The Green New Deal

[Brainster]

Jesus, is English not your first language?

If I told you I wanted to get rid of polluting cars, does that mean I want to get rid of ALL cars?

No, it would mean that you only want to get rid of the cars that pollute.

Getting rid of farting cows DOES NOT MEAN EXTERMINATING ALL COWS. One have to be either trolling, or literally being intentionally stupid if one really thinks that's what it means.

Okay, got it. You only mean to get rid of cows that fart.

 

[Wayward son]

More energy will solve most problems: power electric cars, desalinated water, capture carbon.
There is space for Renewables and Nuclear.

Probably 99.9% of nuclear advocates believe that there is a space is for both (I am one of the few who disagrees. I believes that renewables are almost completely worthless outside of a couple exceptions).

The vast majority of renewables advocates believe that there is no space for nuclear. The vast majority of renewables advocates do not believe that more energy is the solution, but less.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not addressing my remark to you but to the "adapters". Why are they so sure we can adapt but also so certain we can't prevent.

Because both require very little effort?

 

[Belz...]

Probably 99.9% of nuclear advocates believe that there is a space is for both (I am one of the few who disagrees. I believes that renewables are almost completely worthless outside of a couple exceptions).

The vast majority of renewables advocates believe that there is no space for nuclear. The vast majority of renewables advocates do not believe that more energy is the solution, but less.

They're going to hit a wall. Humans generally don't vote for projects that reduce their quality of life.

 

[mgidm86]

They're going to hit a wall. Humans generally don't vote for projects that reduce their quality of life.

Been to Cali lately?

- duped into voting against repealing a gas tax that was forced onto us by the state. Yes we want to pay even more for gas!
- we love voting for higher sales taxes for (insert virtually any reason)
- people love sanctuary cities and state
- highest rate of homelessness and poverty, one of the lowest in education, corrupt water management, bad water. We elect these people over and over.
- electing Jerry Brown again after his previous disaster 30 years ago
- Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are still around.
- the current state of San Francisco

Wrap it up in the right package and people will vote their freedoms away.

 

[smartcooky]

It's a question I don't need to answer. First of all, I know plenty of people who happily live very close to nuclear plants - like 1000 - 2000 feet from Pickering nuclear.

I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant.

If I am living next to a nuclear power plant, my chances of being harmed by a nuclear accident, or being irradiated by its everyday operations statistically very close to zero, certainly microscopically small.

If I am living next to a coal power plant, I am 100% certain to be ingesting pollutants and harmful particulates every day I am living there.

 

[a_unique_person]

Because both require very little effort?

Preventing is going to take a lot of effort. Done rationally over multiple decades it should be relatively painless. We can't go back in time and take that rational approach. Adaptation, who knows. It will magically happen because engineers and scientists can solve any problem we ask of them.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

McConnell is going to hold a vote for it, because he's a ****:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the Senate would vote on the Green New Deal introduced last week by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

"I've noted with great interest the Green New Deal, and we're going to be voting on that in the Senate to give everybody an opportunity to go on record," McConnell told reporters.

The bill, which is not expected to pass the Republican-dominated upper chamber, could force some Democrats to make a politically awkward calculation.

Linky.

 

[Belz...]

Been to Cali lately?

Calimaaaaa!!!

 

[a_unique_person]

It's a question I don't need to answer. First of all, I know plenty of people who happily live very close to nuclear plants - like 1000 - 2000 feet from Pickering nuclear.



But the main thing, as I have said repeatedly is that the rapid nuclear build is only going to happen after the solar/wind/battery build fails spectacularly for the umpteenth time. And that will only be if civilization has sufficient time and resources left after they finally shed themselves of their current ideology.

People are saying that, are they?

 

[Belz...]

Preventing is going to take a lot of effort. Done rationally over multiple decades it should be relatively painless. We can't go back in time and take that rational approach. Adaptation, who knows. It will magically happen because engineers and scientists can solve any problem we ask of them.

Yeah that was my point: they just want to sit on their thumbs and hope for the best.

McConnell is going to hold a vote for it, because he's a ****:

Linky.

Wouldn't pass anyway. It doesn't sound like a very good deal.

McConnell is still a ****, though.

 

[smartcooky]

Been to Cali lately?

You live in Colombia?

(OK, just kidding)

- duped into voting against repealing a gas tax that was forced onto us by the state. Yes we want to pay even more for gas!
- we love voting for higher sales taxes for (insert virtually any reason)

Sometimes, people unselfishly vote for stuff that they think will make everyone's lives better. Its why countries like Norway consistently vote for higher taxes, they do not have the American "What's in it for me?" mentality.

- people love sanctuary cities and state

Most Californians I have met seem to be proud of their status as a state of sanctuary cities.

- highest rate of homelessness...

False.

California has the third highest rate of homelessness with 34 in every 10,000 people. Two states are worse off: New York and Hawaii.

