More Green New Deal Commentary -FORBES 6

[MJCronin]

A reasonable and rational discussion of an important topic by an authority in this field.

Despite the claims by butt-hole Congressmen, Moore's law simply does not apply to power plants and windmills !!!

Well worth a read !!!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markpm...energy-good-luck-green-new-deal/#1f097b5c2eb0

To be blunt: there is simply no possibility that more government funding for wind turbines, silicon solar cells or lithium batteries will lead to a “disruptive” 10-fold gain. All those technologies are approaching physics limits, just as aviation engines have.


MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[JoshPlumSE]

There is now panacea for energy production they all have their drawbacks. Some of my thoughts on the subject:

1a) Solar panels aren't all that efficient / cost effective when you factor in manufacturing cost, maintenance cost, lifespan, et cetera. Now, they definitely have their place. It's just that these aren't going to lead to a fundamental change in our energy consumption. Hopefully, there is a move of high end homes (aka rich people who don't care about the overall cost of their power) who want to go green because it's fashionable or because it makes them feel good about their carbon footprint.

1b) It's not necessarily that the efficiency of solar panels are expected to improve so much. Rather, as I understand it, that it's anticipated that the cost to produce them is going to go down. And, that their lifespan is going to increase.

2) There is a solar power plant in California just this side of the Nevada border that I think is really interesting for places like Nevada and Arizona where land is cheap and AC demands are high in the summer. It uses mirrors to reflect/ focus sunlight and generate steam then a typical steam turbine generator to produce the electricity. Lots of potential for this type of facility IMO. Though there are few places where this is truly feasible.

I will, however, point out that the plant is no where near as productive as planned. And, that some environmentalists have objections about it and the way it affects local wildlife.

3a) Wind power has some real limitations. It's only efficient some of the time (when the wind blows), it takes a lot of maintenance, it only works in some locations (where wind is reliable). There are issues with storage because when the wind blows is not the time of day when people are most in need of energy.

3b) My impression is that there were significant leaps being made in the ability to store power. This may not be a 10x leap, but it could really help wind power.

4) Hydro is incredibly efficient with virtually zero carbon emissions. It's just that we've probably got dams everywhere they can go already.

5) Nuclear is absolutely wonderful with regards to carbon emissions. But, the public (and many environmentalists) appear dead set against it.

6) One major improvement would be completely moving away from coal which is much worse for CO2 emissions than other forms of power. Even if we just replaced these with natural gas based power plants. Maybe not a 10x improvement some something like a 2x or 4x improvement.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

My point being that just because a 10x improvement may not be possible, and being carbon neutral as a nation isn't currently feasible doesn't mean we can't make major, major improvements without committing economic suicide.

We need a new "Carbon-Lite" commitment by our politicians and our public. Obviously, it won't really resemble Ocasio-Cortez's socialist democrat manifesto. But, that doesn't mean we should give up.

 

[btrueblood]

"4) Hydro is incredibly efficient with virtually zero carbon emissions. It's just that we've probably got dams everywhere they can go already. "

And there is push from environmentalists to remove existing dams on some rivers, due to their impact on fish runs (salmon).

 

[MJCronin]

Mr. Josh Plum....

You seem to be an informed, wise and reasonable person and I have come to nearly all of the conclusions you have regarding electric power production. I agree that we should make at least a best effort to reduce carbon emissions. We both seem to agree that there are obvious physical, scientific and reasonable limits on the generation of electricity

I just hate liars ....

I hate incompetent lawyers, liars, waitresses and politicians who deliberately lie to the public on this life or death issue for their own personal gains...

If AOC wants to generate power for New York using unicorns, butterflies a fairy dust ..... HAVE AT IT !!!

AOC: Remove yourself from the grid and generate your own power !!! There is nothing to stop you !!!!

I will even donate real money to your goals !!!

AOC: I HOPE THAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS IN YOUR 10 to 12 YEAR SCHEDULE !!! (Where did this magical number come from ?)

