The ungreen new deal

[Loren Pechtel]

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-green-contradiction-boost-carbon-emissions.html

Oops--assuming her fantasies actually work consumption will increase substantially, we will move away from carbon-free nuclear power but renewables can't actually pick up the load so carbon emissions will increase.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

most policies are not perfect at inception. there is back and forth debate and tweaking that happens. much of the tweaking is nonsense and pork but still, it's a thing.

if P% renewables by YYYY is unreasonable, then debate it and modify to Q% renewables by YYYY.

so, there is no good reason to oppose the green new deal as a bill to start the process of modifying it into something more reasonable.

 

[dismal]

most policies are not perfect at inception. there is back and forth debate and tweaking that happens. much of the tweaking is nonsense and pork but still, it's a thing.

if P% renewables by YYYY is unreasonable, then debate it and modify to Q% renewables by YYYY.

so, there is no good reason to oppose the green new deal as a bill to start the process of modifying it into something more reasonable.

The green new deal is a bill? I thought it was a bunch of aspirational statements.

It's funny to me that someone would even try to model it as the first step in modeling it would be to assume what it is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-green-contradiction-boost-carbon-emissions.html

Oops--assuming her fantasies actually work consumption will increase substantially, we will move away from carbon-free nuclear power but renewables can't actually pick up the load so carbon emissions will increase.

And this would be where we try to haggle over the extremely complicated details. The Green New Deal isn't exactly roaring with details to begin with.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can't we just devote our resources to finding some glowey space McGuffin which will just give us unlimited power because?

 

[untermensche]

The problem is and always will be: Humans are not by nature rational agents.

They are stupid apes fighting over who has the most bananas.

It will be too late before many apes care.

Only some apes behave rationally and even these only part of the time.

 

[dismal]

Can't we just devote our resources to finding some glowey space McGuffin which will just give us unlimited power because?

Well, the problem with that is we have only so many resources to go around.

If we devote too many of our unicorns to looking for glowey space McGuffins we might not have enough unicorns left over to replace our nuclear plants and provide healthy food for those unwilling to work. Plus, looking for the space McGuffin would probably require tricked-out space unicorns, not just the regular kind.

 

[Copernicus]

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-green-contradiction-boost-carbon-emissions.html

Oops--assuming her fantasies actually work consumption will increase substantially, we will move away from carbon-free nuclear power but renewables can't actually pick up the load so carbon emissions will increase.

The operative word in the title of your article here--"The 'Green New Deal' contradiction – it may actually boost carbon emissions"--is may. The article was purely speculative. There was nothing of substance in it, just a vague fear to match the rather vague proposal that the "Green New Deal" represents. Basically, it just said that any increase in economic activity is likely to lead to an increase in carbon emissions. Well, duh! There was not a shred of actual analysis in it. Just broad generalizations like this:

The Green New Deal therefore contains a basic contradiction that anyone pursuing it will have to wrestle with as it develops. Many of the measures proposed – such as investing in infrastructure and spreading wealth more evenly – will intrinsically work in tension with efforts to decarbonise the economy.

They create dynamics that increase energy use at the same time as other parts of the Green New Deal are trying to reduce it. For example, building infrastructure such as new road networks will both create demand for carbon-intensive cement manufacture and opportunities for more people to travel by car.

Also noteworthy about the article is that it said absolutely nothing about nuclear power, which you injected as your own take on the solution to carbon emissions. Nuclear fission has its own pollution problem, although greenhouse gas emissions is not one of them. So it is not actually as "renewable" a source of energy as its proponents claim. It's not as if we won't face new Chernobyls and Fukushimas in the future.

I have no problem with the "Green New Deal", although I doubt that it will do much at all to solve our carbon pollution problem, let alone what its supporters envision. Infrastructure reform is something that we need, but I suspect that the article is right in its speculation on that score. If this proposal should pass, it is likely that a lot of the reform will end up injecting federal money into local pet projects that won't necessarily have much to do with actually reducing carbon emissions. Leaving our roads in disrepair is certainly not going to stop people from driving all those cars, but it won't increase the use of cars either. It just won't have much impact. We do need to spend more money on carbon-free energy sources, however, including wind, solar, and nuclear. I don't see the Green New Deal as having much impact on that other than to raise consciousness of the danger we all face from carbon pollution.

 

[untermensche]

We should have Manhattan project-like seriousness about this.

Plans like this should have been started decades ago.

We procrastinate at our peril.

While morons yammer about building walls and threats from Muslims.

 

[bilby]

Can't we just devote our resources to finding some glowey space McGuffin which will just give us unlimited power because?

https://www.xkcd.com/2115/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Can't we just devote our resources to finding some glowey space McGuffin which will just give us unlimited power because?

Well, the problem with that is we have only so many resources to go around.

If we devote too many of our unicorns to looking for glowey space McGuffins we might not have enough unicorns left over to replace our nuclear plants and provide healthy food for those unwilling to work. Plus, looking for the space McGuffin would probably require tricked-out space unicorns, not just the regular kind.

That's what time travel is for. Once you find the thing, you go back and tell yourself where to look so there's no effort involved in searching.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We should have Manhattan project-like seriousness about this.

Plans like this should have been started decades ago.

We procrastinate at our peril.

While morons yammer about building walls and threats from Muslims.

And I suppose you think 9 women can produce a baby in a month?

The fundamental issue is storage and throwing $ at basic research does little to speed it up.

- - - Updated - - -

https://phys.org/news/2019-03-green-contradiction-boost-carbon-emissions.html

Oops--assuming her fantasies actually work consumption will increase substantially, we will move away from carbon-free nuclear power but renewables can't actually pick up the load so carbon emissions will increase.

The operative word in the title of your article here--"The 'Green New Deal' contradiction – it may actually boost carbon emissions"--is may. The article was purely speculative. There was nothing of substance in it, just a vague fear to match the rather vague proposal that the "Green New Deal" represents. Basically, it just said that any increase in economic activity is likely to lead to an increase in carbon emissions. Well, duh! There was not a shred of actual analysis in it. Just broad generalizations like this:

They basically took the possible portions of her ideas and looked at what would happen.

Also noteworthy about the article is that it said absolutely nothing about nuclear power, which you injected as your own take on the solution to carbon emissions. Nuclear fission has its own pollution problem, although greenhouse gas emissions is not one of them. So it is not actually as "renewable" a source of energy as its proponents claim. It's not as if we won't face new Chernobyls and Fukushimas in the future.

The pollution problems of nuke are tiny compared to fossil fuels. There have been three civilian accidents of note:

Chernobyl: Big mess due to an utterly stupid design coupled with criminal-level recklessness of it's operator. Had someone tried something like that in the western world there would have been a quiet call to the regulators followed by a major response from them.

And note that the evacuation zone is almost all down to normal levels by now.

Fukushima: Politics, not science. There should not have been an evacuation in the first place. Lots of elderly died from the evacuation, the expected death toll of sitting put was probably zero.

I have no problem with the "Green New Deal", although I doubt that it will do much at all to solve our carbon pollution problem, let alone what its supporters envision. Infrastructure reform is something that we need, but I suspect that the article is right in its speculation on that score. If this proposal should pass, it is likely that a lot of the reform will end up injecting federal money into local pet projects that won't necessarily have much to do with actually reducing carbon emissions. Leaving our roads in disrepair is certainly not going to stop people from driving all those cars, but it won't increase the use of cars either. It just won't have much impact. We do need to spend more money on carbon-free energy sources, however, including wind, solar, and nuclear. I don't see the Green New Deal as having much impact on that other than to raise consciousness of the danger we all face from carbon pollution.

We don't have the storage tech for her obsession with renewables. It's not going to happen. The real effect will be to increase carbon emissions.

 

[bilby]

Opposing nuclear power today because of Chernobyl, is less sensible than opposing today's aviation industry because of the de Havilland Comet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Opposing nuclear power today because of Chernobyl, is less sensible than opposing today's aviation industry because of the de Havilland Comet.

How many people today even know about the Comet, or what was wrong with it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Opposing nuclear power today because of Chernobyl, is less sensible than opposing today's aviation industry because of the de Havilland Comet.

How many people today even know about the Comet, or what was wrong with it?

Probably fewer than know why Chernobyl isn't the greatest example of problems with nuclear reactors in the US.

 

[bilby]

Opposing nuclear power today because of Chernobyl, is less sensible than opposing today's aviation industry because of the de Havilland Comet.

How many people today even know about the Comet, or what was wrong with it?

Well that's the point - nobody is clamouring for an end to all commercial aviation because of a decades old issue of poor aircraft design. But ask any anti-nuclear campaigner what their motivations are, and you can bet that Chernobyl will form a significant plank of their response.

Both positions are equally valid; But only one of the two is (quite rightly) ignored as completely irrelevant to the modern industry.

Chernobyl should be an historical curiosity, told about to budding nuclear engineers and reactor operators as a cautionary tale, but largely unknown to the public. Just as the Comet story is in the aviation industry.

 

[laughing dog]

They basically took the possible portions of her ideas and looked at what would happen.

Wrong. The opinion piece speculates on what might happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They basically took the possible portions of her ideas and looked at what would happen.

Wrong. The opinion piece speculates on what might happen.

It's a lot more than speculation--it's the logical consequence of implementing the parts of her proposals that aren't out of the question. Consumption will go up, thus power use will go up. The renewables won't cover it, carbon emissions go up.

 

[laughing dog]

They basically took the possible portions of her ideas and looked at what would happen.

Wrong. The opinion piece speculates on what might happen.

It's a lot more than speculation--it's the logical consequence of implementing the parts of her proposals that aren't out of the question. Consumption will go up, thus power use will go up. The renewables won't cover it, carbon emissions go up.

It is speculation, based on a number of unstated assumptions about how people will react and how technology will change. No one can logically show how an economic transformation (the article's term) will pan out after 10 years or more.

 

[bilby]

This article explains the problems with attempting to power the US from renewables alone.

It's based on the Solutions Project’s 50-State Roadmap to 2050, rather than on the GND; However the important conclusions remain the same and inescapable for any 100% renewables plan. There's no way to generate and store enough power, or even close to it, with current technology.

Inexpensive and energy-dense storage is absolutely essential for any such plan - and we already have that. It's called 'fuel', and the best fuels are those that do not emit CO₂ when used - Uranium and Thorium.