senate to vote on "Green New Deal":
Quote:
Originally Posted by www.npr.org

McConnell's goal is not to help the bill pass. Putting it to a vote will force Democrats in the Senate to take a stand on the controversial framework.

[Bill-sponsoring Senator] Markey's office responded with a statement chastising McConnell for threatening to call a vote on the resolution "without committee hearings, expert testimony, or a true national debate."

"They have offered no plan to address this economic and national security threat and want to sabotage any effort that makes Big Oil and corporate polluters pay," Markey said. [my emphasis]
Will the D's be able to insist on hearings, amendments, or otherwise filibuster?

I find this sort of behavior by McConnell reprehensible. How do those on the "other side of the aisle" feel about it? "As clever as clever can be"?
  #98  
Old 02-13-2019, 08:45 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
I'm on the record in favor of nuclear energy, it is easy to just jump to the early fact sheets or releases that were dismissed, but the more recent versions of the GND do not dismiss nuclear power.

https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/why-...nuclear-power/
Sorry, not good enough. AOC and Bernie Sanders were explicit that they wanted to end nuclear power. This stuff about "maybe they don't mean it" is BS. If they were lying then, I don't believe them now. If they weren't lying then, their GND is worthless and counter-productive.

Any plan that does not explicitly endorse nuclear power as a, or the, major source of energy is a non-starter.

Solar and wind and geothermal will not scale up to meet the energy needs of the world in the 21st century. Anyone who says or implies they will has no more relevance to the discussion than a AGW denialist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
I find this sort of behavior by McConnell reprehensible. How do those on the "other side of the aisle" feel about it?
The Democrats submit a bill they can't defend, containing a bunch of stuff that is embarrassingly stupid, and wants everyone to support it. McConnell calls their bluff to see who is going to be dumb enough to support it.

Boo hoo.

Regards,
Shodan
  #99  
Old 02-13-2019, 09:40 AM
postpic200 postpic200 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I can't get a straight answer online. Either there are no figures or the figures are all over the place.
While we don't have a solid proposes for most of what is in the GND we do know they want high speed rail so say 82 million a mile. New York to LA 3593 miles so 3,593 means a cost of about 294,626,000,000 for ONE rail line, now add in a few going north south, and maybe two more going east west, plus feeder lines, so how many miles of high speed rails can we afford.
  #100  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:23 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Sorry, not good enough. AOC and Bernie Sanders were explicit that they wanted to end nuclear power. This stuff about "maybe they don't mean it" is BS. If they were lying then, I don't believe them now. If they weren't lying then, their GND is worthless and counter-productive.

Any plan that does not explicitly endorse nuclear power as a, or the, major source of energy is a non-starter.
While I agree that nukes need to be a large part of the solution, it is better to actually work with and get some compromise, than to point to a representative as taking the lead of the party.

If they were persuaded to change their position, then that is a good thing. The stance that you are taking punishes anyone for ever changing their mind on things. The idea that any changes in stance must be lies is one of the reasons why people get dug in on positions.

Your rhetoric on this is the opposite of helpful.
Quote:
Solar and wind and geothermal will not scale up to meet the energy needs of the world in the 21st century. Anyone who says or implies they will has no more relevance to the discussion than a AGW denialist.

The Democrats submit a bill they can't defend, containing a bunch of stuff that is embarrassingly stupid, and wants everyone to support it. McConnell calls their bluff to see who is going to be dumb enough to support it.
People submit bills all the time that still need to go through committees, testimony, and debate before they are taken to the floor. Very few bills are unchanged from the time they are proposed to the time they are voted on.

Would you say that the vast majority of bills that are changed between proposal and voting are things that the party that proposed it cannot defend, is embarrassingly stupid, but demands everyone's support?

Your post indicates that you either don't know anything about how a bill normally goes about becoming a bill, or that you do, but have singled this one out to be treated differently.
Quote:
Boo hoo.
I'm sorry that it has upset you that much that you are crying.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017