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DON'T LIE TO PEOPLE AND CLAIM THAT THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE PLAN AND CAN BE SOMEHOW ACCOMPLISHED BY OTHERS ....

Just stop,... stop... stop the lies ...please


MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[FoxRox]

As with Trump, I cannot tell if there is purposeful deceit in AOC's constant stream of falsehoods or just pure ignorance and hubris. They both have the kind of credentials that would make one assume they are intelligent, competent, and deliberate, but their ramblings are sometimes so bizarre you'd think they are nincompoops.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst about them. Therefore, I will (at least for now) assume that AOC's issue is that she is a political newbie in addition to perhaps being a little bit immature. In time, she will hopefully refine her message. Right now it resonates with the crazies in her party which is, unfortunately, emboldening her to go even further and with even greater hubris.

Gosh, I would love to see her in a debate with.... Anyone. Hilary, or Elizabeth Warren would make her look utterly foolish when debating just about any issue.

Honestly, she strikes me as exactly the kind of new age democrat that Bernie Sanders Democrat was bound to bring to the party. The kind that is so young that they never got the chance to talk to anyone that lived under socialism. And, never saw a country that promised such wonderful utopia to their citizens then fall apart and collapse. It's happening in Venezuela right now. I don't understand how the new wave socialists don't see the connection. Somehow they all seem to blame the US for Venezuela's collapse rather than that countries policies.

 

[MJCronin]

An excellent article !!!

"New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking... - Manhattan Institute

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/download/11934/article.pdf

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[rb1957]

"so young that they never got the chance to talk to anyone that lived under socialism" …

Josh, I think you need to be careful with your terminology, and not to link "communism" with "socialism" (which I think you are). There are many "western" countries with degrees of socialism that are very comfortable with their choice and would probably be very uncomfortable without their "socialism". There are also countries that look back on communism with some nostalgia, often nothing "organised" filled the vacuum left when communism collapsed.

But let's not hijack this thread !

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

 

[MJCronin]

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/art...ail&utm_term=0_113ee1bc69-ec18ab2202-84809877

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[Mad Mike]

Thanks for sharing the above; it's amazing to see how intellectual and well-written the sceptical articles generally are- proponents of the rapid-response, "now or never" agenda invariably dilute their messages with so much drivel that I find them impossible to read!

All the best,
Mike

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Rb1957 -

I've been a little hesitant to respond because I wasn't sure this was the right thread to respond to your comments about communism vs socialism. I'll say that there really isn't much difference between the two (IMO). It's just how they start out.

Were you invaded / dominated by a nearby socialist country? If so, then you call the system communism. See most eastern block countries during the cold war. All of their economies completely collapsed, and their people were miserable. They have to build walls to keep their people from fleeing their country.

If you recently led a military rebellion to kill and imprison most of the previous ruling class? If so, then you call it communism. See Russia, Cuba, et cetera. Again, their economies collapsed and their people were miserable.

Did you get voted into office with overwhelming democratic support, after which you stripped all powers of freedom of the press and property rights? If so, then you call it socialism. But, it still ends up being a dictatorship. See Venezuela. Their economy collapsed and their people are fleeing the country and starving.

Do you have a democratically elected government with a thriving free enterprise economy that respects all aspects of private property ownership? But, your country believes in a lot of social welfare programs. Then you are a capitalist country without question. However, socialists in America refer to you as a democratic socialist country to make socialism sound better to the younger generation. See various European / Scandinavian countries.

Were you a failed communist country like Russia (miserable people, horrible economy), but then you used your totalitarian power to surrender central control and let free market principles take over? Only to seize the property of anyone who dares to criticize the government in any way. Not sure what you call it. But, see China as an example. Still a terrible place for most of their people to live.

 

[hokie66]

The major difference between socialism and communism is in their treatment of religious freedom. Communist countries discourage religion, some more than others.