The Green New Deal

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

Also, imagine charging your car while at work via solar, driving home and giving back to the grid when things are dark.

Except, of course, you want your car battery fully charged for the commute the next morning.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Reduce pollution. Increase energy efficiency. Maintain a significant industrial base. The first two make things better regardless of what happens with the global climate. The third ensures that we have the capacity to adapt to changes in the environment.

Just saw this...the GND includes something about that:
https://capitalandmain.com/green-new...te-change-0208

Quote:

While not fully fleshed out, the Green New Deal resolution appears to recognize the link between trade and climate change. The measure, which is sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (MA), calls for “enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.”

[portlandatheist]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Except, of course, you want your car battery fully charged for the commute the next morning.

you have a car with a 300+ mile range and a 20 mile commute, only going for long drives twice a month. Putting aside 250 miles of energy storage when you don't need it, and keeping the last 50 miles for your comfort zone, isn't beyond reasonable. It is a possible scenario.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

you have a car with a 300+ mile range and a 20 mile commute, only going for long drives twice a month. Putting aside 250 miles of energy storage when you don't need it, and keeping the last 50 miles for your comfort zone, isn't beyond reasonable. It is a possible scenario.

Oh, I'm fine with that, but I'd want some kind of circuitry in my car that stops it feeding the grid when the battery reaches some predetermined charge level - in this case, 50 miles

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Oh, I'm fine with that, but I'd want some kind of circuitry in my car that stops it feeding the grid when the battery reaches some predetermined charge level - in this case, 50 miles

If nothing else, it seems like you could use a timing device of some sort.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Oh, I'm fine with that, but I'd want some kind of circuitry in my car that stops it feeding the grid when the battery reaches some predetermined charge level - in this case, 50 miles

It's all controlled by computers these days. Everything on lithium batteries already had that built in.

[kellyb]

Basically, this:

[ginjawarrior]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

https://www.nature.com/articles/280665a0

https://newatlas.com/uranium-seawater/23826/

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson

"Sir, I have found you some articles, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding"

theres newer extraction methods than that

Quote:

PNNL and Idaho-based LCW took it a step further by taking ordinary acrylic yarn and converting it into a uranium adsorbent. The exact details of the process haven't been released, but PNNL says that the yellowcake sample shows that not only does the technique work, but that the acrylic can be cleaned and reused.

In addition, the technique can even use waste fibers for a greater cost savings and that analysis shows that seawater extraction could be competitive with land mining at present prices.

https://newatlas.com/nuclear-uranium...-fibers/55033/


theres no shortage of uranium

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Zambo

Agreed we need storage, but why not. A 1000MW of storage might cost USD0.5 billion, a 1000MW power generator would cost over twice that. By getting a good mix between wind, solar and storage coal power can (indeed will) be replaced using existing technologies that are already operational around the world.

For households i think a Tesla Powerwall would cost from USD 5,000 to 15,000 per house and then get cheaper for condominiums. I doubt a car battery can power 10 houses, but if it could then at USD 15,000 for 10 houses no need to share with a car.

Storage... we're talking about batteries, no? How do you safely dispose of those once they've outlived their usefulness?

[a_unique_person]

Recycle

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Basically, this:

Hyperbole noted. This green deal is a flaming pile of **** and it nothing will ever happen regarding it and you know that

Let the Autocensor do its job. It gets cranky otherwise

Posted By:kmortis

[Zambo]

I just thought about ethanol

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Zambo

I just thought about ethanol

I just thought about Scarlett Johansson, and I assure you, it's far more pleasant.

[RecoveringYuppy]

She'll need lots of ethanol for that to happen.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Zambo

I just thought about ethanol

Originally Posted by Belz...

I just thought about Scarlett Johansson, and I assure you, it's far more pleasant.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

She'll need lots of ethanol for that to happen.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

She'll need lots of ethanol for that to happen.

You're making your dreams way too realistic.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Basically, this:

This is increasingly my concern with American politics. You have one side proposing solutions to a problem that I may not personally like, or may be tragically flaw is some way. Let's name them the Democrats, just as an example.

You have another side denying the problem exists and doing nothing about. Let's call them the Republicans.

If you accept that the problem is real, you really don't have any options. The options are faulty solution, or denialism.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

This is increasingly my concern with American politics. You have one side proposing solutions to a problem that I may not personally like, or may be tragically flaw is some way. Let's name them the Democrats, just as an example.

You have another side denying the problem exists and doing nothing about. Let's call them the Republicans.

If you accept that the problem is real, you really don't have any options. The options are faulty solution, or denialism.

The status quo is much better than faulty Solutions. And you were being kind by calling this green deal a faulty solution. This is not a solution in any way shape or manner that will ever be implemented in any way shape or form

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by applecorped

The status quo is much better than faulty Solutions.

I've already addressed this. The statu quo will cause a catastrophic increase in temperatures. How is that better?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I've already addressed this. The statu quo will cause a catastrophic increase in temperatures. How is that better?

The Green New Deal won't stop the temperature increase, but will cripple our ability to adapt to it.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The Green New Deal won't stop the temperature increase, but will cripple our ability to adapt to it.

I'd be more willing to engage with politicians opposed to the idea if those politicians weren't mostly all climate change deniers. The price of admittance to the debate is not being a conspiracy monger.

The party of "it sure is cold today, here's a snowball, so much for climate change" has yet to clear that bar.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The Green New Deal won't stop the temperature increase, but will cripple our ability to adapt to it.

Ok that's the claim. Go on. Support it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Ok that's the claim. Go on. Support it.

Sure. Right after you support the claim that the Green New Deal will stop temperature increases.

Go on. Support it.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure. Right after you support the claim that the Green New Deal will stop temperature increases.

Go on. Support it.

Why would I support a claim I haven't made?

I'm asking you to explain why you are making the claims you are making. That seems to annoy you to no end.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Zambo

Agreed we need storage, but why not. A 1000MW of storage might cost USD0.5 billion, a 1000MW power generator would cost over twice that. By getting a good mix between wind, solar and storage coal power can (indeed will) be replaced using existing technologies that are already operational around the world.

For households i think a Tesla Powerwall would cost from USD 5,000 to 15,000 per house and then get cheaper for condominiums. I doubt a car battery can power 10 houses, but if it could then at USD 15,000 for 10 houses no need to share with a car.

My recollection of the review videos I've seen is that maybe, with optimal conditions you can use solar all day, and then go several hours on battery. In the morning and evening you are cutting your demand from the grid a bit, but still having to draw power from somewhere else. One video a watched is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s6kN9Ezws0 which has data calculations from around the 8 min mark.

The biggest difficulty of these systems is that they tend to increase the difference between the min and max demand on the grid. On a cloudy day, you'd need to replace all the energy you would have generated from solar from another source. Presumably the same happens with wind generation on days when the wind is low. How big are these batteries going to be?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I'm asking you to explain why you are making the claims you are making. That seems to annoy you to no end.

Because it's always one-sided. You make no such demands of supporters of the Green New Deal.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Because it's always one-sided. You make no such demands of supporters of the Green New Deal.

Can you support it or not? You can ask the Green-Dealers to support their own claims if you want. I want to know why you claim what you claimed. It's really simple. Stop whining about the other kid getting a slightly larger lollipop and make your case.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Can you support it or not? You can ask the Green-Dealers to support their own claims if you want.

Because of course you won't, because your demands for evidence are never actually about standards or the truth.

Quote:

I want to know why you claim what you claimed. It's really simple. Stop whining about the other kid getting a slightly larger lollipop and make your case.

The Green New Deal cannot achieve its objective, because it's not possible to without total economic collapse, and we'll change course when the economic hit becomes big enough (which it will well before our emissions hit zero). So we will continue to emit. And temperatures will continue to rise.

Consider the Paris accord. Most countries won't hit their targets, but even if they did, that wouldn't stop global warming, only slow it down a little.

Climate change is going to happen. So how do you adapt to climate change? You change what you do. And that... requires money. A struggling economy has a harder time adapting than a vibrant economy.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Because of course you won't, because your demands for evidence are never actually about standards or the truth.

That's a blatant lie. You know very well that I take lefties to task just as often as righties. In THIS thread, however, I'm focused on YOUR claim.

Quote:

The Green New Deal cannot achieve its objective, because it's not possible to without total economic collapse

That's just rephrasing your claim. This isn't what I'm asking you.

Quote:

Climate change is going to happen. So how do you adapt to climate change?

It really sounds like you're saying "well, it's going to happen because we didn't react fast enough so might as well continue to pump toxic stuff into the atmosphere." Assuming this is NOT what you're saying, what would YOU suggest to either mitigate the effects of GW or adapt to it? I'll remind you we're looking at a 4-5 degree increase in temperatures.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

That's a blatant lie. You know very well that I take lefties to task just as often as righties.

"just as often"? Yeah, no. You do it, but not just as often. And that's OK, in and of itself. People are allowed to pick a side.

But your pretense to objectivity is a sham.

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"just as often"? Yeah, no. You do it, but not just as often. And that's OK, in and of itself. People are allowed to pick a side.

But your pretense to objectivity is a sham.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"just as often"? Yeah, no. You do it, but not just as often.

Based on what? Show me your numbers.

The point is that I'm not on the left, either. Stop trying to make this request for evidence of YOUR claim about where I sit on your ridiculous conception of the political spectrum.

Quote:

And that's OK, in and of itself. People are allowed to pick a side.

That's funny. Lefties accuse me of being on the right or of trying to be on the center all the time. Seems like I didn't pick their side. But like logger before you, anything to the left of you is on the left. Do you really consider yourself on the center?

Quote:

But your pretense to objectivity is a sham.

I NEVER pretended "objectivity". STOP lying. STOP distracting from supporting your claims. YOU are the one turning this into a bickering fest.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Based on what? Show me your numbers.

You made the positive claim that they were the same. Show me yours.

Quote:

YOU are the one turning this into a bickering fest.

Wrong as usual. You are the one who made this personal. If you don't like the results, consider not doing that in the future.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You made the positive claim that they were the same.

I have a long track record of disagreeing with the left of a great number of issues, mostly social. Stop taking the piss and trying to distract from the discussion.

Quote:

Wrong as usual. You are the one who made this personal. If you don't like the results, consider not doing that in the future.

God, you have a thin skin if you think that was 'making it personal'.

Can you support your claim or not? No more distractions.

[applecorped]

Sham deal, sham supporters

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I have a long track record of disagreeing with the left of a great number of issues, mostly social.

Sure. But that doesn't suffice to demonstrate your claim.

Quote:

God, you have a thin skin if you think that was 'making it personal'.

It's not about the thickness of my skin, Belz. It's about what you want to argue about. And you apparently wanted to argue about me. That post was an attempt to portray me personally as arguing in bad faith. And my skin is thick enough that I don't feel any need to report such posts. But don't kid yourself: you set the tone here. I'm following your lead. Don't like it? Try something different next time.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure. But that doesn't suffice to demonstrate your claim.

It does unless you think I was actually saying that I stand precisely in the middle.

Quote:

It's not about the thickness of my skin, Belz. It's about what you want to argue about. And you apparently wanted to argue about me.

So explain why I keep asking you to support and explain your claim and you keep bringing it back to the personal discussion. I've asked you to support your claim at least 4-5 times now, and you always manage to cut it out of the post you're quoting, except that one time where you thought it was a good idea to just rephrase the claim.

I don't buy your excuse. You grab ANY opportunity to avoid supporting your declarations and then blame others for that failing. I don't believe you. Either support your claim right now or consider it retracted.

[Zambo]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

My recollection of the review videos I've seen is that maybe, with optimal conditions you can use solar all day, and then go several hours on battery. In the morning and evening you are cutting your demand from the grid a bit, but still having to draw power from somewhere else. One video a watched is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s6kN9Ezws0 which has data calculations from around the 8 min mark.

The biggest difficulty of these systems is that they tend to increase the difference between the min and max demand on the grid. On a cloudy day, you'd need to replace all the energy you would have generated from solar from another source. Presumably the same happens with wind generation on days when the wind is low. How big are these batteries going to be?

I am suggesting you keep the existing power grid in each country and the grid connections between each country.. First you replace all the say 1200MW coal-fired power plants with similar sized solar, wind or battery plants. So the answer is 1200MW battery plants.

At that stage you have all the CFPP replaced and well on your way to getting transpoertation away from oil by using electric vehicles.

The next stage is to reduce (hopefully to zero) the use of gas in electric power generation. As well as wind/solar/battery power you have nuclear, hydro and geothermal power plants in the power production mix..

I don't know whether waste to energy (WTE) power plants with flue gas cleaning would also be part of the solution.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

It does unless you think I was actually saying that I stand precisely in the middle.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what your words meant, especially when you objected to me saying that you didn't stand precisely in the middle.

Quote:

So explain why I keep asking you to support and explain your claim and you keep bringing it back to the personal discussion.

Because you destroyed any trust that the conversation could proceed in any other fashion.

Quote:

I don't buy your excuse.

I don't care what you buy or don't buy. But try it some time. Try engaging in debate with me on a topic without getting snarky or sarcastic. See what happens. You might be surprised.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't care what you buy or don't buy. But try it some time. Try engaging in debate with me on a topic without getting snarky or sarcastic. See what happens. You might be surprised.

I've tried it before. Didn't work. So I gave up.

I'll take that as you NOT having any means to support your claim. Thanks for playing.