A Green New Deal?

[Loren Pechtel]

She sounds like an eco-warrior crank. Totally unrealistic, pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Really ? This is not so different from the energy-program that was proposed by the Swiss government, approved by both parliament chambers and confirmed by a national referendum (and as yet is running fine). The only significant difference is, that a reassesment is point defined for the year 2035. By then a go/nogo decision should be made for 4th generation nuclear energy. Not entirely vain hopes exist that a 4th generation Thorium reactor not only would produce energy but also convert long living nuclear waste to short living; so relieving us from major pain in the ass.

You realize a few nations were blessed with abundant storable, renewable power (hydro and geothermal) and thus can run high percentages of renewables with current tech? That doesn't mean other nations can emulate them!

 

[untermensche]

No. The Democrats are incredibly corrupt beyond belief. Even if you leave out the Clintons.

It's quite believable.

The Democrats suffer the same corruption the Republicans suffer.

The corruption of concentrated wealth.

The corruption of the modern corporation.

The corruption of modern capitalism.

 

[DoubleDutchy]

She sounds like an eco-warrior crank. Totally unrealistic, pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Really ? This is not so different from the energy-program that was proposed by the Swiss government, approved by both parliament chambers and confirmed by a national referendum (and as yet is running fine). The only significant difference is, that a reassesment is point defined for the year 2035. By then a go/nogo decision should be made for 4th generation nuclear energy. Not entirely vain hopes exist that a 4th generation Thorium reactor not only would produce energy but also convert long living nuclear waste to short living; so relieving us from major pain in the ass.

You realize a few nations were blessed with abundant storable, renewable power (hydro and geothermal) and thus can run high percentages of renewables with current tech? That doesn't mean other nations can emulate them!

Loren, long time no see. Old age mildness hasn't touched you yet I see. Condescending and arrogant as ever.

You don't seem to realise that preconditions for green energy-supply are much more favourable in the US than they are in Switzerland.
You have got windy Ocean-coasts, which we haven't. You have arid desert-zones, apt for thermal solar energy, which we haven't. You have got thousands of miles of large fast flowing rivers, we have hardly any. You have got freespace allowing for large scale photovoltaics, our space is extremely scarce. You have got arable land reserves that allow for fuel crops, we haven't.
We do indeed posses a vast system of storable hydro. Certainly a good thing to have or, more properly said, to build; it did by no means fall from heaven. US has a potential there too but, admittedly, to a relative much lesser extent than Switzerland.
What,last but nor least, we both have is a sophisticated R&D capability, able to develop technology as it might be required.

No reason whatsoever to start whining 'no, no, no we can't'. Boldly stating 'yes we can' would be absolutely appropriate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You realize a few nations were blessed with abundant storable, renewable power (hydro and geothermal) and thus can run high percentages of renewables with current tech? That doesn't mean other nations can emulate them!

Loren, long time no see. Old age mildness hasn't touched you yet I see. Condescending and arrogant as ever.

You don't seem to realise that preconditions for green energy-supply are much more favourable in the US than they are in Switzerland.
You have got windy Ocean-coasts, which we haven't. You have arid desert-zones, apt for thermal solar energy, which we haven't.

Please note the word "storable". Neither wind nor solar meet this requirement.

You have got thousands of miles of large fast flowing rivers, we have hardly any.

Hydro requires lots of water and terrain that can be used to confine it. For example, a picture I snapped a few hours ago (with no thought of this thread):

Note the mountains behind it. See how a huge amount of water is trapped by that narrow dam:

Rivers like the Mississippi have no such suitable terrain and thus yield no hydropower.

You have got arable land reserves that allow for fuel crops, we haven't.

Fuel crops are not remotely green.

No reason whatsoever to start whining 'no, no, no we can't'. Boldly stating 'yes we can' would be absolutely appropriate.

Yes we can, death by old age is to be abolished. Nobody dies starting next year.

 

[bilby]

The Mississippi river already generates some hydropower, and could potentially yield much more.

But it's useless for storage, so it can't help make wind and solar power viable.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

. . . a Frequently Asked Questions sections, including:

• Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why can’t we just rely on regulations and taxes alone, such as a carbon tax or an eventual ban on fossil fuels?

This one mostly makes sense.

• Why should the government have a big role in driving and making any required investments? Why not just incentivize the private sector to invest through, for e.g., tax subsidies and such?

No.

Incentivizing can work, but only through taxing what's bad (carbon emissions, coal, gasoline), not by subsidizing companies = corporate welfare. If what's bad is penalized, then the producers have to turn to something else, and they will find the best alternatives.

Let the market and science keep looking for the best alternatives, and those who find them will be rewarded by the market. But if Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders etc. choose which companies to subsidize, we only get special favors to those who are best at lobbying and buying the politicians, while excluding millions of investors/inventors/tinkerers who are working on solutions.

• How will the government pay for these investments?

• Why do we need a select committee? We already have committees with jurisdiction over the subject matter e.g. Energy and Commerce, Natural Resources and Science, Space and Technology. Just creating another committee seems unnecessary.

• Why should we not be satisfied with the same approach the previous select committee used (i.e. the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming)? Why do we need a new approach?

etc.

Why not throw in more job training programs.

This scheme tries to do too many things: Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!, universal health care, the kitchen sink -- it's really just a proposed Platform for the Democratic Party.

It should be broken down into about 10 or 12 separate bills to be voted on separately.