Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-13-2019, 09:38 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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.
First they have to make it clear that they have changed their mind.

The GND needs to explicitly endorse nuclear energy, and make it clear that solar and wind and geothermal will not scale up to meet the world's energy needs in the 21st century. If it doesn't do that, it isn't worth anything. If Bernie and AOC think it can be scaled up, in ten years, to meet 100% of the energy needs of the US, then they haven't changed their position.
Quote:
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.
OK, she and Bernie didn't lie (then). They just changed their position. Let's hear them say so.
Quote:
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?
This one is.

They put forth a resolution to see who will support it in principle. McConnell calls for a floor vote to see who will support it in principle.

"NO FAIR!!!!"



Regards,
Shodan
  #102  
Old 02-13-2019, 09:40 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
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.
That 82 million figure is accounting for much of it being in mountainous terrain. That was cited for a specific project, so extrapolating that cost to other areas may not be accurate, if those other areas do not include going through mountains.

I may point out that interstates cost 7 to 11 million a mile, assuming you are not talking about mountainous terrain.
  #103  
Old 02-13-2019, 11:41 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by postpic200 View Post
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.
That seems crazily optimistic for the cost. The Silver Line in the DC metro completed an extension several years ago at a cost of 300 million per mile. The second avenue subway project in NYC is projected to cost 2.5 billion per mile. The 82 million per mile in California comes from a time when they were projecting the total cost at only 33 billion instead of the 90 billion dollar total cost of the last estimate. That would mean a 240 million per mile cost.
Some might say that the California cost is inflated because of the mountains but the land cost in the east coast would likely be much higher because the population density in the east coast is much higher. High speed rail would need to purchase land in the most expensive part of the country or go underground in an area where tunnel diggers make over $100 per hour. I think a better estimate of the NYC to LA line would be at least a trillion dollars.
  #104  
Old 02-13-2019, 11:54 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,311
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.
In the conservative circles I am familiar with it is less making people's heads explode and more making people bust a gut. AOC is the perfect spokesperson because she is media savvy, popular, and ignorant as a post about politics and policy. The GND is a gift to our side during a time where good news has been few and far between. If every american could read it and understand how much it is going to cost and how much taxes would have to be raised to pay for it the Democrat party wouldn't win an election for 20 years.
  #105  
Old 02-13-2019, 12:46 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,640
Better would be to first focus only on the heavily populated Northeast for high speed rail. A big problem there is that Amtrak doesn't control the tracks it uses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
In the conservative circles I am familiar with it is less making people's heads explode and more making people bust a gut. AOC is the perfect spokesperson because she is media savvy, popular, and ignorant as a post about politics and policy. The GND is a gift to our side during a time where good news has been few and far between. If every american could read it and understand how much it is going to cost and how much taxes would have to be raised to pay for it the Democrat party wouldn't win an election for 20 years.
So in your circles, solutions are not a priority; it's all about comedy. Got it.

Does your circle find Senator James Inhofe amusing? He's been in Congress for over 30 years and knows less about climate change than a 5th-grader.

How about Congressman Mo Brooks? The list goes on and on. Far from laughter, I think your circles are breathing a sigh of relief that there may be one young D who's almost as ignorant as a majority of R's. Aren't you afraid though, that in a few years she'll be a bit smarter and the R's will be even more ignorant than they already are?
  #106  
Old 02-13-2019, 12:48 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
That seems crazily optimistic for the cost. The Silver Line in the DC metro completed an extension several years ago at a cost of 300 million per mile. The second avenue subway project in NYC is projected to cost 2.5 billion per mile. The 82 million per mile in California comes from a time when they were projecting the total cost at only 33 billion instead of the 90 billion dollar total cost of the last estimate. That would mean a 240 million per mile cost.
You are comparing underground subways to overground rail lines. And you are comparing these through very, very dense urban areas to the comparatively wide open expanses between cities in California.

The most recent estimate for this project that I see claims 82 per mile, do you have a more recent cite?
Quote:
Some might say that the California cost is inflated because of the mountains but the land cost in the east coast would likely be much higher because the population density in the east coast is much higher. High speed rail would need to purchase land in the most expensive part of the country or go underground in an area where tunnel diggers make over $100 per hour. I think a better estimate of the NYC to LA line would be at least a trillion dollars.
Most of that span is across very open and flat areas, can even co-locate right next to existing rail lines for easier infrastructure for much of the way.
  #107  
Old 02-13-2019, 12:51 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,849
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.
I'm not sure what it would cost. If France is any indication, rebuilding DC after being burnt to the ground due to doubling or tripling fuel costs would have to be figured in there somewhere though.

People will not tolerate those kind of fuel price increases over short periods. They just won't.

The GND is not happening. Not in it's current form.
  #108  
Old 02-13-2019, 12:52 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
This stuff about "maybe they don't mean it" is BS.
QFT.

