Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

The Making of Biden's Superfast Push for Clean Electricity

Quick read that looks at some of the challenges surrounding Biden's 15 year plan...
Joe Biden put a 100% clean grid at the core of his climate agenda. Even more remarkable was his proposed timeline: 15 years.

Can anyone build a clean grid that fast? And for that matter, where did an idea this big come from in the first place?
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/the-making-of-bidens-superfast-push-for-clean-electricity
«13

Comments

  • "Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!

    And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.
  • edited December 2020
    @racqueteer The earth's rapidly warming climate doesn't care whether you're liberal or conservative or whether you're American or Chinese. This is a global phenomenon in which national borders are meaningless. Consequently, tribalists, nationalists, jingoists and ersatz fascists have trouble understanding it. This whataboutist fixation on what "everyone ELSE is doing" is a distraction from the real problem.
  • I get my electricity - 100% Wind - a small contribution to the planet, will buy EV when practical.
    R - no global warning, I get my flowers a bit early - fine, summers are hot - who care - I have central AC, keeps me cool always.
    I get my subsidized flood insurance from FEMA - in hole 20Billion US$ - no global warning. I don't know why cultists are raiding this site. They already have Parler.
  • So, LewisBraham, other than dismissing the second, and least important of my commentary, do you have a response to the FIRST part? Btw, since my background is physics and chemistry, you needn't worry about either my politics (unmentioned, but clearly NOT what you guessed), or my ability to "understand". Have at it...
  • edited December 2020
    I can’t understand your commentary because it is written incoherently. Write it clearly. Oh wait I thought you were kings53man who uses terms like “global warning.” You I’ve already responded to. You just don’t like the response. You want to make this a relative nationalist problem when it is a global one that requires everyone to pitch in regardless what the Chinese are doing.
    Also, it seems oddly unpatriotic and un-American of you actually to say “ We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.” America is the country that put a man on the moon. We used to lead in technology, not follow what other countries are doing.” Why is it that when it comes to climate change you cry, “Waaah, we can’t.” We invest and make the tech better. Where’s your “can-do American attitude” when it comes to this? In fact, it will be both a PR and economic triumph if we lead in this area and a disaster if we don’t.
    And I find it reductive and one-sided to say that investing in improving our carbon footprint doesn’t create any jobs but only destroys them. There have already been a number of studies that green jobs can more than replace fossil fuel ones.
    But as I’ve already said, this is not a relative game and actually beside the point in some respects. It shouldn’t matter what the Chinese are doing with regard to what America is doing because the entire planet is suffering from what everyone is doing. And everyone needs to do something. And at least Biden has a plan to do something as opposed to the big fat nothing, lying and denial the GOP has offered.
  • @racqueteer is a very thoughtful poster for years on M*, even if new here.

    Biting “my tongue,” so-to-speak, and not trying to be inflammatory, but this is a discussion board, with viewpoints from all sides. Disagreeing posts/ideas shouldn’t be dismissed and relegated as small-minded zealots of the opposite party. That is the purpose of the “Off Topic” board:)
  • +1
    Stay Safe, Derf
  • edited December 2020
    So, LewisBraham, the sum total of what you've got is: "We can do it", followed by the notion that we can do it ON OUR OWN, 'somehow'? Hmmm... You claim you "cant understand my commentary"? Admittedly, I used a couple big words, and didn't adhere to some preconceived notion you might have, but I think it was clear enough, and you STILL haven't supplied anything of substance - Good you have that "can do" attitude though! So what's your "can do" plan for doing ANY of this which doesn't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, physics, or finance? Fusion would do it - eventually. So would geothermal - eventually. Solar will NOT unless we get it off-planet and it ain't going to happen in 15 years. You disagree? Then back it up with facts and plans; not hope and wishes.
  • Graust

