The Green New Deal

The way I see things progressing are a substitution of large solar and wind power plants for existing large CFPP. That would be the major, and not unsurmontable, engineering change. Plus a huge increase in storage to spread the load. This storage can be traditional pump storage at dams, large battery facilities and domestic batteries.

One big negative factor is the large space needed for solar power. I see a huge (>1,500MW) solar plant in China covers around 45Km2. CFPP in Asia can range from small 100MW plants to larger plants of around 1,200MW capacity. The land area for one of these large plants might be 1/10th of that of the Chinese solar power plant I mention. But think of the savings in land used for mining and transport facilities to bring in the fuel.


Gas turbines generation can be built quickly. The produce CO2 but can be turned on and off quickly to meet demand, which coal fired plants can't do. They are also cheaper to build than coal fired plants.
 
One big negative factor is the large space needed for solar power. I see a huge (>1,500MW) solar plant in China covers around 45Km2. CFPP in Asia can range from small 100MW plants to larger plants of around 1,200MW capacity. The land area for one of these large plants might be 1/10th of that of the Chinese solar power plant I mention. But think of the savings in land used for mining and transport facilities to bring in the fuel.

What on earth gives you the idea that Solar plants and panels have to "take space" away from other things

Service station forecourts

SP1.jpg

SP0.jpg


Electric Car Charging stations

SP4.jpg


Parking lot shelters

SP2.jpg


SP3.jpg


Bus Stop shelters

SP5.jpg


and in Australia, they even put them in the fields with sheep...

SP7.jpg


....where they serve multiple purposes
1. Powers the shearing shed
2. Powers the shearer's quarters
3. Powers the Homestead
3. Acts as stock shelters on blistering hot days and rainy days.


And just to make the point that this last one is not just a one-off

https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=.......0..0j0i10j0i5i30j0i24.iTkpSw-R7_s#imgrc=_
 
As you know the reason why France has a low GHG emission figure per capia is not due to climate change policy but the adoption of nuclear power as a main power generation strategy about 40 years ago.
Of course. That makes it worse.

While i expect you have data that shows that historically environmental concerns have held back the bringing online of nuclear power plants I do not see that as the major reason now.

Historically, not exactly. Back in the 70s it was a merging of the environmental movement (who were often not anti-nuclear at all) with the anti-war movement, and with the odd radical far-right electricity privatization group (who opposed nuclear because it was public power). In Ontario for instance Energy Probe essentially had no other mission other than to make nuclear more and more expensive, and dramatically lengthen the time for nuclear plants to get on line. They are not well known now, but they were probably the most powerful environmental group in Ontario in the early 90s with enormous sway over Ontario's only Socialist government. And after success in Ontario they helped groups in other countries do the same thing.

But today, yes it is 100% the concerns of environmental groups. They created the social, legal, and political environment that is 100% the reason today. That you don't see only shows how completely effective they have been.


However, just because it is 100% environmental groups, doesn't meant that it is legitimate environmental concerns.

Nuclear power is difficult to fund due the the long design-construct and commisioning period. Economics are the main reason nuclear power is not the answer now.

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.

Power is needed everywhere not just developed, technologically advanced, rich economies. For that reason solar and wind seem safer to further develop and promote than nuclear.

Solar and wind is not going to make a dent in the developing world because it simply doesn't work outside of fantasies. The choice will coal, other fossil fuels or nuclear.

"When the former chief minister of Bihar state visited to inaugurate the (solar) grid, villagers lined up to protest, chanting, “We want real electricity, not fake electricity!”
By “real,” they meant power from the central grid, generated mostly using coal. By “fake,” they meant solar."

So, as I said earlier - I don't care. The world will continue to go no where on climate action until the greens value the environment and the planet more than their ideology. After 30 years there is no sign of that happening. The solution is not technological change, it's psychological change.
 
What on earth gives you the idea that Solar plants and panels have to "take space" away from other things

Service station forecourts

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tmudifr4b9h5ih/SP1.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]
[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bv1bnnlabcdmi8/SP0.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

Electric Car Charging stations

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/qe715ap577tbj76/SP4.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

Parking lot shelters

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/5unvom70esuffyc/SP2.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/pmqf2itd2p4pj8v/SP3.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

Bus Stop shelters

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/2fjzg3kfgpz1hen/SP5.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

and in Australia, they even put them in the fields with sheep...

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ie5hx5xabdnuah/SP7.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

....where they serve multiple purposes
1. Powers the shearing shed
2. Powers the shearer's quarters
3. Powers the Homestead
3. Acts as stock shelters on blistering hot days and rainy days.


And just to make the point that this last one is not just a one-off

https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=.......0..0j0i10j0i5i30j0i24.iTkpSw-R7_s#imgrc=_[/QUOTE

This is the alternative approach, a complete overhaul of the way power is generated and distributed. But either way for the 1,500MW that I stated with the technology in place you will need 45Km2 of space - it's a considerable area of roof (domestically fine for Australia but what about Singapore? We also need power for industries such as cement production). I am just putting forward the view that one option is to replace our present large thermal power plant with similar capacity solar and wind power plants.
 