This "argument" keeps appearing on this message board. First about the minimum wage--paraphrasing, if people talk about making only the minimum wage, they really mean making more than the minimum wage. Now it's some politicians' positions regarding nuclear power. They didn't really mean it. BS, indeed.
  #109  
Old 02-13-2019, 01:06 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,311
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.
In the conservative circles I am familiar with it is less making people's heads explode and more making people bust a gut. AOC is the perfect spokesperson because she is media savvy, popular, and ignorant as a post about politics and policy. The GND is a gift to our side during a time where good news has been few and far between. If every american could read it and understand how much it is going to cost and how much taxes would have to be raised to pay for it the Democrat party wouldn't win an election for 20 years.
  #110  
Old 02-13-2019, 01:18 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Better would be to first focus only on the heavily populated Northeast for high speed rail. A big problem there is that Amtrak doesn't control the tracks it uses.



So in your circles, solutions are not a priority; it's all about comedy. Got it.

Does your circle find Senator James Inhofe amusing? He's been in Congress for over 30 years and knows less about climate change than a 5th-grader.

How about Congressman Mo Brooks? The list goes on and on. Far from laughter, I think your circles are breathing a sigh of relief that there may be one young D who's almost as ignorant as a majority of R's. Aren't you afraid though, that in a few years she'll be a bit smarter and the R's will be even more ignorant than they already are?
Amtrak is low speed rail so new railbeds would be needed. Low speed rail is too curvy to be safe for the speeds of high speed rail. This need to buy thousands of miles of railbed in the heaviest populated part of the country would be insanely expensive.

Inhofe and Brooks are either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant about global warming because it is in their political best interests to be. Neither would be so ignorant as to propose a solution to the problem they claim to be the most important in the world that not only has no chance of passing but makes the issue harder to solve because it poisons the well and makes convincing skeptics harder.

I don't agree with Pelosi on just about anything but at least she is politically savvy enough to drop the GND like a hot rock.
  #111  
Old 02-13-2019, 01:24 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Better would be to first focus only on the heavily populated Northeast for high speed rail. A big problem there is that Amtrak doesn't control the tracks it uses.



So in your circles, solutions are not a priority; it's all about comedy. Got it.

Does your circle find Senator James Inhofe amusing? He's been in Congress for over 30 years and knows less about climate change than a 5th-grader.

How about Congressman Mo Brooks? The list goes on and on. Far from laughter, I think your circles are breathing a sigh of relief that there may be one young D who's almost as ignorant as a majority of R's. Aren't you afraid though, that in a few years she'll be a bit smarter and the R's will be even more ignorant than they already are?
Well maybe Gizmodo/Cnn/Slate/Salon/Huffpo/Young Turks should be giving Inhofe as much screen time as they give AOC? But that would run into..."How dare you give that ignoramus a platform!!!"
  #112  
Old 02-13-2019, 01:48 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You are comparing underground subways to overground rail lines. And you are comparing these through very, very dense urban areas to the comparatively wide open expanses between cities in California.

The most recent estimate for this project that I see claims 82 per mile, do you have a more recent cite?


Most of that span is across very open and flat areas, can even co-locate right next to existing rail lines for easier infrastructure for much of the way.
The silver line is not underground for the new tracks they laid and they put it either in the median of an existing highway or elevated it above crowded places.

The latest cost estimate for the Bakersfield to Merced high speed rail is 89 million per mile. That is the best case scenario for costs. That is a flat route that goes through mostly empty land. The problem with new rail is that it can either be useful or easy to build. NYC to LA would be useful but it would pass through three mountain ranges, and New Jersey the most densely populated state.
In 2012 Amtrak estimated that building high speed rail from DC to Boston would cost 345 million per mile. That plan was dropped because residents in the areas that the train would go through objected.
  #113  
Old 02-13-2019, 01:59 PM
MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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.
Your post would seem to indicate you don't know the difference between a bill and a simple resolution.
  #114  
Old 02-13-2019, 03:23 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,626
Do those of you advocating for high speed rail have any idea how 'green' it atually is? Why do you want it? Given the crazy high expense of the things and their inflexibility, just what is so appealing?

Amtrak, for example, uses about 2700 BTU of energy per passenger mile. A Toyota Prius uses about 1700 BTU per passenger mile. Jet aircraft travel is about 3300, so not even that much more than Amtrak. And Amtrak is a pretty busy train. Put a train out in the midwest somewhere where it's getting 50% passenger loads, and it will be a disaster for the environment. Make it go 200 MPH, and it will cost even more in energy.

Furthermore, cars are still gaining in energy efficiency every year, and it looks to me like electric vehicles are about ready for prime time and will start making big sales increases over the next decade.

It's entirely possible that in the 20-30 years it would take to build a high speed rail link across the country, cars will completely surpass trains in efficiency. Add in self-driving, 'car trains' and other ways to make car transport even more efficient, and it could be that in 20 years passenger trains will be the bad guys that need to be destroyed to save the planet.

Then there's the lesson of California, which is that new rail lines are a cornucopia of graft, as land has to be purchased or taken, cities rise and fall based on whether the train stops there or not, etc. California's high speed rail project was a complete boondoggle, and the end result after 11 years and billions of dollars spent is that the train will now only run between Merced and Bakersfield. And the ticket prices will be so high that the train will need to be subsidized or risk not having anyone ride it, since you can fly from San Fransisco to LA for $149. No one is going to pay $150 for a train ticket from Merced to Bakersfield. Wow, what a huge gain for the state. And if it had continued, the project was recently estimated to not be finished until 2033, fully 25 years after it was approved, and about TWICE the time originally estimated. And most experts thought it would never be done in that time frame, either.

