Green new deal equals magical thinking

[rushmc 18]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Glad you dodged the bullet.  Not everyone is so lucky.

===================================================

Reliance on coal linked with lung cancer incidence

The more a country relies on coal-fired power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk is among its citizens, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

The study was published on January 28, 2019 in the journal Environmental Health.

. . .

The researchers examined data from 2000 to 2016 from a total of 13,581 coal-fired plants in 83 countries. Using a metric called “coal capacity per person”—the annual amount of generating capacity from every coal-fired plant in a given country, divided by the total population in that country—the researchers found that, for every 1-kilowatt increase of coal capacity per person, the relative risk of lung cancer increases 59% among men and 85% among women.

Based on their model, the researchers estimated that 1.37 million cases of lung cancer around the world will be linked with coal-fired power plants in 2025.

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/reliance-on-coal-linked-with-lung-cancer-incidence/

You guys love making up shit and numbers.

Because there is no way this assurtion has any chance of being proven one way of the other

[gowlerk 1,912]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Luddite, I love new technology, just look at what advances in the recovery of tight oil and natural gas have brought us.

What you are is a man with a political position that you are trying to advance. Your interest in the mechanics of energy resources is completely secondary to that. You do not start with a curiosity about energy, you start with a pre-determinined belief and then look for ways to prove it.

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

What you are is a man with a political position that you are trying to advance. Your interest in the mechanics of energy resources is completely secondary to that. You do not start with a curiosity about energy, you start with a pre-determinined belief and then look for ways to prove it.

No actually I'm just the opposite, I will embrace wind, solar and unicorn farts as soon as they become economically viable.  If the adaptation of renewables were to lower energy costs instead of causing them to skyrocket, I would be for renewables, unfortunately they do not.  I look to Germany as a cautionary tale and their aggressive adaptation of wind and solar.  Results?  Skyrocketing energy costs and a GROWING carbon footprint.  

[kallend 1,623]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Only because of free market forcing.  Take a look at the progress of computing power when it was the exclusive domain of government vs what happened when capitalism got ahold of it.  BTW I have learned my lesson and will not belittle you nor your arguments with petty name calling 

Moving the goalposts doesn't help your case.

[billvon 2,400]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

No actually I'm just the opposite, I will embrace wind, solar and unicorn farts as soon as they become economically viable.  If the adaptation of renewables were to lower energy costs instead of causing them to skyrocket, I would be for renewables, unfortunately they do not. 

If you also rejected things like SUVs and the wall it would be easier to take you seriously.  I think your political party hates solar (and mocks it by calling it things like "unicorn farts") and thus you really don't care what the economics are.  And you largely follow them.

Solar is already cheaper than coal.  That's why solar is growing and coal plants are closing down.  

But on a larger scale solar is even cheaper than natural gas.  The cost of climate change is already hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and that is going to keep growing.  And that means that tens of billions invested in fighting makes us money in the long run.

The reason we don't do that in a bigger way is twofold.  One is selfishness.  There are lots of people out there who think "I don't give a shit, let my grandkids deal with it."  This often manifests itself in climate change denial.  If they can get other people to believe their denial, they can consider themselves blameness; see themselves as the hero in their own story, instead of one of the villains.

 The second (larger) one is ignorance; they simply don't think much about it.  Which is why the right wing is getting more and more anti-science.  The less education, the better (for them.)

Both positions are pretty sad.  And a lot of people realize this.  Greta Thunberg puts it very well - and she (and people like her) are the future.

https://www.ted.com/talks/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_case_to_act_right_now_on_climate?language=en

 

[brenthutch 383]

Bill, I don't reject SUVs, my wife drives a Mercedes GL450. As far as "the wall" I am for securing our boarders and following our laws.  My position on border security is the same as my position on energy, I am for what works.  Just think, if we had control of our southern border Trump would not be President.  Put a price on that.

[brenthutch 383]

35 minutes ago, kallend said:

Moving the goalposts doesn't help your case.

 

35 minutes ago, kallend said:

Moving the goalposts doesn't help your case.

How am I moving the goalposts?

[rushmc 18]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

What you are is a man with a political position that you are trying to advance. Your interest in the mechanics of energy resources is completely secondary to that. You do not start with a curiosity about energy, you start with a pre-determinined belief and then look for ways to prove it.

You are proof of that

[rushmc 18]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 

How am I moving the goalposts?

You are not

 

It is a tacit of one who is losing the argument 

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 minute ago, rushmc said:

You are not

 

It is a tacit of one who is losing the argument 

I've had enough of you now. And I just remembered I now have the power of ignoring you and not ever seeing you in my feed. Bye.

[brenthutch 383]

I don't want this conversation to degrade into name calling and the questioning of one's motives.  I'm sure we all want a better life for us and our progeny.  I just believe a full throated discussion on how achieve those ends, is worthwhile.

[gowlerk 1,912]

50 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I don't want this conversation to degrade into name calling and the questioning of one's motives.  I'm sure we all want a better life for us and our progeny.  I just believe a full throated discussion on how achieve those ends, is worthwhile.

Then why is the title of the thread a political screed? Why is it an attack on AOC and company's plan? That is not designed to spark a discussion of energy options. In any case the energy revolution will not be a revolution at all. It is and will be an evolution. I have not studied the "green new deal" in detail. But I'm fairly certain it does indeed contain ideas that are  impractical. It does pretty much what you are trying to do here, but on a larger scale. Start a political fight.

 

Edit to add, The "new deal" seems to be a group of aspirations with no real plan to achieve any of them. I don't see any magical thinking in it. I don't see any any thinking at all. Just goals.

Edited March 30, 2019 by gowlerk

[yoink 321]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

No actually I'm just the opposite, I will embrace wind, solar and unicorn farts as soon as they become economically viable. 

That's not the way ANY progress works. you don't get to go 'I embrace X but only when it's already proven' and still make out like you're some sort of luminary. It's a cowardly position to take while still trying to make out like you've got some sort of economical point. At no point have you ever compared apples with apples...

All technologies, coal and gas included, initially go through periods of making them more efficient, MORE economically viable. They NEVER start out like that. That's why being an early adopter of any technology sucks - it's inefficient and as a consumer you pay a premium. But that changes as more people adopt it and the technology and delivery matures.

You've stated yourself that oil is STILL evolving with new technologies like horizontal fracking etc, but apparently that's not OK for renewables? It has to INSTANTLY be more economically viable than a 100+ year-old industry.

Give whatever renewables 100 years to refine their manufacturing and delivery services and they'll be a dozen times more cost effective than coal or gas, at least. I'm already regretting not getting in on solar 4 years ago.

Edited March 30, 2019 by yoink

[yoink 321]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Bill, I don't reject SUVs, my wife drives a Mercedes GL450. As far as "the wall" I am for securing our boarders and following our laws.  My position on border security is the same as my position on energy, I am for what works.  Just think, if we had control of our southern border Trump would not be President.  Put a price on that.

From talking to the people bidding that work behind closed doors, $50 - $70bn.

[brenthutch 383]

Yoink, I'm sorry but that is the way MOST progress works.  "Let me explain, no there is to much, let me sum up"

http://robertbryce.com/wood-to-coal-to-oil-to-natural-gas-and-nuclear-the-slow-pace-of-energy-transitions/

 

"So, yes, the calls to move away from carbon-based fuels are loud and frequent. But facts are better than dreams. And a look back at history shows that coal, oil, and natural gas are going to be with us for a long time to come."

[wmw999 2,121]

They will be with us for a long time to come. Just as horses are still with us.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 383]

Gowlerk, the title on the OP was the title of the article I linked to, nothing more.

[brenthutch 383]

Bill you made the claim,

"The cost of climate change is already hundreds of billions of dollars a year,"

where did you get that figure?

[gowlerk 1,912]

This argument is tiring. And both sides here are making unsupportable claims. Which is one of the big problems in this matter. No one really knows the costs, no one really knows the difference in intensity of weather events caused by increased CO2. We do know the general effects. So instead of focusing on our differences why don't we focus on what we can agree on? Clearly the consumption of fossil fuels is not going to end anytime soon. So far the only thing that has been accomplished is a modest slowing in the rate of increase of it. The best we can do is to concentrate on two things. First is adapting to the changes that are coming. Namely higher sea levels, more energetic weather, and changes in the amount and location of arable land. These things are already affecting us and they are going to increase no matter what we do now. There are going to be winners and losers here and some of the losers are going to become refugees. The generals understand this and are making their plans now.

The second thing is increasing our so far pathetic efforts at moving away from energy sources that release long stored CO2. This is ongoing right now. And many people are seeing it as urgent even if some people scoff at it. I'm not sure why the right wing of America finds the idea of less reliance on fossil fuels so offensive. It is actually common sense. Despite new methods of extraction causing a temporary boom in production they will run out. Or at least become more and more expensive to access. (except coal, there is no end in sight for the coal supply). This vital matter has been reduced to a battle ground in the culture wars. But the fact is you can have your cake and eat it too. We can, and are developing more efficient methods of harnessing energy from cleaner sources. In the meantime we will keep right on burning the oil as we need while we transition.

I seriously consider this fight to be just for the sake of fighting. No one except perhaps a small number of the "greenest radicals" is giving up a single thing. Myself included. So stop worrying about the left or the right getting their way. There will be no winners or losers in this fakest of fake fights.

[kallend 1,623]

13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 

How am I moving the goalposts?

Forgot what you wrote already?

[kallend 1,623]

15 hours ago, rushmc said:

You guys love making up shit and numbers.

Because there is no way this assurtion has any chance of being proven one way of the other

We have come to expect wilful ignorance from you.  This is a perfect example.

[billvon 2,400]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Bill, I don't reject SUVs, my wife drives a Mercedes GL450.

SUV's are economically unviable.  But that's not a factor somehow when it's something you value, only when it's something you are against.  Odd.

Quote

As far as "the wall" I am for securing our boarders and following our laws.

Great!  So am I.

Quote

 My position on border security is the same as my position on energy, I am for what works.

?? Solar and wind work; the speed at which they are growing - and their low cost - is evidence of that.

Walls don't work.  Most foreign criminals come through legal border crossings.  And I live in San Diego, where we have walls - triple walls in some places.  It doesn't even slow people down.

But that's a different thread.

[gowlerk 1,912]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

Walls don't work.  Most foreign criminals come through legal border crossings.  And I live in San Diego, where we have walls - triple walls in some places.  It doesn't even slow people down.

But that's a different thread.

Wall absolutely work, they do what they are designed to do. That is provide work for construction companies and make frustrated right wingers feel like something is being done to assuage their overwrought  fearfulness.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

The second thing is increasing our so far pathetic efforts at moving away from energy sources that release long stored CO2. This is ongoing right now. And many people are seeing it as urgent even if some people scoff at it. I'm not sure why the right wing of America finds the idea of less reliance on fossil fuels so offensive. It is actually common sense. Despite new methods of extraction causing a temporary boom in production they will run out. Or at least become more and more expensive to access. (except coal, there is no end in sight for the coal supply). This vital matter has been reduced to a battle ground in the culture wars. But the fact is you can have your cake and eat it too. We can, and are developing more efficient methods of harnessing energy from cleaner sources. In the meantime we will keep right on burning the oil as we need while we transition.

This is one of the reasons I think the issue is so important.  Fossil fuels represent close to free energy when you ignore all the other effects of burning it.  And close to free energy gives us the "extra energy" we need to make the transition.  When your decision is between a big Mercedes SUV, vs a minivan and a solar array, then it's an easier choice.  When your decision is between getting enough to eat and a solar array, it's a much, much harder decision.

So we have to make most of the transition while we have the energy to do so.  Waiting until we start really feeling the effects of running out of fossil fuels means waiting until it's too late to make the switch.  And while we won't see that happen for decades, it's not something I want to put off for my (or other people's) kids to deal with.

[billvon 2,400]

7 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Wall absolutely work, they do what they are designed to do. That is provide work for construction companies and make frustrated right wingers feel like something is being done to assuage their overwrought  fearfulness.

True.  And it is a cheaper way to buy votes than, say, fixing our educational system, or our transportation system.