Green New Deal

[rays427]

No, climate action can't be separated from social justice
No, climate action can't be separated from social justice | Julian Brave NoiseCat

If you set aside Republicans’ obsession with cow farts, perhaps the most prevalent criticism of the Green New Deal is its emphasis on social justice. Critics contend that the far-reaching climate agenda is far too concerned with extraneous issues such as jobs, infrastructure, housing, healthcare and civil and indigenous rights. Stick to greenhouse gases, they say; reforming the energy system is utopian enough. But here’s the thing: social justice concerns are always intertwined with public policy – and absolutely central to climate policy.
All of this should have major implications for how we write and implement policy. The Green New Deal, which envisions a society where people have universal access to energy, jobs, healthcare and housing, is a call for renewed commitment to the equal distribution of opportunity and justice – fundamental tenets of the social contract that have languished for far too long. It’s about investing in the communities polluted and left behind by the fossil fuel economy because these are the places with the highest levels of toxicity to clean up, but also because this is the right thing to do.
Non-elites experience policy through their daily lives, their monthly energy bill, their paycheck and the quality of their neighborhood, not through the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere or share of renewables on the grid. Elites who divorce climate policy from social justice and the people it is meant to help are almost as out of touch as those who deny climate science altogether.

So this would be from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

[mspohr]

Seattle city council endorses call for drastic 'Green New Deal'

"We admire how clearly you have articulated what a just and sustainable future for Seattle looks like," the council members said of the petition that called for, "a transformative Green New Deal for Seattle that will eliminate our city's climate pollution by 2030, address historical and current injustices, and create thousands of good, green, well-playing, unionized jobs."

 

[mspohr]

A quick shift to electric vehicles could drive the Green New Deal forward

ensure that American jobs grow, another aim of the Green New Deal. If the transition is inevitable, the countries that move fastest can lead globally, and those that are slower risk losing jobs, from engineering and design to manufacturing, to other locations. Connolly points to what happened with the solar industry, where China made a concerted effort to dominate. “We have over 200,000 solar jobs now in the United States, and that’s incredible,” he says. “But China has 2.2 million solar jobs, and that’s an opportunity that we missed out on by not competing. My concern is that we could be facing the same sort of situation with vehicles.” In fact, he argues, the situation could be worse. “Unlike solar, where we were going from zero jobs to 200,000, we’re talking over seven million U.S. jobs that could be threatened if we don’t take the lead.”

Within cities, the Green New Deal also calls for better public transportation as another key way to reduce pollution from cars by helping people drive less. That will involve massive investment

 

[mspohr]

New York Passes Nation's Most Comprehensive Clean Energy Legislation in the Nation

there is an Environmental Justice Working Group, a Climate Justice Working Group. These are about community engagement. These are about people helping make decisions about the economic shift that we need to take. There is consideration of whole pollutants which contribute to public health impacts, like PM2.5 particles and nitrous oxide. And then, there’s regulatory screens to ensure that there aren’t any disproportionate impacts, equitably, on different communities.

So the bill also mandates 70% renewable electricity by 2030. What would that look like? I mean, how can—What does that mean both technically in terms of the work, what it means to have to change the grid? I mean, so talk a bit about that

 

[jerry33]

So the bill also mandates 70% renewable electricity by 2030. What would that look like? I mean, how can—What does that mean both technically in terms of the work, what it means to have to change the grid? I mean, so talk a bit about that

From what I can gather from the various industry speakers I've listened to is that storage (e.g. batteries) are going to be required to even out the highs and lows of renewable production. Other than that, there shouldn't be a lot of change. Peakers will be dramatically reduced once sufficient storage is achieved. I'd also guess that with sufficient batteries, TOU plans will go away because they won't be required (or there will be much less of a difference in electricity cost). Of course, getting rid of the political power of the peaker providers is going to be an issue because this pretty much puts them out of business. (Where I live storage is considered electricity generation.)

 

[voyager]

“Greetings Earthlings, here is your Green New Deal Car”
Lean, clean, cool, fun, safe, affordable, and driverless. It will slash operational as well as environmental costs, make ride-hailing profitable, with and without chauffeur. Car makers may end up customers themselves if they fail to deliver.

“Greetings Earthlings, here is your Green New Deal Car” - Medium

 

[JRP3]

Three wheeled weirdmobiles are always the wrong answer.

 

[S'toon]

“Greetings Earthlings, here is your Green New Deal Car”
Lean, clean, cool, fun, safe, affordable, and driverless. It will slash operational as well as environmental costs, make ride-hailing profitable, with and without chauffeur. Car makers may end up customers themselves if they fail to deliver.

“Greetings Earthlings, here is your Green New Deal Car” - Medium

Notice the "EVs are coal consuming smog machines" trope put int the middle of the article.

 

[voyager]

Notice the "EVs are coal consuming smog machines" trope put int the middle of the article.

Hmm, in the U.S. two-third of all electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil). In countries like the Netherlands (where I reside) it is still around 85 percent!

 

[nwdiver]

Hmm, in the U.S. two-third of all electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil). In countries like the Netherlands (where I reside) it is still around 85 percent!

If only there was a way to schedule the charging of EVs around the time of day that renewables are a higher percentage of generation or even being actively curtailed because there was too much. Someone should invent such a thing and call it 'Demand Response'

- Update -

Good News!

EMotorWerks provides CAISO with 30 MW of DR through smart EV charging

 

[JRP3]

Hmm, in the U.S. two-third of all electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil).

Oil is about 1% and coal is about 30% and dropping.

 

[jerry33]

Oil is about 1% and coal is about 30% and dropping.

True, but Voyager is also including natural gas.

 

[jerry33]

If only there was a way to schedule the charging of EVs around the time of day that renewables are a higher percentage of generation or even being actively curtailed because there was too much. Someone should invent such a thing and call it 'Demand Response'

- Update -

Good News!

EMotorWerks provides CAISO with 30 MW of DR through smart EV charging

This is why battery storage is needed alongside renewables. The problem is that solar is best in the day when electric demands are high. Switching EVs to charging during the day isn't the solution. Wind is best at night, but if you have coal and NG plants that take a long time to shut down, you have to keep them running (until they can be decommissioned), and store the wind generated power.

 

[JRP3]

True, but Voyager is also including natural gas.

Yet for some reason didn't mention it.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

This is why battery storage is needed alongside renewables. The problem is that solar is best in the day when electric demands are high. Switching EVs to charging during the day isn't the solution. Wind is best at night, but if you have coal and NG plants that take a long time to shut down, you have to keep them running (until they can be decommissioned), and store the wind generated power.

EVs charging during the day is already happening and would be part of any long-term solution.

Weekends, holidays and vacation time are over 28% of the year.
Some people work shifts.
Retired people have cars.
Some people already have workplace charging and if there's plentiful cheap solar and cheaper EVs, then workplace EV would become much more common as a benefit.
DCFC demand peaks during the day.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Oil is about 1% and coal is about 30% and dropping.

In the USA overall? That's sooooo 2017.

Coal:
2010: 44.8%
2018: 27.2%
2019 YTD April: 24.6%
2019 12 month rolling to April: 26.5%

Petrolum Liquids + Coke:

2009: 1%
2018: 0.6%
2019 YTD April: 0.5%
2019 12 month rolling to April: 0.5%

Utility scale petroleum use for generation has been replaced by natural gas and renewables as well.
(Petroleum is of course used in small generators (and you could argue that that includes ICEVs), so it would be greater overall than that.)

 

[mspohr]

As Coal Fades in the U.S., Natural Gas Becomes the Climate Battleground As Coal Fades in the U.S., Natural Gas Becomes the Climate Battleground

America’s coal-burning power plants are shutting down at a rapid pace, forcing electric utilities to face the next big climate question: Embrace natural gas, or shift aggressively to renewable energy?

“I really think gas is at the crux of it,” Mr. Pomerantz said. “You’ve got some utilities looking at gas and saying, ‘No thanks, we think there’s a cleaner and cheaper path.’ But then you’ve got others going all-in on gas.”

 

[jerry33]

As Coal Fades in the U.S., Natural Gas Becomes the Climate Battleground As Coal Fades in the U.S., Natural Gas Becomes the Climate Battleground

America’s coal-burning power plants are shutting down at a rapid pace, forcing electric utilities to face the next big climate question: Embrace natural gas, or shift aggressively to renewable energy?

Given that much NG is produced by fracking, there shouldn't be any discussion. Trading air pollution for water pollution and earthquakes isn't a good trade off.

 

[mspohr]

Given that much NG is produced by fracking, there shouldn't be any discussion. Trading air pollution for water pollution and earthquakes isn't a good trade off.

Also, methane leaks can make NG worse than coal.

 

[mspohr]

https://thinkprogress.org/general-e...-mistake-natural-gas-renewables-262bda2c96f4/

But California’s aggressive clean energy goals and commitment to using renewable energy was also a key determinant in GE’s decision to take the plant offline. What’s more, the closure is not just a hiccup in GE’s energy plans, but is just one small piece of the American giant’s substantial stumble on clean energy in recent years.
GE’s purchase of Alstom also coincided with a global downturn in the price of renewables, lessening demand for the gas turbines right after GE had made its costly pick. Between 2010 and 2016, the cost of solar dropped 69% — putting it “well into the cost range of fossil fuels,” according to the International Renewable Energy Agency — while the cost of onshore wind dropped 20% in the same time period. Since then, costs have only plummeted further. In November, financial advisory firm Lazard reported that building and operating new renewable energy plants had become, in some cases, cheaper than operating older conventional plants.

“You’re in a situation where the market for one of your main products — literally the bottom falls out of it,” said Hipple. She explained that utilities became wary of spending millions on gas turbines that would take years or decades to pay off.

“Utilities and power plants were saying, ‘We don’t need to do things now. We’ll just wait and see,’” she said. “The price of renewables is dropping — why lock in? Why lock in now? Let’s keep an eye on the natural gas prices. Let’s keep an eye on renewables prices. We don’t need to act quickly.”

The investor letter points to GE’s continued involvement in “outdated coal and gas technologies globally,” including projects in Vietnam, Egypt and Kenya. Yadigaroglu is particularly concerned about the announcement last month that GE had won a bid to build a coal-fired plant in Kosovo — a project the World Bank publicly announced it would not fund last year because of the rising price of coal and the falling price of renewables.

For the rest of Wall Street, the time has come to wake up on climate. A survey by U.S. consulting firm Deloitte released earlier this month finds that 84% of business leaders in the United States were aware of recent reports that sounded grave alarms on climate change, and more than two-thirds of those leaders had subsequently changed their business strategies in response. Meanwhile, a recent analysis of corporate disclosures shows that more than 200 of the world’s corporate giants expect extreme weather and carbon pricing could cost their companies nearly an extra $1 trillion collectively.

Between press releases announcing renewable energy commitments and pledges to double down on climate action, experts say GE can serve as a cautionary tale for other businesses on what it looks like to miss out on the world’s shifting use of energy.