And just one little part of the Green New Deal was to crisscross the country with so many high speed rail lines that domestic air travel could be eliminated. And to do it in ten years, while also refurbishing every building in America and completely rebuilding the energy infrastructure with wind and solar. The high speed rail project alone would cost trillions of dollars, disrupt commerce everywhere, require 20 hour trips across the country, and in the end might save you 10% in energy over the current auto fleet (and likely be actually be less energy efficient than the auto fleet by the time it's finished).

Is there anyone in the Democratic party who can do math? Because clearly AOC with her economics degree cannot.
  #115  
Old 02-13-2019, 03:54 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
... Is there anyone in the Democratic party who can do math? Because clearly AOC with her economics degree cannot.
AOC has been a Representative for one month. Senator James Inhofe has served in Congress for over 30 years and served as Chairman (yes, Chairman with a C) of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works — yet he doesn't know as much about climate change as a 5th-grader. Some GOP Congressmen are even stupider than him. Can you point to the SDMB posts you've made complaining about Senator Inhofe?
  #116  
Old 02-13-2019, 03:57 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
AOC has been a Representative for one month. Senator James Inhofe has served in Congress for over 30 years and served as Chairman (yes, Chairman with a C) of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works — yet he doesn't know as much about climate change as a 5th-grader. Some GOP Congressmen are even stupider than him. Can you point to the SDMB posts you've made complaining about Senator Inhofe?
Then, there is the president...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #117  
Old 02-13-2019, 04:14 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
AOC has been a Representative for one month. Senator James Inhofe has served in Congress for over 30 years and served as Chairman (yes, Chairman with a C) of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works — yet he doesn't know as much about climate change as a 5th-grader. Some GOP Congressmen are even stupider than him. Can you point to the SDMB posts you've made complaining about Senator Inhofe?
Why is it that every post I make somehow turns into an attack on me instead of my argument? If I had never said a bad word about Inhofe, would that make anything I said in my last post incorrect?

This is one of the reasons you don't as many responses from me as you'd like - I know you aren't arguing in good faith, but continually looking for 'gotcha' moments you can use to attack me personally. Stop with the ad-hominem bullshit and debate the actual issues.

For the record, James Inhofe is a moron. The stuff he says about climate change is ignorant prattle. And Trump is no better. But the Republicans have yet to put out something as jaw-droppingly stupid as the Green New Deal, and yet Democrats rushed to sign onto it, including most or all of the current crew running for President. Now, I'm guessing that a bunch of them just hopped on the bandwagon without bothering to read what's in it, but that doesn't absolve AOC or Sen Markey who co-sponsored it.

The other difference is that AOC and her crew are actually proposing legislation on issues they clearly have no freaking clue about. There are lots of stupid people in Congress, but most of them know when to lay low when they don't have facts or talking points. When Inhofe comes forward with a serious proposal to build an Ark or to build a bridge to Hawaii or something else as stupid as the Green New Deal, I'll be happily mocking him.
  #118  
Old 02-13-2019, 04:49 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,640
I actually do agree with you to some extent, Sam ! I'm no expert on transportation, but massive investment in rail lines through areas of low population seems likely to be a poor idea. I do hope there will be some mechanism for perfecting these progressive plans before serious legislation is proposed. (This is why McConnells' move to force an immediate vote without amendments or hearings is just despicable politics.)

But give some credit to the young progressive people who have suddenly found their voice! Those who've been paying attention understand that the other Party is now completely dominated by criminals, liars and kleptocrats. The political battles in the U.S.A. are now often literally between Good and Evil. When people say "I also oppose Evil; let me help you improve your ideas for Good," we listen and applaud. However when we sense that the goal is just to find something to deprecate, in a hope to improve the electoral chances of the criminals, liars, hypocrites and kleptocrats, we aren't so happy.

The dollar figures bandied about for a progressive program may seem large. But let us not forget that Cheney and the Warmongers wasted Two Trillion dollars on their Iraqi adventure — an adventure so stupid that the money would have been better spent breaking two trillion dollars worth of windows and then repairing them!

Now, when debt was already soaring while the economy was booming, the kleptocrats execute a massive tax cut for the rich. Deficits of One Trillion dollars annually or more are projected for the foreseeable future. This massive debt severely impacts the future of today's youth (and, not by coincidence, makes it all the more difficult for expensive progressive programs to work).

Trillion dollar deficits! With a T. I know you're on record, Sam, as stating that a trillion dollars is "chump change", a "rounding error'" but I daresay that's a minority view.

Trillions of dollars wasted or stolen by criminals like Trump and the despicable Party which supports him. But AOC is where you direct your attention? Where you assign blame?

Which side are you on?
  #119  
Old 02-13-2019, 06:07 PM
MemoryLeak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
(This is why McConnells' move to force an immediate vote without amendments or hearings is just despicable politics.)
You also seem not to understand that this is a simple resolution - not a bill.

Of course, it's not despicable politics to put forth a dramatic resolution, the main purpose of which seems to be to garner media attention and allow for an orgy of virtue signaling.
  #120  
Old 02-13-2019, 07:34 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,970
Do you -- all of you -- understand that arguing the cost of specific elements of a utopian set of goals makes as much sense as arguing about the cost of implementing the Futurist Manifesto?

Yes, the GND in its entirety is unrealistic. So was the Civil Rights movement in 1954. It's been 60 years and that's still going on. I don't know how much it cost, but I think the price was worth the benefits. BTW, the same people who are screaming about the GND are the people who screamed about civil rights. They were wrong then and you are wrong now.

I admit that conservatives won out against civil rights a lot of the time. You're probably very proud of that. But my guess is that we've learned some lessons from that and we'll make it much harder for you this time.
  #121  
Old 02-13-2019, 09:15 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Do you -- all of you -- understand that arguing the cost of specific elements of a utopian set of goals makes as much sense as arguing about the cost of implementing the Futurist Manifesto?

Yes, the GND in its entirety is unrealistic. So was the Civil Rights movement in 1954. It's been 60 years and that's still going on. I don't know how much it cost, but I think the price was worth the benefits. BTW, the same people who are screaming about the GND are the people who screamed about civil rights. They were wrong then and you are wrong now.

I admit that conservatives won out against civil rights a lot of the time. You're probably very proud of that. But my guess is that we've learned some lessons from that and we'll make it much harder for you this time.
Wow...that's a huge strawman (worse really), equating those opposed to this pretty ridiculous (by your own admission) troll of the Republicans with opposing civil rights. You are trying to equate one to the other...sort of like those who snipe at vegans by pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian. It's ridiculous, regardless. I'm hoping that, like a lot of my posts, you were under the influence when you posted this...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #122  
Old 02-13-2019, 10:02 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Wow...that's a huge strawman (worse really), equating those opposed to this pretty ridiculous (by your own admission) troll of the Republicans with opposing civil rights. You are trying to equate one to the other...sort of like those who snipe at vegans by pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian. It's ridiculous, regardless. I'm hoping that, like a lot of my posts, you were under the influence when you posted this...
I don't get high from drugs. I get high by exposing conservatives for what they are.
  #123  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:05 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,570
So, goals we can't achieve, at a cost we can't determine. And we have to sign on, or we are against civil rights or something. Do you recognize, at all, how that sounds to someone other than a True Believer?

Regards,
Shodan
  #124  
Old 02-14-2019, 09:44 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,640
I just read Gail Collins' latest column in the N.Y. Times. It contains an amazing example of Republican hyperbole.
Quote:
The [green new deal] memo — which seemed to have been accidentally released — was taken down, but Republicans demanded that it be discussed in endless detail. Senator Cotton claimed that the media, by failing to continue obsessing over it, was “complicit in the Stalin-like or 1984 technique of disappearing it, sending it down the memory hole.” (Truly, there is almost nothing he doesn’t like that won’t get compared to Stalin or Nazism. At the very beginning of his maiden Senate speech, Cotton claimed limits in defense spending reminded him of how “Adolf Hitler had taken power in Germany.”)
I report. You deride.
  #125  
Old 02-14-2019, 10:26 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So, goals we can't achieve, at a cost we can't determine. And we have to sign on, or we are against civil rights or something. Do you recognize, at all, how that sounds to someone other than a True Believer?
I have no sympathy for conservatives at all. You've brought it on yourselves by being against every movement for social progress in the country's history.

Now here's a mere feel-good resolution - not a law, or even a proposed bill - that finally steps up and says that we can tackle the current problems and looming crisis. Something whose possible solutions and ameliorations, may I remind you, conservatives have been actively retarding and voting down for decades. And your response is to basically call anyone in favor of making a better future an enemy of the country.

Nope. Not this time. This time we're going to switch it around and call conservatives the enemy of the country, as they are and have been since forever.

You don't like being reminded you're the same people who tried to crush civil rights? Well, maybe that will help you to think straight about what you're opposing now, which is as big and important and overdue as civil rights was.
  #126  
Old 02-14-2019, 01:47 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I have no sympathy for conservatives at all. You've brought it on yourselves by being against every movement for social progress in the country's history.

Now here's a mere feel-good resolution - not a law, or even a proposed bill - that finally steps up and says that we can tackle the current problems and looming crisis. Something whose possible solutions and ameliorations, may I remind you, conservatives have been actively retarding and voting down for decades. And your response is to basically call anyone in favor of making a better future an enemy of the country.

Nope. Not this time. This time we're going to switch it around and call conservatives the enemy of the country, as they are and have been since forever.

You don't like being reminded you're the same people who tried to crush civil rights? Well, maybe that will help you to think straight about what you're opposing now, which is as big and important and overdue as civil rights was.
A feel good resolution that presents impossible solutions to what is pretended to be the most important issue of our time? Wouldn't it be better to offer solutions that could actually work, instead of poisoning the well by shoe horning a socialist agenda into it?

I like being reminded of it because it shows that I am powerful enough to affect things even before I was born.
  #127  
Old 02-14-2019, 02:05 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I just read Gail Collins' latest column in the N.Y. Times. It contains an amazing example of Republican hyperbole.


I report. You deride.
If by 'accidentally released' you mean intentionally sent from AOC's own mail account to multiple news sources.

At first she tried to claim it was a nefarious Republican hack that changed the text. When the evidence showed that wasn't the case, she fell back on, 'it was an old draft'. Now it's just an 'accident'.

In fact, what likely happened is that she sent out exactly what she intended to, and it only became an 'accident' after she was blindsided by the response to it.

I find it hard to trust someone to coordinate the economy when they can't even coordinate a campaign mailer.
  #128  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:18 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I have no sympathy for conservatives at all.
The point is, nobody cares about your sympathy or lack of it. This isn't about conservatives at all - it is about the garbage AOC and her compatriots think is a valid response to AGW.
Quote:
Now here's a mere feel-good resolution - not a law, or even a proposed bill - that finally steps up and says that we can tackle the current problems and looming crisis. Something whose possible solutions and ameliorations, may I remind you, conservatives have been actively retarding and voting down for decades.
The reason we have retarding nonsense like solar and wind as the be-all and end-all of energy policy, and being anti-nuke, is because it is stupid and unworkable.
Quote:
And your response is to basically call anyone in favor of making a better future an enemy of the country.

Nope. Not this time. This time we're going to switch it around and call conservatives the enemy of the country, as they are and have been since forever.
So, you can't defend this nonsense, so you are just going to name-call. That's not transparent at all - no, not at all.
Quote:
You don't like being reminded you're the same people who tried to crush civil rights?
Feel free to use whatever rhetorical tricks you like. Please don't be offended if the response is giggling rather than defensive shock and awe.
Quote:
Well, maybe that will help you to think straight about what you're opposing now, which is as big and important and overdue as civil rights was.
This is so big and important that you can't defend it, and get huffy when people ask about the price tag, and point out that it is an unworkable fantasy list.

Good luck with that.

Regards,
Shodan
  #129  
Old 02-14-2019, 03:40 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The point is, nobody cares about your sympathy or lack of it. This isn't about conservatives at all - it is about the garbage AOC and her compatriots think is a valid response to AGW. The reason we have retarding nonsense like solar and wind as the be-all and end-all of energy policy, and being anti-nuke, is because it is stupid and unworkable.
So, you can't defend this nonsense, so you are just going to name-call. That's not transparent at all - no, not at all.
Feel free to use whatever rhetorical tricks you like. Please don't be offended if the response is giggling rather than defensive shock and awe.
This is so big and important that you can't defend it, and get huffy when people ask about the price tag, and point out that it is an unworkable fantasy list.

Good luck with that.
We're going to build the wall and Mexico will pay for it! [following by thousands of people screaming approval]

I think conservatives lost all credibility to scorn feel-good tactics many years ago.

I, along with many others, have been saying for years that we should adopt some of these tactics. People do want to feel good. They want to hear that the future will be better. And they don't really care about the fine details.

Well, now it's happening. You don't care about views on conservatives? So what? They're not aimed at you but to remind progressives that conservatives have written themselves out of the conversation. My aim in post #120 was not to blast conservative posters but to remind the progressive posters that arguing with conservatives is a lost cause. The GND resolution is particularly silly to defend in terms of dollars and cents because the actual projects that will be building blocks will be tiny and limited in the beginning. We'll find out what works and what doesn't and adjust appropriately. All that matters is doing something rather than letting conservatives drag us backward to doom.

Conservatives have spent decades refusing to discuss the future. They realized they got more votes by spreading fear about the present. And they know the demographic clock is ticking, ultimately dooming them to minority status, so they don't want to think about the future in the first place.

And most of all, conservatives don't want to be confronted with the realization that progressives have finally grown a spine and are standing up and willing to do whatever it takes to move the country to a saner future.

The only thing people should be hearing from progressives for the next two years is "we have a plan for a better future" and "jobs, jobs, jobs." Here's a slogan for you: "Tax the wealthy: Life will be better and the conservatives will pay for it!"
  #130  
Old 02-14-2019, 04:19 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I don't get high from drugs. I get high by exposing conservatives for what they are.
I guess you don't get high then, as this was a major fail IMHO. I seriously don't know what you were thinking. I was going to go with a more heated response, but you are one of the posters I usually read as thoughtful and insightful, so I'm going to chalk this up to an anomaly and move on. I hope you do as well and you don't try in the future to use that sort of ridiculous strawman association to make your non-point. There are so many GOOD points, like the one you made earlier you could use that you don't need to resort to that sort of horseshit. YMMV of course.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #131  
Old 02-14-2019, 08:37 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I guess you don't get high then, as this was a major fail IMHO. I seriously don't know what you were thinking. I was going to go with a more heated response, but you are one of the posters I usually read as thoughtful and insightful, so I'm going to chalk this up to an anomaly and move on. I hope you do as well and you don't try in the future to use that sort of ridiculous strawman association to make your non-point. There are so many GOOD points, like the one you made earlier you could use that you don't need to resort to that sort of horseshit. YMMV of course.
I'm hurt. Not because you think so little of my argument but because I've been saying the same thing for years. And you don't remember. *sob*

And where has thoughtfulness and insight ever gotten me, or the progressives? It's Trump style for now on.

Except we're substituting hope for fear. And that makes all the difference.
  #132  
Old 02-14-2019, 10:30 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
... I find it hard to trust someone to coordinate the economy when they can't even coordinate a campaign mailer.
So now the 28-year old bartender has been asked to "coordinate the economy." Got it.