Historically, not exactly. Back in the 70s ......

So, as I said earlier - I don't care. The world will continue to go no where on climate action until the greens value the environment and the planet more than their ideology. After 30 years there is no sign of that happening. The solution is not technological change, it's psychological change.

I do agree about the psychological factor, but i see the change being acceptance of solar and wind power not deregulating to make nuclear power cheaper. There are very large solar power plants supplying national grids now and the costs can compete with CFPP, either way for 1,200MW you are not going to get any change from USD 1 billion, nuclear even with some of the standards dropped it's still goibg to be 3x the cost.
 
You think this is junk science, too?

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.

Nuclear power, which the authors have evaluated positively elsewhere

This is meant to make the reader think that the authors are non-biased instead of long-time extreme anti-nuclear ideologues. It is meant to make the reader assume that the authors have written articles that are positive towards nuclear - which is exactly why you highlighted it. But they haven't. They reference 3 articles which none of the authors had anything to do with, but which they managed to . . . read. I have read some farcical claims in scientific papers before, but that one really is in a class of its own.

faces other, genuine feasibility problems, such as the finiteness of uranium resources and a reliance on unproven technologies in the medium- to long-term.

This is a level of embarrassment which can only come with looking critically at the obstacles of the a technology you oppose, while ignoring the obstacles of the technologies you support. The finiteness of many required resources for the production of wind and solar are far more pressing than the finiteness of uranium resources.
 
I do agree about the psychological factor, but i see the change being acceptance of solar and wind power not deregulating to make nuclear power cheaper. There are very large solar power plants supplying national grids now and the costs can compete with CFPP, either way for 1,200MW you are not going to get any change from USD 1 billion, nuclear even with some of the standards dropped it's still goibg to be 3x the cost.

As I have said, I don't care. I don't plan on changing people's minds, and changing someone's mind on here would do nothing towards changing the overall culture.

When solar and wind have failed completely over and over again (as it already has in places like Ontario) on a large enough scale people will recognize it for the obvious absurdity that it is and abandon it. It will be a hard lesson to learn and recover from, but such is life.
 
Gas turbines generation can be built quickly. The produce CO2 but can be turned on and off quickly to meet demand, which coal fired plants can't do. They are also cheaper to build than coal fired plants.


Agreed. If at present we consider that for total energy use we have say 30% coal, 30% oil and 30% gas with the rest being renewable or nuclear. Then the first 2 steps are dramatic reduction in transport usage of oil which is achieved by electric vehicles. But then we need to generate that power and replace coal use for power generation Gas is not the answer although I expect it remains in the fuels available for power generation.
 
As I have said, I don't care. I don't plan on changing people's minds, and changing someone's mind on here would do nothing towards changing the overall culture.

When solar and wind have failed completely over and over again (as it already has in places like Ontario) on a large enough scale people will recognize it for the obvious absurdity that it is and abandon it. It will be a hard lesson to learn and recover from, but such is life.

So you say. How about some credible sources supporting your assertions.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

My prediction is that commencement of the last CFPP construction will be within a dozen years and that internal combustion engines will be in the minority of cars in the same timeframe. I just don't think there is time to start dramatically changing the power distribution system and negotiating cross border power agreements (Governments will just take advantage of lower costs and proceed independently). Also imagine drilling all those syscraper walls to install panels - who could afford the insurance.

I just imagine everything continues the same except the power plants are solar and wind.
 
Well, if the Republicans could come up with own Plan for Climate Change and Protecting the Environment.....
But they can't because any that would work would violate the Lassize Faire, Let Business Do Whatever It Wants dogma that is the GOP's stock in trade.
Not all Republicans are Lassize Faire Neoliberals.
In fact there is a bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act EICDA that would help mitigate AGW quite a bit. It is a Carbon Fee & Dividend bill . It has only one main flaw preventing further support by even more Republicans, and that is in how the dividends are dispersed. They are divided evenly and paid to everyone, which on the surface isn't too bad, at least it doesn't grow government, but we conservatives can do better.

There is a conservative option to modify that EICDA bill that reduces both government regulatory burden and lowers taxes too. Or at least doesn't raise taxes. I wrote an article about it for The Elephants in the Room blog at Quora along with my reasons why it is far better than both the liberal Green New Deal and the bipartisan EICDA Carbon Fee & Dividend bill .

Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change and what is preventing its implementation?

It has a lot of references and also explains how we can make minor adjustments to the Bipartisan EICDA discussed above. The main difference would be a scrapping of the current hundreds of billions annually used to subsidize food and farmers and more importantly the very destructive subsidized buffer stock schemes on commodity agriculture and replace them with a more sane Carbon market with verified carbon offsets. This carbon market would be partially funded by the EICDA dividends, reducing the cost already being paid by taxpayers in the farm bill.

As for reducing the regulatory burden, I discuss that part in a different article I wrote for The War Elephant.

As a farmer, what do you wish more people understood?

And what exactly would those changes do to agriculture that make them so much more efficacious? I wrote a long article about that too!

Can we reverse global warming?

I am also debating here at ISF the biophysical in the science section, here: Solution to Anthropogenic Climate Change?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom