The Green New Deal

[applecorped]

Originally Posted by lionking

They got Trump elected.....

[Cavemonster]

Originally Posted by llwyd

I think I have seen this tactic before (from some other grand, sorry, sizable old party maybe) - demand something totally outrageous and thus move the debate towards your goals. Better to play on your own homeground. If you start with a compromize you will end with much less that you could have settled for with bit tougher tactics. It totally doesn't matter if AOC being realistic at all, better actually if not.

My take as well.
Whatever the early broad strokes if a GND are, they will be watered down by the time they become an actual concrete proposals. They will be watered down further as they move through congress and public debate.

Starting out extreme excites the young voters, shifts the window and allows us to land somewhere palatable in the end.

The only shadow of a downside I can see is that it leaves an opening for mockery and dismissal. But lets be honest, that was going to happen no matter how sober and practical this could be. We've seen the GOP mocking things that they praised or even created a few years back just in the name of obstruction.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

Junk science. Bad science. Take your pick. Any article which says that world can be completely run on renewables, or any other source for which there is no real world example of it working on large scale is making a ton of assumptions and is covering a wide range of scientific, technological and engineering areas that the authors are unable to rigorously assess.

It's a feasibility study. If there were already a real world example, a feasibility evaluation would not be necessary.

You're just engaging in in science denialism here because you don't like the conclusion.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Delvo

There's no trouble finding enough space to put solar panels. In addition to the places that are mentioned above, every domestic roof, and the top & sides of every skyscraper, are more opportunities to put panels up. Pretty much every bit of surface you could see from a satellite or aerial image that doesn't have other major physical requirements to contradict it (like letting cars drive on it) is another place you could put a panel.

But more importantly, even all of that still wouldn't be scratching the surface. The USA, China, Asutralia, and the Middle East and northern Africa have lots & lots & lots of land that's otherwise pretty much entirely unusable. It's called "deserts". Enough panels to power the world would never cover a substantial fraction of it.

The physical problem isn't space. It's production, and what producing that many panels would mean environmentally.

Not to mention installing and servicing all those tens of thousands of acres of panels out in the middle of the world's deserts.

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Starting out extreme excites the young voters, shifts the window and allows us to land somewhere palatable in the end.

My only quibble being that the youth of today (the *next* generation of voters) are far too savvy to sit on their hands while that happens. They're taking their cue from Greta Thundberg more so than from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They have no patience for the rest of us debating how such and such a proposal might affect such and such an industry while their world burns.

For perspective, I still feel (more or less) like a young man, and if I'm lucky enough to enjoy my own dotage I might live to see 2050. It's the generations coming after mine – of whom Millennials are the oldest – who will increasingly live out their lives approaching 2100, and face the dire consequences predicted for that time. They don't care about us, as they can see that we've spent decades betraying them.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

You're just engaging in in science denialism here because you don't like the conclusion.

And you are engaging in scientism, not science. Nothing is above criticism, not even peer reviewed publications.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And you are engaging in scientism, not science. Nothing is above criticism, not even peer reviewed publications.

So the correct procedure would be to elected those in favor of The Green New Deal into power, so they can commission feasibility studies and test projects.
And if it turns out to be stupid, vote them out again.

[Red Baron Farms]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

Junk science. Bad science. Take your pick. Any article which says that world can be completely run on renewables, or any other source for which there is no real world example of it working on large scale is making a ton of assumptions and is covering a wide range of scientific, technological and engineering areas that the authors are unable to rigorously assess. There are many problems that grids with high levels of wind and/or solar will have to address. Things like frequency stability, inertia etc. Fixing those issues comes with a significant costs. Authors, such as these, who claim the cost of solar and wind are decreasing every year, are being deceptive. Costs of electricity within power grids almost always go up dramatically when large scale wind and solar are added. This is because the energy created by large scale wind and solar becomes less and less valuable as more is added to the grid and the unreliability of it results in the grid either needing to have more and more natural gas ready at a moments notice (this is extremely expensive) or they need large scale storage - which has massive energy loss, costs a lot, and requires a lot of resources.

Pretty good analysis actually. However, hydroelectric and nuclear do not have this disadvantage, and even more importantly, there is no need to completely eliminate all fossil fuels use. It's that last several %'s of renewables replacing fossil fuels that escalates the cost under current technology. You explained why pretty well.

But emissions is only 1/2 the carbon cycle. We don't need to reduce gross emissions from fossil fuels 100%. All we really need to do is increase the sequestration side of the carbon cycle enough to make up the difference. Then we can instead have the NET emissions equal to zero, or even negative! Something completely impossible by eliminating all fossil fuel use. The lowest that could ever go is 0%. It could never go negative %.

Go back to basics and rethink what causes Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to begin with.[1]

1. We are burning fossil fuels and emitting massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 mostly but also some CH4 and a few other greenhouse gasses.[2]
2. We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.[3][4] (mostly grasslands[5])
3. By putting more in the atmosphere and removing less, there is no other place for the excess to go but the oceans. They are acidifying due to absorbing just part of the excess.[6] (roughly 1/2)
4. That still leaves roughly 1/2 of emissions that are building up in the atmosphere and creating an increased greenhouse effect.[7] (from ~280 ppm to 412+ppm CO2)

So this leads directly to the way we must reverse AGW:

1. Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many economically viable renewables as current technology allows. Please note that most current forms of ethanol gas additive are not beneficial because they further degrade the sequestration side of the carbon cycle and take more fossil fuels to produce than they offset.[8]
2. Change agricultural methods to high yield regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.[9][10]
3. Implement large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.[11][12][13]

In short we need to reduce carbon in and increase carbon out of the atmosphere to restore balance to the carbon cycle.

Focusing only on energy is counter productive. It's important, but it is impossible to actually reverse AGW this way alone. And as you noted, incredibly expensive once the low hanging fruit is achieved.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And you are engaging in scientism, not science. Nothing is above criticism, not even peer reviewed publications.

He didn't actually find a flaw in the science. He rejected it strictly based on the conclusion being something other than his own pre-formed belief about what they "should" have found.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms

Pretty good analysis actually. However, hydroelectric and nuclear do not have this disadvantage, and even more importantly, there is no need to completely eliminate all fossil fuels use. It's that last several %'s of renewables replacing fossil fuels that escalates the cost under current technology. You explained why pretty well.

But emissions is only 1/2 the carbon cycle. We don't need to reduce gross emissions from fossil fuels 100%. All we really need to do is increase the sequestration side of the carbon cycle enough to make up the difference. Then we can instead have the NET emissions equal to zero, or even negative! Something completely impossible by eliminating all fossil fuel use. The lowest that could ever go is 0%. It could never go negative %.

Go back to basics and rethink what causes Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) to begin with.[1]

1. We are burning fossil fuels and emitting massive amounts of carbon in the atmosphere as CO2 mostly but also some CH4 and a few other greenhouse gasses.[2]
2. We have degraded the environmental systems that would normally pull excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.[3][4] (mostly grasslands[5])
3. By putting more in the atmosphere and removing less, there is no other place for the excess to go but the oceans. They are acidifying due to absorbing just part of the excess.[6] (roughly 1/2)
4. That still leaves roughly 1/2 of emissions that are building up in the atmosphere and creating an increased greenhouse effect.[7] (from ~280 ppm to 412+ppm CO2)

So this leads directly to the way we must reverse AGW:

1. Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many economically viable renewables as current technology allows. Please note that most current forms of ethanol gas additive are not beneficial because they further degrade the sequestration side of the carbon cycle and take more fossil fuels to produce than they offset.[8]
2. Change agricultural methods to high yield regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.[9][10]
3. Implement large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.[11][12][13]

In short we need to reduce carbon in and increase carbon out of the atmosphere to restore balance to the carbon cycle.

Focusing only on energy is counter productive. It's important, but it is impossible to actually reverse AGW this way alone. And as you noted, incredibly expensive once the low hanging fruit is achieved.

Unfortunately, this extremely well written, informative and very scientifically accurate post will mostly fall on the deaf ears of...

... Greens, because it doesn't meet their 100% renewable energy, no nukes, no fossil fuels, tree-hugging hippie ideology

... Big business, because it would reduce their profit margins, leaving them less money for limousines, lavish dinners, multi-million dollar homes and private jets

... Conservatives, because to them, its not a 100% fix, and anything less than 100% is never worth considering (see the gun debate for further examples)

... The Far Right because, well, climate change is just a hoax.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by kellyb

He didn't actually find a flaw in the science. He rejected it strictly based on the conclusion being something other than his own pre-formed belief about what they "should" have found.

Exactly!!!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

... Conservatives, because to them, its not a 100% fix, and anything less than 100% is never worth considering (see the gun debate for further examples)

No need to go that far. You've seen that in this very thread.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Given the thread drift I'm guessing this green New Deal is DOA

If that's true then we are screwed. I don't think it is DOA. Kennedy had his moonshot, we have global warming to deal with.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

The finiteness of many required resources for the production of wind and solar are far more pressing than the finiteness of uranium resources.

Could you expand on this? I'm really interested.

[theprestige]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned uranium in seawater yet.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

He didn't actually find a flaw in the science. He rejected it strictly based on the conclusion being something other than his own pre-formed belief about what they "should" have found.

There's considerably more to his criticism than that, and your failure to even acknowledge it, let alone address it, doesn't impress.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by kellyb

You're just engaging in in science denialism here because you don't like the conclusion.

How do you know this?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned uranium in seawater yet.

I will mention that it is an extreeeeeeeeeeeeemly expensive process, or, at least it was until Oak Ridge National Laboratories came up with a cheaper process that involved doping the polymers in the extraction mats they use with amidoxime and then irradiating them. Now its only extreeeeeeemly expensive.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by llwyd

I think I have seen this tactic before (from some other grand, sorry, sizable old party maybe) - demand something totally outrageous and thus move the debate towards your goals. Better to play on your own homeground. If you start with a compromize you will end with much less that you could have settled for with bit tougher tactics. It totally doesn't matter if AOC being realistic at all, better actually if not.

Wow that's a new take on things! The wilder and crazier the proposal the better it is! One of the most ludicrous proposals in my memory and, ya wow it's suddenly a great tactic!

Now that is spin!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I will mention that it is an extreeeeeeeeeeeeemly expensive process, or, at least it was until Oak Ridge National Laboratories came up with a cheaper process that involved doping the polymers in the extraction mats they use with amidoxime and then irradiating them. Now its only extreeeeeeemly expensive.

That's a lot of Es. Any science?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There's considerably more to his criticism than that, and your failure to even acknowledge it, let alone address it, doesn't impress.

Can you quote whatever you see as his most valid point?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Belz...

How do you know this?

He overtly argued that it must be junk science because of the conclusion it reached.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Wow that's a new take on things! The wilder and crazier the proposal the better it is! One of the most ludicrous proposals in my memory and, ya wow it's suddenly a great tactic!

Now that is spin!

Well its better than starting with some totally, over-the-top, bat-crap crazy, outrageous idea.... and then not only wanting it without compromise, but holding the entire country to ransom and endangering people's lives to try to get it.

That's not spin, its stupid arrogance!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by kellyb

He overtly argued that it must be junk science because of the conclusion it reached.

That's circular logic.

[Zambo]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not to mention installing and servicing all those tens of thousands of acres of panels out in the middle of the world's deserts.

One might also wonder how on earth all those offshore oil platforms and coal fired power plants are constructed and serviced. Large (exceeding 1000MW) solar power plants exist and the installation and maintenance is possible.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's a lot of Es. Any science?

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"

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Well its better than starting with some totally, over-the-top, bat-crap crazy, outrageous idea.... and then not only wanting it without compromise, but holding the entire country to ransom and endangering people's lives to try to get it.

That's not spin, its stupid arrogance!

Meanwhile:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...get-this-year/

Quote:

Sweden is on target to meet one of its renewable energy targets years ahead of schedule, and it’s thanks in part to wind turbines.

Quote:

By the end of 2018, Sweden will have installed 3,681 turbines, with a capacity of 7,506 MW and an estimated annual production of 19.8 TWh.

“After the decision on the increase in ambition was reached, a lot of investment decisions have been taken and many wind turbines are set to be completed in the upcoming years,” Markus​ Selin, analyst at the Swedish Energy Agency, told the World Economic Forum.

According to the Agency, the ambitious targets set for renewables production are now well within reach.

Quote:

Sweden has ambitious goals for energy and climate adaptation. It has set a target of 50% more efficient energy use by 2030, and 100% renewable energy production by 2040.

It also has a target of net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2045.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Meanwhile:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...get-this-year/

Exactly.

PS: I hope you didn't miss that was not talking about AGW/Energy

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Exactly.



PS: I hope you didn't miss that was not talking about AGW/Energy

If you plan and spend in a responsible manner you can get things done. Amazing. Who would have guessed.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Meanwhile:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/...get-this-year/

So they are on track to achieve what the GND envisions, but gee, 15 years too late to save the planet?

[applecorped]

Anywho back on topic


Oh yeah nevermind this is DOA

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Brainster

So they are on track to achieve what the GND envisions, but gee, 15 years too late to save the planet?

You say that like you think this is funny.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Wayward son

Again, this is 100% because you think that the only way to build reactors is the completely absurd way they were most recently built. And again that just shows how completely effectively anti-nuclear groups have been.

Specific measures that could be taken to reduce the cost of Nuclear would go a lot farther than CTish, hand waving claims that "nuclear is only expensive because of environmental groups conspiring against it".

Nuclear is still the most expensive option in places where environmental groups have little to no influence, and the major reason for this is it requires almost a decade of construction and costs before any power is generated. In contrast wind and solar can often be installed and generating power before the bill for the equipment even comes due.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Anywho back on topic


Oh yeah nevermind this is DOA

You you say that like you think we don't have a problem with AGW.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Brainster

So they are on track to achieve what the GND envisions, but gee, 15 years too late to save the planet?

To quote Lambert Strether over at nakedcapitalism:

Quote:

As David Wallace Wells wrote in New York Magazine:

Quote:

As a strategy of avoiding that same threshold of two degrees of warming, the investments of a Green New Deal are what logicians call “necessary but insufficient.”

This is not a reflection of the modesty of the legislation, which is not at all modest — in fact, it is perhaps the most ambitious bill put forward in congress in three quarters of a century. It is simply a reflection of the scale of the challenge. In its report, the IPCC compared the transformation required to stay safely below two degrees to the mobilization of World War II. That mobilization was unprecedented in human history and has never been matched since. That time, there was a draft, a nationalization of industry, widespread rationing: The entire American nation turned single-mindedly toward the relevant threat, as did the entire Russian nation — and the two of them, almost inconceivably, in retrospect, allied. That is the kind of mobilization the sober-minded scientists of the world believe is necessary today — to get to half of our current emissions by 2030.

AOC agrees:

Quote:

Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us to our country, to the world. And so while carbon taxes are nice while things like cap and trade are nice, it’s not what’s going to save the planet. It could be part of a larger solution but no one has actually scoped out what that larger solution would entail.

As a meliorist, I think even the GND has a change to make what is to come marginally less bad. If we succeed in mobilizing as the GND contemplates, we may end up doing much better. In any case, I’d rather go down fighting!

I don't see how you can disagree without engaging in climate change denialism, or at least grossly minimizing and downplaying it's predicted results.

[portlandatheist]

I'm a proponent of nuclear. But lets table that for a moment and talk about renewable.

If I were to propose a green new deal, this is part of what I propose:

Work with Electric Vehicle manufacturers and come up with a universal fast charging standard, like we have with USB connections on computers. Fast chargers are very expensive and there are basically 3 competing standards in the US between CHAdeMO (Chevy), Tesla, and CCS/SAE. It is a shame that these are not compatible with each other. The government spent a great deal of money on the interstate system, we could subsidize fast charging infrastructure.

Secondly, I would want all EVs to be equipped with an out port as well. If 10% of the population has a $15,000 battery sitting in their driveway, these could power 10 homes while solar isn't available. Charge by day, provide by night given that people run their dishwashers and laundry only when renewables are providing. It isn't as simple as having an outport, it would also require expensive equipment to transform and feed the grid but we could add that to new building codes for new houses.

I don't think people really understand the challenge of storage. Germany can provide 100% of non transportation energy when things are good, and 0% when things are not so good. Their main source of energy is coal and they are way more dependent on it than the US and environmentalists have nothing but praise for their system. We need to look to France, not Germany as a good example but if we aren't going nuclear, we need a crap load of energy storage capacity.

[Zambo]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

I'm a proponent of nuclear. But lets table that for a moment and talk about renewable.

If I were to propose a green new deal, this is part of what I propose:

Work with Electric Vehicle manufacturers and come up with a universal fast charging standard, like we have with USB connections on computers. Fast chargers are very expensive and there are basically 3 competing standards in the US between CHAdeMO (Chevy), Tesla, and CCS/SAE. It is a shame that these are not compatible with each other. The government spent a great deal of money on the interstate system, we could subsidize fast charging infrastructure.

Secondly, I would want all EVs to be equipped with an out port as well. If 10% of the population has a $15,000 battery sitting in their driveway, these could power 10 homes while solar isn't available. Charge by day, provide by night given that people run their dishwashers and laundry only when renewables are providing. It isn't as simple as having an outport, it would also require expensive equipment to transform and feed the grid but we could add that to new building codes for new houses.

I don't think people really understand the challenge of storage. Germany can provide 100% of non transportation energy when things are good, and 0% when things are not so good. Their main source of energy is coal and they are way more dependent on it than the US and environmentalists have nothing but praise for their system. We need to look to France, not Germany as a good example but if we aren't going nuclear, we need a crap load of energy storage capacity.

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.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

You say that like you think this is funny.

I think it's a bit funny that it's cited as an example of how we can achieve this 15 years before they do, despite them having (presumably) a head start.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I think it's a bit funny that it's cited as an example of how we can achieve this 15 years before they do, despite them having (presumably) a head start.

We have some catching up to do. This is not that complicated of a concept.

[portlandatheist]

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.

An EV is a powerwall, or rather, a potential powerwall. My Chevy Spark had a small battery, but a Chevy Bolt has range of something around 300 miles. If you have a 20 mile commute every day, and only go on long drives twice a month, your car(your battery) could serve as public storage. I'd have to do number crunching but a lets say 250 mile range(as excess storage) on a Chevy Bolt is used to provide for 10 houses...if that power is only used for the basics: lighting, TV, internet...it could maybe be done. HVAC would be an issue depending on the weather.
Also, imagine charging your car while at work via solar, driving home and giving back to the grid when things are dark.