CNN: The Green New Deal is a Good Idea, but We Need 20-30 Years Instead of 10 Years

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Despite the poor initial reception, politicians and pundits are rallying around green socialism, they are still looking for a way to make the green new deal seem acceptable to the general public.

Fighting climate change may be easier than we think

By Geoffrey Heal
Updated 0253 GMT (1053 HKT) February 13, 2019

The Green New Deal, spearheaded by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, has garnered attention for its ambitious goal of completely shifting to renewable and zero-emission energy over a decade.

Take the United States as an example. Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity. In some locations, wind and solar energy prices are as little as one-third the cost of coal. Even without including the contribution of coal to global warming, it is simply no longer a cost-effective energy source. Wind and solar are now economically sounder investments.

The United States is working on that, too. Power from windy or sunny days can now be stored in batteries, which has been a tremendous contributing factor to the reduction in the price of renewable energy sources. In addition, there is hydropower, which is renewable, and nuclear energy, which is carbon-free. Both sources are not intermittent, meaning they can be relied upon for constant power, and can complement battery storage and provide backup to renewables. As the Green New Deal gains steam, there is also further hope for an even more concerted economic transition to clean energy jobs and infrastructure.

I estimate it would take a gross investment in renewable power plants, extra grid capacity, and storage capacity of about $3.3 trillion over the next 20-30 years (US GDP is about $20 trillion). But the cost is not really all chargeable to the transition to renewables. All our coal plants are old and will have to be replaced well before 2050. This is also true of many of our gas and nuclear plants, regardless of the movement to go carbon-free. That would offset the cost associated with transitioning by about $1 trillion.

Read more: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/12/opinions/climate-change-opinion-heal/index.html

3.3 Trillion dollars is a lot of money.

If you spent a million dollars every day since the birth of Christ until today, you would still be nowhere near to spending 3.3 Trillion dollars.

In the 1950s US scientists who developed the first atomic bomb calculated the cost of launching a manned starship mission at 3% of the speed of light to Alpha Centauri using known technology at 10% of US GDP, $2 trillion in today’s money.

The sheer waste, the money already spent, the money being demanded by climate action advocates – future historians will wonder how we could have been so stupid.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
181 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
2hotel9
February 14, 2019 7:46 am

If it is such a great deal why are they not implementing it upon themselves? Show the way, have the courage of your convictions, prove it can be done. Oh, yea, they will never do any of it, they will continue to use oil and coal and airliners and limos and blahblahblah.

Curious George
Reply to  2hotel9
February 14, 2019 8:35 am

You see an initial damage control effort. Don’t they still have 20 months?

Bryan A
Reply to  Curious George
February 14, 2019 10:20 am

If it can be done affordable and effectively, Capitalism WILL find a way.
Socialism will only act to destroy that with which it disagrees

Joel Snider
Reply to  Bryan A
February 14, 2019 12:15 pm

It’s a strangle-weed – a parasitical ideology that latches onto a host system and destroys it.

Sara
Reply to  2hotel9
February 14, 2019 2:10 pm

Wind and solar are now economically sounder investments. = I guess they’ve disregarded the cost of treating diseases carried by insects and rodents that are food for bats and birds. A population bomb of these things is what I see coming out of this.

Rocky Mountain spotted fever used to be something in “the West”. Not so much any more. But I’d guess that these people don’t venture outside their offices, but rather, live in enclosed colonies, kind of like one of Bucky Fuller’s domed cities.

Ron
February 14, 2019 7:55 am

“future historians will wonder how we could have been so stupid.”
Current historians wonder how they can be so stupid!

Bill Powers
Reply to  Ron
February 14, 2019 8:16 am

Historians have already traced the cause of our stupidity to government run edu…doctrination and the Propaganda Press. As Reagan would say the problem with my liberal friends is that there is so very much they know that just isn’t so.

Matthew Drobnick
Reply to  Bill Powers
February 14, 2019 5:29 pm

I wouldn’t mention indoctrination and Reagan in the same sentence. Charlotte Iserbyt took quite a few documents during his tenure for her book “The deliberate dumbing down of the world”

Didn’t shed too positive a light on Reagan’s administration in that regard

MarkW
Reply to  Matthew Drobnick
February 15, 2019 9:08 am

One propagandist ripping someone else for being a propagandist.
Big whoop.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2019 11:45 am

It’s also positivity versus negativity.

They may be equal and opposite, but they aren’t the same thing.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ron
February 14, 2019 8:39 am

Future historians will have an algorithm for “homogenizing” history. Climate science has blazed the trail for them. If science has become whatever one thinks it should be and data should be emended to fit, wifty poofty (in)humanities certainly won’t constrain practitioners with dogmatic riguor, objectivity and integrity to stem creative juices.

Reply to  Ron
February 14, 2019 8:40 am

This article is false nonsense. Every scary prediction made by the global warming alarmists has failed to materialize – they have a perfectly negative predictive track record – nobody should believe them.

Battery storage is NOT a practical solution for intermittent grid-connected green energy.

Here is our successful predictive track record from 2002.

Regards, Allan
______________________________________

Brian Walters wrote on February 1 at 7:43pm ·
“Hey Allan MacRae…looks like you and the folks at NASA can agree on this!!”
NASA SEES CLIMATE COOLING TREND THANKS TO LOW SUN ACTIVITY
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity/

Thank you Brian for remembering.

We published with confidence in 2002 in a written debate with the Pembina Institute, sponsored by APEGA:

“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

and

“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Past decades of actual global observations adequately prove that these two statements are correct to date. Since then, many trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been wasted due to false global warming alarmism and costly intermittent green energy schemes. Any global warming observed to date has been mild and net-beneficial to humanity and the environment – the only measurable effect of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is greatly-increased plant and crop yields.

I wrote in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald:

“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

My (our) now-imminent global cooling prediction predates Theodor Landscheidt’s 2003 paper. I’d be happy to be wrong about that cooling prediction, but it’s looking pretty good, based on the crash in solar activity in Solar Cycle 24 – the lowest since the Dalton Minimum (circa 1800).
NEW LITTLE ICE AGE INSTEAD OF GLOBAL WARMING?
Theodor Landscheidt, First Published May 1, 2003
https://doi.org/10.1260/095830503765184646

I will stand with this prediction – for moderate, natural cooling, similar to that which occurred from ~1940 to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, despite increasing atmospheric CO2. As stated previously, I hope to be wrong, because humanity and the environment suffer during cold periods.

The first two predictions of 2002 are correct to date. If I get my third 2002 prediction for imminent global cooling correct as well, it will be a perfect Trifecta.

Then, I will write Sweden and demand the IPCC’s Nobel Prize. 🙂

Regards, Allan

MarkW
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 14, 2019 10:37 am

Battery storage is NOT a practical solution for intermittent grid-connected green energy.

I’ve got a couple of D cells. That should be enough. Right?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 11:17 am

I must have messed up the block quotes.

Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 7:49 pm

Either way, two D cells won’t do the job – but neither will any of the other proposed battery solutions – batteries are not cost-effective. 🙂

RockyRoad
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 10:44 pm

I suppose it all depends on what your comfort level is…the cave man had less than a couple of D cells and they survived! Problem is, acolytes of AOC wont be happy with such a life; they’ve been conditioned to expect Nirvana on somebody else’s dime!

Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
February 21, 2019 4:00 pm

“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

According to NASA GISS, the five warmest years from 1880 to 2018 were: #1=2016, #2=2016, #3=2015, #4=2018, and #5=2014. And the average of those 5 years was about 0.25 degrees Celsius warmer than in 2002. So the world will have to cool a bit in order to have the temperature from 2020 to 2030 average what it was in 2002.

Reply to  Mark Bahner
February 21, 2019 4:03 pm
Goldrider
Reply to  Ron
February 14, 2019 8:52 am

The GND is a piece of juvenile, science-fictional gibberish that reads like a World’s Fair brochure ca. 1965.
What amazes me is that it EVER saw the light of day let alone is being taken seriously. However, if the GOP wanted to make sure the Dems never get another bill through Congress, ever, they could scarcely do better than this. They are now trolling themselves!

Sommer
Reply to  Goldrider
February 14, 2019 11:00 am
Barbara
Reply to  Goldrider
February 14, 2019 7:45 pm

Green Growth Knowledge Platform, Geneva, Switzerland, Est. January, 2012

” A Global Green New Deal: Policy Brief”

And, scroll down to Related Resource articles.
Also see Partners List.

http://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/resource/global-green-new-deal-policy-brief

And,

UN Sustainable Development

Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP), Geneva, Switzerland

UN Global Partnership Organization.

Description
#SDG Action 11356
Registered: March 29, 2016

More information.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=11356

Look behind the scenes?

Reply to  Goldrider
February 15, 2019 10:09 am

The Green Bad Dream
does serve the
global warmunists
in a way that even tricks
the intelligent people
and scientists here.

The GBD diverts attention
from the underlying
lack of real science
behind the
CO2 is Evil Cult.

Lab experiments
and temperature measurements
are the only real science.

They suggest, but don’t prove,
the mild harmless warming in the
troposphere may be from more CO2
in the air.

Actual measurements
since 1950 show mild,
harmless, intermittent
global warming,
with very little, if any,
warming in the past 15 years.

Real science says there is no
climate problem that needs
to be solved now (or ever).

Real science also says
halting man made CO2 emissions
would stop the ‘greening’ of our
planet, and the acceleration
of green plant growth.

The Green Bad Dream
is a “solution” to a problem
that doesn’t exist … but it
is so radical that it encourages
debate on details of the plan …
diverting attention away
from the fact that the “plan”
addresses a non-existent “problem”
created by climate junk science
(a fake problem).

I discuss this in more detail
on my climate science blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

Barbara
Reply to  Goldrider
February 15, 2019 12:30 pm

UN Environment

“What is Green Growth Knowledge Platform (GGKP) ?”

According to UN Environment, GGKP is a global network of international organizations and experts.

Brief Overview
http://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/green-economy/what-we-do/green-growth-knowledge-platform

Also available on the internet.

Barbara
Reply to  Goldrider
February 15, 2019 5:34 pm

UNEP, September, 2009

“Global Green New Deal”
“An Update for the G20 Pittsburgh Summit”, 14 pages

“Notes” p.14 for more references and information on this topic.

https://unep.ch/etb/publications/Green%20Economy/G%2020%20policy%20brief%20FINAL.pdf

Also available on the internet.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Ron
February 14, 2019 4:26 pm

“Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity.”
WOW what a lie. How can they look anybody in the face. They are the least green energies on the planet, but, if you ignore the initial fabrication and installation of the equipment and infrastructure and ongoing management and maintenance issues, yea, they are cheap. However, that is to ignore a huge amount of expense, dishonestly as it were.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Charles Higley
February 14, 2019 7:30 pm

Not really, in Australia at least. Govn’t climate policy has made conventional sources of geretaion so expensive wind and solar can now compete.

vukcevic
February 14, 2019 7:55 am

Rejoice ! The end of the world is not in 10 years minus two weeks from the last pronouncement, the end of the world has been postponed by another extra 20 years.
It’s a pity that one or two readers of this blog, regretfully will not be around in the 30 years time to witness such grand event in the history of humanity.

R Shearer
Reply to  vukcevic
February 14, 2019 9:36 am

I’ve discovered that Taco Bell is the cheapest way to generate natural gas. The world as we know it may end in as little as 30 minutes.

Bryan A
Reply to  R Shearer
February 14, 2019 10:23 am

Taco Bell Gas…I’ll pass

Gary
February 14, 2019 7:56 am

future historians will wonder how we could have been so stupid.

If they pass this thing and try to implement it, there will be no future historians.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Gary
February 14, 2019 8:23 am

Sure, there will still be future historians. It’s just that they will have to publish their work by writing on cave walls. Humanity won’t end if GND is passed, but we may just go paleolithic.

Tom Abbott
February 14, 2019 8:01 am

From the article: “All our coal plants are old and will have to be replaced well before 2050. This is also true of many of our gas and nuclear plants, regardless of the movement to go carbon-free. That would offset the cost associated with transitioning by about $1 trillion.”

Windmills and industrial solar will have to be replaced before these coal, gas or nuclear power plants need replacing. All windmills and industrial solar will have to be replaced “well before 2050”.

Dan Evens
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 14, 2019 8:55 am

Indeed, by 2050, two full generations of wind turbines will need to be replaced, since they last only 12 to 15 years.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html

Plus, this more than doubles the estimated cost, since the experienced lifespan isn’t close to the original estimates. I don’t believe the costs quoted in the article. In Ontario, wind turbines lose money at 17 cents per kWhr, while nuclear lives comfortably at 6 cents per kWhr.

Sommer
Reply to  Dan Evens
February 14, 2019 11:01 am
vukcevic
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 14, 2019 12:39 pm

Story of windmills’ economics is so eloquently told to Canadian audience a year ago by Lord Christopher Monckton
https://youtu.be/ZH4m-Cs-u3Y

troe
February 14, 2019 8:03 am

Can’t help but notice that the author left out the socialist elements in the GND. Sell the sizzle although everything he wrote about costs is wrong. No matter how they polish this thing it will still be a stinker.

Writing it down was an irretrievable mistake. We won’t waste this opportunity.

RockyRoad
Reply to  troe
February 14, 2019 10:50 pm

The GND by AOC is a POS for ALL! People expect some meat on their strips of bacon but this whole plan has none! It makes old episodes of Survivor look like a walk in the park!

MarkW
Reply to  RockyRoad
February 15, 2019 9:10 am

To build on commieBob’s comment above. POS is also the standard electrical abbreviation for the positive terminal of a battery.

Tom Abbott
February 14, 2019 8:04 am

From the article: “The United States is working on that, too. Power from windy or sunny days can now be stored in batteries, which has been a tremendous contributing factor to the reduction in the price of renewable energy sources. In addition, there is hydropower, which is renewable, and nuclear energy, which is carbon-free. Both sources are not intermittent, meaning they can be relied upon for constant power, and can complement battery storage and provide backup to renewables.”

Well, I believe the Green New Deal does *not* include nuclear power as an option. I think Rep. Ocasio specifically turned thumbs down on nuclear.

February 14, 2019 8:05 am

How can you delay 20-30 years when there is only 12 years left? I will believe Ocasio-Cortez is serious when she and all her elected official supporters give up their now unnecessary pensions.

R2Dtoo
Reply to  Tim Ball
February 14, 2019 10:53 am

All goal posts are open to negotiation.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Tim Ball
February 14, 2019 2:38 pm

How can you delay 20-30 years when there is only 12 years left?

Because “The Science” is settled?

MarkW
February 14, 2019 8:05 am

If wind and solar were truly the cheapest for of electricity generation, you wouldn’t have to force people to adopt it. They would be demanding it.

What is it about left wingers and their eagerness to spread such lies?

JimG1
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 8:19 am

They are only lying when their lips are moving or their pens are scratching or their fingers are typing.

joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 8:46 am

A good indicator of the lack of feasiblity for 100% renewables is how much any utility company is willing to pay mark jacobson. His expertise would be worth a salary of $1m+ a year if the conversion to 100% renewables was even remotely feasable.

David Wojick
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
February 14, 2019 1:27 pm

A lot of US utilities are in fact jumping on the renewables bandwagon. They are even shutting down working coal plants to make room for wind and solar. Why? Because they make a fortune rebuilding their asset base. As regulated utilities, the more they spend the more they make.

