# "we're here to back her up in pushing for 100 percent renewable energy." \[translation request\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2018, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561 "2018-11-15T15:29:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/81 "2018-11-16T19:43:17Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > Nowhere - but since I said nothing about rules and only observed that it is strange to reply to someone as if they were commenting on your comment or something 100% not what they were replying to… and something like a strawman distortion. > > ???..there is zero coherence in this. What does this have to do with anything? That you were wrong on you pointing at the primary energy of Norway as if that was just fossil fuel energy or as if that does not include renewables. As a reply to someone seemingly getting it wrong about just concentrating on secondary energy and I granted that that was wrong too. So, two wrongs that do not make your reply right. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/82 "2018-11-16T20:04:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That you were wrong on you pointing at the primary energy of Norway as if that was just fossil fuel energy or as if that does not include renewables. As a reply to someone seemingly getting it wrong about just concentrating on secondary energy and I granted that that was wrong too. So, two wrongs that do not make your reply right. No my reply is perfectly correct as your reply here is perfectly a strawman The data is presented for exactly what was said, to highlight that the confusion of the Energy Usage with the electricity is a very serious error. I said nothing of the total primary sources as the data in that table is not clear on the generation. It gives however the order of the difference and highlights you can not take just like that Electricity = Energy. Which is the point made. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/83 "2018-11-16T20:08:53Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > No my reply is perfectly correct as your reply here is perfectly a strawman > > The data is presented for exactly what was said, to highlight that the confusion of the Energy Usage with the electricity is a very serious error. > > I said nothing of the total primary sources as the data in that table is not clear on the generation. > > It gives however the order of the difference and highlights you can not take just like that Electricity = Energy. > > Which is the point made. I only made also a clarification, renewables are indeed part of the primary sources. Just pointing out to your other missing item when you said in bit of a contradiction that a poster is making damaging points about the good case for renewables, indeed they are a good case because they are also primary energy sources. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/84 "2018-11-16T20:35:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I only made also a clarification, renewables are indeed part of the primary sources. ?? What? _ **Of course** _ they are primary energy generation… it is the fundamental role in their input to the electricity… And??? That was and is not a question here. > [@](#): > > Just pointing out to your other missing item when you said in bit of a contradiction that a poster is making damaging points about the good case for renewables, ??? I can not make any sense of this. It is irrelevant to the only point made, on the confusion of the electricity generatoin for energy usage. > [@](#): > > indeed they are a good case because they are also primary energy sources. this is 100 per cent incoherent. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/85 "2018-11-16T20:35:41Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 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. No, there are multiple ways to get from here to there; having the government plan and install each individual piece of the system is neither required nor ideal. Rational actors respond to incentives; incentives merely need to be aligned with the public interest in clean, renewable energy. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > No worries. I’m already over it. 🙂 > > I’m not really in disagreement with you on the main point, but it is still “odd”. Odd just means unusual. How many countries are in the same category as Norway? Norway is unusual in this respect. And again, your cite is for electricity, not all sources of energy. So, expecting to get to 100% renewable energy is odd. > > I’m not sure why you want to hold onto the idea that it’s not “odd”, but if you really do, I’ll agree to disagree. It’s a minor point and we’re in agreement on everything else. Norway is unusual in actually getting to or very close to 100% (along with the other places cited), but the idea is pretty conventional at this point. Many cities and nations are committing to it as a future goal, and making plans to get there. On the other-energy front, Norway’s also [heavily committed to electric cars](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/02/norway-electric-cars-subsidies-fossil-fuel); about half of cars sold there are now electric, with a plan to get to 100% by 2025. They achieve this via the sort of economic incentives that would also work in the US. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/86 "2018-11-16T23:07:23Z")
> [@Ramira](#): > > ?? > > What? > > _ **Of course** _ they are primary energy generation… it is the fundamental role in their input to the electricity… And??? > > That was and is not a question here. The thread is about “pushing 100 percent renewable energy”, it is relevant. As for the rest, maybe the issue is that you are hanging up in not allowing others to point out how incomplete was your reply. Yes, again you are right on the point that there is confusion when some concentrates on electricity production and ignores the primary sources. I’m just saying then later (not what you say indeed, my point was a follow up that you are ignoring) that replying to the ones talking about 100 percent renewable energy by pointing at primary sources and not mentioning that primary sources include also renewable ones (the subject of the thread) leaves something out. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/87 "2018-11-16T23:34:54Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > On the other-energy front, Norway’s also [heavily committed to electric cars](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jul/02/norway-electric-cars-subsidies-fossil-fuel); about half of cars sold there are now electric, with a plan to get to 100% by 2025. They achieve this via the sort of economic incentives that would also work in the US. Now that is encouraging, in the USA after industry and electricity production the area that emits more CO2 is transportation. Removing that pollution is key to avoid worsening future scenarios. Another country that shows lots of progress (while is still developing unlike Norway) is [Costa Rica](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/costa-rica-electricity-renewable-energy-300-days-2017-record-wind-hydro-solar-water-a8069111.html), but while it is succeeding on de-carbonizing industry and its electricity production, transportation is still the big issue. There are reports of plans to increase the number of electric cars, but on the issue of private industry reaching for the tragedy of the commons: the electrical company in Costa Rica is discouraging private use of solar panels as it goes against their profits. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/88 "2018-11-17T01:01:10Z")
And this thread is a perfect example of how the right wing thinks. If climate change was really happening, to address it would require Stalinist-style central planning of the economy. Stalinist-style central planning of the economy is bad. Therefore, climate change isn’t really happening. And all the people who say it is happening are lying. They don’t really believe that climate change is happening, what they really want is Stalinist-style central planning of the economy. Hey, anyone wanna know my secret government plan? A tax on carbon emissions. Except we can’t have that, because if we did it would be admitting that carbon emissions are contributing to climate change, which can’t happen, because climate change is Stalinism. So we have to block any plan to address climate change, even ones that aren’t Stalinist-style central planning, because everyone knows that’s the real goal, and if you give them a carbon tax the next thing that happens is rounding up the Kulaks. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/89 "2018-11-17T02:28:08Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > 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. Oh really? Soviet-style central planning disaster? Actually that looks much like the plan currently in effect under the government of Ontario, which has no relation to Soviet communism as far as I know, and makes such commentary richly ironic coming from someone apparently allergic to even the slightest hyperbole. Most electric power in Ontario already comes from clean non-polluting sources, and none at all comes from coal. About 58% comes from nuclear, nearly a quarter from hydroelectric sources, and a growing amount – currently around 10% – comes from wind and solar. > [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > 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. Wood is not only renewable, but it’s pretty much carbon neutral because wood is part of the contemporary carbon cycle. The big problem with fossil fuels isn’t the burning _per se_, it’s that it releases carbon that was permanently sequestered millions of years ago in a completely different geological era, and introduces it as a net new addition to the atmosphere and the carbon cycle. None of this carbon was ever seen before in the million years of glaciation where atmospheric carbon varied between a low of about 180 ppm to a high of about 300. Today it’s above 400 ppm and rising fast. That’s never happened before since the dawn of man. A major geological climate pattern has been disrupted, perhaps permanently, just like global circulation systems are being disrupted. ---
**Author:** ![MarvinKitFox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@MarvinKitFox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarvinKitFox)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/90 "2018-11-17T17:04:34Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez participates in protest at Pelosi's office](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1987514002) > > “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. The MOST ACCURATE translation of that sentence is: “Hey look at me, I speak technobabble that would make a StartTrek engineer blush! I mix metaphors and distort realities until I don’t know my arse from my ear.” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/91 "2018-11-17T17:27:55Z")
:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/92 "2018-11-17T17:35:57Z")
Pretending not to understand her clear statement while simultaneously pretending that every clear statement Trump makes actually means the opposite is embarrassing. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/93 "2018-11-17T18:26:00Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Pretending not to understand her clear statement while simultaneously pretending that every clear statement Trump makes actually means the opposite is embarrassing. I agree. Here’s how I read the statement, for the benefit of anyone who may be comprehension-challenged: _Mitigation of climate change requires a major commitment by government. The goal we should set ourselves is to transition to 100% renewables, because climate change will have an increasing impact on our lives._ Amazingly uncomplicated, really. And while one might argue about what the goal should be and when we should strive to reach it, in substance the statement is factually accurate and reflects physical reality and necessary public policy. It might be read differently by Trumpists and climate change denialists. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/94 "2018-11-17T18:40:44Z")
