3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

I'm fully behind solar panels on every roof and batteries packs in every house, but it only works when the sun is up.

Closing down our nuclear power plants will add 4 billion metric tons of extra CO2 emissions.

Twenty percent of our electricity in the United States comes from nuclear power. If we are going to be serious of curbing CO2 emissions we need to invest more in nuclear power. It would also assist in electrifying our transportation system since most people charge electric cars at night when we are using primarily base power which is either coal or nuclear power. It also keeps us from importing oil from (and thus economically supporting) Saudi Arabia and Russia.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Call me cynical, but, I have a sneaky suspicion that you won't exactly be "All in."

I don't think there is much that will ever convince you that renewable energy, solar, and wind technology, along with its research, is necessary, or even a good idea.

I’m ok with universities getting grants to conduct basic research.  Some day, many decades from now, the supply of fossil fuels will begin to tighten and prices will rise.  We then can transition to whatever state-of-the-art, energy supply makes sense.  The premature adaptation of renewables has resulted in skyrocketing energy prices wherever it has been widely implemented.  Diverting taxpayer money from roads and schools into the pockets Elon Musk and company in the name of “saving the planet” is just bad policy, in my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’m ok with universities getting grants to conduct basic research.  Some day, many decades from now, the supply of fossil fuels will begin to tighten and prices will rise.  We then can transition to whatever state-of-the-art, energy supply makes sense.  The premature adaptation of renewables has resulted in skyrocketing energy prices wherever it has been widely implemented.  Diverting taxpayer money from roads and schools into the pockets Elon Musk and company in the name of “saving the planet” is just bad policy, in my opinion.

An example of cheap energy being not so cheap:

https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/03/utility-customers-could-pay-for-virginias-historic-coal-ash-cleanup/

So if cheaper is better why not burn it in our houses anymore:

https://www.foxnews.com/health/burning-coal-indoors-linked-to-birth-defects

And guess whether or not tax dollars pay for black lung and silica lung diseases:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-05-black-lung-disease-surge-appalachia.html

And more taxpayer spending:

https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/illinois-house-and-senate-pass-landmark-legislation-to-clean-up-coal-ash

And guess who is probably going to have to pay for their drinking water:

https://www.kentucky.com/news/state/kentucky/article230215244.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Good thing I was talking about the cheaper fossil fuel....natural gas!

In the next 100 years I wouldn't be surprised to see natural gas take the place of gasoline as the second most used fuel for vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The premature adaptation of renewables has resulted in skyrocketing energy prices wherever it has been widely implemented.  

You have that a bit backwards.  Skyrocketing energy prices makes renewable energy affordable.

Quote

Diverting taxpayer money from roads and schools into the pockets Elon Musk and company in the name of “saving the planet” is just bad policy, in my opinion.

Diverting taxpayer money to renewable energy saves lives.  Diverting taxpayer money to the wall, to the military and to Trump's golf course excursions does not.  (In fact, spending on the wall and the military results in more deaths.)  Given that, there's pretty clear guidance on which issue you should pursue first.  If a rational and humane policy is your goal, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, billvon said:

You have that a bit backwards.  Skyrocketing energy prices makes renewable energy affordable.

Diverting taxpayer money to renewable energy saves lives.  Diverting taxpayer money to the wall, to the military and to Trump's golf course excursions does not.  (In fact, spending on the wall and the military results in more deaths.)  Given that, there's pretty clear guidance on which issue you should pursue first.  If a rational and humane policy is your goal, of course.

Yes, you are correct, renewables only make sense in an environment where all other forms of energy are skyrocketing.  We are in full agreement.

With regard to military spending; were there fewer deaths before Pax Americana?  (Eagerly awaiting a response to that one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2019 at 5:33 PM, billvon said:

Bad news for people claiming renewables are "magical thinking" - 

 

I'm not really replying to anyone in particular but I have been monitoring the following article  for the pat 2 weeks

britains-record-coal-free-run  Nearly 2 weeks without using any coal powered energy.

I found the graphs in the article very interesting that almost all the countries in the article have been increasing the amount of renewable they have been using at the same time reducing the use of  coal over the past 18 years.

I know that many of the countries are reliant on gas which is a hydrocarbon but every jouney starts with small steps and if the renewable technology gets cheaper and improves efficiency over time then the reliance on gas could go down as well.

I would like to see greater use of Hydro powered energy production than wind or solar as it can be more reliable especially in Northern Europe where winters can be very cold and the days very short but even these methods of energy production can have an environmental impact.

And it's not only Europe. 

From this site America  has almost doubled it's electrical energy production from renewables in the past 10 years.

I am aware that there is no "one size that fits all" but it is encouraging that there are a lot of people out there who are working to providing the option of using affordable and clean power rather than the dirty old technology.

John 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Did you even read it?  I guess if FOX said two plus two equals four, you would deny it.  You need to get beyond the ad hominem and focus on the content.  You might even learn something.

You say that about an article titled  ".......Make Energy Expensive Since That's Always Been the Greens' Goal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does reduce, reuse, recycle ring a bell?  I just got done reading an article where an environmentalist was lamenting about how the abundant, cheap, geothermal and hydro power in Iceland led to its conspicuous consumption. He concluded ALL energy must be expensive, which would reduce its use and improve sustainability.  So yes the author’s point is valid 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Does reduce, reuse, recycle ring a bell?  I just got done reading an article where an environmentalist was lamenting about how the abundant, cheap, geothermal and hydro power in Iceland led to its conspicuous consumption. He concluded ALL energy must be expensive, which would reduce its use and improve sustainability.  So yes the author’s point is valid 

You have found one example; that does not prove that there is a unified goal among the "greens" to make energy expensive. 

Does one school shooting by a Trump supporter prove that "the right wants children dead?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's only one way to reduce demand. Replacing it with a better alternative is another. Forbidding its manufacture is yet another. And eliminating the need for it is yet another. I don't like the forbidding it real well, but there are times for it; DDT and CFC-12 are two examples. They're not really forbidden, but they aren't used in the US at least any more.

I know you're not interested in those, because they don't fit your narrative. Tough shit.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wendy, I have no narrative, unless one considers reality a narrative.

We both agree that market based solutions are best.  

You should do your homework before invoking the evils of DDT.  

Your last comment was unnecessary.  It contributes nothing of value.

Have a great weekend!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I’m pretty sure you won’t have to look far to find more Greenies who think we need to reduce our energy usage.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, billvon said:

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

Just how do you think the Greenies want to reduce our energy usage???  By MAKING IT MORE EXPENSIVE.  When you make production and distribution more difficult (placing federal lands off limits, banning fracking, stopping pipelines, and placing burdensome regulation) you cause prices to rise and demand to drop.  No backpedal, just clarification on a point that should be obvious.

BTW that is not just for fossil fuels, the Greenies are against nuclear, large scale solar, hydro, wind, and the transmission  lines required to get electricity from the areas of production to where it is used.  Bill you should know this living in SoCal.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Just how do you think the Greenies want to reduce our energy usage???  By MAKING IT MORE EXPENSIVE. 

YOU want that to be true.  That doesn't mean it actually is; it's a strawman you've constructed.

Quote

Just how do you think the Greenies want to reduce our energy usage???  By MAKING IT MORE EXPENSIVE.  When you make production and distribution more difficult (placing federal lands off limits, banning fracking, stopping pipelines, and placing burdensome regulation) you cause prices to rise and demand to drop.

And when you push for CAFE requirements and EV development, demand for gas drops - and prices go down.  When you push for research into LED lighting, demand for electricity goes down - and prices go down.   When you push for higher efficiency standards for appliances, electricity demand goes down - and so do prices.

Quote

BTW that is not just for fossil fuels, the Greenies are against nuclear, large scale solar, hydro, wind, and the transmission  lines required to get electricity from the areas of production to where it is used.  Bill you should know this living in SoCal.

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3