Jim M
Reply to  David Wojick
February 14, 2019 8:48 pm

Let”s not forget that those same utilities are left with no choice by their State governments. When you have States putting into law that X percentage of electricity generated in the State must be sourced from “renewable” sources there is not much wiggle room.

Fact is that if those requirements and Federal subsidies were removed we would see another wind mill or solar facility built.

MarkW
Reply to  David Wojick
February 15, 2019 9:11 am

The problem is with them being regulated utilities. Might as well be honest about it and have them be owned by the government directly. At least then the people will be able to figure out who to blame for these fiascoes.

Phoenix44
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 9:20 am

Exactly. When did consumers ever say they wanted more expensive energy?

Why does the media – forever whining about false news – not check this stuff properly? Win d in the UK is only the “cheapest” if you ignore half the costs of wind but include the arbitrary carbon tax on gas. And even then it’s only a few pence cheaper. Fully costed versus pre-tax cost shows that wind is 50% or more more expensive than gas. There is no reason why the US should be any different.

Billy
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 7:24 pm

“If wind and solar were truly the cheapest for of electricity generation,”

If you consider that the output characteristic of these renewables is totally unsuitable for powering grid loads, the cost is irrelevant, no mater how cheap it becomes.
Their market value is negative, so their cost needs to be negative (subsidized) to be economic.
Unreliable, intermittent electricity is useless.

RockyRoad
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 10:54 pm

They operate on emotion and when the situation doesn’t obey their desires, they get even madder!

Javier
February 14, 2019 8:07 am

Fighting climate change may be easier than we think

It is. Let’s just ignore climate change.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Javier
February 14, 2019 8:42 am

Exactly. At least for 12 years before worrying about it again.

JimG1
February 14, 2019 8:14 am

Nuclear is where we’re missing the boat for the really long term. Wind and solar are ok for small applications in remote locations but are not really feasible, as yet, for the large scale applications they are being used for right now. Sun shines 270 days per year here and solar well pumps and tank heaters beat trucking diesel or gas out to the (water) well site. Large scale they are a blight on the land and have their own ecological negative impacts. Coal, gas and oil will do just fine while we implement our nuclear, if we ever wake up to reality.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  JimG1
February 14, 2019 8:31 am

Yes, all the Democrats would have to do to turn the Green New Deal into a viable plan would be to come out in favor of using nuclear power for all new energy requirements. Forget the windmills and solar and their numermous associated big problems, and go with 100 percent nuclear power for the future.

Nuclear produces all the energy we will require for the years ahead and does not produce CO2. Nuclear will allow the economy to continue functioning in its present manner while providing all the energy needed and meeting the alarmists CO2 reduction goals.

There is a simple solution to their problem, all they have to do is get over their paranoia about nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is very easy to deal with if done properly.

Republicans will get on board the nuclear train, so no problem politically.

Of course, the Green New Deal is not meant to solve problems, it is really meant to impose Leftwing will on the rest of society. So making logical arguments to them is probably a waste of time. But we’ll give it a shot anyway. 🙂

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 14, 2019 9:23 am

Nuclear doesn’t address transport, however. No getting away from fossil fuels on that front until the entire road network is rebuilt to supply electricity on the fly, because batteries don’t cut it and there’s not enough “rare earth” metals for all the batteries you’d need.

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 14, 2019 9:55 am

And who would build the nuclear plants once we start paying people for not wanting to work?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
February 14, 2019 11:11 am

We will have to get rid of paying for people who are unwilling to work, and switch over to promoting the “if you don’t work, you don’t eat” policy.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 14, 2019 10:56 pm

Fat chance!

Dan Evens
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 15, 2019 6:45 am

While I am very pro-nuke, there’s much more wrong with the green new deal than just being anti-nuke. It’s a grotesque power grab. AOC the RPOS wants to grab nearly the entire economy and keep it under her personal control. Even if the alarmist were correct, it’s a horrible thing being suggested. It would be worse if it worked.

Notice that every single thing suggested to “fight global warming” involves adding huge levels of power and control to the government. Not a single thing ever suggested involved the government getting smaller or weaker, or even staying the same. Not even changing to something else of similar degree of power and control. It is ALWAYS about increase, by large amounts.

DMacKenzie
February 14, 2019 8:16 am

Everyone needs to recognize that “greenness” and “econess” expressed by political parties is a just issue-smithing they use as a tool to gain votes amongst a mass audience where a “democratic majority” can be achieved by appealing to emotion rather than knowledge and research, as people willing to actually study such issues are a minority. It’s about political power, aphrodisiac of politicians of every type.

DonM
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 14, 2019 10:51 am

Everyone won’t ever recognize such. (everyone here might….)

70% of the population is either:

*part of the emotional decision making clan, OR
*they just aren’t into societal bickering (don’t care, don’t have time, etc.).

Javier
February 14, 2019 8:18 am

In the 1950s US scientists who developed the first atomic bomb calculated the cost of launching a manned starship mission at 3% of the speed of light to Alpha Centauri using known technology at 10% of US GDP, $2 trillion in today’s money.

I wouldn’t trust those calculations.

Apparently we can no longer afford to build nuclear power plants, while in the 1970s they were really affordable. Between 1969 and 1989 Spain installed 10 nuclear reactors that have been tremendously profitable and have resulted in zero accidents. You would think that 30 years of progress should result in cheaper, more powerful, safer nuclear reactors. I don’t know about the last two, but the cheaper nuclear is nowhere to be seen in Western countries.

Phoenix44
Reply to  Javier
February 14, 2019 9:22 am

And how many accidents has France had? To go with its cheap electricity?

Javier
Reply to  Phoenix44
February 14, 2019 9:43 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country#France

Zero fatalities. Wind generators kill people almost every year in most countries that have significant wind energy generation. Wind turbine maintenance crew is a very dangerous job. We are very selective about what worries us.

Toto
Reply to  Phoenix44
February 14, 2019 1:23 pm

Good question. Some. Of all the accidents listed here, only Russia and Japan have had fatalities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country

The Big One, Chernobyl, was over 30 years ago. BBC has an interesting report of what that area is like now, radiation levels, how the wild animals are doing, the people who still live there.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47227767

Javier
Reply to  Toto
February 14, 2019 4:59 pm

The problem with Chernobyl is that it is a permanent problem in human terms. The solution applied was temporary, as the sarcophagus had a 30-year life. The Chernobyl Shelter Fund has consumed nearly 1 billion dollars in providing a more stable cover. But there is still the issue of the 18 million curies of radioactivity that are there.

The cost of the disaster is mind-boggling, and the problem hasn’t been fixed.

MarkW
Reply to  Javier
February 15, 2019 9:17 am

Nothing is permanent, the problem decreases over time.
Anyway, it is an accident that could never have happened in the West, and took an extraordinary sequence of screw ups to happen in the Soviet Union.
1) A design that was rejected in the west because it was unstable, was used by the Soviets because it was cheap.
2) To save even more money, they skipped the containment building. (Had there been a containment building, nobody in the West would have ever heard of Chernobyl.)
3) A test designed to see how close they could take the reactor to the critical region without losing control, got too close to the critical region and they lost control. (In order to run the test, the first thing they did was shut down most of the safety equipment.)

Even with all that, the area around Chernobyl is recovering and the main reason why people are still kept out is political.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Toto
February 14, 2019 5:34 pm

What annoys me about Japan is that not only did no one die at Fukushima from any nuclear related problems, several thousand people did die as a result of a 9.0 scale earthquake, of which just over 2500 were never found.

Oh! There was a fire at a nuclear power plant! The humanity! We must close all nuclear power plants!

