The Green New Deal

[lomiller]

AFAIK, there are no good objections to the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, which would allow for nuclear waste to be retrieved if deemed necessary.

Yes there is. The "Waste" marked for disposal has only had ~5% of it's fissionable material used up. If you really want to scale up nuclear power to replace fossil fuels you need to get MUCH more efficient utilization than that, otherwise Uranium reserves are far to small to get the job done. In current reactor designs Uranium reserves would only last a couple years if you tried to replace fossil fuels with Nuclear.

 

[Brainster]

Meanwhile the plan to get rid of airplanes with high-speed trains has hit a snag.

In a change to a project voters first approved with a $10 billion bond during the Schwarzenegger administration, Newsom said there “simply isn’t a path” to build high speed rail to connect the northern and southern parts of the state without more funding. The project as originally designed now is estimated to cost at least $77 billion.

Instead, he called for focus on a section linking the Central Valley cities of Merced and Bakersfield, which he said have long been neglected by lawmakers.

A bullet train from nowhere to nowhere. How typical of California.

 

[smartcooky]

Brought over from the AOC Video thread so as not to sidetrack that one..

Not to mention various power-dense industrial needs, like smelting as a prime example. Solar just doesn't provide the power density required.

Solar and wind-power, even taken together, will never be a 100% solution for all the reasons that people have said. Solar doesn't generate power at night and its efficiency and output drops off on cloudy days. Wind, although it is potentially capable of operating through 24 hours, doesn't generate power if there is no wind (or if there is too much wind).

Also, batteries are not yet available with sufficient energy density to store the solar and wind generated energy for use during those times of low or no output

To a certain extent these limitations could be mitigated by interlinking all of these power sources in a nationwide grid on the basis that there will always be plenty of sunshine and/or wind at multiple locations all over the grid. The down side is losses on the network; the longer the distances that power need to be transmitted, the more line losses you get. Those losses can be mitigated to a certain extent by having more and smaller energy generating plants closer together.

IMO, the only true solution to having an energy supply that does not rely on any fossil fuels is a combination of nuclear, hydro-electric, tidal, solar and wind power, with nuclear being the cornerstone. This is what could be called near-100% renewable solution. Only nuclear is not renewable, although as someone pointed out earlier, some advances are being made in extracting uranium from seawater.

 

[kellyb]

Meanwhile the plan to get rid of airplanes with high-speed trains has hit a snag.



A bullet train from nowhere to nowhere. How typical of California.

Yeah, the funding for high speed rail is going to have to be federal.

 

[theprestige]

We can adapt but we can't prevent. How does that work?

Can't stop the sea level from rising, but we can move away from the coast.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Yes there is. The "Waste" marked for disposal has only had ~5% of it's fissionable material used up. If you really want to scale up nuclear power to replace fossil fuels you need to get MUCH more efficient utilization than that, otherwise Uranium reserves are far to small to get the job done. In current reactor designs Uranium reserves would only last a couple years if you tried to replace fossil fuels with Nuclear.

I don't think this is as much an argument against Yucca than it is for having more variety in reactor types. Whatever is left still needs to be put somewhere.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Solar doesn't generate power at night...

So that's why my solar night lights don't work!

Also, batteries are not yet available with sufficient energy density to store the solar and wind generated energy for use during those times of low or no output

Nonsense. Energy density has nothing to do with it - only cost matters. And there are other ways to store the energy (eg. pumped hydro).

IMO, the only true solution to having an energy supply that does not rely on any fossil fuels is a combination of nuclear, hydro-electric, tidal, solar and wind power, with nuclear being the cornerstone.

That's rich coming from someone who claims to live in New Zealand.

All this talk about what we should do smacks of communist-style central planning. I say let the market decide. Right now nuclear isn't doing too well, while renewables are increasing exponentially. And that is despite significant public skepticism and opposition to wind farms etc.

If nuclear was as good as some say, it would already be the 'cornerstone' of power generation, and nobody would have bothered with renewables. In reality nuclear plants are very expensive and take years to build, much longer than wind or solar. If it wasn't for government subsidies most nuclear plants would be uneconomic, and some have been abandoned even before completion because the costs were too high.

Renewables Are Expected to Dominate Global Power Generation by 2040

"The cost declines that we are seeing with these technologies are so steep that it becomes a matter of time as to when they start crossing over and becoming competitive in different ways," Henbest said of solar, renewables and lithium-ion batteries. "These things are getting cheaper faster than we thought even a year ago."

There's a revolution coming, and we hardly need a "Green New Deal" to keep it going. Just having a government that isn't actively trying to stop it will be enough.

 

[smartcooky]

That's rich coming from someone who claims to live in New Zealand.

Hey, don't tar all Kiwis with the same brush.

1. Not everyone in NZ is a 100% tree-hugging hippie. I believe in recycling, minimising plastic use, mindful disposal of waste, sustainable milling of forestry etc. However, despite the fact that I an a Green Party supporter, I do not agree with their stance on nuclear energy.

2. We may have one of the highest levels of renewable energy in the world but I wasn't thinking about just us - Think Globally - Act Locally.

