You can't say that for sure...they had EVs back in the late 1890's-1920s. Where would society be today if they had focused on improving the chemistries instead of capturing oil? Same goes for solar panels.....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Green New Deal
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
- Status
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
???? How does the technology we had available >20 years ago have ANYTHING to do with the energy we should be using TODAY and TOMORROW ?????
Last edited:
With the oil in the dumps, the world considers ending fossil-fuel subsidies - Electrek
EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson wants to make a Green Deal part of the pandemic recovery plan. Simson told Bloomberg, “Getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies while lowering taxes on electricity can nudge us in the right direction, without putting too much pressure on the consumers.”
The cost of subsidies for electric vehicles, like the ones proposed this week by LA’s Transportation Electrification Partnership, are commonly characterized as giveaways. But support for fossil fuels — like what the US government has provided for decades and President Trump wants to expand — are conveniently ignored as the cost of keeping the economy moving.
While oil remains in a slump, and nobody wanting the stuff, now is the time to remedy our backward relationship to energy policy — most critically, the $5 billion in annual subsidies that distorts the global oil industry.
EU Energy Commissioner Kadri Simson wants to make a Green Deal part of the pandemic recovery plan. Simson told Bloomberg, “Getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies while lowering taxes on electricity can nudge us in the right direction, without putting too much pressure on the consumers.”
The cost of subsidies for electric vehicles, like the ones proposed this week by LA’s Transportation Electrification Partnership, are commonly characterized as giveaways. But support for fossil fuels — like what the US government has provided for decades and President Trump wants to expand — are conveniently ignored as the cost of keeping the economy moving.
While oil remains in a slump, and nobody wanting the stuff, now is the time to remedy our backward relationship to energy policy — most critically, the $5 billion in annual subsidies that distorts the global oil industry.
The technology we have today is built upon the past technology. Present technology started with the industrial revolution powered by fossil fuels. It allowed us to use machines to greatly increase our productivity. This allowed folks to have enough time to develop technology at a much faster rate. This led to our present technology which was necessary to develop the use wind, solar, nuclear, etc.
Look at this *sugar*. Don't tell me society couldn't switch to renewables extremely fast if we wanted to...1 billion wasted to old energy needs. 1 billion that could be spent on solar/wind/battery storage.
Exclusive: Chesapeake Energy preparing bankruptcy filing
Exclusive: Chesapeake Energy preparing bankruptcy filing
Actually, that is $5.3 Trillion annual subsidies globally according to IMF.
Chopr147
Active Member
Does anyone really, truly believe in The Green New Deal? Serious question
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
That's a rude way to enter a conversation, but I'll play along.
Not a huge fan of the GND because I feel the most efficient avenue to transition is helping the market handle it. But against a backdrop of the status quo, even the liberal wet dream GND is far far more efficient so I'm OK with it if that's how people want to handle things.
Either way the market will quickly take over, it's just a matter of how much is wasted in the interim.
I am a true believer in the Green New Deal. I believe that it is the ONLY way forward out of this mess.
It addresses the environmental, social, and economic disasters that we face.
There is no going back to "normal". "Normal" was the problem that destroyed the environment, society and created the vast income inequality which is causing so much pain.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
....... how does any of that lead you to the irrational conclusion we shouldn't phase out fools fool as quickly as possible with solar, wind and nuclear? You're not making any sense.
'We needed fools fuel before we had viable alternatives therefore we should continue using it despite having viable alternatives today' Say that out loud. Sounds idiotic.... right?
It's a policy goal. The goal being 100% renewable ASAP. Yes... I believe that's possible because I accept physics. The primary reasons people still use fools fuel instead of the many viable alternatives is cost, ignorance and stubbornness. Making 0% 30yr loans available for stuff like solar, wind and EVs would kill the first problem. A revenue neutral exponentially increasing tax on fools fuel would mostly eliminate the second and third. What part of that do you not believe would work? Serious question
Last edited:
Merrill
Merrill
Think of the things that could be done with the billions in subsidies the oil companies get. The great thing is that the idiots that want to continue with fools fuel are done because fossil fuel is done. They are to stupid to understand and only after the money, hope they find another way to make money.
SDRick
Active Member
Believe it or not there are entrepreneurs and investors who would love to be disruptors in the lucrative energy field. As soon as the better mousetraps are built and scaled the old dirty way of powering things will become a thing of the past. Logically, due to the global glut of petroleum, subsidies will be removed. Hopefully they will be directed toward renewables.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Since pencil and paper were used to design the first computers does that mean we shouldn't be using computers? I'm not sure what your point is here.
Here's an example of an intelligent response to the Covid crisis:
Pakistan's virus-idled workers hired to plant trees
Since Pakistan locked down on March 23 to try to stem the spread of COVID-19, unemployed day labourers have been given new jobs as "jungle workers", planting saplings as part of the country's 10 Billion Tree Tsunami programme.
Such "green stimulus" efforts are an example of how funds that aim to help families and keep the economy running during pandemic shutdowns could also help nations prepare for the next big threat: climate change.
Pakistan's virus-idled workers hired to plant trees
Since Pakistan locked down on March 23 to try to stem the spread of COVID-19, unemployed day labourers have been given new jobs as "jungle workers", planting saplings as part of the country's 10 Billion Tree Tsunami programme.
Such "green stimulus" efforts are an example of how funds that aim to help families and keep the economy running during pandemic shutdowns could also help nations prepare for the next big threat: climate change.
My whole point is that without fossil fuels we would not have developed the technology we have today, including computers. One of Robert Reich's points is that we should punish oil companies for destroying our world. My point is that we wouldn't have our world without fossil fuels. Many folks may think we would be better off but there would be a lot fewer of us. Most likely several billion less.
I'm all for replacing fossil fuels were it makes economic sense. Destroying our economy to do it when other countries such as China won't will end well for us. Without being able to economically store electric energy, wind and solar can't replace fossil fuels. They can reduce our use of fossil fuels and I'm all for that. It's part of the reason I installed solar panels and purchased two electric vehicles. Nuclear can do it but greenies are against it. It drives me crazy when folks complain about C02 and are against nuclear and even hydroelectric. If you really believe C02 is going to end the world why would you be against them. Some of those same folks are for bio fuel but using bio fuel emits C02. So although its renewable it's not C02 free.
You could make the same argument for horses, but fossil fuels replaced them. The big problem with nuclear is that it heats the water which isn't good. BioFuel takes a lot of fossil fuel to make, so it's not really a viable options. Geothermal tends to be inconsistent. Wind, solar, and batteries appear to be the future.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
I'm all for nuclear and hydro were it makes economic sense. Wind and solar are now <$30/MWh. Nuclear is <$100/MWh. Wind and solar make economic sense. Point is that we need to be deploying them >10x faster than we are. Fools fuel is FAR more expensive than what we pay because the externalities are ignored. Integrate the externalities and fools fuel would be cost prohibitive compared to wind, solar and even nuclear....
Won't work in the US. We have fruits and vegetables rotting in fields because the pandemic is preventing migrant workers from getting to the fields. I don't see the recently unemployed jumping in to help harvest.
In case there's any doubt (trolls claiming renewables cannot exceed 10% of the grid), right now in California... 5:38pm
- Status
Similar threads
