Green New Deal

Mook

El Presidente
Admin
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
164,735
Reaction score
2,479
Location
Elgin
I'm sure this was discussed in the Trump mega thread but creating a new one for random discussion. This was proposed by that young broad, right?

Some members of Congress are proposing a “Green New Deal” for the U.S. They say that a Green New Deal will produce jobs and strengthen America’s economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The Deal would generate 100% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation’s energy grid, buildings, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy.


The Green New Deal has Strong Bipartisan Support - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
 

Mook

El Presidente
Admin
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
164,735
Reaction score
2,479
Location
Elgin
10 years seems like not a long amount of time to accomplish something like this.
 

DEEZUZ

Escrow shortage crew
Donating Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
45,193
Reaction score
1,059
Location
NWI
10 years seems like not a long amount of time to accomplish something like this.
The local coal fires plants are supposed to be offline by 2020. Making new way for clean power... Wind, solar, natural gas. But I don't see any of those new plants.... Being built......

My buddy almost lost his nuke job in upstate new York Tha ks to something Obama signed years ago. They supply the grid power and were going to go with natural gas from Canada. Would've been like 1800 jobs gone... Their staying open now but unsure of how long.
 

DEEZUZ

Escrow shortage crew
Donating Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
45,193
Reaction score
1,059
Location
NWI
When these coal plants go offline, the impact will be insane
 

Typhoon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
690
Reaction score
0
I'm curious where Nuclear Energy falls into this.
 

DEEZUZ

Escrow shortage crew
Donating Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
45,193
Reaction score
1,059
Location
NWI
I disagree
Awesome argument.






Coal. Needs to be mined. Miners.

Needs to be transported. Trucks and trains. Operators.

Plant. Needs to be run. More operators.

Maintenance needs to be done to plant. Maintenancers.
 

DEEZUZ

Escrow shortage crew
Donating Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
45,193
Reaction score
1,059
Location
NWI
I would guess that Clean plants require half the work force.

So put half of the people out of jobs now so people hundred years from now can breathe a little better...

OK
 

tinfoilhat

TCG Conspiracy Lead Investigator
Donating Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
38,668
Reaction score
975
Location
Riding the Hubble
Awesome argument.






Coal. Needs to be mined. Miners.

Needs to be transported. Trucks and trains. Operators.

Plant. Needs to be run. More operators.

Maintenance needs to be done to plant. Maintenancers.
More energy for cheaper = cheaper everything = people can work less

Clean energy equipment needs maintenance, parts, delivery, etc.... Your arguement makes no sense.

Plants would still be here...and more of them because you dont need to be near a source of coal...more plants = more jobs WITH cheaper energy.


You really thought this one through.
 

MrDragster1970

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,518
Reaction score
100
Location
RT 66 area
.


When was the last death caused by a nuclear power plant in this country???
I don't think we had any on our ships when I was in the military, and I don't remember any civilian plants killing anyone???
IIRC, they even tracked every one at & near 3 mile island for 20 years and no one died from that either??

Some commie idiots don't count and IIRC the Japan plant didn't kill anyone either and it was hit by a damn tsunami!!!!

You would think a big ass warship that is out sailing the seas for 50 years fighting wars would have an accident before a quadruple redundant land plant??

Nuclear power is an excellent source of power.
Of course I've been surrounded by them my entire life except during military service.

.
 

tinfoilhat

TCG Conspiracy Lead Investigator
Donating Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
38,668
Reaction score
975
Location
Riding the Hubble
Nuclear is the safest energy source on the planet currently when it comes to energy generation.
 

Ryan02Stang

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
10,478
Reaction score
475
Location
Mount Prospect
Coal can be used for feedstock for chemical products, not just electricity. I don't think those coal mines are going anywhere soon, even if we move to renewable energy sources.....
 

Stink Star Productions

Don’t Drive Angry!
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
12,226
Reaction score
137
Location
Big wood cock
I never realized how inefficient coal was. Since I’ve gotten solar I have a much better idea of how much power I use and what it takes to generate said power. In the winter I use about 50 lbs worth of coal to generate the power I use throughout the whole day. In the summer it’ll be even more. But let’s just say on average it’s 50 lbs. that’s 9 tons of coal a year just for my house. And according to comEd I am a lower user than my neighbors, but let’s say I’m average.... my neighborhood has exactly 100 houses. That means per year just my neighborhood uses 900 TONS of coal, and that’s on the conservative side. Thank god my non-solar power comes from nuclear or else I can’t even imagine how much CO2 would be getting pumped into the sky
 

Flyn

Go ahead. I'll catch up.
Super Moderator
Donating Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
47,589
Reaction score
490
Location
Selling homes on the Gulf Coast of Florida
Nuclear is the safest energy source on the planet currently when it comes to energy generation.
From personal experience, nuke plants are VERY careful when compared with some other industries. My guys were never left alone when we were working in the plants. Don't leave a key in a vehicle. Don't go anywhere or do anything other than the job. Get permits for everything. Much stronger security than most other facilities.

Northrup Grumman and some of the oil companies were pretty secure, too, but left us alone after we were set up. Video surveillance, of course.
 

Sprayin

Public Enemy #1
Donating Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
17,471
Reaction score
298
Location
Chicago, IL
I would guess that Clean plants require half the work force.

So put half of the people out of jobs now so people hundred years from now can breathe a little better...

OK
Yeah fuck up global living conditions for generations for something as meaningless as money. Makes sense.
 

DEEZUZ

Escrow shortage crew
Donating Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
45,193
Reaction score
1,059
Location
NWI
money=meaningless???


do without it, see how far you get.

were worrying about people that havent even been thought about. fuck that. the people suffering now are actually alive and breathing
 

Sprayin

Public Enemy #1
Donating Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
17,471
Reaction score
298
Location
Chicago, IL
It's totally meaningless. You'd give it all up if that's what was required to live.
 

Yaj Yak

Harbor Master
Donating Member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
90,400
Reaction score
1,346
wtf is going on iin here
 

N20GT

Plz place 3,000 kudos here. kthx
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
47,463
Reaction score
752
Location
Crown point, IN
The problem is the article doesn't have any details. Not surprising for something proposed by politicians

1. What will it cost
2. What's the actual timeline...year by year what's going to change
3. How is the government going to successfully pick winners and losers in the energy market?

Something frequently forgotten is that we already did this almost a decade ago, and it didn't go well. Posting 2 articles...one from a right leaning source and another from CNN...read both and form your own opinion.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/

https://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/index.html
 

Blood on Blood

rumble baby rumble
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
36,729
Reaction score
330
wtf is going on iin here
Agree, only one, maybe two, possibly three of us here have worked in a Nuke plant, let alone received operations training / received certs, but everyone is a Nuclear generation and power plant safety expert.
 

Yaj Yak

Harbor Master
Donating Member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
90,400
Reaction score
1,346
I never realized how inefficient coal was. Since I’ve gotten solar I have a much better idea of how much power I use and what it takes to generate said power. In the winter I use about 50 lbs worth of coal to generate the power I use throughout the whole day. In the summer it’ll be even more. But let’s just say on average it’s 50 lbs. that’s 9 tons of coal a year just for my house. And according to comEd I am a lower user than my neighbors, but let’s say I’m average.... my neighborhood has exactly 100 houses. That means per year just my neighborhood uses 900 TONS of coal, and that’s on the conservative side. Thank god my non-solar power comes from nuclear or else I can’t even imagine how much CO2 would be getting pumped into the sky
I have no reason to doubt you, whatsoever... but I just can't believe 9 tons of coal per year to power your house.

just doesn't even come close to making sense to me.

amazing
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top Bottom