Fossil fuels are going to be extracted and used until they are gone. As one who worked in the nuclear power field in the 80s, I must say I am astounded and somewhat pleased at nuclear’s recent acceptance in general. But it is not renewable, and is much less dirty than fossil fuel but not perfectly clean. Also keep in mind that most commercial nuclear power plants in the USA are run by the same folks owninh fossil fuel energy companies, and they all HATE HATE HATE the extra regulations the DoE imposes on nuclear. Their view is they know what they are doing and don’t need the government telling them how to run their plants safely. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/95 "2018-11-17T19:24:40Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > Fossil fuels are going to be extracted and used until they are gone. No, they’re not. If that happens, we would get the climate of the Cretaceous, and we’d get it with catastrophic suddenness, geologically speaking. This is especially true with respect to coal, or any fossil fuel synthesized from it. The polar ice caps would melt and create runaway climate change. It would be a true climate Armageddon. Most of us probably wouldn’t survive it. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/96 "2018-11-17T20:02:24Z")
> [@sps49sd](#): > > Fossil fuels are going to be extracted and used until they are gone. Nah, we’ll all long be dead before we get the last drop of oil, the last lump of coal, or the last gasp of natural gas out of the ground. If we somehow manage to go that far, then we have methane hydrates in the permafrost and bottom of the ocean to exploit. There’s quite a bit of carbon locked up in geologically sequestered areas that we are now unsequestering. > [@](#): > > As one who worked in the nuclear power field in the 80s, I must say I am astounded and somewhat pleased at nuclear’s recent acceptance in general. But it is not renewable, and is much less dirty than fossil fuel but not perfectly clean. It’s more “renewable” than fossil fuels by far. Our current generation of plants using a once through cycle and leaving the rest as waste isn’t all that sustainable, but only a small fraction of the available energy has been extracted from the fuel. If we actually are able to utilize nuclear efficiently with some of the designs that are still mostly on paper, then it becomes pretty sustainable, even if not technically renewable. (Neither is solar, in the long run.) > [@](#): > > Also keep in mind that most commercial nuclear power plants in the USA are run by the same folks owninh fossil fuel energy companies, and they all HATE HATE HATE the extra regulations the DoE imposes on nuclear. Their view is they know what they are doing and don’t need the government telling them how to run their plants safely. I’ve seen some of the complaints about specific regulations, and I find myself agreeing with some of them. The regulations definitely make it harder to try new reactor designs, especially when talking about entirely new concepts like molten salt as fuel. I like regulations, especially on something that has to be done as carefully as nuclear, but I am for looking into them and making sure that they actually perform the safety or environmental protection that they are meant to do, and not that they are stifling innovation and growth. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/97 "2018-11-17T20:39:46Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > What’s odd about it? [Norway](https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-production-in-norway/id2343462/) gets 98% of its electricity from renewable sources, and a number of places are [at 90%+.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy#Places_with_near_100%25_renewable_electricity) What’s odd isn’t that some people equate “100% renewable electricity” with “100% renewable”. What’s odd is that some people equate “rich people buying up all the available renewable energy” with “100% renewable”. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/98 "2018-11-18T06:29:28Z")
> [@MarvinKitFox](#): > > The MOST ACCURATE translation of that sentence is: > “Hey look at me, I speak technobabble that would make a StartTrek engineer blush! I mix metaphors and distort realities until I don’t know my arse from my ear.” 100% renewables is technobabble to you? :rolleyes: Or is New Deal? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/99 "2018-11-18T08:59:05Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Do our lives or even the lives of our descendants 1000 years off depend on getting to 100% renewable energy? Yes. > [@](#): > > 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. In five to ten years from now, going _backward_ in time. We’re already too late to save Florida from literally disintegrating in about fifty years, unless some magitech from the planet Gallifrey saves us. The metaphorical “clathrate gun” is highly likely to “fire” in the next 15 years, at which point the real open question yet unanswered by science would be whether we just have a worldwide economic and ecological cataclysm which no present human culture or religion can expect to survive, or a cascading series of positive feedback effects leading to the end of the liquid-water biosphere and thus the end of what is at this point all known organic life in the Universe. Seriously, there’s an enormous amount of science on this, if anyone cares enough to read it. ---
**Author:** ![pdhenry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pdhenry/32/5561_2.png) [@pdhenry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pdhenry)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2018, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561/100 "2018-11-18T22:34:20Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I never put words in her mouth. She said “energy”, this includes ICE autos right? Right. Thanks. Is there a particular reason it must include ICE autos, as opposed to improvements in efficiency and cost of mobile batteries? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-here-to-back-her-up-in-pushing-for-100-percent-renewable-energy-translation-request/824561.md?page=6)