John Stossel: Green New Deal - Fact or Fiction 1

[JoshPlumSE]

I watched this YouTube video the other day and found it very interesting. I was curious what other peoples thoughts on it would be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOiGtO2UBA

Concerns raised in this video regarding moving towards 100% renewable energy:
1) Transmission lines / infrastructure construction
2) The number of batteries required to store energy since solar and wind are not constant / reliable energy sources.
3) Obviously you need backup power generation of some kind that can be produced at any time.
4) Hazardous materials of batteries and that effect on the environment (i.e. disposal).
5) Mining required to procure materials for batteries and solar panels.
6) Solar makes up 1% of energy production and wind 2%.
7) It's very pro-nuclear. Why don't people like nuclear power? Politicians are really afraid of it.

In my opinion, and I've thought this for a LONG time, that anyone who is truly, truly concerned about carbon emissions would be really promoting the expansion of nuclear power in the US, especially in the short term.

 

[Compositepro]

"More people have died falling off of roofs installing solar panels than in the entire history of the nuclear industry".

I do not know if that is accurate (it cannot be far off) but it was funny.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

While I found this video to be interesting, I am reticent to take what the "experts" were saying as facts. Rather they raise really interesting questions about the "green-ness" of many of our preferred solutions.

When we do LEED certification for buildings, there is supposed to be a consideration to the building materials used.... how much is recycled, how much energy was required to produce it, where it was shipped from and the energy required to ship it.... et cetera.

It would be interesting to get that kind of information about the production of solar panel

Note: I'm not trashing solar panels. I just believe that we need to understand the pros and cons of each global warming solution. My perspective is that we're probably mis-allocating a lot of our government funding for expensive solutions when there are cheaper solutions that are as popular for political reasons.

 

[rb1957]

Part of the problem with energy solutions is that they push to problem to another point.

Sure we can move to an electricity based energy-economy, one powered by nukes or renewables or bio-fuels, but that'll required "bezillions" more batteries and other limited materials than we have today … which will be the next nightmare.

Perhaps we should let 90% of the world's population die and revert to a subsistence economy ? (said 1/2 in jest)

Or maybe the salvation will be found on some asteroids (ie mining them for "exotic" materials) ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

rb1957 -

So, there's two parts of your comment:
1) Moving to an electricity based economy. In many ways, we already are. So, moving to a system that produces electricity more efficiently (from a carbon emissions standpoint) makes perfect sense. Nuclear, hydro, et cetera.... The one thing that bugged me a bit about that video was when they talked about the need to build large amounts of infrastructure to take the electricity. We've already got that infrastructure.

2) What we also have is a transportation infrastructure (cars, planes, ships, etc) that largely relies on fossil fuels. I think that's what you were really getting at. I don't see a way around that right now. And, I think that's one of the things the video was concerned about. That being said, we can get more efficient with some of it. Hybrid cars are a great example. Not sure what we can do about planes and ships and trains.

 

[IRstuff]

1> the places where solar and wind are, are not where existing electrical infrastructure exists, so there's some amount of new stuff required. In the case of wind, tower installed power lines are a big challenge, because of the wind, and building buried cables might be a deal breaker altogether. While solar max and consumption max are close in time, wind max and consumption max might not. Even a couple of hours of mismatch will require massive amounts of off-line storage that doesn't current exist, anywhere.

2> possibly the same; nuclear submarines and ships have gone to all-electric motors, because they have flatter efficiency curves. I could sort of imagine using a railgun to accelerate a plane up to takeoff speed, which could save some fuel and reduce some emissions.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[rb1957]

1) sure moving towards but we're a long way from there (and this "new deal" thing would try to take us there. Sure there'll be a whole lot more infrastructure to move the electricity that's replacing the current FF power.

2) powering mobile things is the electrical problem. Without inventing "something" it takes batteries, which the video points out have their own cost. Ships … go back to sailing. Planes … do without them. Trains … would be helped by regenerative braking but probably not much … probably do without them. Cars … personal transportation … do without them, use mass public transport (or horses).

I guess the "new deal" doesn't say we'll retain our standard of living.


another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[SnTMan]

Well, you know, some will, most some won't

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[rb1957]

I was thinking about the "millennials" in the video … nodding "sagely" "yes, we must have 100% zero emissions".

Ok, we have to control our energy usage … suggest to a millennial that they'll have to lose their phone, and car (use transit) … I wonder what their reaction would be ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

Actually, neither of my millennials even contemplated owning a car, and the one that's working uses mass transit.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[rb1957]

UK or US ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

San Francisco Bay Area, to be more specific.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[rb1957]

ok ("ta ta" made me think of UK) … just i'd've thought most in the US (and most outside of major cities) would avoid public transit.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

In most cases, that's probably true, but in SF and Berkeley, the lack of parking in certain parts makes a private a hassle more than a benefit. Moreover, if you're commuting to ANYWHERE outside of the city, mass transit saves both physical and mental wear and tear.

As for TTFN, thank A.A. Milne for that, regardless of which country.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[SnTMan]

Surely you're joking Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

This has to be a joke, right? Otherwise it's terrifying.

Regards,

Mike


The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand