Joke. Like “does”. I was in a mood.
From- Joe Biden Said No Scientist Supports Bernie Sanders’ Climate Plan. Dozens Just Did.
“Sanders swung back over the weekend, telling a crowd in Iowa that he would soon unveil “a long list of scientists” who back his plan. The Sanders campaign delivered on Tuesday, releasing a letter of support signed by 57 science professors and researchers from around the country. “
So the first thing I noticed when I saw the list is that none of the signatories were major authors of prominent energy transition plans nor are any of them major and publicly known climatologists. (People like James Hanson, Ken Calderia, Michael Mann, Mark Jacobson, Annette Evans, Mark Delucchi, Brian Connolly etc.) You’d think with the national attention, one of these would be on the list…
So I have to ask- how many of the names on this list have actually been an author of a published energy transition plan? How are any of these people qualified in determining if 100% renewable by 2030 is feasible per Sanders GND plan?
As stated in the article and in the letter itself:
“The Green New Deal you are proposing is not only possible, but it must be done if we want to save the planet for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations,” the letter signed by the scientists said. “Not only does your Green New Deal follow the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s] timeline for action, but the solutions you are proposing to solve our climate crisis are realistic, necessary, and backed by science.
Ok, so the following are word for word quotes first from Sanders GND and then from the IPCC study, so you tell me if they’re saying the same thing:
“Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 at latest”
“In 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot, renewables are projected to supply 70–85% (interquartile range) of electricity in 2050 (high confidence). In electricity generation, shares of nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) are modelled to increase in most 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot.”
Sanders calls for 100% Renewable electricity by 2030, whereas the IPCC calls for 70-85% Renewable by 2050. How in the world is that the same timeline of action?
It would appear that none of the scientists on that list made it to Chapter 3 of the 2018 IPCC Emissions Report.
In reference to- A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not
How can you claim that the Green New Deal is financially responsible, when there has never been a cost analysis submitted to the general public for the Green New Deal?
Your article makes a valid point that it’s better than doing nothing, but that is NOT the argument I nor others are making when it comes to evaluating the GND. Just because the GND is better than BAU (business as usual), does not make the GND an effective and comprehensive plan. Compared to an actual 100% Renewable plan like Jacobson et. al WWS 2015 Model, the GND is complete dumpster fire…
In reference to- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s climate plan is the only one that matches scientific consensus on the environment
“Rapidly decarbonizing the US economy by completely shifting to renewables is the best and maybe only way to actually make a difference in climate-change mitigation; any milder approach will almost certainly lead us to miss that window.”
Interesting how this statement is completely unsubstantiated by anything resembling data. Furthermore renewables doesn’t mean low carbon, and according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Lifecycle CO2 Harmonization Assessment (~https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html) various types of biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric and evening CSP have historically emitted more lifecycle CO2 than Nuclear energy. If our objective is to reduce CO2 as much and as soon as possible, what sense does it make to eliminate and replace an energy source that emits less CO2 than some types of renewable?
“Ocasio-Cortez wants to make the US run 100% on renewable energy by 2035.”
Seeing as I have already provided you with evidence from the IPCC not supporting 100% renewable, I fail to see this consensus of scientists supporting 100% renewable… not to mention ALL OF FOLLOWING NOT IN FAVOR:
Vol. 1: “Exploration of High-Penetration Renewable Electricity Futures”
Vol. 2: “Renewable Electricity Generation and Storage Technologies”
Vol. 3: “End-use Electricity Demand”
Vol. 4: “Bulk Electric Power Systems: Operations and Transmission Planning”
Global Energy Assessment World Outlook"
BNEF (Bloomberg New Energy Finance): New Energy Outlook" (Download the PDF on site)
The Role of Firm Low-Carbon Electricity Resources in Deep Decarbonization of Power Generation"
Greenpeace and European Renewable Energy Council Energy Proposal"
IEA and IPCC World Energy Outlook (I referenced a 2014 report, but you can also download their 2018 version)"
MIT Utility of the Future Energy Initiative
“Reflections—What Would It Take to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050?”
-“Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions in the Electric Power Sector”
-“Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States”
“Reflections—What Would It Take to Reduce U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050?”
- “A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?”
-“Renewables and decarbonization: Studies of California, Wisconsin and Germany”
“DEEP DECARBONIZATION OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR INSIGHTS FROM RECENT LITERATURE”
“Integrating high levels of variable renewable energy into electric power systems“
So what consensus are you possibly referring to?
I don’t think J4Zonian1 was referring to Jack and Robert…
We’re making distinctions between Right and Left political agendas and leaders. I’m saying these major mistakes made by the high-tech political Left can be rightly viewed as suspicious. Rather than concur both parties are corrupt, I point out how the Left agenda for electric driverless EVs is misdirected by Rightwing leaders feeding Leftwing leaders (their fancy word play) to hide obvious fatal flaws.
Nu uh, yer nonsensical, cuz yew say dumb words like “renewabilizing” haha.
“Your claims are counter-intuitive, completely opposite everything written about the topic, almost certainly wrong.”… Oh, so I’m only “almost” certainly wrong, eh?
Have you read “everything” about the topic?
“You’re making a unique claim so it’s your obligation to present evidence.”…I’ve presented sufficient evidence and facts to support PHEVs. You’ve presented assumptions about tech “that doesn’t exist yet” and battery resources that you’d grin and watch go to wasteful uses, such as huge battery packs in electric trucks instead of in as many as 500 PHEV households - my main example of effectively equitable distribution of battery resources.
“ONE” Truck or “500” PHEV Households?
Here’s one or two of your claims:
“Battery components are abundant.”… Whatever components we mine and manufacture into battery packs must be distributed broadly and equitably to be effective. You assume there’s enough for everybody.
“BEVs do everything PHEVs do, but better.”…Wrong! When a grid fails, and battery packs drain, a PHEV offers a fuel source ready in an emergency. Limited range PHEVs offer economic incentives to drive less unlike BEVs which enable longer distance routine drives. PHEVs have these sort of advantages over BEVs.
“I enjoy amusingly bizarre logic and outrageous nonsense, although I really wish we knew why you choose to pretend to have a negative obsession with these things, pretend to be an obsessed nutcase for our entertainment.”
Well, you see J4Z, I summarize my viewpoint more clearly than you do yours. You may reject theorem when they go over your head, but that doesn’t make them false. You don’t have to be snooty about it though. Rudeness is very much like President Pigface berating his opponents and underlings.
J4Zonian certainly was. Though Robert had promise (unfulfilled, and ever a mystery whether it would have been had he lived and won–almost none is) and Jack pursued a few liberal projects and was far from the worst in any way, they were both both tools and manipulators of empire–militaristic, interested in dominating the world on behalf of US exceptionalism (aka at least semi-malignant narcissism) and conservative in most senses compared to what’s happened in Europe, eg. ever since. They sought world peace mostly through a Pax Americana (sic), again, aka domination.
At the end of the Roman republic, Senate and Gracchi waged war on each other, and neither was liberal though one was more populist than the other; the fact that there are factions willing to kill each other within a conservative party is nothing new.
I agree with the second part (getting rid of the need for cobalt anyway - that’s the only rare material I know of). But on the first part, where are you getting that information? I read most of the world’s lithium comes from South America underground brine. I know people are looking at the ocean, but the lithium concentration is low (1 ppm vs 300-7000 ppm for brine) and I’m not aware of any claims that sea water sourcing is predicted to take over on any future horizon.
I do think it is important to get ahead of the curve in recycling regulation since currently virgin lithium is cheaper than recycling batteries (but for now cobalt extraction pays for recycling as I understand it). I don’t care I want mandated form factors and plans for >95% lithium recovery now because when we scale up to 100% of the cars and trucks sold being BEV (which I do think will happen), we need to be ready with robust recycling infrastructure.
You’re right, thanks. One article I read mentioned both brine and seawater and seemed to equate the 2 so clearly I concluded they were the same. It said nothing describing the brine as anything else.
Apparently there’s also some hope geothermal generators will yield some lithium, too.
A combination of internalizing all externalities and prioritizing the precautionary principle would help a lot with turning pollution into product–just another part of a closed cycle.
A very common theme used by ARFs (Anti-Renewable Fanatics) is the weaponized disinterpretation of “Rare Earth Metal” to mean rare, even though most aren’t. The lithium thing is just another example of that; there’s zero chance of running out of it, even if the first world dictator puts everyone on Earth on the stuff to prevent depression caused by his reign.
Once again, there’s no point in arguing more with someone so obsessed with such a narrow proposition, who can’t tell the difference between his opinion and evidence, between fact and fantasy, even when it’s right there on the page. And that last paragraph… WOW! What offensive and outrageous projection.
Once again, J4Z, you have not proven my perspective wrong,
yet remain snooty about it. My candidate won big last night.
How did your candidates do in the last election?
Do you even vote?
I don’t mind differing opinions, but ‘haughtily’ refusing to consider opposing and/or seemingly counter-intuitive viewpoint is a stalemate.
Energy production and reduced consumption are advantages PHEVs have over BEVs. Just as battery resources distribute to the
most number of PHEV households, so too rooftop solar panels distribute to more households with smaller arrays ‘matched’ to smaller PHEV
battery packs. The shorter electric driving range of PHEVs, the greater the incentive to reduce routine trip distances whereby eventually
more trips become possible without having to drive. etc.
Why are these politicians allowed to take millions from any industry???These are BRIBES???
Yes, they are.