Green New Deal wildly popular with all population segments

[Loren Pechtel]

And no, there is no miracle battery technology that will change this equation. The current best battery technology, LiFePO4, costs more than three times more than the PV solar panels over the lifetime of the system. And PV panels have only just reached cost parity with coal on a kW basis but they can only generate at full capacity for eight hours a day meaning you have to have 2.5 to 4 times the PV generated kW installed to replace coal and nuclear with power storage of 1.5 to 3 times the kWh of storage. These numbers have to be on the higher side to allow for cloudy days and at this, it wouldn't negate the need for a full fossil fuel back up and a dramatically beefed up power distribution for the US. This is frightfully expensive.

You assume that power use is constant during day/night. It is not and does not have to be. Also, as far as cost of generating concerned, PV have reached the parity already, so, it's done and not a factor anymore. The only problem is cost of batteries and to cover for night use you need 20kwh battery per person which costs $1 per w*h (current prices for lithium batteries), so it will cost you $20K. That battery with careful use will last 10 years. so it's $2K a year for 100% solar electricity, no nukes, no coal, no gas turbines.

This is a worst case scenario calculation using off the shelf batteries costs, current electricity use and being constant throughout 24 hours.
In reality everything can be improved without much effort by simply not wasting electricity by a factor of 2 at least. The only limiting factor is amount of lithium, but it's not the only element which can be used for batteries and it's not consumable.

Epic failure.

Yes, PV costs about as much per watt. However, the sun doesn't shine all the time, you're looking at a very poor duty cycle--20% is about the best you'll get in most places. That's going to increase your costs something like 4x.

Second, your 20 kwh of storage suffices for overnight in places where you don't use all that much power. A rainy day and your lights go out. You're going to need to considerably increase your storage and thus your cost.

There's also the efficiency of the storage, I'm not finding much data but I did run into the figure of 80%--which means increasing your PV array by another 25%.

 

[dismal]

This is why they need to do California first. To show all the naysayers how easy it is. They got
wind, they got sun, they got tides, they got a fistful of Democrats in power. I don’t see why it isn’t already done, really.

 

[Trausti]

This is why they need to do California first. To show all the naysayers how easy it is. They got
wind, they got sun, they got tides, they got a fistful of Democrats in power. I don’t see why it isn’t already done, really.

Taxes. They're not taxing enough in California. But they find a way to tax more, surely. That's what makes California great.

 

[southernhybrid]

If anyone thinks that we can get off of fossil fuels completely in the next 12 years, they don't really understand how difficult or expensive such a transition would be.

I finally had some time to see if there was an actual plan. There isn't a plan at this point. It's more like wishful thinking imo. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we don't need to start doing more to decrease our usage of fossil fuels, but let's be realistic. Plus, we will have to wait until the Dems control Congress and the presidency before any really progress can be make, since Individual 1 is a climate change denialist, and he's already doing things that will made the situation worse, not better. For example, more public lands are being opened for oil exploration, fuel standards for autos have been decreased, etc.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/417843-five-things-to-know-about-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal

Central to her proposal is the goal of working toward using nothing but renewable energy for electricity generation. That would mean wind, solar, biomass and geothermal are in, while coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power are completely out.

The resolution makes no mention of whether it includes hydropower, the nation’s largest source of renewable energy, though it is often criticized by environmentalists because of the impact of dams and infrastructure have on landscapes and ecosystems.

The plan calls for transitioning to renewables within 10 years of passing Green New Deal legislation

The United States got only 17 percent of its electricity last year from renewable sources, with 7.5 percent coming from hydropower, according to the Energy Information Administration.

While some cities, states and countries have set goals to completely switch to renewables, real-world deployments are practically nonexistent at this point.

And since the Green New Deal hasn’t been fleshed out, no comprehensive cost analysis exists.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation by Christopher Clack, a physicist who has studied rapid deployments of renewables, estimated that building out the generating capacity alone would cost at least $2 trillion.

“It’s a daunting task, and I’m not sure that the authors of the Green New Deal fully comprehend how much they’ll need,” he said.

Sorry, but this isn't going to happen, and it makes more sense to start with increasing fuel standards, resume rebates for hybrid and electric cars, etc. I like miracles too. I just don't believe in them.

 

[dismal]

This is why they need to do California first. To show all the naysayers how easy it is. They got
wind, they got sun, they got tides, they got a fistful of Democrats in power. I don’t see why it isn’t already done, really.

Taxes. They're not taxing enough in California. But they find a way to tax more, surely. That's what makes California great.

I thought it was going to save money. Win win win and stuff.

 

[Elixir]

They're not taxing enough in California. But they find a way to tax more, surely. That's what makes California great.

They have to tax a lot since they are a net donor to the federal treasury. How else are the toothless trumpsuckers in the bible belt going to pay for their food stamps?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If anyone thinks that we can get off of fossil fuels completely in the next 12 years, they don't really understand how difficult or expensive such a transition would be.

I finally had some time to see if there was an actual plan. There isn't a plan at this point. It's more like wishful thinking imo. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we don't need to start doing more to decrease our usage of fossil fuels, but let's be realistic. Plus, we will have to wait until the Dems control Congress and the presidency before any really progress can be make, since Individual 1 is a climate change denialist, and he's already doing things that will made the situation worse, not better. For example, more public lands are being opened for oil exploration, fuel standards for autos have been decreased, etc.

Wishful thinking? I don't think there's much thinking at all involved. Some authority figure said it, it must be possible, thus do it!

 

[barbos]

And no, there is no miracle battery technology that will change this equation. The current best battery technology, LiFePO4, costs more than three times more than the PV solar panels over the lifetime of the system. And PV panels have only just reached cost parity with coal on a kW basis but they can only generate at full capacity for eight hours a day meaning you have to have 2.5 to 4 times the PV generated kW installed to replace coal and nuclear with power storage of 1.5 to 3 times the kWh of storage. These numbers have to be on the higher side to allow for cloudy days and at this, it wouldn't negate the need for a full fossil fuel back up and a dramatically beefed up power distribution for the US. This is frightfully expensive.

You assume that power use is constant during day/night. It is not and does not have to be. Also, as far as cost of generating concerned, PV have reached the parity already, so, it's done and not a factor anymore. The only problem is cost of batteries and to cover for night use you need 20kwh battery per person which costs $1 per w*h (current prices for lithium batteries), so it will cost you $20K. That battery with careful use will last 10 years. so it's $2K a year for 100% solar electricity, no nukes, no coal, no gas turbines.

This is a worst case scenario calculation using off the shelf batteries costs, current electricity use and being constant throughout 24 hours.
In reality everything can be improved without much effort by simply not wasting electricity by a factor of 2 at least. The only limiting factor is amount of lithium, but it's not the only element which can be used for batteries and it's not consumable.

Epic failure.

Really?

Yes, PV costs about as much per watt. However, the sun doesn't shine all the time,

It does, on the scale of the US and its deserts it does.

you're looking at a very poor duty cycle--20% is about the best you'll get in most places.

Irrelevant.

That's going to increase your costs something like 4x.
Second, your 20 kwh of storage suffices for overnight in places where you don't use all that much power. A rainy day and your lights go out. You're going to need to considerably increase your storage and thus your cost.

There's also the efficiency of the storage, I'm not finding much data but I did run into the figure of 80%--which means increasing your PV array by another 25%.

So your argument boils down to: You need a storage for a week then, if it becomes feasible, for a month
sorry to disappoint you but in the scale of the US only night storage is required

 

[barbos]

This is why they need to do California first. To show all the naysayers how easy it is. They got
wind, they got sun, they got tides, they got a fistful of Democrats in power. I don’t see why it isn’t already done, really.

As long as the rest of the country pays fair share for CO2 emissions, otherwise whole country goes first.

 

[barbos]

If anyone thinks that we can get off of fossil fuels completely in the next 12 years, they don't really understand how difficult or expensive such a transition would be.

I finally had some time to see if there was an actual plan. There isn't a plan at this point. It's more like wishful thinking imo. Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we don't need to start doing more to decrease our usage of fossil fuels, but let's be realistic. Plus, we will have to wait until the Dems control Congress and the presidency before any really progress can be make, since Individual 1 is a climate change denialist, and he's already doing things that will made the situation worse, not better. For example, more public lands are being opened for oil exploration, fuel standards for autos have been decreased, etc.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/417843-five-things-to-know-about-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal

Central to her proposal is the goal of working toward using nothing but renewable energy for electricity generation. That would mean wind, solar, biomass and geothermal are in, while coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear power are completely out.

The resolution makes no mention of whether it includes hydropower, the nation’s largest source of renewable energy, though it is often criticized by environmentalists because of the impact of dams and infrastructure have on landscapes and ecosystems.

The plan calls for transitioning to renewables within 10 years of passing Green New Deal legislation

The United States got only 17 percent of its electricity last year from renewable sources, with 7.5 percent coming from hydropower, according to the Energy Information Administration.

While some cities, states and countries have set goals to completely switch to renewables, real-world deployments are practically nonexistent at this point.

And since the Green New Deal hasn’t been fleshed out, no comprehensive cost analysis exists.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation by Christopher Clack, a physicist who has studied rapid deployments of renewables, estimated that building out the generating capacity alone would cost at least $2 trillion.

That's really nothing, just cancel next war and you will have a funding.
Also, my back-of-the-envelope calculations for storage which I just did 2 posts ago gave $6 trillion number with a factor of 2 decrease easily.

“It’s a daunting task, and I’m not sure that the authors of the Green New Deal fully comprehend how much they’ll need,” he said.

Sorry, but this isn't going to happen, and it makes more sense to start with increasing fuel standards, resume rebates for hybrid and electric cars, etc. I like miracles too. I just don't believe in them.

It's hard because people would start a revolt over 1 cent increase of cost of electricity but they appear to be fine to get scammed on thousands and thousands on something they don't understand such as medical costs and education.

 

[J842P]

The United States got only 17 percent of its electricity last year from renewable sources, with 7.5 percent coming from hydropower, according to the Energy Information Administration.

While some cities, states and countries have set goals to completely switch to renewables, real-world deployments are practically nonexistent at this point.

And since the Green New Deal hasn’t been fleshed out, no comprehensive cost analysis exists.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation by Christopher Clack, a physicist who has studied rapid deployments of renewables, estimated that building out the generating capacity alone would cost at least $2 trillion.

“It’s a daunting task, and I’m not sure that the authors of the Green New Deal fully comprehend how much they’ll need,” he said.

Sorry, but this isn't going to happen, and it makes more sense to start with increasing fuel standards, resume rebates for hybrid and electric cars, etc. I like miracles too. I just don't believe in them.

Why is it never going to happen? As far as I can tell, the only reason it isn't going to happen is because there are a lot of people like you and dismal who don't want it to happen.

Is 2 trillion over 10 years supposed to be a large number? The Afghanistan war has spent over 5 trillion in less than 20. This doesn't even take into account the cost of the Iraq war, and is based on Pentagon numbers, which are almost certainly an underestimate.

These costs make it seem even more feasible. My biggest problem with the plan is that it isn't going heavy nuclear, something we should have done decades ago. But at this point, you have to take what you can get.

It seems we have plenty of money and not a lot of naysayers when it comes to war. But when it comes to this, oh no! It's too expensive! It's impossible, never going to happen!

Look, I don't even give a shit any more. I don't have kids and I plan on never having them, so why the hell should I want my taxes to go up to help the future? I guess I'm just stupid.

I just hope the stock market goes down so the baby boomers get fucked and I can keep buying into the market at a great price.


I also should really just start voting Republican so at least I can keep some more money. This is all fucked anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Epic failure.

Really?

Yes, PV costs about as much per watt. However, the sun doesn't shine all the time,

It does, on the scale of the US and its deserts it does.

I live in one of those deserts, basically ideal for solar. Unless you have a tracking motor behind your panels figure 6.5 hours/day. In other words a 27% duty cycle. Compared to a normal generator this means you need to at least triple your costs. Going across the top of the United States I find states whose best locations are only half what we get here. Thus 6x the cost of traditional power sources.

you're looking at a very poor duty cycle--20% is about the best you'll get in most places.

Irrelevant.

So the panels magically power the house when the sun isn't shining??

That's going to increase your costs something like 4x.
Second, your 20 kwh of storage suffices for overnight in places where you don't use all that much power. A rainy day and your lights go out. You're going to need to considerably increase your storage and thus your cost.

There's also the efficiency of the storage, I'm not finding much data but I did run into the figure of 80%--which means increasing your PV array by another 25%.

So your argument boils down to: You need a storage for a week then, if it becomes feasible, for a month
sorry to disappoint you but in the scale of the US only night storage is required

Even if you could redistribute the power from the places that had the sun to the places that don't one night's worth isn't going to do it.

 

[Trausti]

They're not taxing enough in California. But they find a way to tax more, surely. That's what makes California great.

They have to tax a lot since they are a net donor to the federal treasury. How else are the toothless trumpsuckers in the bible belt going to pay for their food stamps?

Wasn't aware that the federal tax code treats citizens of different states differently for living in different states. Or are you just making that up?

 

[KeepTalking]

Do California first. Let it be a shining example to the world.

You need to get out of your bubble a bit more often, they have already done it, just not quite as ambitious with the target date:
California Sets Goal Of 100 Percent Clean Electric Power By 2045

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is it never going to happen? As far as I can tell, the only reason it isn't going to happen is because there are a lot of people like you and dismal who don't want it to happen.

Is 2 trillion over 10 years supposed to be a large number? The Afghanistan war has spent over 5 trillion in less than 20. This doesn't even take into account the cost of the Iraq war, and is based on Pentagon numbers, which are almost certainly an underestimate.

These costs make it seem even more feasible. My biggest problem with the plan is that it isn't going heavy nuclear, something we should have done decades ago. But at this point, you have to take what you can get.

It seems we have plenty of money and not a lot of naysayers when it comes to war. But when it comes to this, oh no! It's too expensive! It's impossible, never going to happen!

Look, I don't even give a shit any more. I don't have kids and I plan on never having them, so why the hell should I want my taxes to go up to help the future? I guess I'm just stupid.

I just hope the stock market goes down so the baby boomers get fucked and I can keep buying into the market at a great price.


I also should really just start voting Republican so at least I can keep some more money. This is all fucked anyway.

The problem here is that the numbers came out of somebody's ass. The green proponents eternally stick their head under the Sahara about the storage problem. Until that is adequately addressed renewables are nothing more than a supplement.

 

[RVonse]

t.

It seems we have plenty of money and not a lot of naysayers when it comes to war. But when it comes to this, oh no! It's too expensive! It's impossible, never going to happen!

There are some who say protecting the petro dollar is a necessity. Not sure if that is actually correct but the thought can not simply be dismissed.

 

[J842P]

t.

It seems we have plenty of money and not a lot of naysayers when it comes to war. But when it comes to this, oh no! It's too expensive! It's impossible, never going to happen!

There are some who say protecting the petro dollar is a necessity. Not sure if that is actually correct but the thought can not simply be dismissed.

Really? I'm of the opinion that statements presented without evidence/consideration can be easily dismissed without consideration.

 

[barbos]

Really?

It does, on the scale of the US and its deserts it does.

I live in one of those deserts, basically ideal for solar. Unless you have a tracking motor behind your panels figure 6.5 hours/day. In other words a 27% duty cycle. Compared to a normal generator this means you need to at least triple your costs. Going across the top of the United States I find states whose best locations are only half what we get here. Thus 6x the cost of traditional power sources.

What part of "Solar have reached parity with coal/nukes" don't you understand? It's cheaper after you do all your multiplications.

you're looking at a very poor duty cycle--20% is about the best you'll get in most places.

Irrelevant.

So the panels magically power the house when the sun isn't shining??

No, but it's irrelevant to cost of electricity. Solar is just cheaper and storage is separate problem to solve.

That's going to increase your costs something like 4x.
Second, your 20 kwh of storage suffices for overnight in places where you don't use all that much power. A rainy day and your lights go out. You're going to need to considerably increase your storage and thus your cost.

There's also the efficiency of the storage, I'm not finding much data but I did run into the figure of 80%--which means increasing your PV array by another 25%.

So your argument boils down to: You need a storage for a week then, if it becomes feasible, for a month
sorry to disappoint you but in the scale of the US only night storage is required

Even if you could redistribute the power from the places that had the sun to the places that don't one night's worth isn't going to do it.

Yes, it's gonna do it.

 

[southernhybrid]

Why is it never going to happen? As far as I can tell, the only reason it isn't going to happen is because there are a lot of people like you and dismal who don't want it to happen.

I can't speak for dismal, who I doubt I have much if anything in common with when it comes to politics. I would love for it to happen. I just haven't seen any realistic plan as to how it can happen in such a short time. If the US, never mind the rest of the world, gets off of fossil fuels, it's not going to happen in ten years.

If we had listened to one of my favorite presidents, Jimmy Carter, we might be closer by now. You may not have been around back then, but those of us who were, remember how he installed solar panels on the roof of the WH, encouraged people to turn down their thermostats, use less gasoline etc. The man was ahead of his times in some ways, but most people didn't take him seriously. When Reagan replaced him as president, he immediately removed the solar panels and you can take it from there. Carter was far from perfect, just like every single other president in my lifetime, but I think he had some understanding, which was rare back then, as to how our absurd usage of fossil fuels would cause problems in the future.

I do what I can. I drive a hybrid and don't travel by air. I turn off my A/C at night in the summer and open the windows. The only time I travel is to visit my son and his family. It's not enough. If every single one of us did that and more, it still wouldn't be enough. How do we get my electric and gas company to switch over to renewable energy? How do we change the way we heat and cool huge buildings in places like New York City? Please don't assume that boomers don't care about this. All generations consist of vast numbers of individuals who have many different values and ideas. My parents had a coal furnace when I was a child growing up in New Jersey. The US now uses less coal than ever before, ( this despite Trump's crazy coal talk ) but it took a long time to decrease our dependency on coal and it will take more than ten years for us to get all of our energy from wind, solar and geothermal.

So, give me the details of this plan that is going to somehow get us off of fossil fuels in ten years after the Congress passes this green plan. Btw, there are currently only 12 Democrats who have signed on to this idea. Nobody here who supports this plan has given us any details of how this could happen. Just because I think it's unrealistic, doesn't mean I wouldn't want it to happen. I just don't think it's possible. But don't worry. I have no political power other than my vote, and I probably vote the same way that you do. I just worry that when liberals make promises without any plan as to how to incorporate them, it turns people away. Obama did a lot to help us be less dependent on fossil fuels, but now we have an idiot in the WH, who has already done a lot to damage the progress that was starting to be made. That sickens me.

 

[barbos]

It's unrealistic politically. But technically and economically it's not only realistic it could even be profitable.
Politically, coal and other CO2 polluters should be banned from funding anything or anybody who is even remotely into politics