Green new deal equals magical thinking

[richravizza 25]

On 5/19/2019 at 4:46 PM, Stumpy said:

To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke, anything can seem like magic to those that aren't capable of understanding it.

Ahh, a little physics and philosophy.

Was that intended as a little poke at a "non believer " ,someone that's Not  capable of understanding your brand of magic ? Or is it that.. 

No one could refute the physics or the physicist, Mark Mills.Or

The truth, revealed in the absurdity of the GND, its' viability, and the viability of renewables,or a carbon free future. I suggest you watch this one too.

Perhaps its your ideology 

1. the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature.

   • ARCHAIC

     visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.

 

 

"I'm not anti renewables, I'm pro arithmetic"

 

[richravizza 25]

On 5/22/2019 at 8:05 AM, billvon said:

Between 50% and 5% of its STC rating. (And contrary to popular belief, "sunny Socal" is sometimes cloudy, too.)

Dude, thank you!! Straight up... intellectually honest.

On 5/22/2019 at 10:00 AM, CygnusX-1 said:

I know this has been mentioned before, but I'll beat that dead horse again - just to make sure it is still dead. But if fossil fuels are so economically viable why do states and the federal government subsidize them to the tune of $20.5 billion annually (as reported by OCI)? 

I know this is a rhetorical question. We all know the answer to that - lobbyists/ bribes/ corruption. We should first eliminate the subsidy to oil/gas/coal first. Then maybe in 30-40 years we can eliminate it for renewables.

Hell ya,thats what I'm talking about..Get rid of all subsidy now.. but I'll look into that OCI.

 

On 5/22/2019 at 5:22 PM, billvon said:

The government did not mandate anyone buy solar; those billions are from people freely choosing to do it. (Although that's in the plan for the future, which is a mistake.)

But, the Ca. Gov't mandated the use of renewables, forces utility to buy solar and wind regardless of the costs to customers,environment,viability or extent to which it will solve the  perceived problem.

The bill specifically requires that 50 percent of California's electricity to be powered by renewableresources by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030, while calling for a "bold path" toward 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. ... Previously, Californiahad mandated 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030.

On 5/22/2019 at 11:22 AM, billvon said:

You'll never get the politics out of either one.  Getting the subsidies out would be a good goal, though.

agreed as well as mandates.

[DJL 232]

To summarize this entire topic, since nobody who is afraid of the GND has been able to quote a page or paragraph is it safe so say that this is just more people being afraid of AOC and her Lefty rhetoric?

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

To summarize this entire topic, since nobody who is afraid of the GND has been able to quote a page or paragraph is it safe so say that this is just more people being afraid of AOC and her Lefty rhetoric?

No - 

Its idiocy.

[DJL 232]

8 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

No - 

Its idiocy.

Which page or paragraph?

[turtlespeed 212]

4 hours ago, DJL said:

Which page or paragraph?

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."

-----Guarantees are bad when it comes to those that want to live off the government.  It invites corruption.

 

"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature."

-----i - We have that, ii - we have that, iii - No way to grant that(surprisingly, you have to actually get out and work for it. <Shocked>, iv - We have that - 

What we need is access to better mental health resources. Then the homeless population MIGHT go down.

 

"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."

We have that - if you try hard and don't give up - you can reach your goals.

I am proof of that.  So are you.  Unless you can manage someones mind and work ethic - you won't be changing much.

 

"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

-------Sure - Great idea (ideal actually)- and yet so much idiocy - in the other threads in this forum it has been admitted by the most staunch supporters of clean green energy, that it is not feasible, or advisable to not have a fossil fuel backup.  100% over the entire US is not achievable. Not even close. Not for many, many, many, years.  It is idiocy to think it is.

 

"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible."

-------Pretty vague - reminds me of a statement - "Some people did some stuff"

 

"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."

------This is already being done - but it is being done on a scale and in ways that are affordable with a more limited impact on the populace.

 

"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification."

-------Do you think they have any clue to how many buildings that would be?  THIS alone is idiocy.  The government can't even keep its own building properly maintained as is, let alone upgrade them all.  Do you have any idea how much this would cost?  Idiocy.

 

"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."

 

i - Zero emission is a fallacy - its a buzz word.  Show me ONE vehicle that takes zero emissions to create and operate efficiently enough to be called transportation.  Its idiocy - at the least, a self deceiving lie.

ii - See "i"

iii - High speed rail is great - expensive - but somewhat feasible - well it would be if it didn't directly oppose i, and ii. 

 

"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible."

------We already do this - again on a scale that borders necessity vs affordability

 

"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."

------This is happening already - could it improve - hell yes. But there is nothing new about it.

Restating it as part of a NGD is idiocy.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States."

-----Guarantees are bad when it comes to those that want to live off the government.  It invites corruption.

Let's look at actual results.

 

Oh looks like you are probably wrong.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Let's look at actual results.

 

Oh looks like you are probably wrong.

Would you agree that one place is not necessarily like the other?