3. Hydro still has its problems. We have had power shortages due to low lake levels - https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10376446 This is likely to happen more as the climate changes and as the weather patterns become more extreme, we will get long periods with no rain.

NOTE: We haven't seen any rain in Nelson for six weeks and we have been having spates of forest fires in the Waimea West and in Eve's Vallry only 15 km from where I live.

 

[Orphia Nay]

People seem to be arguing about the GND as if it was supposed to be the exact plan for the next presidential term.

Because technology, health, education, agriculture, science, and knowledge are ever-changing, it appears to be a plan that is appropriate for now and for 30 years into the future, due to its apparent "vagueness".

Our responsibility to the planet and its inhabitants won't change, which is what the GND sets out.

Policies will be made that implement changes to our way of living and will set out the specifics appropriate to the time they are made, but should follow the overall GND which will remain appropriate.

 

[Hellbound]

Brought over from the AOC Video thread so as not to sidetrack that one..



Solar and wind-power, even taken together, will never be a 100% solution for all the reasons that people have said. Solar doesn't generate power at night and its efficiency and output drops off on cloudy days. Wind, although it is potentially capable of operating through 24 hours, doesn't generate power if there is no wind (or if there is too much wind).

Also, batteries are not yet available with sufficient energy density to store the solar and wind generated energy for use during those times of low or no output

To a certain extent these limitations could be mitigated by interlinking all of these power sources in a nationwide grid on the basis that there will always be plenty of sunshine and/or wind at multiple locations all over the grid. The down side is losses on the network; the longer the distances that power need to be transmitted, the more line losses you get. Those losses can be mitigated to a certain extent by having more and smaller energy generating plants closer together.

IMO, the only true solution to having an energy supply that does not rely on any fossil fuels is a combination of nuclear, hydro-electric, tidal, solar and wind power, with nuclear being the cornerstone. This is what could be called near-100% renewable solution. Only nuclear is not renewable, although as someone pointed out earlier, some advances are being made in extracting uranium from seawater.

That was pretty much where I was going. In those places where you need a lot of energy in one spot, you either deal with increased cost due to transmission losses (your first option using a distributed grid) or you need something local that puts out a lot of power.

I agree, solar and wind won't replace all our needs. I think they'd be fine for a large part of our residential and light commercial use, but industrial and heavy usage areas are still going to need something more.

 

[Wayward son]

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

I agree. The futility of the environmental movement's desire to take the world in that way was outlined well in the book "Break Through: Why We Can't Leave Saving The Planet To Environmentalists"

 

[Wayward son]

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.

Not really. Uranium reserves are very high in Australia, Canada and Russia, not places like the Congo. Nor would it be mined in that way.

Yes, mining for materials other than uranium (or thorium) would also need to be done, but at a fraction of what is needed for solar and wind.

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.

No. The percentage of electricity in Ontario grew from 42% of the total to 60% of the total during that time. While wind and solar did grow from near 0% to 7%, most of that was just exported at a massive loss.

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.

No. The price of nuclear power is largely whatever we make it. The Federal Government is pushing small modular reactors. Whether that goes anywhere at this time I don't know.

Wind is absolutely the worst way to try to replace the remaining dirty electricity. It needs natural gas backup and is astonishingly unreliable. The Ontario government had planned on continuing to increase wind and solar even though their own studies showed that this would increase ghg emissions and make the grid less reliable.

 

[Wayward son]

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

If that is the case, it only supports my position concerning the massive damage the Greens have done towards the hopes for a sustainable future.

 

[applecorped]

We had to kill them to save them

 

[quadraginta]

Can't stop the sea level from rising, but we can move away from the coast.

In 2010 39% of the people in the U.S. lived in counties on the coast.

If you think we have an immigration problem now, just wait until 2/5ths of the country has to move in with the other 3/5ths.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I agree. The futility of the environmental movement's desire to take the world in that way was outlined well in the book "Break Through: Why We Can't Leave Saving The Planet To Environmentalists"

about time someone other than only Environmentalists cared about the Environment.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Here's my plan

Insulate houses better.
A new Manhattan project aimed at developing safer nuke tech.
Massive implementation of current nuke tech.
Massive investment in nuke fuel recycling.
Stimulate companies to let people work from home
Make airlines pay for pollution making flying 10X more expensive.
Reduce maximum freeway speed to 70 km an hour (just about halves my fuel consumption).
Outlaw single-use plastics.
Government subsidies for developing vat-grown meat.

We've had clean energy tech for 70 years, but we can't use it because Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas made a scary movie. Now the ice is melting, insect populations are disappearing and rainforests are on fire.

The right is in the pockets of the oil industry and the left is publishing pie-in-the-sky proposals. We're screwed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

- design cities to reduce the distance stuff and people have to travel
- start a real carbon credit system
- cancel debt to all developing countries to the amount they invest fighting climate change

 

[Drewbot]

When sea levels rise, my inland property will become far more valuable than the flooded coastal areas where most of the rich people live.

Invest in higher elevation property, sell your coastal property to the blind rich people who ignore global warming warnings.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Invest in higher elevation property, sell your coastal property to the blind rich people who ignore global warming warnings.

'Blind' rich people know they will get bailed out.