So 15896 dead and 2537 missing from the earthquake and tsunami and the take away is ‘nuclear is bad’.

michael hart
February 14, 2019 8:19 am

Same old same old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28NnWphc8IY
I presume that the twaddle emanates from CNN, not Eric Worrall, but it’s not always made clear.
I would hate to have my name mistakenly associated with such views.

Blair Daines
February 14, 2019 8:20 am

I am shocked at the number of people who believe that wind and solar are actually cheaper or less CO2 producing then coal or gas. Repeat the lie often enough and people will begin to believe.

iflyjetzzz
Reply to  Blair Daines
February 14, 2019 5:21 pm

Come on; people believe in CAGW. Are you surprised that they think that wind and solar can replace all out electric needs?

Tom in Florida
February 14, 2019 8:24 am

Or course if you traveled to Alpha Centauri at 3% the speed of light it would take about 133 Earth years (about 130 years to the travelers) and that is without stopping at Alpha Centauri. So the travelers are going to be pretty old when they get there, approximately the same age as those currently residing in Sun City Florida.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 14, 2019 4:03 pm

Are you accounting for time dilation?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
February 15, 2019 6:14 am

Yes, hence the 3 year difference from those on Earth and those aboard the ship.

drednicolson
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 14, 2019 6:08 pm

You’d either need some form of suspended animation technology (usually called cryogenics or “cold sleep” in sci-fi) or a community supership with multiple age groups onboard, with the logistics to perpetuate and prepare the youngest travelers to take up the mission that the original crew in all likelihood will not live to complete.

ScienceABC123
February 14, 2019 8:28 am

Any way you present it the “New Green Deal” was nothing short of the government mandating scientists and engineers come up with solutions based purely on a politically driven schedule. Any one want to guess how well that would have turned out?

Dr. Bob
Reply to  ScienceABC123
February 14, 2019 9:54 am

Politically mandated production goals are never achieved. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandated production of 16 B gal/yr of cellulosic ethanol (CE). We have essentially produce <1 million gal/yr after 12 years of research and investment. A total failure.
We do produce 16B gal of ethanol a year, but use copious amounts of corn to do so. The cost to the world's food supply is still being determined, but it isn't positive.
I pointed out to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2008 that they would not meet their CE targets for the Low Carbon Fuels Standard by 2010 as promised by the CE industry. Today the CE industry still has not produced commercial quantities of ethanol from anything other than Corn, and that doesn't qualify for cellulosic RINs (D-3 RINs).
And if we were able to use the 1 billion tons of biomass that the DOE said was available, all agricultural materials would need to be used and all forests harvested (mostly clear cut) to provide the biomass. And this would produce only ~3 million bbl/day of hydrocarbon fuels (or their equivalent) at best. And the cost for building these biofuels plants would be north of $1.3 trillion.
Going Green is essentially too expensive and too costly to the environment to even consider.

drednicolson
Reply to  ScienceABC123
February 14, 2019 6:26 pm

Hey buddy, you in the lab coat! Take a trillion or two and get to work on the Ultra-Super-Autocharging-Battery-That-Solves-Every-Energy-Problem-On-Earth-And-Probably-Elsewhere. Break all the laws of physics you need to. And do see if you can’t get it done before lunch. It’s Taco Tuesday!

John F. Hultquist
February 14, 2019 8:29 am

Power from windy or sunny days can now be stored in batteries, . . .

Who knew?

In related news: from Wikipedia
The first electric car in the United States was developed in 1890-91 by William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa; the vehicle was a six-passenger wagon capable of reaching a speed of 23 kilometres per hour (14 mph).

icisil
February 14, 2019 8:30 am

“…future historians will wonder how we could have been so stupid.”

And then future future historians will wonder how future historians’ generation could have been so stupid. It’s simply human nature. It’s never not been that way.

ThomasJK
Reply to  icisil
February 14, 2019 9:34 am

The prototypical human being is just not a very bright being — A pretty dim bulb.

If any of the claptrap in the column was actually true, we would have already ceased using carbon based fuels for energy sources. The problem is that the measurable torque or acceleration that can be derived from fantasies must be fantasized.

MarkW
Reply to  ThomasJK
February 14, 2019 1:22 pm

How many horsepower does your average unicorn have?

Rob
February 14, 2019 8:36 am

It’s a bad idea no matter how long it takes. The entire economy would collapse.

Steve Keppel-Jones
Reply to  Rob
February 19, 2019 12:10 pm

I think that’s part of the plan.

beng135
February 14, 2019 8:36 am

Why would anyone other than dimwits listen to what CNN says?

MarkW
Reply to  beng135
February 14, 2019 1:22 pm

Unfortunately, dimwits vote. More than once when they can.

February 14, 2019 8:36 am

Geoffrey Heal the author is Professor of Social Enterprise at Columbia in NYC. No more need be said.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 14, 2019 8:37 am

Still not at peak stupidity then, amazing as that is.
Nor at the peak of sheer dishonesty either, judging by the outrageous piece of news management by the BBC news today. Finding some schoolchild eager to repeat the carefully coached climate change babble put into her head by uninformed parent/teachers/extremist NGO and encourage her peers to walk out of school lessons tomorrow, the BBC more or less ran its own strike advert. Not that anyone is likely to hold what is supposed to be a public service broadcaster to account for this grossly irresponsible, self-serving and educationally damaging misconduct. But just let some errant parent try and take their child out of school for some legitimate purpose and watch the education authorities and BBC media luvvies call them out.

climanrecon
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
February 14, 2019 9:34 am

The BBC has a grim track record of destroying education in the UK, most recently with its kids TV series “The Four O’clock Club”, which glorifies the cool pupils who get detention, and who show zero interest in learning anything at school.

Joel Snider
February 14, 2019 8:39 am

CNN. The voice of the Fourth Reich.

I’m sorry – this isn’t partisanship or bias. It’s evil.

vukcevic
Reply to  Joel Snider
February 14, 2019 8:47 am

Now, now if they talk disasters, exaggerating a bit is OK but no need to do as much as they do.

Bob Weber
February 14, 2019 8:42 am

It isn’t a good idea at any price or time limit. Congress can write any law but nature follows it’s own laws.

Even if the cash was fully in hand, let’s see a prudent demonstration project in Washington DC as a first step.

Power the DC Metro on exclusively renewables every day for ten years so we have a track record to judge whether it’ll work everywhere else first. Make DC live the economic disruption first. If DC wants to rip 200 years of human progress and freedom away in ten years, let them be first, let’s see if they can power even one DC Metro escalator and subway train with solar panels and windmills.

Besides, human CO2 emissions barely register compared to all natural ocean outgassing, so why bother?

No amount of soviet-style central planning will ever change the climate.

Gary Pearse
February 14, 2019 8:56 am

Also storage batteries have a sizable cost in capex and operating cost – electrical loses are substantial in moving electricity into and back out of storage. Anyone got real figures on this? Googling it gives the kumbayah economics. You must lose ~30% and I did read somewhere they are expecting batteries to “only” cos $200 a kW by 2030. What do they cost now?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 14, 2019 2:51 pm

If I’m not mistaken, what they’d be relying on is lithium batteries and lithium is mined primarily in an African country (I forget which one.) often by children working in horrid conditions.

Two thoughts.
1. That country may run out of children before there is enough lithium to achieve their “sustainable” pipe-dream.
2. Where are all the celebrities and activist that campaigned against clothing “sweat shops” a decade or two ago?

damp
February 14, 2019 8:56 am

“(US GDP is about $20 trillion).”

Notice the assumption: All of that is “our” money. No, you brain-dead barbarian babies. The GDP has no bearing on anything. Your money is the money that you, personally, have earned. That $72 in your savings account is the budget for your utopian delusions. Go for it.

Bruce Cobb
February 14, 2019 9:03 am

What will be hilarious is if they have a vote on the GND in the Senate as Mitch McConnell plans to. It puts the dems in a very awkward position.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 14, 2019 10:08 am

Yeah, Mitch really got them in panic mode with that one. They were expecting to never have to actually cast a vote on it. Expect a lot of Dem’s to be voting “present” when it comes up for a vote.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John Endicott
February 14, 2019 11:22 am

Senator Menendez (D NJ) was threatening to call a cop on a reporter this morning who was trying to ask the Senator about the New Green Deal. The Senator was obviously very uncomfortable with the question. I bet he had a few choice thoughts in his mind for Rep. Ocasio and her wacky scheme putting him in the awkward position of trying to defend such lunacy.

I bet a lot of Democrats are feeling the same way about the GND: Harrassed by the facts and reality..

MattS
February 14, 2019 9:04 am

“Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity”

Such utter crap. Surely no one buys this garbage?

Phoenix44
Reply to  MattS
February 14, 2019 9:25 am

People do. People still believe the stuff they are told by the BBC and CNN and others. The Politburo in the USSR believed what it was told by the KGB – I read a very interesting book on the end of the Cold War that had a lot of stuff from Gorbachev. They were totally misinformed about just about everything, both inside and outside the USSR.

People believe.

Editor
Reply to  MattS
February 14, 2019 10:51 am

“Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity”

Utter crap? Actually, it’s great news. Now governments can drop all renewables subsidies and mandates. If renewables really are the cheapest electricity, people will sign up for them in droves (that’s how a free market works).

February 14, 2019 9:07 am

I have a suggestion for those who want the US to provide leadership in low CO2 energy. Bill Gates and TerraPower have had to put off building their prototype traveling wave reactor in China. How about providing research funding and streamlining regulations to build it here. There’s no reason this can’t be done. Wind turbines have been getting a free pass on killing endangered raptors and bats.

Bill Taylor
February 14, 2019 9:09 am

so to cnn the IMPOSSIBLE is a great idea to spend money on for 30 to 40 years

February 14, 2019 9:11 am

Aside from the horrendous political and economic aspects to the GND, I’m disturbed at the appaprent widespread assumption that going to 100% renewable energy is a laudable goal. I was/am so disturbed that I made my own video on the topic: https://youtu.be/B0n_53P81Mk
If any of you care to watch this, I would appreciate any comments you might have —thanks!

John Bell
February 14, 2019 9:11 am

Push it off to the distant future, but keep bleating about it, liberals are crazy.

climanrecon
February 14, 2019 9:17 am

The GND as it stands violates rule 1 of Environmental Snake Oil Marketing, which is that the alleged problem must not be portrayed as being so severe and imminent that nobody is prepared to tolerate the medicine.

Hence we see the development of GNDv2.

Bob Rogers
February 14, 2019 9:22 am

I can’t help but notice how parts of the GND sounds like parts of the Super Great Leap Forward of the Khmer Rouge.

February 14, 2019 9:24 am

AGW is not Science
February 14, 2019 9:34 am

The “Green Screw Deal” is and will always be a colossally BAD idea.

Oh, and LMFAO about the ridiculous notion that wind and solar “power” is 1/3 the price of coal. Tell you what – I’ve got this great new fuel to run your car on. Only you can’t count on it starting when you want and you can’t count on it continuing to run as long as you need it to if you do get it started (and that lack of function may continue for entire days, nights or even a week or more at a time). But hey! It’s 1/3 the price of gasoline! Now how much would you like to buy??

MarkW
Reply to  AGW is not Science
February 14, 2019 10:48 am

To get that 1/3rd the price they have to:

1) Use post subsidy costs for both construction and purchase price for the electricity generated.
2) Then they have to assume that the wind mills/solar panels produce 100% of the rated power 24/7.
3) Assume the wind mills/solar panels last as long as claimed with zero loss in efficiency over time.
4) Assume there is no maintenance costs.

Dr. Bob
February 14, 2019 9:43 am

Liquid fuels are the lifeblood of commerce. All agriculture depends on fuels to plant and harvest crops (without mentioning fertilizer and other chemicals needed). All food is distributed by liquid fuels (mostly diesel fuel). Most people would be starving in weeks without fuel, and no one could get to work.
Alternatives to conventional diesel and gasoline fuels are scarce. Ethanol is not a viable biofuel as it competes with food. 40% of our corn goes to ethanol, with all the accompanying issue of Food for Fuel. One alternative is using non-food biomass. The DOE concluded that 1 billion tons of biomass are available per year to produce fuel. Sounds like a lot, but at normal conversion rates of oxygenated feeds to hydrocarbon fuels, this is only 3.8 million bbl/day of fuel. The US alone consumes nearly 20 million bbl/day of fuel products. Using the numbers the renewable industry prefers, this is 306.6 Billion gal per year. We produce 16 billion gal/yr of ethanol but this fuel has only 2/3rds the energy of hydrocarbon fuels so that is really only 10.6 Billion gal/yr of gasoline equivalent energy. Other biofuels are produced in much smaller quantities. Biodiesel which is not equivalent to conventional diesel is produced at 2 B gal/yr. And the much touted cellulosic ethanol production which Congress mandated in the 2007 RFS to be 16B gal/yr is only produced by pilot plants at the rate of a few hundred thousand gal/yr after 11 years of expensive research and many failed commercial efforts. Think Solyndra for the amount of money wasted on this technology. KIOR alone went through $2B in capital to produce fuels that were not compatible with conventional fuels for a few months before going bankrupt. And there are many other examples. GEVO with a market cap of $19MM (stock price $2.45/share) once had a value of $1.185B but wasted it chasing isobutanol production. There is also Solazyme, Range Fuels, Amyris, LanzaTech, and more that chased the dream of renewable fuels from biomass and have not produced any commercial quantities of fuels. So much for depending on renewable resources for our energy source.
We have more crude resources now than every before despite our current consumption rate, and more are being found as only a small fraction of the earth has been thoroughly explored yet.

ResourceGuy
February 14, 2019 9:44 am

The greatest threat of the GND is in generating a recession followed by slowing long-term growth and loss of confidence for new investment and risk taking. That has cancerous effects on the Federal budget from stress in making debt service payments on accumulated debt in addition to cutting tax revenue potential from the weakened tax base. Trying to raise tax rates in that environment means you slide further in investor confidence and guarantee the long term slowdown. It also means you fall into the less developed nation status with shell games in financial markets.

Some examples:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-oil-pemex/mexican-president-says-pemex-will-pay-debt-vows-to-boost-finances-idUSKCN1Q3254?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FbusinessNews+%28Business+News%29

https://www.reuters.com/article/safrica-politics/south-africa-to-split-eskom-in-rescue-plan-ramaphosa-idUSJ8N1RJ00E

https://www.reuters.com/article/safrica-eskom-outages/south-africas-eskom-aims-to-end-power-cuts-by-end-of-this-week-idUSL5N2072PT

D Anderson
February 14, 2019 9:49 am

Scott Adams pointed out today that the simple addition of the word “aspirational” gives them an out.

This is not actually what we are proposing, it is a goal we must work towards.

Thus they wiggle out of McConnel’s trap of making them vote for it.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  D Anderson
February 14, 2019 10:02 am

Oh ya, that’ll fly like a lead balloon.

Kevin McNeill
February 14, 2019 9:50 am

I was taking a tour through the YouTube yesterday and came across a post of a young fellow wandering around a college campus asking the students if they thought the GND was a good thing, they all said yes until he told them what was in it then without fail each of them said “Oh No” not a great idea. What really made me laugh was their reaction to being told that under the GND you could get paid even if you were unwilling to work. “No Way”.

It proved to me that many of today’s students follow the herd and don’t read or research issues.

On another note a great quote from Rex Murphy ( maybe a bit garbled but the essence is there), the practice of good journalism and good science requires skepticism, if you aren’t skeptical you are practicing niether.

Christopher Chantrill
February 14, 2019 9:51 am

The Green New Deal is all about keeping the peasants down on the farm.

MarkW
Reply to  Christopher Chantrill
February 14, 2019 10:49 am

It’s also about making sure that 90% of the population buys the farm.

Bob Meyer
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 1:08 pm

I agree. This plan could kill more people than Communism did in the 20th Century and that’s around 100 million or so.

Petit_Barde
February 14, 2019 9:52 am

CNN : “Power from windy or sunny days can now be stored in batteries”

Is there any (peer-reviewed 🙂 ) published paper about batteries that can meet the needs in real time of a country (industry, infrastructures, transport, domestic consumption, hospitals, etc.) for at least a 1 hour ?

Seriously, do those guys live in Wonderland ?

icisil
Reply to  Petit_Barde
February 14, 2019 10:18 am

Pee-er review is irrelevant. Are there any data that show batteries “can meet the needs in real time of a country (industry, infrastructures, transport, domestic consumption, hospitals, etc.) for at least a 1 hour “? The current state of pee-er review is nothing more than the fox guarding the hen house.

icisil
Reply to  icisil
February 14, 2019 10:26 am

btw, I did see your smiley face, so my comment was simply leveraging yours, not finding fault with it.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Petit_Barde
February 14, 2019 4:06 pm

I like how the author used “now,” as if this were new technology.

Joey
February 14, 2019 9:53 am

There are many lies, but the biggest lie is “Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity. ” Absolute nonsense. They are the most expensive because they rely on back up power from other sources all the time. And the power that is generated from them (when it happens) is given priority over other forms of generation. It’s just an outright lie.

icisil
February 14, 2019 9:59 am

“The Green New Deal is a Good Idea, but We Need 20-30 Years Instead of 10 Years”

More accurately, what we need is the technology to replace hydrocarbon-based energy (regardless of how much time that takes to develop). Currently, no such technology exists. Yeah, we can produce energy with this-and-that r̶e̶n̶e̶w̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ unreliable technology, but realistically, the technology doesn’t exist to feasibly, safely and justly transition modern society to non-hydrocarbon energy sources. Anyone who says, or implies, otherwise is just a liar.

J Mac
February 14, 2019 10:02 am

A. F. Branco cartoon on GND: ‘Chasing A Dream’ Perfect!
https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2019/02/chasing-a-dream-a-f-branco-cartoon/

Willliam Astley
February 14, 2019 10:02 am

People want good news. Good news is fun.

The ‘Right’ side (side of logic and engineering facts) needs a new nuclear option. Something that really is fundamentally better in every way than the old nuclear and wind/sun gathering. We have that.

The Republicans need to change the conversation by introducing something that really is a civilization changing breakthrough.

By forcing the Left to discuss the new nuclear, we can also force them to discuss the fact that wind and sun gathering will never work regardless of how much we spend. Logic and reason are on the side of the ‘Right’, all we need to do is start the process.

There is a reactor design, that is currently under regulatory review, that is as cheap as coal all costs in, that has no catastrophic safety issues, that was developed and tested 50 years ago.

The current pressurized fuel rod reactors are naturally dangerous, inefficient, and expensive to construct because of their basic fundamental safety issues.

The molten salt reactor is six times more fuel efficient than a pressure water reactor (PWR), requires 1/3 the amount of fuel for the same power output, is roughly 1/9th the cost of a PWR, operates at near atmospheric pressure, that has no chemical or phase changes to cause explosions, that cannot have a fuel meltdown or fuel over concentration, that is sealed, that is walk away safe, that can be constructed in 4 years rather than 12 years (PWR), and that can be mass produced.

John Endicott
Reply to  Willliam Astley
February 14, 2019 10:13 am

And where, pray tell, can we see one of these reactors in full operation to we can evaluate how well they live up to the hype? Just one fully operation reactor will do. Bueller? Bueller?

William Astley
Reply to  John Endicott
February 14, 2019 12:07 pm

John,
We built and tested this design, 50 years ago, and then did not document the test results, as obviously there would have been no pressurized reactors constructed. This design is too good, to cheap. We do not have a nuclear industry, we have a fuel rod industry.

The no fuel rod, no water reactor is 1/9th the cost, six times more fuel efficient, and is walk away safe, no catastrophic failure modes.

What is your issue? Are you for or against nuclear? Are you for reactors that can and have blown up?

Are you for or against spending trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work?

The Left talked about an Apollo program to build something that will not work.

Rather than spend trillions on green scams which do not work and will never work, if work is defined to significantly reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

We can logically accelerate the No Fuel rod, no water fission reactor.

This is a zero CO2 fission device, that is safe and cheap.

John Endicott
Reply to  William Astley
February 14, 2019 12:17 pm

We built and tested this design, 50 years ago

a lab prototype and a real world commercial operation are two different things. If this design is so well tested where are the commercial operations? Get back to me when you have just a real world working commercial reactor. just one. so that we can all see how wonderful they are. Until then you are hyping vaporware.

What is your issue?

My issue is hype gets you no where. Real world results are what count.

Are you for or against nuclear?

I’m for nuclear and I’d love to see molten salt reactors live up to the hype. I’ve been hearing the hype for years, yet there is *NOTHING* to show for it. Get back to me when you have something REAL that can be evaluated, not more hype.

William Astley
Reply to  John Endicott
February 14, 2019 3:41 pm

John,

It is a fact that the no fuel rod, no water, reactor that is six times more fuel efficient, that has not catastrophic failure modes, 1/9th the costs of pressure water reactor, that requires 1/3 the fuel for same output, that produces heat at 600C as opposed to 315C for a PWR which opens up all industrial heat applications (twice electrical grid in size), …

development has stopped in the US by a one page not in our regulations that does not mention the past test, but does purposely stop a test in the US.

… The Canadians started the ball rolling and are at phase 2 of their process. The US has followed and there is notice of a big grant for testing.

We could of course accelerate testing and inform the world that there is now fission reactor design that is super better it that cannot blow up, cannot melt down, is 1/9th the cost, six times more fuel efficient, that can be mass produced, and so on.

Weird that a cheap as coal power fission source, that has no catastrophic failure modes, that has zero CO2 emissions, is the win-win answer to CAGW.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609194/advanced-nuclear-finds-a-more-welcome-home-in-canada/

Terrestrial Energy unveils SMR licensing plans

Terrestrial included the status of the design, analyses, testing, licensing, and project planning for its Integral Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR), which is a liquid-fuelled, high-temperature, 400 MWt advanced reactor power plant design.

Terrestrial is examining four sites for its first commercial plant, which include the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and additional sites east of the Mississippi River.

Last year, New York-headquartered Terrestrial Energy USA’s parent, Canada’s Terrestrial Energy Inc, announced its plans to engage with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in a pre-licensing design review, a first step towards an eventual licence application.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
February 15, 2019 5:08 am

It is a fact that the no fuel rod, no water, reactor that is six times more fuel efficient, that has not catastrophic failure modes, 1/9th the costs of pressure water reactor, that requires 1/3 the fuel for same output, that produces heat at 600C as opposed to 315C for a PWR which opens up all industrial heat applications (twice electrical grid in size), …

Great, William, then show me this reactor in commercial operation (Just one such reactor will do) so your claims of fact can be verified as actually being factual. Because if you can not do that (and you can not) than it is *NOT* a fact, it is mere *HYPE*

Or as Inigo Montoya would say “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
February 15, 2019 9:21 am

I see William still doesn’t understand how nuclear reactors create electricity.
He’s still trying to claim that they need no water, even on the turbine side.

