The Green New Deal

lionking said:
I think the conservatives in this thread should have a long, hard talk to Germany. I mean, these backward idiots have just announced a phasing out of coal power, not long after cutting back on nuclear. What would these clowns know about science and engineering? They need real solutions (aka do nothing) from TBD and others.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-in-move-away-from-fossil-fuels-idUSKCN1PK04L
Click to expand...

They decided a long time ago that Europe's not the real world.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Because I like planes, and it's cool looking into and discussing how aerospace engineers are working to make them less damaging to our environment, if you're not interested, you don't have to be involved in the conservation.
Click to expand...

That last word is a somewhat apt typo (but undesirable outcome.)
 
lionking said:
They got Trump elected.....
Click to expand...

And alienated the rest of the free world in doing so, making it clear as day that the emperor (AKA the USA) has no clothes. At this point only the worst bootlicking scum still believes that the US is the "shining beacon on the hill".

Good luck to them getting cozy with North Korea and russian oligarks.
 
Last edited:
I don't travel to China much but I was in Shenzhen recently and was surprised by the number of electric taxis, a lot seemed to be manufactured by BYD.

More interesting for me is that the major and traditional car manufacturers are joining the market. So instead of a buyer having to first choose electric or hydrocarbon power instead in the showroom both products will be available side by side. I believe electric wins in less than a generation.

As for power, regulatory difficulties already slow down CFPP projects, approval of an EIA takes time and if a government changes during the process the start and completion of construction cannot be accurately determined. Solar power projects are easier to get approved and quick to get to commercial operation. Wind to me seems a less obvious solution - but i see that windfarms onshore and offshore being constructed in so many places (the UK view to the horizon has changed so much in 15 years)

But i believe in the short term the worldwide agreements on renewables and emission reductions are important. For that reason I believe The New Green Deal can be a vote winner, the youthful US vote will be to fix climate change as much as it can be fixed in 10 to 20 yeara.
 
Brainster said:
AOC rolled out her Green New Deal today:



Sounds wonderful, but the devil is in the details. For starters, the GND hand-waves away any questions about funding:



And in case that isn't specific enough:



The document is not all smoke and mirrors; only 90%. Getting down to specifics, they envision ending all air travel in 10 years. No, I'm not kidding:



And no nukes:



Oh, and there's this little proposal:



The plan claims support from 92% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans, including Democratic presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand among others.
Click to expand...


Scientists have been warning for about 40 years about the need for action on AGW. The longer we have delayed taking effective action the more drastic action we have to take to remediate the loss of time. You can call her absurd but all she is doing is pointing out the bleeding obvious. It is our society that has been more absurd by delaying effective action for so long. If we had been taking more effective action over the years we would already be well on the way to preventing disaster.


Much of it can be done with little cost to consumers.


As for paying for the changes needed, where were all the conservatives when Trump brought in his tax cuts for the wealthy? The budget is still heading into stratospheric debt either way.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I think the conservatives in this thread should have a long, hard talk to Germany. I mean, these backward idiots have just announced a phasing out of coal power, not long after cutting back on nuclear. What would these clowns know about science and engineering? They need real solutions (aka do nothing) from TBD and others.
Click to expand...

Germany is the poster child for the most disastrous way that a country can tackle climate change. Spend massive amounts of money. Huge increase in electricity costs. Extremely minimal decreases in ghgs. Per capita CO2 emissions at least twice as high as France. For the simple reason that they followed a completely counterproductive ideology, instead of science.

Ontario eliminated coal years ago (and would have eliminated it much sooner, except that they too followed the same anti-science ideology of shutting down nukes, resulting in a massive increase in coal. Spending billions on wind and solar, increasing the electricity costs for decades to come, before realizing that the wind and solar was completely useless, canceling future wind and solar contracts - which they knew would not only further increase electricity costs, but would actually increase emissions - finally putting the nuclear back online and due to that easily shutting down all coal).
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Well if you say so.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When he first published those papers. His math was so bad and so full of errors he had to take the excel sheets offline, but even still the methodology is hilarious. He has locations ramping up hydro which don't have rivers to dam etc. Serious scientists consider his work a joke and people who have tried to replicate his work can't come close.

But, I don't really care. I have long known that until people understand the methods promoted by the greens have zero chance of working, we will get nowhere when it comes to climate change except for pissing away money.

The proportion of energy worldwide that came from zero carbon sources increased steadily for decades - for instance doubling from 6% in 1973 to 12% in 1990. If it had continued the same trend it would be at 40% today. Instead it has held steady at roughly 12 - 12% for the last 29 years. That because at that time climate change policy started to enter the mainstream and politicians started to follow the disastrous policies of the Greens - who claim to care about climate change, but instead put all of their efforts into eliminating nuclear.
 
Wayward son said:
Germany is the poster child for the most disastrous way that a country can tackle climate change. Spend massive amounts of money. Huge increase in electricity costs. Extremely minimal decreases in ghgs. Per capita CO2 emissions many times higher than France. For the simple reason that they followed a completely counterproductive ideology, instead of science.

Ontario eliminated coal years ago (and would have eliminated it much sooner, except that they too followed the same anti-science ideology of shutting down nukes, resulting in a massive increase in coal. Spending billions on wind and solar, increasing the electricity costs for decades to come, before realizing that the wind and solar was completely useless, canceling future wind and solar contracts - which they knew would not only further increase electricity costs, but would actually increase emissions - finally putting the nuclear back online and due to that easily shutting down all coal).
Click to expand...

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.

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. 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.

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.
 
Wayward son said:
When he first published those papers. His math was so bad and so full of errors he had to take the excel sheets offline, but even still the methodology is hilarious. He has locations ramping up hydro which don't have rivers to dam etc. Serious scientists consider his work a joke and people who have tried to replicate his work can't come close.
Click to expand...

Evidence/link?
 
Wayward son said:
I have long known that until people understand the methods promoted by the greens have zero chance of working, we will get nowhere when it comes to climate change except for pissing away money
Click to expand...

You think this is junk science, too?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307?via=ihub

Nuclear power, which the authors have evaluated positively elsewhere, faces other, genuine feasibility problems, such as the finiteness of uranium resources and a reliance on unproven technologies in the medium- to long-term. Energy systems based on renewables, on the other hand, are not only feasible, but already economically viable and decreasing in cost every year.
Click to expand...

As a result, we conclude that the 100% renewable energy scenarios proposed in the literature are not just feasible, but also viable. As we demonstrated in Section 4.4, 100% renewable systems that meet the energy needs of all citizens at all times are cost-competitive with fossil-fuel-based systems, even before externalities such as global warming, water usage and environmental pollution are taken into account.

The authors claim that a 100% renewable world will require a ‘re-invention’ of the power system; we have shown here that this claim is exaggerated: only a directed evolution of the current system is required to guarantee affordability, reliability and sustainability.
Click to expand...
 
kellyb said:
You think this is junk science, too?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307?via=ihub
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom