Insanity of the Left

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

This reminds me of a joke.

A young man was walking along one of Southern California's sandy beaches with his surf board. He suddenly spots this bottle which has recently washed up on the beach. It's obvious it's been tossed around for a long time. He picks up the bottle and notices that it still has the cork intact. So, being curious as to what may be inside, he manages to get the cork out and out pops a Genie.

After expressing profound appreciation for having been let out of the bottle, the Genie grants his benefactor the classic, "one wish" and it will be yours. Being an avid surfer, it doesn't take him long to say,
"I've always wanted to surf Hawaii, but I get seasick on ships and I'm afraid to fly. Would you build me a bridge to Hawaii?"

The Genie replies:
"Do you know what you are asking for? Do you know how long the bridge would have to be? Think of the enormous challenges for that kind of undertaking. The supports required to reach the bottom of the Pacific! The concrete and steel it would take! It will nearly exhaust several natural resources. And the maintenance of that bridge! No, that's impossible, you have to think of another wish."

The man said OK and tried to think of a really good wish. Finally, he said,
"I've been married and divorced four times. My wives always said that I don't care and that I'm insensitive. So, I wish that I could understand women ... know how they feel inside and what they're thinking when they give me the silent treatment ... know why they're crying, know what they really want when they say nothing ... know how to make them truly happy ... I really want to understand women and how they think!"

After a long sigh, the Genie responds:
"Would you like that bridge two lane or four lane?"

[Vraith]

build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, .

That thing you've got bolded there LITERALLY doesn't mean the same thing as what it actually says.. And since it doesn't mean that, the conclusion you infer isn't correct/implied either.
It also ignores the very next thing I said

...and everything else you said ignores or distorts everything it and/or I said.

Heh...and if we don't have "unlimited money" to do this...then we also don't have the unlimited money to pay for all the damage doing nothing will cost.
[[you neglect always that doing these things can and will MAKE money, not TAKE money, if done right...so unlimited money is irrelevant. ]]

Either one is "expensive" in some sense. But one is expensive like buying shares in Apple, or looking for a cure for heart disease. The other is expensive like being a slum-lord, or dumping raw sewage in any nearby lake or river.

The difference is one is building something better, the other is recovering from devastation.

Besides:
One is better for everyone [even if somehow they're wrong]
The other is great for a few, pretty grim for many [even if they're somehow right].

[Zarathustra]

V, the only way that entirely overhauling our energy infrastructure would make us money in the long run is if wind/solar are cheaper than fossil fuels. But they're not. After spending $7 trillion (a conservative estimate) on this overhaul, we'd be left with energy that is a lot more expensive than the energy that our global competitors use. Not only would we have to print more money to fund this--devaluing the dollar--but then we'd have to increase the price of every good and service in America to pay for the increased energy prices, making us unable to compete on the world stage. It's a recipe for economic collapse.

Germany has tried harder to make this work than any other country on the planet. They are considered the "gold standard" of green energy production. And even they cannot stop using fossil fuels, because you have to have those fossil fuel generators on standby for the times when the sun isn't shining. They are turned on and off over and over on a daily even hourly basis to keep the power supply steady--which is absolutely crucial for modern electronic equipment. And this constant on/off makes them less efficient, like stop and go traffic. Not only are they NOT free from fossil fuels, but their energy costs significantly more than ours.

What she is proposing isn't just economic collapse, it is not technologically feasible.

Edit: some calculations put the price tag of Green New Deal at $50 trillion, and there are plenty of reasons to suspect this is underestimated. Granted, you may distrust my source, but since AOC won't even put a price tag on it herself, all we have to go on are the calculations of her critics. By comparison, the U.S. GDP is $19 trillion.

[Gaius Octavius]

Praising AOC for "getting under conservatives' skin" is a lot like praising David Duke for "getting under liberals' skin."

[aliantha]

Renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels? Not anymore.

Last month, the noted liberal rag Forbes reported:

The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

The organisation -- which has more than 150 member countries -- says the cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around 23% since 2010 while the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity has fallen by 73% in that time. With further price falls expected for these and other green energy options, IRENA says all renewable energy technologies should be competitive on price with fossil fuels by 2020.

You guys oughta update your talking points once in awhile.

[SoulBiter]

Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).


I'm sure they dont have a reason to misreport the prices of renewable energy.

Perhaps you should find more objective sources

[Skyweir]

Why would you lol .. theyre the agency doing the research and they have the requisite expertise. And the source was Forbes anyway.

Forbes will have looked into the Report from other sources pov.

And why would they misrepresent their findings? Theyd not win contracts doing that .. and ultimately be discredited. Also not in their interests.

Its a good thing that prices ARE falling and its great for the domestic and global markets.

We should be positively pleased that this outcome. Why pay more than you have to?

[SoulBiter]

Why would you lol .. theyre the agency doing the research and they have the requisite expertise. And the source was Forbes anyway.

Forbes will have looked into the Report from other sources pov.

And why would they misrepresent their findings? Theyd not win contracts doing that .. and ultimately be discredited. Also not in their interests.

Yet I seem to remember how many of you reacted on this board when GW was in office and he brought in groups from the fossil fuel industry for informational purposes for his energy commission. As I recall, there was outrage that anyone would consider them a source for information when it was in their best interests to keep fossil fuels flowing.

That is the scepticism that I bring up. No one is questioning Forbes even though they did nothing but quote a report by a group that is pushing these other sources.

Its a good thing that prices ARE falling and its great for the domestic and global markets.

We should be positively pleased that this outcome. Why pay more than you have to?

So prices are falling but many things have to be fixed for this to replace fossil fuels. Storage is still an issue unless you like brownouts every time we have poor conditions of wind or light to produce energy.

Secondly the lower cost takes into account the TOTAL cost of producing energy. That includes start up costs for plants. Granted that is what they should do, however the regulatory costs on starting up fossil fuel plants are incredible. Typically years of studies and regulatory hurdles must be done prior to taking out a single grain of grass.

Got more to say but got to run. Later.

[aliantha]

Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).


I'm sure they dont have a reason to misreport the prices of renewable energy.

Perhaps you should find more objective sources

Fair point. How about a guy who's an oil and gas market analyst? He said this in April of last year:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravshar ... 8b3543379c

Wind and solar have been cheaper than fossil fuels since 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance:

www.behindenergy.com/solare-ed-eolico-s ... i/?lang=en

The tide is turning. It's been turning for years.

[Zarathustra]

Aliantha, if that's the case, then why does Germany pay 3 times as much for electricity as we do? Germany produces up to 74% of its electricity with renewables, whereas we produce only 17% of our electricity with renewables.

[SoulBiter]

Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).


I'm sure they dont have a reason to misreport the prices of renewable energy.

Perhaps you should find more objective sources

Fair point. How about a guy who's an oil and gas market analyst? He said this in April of last year:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravshar ... 8b3543379c

Wind and solar have been cheaper than fossil fuels since 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance:

www.behindenergy.com/solare-ed-eolico-s ... i/?lang=en

The tide is turning. It's been turning for years.

No doubt that its getting cheaper and will be helpful with bei g more green. There are still issues with storage that have not been solved. Also these renewables take up 1000 times the space to make the same amount of energy. Until some of these issues are solved, fossil will be with us and an integral part of our energy plans.

[Zarathustra]

Good points SB. Also, the cost of producing electricity doesn't take into account the cost of storing it, which you have to do with a variable energy source like wind and solar. The battery capacity to store the entire nation's energy needs would be astronomical. Fossil fuels store their energy in themselves.

I think it is a good thing that prices for renewables are falling. But if they are truly cheaper than fossil fuels, then this is a problem that fixes itself. You don't have to use the government to force people to buy stuff that is cheaper. People will do that on their own. If wind and solar could compete on a nationwide scale with fossil fuels, then it will replace them without any government intervention.

[[Syl]]

Energy security is and always has been in the nation's best interest, and yeah, will likely always include some fossil fuels for the same reason. While the cost of things like Tesla's PowerWall are somewhat higher than the cost of the same electricity over time, there are efficiencies of scale we haven't reached yet, though there are some really interesting nascent technologies like liquid salt storage.

[[Syl]]

Praising AOC for "getting under conservatives' skin" is a lot like praising David Duke for "getting under liberals' skin."

Missed this. Is it? Tell me more about how your ideals align with Dukes'.

[Zarathustra]

Syl, of everyone I've debated over the years, I respect you more than just about anyone else. That's not to slight anyone else. I enjoy everyone's participation, even when they get under my skin. But you get under my skin the least. That's not to say you disagree with me less, but that you do so in a way I can respect the most. I've missed your contributions. Welcome back, dude!

[Skyweir]

Here Here .. nice post Z.

[Skyweir]

Energy security is and always has been in the nation's best interest, and yeah, will likely always include some fossil fuels for the same reason. While the cost of things like Tesla's PowerWall are somewhat higher than the cost of the same electricity over time, there are efficiencies of scale we haven't reached yet, though there are some really interesting nascent technologies like liquid salt storage.

Nice posts ... both

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... n-man.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-ca ... uld-happen

The apparent correlation between gun control and free speech restrictions is pretty interesting.

[Vraith]

Aliantha, if that's the case, then why does Germany pay 3 times as much for electricity

For several reasons. One of which [over 20% of cost] is a guaranteed price to those who supply, and companies must buy from. That price, due to increase solar/wind efficiencies is much higher than productions costs. Another large chunk [also around 20%] is cuz they collect and pay to grow and maintain pretty much the best power grid in the world. There are several other choices/factors they made, as well.
Many things are more expensive there [and the EU in general]. Gasoline is somewhere between 2 and 3 times, has been forever.
I'd trade 3 times as much for electricity with a better grid for safer air/water and cutting in half healthcare costs any day.

ANYWAY--Back a little---the actual resolution on Green New Deal is out. Much of the stuff people thought ludicrous isn't there---though a fair amount still is, and it's a couple of the most ridiculed that remain. it's more of a normal moonshot than moonshot squared now. Too bad, I think, I like the bigger goals even if beyond achievability in the time frame.

BUT---maybe talk about it from a different angle, on the "It costs too much" challenge...
For example: here's the first bit on programs in it:

::::::A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;

(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including::::::

Now---those things HAVE to be done ANYWAY.
On A---- Whether Climate Change caused the massive things like Houston or not, those things are happening...and senseless siting choices, absurd or non-existent design/planning, cheap-ass and/or ancient [and sometimes poisonous] construction, etc. etc. etc made it much worse than it needed to be---and without changes, it will continue to get worse simply because there are constantly more of us in more places. And the current and future places will have the same stupid [and actively harmful] state of existence. [[the one part that's relevant but already pretty good is warning systems. That's good---cuz if it weren't, these events would have massive death instead of just buildings/property costs]].

On B---Our bridges, roads, dams, rails, ports, etc...[[which are absolutely necessary]] are 1) Overwhelmed 2) Far out-of-date 3) Falling apart/hazardous 4) Wasteful [in both sense of consuming WAY too much energy, and sense of producing nasty shit]

If things need to be repaired/improved/expanded/created---if money has to be spent anyway---why not do it in the best, most sustainable/efficient way?

[Orlion]

Man, you righties have been sleeping on this today, so I guess I'll bring it up:

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/11/69348099 ... i-semitism

Rampant anti-semitism is a huge danger the further extreme you go. It is not just conspiracy theorists and their "the world is controlled by Jewish owned banks", it's on the Progressive (damn them for co-opting that word) side, in particular when talking about Israel. This is because the extremist lacks something very important to rational political discourse: nuanced understanding.

So in this case, Omar is conflating bad policy of Israel with generalities of the entirety of Judaism. It's essentially like saying blacks are violent because of the actions of some criminals. It's racist on both accounts.