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. 96Gatorcise

    96Gatorcise GC Hall of Fame

    6,817
    792
    573
    Aug 6, 2008
    Tampa
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. OklahomaGator

    OklahomaGator Jedi Administrator Moderator VIP Member

    70,481
    35,303
    2,858
    Apr 3, 2007
    Miami, OK
    How Much Does the U.S. Government Subsidize Electricity Generating Technologies?

    subsidy.JPG

    Looking at this chart it seems wind and solar receive a lot more dollars in subsidies than nuclear. I agree the issue with it is disposal of spent/used material. However, the costs to deal with that would be offset with the reduction of carbon emmissions.

    Disclaimer: This was just an article (linked above) I found looking for electrical subsdies and I don't vouch for their accuracy.
     
  3. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,143
    113
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Not so fast.

    "According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.




    By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons."


    Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,143
    113
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    The US has been reducing emissions, BTW more than any one else.....
    According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.




    By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons.

    Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions
     
  5. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,143
    113
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Sorry China isn't emissions are not flat.

    According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.


    By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons.
     
  6. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,143
    113
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    I would think it would be cheaper than trying to get the entire US off fossil fuels.
     
  7. MaceoP

    MaceoP GC Hall of Fame

    2,603
    102
    288
    Apr 3, 2007
    IMO 2020 is going to greatly reduce emissions for bunker fuel consumed by ships. Most vessel owners/charterers will either have to pay more for the cleaner fuel, or install scrubbers on their vessels. IMO is the International Maritime Organization, which 99.9% of ocean going vessels belong to. I know of many ship owners who elected to install scrubbers on their ships in order to get a competitive advantage of being able to buy the cheaper fuel, thus having a lower operating cost per day of their vessels.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,723
    621
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    The issue with nuclear is not just the level of subsidies. It is with how they are structured. Basically, nuclear is impossible to finance without huge initial subsidies and loan guarantees. As newer technologies develop, the usage of these sorts of subsidies would serve to lock areas in on less efficient methods in the future.
     
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,723
    621
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Yes, we were working at decreasing emissions. Of course, now we aren't.

    Andlinger Center Speaks: U.S. carbon dioxide emissions rise by 3.4 percent
     
  10. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,723
    621
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Nope. The unsubsidized generation price of wind and solar is already dropping below the price of fossil fuels. There is still lock-in from prior decisions and the need to diversify, which will both keep fossil fuel generation going. But it really doesn't make much sense to start new non-renewable projects at this point.
     
  11. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,143
    113
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    I'll need a link for that, I can't believe that on a per kilowatt/hr basis wind and solar are even close to competing with fossil fuels(even with the subsidies) let alone without them.

    For my house to go all solar would be 50-70 k just in panels( batteries are another 10-15k. My FPL bill runs about 250-350 a month. Say its 80 k, that would take about 25 years to pay back, and that's saying there is no system degredation, or equipment failure. Last I looked the life span of the panels were about 20 years with about a 1% drop in efficiency per year.
     
  12. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    7,802
    839
    948
    Apr 3, 2007
    You’re going back to 2005 which was right during the height of China’s CO2 upswing. I cited since 2013. Big, big difference. And they’re not completely flat (why I qualified it as largely). There has been a very gradual rise the last five years, a period in which they’ve added 40M people and have a populace that has become fascinated with car ownership. Without their policies it would have been much worse. I expect there will be a bump upward this year but the narrative that China isn’t working to curb emissions is simply false.
     
  13. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,143
    113
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Sure I, like longer time points to see trends. Too easy to pick small data sets to prove an angle.
    China's economy is slowing way more then the US, but some here neglected to see(or know) that the US has been doing a good job of decreasing output, even with the economy doing well.

    I have no idea if China is or isn't trying to curb emissions only what is actually being put out there.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    7,802
    839
    948
    Apr 3, 2007
    The five most recent years isn’t cherry picking. It’s a demonstrable trend. Their emissions skyrocketed unabated for decades until 2013. They also happened to start promulgating rules and trying to curb emissions a few years before then. I suspect they’ll go up again before they get a handle on it and start reducing raw emissions numbers but they’re actually putting their money in green energy - as much as the next four nations (counting EU as a nation).
     
  15. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,723
    621
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    New year, same story: Cost of wind and solar fall below cost of coal and gas

    BNEF: Unsubsidized wind, solar are now the cheapest bulk generation sources - Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis

    And in case you want to question the academics, we are seeing the results filter through into auctions for new energy around the world.

    Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

    While the costs of building one at your house are higher, that is because you lose some of the efficiency of bulk generation. Building and operating a small scale, household level coal power plant would be considerably more expensive.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,143
    113
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Cool and fair points.

    I'd rather have one of these.....Thorium Generator

    Thorium is a radioactive chemical element that could in theory be used to generate large quantities of low-carbon electricity in future decades. Compared to the uranium that powers today's nuclear plants, thorium is more abundant and widely distributed in the Earth's crust. It also offers various safety benefits over uranium: it's not prone to runaway chain reactions that can lead to nuclear disasters; its waste products remains dangerous for a much shorter period; and its byproducts aren't useful for making nuclear weapons. In addition, thorium reactors could theoretically be used to burn up the dangerous plutonium stored in existing nuclear waste stockpiles.

    Thorium: Next-generation generator?
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  17. The_RH_Factor

    The_RH_Factor GC Legend

    829
    80
    193
    Aug 11, 2010
    Anyone ever heard of nuclear power plants powered by Thorium?

    You don’t have to worry about them blowing up and the waste can’t be made into bombs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,143
    113
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    I recall reading about them being designed small scale to power a home, way better. Zero power lines last for decades.....
     
  19. demosthenes

    demosthenes Premium Member

    7,802
    839
    948
    Apr 3, 2007
    I hadn’t until the post above yours...
     
  20. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    7,723
    621
    508
    Dec 9, 2010
    Why would you "rather" have an unproven technology compared to proven technologies, especially when the argument was just about expense and the early stage of development of wind and solar? Maybe it will end up being better, but it is still pretty early stage in development. Some part of the new love of nuclear strikes me as a psychological reaction to needing the crazy, environmentalist liberals to not have been right about this one.