The Green New Deal

[Delvo]

Yes, there would need to be batteries, but there is no way that they would weigh anywhere the fuel weight.

Only if you don't plan to carry nearly as much usable stored energy, which means a serious drop in range. Batteries just don't have the energy density of a fossil fuel. That's what's been making range such a problem for electric cars all this time.

For example, I'll compare the plain-engine and hybrid versions of the Mitsubishi Outlander (SEL option package) based on the specifications at Mitsubishi's website. The plain version has a 16.6-gallon tank, which, at 27 miles per gallon and 5.91 pounds per gallon, gives it a 448.2-mile range on 98.1 pounds of fuel. The PHEV's tank is only 11.3 gallons (66.8 pounds), but its curb weight is also 827 pounds higher than the plain version's curb weight because of the weight of the battery system, and that gets it a range of 310 miles. A miles-per-pound-of-energy-storage-stuff comparison can't be done from this alone because the PHEV has a smaller engine (meaning the electrical side of the system is more than 827 pounds alone) and some of the extra electrical gear is other parts, not just the batteries, but still, overall, at least a few hundred pounds of that's got to be batteries, and adding all that just cut the range by 138.2 miles. Adding hundreds of pounds of fuel instead would have multiplied the range.

 

[PhantomWolf]

ETA: I see you edited this out of your comment, but...

And aircraft are less forgiving on this kind of thing than ground vehicles, because they need to hold all those pounds up, not just roll them forward.

This isn't actually quite true. An aircraft's engines don't keep it airborne directly (with perhaps the exception of a Harrier during vertical take off and landing.)

The wings provide the lift and the "hold[ing] all those pounds up". The engines provide the go forward to counter the drag backwards. This is why modern day jet engines are becoming really efficient. The fuel is for the most part being used to run the compressor blades to compress the air which is used to give the thrust. The new engines get about 90% of their thrust from compressing air and then releasing it out the back of the engine, with just 10% of the thrust coming from the expansion of the exhaust gases.

However should that thrust stop, a modern plane is pretty good at not just falling out of the sky. A modern airliner has a glide ration of 15:1 up to 20:1. A 777 can make it 210 km from a loss of both engines at 40,000 ft.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Retrofitting every ******* structure in the Untited States.

60 million families in the US so 60 million structures for their private homes would be the dominant factor. 10K per building? 600 Billion dollars. Divert 1 year of military budget and it's done in a year. Spread it over a decade and it's less money that Trump has added to the military budget in his two years.

 

[PhantomWolf]

60 million families in the US so 60 million structures for their private homes would be the dominant factor. 10K per building? 600 Billion dollars. Divert 1 year of military budget and it's done in a year. Spread it over a decade and it's less money that Trump has added to the military budget in his two years.

Thing is that it's probably not even that. It's not like the demand is for every home to be a class 8 eco-house. Most modern homes have good insulation, heat pumps for HVAC, a lack of draughts, mostly will have energy efficient appliances, and probably either LED or CFT bulbs. They aren't likely to need a lot of money spent on them.

Likewise, due to the climate in the US, a lot of homes are already set up to retain their heat, and stay cool in summer.

Making sure that their insulation is up to code, changing out older inefficient HVAC systems to more modern efficient ones, adding draught stoppers, switching lighting, perhaps adding solar hot water systems as well.

There is a new tech coming out that looks like a solar panel but uses space as a heat sink for its radiator and can currently add an extra 15% efficiency to AC units.

All of these would dramatically drop the US's electricity usage for hardly any work at all. The problem isn't that it's hard to do, it's convincing people that they need to get off their arses and do it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course we can STOP global warming. If we go pie in the sky, we can stop all emissions immediately, and it'll stop the warming.

I'm not interested in hypotheticals which have zero chance of being realized. Even if you could wave a magic wand and make the US's emissions go to zero, China's won't.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no "maybe" about it.

In Sweden, electric cars will be 65% of the market by 2025 this is only six years away)

Someone projects that it will be 65% by 2025, based on what appears to be an exponential curve fit to current data which stops at 6.1%. You think that's even remotely reliable? It isn't. That's guesswork.

... and Volvo are going all-electric. They are ceasing the manufacture of internal combustion powered cars this year.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/824866/Volvo-cars-electric-from-2019

You need to read beyond the headline, because that's absolutely not what they are doing.
"The Gothenburg-based company will continue to produce pure combustion-engine Volvos from models launched before that date, but said it would introduce cars across its model line-up that ranged from fully electric cars to plug-in hybrids. "

They are not going all-electric, not even close. And they're counting hybrids as "electric" even though they use gasoline. And that's a decision that they can easily reverse at any time.

Other manufactures will follow, or die.

Oh, I'm sure other manufacturers will expand their hybrid and electric offerings. But the internal combustion engine has a lot of life left in it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Even if you could wave a magic wand and make the US's emissions go to zero, China's won't.

That is true, but you know what, From 2013 to 2016 China was decreasing its emisions, true nowhere near the level that the US and EU were, but they had flattened out and started on a downwards trend. Since 2016 and the US pulling out of the Paris Accord, Chinese levels have started to rise again, the most seen in 7 years.

The US is seen as a leader, where they go, others follow. If they turn towards a Green Economy and decreasing Greenhouse gases, then others, including China will follow them, we have already seen that before.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even so, if the amount of fuel-jet flying can be reduced so that only long-haul international flights, with highly fuel efficient airliners use jet engines, and shorter commuter flights are almost exclusively electric powered, that will go a long, long way towards reducing the airline industry's contribution to emissions.

You seem to be ignorant about how big the United States is. New York to Los Angeles is 2,451 miles. There are a lot of domestic flights longer than 300 miles.

If they can make it work, that would be great. But that's a big if, and even if it does work, it's not magic. And it's not something this Green New Deal can make work either.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is true, but you know what, From 2013 to 2016 China was decreasing its emisions, true nowhere near the level that the US and EU were, but they had flattened out and started on a downwards trend. Since 2016 and the US pulling out of the Paris Accord, Chinese levels have started to rise again, the most seen in 7 years.

The US is seen as a leader, where they go, others follow. If they turn towards a Green Economy and decreasing Greenhouse gases, then others, including China will follow them, we have already seen that before.

Let's suppose that the US signed the Paris Accord, and that everyone actually hits their emissions targets. Would that stop global warming?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Let's suppose that the US signed the Paris Accord, and that everyone actually hits their emissions targets. Would that stop global warming?

Do you think that the Paris Accord was supposed to be a magic bullet to stop climate change?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you think that the Paris Accord was supposed to be a magic bullet to stop climate change?

That’s... not an answer. Hell, it’s not even a very good question. What something will do is far more important than what it’s supposed to do.

 

[Brainster]

What they need is a good speechwriter to turn out slogans like this:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the cows.

From each according to his ability or willingness, to each according to his needs.

A chicken in every pot, and two bicycles in every garage.

Ask not what your country can do for you, other than retrofit your home.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

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.

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

 

[Venom]

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

I agree, but I don't think that will happen, sadly.

I'd like to see two children per couple at most.

 

[Ziggurat]

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

How would you suggest we force people to have fewer children? Mandated abortions? Involuntary sterilization? What do we do with countries that don’t go along with this? Invade them?

 

[smartcooky]

And not a single mention of reducing the environmental impact of humans by reducing the number of humans. We can build all the solar panels and windmills we want but if we don't force the developing nations to stop destroying the rainforests and put a brake on their out of control breeding, there's no point in "going green." Population control is necessary and sufficient to solve all our environmental problems.

Cut down on the number of uneducated mud people aye?

 

[Brainster]

How would you suggest we force people to have fewer children? Mandated abortions? Involuntary sterilization? What do we do with countries that don’t go along with this? Invade them?

Well, the easiest way would be to come up with some sort of airborne virus that only affects women of child-bearing age and either kills them or makes them infertile. I can't imagine the environmentalists having any problem with that proposal if they're willing to kill all the cows.

#cowslivesmatter

 

[Checkmite]

And no nukes:

From the article:

Chiefly, the resolution calls for relying on “clean, renewable, zero-emission sources" — language that allows possible room for nuclear power and is a departure from Ocasio-Cortez’s initial call for 100 percent renewable sources such as wind and solar. The change reflects concerns from labor groups, including those that have members who work in the nuclear energy industry.

 

[smartcooky]

Someone projects that it will be 65% by 2025, based on what appears to be an exponential curve fit to current data which stops at 6.1%. You think that's even remotely reliable? It isn't. That's guesswork.

Its a target. Sweden and Swedish companies are veeerrry good at meeting targets.

You need to read beyond the headline, because that's absolutely not what they are doing.
"The Gothenburg-based company will continue to produce pure combustion-engine Volvos from models launched before that date, but said it would introduce cars across its model line-up that ranged from fully electric cars to plug-in hybrids. "

Read my words.... ALL new models will be electric

https://autovistagroup.com/news-and-insights/volvo-reported-end-petrol-engine-development

"Essentially, every new car introduced by Volvo from 2019 onwards will have an electric motor, either in the form of a pure electric car, a plug-in or a mild hybrid. Specifically, the plan is to bring five pure electric cars to market between 2019 and 2021 - three Volvo models and two high-performance electric vehicles which will be launched under Volvo’s new standalone performance sub-brand Polestar."

"Since Volvo announced that it will cease the development of diesel engines, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) has become the latest manufacturer to suggest it will drop diesel engines from its line-up as the market continues to suffer. This follows similar plans announced by Porsche, PSA Group and Nissan recently and this lack of ICE product will ultimately accelerate the demise of diesel."

They are not going all-electric, not even close. And they're counting hybrids as "electric" even though they use gasoline. And that's a decision that they can easily reverse at any time.

No. Once a factory retools to build something else, going back and making it again becomes untenable

Oh, I'm sure other manufacturers will expand their hybrid and electric offerings. But the internal combustion engine has a lot of life left in it.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/life/2017/07/06/volvo-to-phase-out-petrol-only-cars-from-2019.html

"A Volvo Cars spokesman said the company would continue to manufacture existing petrol or diesel-only models launched before 2019, but they will gradually be replaced by hybrid and fully electric cars."

Now how's that for "reading past the headlines"?


I suggest you talk to someone who owns and drives a hybrid, like my oldest daughter. She has owned an Audi A3 E-tron for about 18 months (had Nissan Leaf before that), and has only run it on petrol twice; both times on a 440km return trip to Christchurch last year.

Hybrids still reduce the amount of fuel emissions dramatically because most owners run them on electric the vast majority of the time... and why wouldn't they; hybrids are much cheaper to run on electric.

 

[novaphile]

That's pretty much my use case.

I've had mine nearly four years, and only put 20 litres of petrol in it twice per year (because the car requires it to "maintain fuel system").

This gives me a great excuse to visit a friend who lives an hour away.

The plug-in hybrid concept is brilliant, and suits me perfectly.

If there had been an all electric version of my car, I would have bought it, but all the models on the market at the time were too low to the ground for my aching back.

Being a four wheel drive with slightly more ground clearance than a regular car is also nice for getting my kayak to where I want to paddle... (Not to mention launching from boat ramps.)