 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Interesting.
Seems like a a practical plan that avoids the angst of exiting industries in haste but achieves all the desired results.
On the surface, no reason it couldn't work, my reading of it is the reason it's considered infeasible is because it's unlikely to get through congress and senate.
| Quote: | Feasibility and risks: A roughly $2 trillion plan may be a lot more feasible than, say, Sanders’s more than $16 trillion one, but it’s still not especially likely to pass, short of major shifts in political power in Washington, DC, and stronger demands for bold action from the public.
Republicans may get on board with some of these proposals, including innovation funding, direct air capture, and not immediately shutting down nuclear and fracking operations. But businesses will certainly oppose plenty of the other expensive and ambitious proposals, including that rising carbon tax and the 15-year deadline for zeroing out emissions in the power sector. |
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Interesting.
Seems like a a practical plan that avoids the angst of exiting industries in haste but achieves all the desired results.
On the surface, no reason it couldn't work, my reading of it is the reason it's considered infeasible is because it's unlikely to get through congress and senate.
| Quote: | Feasibility and risks: A roughly $2 trillion plan may be a lot more feasible than, say, Sanders’s more than $16 trillion one, but it’s still not especially likely to pass, short of major shifts in political power in Washington, DC, and stronger demands for bold action from the public.
Republicans may get on board with some of these proposals, including innovation funding, direct air capture, and not immediately shutting down nuclear and fracking operations. But businesses will certainly oppose plenty of the other expensive and ambitious proposals, including that rising carbon tax and the 15-year deadline for zeroing out emissions in the power sector. |
|
Cheers for the summary.
Here is Sanders' plan:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.amp.html
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Interesting.
Seems like a a practical plan that avoids the angst of exiting industries in haste but achieves all the desired results.
On the surface, no reason it couldn't work, my reading of it is the reason it's considered infeasible is because it's unlikely to get through congress and senate.
| Quote: | Feasibility and risks: A roughly $2 trillion plan may be a lot more feasible than, say, Sanders’s more than $16 trillion one, but it’s still not especially likely to pass, short of major shifts in political power in Washington, DC, and stronger demands for bold action from the public.
Republicans may get on board with some of these proposals, including innovation funding, direct air capture, and not immediately shutting down nuclear and fracking operations. But businesses will certainly oppose plenty of the other expensive and ambitious proposals, including that rising carbon tax and the 15-year deadline for zeroing out emissions in the power sector. |
|
Cheers for the summary.
Here is Sanders' plan:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.amp.html |
Cant read, past my free quota there. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Cant read, past my free quota there. |
That's funny  It's actually the only paper I subscribe to, but only because they had a special deal going that was something like £4 a month! Here are some excerpts:
"Mr. Sanders was an early supporter of the Green New Deal, an ambitious but nonbinding congressional plan for tackling global warming and economic inequality. He is bestowing that same name upon his new plan, which calls for the United States to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2050.
It declares climate change a national emergency; envisions building new solar, wind and geothermal power sources across the country; and commits $200 billion to help poor nations cope with climate change.
Mr. Sanders said in an interview that his proposal would “pay for itself” over 15 years and create 20 million jobs in the process.
...
There is no broadly agreed-upon figure of how much needs to be spent to decarbonize the United States economy, but one study estimated that as much as $4.5 trillion could be needed just to modernize the nation’s power grid.
Still, the Sanders plan’s eye-popping price tag is several times bigger than those of his leading opponents. Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has called for spending $1.7 trillion over 10 years. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a $2 trillion green manufacturing plan. Other candidates, including former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas, have also put forth ambitious proposals.
...
Though the Vermont lawmaker was an early proponent of a carbon tax — he once called it “the most straightforward and efficient strategy for quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions” — his new proposal makes no mention of one.
Instead, he calls for converting the electricity and transportation sectors to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 and achieving “complete decarbonization” by 2050 through a massive spending plan.
...
The Sanders plan calls for a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals, and it says that the goal of 100 percent sustainable energy “will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.”
Mr. Sanders’s Green New Deal calls for spending $16.3 trillion over 15 years.
Mr. Sanders’s campaign estimated that roughly $3.1 trillion would be generated from “making the fossil fuel industry pay for their pollution” through new but unspecified fees and eliminating $15 billion in annual subsidies; another $1.2 trillion would come from “scaling back military spending on the global oil supply,” and $2.3 trillion would be collected from new income tax revenues from new jobs in the renewable energy industry, among other measures.
The spending would go toward researching energy storage and electric vehicles, supporting small farms and developing ways to “make our plastic more sustainable through advanced chemistry.” Under the plan, the federal government would also provide five years of unemployment insurance, a wage guarantee, housing assistance and job training to “any displaced worker” in the fossil fuel industry.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/climate/bernie-sanders-climate-change.amp.html
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:47 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^That article is from late August, BTW. David, do you know if his policy is still much the same?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yes, as far as I know! (I just signed up for the same subscription, incidentally – was sick of trying to sneak around the paywall. )
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Cool, thanks.
Yeah, I am loathe to pay for news, but the deal was too good to refuse.
Stui, the NYT deal David and I signed up for is good value if you can still get it. Even if you don't like their political angle, the coverage is comprehensive and there are plenty of HQ reads all week in the other sections.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Any "Green" plan that excludes or tries to get rid of nuclear is disingenuous at best. There is no better option for low carbon electricity. 'Renewables' are nothing more that government subsidy sinks, wealth redistribution from the middle class to the wealthy green grifters like Alex Turnbull. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Any "Green" plan that excludes or tries to get rid of nuclear is disingenuous at best. There is no better option for low carbon electricity. 'Renewables' are nothing more that government subsidy sinks, wealth redistribution from the middle class to the wealthy green grifters like Alex Turnbull. |
There used to be a time when we all acknowledged that fission power was a no-go zone because we preferred not to risk having everyone's eyes light up for the next 200,000 years merely so we could turn the light on for a moment, now. The science hasn't moved on at all and fission is no safer than it ever was. The political fashion has altered - but not for any sound, scientific reason. Fusion, if and when commercially available, is a different thing.
Otherwise, since the whole of the energy sector is about redistributing money to the rich, why would it matter - in particular - that some particular rich person might make money out of renewables rather than some other person making money out of petroleum or gas, or nuclear power? To be quite clear, I'm not asking a question about whether renewables are good or bad as compared to some other energy source. I am asking about the implicit smear in your post - that's a propaganda tool, not a reasoned position. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Who's we? Nuclear Fission has been providing clean, cheap energy throughout Europe and the USA for decades. If there really is a "climate emergency" and lowering carbon emissions is some urgent doomsday avoiding scenario then nuclear is the clear winner.
Renewables redistribute money by providing massively more expensive energy than coal, gas or nuclear. They make money through subsidies because they're economically unviable. Coal for example is only subsidised in the exploration phase then pays royalties while providing much cheaper energy. Renewables as they stand are a rort, pure and simple. That's without getting into the rare earth mining and fossil fuels needed in their construction and maintenance. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | Who's we? Nuclear Fission has been providing clean, cheap energy throughout Europe and the USA for decades. If there really is a "climate emergency" and lowering carbon emissions is some urgent doomsday avoiding scenario then nuclear is the clear winner.
Renewables redistribute money by providing massively more expensive energy than coal, gas or nuclear. They make money through subsidies because they're economically unviable. Coal for example is only subsidised in the exploration phase then pays royalties while providing much cheaper energy. Renewables as they stand are a rort, pure and simple. That's without getting into the rare earth mining and fossil fuels needed in their construction and maintenance. |
19 countries in the G20 use nuclear power in some capacity.
Guess which country does not? 
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^Cool, thanks.
Yeah, I am loathe to pay for news, but the deal was too good to refuse.
Stui, the NYT deal David and I signed up for is good value if you can still get it. Even if you don't like their political angle, the coverage is comprehensive and there are plenty of HQ reads all week in the other sections. |
Cheers for the summary and comment. I tend to use CNN for my US news, they have some good content, it's free and i like the format and structure.
As far as the Green new deal goes, one of Bernie's blind spots is definitely his lack of costing on his policies. I get the impression he's an ideas (or ideals) person, not that practical or detail focused
And jamming other content into one post, while I'm not averse to looking at Nuclear energy, the direction for Australia seems to be Hydrogen. Some good info in here.
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/australias-national-hydrogen-strategy.pdf
Basically, my TLDR summary would be
1. Use Solar and Wind power to produce Hydrogen from water
2. Use Hydrogen to power the electricity grid baseload power.
3. Also use Hydrogen as alternative fuel for motor vehicles via fuel cells
4. Push Hydrogen through the natural gas mains to homes
5. Export Hydrogen to other countries
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | Who's we? Nuclear Fission has been providing clean, cheap energy throughout Europe and the USA for decades. If there really is a "climate emergency" and lowering carbon emissions is some urgent doomsday avoiding scenario then nuclear is the clear winner.
Renewables redistribute money by providing massively more expensive energy than coal, gas or nuclear. They make money through subsidies because they're economically unviable. Coal for example is only subsidised in the exploration phase then pays royalties while providing much cheaper energy. Renewables as they stand are a rort, pure and simple. That's without getting into the rare earth mining and fossil fuels needed in their construction and maintenance. |
19 countries in the G20 use nuclear power in some capacity.
Guess which country does not? |
We’ve got through about 70 years of the first 200,000 half-life of the waste. Let’s not get too comfortable. The question is less about the operation of the plants themselves (provided they don’t blow themselves to smithereens and kill massive numbers, which, as we know, they do, from time to time) and more about what you do with the effectively permanent waste you get after you decommission the plant. Nuclear power isn’t “clean” in any of its available present forms. Really, people in this day and age should not advocate it (unless they have shares in the company that sells it). |
|
|
|
|
Jezza
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I understand the concerns, particularly around waste storage.
However, it's becoming safer to use, it doesn't produce carbon dioxide emissions and it will be able to provide baseload power if coal is abandoned in the future.
Australia is one of the largest uranium producing countries and has the territory to safely use nuclear power if it wishes to go down this path. Instead of exporting uranium to other countries such as India, we should consider utilizing it ourselves.
Maybe I'm wrong and happy to be corrected, but I haven't seen any evidence that renewables such as wind and solar will be able to provide baseload power in the way nuclear and coal does.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
