Comments
reid0 t1_iwxdxjl wrote
There’s also evidence that even having solar panels on grazing land is beneficial to the grazing animals and to the land itself by providing shaded areas and because moisture in the air accumulates on the panels and drips onto the earth below them.
BBASPN69 t1_iwxn036 wrote
From what I'm read, it only really works for sheep grazing, since they're relatively tame while cows are too big and goats are too assholish, respectively, and pose a threat to panels.
chin-ki-chaddi t1_iwxpvx9 wrote
The panels can be raised further to accomodate the cows, who will definitely not knock them down.
leviwhite9 t1_iwxxr24 wrote
Yeah cows are just big dumb dogs.
If you can't design around those call me, certified country boy at your service.
chin-ki-chaddi t1_iwxzccb wrote
It would be a paradise for cows, I tell you. Chilling around in the shade, eating grass, sipping the dew dripping from the steel frame.
MMAwannabe t1_ix0t1jq wrote
"Solar Cowboys starts this Tuesday at 8PM on discovery"
FM_103 t1_iwyp82p wrote
Spoken like someone who has no experience with cows.
leviwhite9 t1_iwypqln wrote
Boy howdy would I sure surprise you then.
Ask away.
Born and raised on a 75-100 head farm in the Appalachians. Local stockyard had a catwalk above the whole operation.
Whatchu got?
Ok-disaster2022 t1_iwxawno wrote
Ethanol corns aren't necessarily even edible for humans. Significant crops are grown for livestock feed anyway.
Qbr12 t1_iwxwy5u wrote
Ethanol-bound corn crops might not be the tastiest, but they're far from inedible. Most of it is field corn, which is hard to process by the gut but can be eaten if ground up (such as in corn meal and corn flour).[1]
JusticiarRebel t1_iwyip25 wrote
Even if it isn't tasty, does it matter? If the ethanol bound crop isn't being used for ethanol, you can grow another crop on that land. It's not like a mine where you can only extract the mineral that happens to exist there.
Neumo500 t1_iwxpt5g wrote
No, corn is corn. There may be some gmo stuff to make it better for being turned into ethanol but it’s still edible
Edit: ethanol comes from field corn rather than sweet corn. It’s edible but doesn’t taste great, this is the stuff that gets heavily processed into stuff like corn syrup
TimeToShineTonight t1_iwxm4jb wrote
Land use will be a hurdle for the Midwest. A solar project was recently defeated in northwest Ohio. Nimby'ism will be an issue when zoning board won't allow the land to be used for solar.
FM_103 t1_iwyp4zg wrote
The greenest cheapest energy source is Nuclear Power.
axecrazyorc t1_iwz0exe wrote
Even as someone who’s pro-nuclear that’s bullshit and you know it. Nuclear is nowhere near the cheapest, nor is it actually the greenest. It’s a far sight better than the vast majority and we’d collectively be a lot better off if the fossil fuel companies hadn’t funded bogus “studies” about it, but it’s not “the best.”
FM_103 t1_ix1jqmk wrote
You do not sound pro nuclear to me.
[deleted] t1_iwyx4cx wrote
[deleted]
FM_103 t1_ix1jx6z wrote
Perhaps I can use a cleaner source than gas to nuclear light some where else.
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_ix0l6mm wrote
It must give a lot of confidence in nuclears when those that support it need to keep making up claims out of thin air and even setting bots to repeat inaccurate claims in order to promote it
nuclear had 70 years to change the world energy and got nowhere, renewables appeared disrupted the market and are changing the global energy sector at a breakneck pace despite all the opposition and the billions spent in propaganda and political payouts against them
renewables compete and beat fossil fuels handily despite the opposition, if nuclears could never compete against fossils they don't have a shred of chance against renewable energy
FM_103 t1_ix1jmxi wrote
“Renewables compete and beat fossil fuels handily despite the opposition”, now who’s making up claims? The only way renewables can compete with coal burning power plants is through huge government subsidies. Modern nuclear power is the cheapest and greenest source of energy currently available that can compete with fossil fuels.
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_ix1ofp2 wrote
Any claims i make are easily verifiable, also fosil fuel is being subsidized too and so is nuclear
There is a reason why both fosil fuel companies and nuclears invest in renewables...along with everybody else, they are lower risk quicker returns than their own traditional sources
Arammil1784 t1_iwwv7m6 wrote
'Tough queations'?
Convert or doom the human race. Seems exceedingly simple to me.
thatc0braguy t1_iwx1mjc wrote
And that's why it'll take until 2070 to get the desired result
DecentChanceOfLousy t1_iwy7zk1 wrote
The tough question is "how", aka, "who has to give up what".
