Bernie Sanders releases a REAL Climate Change Plan

[Subyman]

In what subject?

Nuclear engineering with a focus on low-carbon energy alternatives and econo-energy modeling.

 

[TheGardener]

Oooh I forgot they might be killed by the hot acid oceans; Darth Vader might still have all his limbs if the citizens of Mustafar had imposed a carbon tax and banned SUVs.

Then the solutions to a real problem are not dumping raw sewerage into the oceans and depleting the fish supply. Those are different than carbon taxes, banning beef, not using crude oil based products so that I can't have a hot shower and having my electric bill quadruple in one year. Solar power and windmills do nothing to stop the acidification of the oceans.

 

[ctbaars]

No matter the future energy source. To abate a major effect on climate change we need to abandon fossil fuel. Period. It is the elephant in the room.

 

[buckshot24]

No matter the future energy source. To abate a major effect on climate change we need to abandon fossil fuel. Period. It is the elephant in the room.

You first.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nuclear engineering with a focus on low-carbon energy alternatives and econo-energy modeling.

I was afraid it would be nuclear. I'm not really happy arguing against your livelihood so let me ask you instead what you think about solar production of hydrogen as an off hours and mobile energy source. Tremendous progress is being made to duplicate photosynthesis to split water including cheat catalysts and understanding the processes involved in electron transfer. Would you rather make power very locally, or create targets for massive disasters in the form of terrorist attacks, strategic war targets, and disasters caused by human failure, and that create toxins that are deadly for thousands of years?

 

[Subyman]

I was afraid it would be nuclear. I'm not really happy arguing against your livelihood so let me ask you instead what you think about solar production of hydrogen as an off hours and mobile energy source. Tremendous progress is being made to duplicate photosynthesis to split water including cheat catalysts and understanding the processes involved in electron transfer. Would you rather make power very locally, or create targets for massive disasters in the form of terrorist attacks, strategic war targets, and disasters caused by human failure, and that create toxins that are deadly for thousands of years?

I'm working in an unrelated field now, so I'm not waving the banner for nuclear with a financial bias. I'd be all for a hydrogen energy economy. In fact I spent a semester working with the Japanese on a pilot project in Toyko (I did not get to travel to Toyko though )

The chart in the following link gives a decent example of why solar is not a great means of reliable energy on modern systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star

As you can see, capacity drops a significant 75% during sub-optimal months compared to peak months. It is impossible to push a significant amount of solar/wind energy into the current US grid system. We would need a complete rebuilding of that infrastructure to do that.

Solar and wind are not ready for prime time and likely won't be for many, many years. IMO, a great way to kick start the reduction of fossil fuels is to introduce large nuclear power plants as 50-100 year interstitial solution. It is a proven technology that is completely compatible with the current grid system. From that point we can modify the grid and slowly integrate wide spread solar, wind, and tidal plants while still providing base line power with nuclear. Once alternative energies are ready to take over the heavy lifting in 50-100 years the nuclear plants would have been profitable for 30-80 years for those investing.

It is a smart approach to going low-carbon using current technology and allowing us to smartly deploy alternative energy projects and update the grid over a longer period of time.

As for nuclear waste, we have a great solution with Yucca Mountain. Billions have been spent on environmental analysis and engineering. In fact, the US has been collecting a nuclear waste fee on every kwh of power consumed by nuclear power plants. You have been paying that for the last 20+ years and the fund now totals nearly $40B. Those funds were appropriated to create a national repository, but it has been an uphill battle since Nevada was selected out of the 3 possible sites (Texas, Nevada, and Washington.)

Right now the waste sits on-site in containment casks. A stupid solution.

As for your last sentence, there are certainly risks involved with nuclear. Nuclear's safety record is much, much higher than the fossil fuel industry. Even a complete failure like at TMI resulted in zero human deaths and that was using older technology. Modern nuclear reactor design is inherently safe. Even if power is lost, the core is passively cooled and does not need backup generators. Terror attacks are highly unlikely. Reactor containment vessels are built stronger than military bunkers. Nearly all major incidents of criminal activity directed on a nuclear facility took place in the 70's and most of that was overseas in unstable countries. Reactors are a prime target during war, but we'd need to be at war with a country like Russia for it to become an issue. If Russian planes drop bombs in the US, then I think we'd have more to worry about than the regional nuclear waste cleanup.

Anyway, I think I've rambled long enough. Nuclear is surely not the end-all-be-all, but it is a great stop-gap solution to get us off of carbon based sources quickly and is completely compatible with our current infrastructure.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Then the solutions to a real problem are not dumping raw sewerage into the oceans and depleting the fish supply. Those are different than carbon taxes, banning beef, not using crude oil based products so that I can't have a hot shower and having my electric bill quadruple in one year. Solar power and windmills do nothing to stop the acidification of the oceans.

Beef isn't so much the problem as much as factory farming.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

I was afraid it would be nuclear

The US nuclear technology is ancient, because we can't build new plants. You should read up on molten salt reactors. This could be a game changer, alongside the green technologies of course.

 

[glenn1]

No matter the future energy source. To abate a major effect on climate change we need to abandon fossil fuel. Period. It is the elephant in the room.

Are you related to the Underpants Gnomes from South Park? Because your business plans are similar. It's like people on your side are completely divorced from reality - sure, let's just take the 67% lectricity production that's from fossil fuels (2014 numbers) and just see what happens, especially considering that's the most stable supply of baseline power in our entire energy generation portfolio. It's not like those advocating your solutions are going Amish and swearing off the economic wonders produced by fossil fuels either. Do you have anything beyond platitudes that are more properly uttered by kindergarten kids who don't know better?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Are you related to the Underpants Gnomes from South Park? Because your business plans are similar. It's like people on your side are completely divorced from reality - sure, let's just take the 67% lectricity production that's from fossil fuels (2014 numbers) and just see what happens, especially considering that's the most stable supply of baseline power in our entire energy generation portfolio. It's not like those advocating your solutions are going Amish and swearing off the economic wonders produced by fossil fuels either. Do you have anything beyond platitudes that are more properly uttered by kindergarten kids who don't know better?

In just a few years Germany has replaced over half of it's power generation with wind power.

Wind is actually comparable in cost to 'clean' coal! Arguably far far cheaper when you consider the true cost, which includes the environmental cost associated with mining it, and burning it. That's not even considering the impact it has on climate change. If we consider that as well, it could be astronomically cheaper in the long run.

 

[glenn1]

In just a few years Germany has replaced over half of it's power generation with wind power.

Wind is actually comparable in cost to 'clean' coal! Arguably far far cheaper when you consider the environmental cost associated with mining it, and burning it. That's not even considering the impact it has on climate change. If we consider that as well, it could be astronomically cheaper in the long run.

Replacing capacity going offline isn't the same as adding capacity. Even with Germany's heroic efforts wind is still only up to a bit over 12% of total German electric generation. Again, if you're going to advocate for solutions that will cause large economic disruption you can at least be clear-eyed about the trade-offs and not sugar coat the upside. You're being a complete head case if you advocate for a fossil fuel free econony but you likewise don't recognize that's at least a couple generations away with current technologies and maintaining anything even close to our current lifestyles. 99.9% of the rest of us don't feel like reverting to North Korean quality of life so you can indulge your childish fantasies that don't recognize reality.

 

[shady28]

Pretty sure Sanders has good intentions, but he seems disconnected from reality.

Before he knocks out oil as a major source of energy, he needs to determine how to fix this.

Let the USD fall from reserve status and see what happens to inflation, and those social programs.

This is the 800lb gorilla in the corner that, if screwed with in the wrong way, could make the gold bugs far more correct than anyone here could possibly imagine.

He has to come up with a 'fix' to this system first. That's going to be a hell of a lot more difficult than replacing a bunch of oil and gas power plants.

In an effort to prop up the value of the dollar and end to the oil embargo, Richard Nixon successfully negotiated a deal during the year 1973, with Saudi Arabia that it would denominate all future oil sales in U.S. dollars in exchange for arms and protection from USA.[5] Subsequently, the other OPEC countries agreed to similar deals thus ensuring a global demand for U.S. dollars and allowing the U.S. to export some of its inflation.[4] Since these dollars did not circulate within the country and thus were not part of the normal money supply, economists felt another term was necessary to describe the dollars received by Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in exchange for oil, so the term petrodollar was coined by Georgetown University economics professor, Ibrahim Oweiss.
...
Since the oil is forced to be traded internationally in US$, artificial demand for US$ is generated and USA is able to issue/export its paper currency as reserve currency held by all countries relegating gold to second place. With the export of its currency as global reserve currency, USA has been able to achieve faster economic development on huge borrowed capital though its trade deficit has been consistently high.

 

[WelshBloke]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-up-all-the-energy-from-the-sun-a6771526.html

 

[OverVolt]

The US nuclear technology is ancient, because we can't build new plants. You should read up on molten salt reactors. This could be a game changer, alongside the green technologies of course.

Big fan of the potential with molten salt reactors actually.

 

[buckshot24]

Before he knocks out oil as a major source of energy, he needs to determine how to fix this.

Bern's got this figured out. SunBucks.

They make a mean espresso as well.

 

[OverVolt]

In just a few years Germany has replaced over half of it's power generation with wind power.

Wind is actually comparable in cost to 'clean' coal! Arguably far far cheaper when you consider the true cost, which includes the environmental cost associated with mining it, and burning it. That's not even considering the impact it has on climate change. If we consider that as well, it could be astronomically cheaper in the long run.

I'm fairly certain the cost of mining & burning is already worked into the price...lol.

 

[BoberFett]

Beef isn't so much the problem as much as factory farming.

Please explain in detail how raising 1,000,000 head of cattle on small family farms has a different environmental impact than raising 1,000,000 cattle on "factory" farms.

 

[boomerang]

I'm working in an unrelated field now, so I'm not waving the banner for nuclear with a financial bias. I'd be all for a hydrogen energy economy. In fact I spent a semester working with the Japanese on a pilot project in Toyko (I did not get to travel to Toyko though )

The chart in the following link gives a decent example of why solar is not a great means of reliable energy on modern systems:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star

As you can see, capacity drops a significant 75% during sub-optimal months compared to peak months. It is impossible to push a significant amount of solar/wind energy into the current US grid system. We would need a complete rebuilding of that infrastructure to do that.

Solar and wind are not ready for prime time and likely won't be for many, many years. IMO, a great way to kick start the reduction of fossil fuels is to introduce large nuclear power plants as 50-100 year interstitial solution. It is a proven technology that is completely compatible with the current grid system. From that point we can modify the grid and slowly integrate wide spread solar, wind, and tidal plants while still providing base line power with nuclear. Once alternative energies are ready to take over the heavy lifting in 50-100 years the nuclear plants would have been profitable for 30-80 years for those investing.

It is a smart approach to going low-carbon using current technology and allowing us to smartly deploy alternative energy projects and update the grid over a longer period of time.

As for nuclear waste, we have a great solution with Yucca Mountain. Billions have been spent on environmental analysis and engineering. In fact, the US has been collecting a nuclear waste fee on every kwh of power consumed by nuclear power plants. You have been paying that for the last 20+ years and the fund now totals nearly $40B. Those funds were appropriated to create a national repository, but it has been an uphill battle since Nevada was selected out of the 3 possible sites (Texas, Nevada, and Washington.)

Right now the waste sits on-site in containment casks. A stupid solution.

As for your last sentence, there are certainly risks involved with nuclear. Nuclear's safety record is much, much higher than the fossil fuel industry. Even a complete failure like at TMI resulted in zero human deaths and that was using older technology. Modern nuclear reactor design is inherently safe. Even if power is lost, the core is passively cooled and does not need backup generators. Terror attacks are highly unlikely. Reactor containment vessels are built stronger than military bunkers. Nearly all major incidents of criminal activity directed on a nuclear facility took place in the 70's and most of that was overseas in unstable countries. Reactors are a prime target during war, but we'd need to be at war with a country like Russia for it to become an issue. If Russian planes drop bombs in the US, then I think we'd have more to worry about than the regional nuclear waste cleanup.

Anyway, I think I've rambled long enough. Nuclear is surely not the end-all-be-all, but it is a great stop-gap solution to get us our off of carbon based sources quickly and is completely compatible with current infrastructure.

:thumbsup: Fantastic post.

We need a leader who can discount energy options that are not practical while pushing for those that are. We can't power the nation on hopes and dreams and we can't afford to spend our money on "solutions" that are not based in reality.

Sanders' plan is derived from unicorn farts. He appears to have little capability of anything that even remotely approaches a logical thought process. That people will vote based on the asinine ravings of an aging hippy amazes me. Wishing for something doesn't make it possible.

 

[TheSlamma]

as long as he's opposed to nuclear power, I can't really take him seriously on this.

As long as we keep building nuke plants in the path of mother natures destruction, let alone careless humans operating them the only thing I can envision is more exclusion zones.

Even the perfectionist Japanese built a plant in one of the most mind numbingly dumb locations on earth and have struggled to clean it up.

Tornado alley, earthquake fault lines, hurricane zones, flood zones need to all be taken off the table as far as where they can be built. Where does that leave us to build and where do we get bright people to run it.

 

[K1052]

:thumbsup: Fantastic post.

We need a leader who can discount energy options that are not practical while pushing for those that are. We can't power the nation on hopes and dreams and we can't afford to spend our money on "solutions" that are not based in reality.

Sanders' plan is derived from unicorn farts. He appears to have little capability of anything that even remotely approaches a logical thought process. That people will vote based on the asinine ravings of an aging hippy amazes me. Wishing for something doesn't make it possible.

The nuclear industry's expansion has largely been halted by the same thing that started killing off coal power, cheap natural gas. We have such a glut at this point that building anything but gas power plants or renewable is basically untenable. Without enormous federal loan guarantees or favorable power purchase agreements there will be no further reactor construction in the foreseeable future besides the handful that are in progress. At this stage I think the main goal should be to replace the current reactor fleet with newer safer models as they age out. I like nuclear as a base load solution but the economics and difficulties with public perception speak for themselves at this point.

The way forward would seem to be solar/wind coupled with storage of various kinds (probably battery and hydrogen).

 

[glenn1]

:thumbsup: Fantastic post.

We need a leader who can discount energy options that are not practical while pushing for those that are. We can't power the nation on hopes and dreams and we can't afford to spend our money on "solutions" that are not based in reality.

Sanders' plan is derived from unicorn farts. He appears to have little capability of anything that even remotely approaches a logical thought process. That people will vote based on the asinine ravings of an aging hippy amazes me. Wishing for something doesn't make it possible.

Tradeoffs don't exist in the pure world they exist in. All they need to do is have good enough intentions and believe enough and the details will work themselves out. They're on a messianic mission and we're the idol believers they're here to save. Having to deal with practical things is for the deniers, they're way beyond that level of primitive thinking.

 

[K1052]

I'm fairly certain the cost of mining & burning is already worked into the price...lol.

The externalities of coal powered electrical generation in the US alone are in the 100-400B range annually depending who you talk to. The price does not cover this.

 

[OverVolt]

The externalities of coal powered electrical generation in the US alone are in the 100-400B range annually depending who you talk to. The price does not cover this.

Because every quarry was actually supposed to be a strip mall and organic farm right.

Whats the externality on electronics waste or outsourcing to China?

Or is it only fun to think about externalities because coal just sounds dirty.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Why should I expend effort to save children if others won't. Why shouldn't I spend that time admiring my ego.

Dear boy, you'll save far more children by helping to find a way to provide better economic opportunity for the poor in the US and 3rd world countries.

 

[K1052]

Because every quarry was actually supposed to be a strip mall and organic farm right.

Whats the externality on electronics waste or outsourcing to China?

Or is it only fun to think about externalities because coal just sounds dirty.

So are you totally uniformed about what byproducts result from coal combustion and are emitted from plants without modern emission controls or do you just not care? My suspicion is that it's the latter.

If you want to talk about the negative externalities resulting from globalized commerce that includes less developed countries feel free to start another thread.