John Endicott
Reply to  William Astley
February 14, 2019 12:20 pm

The no fuel rod, no water reactor is 1/9th the cost, six times more fuel efficient, and is walk away safe, no catastrophic failure modes

Sorry, but it isn’t because *IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST* beyond the hype. Get one built and into operations (just 1, is that too much to ask?) *AND THEN* (AND ONLY THEN) can you compare the real cost, the real efficiency and the real safety. Hype isn’t real.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
February 14, 2019 1:32 pm

In general, it is a fools errand to compare the cost of an actual, real world product against back of the sheet calculations based on a lab prototype.

The real world product has gone through the multiple engineering analysis as problems that you didn’t need to worry about in a prototype have to be solved for a full size version to operate.
The real world version has had to survive multiple licensing processes against those who don’t want anything nuclear to be successful.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
February 15, 2019 5:18 am

Exactly MarkW. Spot on.

John Endicott
Reply to  William Astley
February 14, 2019 12:25 pm

Are you for or against spending trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work?

If you’ve been reading these threads about AOC’s GND and my posts in them, you should be easily able to tell I am very much against green scams. But being against green scams does not make me for endless hype with nothing real to show for it.

MarkW
Reply to  William Astley
February 14, 2019 1:27 pm

If you didn’t document the test results, then as far as the rest of the world is concerned. It didn’t happen.

Regardless, getting a result in a lab is orders of magnitude different from getting a full sized production unit up and running.

When you do that, then you can brag about how your technology is going to take over the world. Until then, you sound an awful like the guys who are bragging how electric cars are “this” close to taking over the transportation world.

William Astley
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 5:15 pm

The test results where found, 30 years later, by a NASA engineer who was looking for a reactor design to use on the moon.

The NASA engineer found the test results by meeting with retired engineers and scientists that did the test and wrote the test documentation.

The Chinese sent roughly 1000 people to have visited the test laboratory to look at the test data.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2019 5:11 am

We built and tested this design, 50 years ago
The test results where found, 30 years later

Great, so that means it’s been 20 years. Where’s the fully functional and operational version that we can examine to verify all your claims of “fact”? Hmmm. What’s that? there isn’t one? then your “facts” are no such thing, they’re hype and worth nothing.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2019 9:23 am

From this comment, I can assume that the NASA scientist concluded that the design did not fit his needs.

Once again, undocumented claims.
Once again, an unfailing belief that something that worked in a very small scale lab experiment (allegedly) will automatically work full scale and that no additional work will be needed to go from small scale to large scale.

Art
February 14, 2019 10:05 am

“Here’s Toyko, 27 million people, you have three days of a cyclone every year. It’s 23GW of electricity for three days. Tell me what battery solution is going sit there and provide that power.”

Not to mention the six months required to rebuild all those wind and solar installations after such a storm.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/gates-on-renewables-how-would-tokyo-survive-a-3-day-typhoon-with-unreliable-energy/#comment-2105319

Trevor
February 14, 2019 10:07 am

To AO-C and CNN:

To prove to non-believers that wind turbines, solar panels and batteries are all that would be needed to supply electricity needs, I suggest a demonstration project. There would need to be windy hills nearby for all of the wind turbines, plus lots of sun during most days, at least, so perhaps a small-ish city in California could be selected. The city would have to be big enough for the demonstration to be “realistic” – perhaps a population of 50-100 thousand.

The key concept would be that no electricity from fossil-fueled or nuclear generating stations would be allowed, so after it’s all ready to go, all transmission tie-lines to the California grid would be opened. It would be critical to keep track of all of the costs, of course.

If something like this could be done for the entire USA in even 30 years, then surely it should be possible to find a suitable small city in which to build and install enough wind turbines, solar panels and batteries within, say, 5 years. Then open all tie-lines to the grid, and SHOW the world how it will work. Or Not.

MarkW
Reply to  Trevor
February 14, 2019 10:52 am

They could also pick a smallish town in Texas.
Near Austin perhaps?

Art
February 14, 2019 10:10 am

But really, if it’s going to take 20 – 30 years to achieve those goals, we might as well abandon all hope and party on. After all, the world’s going to end in 12 years.

Ferdberple
February 14, 2019 10:18 am

Power from windy or sunny days can now be stored in batteries,
===????
From personal experience living off the grid for 15 years, current battery technology is not fit for purpose due to high price, the extremely short cycle life and the limitation to charging and discharging.

You get 3 years out of current batteries if they are cycled daily for solar power. A lot less if you charge or discharge too heavily.

A gallon of gasoline and the container to store it costs $ 10. The equivalent energy stored in a battery costs $ 10,000 for the battery.

kent beuchert
February 14, 2019 10:28 am

” Take the United States as an example. Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity. In some locations, wind and solar energy prices are as little as one-third the cost of coal. ”
This is a bogus argument – whjen utiities are required to buy wind or solar whenever its available, the wind
and solar farms have 100% demand, but the wind/solar power forces reduction in the purchase of coal (or nuclear) power and the cost of the units of power they produce goes up. Cost estimates by wind proponents are always pure fantasy – just three weeks ago a wide study of windfarms described the loss of capacity by turbines and a lifespan only about half that promised, Since the construction of the turbines is the greatest expense and it largely determines the cost of wind power. What utilities pay is irrelevant. Unreliable power, like wind and solar, is ALWAYS cheaper because of its low value – it cannot be controlled. And, unbeknownst to this stupid article, batteries STORE energy, they do not produce it. The wind can dies down for weeks, the sun not shine for days or weeks, far beyond the capacity of the size batteries they are talking about. And , of course, you’ll have to replenish the batteries’ power, using what? The need is for backup reliable power. But it would have to have capacity as great as the unreliable wind and solar. If that backup power were molten salt then why would there be any need for wind/solar at all?

John Endicott
Reply to  kent beuchert
February 14, 2019 12:12 pm

If that backup power were molten salt then why would there be any need for wind/solar at all?

Wind and solar at least exist in commercial operation, molten salt *never has*. You might as well say if that backup power were unicorn farts then why would there be any need for wind/solar at all? You can talk about how great molten salt is *AFTER* you get one into commercial operation, until then it’s just vaporware that is as useful as unicorn farts.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  John Endicott
February 14, 2019 1:32 pm

John:

I believe molten salts are used at a number of concentrated solar plants are they not? I found numerous websites that mention molten salts being used at the Ivanpah and Tonopah solar facilities.

Not that I support these facilities. I seem to recall reading that Ivanpah has not lived up to its billing for energy generation. They ended up having to supplement the solar energy production with natural gas if I recall correctly. Plus the birds they fry in midair. And I believe I recall reading that they are also aviation hazards because the sun shining off of all those mirrors can blind pilots flying nearby.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
February 15, 2019 5:15 am

CD in Wisconsin, the “molten salts” we are discussing is NUCLEAR REACTORs not solar plants. Two different things.

MarkW
February 14, 2019 10:36 am

But we don’t have 20 to 30 years.
According to AOC, the world will end in less than 12.

whiten
Reply to  MarkW
February 14, 2019 12:41 pm

But just in case, if the world does not end in 12 years, we try the best to make sure that it will end in 20 to 30 years! 🙂

cheers

MarkW
Reply to  whiten
February 15, 2019 9:25 am

We’ve protected our phoney baloney jobs for another 10 to 20 years.

Flight Level
February 14, 2019 10:36 am

There’s quite a situation out there. An office courrier boy has to present more titles and diplomas than a politician. There’s no minimal qualification requirement for policymakers.

Imagine the following pre-flight announcement:
-And now ladies and gentlemen, wee will proceed to the democratic election of the first officer and captain amongst you, our beloved passengers.

Sounds funny because it’s very unlikely to happen.

However this is exactly how it works in real life. Those handling the destiny of entire nations need just to be elected. No other competences required.

Are we witnessing the works of natural selection ? Where only civilizations with less than a certain fraction of voting imbeciles are fit to survive ?

BillP
February 14, 2019 10:38 am

They make claims that wind and solar power is cheap. If that was true no government intervention would be necessary, only wind and solar plants would be built, for purely commercial reasons.

The fact that the government has to rig the market in favour of wind and solar, shows that they are not cost effective.

PMHinSC
February 14, 2019 11:03 am

In some locations, wind and solar energy prices are as little as one-third the cost of coal.

In know in Germany renewables are about $0.35/Kwh vs US electricity average of about $0.125/Kwh. In Texas, however, which has a lot of wind generation, cost is only $0.085/Kwh. Can I assume the state picks up the difference?

Chris Hanley
Reply to  PMHinSC
February 14, 2019 12:25 pm

Since the inception of “Energiewende” in 2010 there has been virtually no net reduction in annual CO2 emissions despite the cost:
http://industry.eiu.com/asset_images/1215236505.GIF

MarkW
Reply to  Chris Hanley
February 14, 2019 1:35 pm

Surely those who can’t afford the new, improved, higher cost electrons, have cut back on their usage of the same?

John Sandhofner
February 14, 2019 11:51 am

Without better storage systems wind and solar energy will NEVER replace today’s base load generators. I have never seen any data on how many acres/square miles of land will be needed to build all the wind and solar facilities needed to meet the demand. How many more high voltage power lines will be needed to carry the power long distances from where the wind is blowing to those locations with no wind that day? How many acres of land is needed for those power line easements? Lefties are not fans of suburban sprawl but this will be a HUGE land grab and not very pretty when done.

Reply to  John Sandhofner
February 14, 2019 12:03 pm

This is NOT what “from sea to shining sea” was intended to mean:

comment image

Steve Reddish
February 14, 2019 12:05 pm

Many liberals are making the claim that conservatives are skeptical about the need to switch to renewable power as a means to stop climate change because conservatives, as a whole, are illiterate in science.

Can anyone post a link to a study reporting on the difference between science literacy of conservatives and liberals?

My impression from my college years was that conservatives prefer to pursue science degrees while liberals prefer to pursue liberal arts degrees. One exception is the medical field – which may explain why so many clinical studies in that field can not be duplicated.

SR

John Endicott
February 14, 2019 12:33 pm

Wind and solar power are now on average the least expensive ways of generating electricity

Excellent, so we can eliminate all subsidies and tax credits and mandates for wind and solar, after all if it’s the least expensive way to generate electricity then there’s no need for government incentives as people will naturally prefer to pay less and thus will flock to wind and solar all on their own with need of government handouts.

Ian Macdonald
February 14, 2019 12:42 pm

By my estimates, it’s LOT worse than that if the global picture is taken into account.

$250 billion pa is the current renewables spend, mostly on wind and solar. It’s been over $200bn for the best part of a decade. For that, as of 2016, 1% of energy has been transitioned.

Therefore, to reach 100% renewables will cost in the ballpark of $200 trillion. Not including batteries for storage.

Instead, we could give every homeless individual in the USA their own personal Trump Tower. 😉

Gordon Dressler
February 14, 2019 12:54 pm

If you want to destroy the United States of America as we know it, does it really make a difference if it occurs in the next 10 years, on in the next 30 years?

John Endicott
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
February 15, 2019 7:20 am

The difference is AOC says the world will end in 12 – fat lot of good trying to stop the end of the world if your plan to stop the end of the world will take longer (20-30 years) than the time remaining (12 years).

Bob Meyer
February 14, 2019 1:00 pm

20 years ago we were told that we had only 10 years before Climate Change became irreversible. Now we are told that we have 12 years til Thermageddon. This means that in 20 more years we’ll have 14 years until the end of the world. Therefore, we’ll have to wait at least 100 years before we’ll have enough time to save the earth.

I say we wait.

u.k.(us)
February 14, 2019 1:07 pm

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

― Napoleon Bonaparte

R.S. Brown
February 14, 2019 1:41 pm

Sadly, the next Democrat elected U.S. President will “declare an emergency” and
implement all kinds of actions to advance the New Green Deal.

john
February 14, 2019 2:00 pm

How much to launch this guy to Alpha Centauri? Just what I’ve been waiting for- a Professor of Social Engineering to explain practical economics to me. Here’s my bet that the guy can’t even balance his own chequebook.

PaulH
February 14, 2019 2:07 pm

They can call me when the factories that manufacture windmills and solar panels are powered entirely by windmills and solar panels. Until then, they should keep quiet.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  PaulH
February 14, 2019 5:19 pm

Hah! I can hear the planning board having a meeting to discuss the land purchase plan: ” here are the 25 acres for the production facility. And here is the 500 acres for the solar power plant.”

SR

H.R.
February 14, 2019 5:10 pm

My humble request of all who believe that we only have 12 years left is to assign all your remaining assets over to me in 12 years. Go ahead and fill out the paperwork now. Shouldn’t be a problem if you believe it is true.

Party hearty. After all, there’s only 12 years left. But I’ll take my chances that I’ll be around more than 12 years and that there will be enough of those who think it will be all over that won’t manage to spend everything they have. If a few million screw up and have some twenties in their pockets and a few bucks left in the bank, then I’ll probably come out a bit ahead. If I’m wrong and the world does end in 12 years, they can have my assets as I certainly won’t be needing them.

I’m not sure what I’m going to do with all those electric cars, but the additional cash will be welcome.

Neo
February 15, 2019 5:41 am

The “Green New Deal”-s rebuilding of all buildings [for free] proposal will cause massive gentrification .. unless the rebuilt buildings are done badly.
Ahh .. there’s the secret.

Cynthia
February 15, 2019 6:59 am

#GreenNuclearDeal
If climate change crisis is true, then the only realistic way to address it is with nuclear power.
Here is an opportunity to use Green New Deal to change social perception.
Here it is on twitter.
https://twitter.com/subschneider/status/1096110191718879233?fbclid=IwAR0MoJww8HHcFUZbkVGa8vKB8lMM6ugi0i7cJiony8xe3HEEcUzLyw7xQ8E

Aeronomer
February 15, 2019 7:11 am

I don’t understand how people as dumb as Occasional-Cortex get elected in the first place.

John Endicott
Reply to  Aeronomer
February 15, 2019 7:18 am

They run as a (D) in a predominately (D) voting district. I once worked with a guy who refused to even consider a Republican candidate (despite the Republican candidate being more in-line with his social and economic views) because his family has always voted democrat and he too would always vote democrat. He was the type of person who’s vote would elect people as dumb as AOC just because she had the (D) after her name.

MarkW
Reply to  John Endicott
February 15, 2019 9:27 am

I’ve met quite a few like that. FDR saved the country in the Depression and personally won WWII. Therefore they were going to vote for Democrats forever.

Mickey Reno
February 15, 2019 8:18 am

I’m sorry, but old retirees on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are going to need all of that 3.3 trillion dollars. And a lot more.

No soup for you.

Pamela Gray
February 15, 2019 6:47 pm

When will reason return to scientists? CO2 only out gases when something becomes warmer or greener. There is no way in hell it is the other way around. Oceans warm due to a combination of orbital mechanics which effects distance from the Sun and angle, and layering up of ocean temperatures. A warmer ocean surface out gases CO2. A warmer ocean in turn warms the land. Increasing greening results in more outgasing of CO2. No wonder we are in a beneficial increasing atmospheric CO2 condition.

Bottom line? CO2 increase is a result, not a cause.

Kindergarten students can understand this.

Frank
February 15, 2019 8:56 pm

“Climate change” a mere excuse to huge transfer of public money

GreenNewDeal Astonishes- Vast $$ for VCs, “New Banks”, Fed Reserve, Nat’l “Smart Grid”, No Oversight

%d bloggers like this: