Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIOiGtO2UBA

The Green New Deal calls for a t***sition to 100 percent renewable energy, many more wind turbines and solar panels.

But the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine.

Because of that, Meigs explains, “You also have to build all this infrastructure to connect [renewables] with energy consumers possibly very far away, and you always need some kind of backup power.”

That means many more t***smission lines and bigger batteries.

But “batteries are lousy way to store energy” says physicist Mark Mills, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He also points out that wind mills and solar panels are anything but green, “I have to dig up a 1,000 pounds of stuff to process it … digging up is done with oil, by the way, big machines, so we're consuming energy to quote, save energy. It's not a good path to go.”

It would also be very expensive.

Mills points out, "We're charging more for people who can't afford it and we give money to wealthy people in the form of subsidies to buy 100,000 dollar [electric] cars, put expensive solar arrays on their roof or to be investors in wind farms. We have an upside down Robin Hood in our country to the tunes of 10s and 100s of billions of dollars."

The bottom line, the Green New Deal, even if it were scientifically possible:

Would hurt the poor.

Cost everyone more.

And make energy less reliable.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Yes wind and solar are clean, but not steady. Alternate no CO2 energy are "Fission is the splitting of a heavy, unstable nucleus into two lighter nuclei [the now technology], and fusion is the process where two light nuclei combine together [always a decade away] releasing vast amounts of energy."

Dangerous success with Fission well known, Chernobyl & Fukushima being glowing [in the dark ] examples of disasters. The why these water cooled reactors was based on political decision by President Nixon [R] and his California contributors, as well as the production of Nuclear Bomb material by these reactors. The discarded and ordered disappeared technology of the 50-70s was Thorium based reactors. Thorium reactors utilized molten salt for safe efficiency... too hot and it melts a plug and goes to tanks to cool and solidify... no runaway reaction. The technology was funded by the Air-force in competition with the Navy and their Nuclear water cooled powered submarines.

The USA forbids them because they are not water cooled design so do not meet the checklist for construction. In contrast USA technology is being used and developed by Canada, India, and China. These reactors can be small truck to location and installed in a pit. They run at a steady pace and at low demand the energy is stored in battery systems. Batteries are recyclable often overlooked by opponents. Thorium reactors are fueled by utilizing the waste from the old water reactors ... all in all we can go a 1001 years on materials we have.

The Green-New-Deal is not New and is focusing too strongly on wind and solar. A quick education on Thorium reactors in five minutes is on you-tube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w84UD8RSiZg

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I am fine with anything but wind and solar.
Must be a constant source of energy regardless of weather conditions. Batteries not included or needed.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

At last common sense.

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

Wind and solar are very suitable to produce hydrogen. Especially when the conditions are such that there is an abundance of generated power. I don't see why you would ban wind and solar? Hydrogen could be the new battery...

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Because hydrogen can be stored and does not need to be immediately used.
I am referring as a direct power source..

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

That's exactly what I'm saying but why don't use solar and wind energy to produce hydrogen? There are a lot of places in the world where the sun shines and/or the wind blows more than often......Wind and solar can be a direct power source as well...

FrumCA

FrumCA

Why is this so hard for libtards to comprehend??

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

A few observations about the topic:

With increasing population what we need is more power not less. Wind and solar are inconsequential to those world needs.

Even if we all-out t***sfer to Renwables it will take a lot of f****l f**ls to get us there with manufacturing and new supply chains.

Going to wind and solar requires a huge land footprint with devastating ecological impact; strip mining, wind farms, t***smission lines, solar farms.

Natural gas is cleaner than renewables.

The U.N. is among the biggest proponents of the Green New Deal because they know it is a path to world government under their control.

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

And all of these currently require oil in one for or another to produce.

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

Yes, so..? I'm not against oil. I'm against burning oil solely for the purpose of generating power..

scooter1 Loc: Yacolt, Wa.

And exactly how do you purpose to get energy from oil without burning it?

Haenzel Loc: South Holland, The Netherlands

If I say I'm against burning oil solely for the purpose of generating power, then I don't want to get energy from oil? There are plenty alternatives.

For example, today a test started in the east of The Netherlands where the infrastructure that normally delivers natural gas to the homes for heating, is now being used to deliver (grey) hydrogen gas. Only small change to the heating equipment was needed. If this turns out to be successful (which will be the case) the green production of hydrogen will take off. Almost every home is currently connected to this infrastructure.

Change will trigger more change...