AOC ... AOC ... AOC. The President is a criminal jackass who has surrounded himself with sycophants and other criminals. Ross, Chief Criminal of the Commerce Dept., who has used his position in illegal trading, is, as recently posted here, alleged by a federal judge to be trying to subvert the upcoming census. Even the very post you quoted mentioned Gopster Cotton's spouting of “complicit in the Stalin-like or 1984 technique of disappearing it, sending it down the memory hole.”

But no mention of Cotton's absurd spoutings. No mention of criminals like Wilbur Ross who are turning the U.S.A. into a banana republic. All we want to talk about is .... AOC.

Got it.
  #133  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:30 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I, along with many others, have been saying for years that we should adopt some of these tactics. People do want to feel good. They want to hear that the future will be better. And they don't really care about the fine details.
So "will this work" and "how the dickens will we pay for all this" are "fine details"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
AOC ... AOC ... AOC. The President is a criminal jackass who has surrounded himself with sycophants and other criminals. Ross, Chief Criminal of the Commerce Dept., who has used his position in illegal trading, is, as recently posted here, alleged by a federal judge to be trying to subvert the upcoming census.
Again, you are missing the point rather badly. Changing the subject is not going to work.

If the GND is a stupid idea, it does not become less stupid no matter what you think Trump did. Even if you get your wish, and Trump is dragged off in handcuffs and sent to Gitmo, solar and wind will not scale up to meet the needs of the world economy. High speed rail does not become economically viable when a Republican goes to prison.

"Trump is bad" is not evidence that the GND is anything more than a fantasy.

:shrugs: At least, if the word comes to an end in twelve years, we will have a definite end to the Mueller investigation. I'm not sure anything else will do it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #134  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:44 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If the GND is a stupid idea, it does not become less stupid no matter what you think Trump did. Even if you get your wish, and Trump is dragged off in handcuffs and sent to Gitmo, solar and wind will not scale up to meet the needs of the world economy.
emphasis added
This is a stupid and incorrect statement

The solar and wind production are indeed on the way to scale up to meet the needs of the world economy - not solo but that is not the fundamental question, but certainly on the market basis competing with and replacing the hydrocarbon generation of the electricty and in specific industrial power provision (thus the heavy capital investment of many cement producers in new production facilities in the wind plants to go with the cement production.)

It is not disagreed that the GND sketch as it is described in the press is a stupid idea, but that does not make the bolded statement less incorrect and stupid itself as asserted like that.
  #135  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:51 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,570
No, it isn't stupid or incorrect. The GND wants to convert 100% to "alternative" in ten years. "Alternative" will not scale up to meet 100%, or anywhere close. Wind and solar will be niche technologies, as in your example of a cement company building a wind farm.

Regards,
Shodan
  #136  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:01 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So "will this work" and "how the dickens will we pay for all this" are "fine details"?
One more time. That's the official position of the Republican Party on everything. And it worked.
  #137  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:55 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, it isn't stupid or incorrect. The GND wants to convert 100% to "alternative" in ten years. "Alternative" will not scale up to meet 100%, or anywhere close. Wind and solar will be niche technologies, as in your example of a cement company building a wind farm.

Regards,
Shodan
It is stupid and it is incorrect as the flat statements. If you wish to qualify to say the objective of the GND and its ten year time span is stupid and impossible there is no disagreement. But the flat statement is stupid and incorrect.

Alternative is rapidly scaling up to be within reach of 70% of the new installation of electric generation and absolutely is scaling up with actual current unsubsidized capital investment (although less so in the USA land trapped in its 1950s nostalgie moment). While it is not 100% of the energy generation, it is very beyond "niche technologies", a statement dragged from 1995 it would seems.

The major ciment company examples (as in the investment plans of Lafarge Holcim, with the gigawatts of the direct energy consumption for the production the ciment (among the most energy intenstive industrial processes )) is the example of the Renewable penetrating on the own-capital investment for non electrict energy generation usages. But what is Lafarge Holcim, just some niche little foreign company with some small 20 billions of revenue... anyway they speak funny languages.

But of course this is only the view point of the global capital investors, not the American conservatives bolsheviks stuck in their 1950s view of the world. Continue as they want, it is how it was built the USA global car company success, the inwards looking 1950s view of the evolution of the economies.

Disdain,

Ramira

Last edited by Ramira; 02-15-2019 at 10:56 AM.
  #138  
Old 02-22-2019, 03:16 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,794
AOC clarifies the cow issue--what she really hopes is that people will--like--keep it real because factory farming is wild.
  #139  
Old 02-23-2019, 10:27 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,570
Why does that bother you so much you need to not only post a NYPost link but also belittle AOC in doing it?
  #140  
Old 02-23-2019, 10:32 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
Why does that bother you so much you need to not only post a NYPost link but also belittle AOC in doing it?

Because it dsplays a Trumpian level of shallow thinking.
  #141  
Old 02-23-2019, 10:34 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,794
For instance, how much are you allowed to eat to "be real", and which types of farming aren't "wild?"
  #142  
Old 02-23-2019, 11:00 AM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,570
I'm sorry, i assumed you were interested in being serious. Carry on.
  #143  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:52 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
I'm not sure what it would cost. If France is any indication, rebuilding DC after being burnt to the ground due to doubling or tripling fuel costs would have to be figured in there somewhere though.

People will not tolerate those kind of fuel price increases over short periods. They just won't.

