The Green New Deal deadline countdown

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 6
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
While it is not clear by H.Res 109 [the non-binding resolution that planted a stake in the ground by the House] in 2019 that there is a firm deadline of 10 years, nor what, exactly is to be accomplished by that clock, it is a commonly known deadline, none-the-less. What is expected to be done, one might ask A. Occasional Cortex?

Where are we now, 3 years into that 10 years?

The state of energy consumption in the U.S. can be summed as follows: the equivalent of 14.6 billion BOE [equivalent of barrels of oil consumed] have been consumed to date this year, 2021. With 60 days left to the year [5/6 of the year] it is extrapolated that the final tally will be pprox. 17.6B boe.

Of the 5.4B actual barrels of oil consumed this Y.T.D the total contribution of renewable sources of energy amounts to a whopping 22%. At that level of contribution, if that 22% is doubled annually, it will still require 4.5 of those 7 years to achieve net zero. Clearly, given the recent past's growth, we will not make 10 years and have anything close to net zero.

Renewables [hydro, biofuels, wind, geothermal, solar] increasing are not increasing annual use by 22% per annum. Consider that from, 1970 to now, 50 years, the total use of renewables has doubled, at a rate of 2% per year. The numbers just do not stack fast enough. That's not to say it shouldn't be done; I'm all for projecting greater use of renewables as time goes on. I'm saying setting the goal of net zero so quickly was careless and irresponsible. By the way, I have been running on a 39-panel array of solar panels since 2016. What have you done? And I'm far from a GND proponent, but for other reasons having nothing to do with renewable energy, which is a lousy description if one thinks about it, since petroleum is renewable, too, and has been renewing for billions of years, and will continue renewing until every life on Earth is extinguished.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
  • HR109 never advanced in the Senate and so failed as a bill to become law. 
  • Why are you doing a three year interim report on a bill that was introduced two years ago?
  • Why are you doing a countdown on a bill that died in the Senate two years ago?
  • talk about your straw man arguments- "let's critique the current, short-term effectiveness of a public policy proposal that was never enacted!" 

  • I think most renewable advocates accept that the transition will take 50 years, whether or not we choose to exceed our max carbon budget .
    • The number one carbon saving measure we could take right now is kill all coal and switch to natural gas.  Coal currently adds 90% of all new carbon emissions and we could easily get rid of all coal burning in 10 years
    • Then run on natural gas for 20 years while we bring nuclear online
    • Then run on nukes for 20 years until renewables are preponderant and reliable enough to replace non-renewables
      • (pretty much the way Sim City taught us to futurize our energy network 30 years ago)

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@949havoc
Very Faux.


132 days later

Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
Then run on nukes for 20 years until renewables are preponderant and reliable enough to replace non-renewables
Should we abandon nuclear after 20 years or just supplement with other green sources? There is no cataclysmic danger or economic incentive to remove atomic energy. There is enough fuel for at least centuries of nuclear power, and new innovation will make every step of the process more efficient and safe. An example is thorium reactors and projects to utilize new atoms as fuel, thus recycling radioactive waste instead of burrying it. 

According to World Health Organization, nuclear energy is safer per TerraWatt compared to other green energy sources. Doesn't that make it preferable for longer?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Benjamin
->@oromagi
Then run on nukes for 20 years until renewables are preponderant and reliable enough to replace non-renewables
Should we abandon nuclear after 20 years or just supplement with other green sources? There is no cataclysmic danger or economic incentive to remove atomic energy. There is enough fuel for at least centuries of nuclear power, and new innovation will make every step of the process more efficient and safe. An example is thorium reactors and projects to utilize new atoms as fuel, thus recycling radioactive waste instead of burrying it. 

According to World Health Organization, nuclear energy is safer per TerraWatt compared to other green energy sources. Doesn't that make it preferable for longer?
I'm mostly worried about waste storage and security which does not seem to be as thought through for the long term as was once promised.  We should note how Putin is taking over nuclear power plants in Ukraine for his military headquarters- assuming that NATO won't bomb those sites.  There's more to safety considerations than just deaths per terrawatt- Fukushima won't get back to full inhabitability for 40 years.  I don't think we should abandon nuclear plants after only 20 years but my instinct is to minimize usage to the necessary and try to prefer energy sources with less byproduct.
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@oromagi
Waste May be turned into new fuel by further fission. Every element besides iron has energy potential through fusion or fission, especially the radioactive one. I don't think Putins missuse or the fukushima accident outweigh countless lives saved. Technological innovations like thorium reactors will continue to tip the scales firmly in nuclears' favor.