Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

AOC’s Green New Deal

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by The_RH_Factor, Feb 8, 2019.

  1. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,682
    605
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    You said "On top of that batteries are not very efficient, at least not at the rate one woumd hope for or expect in an emerging technology." The expectations in an emerging technology are that they are rapidly improving, not that they are already better.

    This is, frankly, absurdly simplistic analysis. Solar and wind are still highly useful even without storage. Again, as I pointed out, it requires diversification currently. Generation costs are already lower. So, given the dramatic fixed costs in developing other forms of electricity generation, solar and wind, with their lower and still declining costs of generation, actually make the most sense for most new construction projects. This is especially true given the rates at which storage prices are falling. As that occurs, other generation techniques can be further limited.
     
  2. ncargat1

    ncargat1 VIP Member

    2,046
    1,072
    988
    Dec 11, 2009
    I am not expert on alt-fuel technologies, however I am fairly sure that the United States could not abandon fossil fuel with in a decade. I also wonder when I hear the grossly ignorant such as this Ocassio-Cortez woman speak, if they ever give consideration to all of the items in our economy that are petroleum derivatives that are not directly energy related?

    While I admire her zeal and conviction, every time she speaks I am closer and closer to changing my voter registration status from Democrat to Independent.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. nobbqsauce

    nobbqsauce All American

    433
    154
    188
    Nov 21, 2018
    Of course they are useful. Again, I didn't argue otherwise. And yes, the technology is developing but it isnt there yet. And until the ability to store the energy created by wind and sun is more efficient, cleaner to make and better long term than wind and solar will remain at best second rate.
    That by no means suggests we shouldn't be using them. I have a cabin that us far off the grid that uses both as well as a hydro ram generator. But I recognize that neither is ready or even close to ready to supplant fossil fuels.
     
  4. philobeddoe

    philobeddoe Premium Member

    6,559
    374
    363
    Apr 11, 2007
    I wonder what sort of vehicle Occasional-Cortex owns and drives. I’d be hugely disappointed to find out it had an internal combustion engine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,682
    605
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    64% of new power will come from these sources this year, while the power sources being retired are fossil fuels. Does that count as supplanting to you?

    Electric generation: Wind, solar power to outpace natural gas
     
  6. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    8,038
    696
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    Your argument seems to be based a dichotomy, either renewables or fossil fuels. At least for now the best alternative is increased use of renewables (solar and wind) with supplementation from fossil fuel generation. Renewables and fossil fuels are not mutually exclusive, in fact, BP is currently running a television commercial in which natural gas is used to generate power at times when there is insufficient wind to generate electricity from wind turbines. And as has been previously mentioned, storage technology is becoming much more efficient, in effect, making renewables more reliable.
     
  7. BigCypressGator1981

    BigCypressGator1981 Premium Member

    956
    224
    403
    Oct 11, 2011
    AOCDS is spreading like wildfire.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    8,038
    696
    533
    Apr 8, 2007
    The left-wing obsessions with Bush and Trump and the right-wing obsession with Obama all concerned the president. It's really a form of derangement when the obsession concerns a 29-year old freshman member of the House.
     
    • Off-topic Off-topic x 1
  9. MaceoP

    MaceoP GC Hall of Fame

    2,596
    102
    288
    Apr 3, 2007
    We emit roughly 14% of the worlds CO2, aprox 5.1 billion mt per year. China emits roughly 29 % of the worlds CO2, approx 10.6 billion mt per year. Even under the Paris accord, China would not have to reduce CO2 emissions prior to 2030. Any marginal reductions in our CO2 emissions by going to solar and wind is comparable to pissing into the wind unless we can get countries like China, India, & Russia to make a serious effort to reduce emissions. Allowing them to continue to pollute and increase emissions is not going to solve the problem
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,682
    605
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    India and Russia combine to have lower emissions than we do. Would you consider any reductions they make as "pissing in the wind?" If so, why bring them up?
     