The US is not very much like Finland.

The program was only - what - 6 months and the article its self says the data is early and young . . .

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Would you agree that one place is not necessarily like the other?

The US is not very much like Finland.

The program was only - what - 6 months and the article its self says the data is early and young . . .

 

Sure, so what data do you have to support your position? I mean, you called it idiotic, should be very easy to find some supporting data.

The data I supplied would suggest that labeling the concept of a universal basic income as idiotic is in fact idiotic.

[turtlespeed 212]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Sure, so what data do you have to support your position? I mean, you called it idiotic, should be very easy to find some supporting data.

The data I supplied would suggest that labeling the concept of a universal basic income as idiotic is in fact idiotic.

So if I am correct - it is your belief that people shouldn't have to work to attain an income.

I know other people that believe that - 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/103530469400500101

The Committee on Employment Opportunities viewed temporary wage subsidies as a means through which the current long-term unemployed could be brought back into the effective labour supply. Experience with wage subsidies suggests that they will lead to minimal job creation and a churning of the pool of unemployment.

 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

So if I am correct - it is your belief that people shouldn't have to work to attain an income.

Nah, pretty sure that's not what I said.

Also the link you supplied seems to discus temporary wage subsidies (I am not spending $36 to view the entire article). If you do not understand the difference between temporary wage subsidies and the concept of universal basic income, you probably have no business calling the concept idiotic.

[turtlespeed 212]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Nah, pretty sure that's not what I said.

Also the link you supplied seems to discus temporary wage subsidies (I am not spending $36 to view the entire article). If you do not understand the difference between temporary wage subsidies and the concept of universal basic income, you probably have no business calling the concept idiotic.

The article is good and well written.

You cant afford it?

 

[billvon 2,391]

On 5/23/2019 at 10:09 AM, brenthutch said:

Those numbers are for June, when the campus is mostly vacated.

My numbers are from 2014 during the conversion to NG.  It is a more comprehensive assessment of Penn State’s energy use.

And since then Penn State has done a lot to reduce energy use.

"Penn State is on track to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 35% (from its peak in 2005) by 2020.  . . .Penn State has invested in campus-wide energy conservation measures via its Energy Savings Program, which was originally modeled after the Pennsylvania Guaranteed Energy Savings Program. To date, the program has invested over $100 million with $79 million in program funding slated in the current Capital Plan."

One of the more important things they have done is to go to combined heat and power (CHP) for electricity generation.  They now use the waste heat from a natural gas turbine to heat the buildings, replacing both coal and natural gas formerly used for that purpose.

It is _always_ better to put money into energy efficiency before moving to solar.  (Or to any other source of energy, really.)

Quote

I looked for a price for this nonexistent (as of now) battery and could not find one.  It is hard to conduct a cost/benefit analysis when the cost is unknown.

Glad you have switched to "it can't be done" to "it might not be cost effective."  That's a much more valid position.

 

[billvon 2,391]

18 hours ago, richravizza said:

But, the Ca. Gov't mandated the use of renewables, forces utility to buy solar and wind regardless of the costs to customers,environment,viability or extent to which it will solve the  perceived problem.

The bill specifically requires that 50 percent of California's electricity to be powered by renewableresources by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030, while calling for a "bold path" toward 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. ... Previously, Californiahad mandated 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030.

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.)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

The article is good and well written.

You cant afford it?

 

Please do copy and paste the sections that support your claim of idiocy.

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

And since then Penn State has done a lot to reduce energy use.

One of the more important things they have done is to go to combined heat and power (CHP) for electricity generation.  They now use the waste heat from a natural gas turbine to heat the buildings, replacing both coal and natural gas formerly used for that purpose.

It is _always_ better to put money into energy efficiency before moving to solar.  (Or to any other source of energy, really.)

Glad you have switched to "it can't be done" to "it might not be cost effective."  That's a much more valid position.

 

I agree with everything you have said (above).  Penn State has even spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a manure digester to capture methane and use it to produce electricity.  

However, as business person I see no difference between “ it can’t be done” and “it can’t be done economically”.  We are having this conversation at our DZ currently.  

Can we afford a turbine?  Yes, we could sell our houses and buy a turbine.

Can we fill it and keep it running?  Can our cash flow support it?  No.

So you see it is not just a matter of possibility, it is one of feasibility and practicality 

Reality is a harsh mistress.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,391]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I agree with everything you have said (above).  Penn State has even spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a manure digester to capture methane and use it to produce electricity.  However, as business person I see no difference between “ it can’t be done” and “it can’t be done economically”.

Fortunately a lot of people do see the difference.

I first got into solar around 1987.  Panels were $10 a watt.  It couldn't be done economically.  At all.

Then prices started to come down.  People in the boonies who were being asked to spend $80k to have power brought to their remote home spent $50K on a solar power system plus storage instead.  Would it have been cheaper to use a propane generator and just drive into town every few weeks to get more propane?  Probably.  But having that independence was worthwhile (and potentially lifesaving if their house got snowed in for any length of time.)

That demand drove prices down some more.  Now panels were $1 a watt.  And in places like Hawaii and California it actually paid to put up solar, with payoff times between 10 and 25 years.

That demand drove prices down even more.  Now panels were 50 cents a watt.  And utilities in the US, and Saudi Arabia, and South America, and Spain started putting them in because they were cheaper than most other forms of power.

Here in the US prices have gone up up because of the trade war,   But people are still putting solar (and storage) in even when payoff times are long, because 1) they think power prices will continue to climb (we have to pay off San Onofre somehow)  2) they want independence from the power company and 3) as PG+E starts cutting power more and more often to avoid wildfires, that backup is worth it to them.  Here at UCSD they are putting in megawatt-scale storage, V2G systems, hydrogen fuel cells and microgrid controls for those reasons, as well as giving their students direct experience with new technologies.

And of course at some point the trade war will end - one way or another.

Quote

Can we afford a turbine?  Yes, we could sell our houses and buy a turbine. Can we fill it and keep it running?  Can our cash flow support it?  No.

Sounds like a good decision for you.

Would you make the same decision if avgas was going to go up but JP4 wasn't?  If you knew PT6 maintenance costs were going to come down in price a lot in a few years?  If you could attract much better and cheaper pilots because they wanted turbine time?  If you knew a nearby turbine DZ was closing?  Then you might make a different decision - even if the economics didn't support it right then.

Or, to look at this another way - keep in mind that when used turbines first became available to the skydiving market, it was common knowledge that no DZ would be able to afford them.  Other than pricey specialty jumps at boogies, no one would be able to pay that much for fuel and maintenance.  It simply wasn't economically feasible for anyone.

Turbines for skydiving were, to use your term, magical thinking.

[brenthutch 383]

When you got into solar, it was your personal choice for something you wanted.  It is no different than me spending $$$ on a coral reef tank system. Your money, your choice.  Then, as you point out “prices started to come down,” you then go on to make an economic argument for solar. You mentioned the trade war as a reason for the recent increase in the price of solar.  You overlooked the other reason, the federal tax credit is disappearing.  I am sure that in the People’s Republic of California, where solar power is mandated, demand (artificial) will continue to grow.  We shall see what happens in the rest of the country when governmental market distortions are removed.  As we are witnessing with Tesla, it won’t be pretty.

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

18 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Please do copy and paste the sections that support your claim of idiocy.

So the answer is, "No."

Gotcha

[billvon 2,391]

On 5/25/2019 at 3:42 AM, brenthutch said:

 You overlooked the other reason, the federal tax credit is disappearing.

Not until the end of 2019.  So right now there's no effect from that.

It is certainly true that if you raise taxes on something, demand goes down - and if you lower taxes, demand goes up.  I'd be all for eliminating tax and land based incentives for ALL forms of energy.  But until we do that, it makes as much sense for you to pay for solar buildout as it does for me to pay for oil's tax cuts.  (Indeed, the solar tax cuts make a bit more sense, since that is a resource that will never run out, and it reduces demand for a resource that will.)

[turtlespeed 212]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

(Indeed, the solar tax cuts make a bit more sense, since that is a resource that will never run out, and it reduces demand for a resource that will.)

When you say that - are you imagining a time scale?

Why do you say 'it will' when it is known that as a species, we have always adapted to overcome such obstacles.

The way I see it, before it can run out - or even close - we will have found another way.

 

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

When you say that - are you imagining a time scale?

Why do you say 'it will' when it is known that as a species, we have always adapted to overcome such obstacles.

The way I see it, before it can run out - or even close - we will have found another way.

 

Of course - renewables. Duh.

[millertime24 8]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

  (Indeed, the solar tax cuts make a bit more sense, since that is a resource that will never run out, and it reduces demand for a resource that will.)

Care to explain how solar will never run out? I've seen MANY scientists who disagree.

[turtlespeed 212]

6 hours ago, millertime24 said:

Care to explain how solar will never run out? I've seen MANY scientists who disagree.

Well - Unless we end up with an atmosphere like Venus (or some other type of obscurance phenomenon) , I'm guessing that by the time it does run out, (Not counting becoming obsolete), we will be a type 1 civilization - if we make it that far.

[brenthutch 383]

19 hours ago, billvon said:

Not until the end of 2019.  So right now there's no effect from that.

It is certainly true that if you raise taxes on something, demand goes down - and if you lower taxes, demand goes up.  I'd be all for eliminating tax and land based incentives for ALL forms of energy.  But until we do that, it makes as much sense for you to pay for solar buildout as it does for me to pay for oil's tax cuts.  (Indeed, the solar tax cuts make a bit more sense, since that is a resource that will never run out, and it reduces demand for a resource that will.)

Renewables are a tax drain while oil and gas contribute billions to the coffers of state, local and federal government.

BTW there is a BIG difference between letting companies and share holders keep a bit more of THEIR money and reducing the kickbacks of taxpayer dollars going to wind and solar companies