    +10

    Best,

    Baseball_Fan
  • edited December 2020
    @racqueteer Never said we can do it on our own. My point is you can't deal with absolute global existential problems like climate change with a relativist nationalist approach. It is like the cardinal rules of every modern civilization--Thou shalt not kill. To rationalize and say well the Chinese murdered some people and don't care about murder, so therefore I can murder makes no sense. This is a situation where we can be either part of the problem or part of the solution. How the Chinese want history to reflect upon their climate decisions is up to them, the same as it is with us and everyone else on the planet. But fundamentally, the planet's climate doesn't care. And as far as us "being on our own," that's what things like the Paris Climate Accord were meant to avoid. That's what global carbon taxes are meant to avoid. I agree we can't do it on our own. But just saying something like well, that country isn't doing it so why should we is no excuse, and is, frankly, childish and stupid. It's like the kid in the schoolyard fight saying, "Well, he started it," when the main thing is to stop fighting and prevent the damage to human life. Also, your using "ALL-CAPS" to make your points doesn't improve your arguments. It makes you seem like an angry amateur.
  • "Clean" WHERE? This usually means solar power, and while a laudable idea, you have to have large tracts of surface available, good weather most of the time, and you need to manufacture the stuff (polluting THERE) in order to build the panels. This stuff doesn't magically produce and transport itself; nor transport its output magically either (wiring, etc). Geothermal would be great, but a major implementation problem. Tidal power, sure, but you have to produce the materials, transport them, install them, run wiring, etc. Off-loading all this construction and manufacture into space and transmitting microwaves back? Yeah, THAT might be a 'solution' EVENTUALLY, but 15 years (or 25)? Fusion power could do it, but not in that time period. Not bloody likely we're getting THERE from HERE!
    And while we're making that viable, what is everyone ELSE doing? We become even MORE economically handicapped, lose MORE jobs to cheap labor elsewhere, and THEIR pollution simply blows HERE? And is it moral to simply export our environmental problems? We don't have the technology, international consensus, or financial wherewithal to actually FIX this problem, and we shouldn't delude ourselves that we DO.


    Confused. So what? Just shrug? Do you have a point other than a kvetch about what you think is delusion? This is not even at the level the perfect defeating the good. What do you propose? What would you advise? I cannot tell if you actually keep up, what with your credentials.
  • Ok, last try for me... The issue is 15 years; what can be accomplished in that time. I don't think that we're likely to have any kind of solution in that timeframe. I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years. The people who have been responding negatively to me have proposed ZERO 15-year (or longer) solutions. I remain willing to listen to some substantive plan for accomplishing this admittedly worthwhile goal. I have a decent idea what is going to be ATTEMPTED, and note that it ISN'T one of the actually DOABLE routes I listed, but the old standby: Earth-based solar power; something that has serious technological drawbacks unless we can get them into space; maybe at a LaGrange point. For me, just "doing something" in the hope that it'll work out is inefficient and a waste or resources as well as energy.
  • thanks, I will go reread your doable proposals

    have you written about proper carbon costing and capture?
  • edited December 2020
    @racqueteer
    I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.
    You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try? No politician probably in the history of politicians has probably set a timetable for a goal and expected it to be 100% achieved by then. So let's say we reach 50% of the goal, 75% in 15 years. That would still be valuable. The U.S. I believe has four possible choices:

    1. Lead in the fight against climate change while others follow us- The moonshot goal, what America was once famous for. Would be great for America's image.

    2. Follow other countries that are actively fighting climate change like Germany and other Western European ones. OK, acceptable, better than nothing.

    3. Do nothing and deny anthropogenic climate change is real and that we have any way to influence it and waste time complaining "whatabout" China, etc.. This is the traditional GOP response. It's bad, very bad.

    4. Actually go backwards, roll back environmental regulations already in place, drill baby bill and spend needless hours trying to "make libtards cry" while the planet dies. This is where we are with the current president who has rolled back environmental regs and did everything possible to sabotage environmental movements. It is absolutely dreadful.

    You seem to be saying Biden's plan isn't feasible in 15 years. So what? Something in the right direction is better than where we are now and moaning about other countries' behavior. And if we support addressing climate change via solar, I'm sure scientists will consider other avenues along the way. Regulations must change as well, not just tech innovation. It needs to be more expensive to produce carbon emissions and consume plastic. There are many avenues for attacking the problem. But moaning about what other countries are doing or not doing as an excuse to do nothing is no longer acceptable.
  • @racqueteer

    I've cited three separate paths which WOULD be solutions, but not in 15 years.
    You cited three different solutions--geothermal, tidal and microwaves--and dismissed all of them and complained about how other countries are failing so why should we even try?
    Actually, the solutions were fusion, geothermal, and solar with microwave transmission from SPACE. Tidal isn't a solution, but it would help. There is also OTEC, which I hadn't mentioned. 15 years was Biden's goal; it didn't originate with me. Finally, please quote where I said we shouldn't try to fix the problem.

    I might as well throw out ANOTHER solution you won't like, also doable if we had the will... Start controlling and reducing overpopulation of the planet; with its resultant global warming, pollution, reduction of rain forests, reduction of arable land, and on and on. THAT would ALSO be a solution to the problem.

    I've no particular quarrel with your #1, but it doesn't get us to Biden's goal. On #2, I'll just note that France, for example, is virtually all fission-generated power with its OWN issues, but a 'solution' nonetheless, and Europe generally is HEAVILY dependent on imported oil - much of it from Russia. #3 and #4 are predominately swipes at Republicans in general, so unproductive. So long as we remain divided on the basis of extremist views on BOTH sides, we're in trouble as a nation. Moderates in control would a better alternative.

    I'll just briefly remind you that the op specifically mentioned BIDEN'S grid plan and asked for our reaction to it. I've remained on topic, slandered no one, took no political stance, and provided simple facts... How about you?
  • thanks, I will go reread your doable proposals

    have you written about proper carbon costing and capture?

    I have not. To what, specifically, are you referring? From context, I believe you are focusing on CO2 impact- global warming? What capture methodologies do you have in mind? When we had more extensive forested areas and arable land, sequestration happened naturally. There have been extended periods of time where CO2 levels were considerably higher than now. Typically resulted in extended 'jungle' areas, high temperatures, and global warming effects (melted ice caps, etc). Plants soaked up the CO2, died, were buried, and resulted in coal and petroleum deposits. Now? Maybe not an option due to the impact of human population growth. And, of course, all that global warming and CO2 didn't prevent the following ice age from covering much of the Earth in a blanket of ice miles thick. The problem is that this isn't as simple as people would like to think, many of the problems derive from our burgeoning human population, and some of this is cyclical and beyond our control (variable eccentricity of Earth's orbit).
  • To criticize the core of a president's agenda as an almost certain failure and harmful to the U.S. economy and then say you "took no political stance," is either to be deceptive or deluded. Getting pretty tired of arguing with someone though who speaks in all-caps.
  • >> Moderates in control would a better alternative.

    So you must be thrilled with Biden.

    >> of course, all that global warming and CO2 didn't prevent the following ice age from covering much of the Earth in a blanket of ice miles thick.

    Yeah, I guess we're done. I thought you had something real to offer; my bad.
  • edited December 2020
    You're both right in that it's obviously pointless to try to engage in an actual dialogue based on reality with either one of you. That I happen to consider what Biden said to be unworkable doesn't mean anything politically except in the mind of someone who refuses to see things in any other context. NO ONE is ever totally correct; certainly no politician!

    Btw, Lewis, putting a word or two in caps isn't the same thing as writing in all caps. I would think that was self-evident, but maybe not to you? I do it to simulate the kind of emphasis I would put into my spoken words if I were speaking to you, and if that's the only thing you find worth mentioning, then I'm wasting my time; noted.

    David, you seem to be unhappy with me pointing out the inevitability of another ice age when our orbit around the sun becomes more eccentric at some point in the future (as it did in the past). This bars the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect, of course, but we aren't there yet. I'm sorry you feel that is not worth mentioning. Too bad, as it is scientific fact and unavoidable unless we can somehow change our orbit. As to Biden, we'll see what he does. I would say that so far I'm fine with him.

    I find it a bit odd that people on BOTH sides of the political spectrum are only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.
  • >> unhappy with me pointing out the inevitability of another ice age

    As if this has anything to do with anything. Jesus. I am guessing you do not have grandchildren. Mine, 3-6-9, are going to live a long time barring mishap, but not 1-2k years. Yours?

    You did not share your thoughts about carbon taxation and econ disincentives affecting aggregate behaviors.

    >> only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.

    What science is it that works "against" warming?

    You sure do have the gift of glib. I for some reason keep thinking you might conceivably have something real to offer here. Prove me right, I dare you.
  • There is an interesting docu on this subject by Michael Moore (he is not in the docu). The basic premise is that in order to control global warming, we need to change the way we live. It just isn't possible to keep producing energy, and using it while continuing to live how we are living. Green energy (solar, wind etc. ) just doesn't produce enough energy to keep the planet running as it has been. For those interested here is the link:

  • >> unhappy with me pointing out the inevitability of another ice age

    As if this has anything to do with anything. Jesus. I am guessing you do not have grandchildren. Mine, 3-6-9, are going to live a long time barring mishap, but not 1-2k years. Yours?