  11. MaceoP

    MaceoP GC Hall of Fame

    2,596
    102
    288
    Apr 3, 2007
    The reason I bring them up because at 3.5 billion MT emissions of CO2, they will be increasing emissions each year going forward. They are not making reductions, and I don't know where you get India, China, & Russia reductions from?
     
  12. nobbqsauce

    nobbqsauce All American

    433
    154
    188
    Nov 21, 2018
    What argument? All I have stated is that solar and wind is not in any position to take over or fossil fuels. It's not an argument at this point. Its fact.
    I have no.problem using a combination of all three. In fact I stated that I do use wind and solar.
    But pretending like they are the final answer to the earth's woes is premature. The environmental cost of build batteries and solar panels is still too high. Oil will always...always be needed for plastics if nothing else. Some on here act like it's a finished product and will sol e the global warming issue all by itself. It won't
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,682
    605
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    How do you figure that? Russia has reduced their CO2 emissions.

    Their highest emissions were in 2012, followed by 2008, followed by 2006.

    Russia: Carbon dioxide emissions 2000-2017 | Statistic

    Also, if reducing our CO2 is "pissing in the wind" wouldn't them reducing their CO2 be the same, since Russia and India produce less combined than we do? Seems like you are providing inconsistent standards to try to avoid doing anything, despite the fact that we are still the second largest emitter of CO2.
     
  14. diehardgator1

    diehardgator1 Premium Member

    6,344
    236
    408
    Apr 3, 2007
    Would be one hell of a job to lay train tracks across the oceans
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. diehardgator1

    diehardgator1 Premium Member

    6,344
    236
    408
    Apr 3, 2007
    The car of the future everyone needs to buy stock in the company
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 6
  16. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,682
    605
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    No, that is an opinion. A fact would be something like: generation costs average less for wind than any fossil fuel right now. Another fact would be something like: most new power generation being built is either solar or wind. An opinion is what that means.

    This is a strawman argument. Nobody is claiming that the current technology level is high enough to completely replace fossil fuels. However, that is unnecessary. We are at the point in which new fossil fuel generation builds often don't make sense, as it will stick you with a very high fixed cost that will likely lock areas into more expensive power generation in the future.

    This reminds me a bit of the people that complain about bird deaths due to wind without realizing how much lower bird deaths are due to wind compared to things like coal. Yes, there are environmental impacts. Those will need to be limited going forward.

    Always is way too strong of a word. However, yes, for the foreseeable future, we will need oil. However, reducing the amount we need, and not burning that amount as a fuel source, is a positive step.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. MaceoP

    MaceoP GC Hall of Fame

    2,596
    102
    288
    Apr 3, 2007
    Here you go..

    Global carbon dioxide emissions will hit a record high in 2018

    Seems to me you are making assumptions about me and 'avoiding'. Typical of the partisan divide in this country. The reality is unless we get a real effort on the part of all major industrial powers (not only the 2nd) to reduce CO2 emissions, emissions will continue to go up (which they are). I see it as a lack of understanding of what is going on in the world.
     
  18. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,682
    605
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    And number 3 (EU) is cutting them back according to your link. I pointed out that contrary to your prior claims, number 5 has cut back as well. So has number 6 (Japan):

    Japan's 2017/18 CO2 emissions drop to 8-year low | Reuters

    So given that number 3, 5, and 6 are all cutting back, is trying to get number 2 to do so a useless venture still?
     
  19. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    7,788
    838
    948
    Apr 3, 2007
    What the second largest emitter does is not pointless or “pissing in the wind.” And how can we credibly ask others to do something if we’re not willing to do so ourselves? Sometimes you have to make the first step and drag others along. But as md notes, other countries have already taken those first steps.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    7,788
    838
    948
    Apr 3, 2007
    Also, I find your logic suspect. Do you take the same tact with litter? I mean, your not littering is like “pudding in the wind” compared to all the litter out there.