The GND is not happening. Not in it's current form.
The US only spends about ~$50 billion on renewables a year. I think I mentioned upthread (can't remember) that an additional $50 billion would probably push total investment up to $200 billion or so due to the multiplier effect. Private industry and individuals who normally wouldn't invest in renewables would if tax credits, subsidies, etc. were larger.

$50 billion a year isn't that much on a national level (about 1/4 of 1% of national GDP) but it could quadruple our spending on renewables.

So depending on how big a scale a green new deal needs to be, its possible for us to spend far more than we are spending now.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #144  
Old 02-23-2019, 03:23 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
I'm sorry, i assumed you were interested in being serious. Carry on.

Fine, it is okay for politcians to sound as dumb as a stump--as long as they are on your side.


"I mean like, all those cows? In the really big farms? That's so wild. So don't eat hamburger three meals a day--keep it real."


You may think that is code-switching, dumbed down for the podcast audience. I think it is an accurate reflection of just how deeply AOC doesn't actually think about the issue.
  #145  
Old 02-23-2019, 07:25 PM
andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,570
Fair enough. I think it's a reflection of what happens when you get your news from a shit rag like the New York Post instead of actually listening to the podcast yourself. Context actually matters. And yes, factory farming is a gigantic, important thing.
  #146  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:21 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,626
If by 'Green New Deal' you mean implementing everything in AOC's dream journal masquerading as a policy document, the answer is, 'Everything you have." Because the Green New Deal would absolutely destroy the economy.

Remember TARP, and 'too big to fail'? The Green New Deal essentially requires the entire fossil fuel industry to fail. And fast, before we could compensate. I don't think people have a good grasp of just how much of our infrastructure is absolutely tied to the existence of fossil fuels. Not just the oil companies, but our rail systems, energy distribution networks, gas stations, tanker trucks, all the companies that make the hardware that go into it all, the factories that need on-time deliveries of fossil fuels and electricity, the road networks, gas furnaces, the companies that make the gas furnaces... Then there's the airline industry, all the aircraft manufacturers, the boating industry, all the companies that make hardware for those industries...

If Ocasio-Cortez said we just have to replace fossil fuels in ten years it would still be an impossible dream. As in, flatly impossible. Adding to that the conversion of every building in America to modern energy efficiency standards is insane. But while we're doing that, we're somehow supposed to come up with the billions of tons of concrete and steel it would take to make a network of high speed trains so dense that we could do away with airplanes - concrete and steel being about the most energy-intensive materials to make. Oh, and then we're going to do away with 'combustible engine' cars. Again, Remember TARP? Remember the economic disaster that was supposedly avoided when we bailed out GM? Well, now we're going to intentionally kill GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota... And we're going to do this while somehow coming up with the money to do all those other things. Because those companies cannot possibly convert to all-electric vehicles in ten years. We don't even know HOW to do all-electric work trucks, because their energy needs are just too high. A modern car platform can take a decade to build.

Also, the average age of the auto fleet is about 12 years. Older semi-trucks are not destroyed, but routed into the 'secondary' markets that can't afford new ones. Destroy them, and you'll seriously harm a lot of farmers and small businesses. Heavier equipment like graders and bulldozsers can stay in the 'primary' industries for 15 years before being sold off into secondary industries like farming where they can remain and be useful for many more years.

When it comes to energy intensive industrial equipment like blast furnaces, power hammers and the like, some of this equipment was built in the 1800's and still in use today. Converting factories to all-electric power would require a lot of them to be completely rebuilt from the ground up - a process that can take decades before the new plant is completely efficient. And who is paying for that? The company? There will be lots of bankruptcies and lots of products leaving the market because they are now too expensive to make. A product leveraging a fully-amortized factory that's been around for a hundred years may be completely uneconomical if it requires a hundred million dollars of capital investment before it can be made. At the very least expect price hikes across the economy on pretty much everything, which will drive down our standard of living.

I was going to ask where the tens of millions of workers were going to come from that would be necessary to build all the new solar and wind farms and insulate all the houses when you have full employment, as the U.S. does now. But the Green New Deal will create so many unemployed people that the problem will solve itself. I'm sure all those auto workers and oil industry workers will be ecstatic in their new jobs as weatherstripping installers. And if we're going to pay them the same wages they got before, this project just got WAY more expensive. And I guess somehow we'll manage to train all these people in a new field and somehow still get it all done in ten years.

And if that weren't enough, while we're doing all this we'll also find the money to create a universal income, free health care, and free education - each one of which on its own would be a budget buster. And I can hardly wait to see how many people wind up on 'basic income' after the Green New Deal destroys the economy.

This isn't just unrealistic. It's so jaw-droppingly stupid that it could only have been the work of an absolute economic illiterate. It's unworkable and impossible at every level. Even if the MMT money fairy came down with trillions of printed dollars that somehow don't cause inflation or a collapse in foreign investment, we don't have the manpower or the raw materials to do all these things in ten years, or twenty years, or thirty years. It can take a decade to stand up a single new utility scale solar power plant. You would need thousands of them.

As a guess I'd say that if this started today, you might, just might get through the lawsuits, injunctions, and environmental impact statements in ten years, after you've submitted designs for the new projects, which will also take years. And those won't start until you have the enabling regulations, which will take a few years after the initial legislation is passed, which clearly can't happen unless the Democrats win all three branches of the government while also purging all their moderate members.

So call it three or four years until legislation is passed, a couple more years for the bureaucracies to write the rules, then two or three more years for designs to be done. We can just get started on those lawsuits and environmental impact statements in six or seven years from now. Sixteen years from now we might be ready to start building something. The first utility scale solar projects might start coming online 25 years from now. That is, until the state lawsuits start coming in, because not every state is going to be on board with a 'fundamental re-design of our entire economy and infrastructure'.

Except... Remember you want to build thousands of these things at once. Just how many bottlenecks in the legal process will that take? How many environmental scientists and lawyers and such do we have to graduate so that these types of reviess can get done in a timely manner? And since it takes about half a decade to educate such people, what does that do to your timeline? Unless of course the environmentalists are willing to grant waivers to every Green New Deal project. Sorry, Snail Darter - your land is going to be occupied by a wind farm, so it's okay if you go extinct.

Oh, and then you have all the issues of eminent domain - an awful lot of land is going to be needed for all those 'green' projects, and since the owners of the land know that this is 'crisis' time, the price will go up accordingly. That's what happened in California with High Speed Rail, and that's what will happen everywhere unless you just start expropriating property. But then there's that pesky Supreme Court, which might have a problem with all this - which is why AOC also wants to pack the court.

The whole thing is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that deserves nothing more than laughter and derision. That so many Democratic politicians have signed on to this makes me weep for the future. That so many people think it's a reasonable plan or even a good opening negotiation makes me weep for the state of education.

Or, more cynically you can look at it this way: This was an exercise in pushing the 'Overton Window' for green policy hard to the left, to make the actual policies they want sound more reasonable. Soon someone will come out with 'Green New Deal Lite', and claim that it's the 'conservative, common-sense alternative' because it only wants to reduce carbon by 50% in ten years and doesn't include high speed rail for 'sound fiscal reasons'. It'll still be a radical, impossible document, but next to the Green New Deal the authors will sound sane and reasonable. Repeat until you've re-conditioned the expectations of people and they finally vote for something that would be seen as nuttery if it were voted on today.
  #147  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:30 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Or, more cynically you can look at it this way: This was an exercise in pushing the 'Overton Window' for green policy hard to the left, to make the actual policies they want sound more reasonable. Soon someone will come out with 'Green New Deal Lite', and claim that it's the 'conservative, common-sense alternative' because it only wants to reduce carbon by 50% in ten years and doesn't include high speed rail for 'sound fiscal reasons'. It'll still be a radical, impossible document, but next to the Green New Deal the authors will sound sane and reasonable. Repeat until you've re-conditioned the expectations of people and they finally vote for something that would be seen as nuttery if it were voted on today.
Or, as most people would put it, politics as we know it throughout American history.
  #148  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:40 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Also, the average age of the auto fleet is about 12 years. Older semi-trucks are not destroyed, but routed into the 'secondary' markets that can't afford new ones. Destroy them, and you'll seriously harm a lot of farmers and small businesses. Heavier equipment like graders and bulldozsers can stay in the 'primary' industries for 15 years before being sold off into secondary industries like farming where they can remain and be useful for many more years.
This is why I proposed before that a generous subsidy must be available for those specific cases.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 03-02-2019 at 02:40 PM.
  #149  
Old 03-02-2019, 02:51 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
The whole thing is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that deserves nothing more than laughter and derision. That so many Democratic politicians have signed on to this makes me weep for the future. That so many people think it's a reasonable plan or even a good opening negotiation makes me weep for the state of education.
Uh, let us not forget here that you followed (and still follows, as I notice) a lot of misinformation from climate change deniers or right wing sources to think that.
  #150  
Old 03-02-2019, 03:07 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,626
Are you also going to give a generous subsidy to all the businesses that make the engines, transmissions, and other equipment that goes into those vehicles? How about all the rural gas tankerage facilities?

Oh, and can you point to a design, even an experimental one, for an electric powered combine or industrial scale tractor? How about an electric tractor with the capability of, say, a Case 1070, which would be a typical small tractor on a farm? Bear in mind that during harvest these vehicles are required to run almost 24 hours per day. Tilling a large field (something I've done many times) can take hours of pulling heavy equipment. The power takeoff may need to drive all kinds of high-energy implements being towed behind the tractor.

Cars are just becoming usable on electric power now, and one of the ways we did it was to make them very aerodynamic, use regenerative braking, low rolling resistance tires, etc. At 55 mph, a car only needs something like 10-30 hp to maintain cruise, depending on the vehicle. And even the best electric cars can only maintain that for 5-8 hours. A tractor pulling a cultivator requires 5.5-6 hp per foot. So a standard 28 ft cultivator requires 154-168 CONSTANT horsepower.

These are light-duty industrial vehicles. Get back to me when you've figured out how to make an all-electric paving machine that has to keep asphalt hot, or a road grader that has to run all day and all night. or a Caterpillar D11 bulldozer, which has 770 HP and weighs 230,000 lbs.

By the way, if you're going to 'subsidize' replacement of them, be aware that those things cost about 2.2 million dollars each. But that's moot, since we can't replace them. We have no idea how to electrify a huge portion of our powered industrial infrastructure.
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 04:31 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