Green new deal equals magical thinking

[brenthutch 383]

48 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

Greenies are against solar, wind and hydro?  An even better strawman!

 

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/mar/19/ticker-boulevard-environmentalists-against-solar/#

https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article222260280.html

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html

Yep

[billvon 2,380]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/mar/19/ticker-boulevard-environmentalists-against-solar/#

https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article222260280.html

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html

Yep

Funny, right after I posted that I figured you'd go and find one example for each and declare "greenies are against solar."

By that "reasoning," republicans are for killing little kids.

https://splinternews.com/gop-ghoul-on-children-dying-at-the-border-fine-1835089318

As a suggestion, rather than make up strawmen to argue against, why not discuss what you and others _actually_ think?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Greenies are against solar, wind and hydro?  An even better strawman!

 

Not really. I believe the 'greenies' are against destruction of the environment. 

Placing federal land off limits means the oil companies can't destroy them.

Banning fracking means they don't create all of the really nasty byproducts. And are a lot less likely to just open the valve on the tanker truck and drive down the road rather than dispose of the crap properly (real situation).

Stopping pipelines means that they don't destroy the environment installing them, and there's no pipeline to break and leak (although pipelines are a pretty safe way to transport oil overall).

"Burdensome regulations" mean that the oil companies (or other industry) can't just do what ever they feel like (usually what's cheapest) and dump their hazardous wastes 'just anywhere'. It's been a few decades since the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, but consider how many EPA Superfund sites are still awaiting cleanup. How many abandoned mines out west are 'ticking time bombs' from an environmental disaster standpoint?

Nuclear power has all sorts of pitfalls. Waste disposal is just one. But a big one.

Large scale hydro destroys the ecosystem of the river. How many salmon are left running naturally in the western rivers? 

Wind farms are pretty benign, but there's a fair amount of environmental damage in their construction (depending on the site - Farmland is usually the least destructive. Remote mountain tops the most). They do take their toll on birds, although overall less than most fossil fuel types.

Powerlines are similar to pipelines. They do a lot of environmental damage clearing out the right-of-way.

I don't completely oppose any of the above. But to characterize the 'greenies' as being opposed to that stuff just because they want to see energy prices rise is pretty simplistic. And wrong.

[brenthutch 383]

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

[richravizza 25]

 

On 5/24/2019 at 1:54 PM, billvon said:

I agree with the mandate for 50% renewable by 2025/2030.  We are already at 32% and that has already paid dividends in terms of air quality and the economy.  Getting another 18% is doable, and we will learn a lot (and create a lot of jobs) by doing it.

I don't agree with the 100% mandate.  That's dumb.  Getting the last 10% is a hundred times harder (and more expensive) than getting the first 50%.  That money would be better spent on nuclear, repowering dams and/or more cogeneration.

(And the "there has to be solar on every house" is even dumber - that's going to be a lesson in the law of unintended consequences.  Provide the incentives and let homeowners decide.)

Considering we dont see eye to eye on most subjects in this topic.I'm amazed how much we do Agree. 

Except for; "We are already at 32% and that has already paid dividends in terms of air quality and the economy." 

The Air quality part, is laughable.Just ask some of the old farts about the air quality in So.Cal.It was cleaned up, long before "renewables or solar".

Smog for the most part hasn't been an issue since the late 80's and by the early 90's eradicated.

"Getting the last 10% is a hundred times harder (and more expensive) than getting the first 50%." 

Again couldn't agree more.

[richravizza 25]

On 5/30/2019 at 1:39 PM, brenthutch said:

In State College our public transportation runs on it.  No soot.  Just water vapor and plant food out of the exhaust pipe.

Same here, in Santa Clarita Ca. all our busses and our trash trucks run on nat gas by Waste Management. It truely has Improved our air quality.

 I find it funny that its still looked apon as a Dirty Fossil Fuel.Even the name, Natural gas is under attack.Methane sould sound more problematic, so be it.

[DJL 232]

On 6/1/2019 at 2:19 PM, brenthutch said:

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/mar/19/ticker-boulevard-environmentalists-against-solar/#

https://www.bnd.com/news/local/article222260280.html

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html

Yep

Your sources are probably the best examples of how "The Greenies" aren't blindly saying "Solar good, oil bad".  These are instances in which site selection and secondary impacts make them unfeasible.  Sure, there's always a NIMBY attitude mixed in there but that true for anything.  Edit: Or not even necessarily unfeasible but need to be balanced against other things.  Dams, need fish ladders, for example. 

 

Edited June 3, 2019 by DJL

[turtlespeed 212]

On 5/31/2019 at 9:51 PM, billvon said:

Ah, you have cleverly backpedaled from "greenies want energy to cost more" to "greenies want to reduce our energy usage!"  Points for that.

Personally, I want to reduce our energy usage - and end up with cheaper USABLE energy.  If cars need 1/2 the gas to go the same distance, and gas prices go up but do not double, everyone wins.  The environment gets less crap emitted into it, and drivers pay less for the miles they drive.

I want to increase energy usage - but make it exponentially more efficient.

Your version doesn't seem to get us no closer to being a type 1 civilization.

Unless you are of the mind that the human populace currently SHOULDN'T be moving in that direction right now - To that I say "Maybe you are correct."

[billvon 2,380]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I want to increase energy usage - but make it exponentially more efficient.

 

Hard to get "exponentially more efficient" past 100%.  And again, I don't want to increase energy USAGE.  I suspect you don't want to either.  What you want is more USEFUL energy.

For example, you don't really care how much kwhr you use in your house - but you care how bright your lights are, how long you can keep them on and how warm/cool you can keep your house.  If you can do all that you want to do in those areas but your energy usage goes down I suspect you'd be happy.  Likewise, if you increased your energy consumption but found out you could no longer keep your home cool in the summer, I suspect you would not be happy.

Quote

Your version doesn't seem to get us no closer to being a type 1 civilization.

A Type 1 civilization is defined as a civilization that is able to use all the energy coming from the nearest star.  More solar = closer to a Type 1 civilization.  If you really want to hasten that day, invest in cheap, reusable orbital launchers and solar power satellites.

Quote

Unless you are of the mind that the human populace currently SHOULDN'T be moving in that direction right now - To that I say "Maybe you are correct."

There are a few issues I worry about.

1) Pollution.  Things like heavy metal water pollution, particulate pollution, SOx and NOx pollution and radioactive waste in the air/ground have already done a lot of damage.  If we continue to emit them they will do more.  We have already proven we can reduce them; we just have to continue doing so.

2) Climate change.  CO2 and methane cause the planet to get warmer.  That has some direct effects (warmer temperatures, ocean acidification, rising sea levels) and lots of indirect effects (droughts that are worse, longer wildfire seasons, larger potential for precipitation, ice sheet melting etc.)  It also is going to have a lot of effects we don't understand yet, because they will be third or fourth order effects.  Seems wise to avoid them.

3) Energy crash*.  We will run out of oil.  It's not an "if" it's a "when."  When that happens we will have to revert to an earlier, less energy intensive society, one that does not rely on endless growth and wealth creation through debt.  That's certainly not the end of the world; people living in the 40's were certainly not living in hell.  However, if we adopt a strategy of "Oil is cheap!  Drill as much as we can as fast as we can!" then the crash will be hard and deadly; converting everything in society from oil to solar in a few years isn't doable, and the result will be a worldwide economic collapse that will make 1929 look like a boom time.  

However, if at that point we have switched much of our transportation, trucking, mining, farming, aviation etc from oil to an alternative, then the crash will be much less catastrophic.  People will be choosing from two alternatives, and then one alternative will go away.  That's not as bad as losing your only source of energy.

So I don't have a direction we "should" be moving in.  I do have directions that we should NOT be moving in - and those are in the direction of reliance on oil, continued use of coal and continued emissions of pollution and greenhouse gases.  Right now solar, wind, hydro and nuclear are good options for our energy, and natural gas is the least bad of the nonrenewables.  But if cold fusion (or some other form of fusion that's actually practical) comes along then that would be a great alternative, too.

 

(* - for a good overview of this, check out the Nate Hagens Reality 101 lectures; you can start here: https://un-denial.com/2019/02/02/by-nate-hagens-reality-101-what-every-student-and-citizen-should-know-about-energy/)

[billvon 2,380]

7 hours ago, richravizza said:

Same here, in Santa Clarita Ca. all our busses and our trash trucks run on nat gas by Waste Management. It truely has Improved our air quality.

Cool.  Down here we are doing the same thing - and are starting to run those trucks on methane from our landfill.

[billvon 2,380]

8 hours ago, richravizza said:

The Air quality part, is laughable.Just ask some of the old farts about the air quality in So.Cal.It was cleaned up, long before "renewables or solar".

Smog for the most part hasn't been an issue since the late 80's and by the early 90's eradicated.

 

I first came to LA in 1980.  There was a line you descended through where the smog started.  You could smell it.

I started skydiving in Perris in the 1990's.  It definitely wasn't "eradicated" but was vastly better than it was when I first arrived - and that was driven 90% by CARB regulations on cars, and 10% by new EPA requirements on power plants.

It has continued to get better.  Nowadays there are days when you can see clear across the LA basin from altitude, and the mountains are sharp.  And much of _that_ improvement has come from getting rid of coal.  In 2008 we got 18% of our energy from coal.  Today it's less than 4%.

[turtlespeed 212]

   4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I want to increase energy usage - but make it exponentially more efficient.

 

Quote

Hard to get "exponentially more efficient" past 100%.  And again, I don't want to increase energy USAGE.  I suspect you don't want to either.  What you want is more USEFUL energy.

Semantics - 

You can not achieve 100% efficient energy any more than you can create a perpetual machine.

One would be the same as the other.

 

Quote

For example, you don't really care how much kwhr you use in your house - but you care how bright your lights are, how long you can keep them on and how warm/cool you can keep your house.  If you can do all that you want to do in those areas but your energy usage goes down I suspect you'd be happy.  Likewise, if you increased your energy consumption but found out you could no longer keep your home cool in the summer, I suspect you would not be happy.

My image is of a world that uses the wattage of the suns output.

That would be a lot more than we use now - so Yes - I want more energy consumption with as much efficiency as possible.

[billvon 2,380]

36 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

You can not achieve 100% efficient energy any more than you can create a perpetual machine.  One would be the same as the other.

 

Electric heaters are 100% efficient.

Quote

 

My image is of a world that uses the wattage of the suns output.

That would be a lot more than we use now - so Yes - I want more energy consumption with as much efficiency as possible.

 

OK.  To me that sounds like someone who just wants a lot of money, with no consideration to what that money will purchase or whether it helps them live their life.  (Consider someone who is proud that they are a millionaire - in pesos.)   They are going after the wrong goals.  The right goal is what money (or electricity) lets you _do._

[kallend 1,620]

11 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I want to increase energy usage - but make it exponentially more efficient.

 

What EXACTLY does "exponentially more efficient" mean?  You want it to violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

12 hours ago, kallend said:

What EXACTLY does "exponentially more efficient" mean?  You want it to violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?

No, he just doesn't understand what 'exponentially' means. It's just a big word that means "a LOT more."

[turtlespeed 212]

I love it when you all get so smug and condescending.

[gowlerk 1,902]

19 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I love it when you all get so smug and condescending.

I love it when you get called out for unreasonable hyperbole and then attack those who point it out.

[kallend 1,620]

5 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I love it when you get called out for unreasonable hyperbole and then attack those who point it out.

I thought he was called out for ignorance of the most basic math and science yet having a willingness to pontificate on them.

[turtlespeed 212]

Your egos are amazing.

 

[DJL 232]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Your egos are amazing.

 

Lego my ego.

[brenthutch 383]

The latest from NOAA, “For May, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 59.5°F, 0.7°F below the 20th century average and ranked in the bottom third of the 125-year record.”

[SkyDekker 1,120]

17 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The latest from NOAA, “For May, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 59.5°F, 0.7°F below the 20th century average and ranked in the bottom third of the 125-year record.”

Clearly that settles the global climate change debate.

[brenthutch 383]

It’s hard to believe that we are in the midst of a global warming catastrophe when the US has had below average temperatures all this year.  And unlike global temperature, continental US temperature is measured not modeled.

[DJL 232]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Clearly that settles the global climate change debate.

I'm not sure, maybe you can help me with this.   I scrolled down the page and at the bottom it said we're in the hottest 60 month period since 1920.  Am I reading it wrong?

[SkyDekker 1,120]

7 minutes ago, DJL said:

I'm not sure, maybe you can help me with this.   I scrolled down the page and at the bottom it said we're in the hottest 60 month period since 1920.  Am I reading it wrong?

Sure, but we all know 1 means winner. So 1 month trumps 60 months.