    You were the one who spotlighted that quote from me and ignored everything else; what am I supposed to think? Btw, I have four grandkids, two step-grand kids, and four step-great-grandkids; yet another assumption that was totally wrong.

    You did not share your thoughts about carbon taxation and econ disincentives affecting aggregate behaviors.

    I wasn't sure what you were saying and asked for you to clarify. I guessed you were talking about man-made sequestration of CO2; something we might conceivably be able to do, and replied to that. Apparently that's NOT what you were alluding to. Do I think an economic deterrent would have a positive impact on things? Possibly. I don't think it will be enough, though. Nor do I think it'll be implemented to any great extent without ALSO impacting economic stability, but that's not an issue everyone cares about at this point. So long as the world population keeps burgeoning, there can't be a real solution to the various problems; just temporary bandaids.

    >> only too eager to look to science so long as it agrees with their preconceived notions, but prefer not to credit it when it happens to work against them.

    What science is it that works "against" warming?

    I said no such thing, nor am I clear on YOUR meaning for "warming" and what you believe to be the cause. I learned my lesson and won't try to guess what you mean this time.

    Everything has to have a context though; in the past it has been both much warmer AND much colder and man had little to do with either. That said, while humans may have contributed to the current state of things, the only real solution, imo, is having less of us around at any given time. Unimpeded growth in ANY population NEVER has a good outcome for that population!

    This COVID-19 thing is simply the LATEST example: Our increasing mobility makes a world-wide reaction more likely, and the consequences of our population density, coupled with the natural selection effect that antibiotics have had, makes pandemics MORE likely to be novel and without effective treatments/cures. As bad as COVID-19 has been, its infection rate has been in the single percentage digits, and of THOSE, the fatalities have also been in the single percentage digits. Can you even imagine what a 50% infection rate coupled with a 50% fatality rate would look like? Many infectious diseases have a 90% fatality rate. In the past, they were localized geographically. IMO, THIS is the greatest danger we actually face, and it is MUCH more likely to have a catastrophic outcome. We've been VERY lucky (so far); if you can call 1.6 million dead (and counting) lucky...
  • edited December 2020
    Raq, you can't possibly say anything, even a bit, of criticism of any Dem agenda no matter what, even if you are one of them ;-) I love it.
    There is only one good doable solution NUCLEAR.
  • FD1000 said:

    Raq, you can't possibly say anything, even a bit, of criticism of any Dem agenda no matter what, even if you are one of them ;-) I love it.
    There is only one good doable solution NUCLEAR.

    Has its own problems, but in terms of CURRENT technology and potential for a 15-20 year rollout, yeah, it's probably the only actual potential 'solution' to the energy/pollution problem, and would probably have a positive impact on CO2 increase and its effects as well. A trade off...

  • Just curious, other than handing over more money to those who are already grossly wealthy what are the republican plans on any issue of concern to the citizens of the US?
  • edited December 2020
    Isn’t it funny how Racqueteer said five posts ago “OK, last try for me,” yet he continues to argue his false position that attempting to eviscerate a Democratic clean energy policy that doesn’t even have all its details in place yet is “not political” as if scientifically there were another better policy put forward by the political opposition. The GOP has no real clean energy policy at all because it continues to argue as part of its libertarian death cult that anthropogenic climate change is a liberal hoax or that there’s nothing little old America can do as the second largest emitter of carbon emissions in the world. If you think you have a better plan, Racqueteer, submit it to the president elect’s team or apply for a job there. I’m sure if you’re as knowledgeable as you claim, they’ll hire you. Yet why do I suspect your “last try” wasn’t your last one and we’ll have another all-cap filled response? This isn’t about the truth or solving the problem for you. It’s about winning and getting the last word. So go ahead, and when you’re done submit your better ideas to the new president.

    Oh wait, it seems like part of Biden’s failure of a clean energy plan includes nuclear: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/08/17/what-will-a-biden-harris-administration-do-for-nuclear-energy/amp/
    I guess just send your geothermal idea with your resume because no one on Biden’s team is smart enough to think of that.
Sign In or Register to comment.