New York ranks second with 45 homeless people per 10,000. Hawaii, meanwhile, ranks first with 51 per 10,000.

https://www.politifact.com/californ...lifornias-homeless-population-skyrocketed-an/

... and poverty

False

California does not feature in the worst 10 US states for poverty. These are, in order, worst at the top

1. Mississippi
2=New Mexico.
2=Louisiana.
4. West Virginia.
5. Kentucky.
6. Alabama.
7. Arkansas
8. Oklahoma
9. South Carolina
10. Tennessee

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...h-the-highest-poverty-rates-in-the-us?onepage

one of the lowest in education

False

The worst educated states in the USA are, with the worst at the top

1. Mississippi
2. West Virginia
3. Louisiana
4. Arkansas
5. Alabama
6. Kentucky
7. Nevada
8. Tennessee
9. Oklahoma
10. New Mexico

California is right in the middle ranked at# 25

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/the-10-most-and-least-educated-states-in-2018.html

corrupt water management, bad water. We elect these people over and over.
- electing Jerry Brown again after his previous disaster 30 years ago

I know nothing about this so I can't comment

- Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi are still around.

I am envious.

You are indeed fortunate to have such honest, principled and dedicated politicians representing you. Some poor saps are saddled with criminals like Trump & McConnell as well as Senators like Lindsay "which way's the wind blowin' today" Graham.

 

[Zambo]

I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant.

If I am living next to a nuclear power plant, my chances of being harmed by a nuclear accident, or being irradiated by its everyday operations statistically very close to zero, certainly microscopically small.

If I am living next to a coal power plant, I am 100% certain to be ingesting pollutants and harmful particulates every day I am living there.

I do agree with that.To reduce objections in the local community for new build coal plants the EIA will result in a stack somewhere around 100m to 250m high to disperse the more harmful emissions over a wider area and some dilution in the air is achieved, but that is not 100% effective. There is also coal dust released locally during tramsport.

 

[Wayward son]

People are saying that, are they?

People are saying what? That they are happy to live close to a nuclear plant?

Yes - those who are close to Pickering and Bruce are generally happy with it, despite the barrage of lies they receive from Green groups about nuclear. They wouldn't live there otherwise. Those who are a bit farther away are more susceptible to the fearmongering.

My in-laws live very close to Bruce. They love living near and supporting the largest operating plant of completely clean power in the world.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Okay, got it. You only mean to get rid of cows that fart.

Pretty much, and the best way to do that is to find a way to stop them producing the gases in the first place. Solve the gas production in the stomachs, and solve your burping cow problem, and thus you have gotten rid of your burping cows.

Same thing works for polluting cars. If you want to keep the car, but it's polluting, you figure out why it's creating pollution and solve the problem, for instance installing a catalytic converter, and thus turn it into a non-polluting car.

 

[Zambo]

Sorry for the late reply. I rarely post here because I am generally very busy, while at the same time, as I have said, I don't generally care about debating this topic because I feel that there is generally no sense in debating the views of the Greens which will continue to halt meaningful action against climate change for at least another decade or two.

The issue with the scarcity of some of the minerals and raw materials needed for wind and solar has been talked about a lot. I should say, that I don't think that this is actually going to be an issue that is going affect renewable energy because ways are found around these problems when they get bad enough, but while I don't think that there is a problem with the finiteness of essential materials for renewable energy, those who oppose nuclear energy are always harping about the finiteness of nuclear fuel which is orders of magnitude less of an issue than exists for renewables - which of course they ignore.

For me a much larger problem would be the obscene magnitude of the destructiveness caused by mining and processing for those essential materials.

And here are a couple more.

Mining for nuclear is far less destructive and has a much smaller footprint. That article also has good information about the environmental problems and dangerous child labor that are a part in the mining needed for the batteries that Greens think will allow wind and solar to become reliable sources of power. This is not creating a better world. This is ideologically blinkered people promoting a dystopia.

Now some people might say that these terrible consequences are justified because climate change is such a significant problem, but there are no real examples of renewable energy leading to a significant decrease in ghgs. People think there are, but there are not. Someone earlier in this thread said that conservatives should look at the industrious and technologically advanced Germans. But they have spent many billions over the last decade bringing a massive amount of renewable energy into their grid. It has increased the cost of electricity by a very substantial amount and their ghg emissions have dropped only a tiny percentage (much, much less than in the US over the same period of time - mostly accomplished by switching to natural gas). Germany has reduced ghgs by a pretty decent amount since 1990, but almost all of that was due to shutting done extremely dirty in East Germany after the merger. Despite very strong support from the population, and massive amounts of money, their renewable fantasies have been a complete failure. But they continue to double down on it.


And every time they double down. Every time they make a large public commitment for decades down the road, Greens swoon and say every other country should the same. They demand that every country should make the same commitment going forward, because they have no examples of actual success so far.

You would think that would give them pause. You would think that should make them reassess why renewable builds have accomplished nothing in terms of ghg reductions, despite evidence that every nuclear build - which they 100% oppose - accomplished a lot in terms of ghg reductions. But ideologues don't care about reality. They care about their fantasy.

In Ontario we massively decreased ghg emissions during the 70s and 80s through a large nuclear build. Then in the 90s our emission went back up dramatically when we took a lot of nuclear offline. Then in the early 2000s we decided we were going to lower those emissions again by a large scale wind and solar build, but when the government realized that was doing nothing for emissions (but caused our electricity bills to skyrocket) they brought nuclear back online. But they continued to want to build more wind and solar despite their own research showing that doing so would not only increase electricity bills further, but also would increase our ghgs. And we really don't even use much of the wind and solar we produce. Because it is so unreliable we simply dump most of it into neighboring provinces and states for almost free - despite us paying a lot for it. But despite all that our previous government, in the name of fighting climate change they wanted to build more wind and solar despite knowing that would increase emissions. This is nothing but virtue signalling.

The same is likely the case in Sweden. Posters have said that they plan on being 100% renewable in 2040. But they are also building more nuclear reactors and have said that nuclear will still providing plenty of electricity in 2040. But you have to virtue signal. And what has the pretty substantial wind and solar build in Sweden accomplished so far? Probably nothing. Their imports and exports of electricity have both grown substantially during this time (the same thing happened in Ontario) - meaning that it is most likely that when wind and solar are creating a lot of electricity they are just dumping most of it into neighboring countries, but when it is not producing much they are importing.

Wind and solar, even if they are cheap, make electricity in the grid more expensive for obvious reasons.


And while wind and solar are worthwhile in a couple instances (such as powering isolated areas) it will continue to fail everywhere else it is tried because the problems with it are unlikely to be overcome except by making electricity much more expensive. And even then success is questionable. So why do it? Virtue signalling while the planet burns.

I can see you feel strongly about this and probably feel frustrated by those not fully converted to the nuclear power option. But i will make a couple of points:

1. I don't find the mention of child labor for solar power materials extraction to be useful. The same states that allow that will also use child labor at some point in the nuclear power plant construction and decommissioning processes.

2. Ontario, and Canada in general has a good GHG emissions record. But is it correct to summarise that for Ontario the removal of the 20% CFPP share of the power generation mix was achieved due to a 50/50 split of increased share of nuclear and solar/wind.

3. Wind rather than solar seems more likely the way forward for recyclable energy in Canada (you record this is due to the "greens" for pricing nuclear out of the market). Considering that Canada has such a high level of nuclear and hydro power plants doesn't wind seem a good option for replacing the remaining CFPP, as you mention nuclear power costs seem unlikely to reduce sufficiently in the short to mid term.

 

[a_unique_person]

People are saying what? That they are happy to live close to a nuclear plant?



Yes - those who are close to Pickering and Bruce are generally happy with it, despite the barrage of lies they receive from Green groups about nuclear. They wouldn't live there otherwise. Those who are a bit farther away are more susceptible to the fearmongering.



My in-laws live very close to Bruce. They love living near and supporting the largest operating plant of completely clean power in the world.

I don't doubt it. Try and build a new one somewhere and see what the reaction is.

 

[smartcooky]

No, it would mean that you only want to get rid of the cars that pollute.



Okay, got it. You only mean to get rid of cows that fart.

Love your uncritical thinking techniques.

You snip out the parts of my post that explain the parts you cherrypicked so that you can win the interwebs

True conspiricraft!

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Love your uncritical thinking techniques.

You snip out the parts of my post that explain the parts you cherrypicked so that you can win the interwebs

True conwspiricraft!

ftfy

 

[lomiller]

Well duh! That means it ADDS CO₂ on top of the CO₂ we are already pumping into the atmosphere.

One of the many climate denier arguments goes roughly like this: "Because CO2 emitted by respiration and decay of organic matter is dwarfs CO2 released from burning fossil fuels, fossil fuels must not be a problem"

The problem with that is that these process don't increase atmospheric CO2. They can't because all the CO2 released this way was pulled out of the atmosphere by photosynthesis in the first place. An analogy would be suggesting rainfall can cause sea level rise, this obviously can't happen because all the rain water came from the oceans in the fist place.

Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The 100-year global warming potential of methane is 28, which means that over a 100 year period, it traps 28 times more heat/mass unit than carbon dioxide and 32 times the effect when accounting for aerosol interactions.

Sort of. This only holds are their current relative atmospheric concentrations, but "strength" scales inversely with concentrations

I have some news for you. Methane levels in the atmosphere ARE increasing, and rapidly. Global concentrations have risen from 722 parts per billion (ppb) in pre-industrial times to 1800 ppb by 2011, 2.5 fold increase, and it is currently at its highest value in at least 800,000 years

from Realclimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...of-methane-in-our-climate-in-five-pie-charts/