Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-15-2018, 10:29 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,100
"we're here to back her up in pushing for 100 percent renewable energy." [translation request]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/1987514002

Congressperson-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quoted as saying:

“But this is about uplifting the voice and the message of the fact that we need a Green New Deal and we need to get to 100 percent renewables because our lives depend on it.”

Firstly, put this quote in your own words.

Meanwhile I will take her for her word.

Do our lives or even the lives of our descendants 1000 years off depend on getting to 100% renewable energy? If so, what is the time-table that Scientists are talking about, because I’m sure Scientists doing Science will tell us what Science says.

Are campfires off the table in this paradigm? Matches? By Science I hope not.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 11-15-2018 at 10:30 AM.
  #2  
Old 11-15-2018, 10:49 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,980
Over a 1000 year span, campfires and matches are renewable.
  #3  
Old 11-15-2018, 10:55 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,490
What is the debate here?
  #4  
Old 11-15-2018, 10:56 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,248
Young Congresswoman-elect uses hyperbole to push renewable energy agenda.

*yawn.
  #5  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:06 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Do our lives or even the lives of our descendants 1000 years off depend on getting to 100% renewable energy? If so, what is the time-table that Scientists are talking about, because I’m sure Scientists doing Science will tell us what Science says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What is the debate here?
That.

Even if we agree that our lives don't literally depend this, is it a goal we should be aiming for? Seems like a very topical debate to me.

Last edited by John Mace; 11-15-2018 at 11:07 AM.
  #6  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:09 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,300
Let's take her seriously, but not literally.
  #7  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:11 AM
Gorsnak Gorsnak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Saskaboom
Posts: 9,067
"Our lives depend on it" doesn't necessarily mean that every single life depends on it. If for the sake of argument one grants that increased wildfires and hurricanes are a result of climate change, then lives have already been lost. Does anyone think that "But we wouldn't all die" would be an adequate rejoinder to the quote?
  #8  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:22 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Let's take her seriously, but not literally.
This. Just a bit of hyperbole. Does the OP have any opinions on this small bit of exuberance?
  #9  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:27 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Are campfires off the table in this paradigm? Matches? By Science I hope not.
Aren't "renewables" in this sense sources of electric power generation by definition? So why the yammering about campfires and matches? How is that taking her for her word?
  #10  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:29 AM
filmstar-en filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 846
Breathing in air pollution is not good for your health, especially for the very young and old. A lot of pollution is caused by burning fossil fuels.

So yes, lives depend on it.

No-one is going to lose votes campaigning to make the air cleaner.
  #11  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:30 AM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,449
Predicting that far ahead is probably futile. Any number of things could wipe your descendants off of the earth before then. Right this second, I have two descendants and got myself snipped, so a lightning strike at the wrong time could do it. In the next thousand years, it seems unlikely that we won't have at least one global pandemic and that can wipe out your descendants pretty quickly. A war can take them out if it's at the wrong time and place. Plenty of Syrians alive 20 years ago have no descendants left. With the trend for smaller families, my guess is the biggest threat to your descendants though is just them not bothering to reproduce. Like I said, I have 2, current trends in first world countries put childlessness somewhere around 20 percent and likely to rise, so with 2 kids, it's probably a 1 in 20 chance that my line ends with them. Due to their race, expected education level and expected income, the chance is likely much higher. Smaller family sizes and decreases in fertility make it so that having no descendants due to failure to procreate a reasonable outcome.

Of course, this isn't really a question about why your particular genes will cease to be, but rather is the result of climate change going to be human extinction. The answer is... probably not. Humans are really awesome in our ability to adapt and survive. We pretty much can survive and even thrive in almost any ecosystem and that's even before the introduction of more modern technology. I mean look at the Tuaregs. They survive in the freaking Sahara. Even if we completely have runaway global warming that turns most of the world to barren desert, it's likely that people will find a way to survive.

That doesn't mean that we can just smile and burn fossil fuels until there are none left. Most of us want to do more than simply survive. I'm a mountain boy and you could plop me down in the Alleghenies and I could probably make a pretty good run at survival, doesn't mean I'd like it or I'd wish it upon future generations. I like having food security and fresh water and nice trees and not horrific diseases and deadly storms. Climate change is going to make things harder and that's the real bottom line. People will die because of it and a fairly decent chance that it will be large amounts of people. Like I said earlier, the Tuareg can survive in the desert, but pre-modern era, it was not a fun existence, with mass starvations not uncommon and a requirement to war with people in better climates for resources. That's not a life that most of us would want for our hypothetical descendants. So, will climate change make humanity extinct? Probably not. Will it make our lives harder? Definitely so. Will it make our lives significantly harder to the point where survival becomes more of a priority over what we're doing now? For some people, that's very, very likely and it's not out of the realm of probability that that could be so for the majority of humanity.
  #12  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:31 AM
Procrustus Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmstar-en View Post

No-one is going to lose votes campaigning to make the air cleaner.
Damn, I wish that was true.
  #13  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:33 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/1987514002

Congressperson-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quoted as saying:

“But this is about uplifting the voice and the message of the fact that we need a Green New Deal and we need to get to 100 percent renewables because our lives depend on it.”

Firstly, put this quote in your own words.
OK.

Quote:
But this is about uplifting the voice and the message
"I am here to advocate for something."

Quote:
of the fact
"Here's my opinion."

Quote:
that we need a Green New Deal
"The federal government needs to spend a whole lot of money and completely revamp the economy. Because this is just like the Great Depression."

Quote:
and we need to get to 100 percent renewables
"No more fossil fuels."

Quote:
because our lives depend on it
"If we don't do this, we will all die horribly."

Quote:
Meanwhile I will take her for her word.
This may not be a good idea.
Quote:
Do our lives or even the lives of our descendants 1000 years off depend on getting to 100% renewable energy?
No.

In 1000 years we will have run out of oil. So we will have to switch to other forms of energy. That won't take 1000 years. Maybe we will have practical fusion by then, or build a screen around the sun and capture that energy and beam it back to Earth, or maybe we will figure out how to convert matter to energy or maybe something else. If we survive, of course, but global warming isn't going to kill us all. That's just politician-speak. If we don't survive, it won't be global warming that kills us.

She is trying to kick up hysteria. That's hardly new, from politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Regards,
Shodan
  #14  
Old 11-15-2018, 11:58 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Over a 1000 year span, campfires and matches are renewable.
+1
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Young Congresswoman-elect uses hyperbole to push renewable energy agenda.

*yawn.
So we shouldn’t take the push for 100% seriously? Good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorsnak View Post
"Our lives depend on it" doesn't necessarily mean that every single life depends on it. If for the sake of argument one grants that increased wildfires and hurricanes are a result of climate change, then lives have already been lost. Does anyone think that "But we wouldn't all die" would be an adequate rejoinder to the quote?
No, but the odd thing is this 100% claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
This. Just a bit of hyperbole. Does the OP have any opinions on this small bit of exuberance?
We shouldn’t take it seriously in my opinion, whether it is hyperbole or not. But I’m glad you guys aren’t taking it seriously and treating it as hyperbole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Aren't "renewables" in this sense sources of electric power generation by definition? So why the yammering about campfires and matches? How is that taking her for her word?
I’m assuming she includes replacing combustion engines with electric motors. This was a bit of a joke, but will we be permitted by her ideal government to burn surface fuels for other purposes or will we have to find renewable alternatives?

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 11-15-2018 at 11:59 AM.
  #15  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:40 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
+1
No, but the odd thing is this 100% claim.
What's odd about it? Norway gets 98% of its electricity from renewable sources, and a number of places are at 90%+.
  #16  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:47 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
So we shouldn’t take the push for 100% seriously? Good.
Nothing stated by a politician should be taken 100% seriously. Don't you know that?
  #17  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:47 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,574
She needs "back up" because there are some very rich and very powerful interests that got that way because of fossil fuels, and who don't take kindly to "100% renewable energy". They can't put a meter on the sun, and that really pisses them off.
  #18  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:54 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 6,814
I recall Ali G wondering if all of the solar panels in use were depleting the sun's energy.
  #19  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:56 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,239
WillFarnaby, when GW Bush said he wanted no child left behind, did that mean that he would think we failed if there was we couldn't teach long division to a brain damaged child who would never progress beyond the mental age of two? No, the goal was to try to increase the proportion of children with basic math and literacy skills.

This is obviously being put forth as an aspiration goal. It's doubtful that we will reach it in the forseeable future but we should work in that direction. Even as an aspiration 100% was probably probably meant to refer primarily to power plants and factories, and possibly towards moving more ground transportation to electric. I don't think that she is going to be outlawing kerosene lanterns, or shutting down the Durango/Silverton train.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 11-15-2018 at 12:57 PM.
  #20  
Old 11-15-2018, 12:59 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,490
Looking back on all the threads the OP has posted about Republican and/or Trumpian hyperbole, I find
SPOILER:
nothing.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 11-15-2018 at 01:00 PM.
  #21  
Old 11-15-2018, 01:01 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Do our lives or even the lives of our descendants 1000 years off depend on getting to 100% renewable energy? If so, what is the time-table that Scientists are talking about, because I’m sure Scientists doing Science will tell us what Science says.

Are campfires off the table in this paradigm? Matches? By Science I hope not.
By all means, Will, go ahead and mock science. That will convince reasonable people that your political ideas are sensible. Maybe you can link up with the anti-vaccination crowd and get a cross-endorsement.
  #22  
Old 11-15-2018, 01:24 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Young Congresswoman-elect uses hyperbole to push renewable energy agenda.

*yawn.
Yes. Yawn.

If we're to condemn politicians who indulge in hyperbole, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez would be far down on the list, certainly behind a large number of Republicans.

And well behind someone who can't stop prattling about "government stealing money at gunpoint"; or calling Obama and Hillary cold-blooded murderers.
  #23  
Old 11-15-2018, 02:08 PM
Doubticus Doubticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South-West
Posts: 403
The push for 100% renewable energy is a laudable goal, as any fraction of our energy production we capture with renewables reduces greenhouse gases and prolongs the supply of fossil fuels. Plus, when you think about the 4 trillion dollars we spent on the middle eastern wars to make them just stable enough to extract oil, it is good economic and national security policy as well.
  #24  
Old 11-15-2018, 02:48 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
What's odd about it? Norway gets 98% of its electricity from renewable sources, and a number of places are at 90%+.
California has already committed to do so and starting today I can sign up for 100% renewable electricity generation. A greener energy company has taken over from PG&E in my town, and I get a discount from mostly renewable electricity generation, and if I choose to pay the same rate I'm paying now I can get 100% renewable.
  #25  
Old 11-15-2018, 02:59 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
What's odd about it? Norway gets 98% of its electricity from renewable sources, and a number of places are at 90%+.
Well...the population of Norway is less than 6 million. We have cities bigger than that. And the population of the other ones in your second link are still less. So, yeah...it's a bit odd to think that a nation as large as the US could be 100% renewable, especially if you take nuclear out of the mix...which we have. And we've taken hydro-electric out of the mix as well...no new hydro plants will be built in the US, and like nuclear that means 10 little nuclear plants, 9 little nuclear plants, 8 little nuclear plants...and then there was 1. In the lifetimes of posters on this board the last nuclear plant will switch off and go bye-bye in the US, unless there is some sort of sea change that doesn't seem apparent today. So, renewable in the US context is solar, wind and in some special places geo-thermal. And there is simply no way those things will ever scale up to meet our needs 100%.

Well, in 40 years I guess we might be able to add fusion to the mix...
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #26  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:03 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post

Well, in 40 years I guess we might be able to add fusion to the mix...
35 years ago I toured the Tokamak fusion lab in Princeton, which was on the verge of a breakthrough. It would be nice, but 40 years seems optimistic.
I don't know if fusion counts as strictly renewable, but unless fusion reactors caused some sort of problem, I suspect even the greenest of the green wouldn't have a problem.
  #27  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:08 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
California has already committed to do so and starting today I can sign up for 100% renewable electricity generation. A greener energy company has taken over from PG&E in my town, and I get a discount from mostly renewable electricity generation, and if I choose to pay the same rate I'm paying now I can get 100% renewable.
Well, they have set the goal, but it's unclear to me how they will reach it. They get something like 15% from hydro...and that is not going to increase (probably the reverse at some point). 10% or so from nuclear and that will certainly decline. Maybe 5% from geothermal which could, maybe increase at some point. 3-4% from solar, which I doubt will come up that much but maybe enough to compensate for the nuclear decline. The most renewable they get is wind, and I think they have mainly tapped out the really good tier 1 spots already, though I could be wrong. I think they get nearly 30% from wind IIRC. The rest is from coal and natural gas, basically. Not only will they have to compensate from the decline in nuclear and hydro over that time period but they have to cut into coal and natural gas, which is a whole lot of power they have to get from somewhere (of course, they DO get power from other states as well, so I guess that could help them reach their goal...though doesn't actually fix the issue ).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #28  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:09 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,768
Eh, aim for 100%, maybe we get to 50% at some point not too far away. If we aim for 50%, the same number of oil- and pollution-loving heads will explode. No use trying to appease the dead-enders.
  #29  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:09 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
35 years ago I toured the Tokamak fusion lab in Princeton, which was on the verge of a breakthrough. It would be nice, but 40 years seems optimistic.
I don't know if fusion counts as strictly renewable, but unless fusion reactors caused some sort of problem, I suspect even the greenest of the green wouldn't have a problem.
From what I understand, the best case scenario today is that IF the current test fusion plants are able to final produce more energy than they use to start the reaction and IF there is a way to commercialize, that 40 years is the target for when they will start building those plants. So, no...I was mostly tongue in cheek there wrt fusion.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #30  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:12 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Eh, aim for 100%, maybe we get to 50% at some point not too far away. If we aim for 50%, the same number of oil- and pollution-loving heads will explode. No use trying to appease the dead-enders.
50% is definitely do-able IMHO. We could be doing that today in fact (France gets 70% or so from nuclear alone, so they are there...and they actually have a pretty big population and industry).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #31  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:13 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
California has already committed to do so and starting today I can sign up for 100% renewable electricity generation. A greener energy company has taken over from PG&E in my town, and I get a discount from mostly renewable electricity generation, and if I choose to pay the same rate I'm paying now I can get 100% renewable.
Impossible!

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well...the population of Norway is less than 6 million. We have cities bigger than that. And the population of the other ones in your second link are still less. So, yeah...it's a bit odd to think that a nation as large as the US could be 100% renewable, especially if you take nuclear out of the mix...which we have. And we've taken hydro-electric out of the mix as well...no new hydro plants will be built in the US, and like nuclear that means 10 little nuclear plants, 9 little nuclear plants, 8 little nuclear plants...and then there was 1. In the lifetimes of posters on this board the last nuclear plant will switch off and go bye-bye in the US, unless there is some sort of sea change that doesn't seem apparent today. So, renewable in the US context is solar, wind and in some special places geo-thermal. And there is simply no way those things will ever scale up to meet our needs 100%.

Well, in 40 years I guess we might be able to add fusion to the mix...
It seems like when I was growing up, all I heard was how great the US was; and now all I hear is that the US can't do things that other countries can, be it universal healthcare, drug legalization & harm reduction, or now energy infrastructure.

Needless to say, we can achieve a 100% renewable energy grid. Plans exist already. The only barrier is American dumbassery, and that's why we need leaders like AOC to push the idea aggressively.
  #32  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:20 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 34,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
Impossible!



It seems like when I was growing up, all I heard was how great the US was; and now all I hear is that the US can't do things that other countries can, be it universal healthcare, drug legalization & harm reduction, or now energy infrastructure.

Needless to say, we can achieve a 100% renewable energy grid. Plans exist already. The only barrier is American dumbassery, and that's why we need leaders like AOC to push the idea aggressively.
We can't do other things that other countries do when you compare them in an apples to oranges way and handwave away the differences. Norway is a sparely populated country that also has some advantages wrt renewable energy due to it's small size and concentrated population that the US doesn't have, seeing as how we are a continent sized nation with hundreds of millions of people spread out over that continent. The US can't realistically achieve 100% renewable energy over the entire country no matter how smart we are because it's not possible, especially when you take nuclear off the table. Even WITH nuclear it would be very difficult and would cost the world. Providing power for 5 million people is fairly easy...we do that all the time in large cities. Providing power for 320 million people spread out across a nation the size of the US is a bit more difficult. Or, to put it another way, come back when Canada gets to 100% renewable energy and call us dumbasses. Canada, of course, has a much smaller population, but when THEY figure out how to power up a continent sized nation even with their more limited population then you can say the US population are idiots 'cause we can't.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #33  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:23 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
What's odd about it? Norway gets 98% of its electricity from renewable sources, and a number of places are at 90%+.
100% of electricity isn't 100% of energy use (the OP is about all energy, not just electricity). Norway is to be congratulated for having abundant rivers, but not all countries, and certainly not the US, has the geography and precipitation of Norway.

And Norway pays for all that infrastructure by, in part... selling oil to the rest of the world.

We could do better, but let's keep things in perspective.
  #34  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:48 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
We can't do other things that other countries do when you compare them in an apples to oranges way and handwave away the differences. Norway is a sparely populated country that also has some advantages wrt renewable energy due to it's small size and concentrated population that the US doesn't have, seeing as how we are a continent sized nation with hundreds of millions of people spread out over that continent. The US can't realistically achieve 100% renewable energy over the entire country no matter how smart we are because it's not possible, especially when you take nuclear off the table. Even WITH nuclear it would be very difficult and would cost the world. Providing power for 5 million people is fairly easy...we do that all the time in large cities. Providing power for 320 million people spread out across a nation the size of the US is a bit more difficult. Or, to put it another way, come back when Canada gets to 100% renewable energy and call us dumbasses. Canada, of course, has a much smaller population, but when THEY figure out how to power up a continent sized nation even with their more limited population then you can say the US population are idiots 'cause we can't.
C'mon, it's not like each nation gets an energy cube, and the larger countries have to spread theirs too thinly. Larger countries have more potentially-exploitable sources for energy. It's not as simple as small = easy, large = impossible.

Canada is at 66% renewable, and aggressively investing in more.

The US is at 18%. Now, you can claim this is purely due to technological factors (and again, check out the Stanford plan I mentioned earlier: costly, but achievable), but I live in Kentucky, and do you know what I saw all through election season? Ads about keeping the coal industry propped up. Over and over again, coal, coal, coal, coal. We elected a president who believes climate change to be a Chinese plot, and hey presto, is actively working against renewable energy. The dumbass slipper fits.
  #35  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:50 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
100% of electricity isn't 100% of energy use (the OP is about all energy, not just electricity). Norway is to be congratulated for having abundant rivers, but not all countries, and certainly not the US, has the geography and precipitation of Norway.

And Norway pays for all that infrastructure by, in part... selling oil to the rest of the world.

We could do better, but let's keep things in perspective.
The OP is claiming that renewable energy means banning campfires, or something. It has no connection to what the rest of the world means by "renewable energy".
  #36  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:56 PM
don't mind me don't mind me is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/1987514002

Congressperson-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quoted as saying:

“But this is about uplifting the voice and the message of the fact that we need a Green New Deal and we need to get to 100 percent renewables because our lives depend on it.”

Firstly, put this quote in your own words.

Meanwhile I will take her for her word.

Do our lives or even the lives of our descendants 1000 years off depend on getting to 100% renewable energy? If so, what is the time-table that Scientists are talking about, because I’m sure Scientists doing Science will tell us what Science says.

Are campfires off the table in this paradigm? Matches? By Science I hope not.
(Bolding mine)

Actually, yes. Wood heating is renewable in that trees appropriate for fuel grow at a sustainable rate, with the will to do so. The environmental problem is air pollution, plus most home wood-burners in the US don't heat all that well. Both problems are solved through simple technology such as
masonry heaters or their even greener cousins, rocket mass heaters.

Last edited by don't mind me; 11-15-2018 at 03:57 PM.
  #37  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:58 PM
That Don Guy That Don Guy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
“But this is about uplifting the voice and the message of the fact that we need a Green New Deal and we need to get to 100 percent renewables because our lives depend on it.”

Firstly, put this quote in your own words.

Meanwhile I will take her for her word.

Do our lives or even the lives of our descendants 1000 years off depend on getting to 100% renewable energy? If so, what is the time-table that Scientists are talking about, because I’m sure Scientists doing Science will tell us what Science says.

Are campfires off the table in this paradigm? Matches? By Science I hope not.
The quote in my own words: "We need to do everything we can to work towards a non-oil, non-coal, non-nuclear-energy society.

As for whether or not campfires and matches are okay: from what I have read, wood is "renewable" as more wood can be grown to replace it. Matches "probably" fall into that category as well, although who knows what the match heads are made of. However, they wouldn't fall into a "Green New Deal" as both are carbon-releasing fuel sources, which is the real "selling point" of solar and wind.
  #38  
Old 11-15-2018, 03:59 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
The OP is claiming that renewable energy means banning campfires, or something. It has no connection to what the rest of the world means by "renewable energy".
I agree, but that doesn't have anything to do with my post.

The US is not Norway, so saying Norway gets X% of its electricity from renewables isn't much of an argument. It's a start, and I don't mean to denigrate it, but you have to look at the whole the issue. The US isn't going to get most of its electricity from hydro plants. That's just not in the cards, even though it is for Norway. And where would Norway be if it wasn't selling oil to the rest of the world to burn, some of which goes into electricity production. OTOH, we have vast deserts with lots of sunshine for solar energy that Norway does not have.

It's also worth cutting the young Congresscritter some slack. Give her a chance to flesh out her plan rather than attacking the soundbite. If she starts out shooting for a goal of 100%, but ends up with a goal of 50% or 75%, that will be a success.

Last edited by John Mace; 11-15-2018 at 04:00 PM.
  #39  
Old 11-15-2018, 04:13 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,449
I'm really not sure why it's even an issue to nitpick her anyway. She's a Freshman Representative that will have exactly zero power. Her only real path toward getting anything done is that she's young, photogenic, and says things that are just controversial enough to get media attention so she could lead a populist rebellion against leadership, but more likely she'll end up on the Housing and Insurance sub-committee along with all of the other freshmen.
  #40  
Old 11-15-2018, 04:15 PM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I agree, but that doesn't have anything to do with my post.
That's fair, I didn't mean to be dismissive of your post. Apologies.

Quote:
The US is not Norway, so saying Norway gets X% of its electricity from renewables isn't much of an argument. It's a start, and I don't mean to denigrate it, but you have to look at the whole the issue. The US isn't going to get most of its electricity from hydro plants. That's just not in the cards, even though it is for Norway. And where would Norway be if it wasn't selling oil to the rest of the world to burn, some of which goes into electricity production. OTOH, we have vast deserts with lots of sunshine for solar energy that Norway does not have.
It's an argument against the notion that attempting 100% renewable energy is "odd". No, we can't copy Norway's exact model. If you look at the Jacobson plan I linked to, it breaks down as follows for the US in 2050:

14.5% residential rooftop solar
19.5% solar plants
11.5% concentrating solar plants
11.8% commercial and government rooftop solar

21.3% onshore wind
17.1% offshore wind

1.1% wave devices
0.4% geothermal
2.8% hydroelectric

Note that it doesn't propose copying Norway's grid, but instead playing to the US' strengths of lots of space and sunshine (hence, 57.3" solar).

Quote:
It's also worth cutting the young Congresscritter some slack. Give her a chance to flesh out her plan rather than attacking the soundbite. If she starts out shooting for a goal of 100%, but ends up with a goal of 50% or 75%, that will be a success.
She didn't say anything unreasonable, but yes, anything above 18% is a win, especially in the current political climate.
  #41  
Old 11-15-2018, 04:16 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Aren't "renewables" in this sense sources of electric power generation by definition? So why the yammering about campfires and matches? How is that taking her for her word?
No.

Renewables can be combustion from the renewable sources such as waste based diesels or heaters (like the burning of the olive pits for the heating, a financing project of the daughter affiliate in the maghreb of who I work for). This meeting certain technical criteria as set in the COP process and with the entities like the Green Climate Funds.

The 100% renewables push by the green Left I find to be harmful as it is pushing beyond where the actual technology that is economically / financially viable can support at this time, which is damaging as it gives reason to the (mostly american) anti-action factions.

It would be better to set a goal that is more lower but aggressive than to set a goal that is in fact completely unfeasible from the economic point of view.

If a target is the 100 per cent of the electrical production, this may be realistic for some circumstances and countries (if it is counting also the nuclear from the idea of the non carbon) but it is damaging as a goal if it is all the energy consumption as it sets ups for the failure or the pushing of the policies that will cause the serious backlashes.
  #42  
Old 11-15-2018, 04:28 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post

Needless to say, we can achieve a 100% renewable energy grid. Plans exist already.
the electricity grid =/= total energy usage.
  #43  
Old 11-15-2018, 05:35 PM
Doubticus Doubticus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South-West
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramira View Post
No.

The 100% renewables push by the green Left I find to be harmful as it is pushing beyond where the actual technology that is economically / financially viable can support at this time,

When Kennedy proposed that Americans go to the Moon, it was beyond where the technology was economically / financial viable at that time. That's why they are goals, something to strive toward. The change to renewables will not happen overnight, but it will happen a lot faster with some political will.
  #44  
Old 11-15-2018, 05:43 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
That's fair, I didn't mean to be dismissive of your post. Apologies.



It's an argument against the notion that attempting 100% renewable energy is "odd". No, we can't copy Norway's exact model. If you look at the Jacobson plan I linked to, it breaks down as follows for the US in 2050:

14.5% residential rooftop solar
19.5% solar plants
11.5% concentrating solar plants
11.8% commercial and government rooftop solar

21.3% onshore wind
17.1% offshore wind

1.1% wave devices
0.4% geothermal
2.8% hydroelectric

Note that it doesn't propose copying Norway's grid, but instead playing to the US' strengths of lots of space and sunshine (hence, 57.3" solar).



She didn't say anything unreasonable, but yes, anything above 18% is a win, especially in the current political climate.
This plan would require an enormous central planning bureaucracy and would completely obliterate the quasi free market in energy. There would be no ability for the bureaucracy to assess alternatives through economic calculation. It would be a boondoggle on par with the Soviet disasters of the 20th century.

I could see something like his working in a comic book however.
  #45  
Old 11-15-2018, 05:45 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doubticus View Post
When Kennedy proposed that Americans go to the Moon, it was beyond where the technology was economically / financial viable at that time. That's why they are goals, something to strive toward. The change to renewables will not happen overnight, but it will happen a lot faster with some political will.
Going to the moon was a big waste of resources that would seem puny in comparison to the mammoth waste of resources that would occur if the US govt centrally planned the energy production of the United States.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 11-15-2018 at 05:46 PM.
  #46  
Old 11-15-2018, 05:54 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doubticus View Post
When Kennedy proposed that Americans go to the Moon, it was beyond where the technology was economically / financial viable at that time. That's why they are goals, something to strive toward. The change to renewables will not happen overnight, but it will happen a lot faster with some political will.
A discrete project under the full control of a single department of the government and the complete change in the energy source of a modern economy are not the things that are comparable.

It is like comparing making a cake at the home and setting up a large catering company, saying once you made the cake at home, so obviously you can do a catering for 10 thousand people.
  #47  
Old 11-15-2018, 05:54 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 30,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I’m assuming she includes replacing combustion engines with electric motors. This was a bit of a joke, but will we be permitted by her ideal government to burn surface fuels for other purposes or will we have to find renewable alternatives?
So you're taking her at her word by putting words into her mouth that she never said? This is why we can't have nice arguments.

Non-renewable fuels are coal, oil, and gas. They come with known environmental issues that will add to the most overwhelmingly important crisis of the century, global climate change.

Any time you talk against renewables you must by default be advocating the continued use of coal, oil, and gas, and possibly the increased use of those fuels since the global market is ever expanding.

The U.S. government, BTW, is not going to ever centrally plan anything, so take that argument away unless you really do want to hear mocking laughter.

If that's your position, come out and say it directly. If that's not your position, then what the hell is it? Lay it out in so many words.
  #48  
Old 11-15-2018, 05:55 PM
filmstar-en filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 846
The UK is on target to get renewable energy to 30% by 2020.

40.7%: Gas-fired power stations
28.1%: Renewables
22.5%: Nuclear plants
1.3%: Coal-fired power stations
7.4%: Electricity imports

http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/3...e+in+Q2+2018+/

Big investments in huge fleets of wind turbines located some miles off shore. They are monsters but their construction out at sea neatly fits in with the steady decline in off-shore Oil and Gas business.

Part of the UK renewable energy comes from burning 'biomass' in the form of wood chips imported from the US and Canada. The biggest coal power generating plant in the UK is Drax at 3.9 GW and this quite a long way towards being converted from coal to biomass. The move away from coal has been very dramatic. In the UK the Coal industry was the source of some monumental political battles between the government and the miners in the 1980s which the government eventually won and that led to the steady and deliberate decline of the industry for political reasons.

Emerging technologies like grid batteries for storage and smart meters to attenuate demand could make the whole generation system a lot easier to manage. Energy demand is actually going down because of LED lighting. DC Grids are becoming viable. The auto business is moving towards EV. There are a lot of advances, everything to play for.

Most of the big economies have developed energy policies to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewables, preferably from low carbon sources. There is a lot to do both on the generation and the demand side. Each country has its own set of circumstances dictated by geography and existing infrastructure.

But many of the policies were developed following the Stern report in 2006, which was the wake up call that climate change would have an economic impact that had to be planned for long term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

On the contrary there are also vested interests that each country has to bear that may slow progress.

In the US that would be the Koch Brothers.

The US should be leading the way in renewable power generation, it has huge natural resources.
  #49  
Old 11-15-2018, 06:03 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby WillFarnaby is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
So you're taking her at her word by putting words into her mouth that she never said? This is why we can't have nice arguments.

Non-renewable fuels are coal, oil, and gas. They come with known environmental issues that will add to the most overwhelmingly important crisis of the century, global climate change.

Any time you talk against renewables you must by default be advocating the continued use of coal, oil, and gas, and possibly the increased use of those fuels since the global market is ever expanding.

The U.S. government, BTW, is not going to ever centrally plan anything, so take that argument away unless you really do want to hear mocking laughter.

If that's your position, come out and say it directly. If that's not your position, then what the hell is it? Lay it out in so many words.
I never put words in her mouth. She said “energy”, this includes ICE autos right? Right. Thanks.

Fossil fuel technology is probably one of the top 10 greatest technological advancements in human history. Before they were developed, life was cold, brutal and short for nearly everyone. In Europe, humans hibernated through the winter as recently as the 19th century. Since then, billions use them to keep themselves warm and not many people die due to climate.

I favor a free market in energy production coupled with an adequate recognition of property rights in courts that will hold companies responsible for pollutants. This would do away with acceptable thresholds for pollutants and force a move to cleaner energy production without central planning.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 11-15-2018 at 06:08 PM.
  #50  
Old 11-15-2018, 06:17 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 16,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Going to the moon was a big waste of resources that would seem puny in comparison to the mammoth waste of resources that would occur if the US govt centrally planned the energy production of the United States.
For the cost of the futile and disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the US could have put 6KW of solar power on every house in the country, generating over 720 TWH of electricity per year. The total US generating capacity is around 4,000 TWH.
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 03:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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