Zevemty t1_iwyqn5a wrote
> Convert or doom the human race.
Even IPCC's "do nothing more than we've already done" path doesn't doom the human race. It will get expensive, and it will hurt, but climate change is not an extinction-level threat for humanity. Here's a good video on it if you don't want to read the IPCC-report yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw
wagner56 t1_iwyr7s9 wrote
set your heat to 68 in winter get rid of your airconditioning and car and dont go on trips
YOU can start right now.
cornerblockakl t1_iwx46n1 wrote
It’s not binary, you idiot. Stop the fear mongering.
akaNorman t1_iwxb7ai wrote
We are ~50 years behind when we should have started and ~20 years behind when we really really needed to start aggressively putting the planet first, if anything we aren’t scared enough for what is coming.
It’s very clear that the majority of people don’t quite understand how large the change coming will be (voluntary and involuntary)
cornerblockakl t1_iwxcarp wrote
No matter what you believe about your own super powers, you cannot predict the future. You simply can’t. And there is a whole (say it like Trump with me) HUUUGE group that believes that the real problem in the near future is population decline. The funny thing is that neither you nor they can predict the future that far out. (Roughly 30-60 years). So for Christ’s sake, just stop.
reid0 t1_iwxeuvz wrote
It’s not a prediction to state that carbon emissions are affecting the habitability of planet Earth or that the associated and continuing temperature rises are causing big migrations of human populations.
Those are facts, proven by mountains of data that even the oil companies identified themselves back in the 70s.
Observing those trends is not predicting the future, it’s being rational about threats to our current way of life.
cornerblockakl t1_iwxnf40 wrote
Do you not think the climate change alarmists are not presenting a doom and gloom future?
reid0 t1_iwy97o6 wrote
If you lived in a place like The Maldives, you wouldn’t have such a glib opinion.
The reason that scientists are explaining more and more dire risks ahead for us is because we’ve wasted most of the time we had to address both the causes and the impacts of climate change.
Governments and industries around the world have been trying to postpone or avoid the work required to address climate change for upwards of 30 years, and pushing media sources to spread misleading information that minimises the likely impact and cause of climate change.
Ignoring the problem has not helped. Instead it’s given us less time to address the proven effects of carbon emissions.
rationalkat t1_iwwzd0z wrote
I highly recommend anyone here to watch the four-part presentation "The Great Transformation: The World in 2030" by Tony Seba. Especially the third part is right on topic; including a cost analysis for the US.
Part 1 - Patterns of Change, Key Technologies & #PhaseChangeDisruption
Part 2 - The Disruption of Transportation (EV+FSD enables TaaS (Transport as a Service) and will be 10x cheaper than owning a car)
Part 3 - The Disruption of Energy (Solar/Wind/Battery will be ~70% cheaper than today; and will replace any other source of energy)
Part 4 - The Disruption of Food & Agriculture (Precision Fermentation will have replaced livestock in ~ 12 years)
Ezekiel_W t1_iwx7e5l wrote
I second this, love me some Tony Seba.
genshiryoku t1_iwyuza3 wrote
Sadly "Full Self Driving" is a long way off as it has been proven to be a NP-hard problem. We'll automate away intellectual labor long before driving will be automated away.
[deleted] t1_iwzfa50 wrote
[deleted]
ovirt001 t1_ix5bcx7 wrote
Basically already exists for agriculture.
https://www.deere.com/en/news/all-news/autonomous-tractor-reveal/
AntiworkDPT-OCS t1_iwzo37f wrote
It is a P vs. NP problem? That's fascinating. Can you turn me on to that? Any info? I'd love to know more.
pinkfootthegoose t1_ix110vy wrote
you are driving through a residential neighborhood at the speed limit and you see a ball bounding across the road in front of you, the ball bounces to the other side out of the path of the car, what do you do?
A self driving car would go on as if nothing happened because it would determine that a collision is not going to happen. An aware person would slow down and look for a child chasing the ball.
OriginalCompetitive t1_iwzau9f wrote
I passed an empty SDC driving on the street this morning.
outbackaus t1_iwyh9qk wrote
Was a very interesting watch, thanks for the heads up on Tony Seba
We_Are_Legion t1_iwyoigu wrote
Fascinating talks
[deleted] t1_iwyr2zv wrote
[removed]
Mysticedge t1_iwyszr8 wrote
How long is the series?
It seems awesome and I have put it on my list, but I'd like to know the overall time commitment.
Scope_Dog t1_iwws88c wrote
2035 has been my guess for a while now, based on all we’ve seen with regard to the pace renewables are being deployed as well as the falling prices. Battery tech is well on its way as well.
aurizon t1_iwwkura wrote
Well, the USA has enough desert to make the power. It also has the windy areas. STorage can be solved by titanium flow batteries. These never wear out, but they use space as the charge is stored in tanks of liquid. Capacity is limited by the tank size as well as the number of electrodes you use. Coupled with wind and solar, they can supply both coasts from central desert areas via ultra high voltage transmission lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
Thorium base load nuclear is also good, 365/24/7 base load power.
artemistica t1_iwwpkrd wrote
Tagging on here, molten salt batteries seem to be a good approach as well.
aurizon t1_iwwrj8k wrote
Yes, Several good methods are scaling up now, hard to say what type will win in the longer term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_battery
chin-ki-chaddi t1_iwxqcuo wrote
Thermal batteries will lose out to flow batteries or even old lead-acid batteries. Too many steps to charge/discharge such batteries, to many losses at each step. Thermodynamically, not the best strategy.
ArcFurnace t1_iwxsulf wrote
Sodium-sulfur batteries aren't thermal storage, they're just electrochemical batteries that need to be kept at high temperature (easy enough with a well-insulated tank, and it gets easier as you make them bigger).
dimi_paws t1_iwxfc0d wrote
Deserts arent just barren wastelands - they're whole ecosystems. why not find solutions for the panels on already existing infastructure?
aurizon t1_iwxgnz9 wrote
Desert vary, some are fuller ecologically, others are alkali flats. The solar panels stand clear of the floor and have service columns, and the shade helps certain parts of the ecology do better - the ones that avoid sun
[deleted] t1_iwwsh63 wrote
Can't and shouldn't put as many panels as possible in the desert to power the US. If that's where you were going with that.
Your losses will be large and a terrorist or adversarial attack would easily take out our overly concentrated grid.
HolyGig t1_iwx75nq wrote
Concentrated is relative, it would require hundreds of square miles of solar and wind farms to power the entire US.
There is nothing stopping us from keeping a few fossil fuel plants on standby for emergency power either.
grundar t1_iwxk6b6 wrote
> Your losses will be large
HVDC has been sending multiple GW at 3% loss per 1000km for decades.
> and a terrorist or adversarial attack would easily take out our overly concentrated grid.
What conceivable terrorist attack could put an appreciable dent in hundreds of square miles of solar panels or wind turbines spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles of area, yet would not be much worse if targeted against a populated area?
By contrast, consider the Russian drone and missile attacks against Ukrainian power plants. Those same missiles and drones would destroy a few hundred solar panels or a few wind turbines, resulting in only a tiny fraction of their impact against thermal plants.
The large area taken up by wind and solar make them much less vulnerable to attack than traditional power plants.
aurizon t1_iwwu1to wrote
Well, solar panels have not been vandalised in US desert areas. They can be fenced as well. In any event, solar does not atract terrorists and the isolation allows easy access control. The USA has enough desert areas to supply the grid. They do need storage by flow batteries as well as base load nuclear via thorium as well as wind. Some area also suit gravity storage as well. As time goes by these will all emerge as factors. As for losses, there are greater losses and harms from doing nothing and using coal/oil/gas
[deleted] t1_iwwux8r wrote
It becomes an extremely attractive target when it's all concentrated in the desert. That's what I'm getting at.
Pretend-Marsupial258 t1_iwx6say wrote
You're really underestimating the size of the desert areas in the US. Like, the Great Basin Desert alone is almost the size of Spain, while the Mojave is larger than Latvia. There's more than enough room for a bunch of solar panels without piling them on top of each other.
aurizon t1_iwww37y wrote
well, if we were at war. Perimeter walls and the isolation should work, as well as monitoring for intruders. lots of area.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-united-states
cornerblockakl t1_iwx4ghj wrote
Oh, NOW you think walls work. Lol
aurizon t1_iwx7jnd wrote
in isolated areas, with zero brush, fences and intruder alarms, people get discouraged
Ruthless4u t1_iwxidcr wrote
If someone decides to try and damage these areas they are determined enough not to let a wall or ADT stop them.
If they are serious they will find a way.
aurizon t1_iwxkpvv wrote
Yes, let them starve with us
[deleted] t1_iwwwfrc wrote
Walls don't work great against missiles.
[deleted] t1_iwx7o0n wrote
[removed]
ten-million t1_iwwzjk4 wrote
Nuclear power plants are much better targets
[deleted] t1_iwwzytq wrote
Nuclear power plants are designed against missile attacks.
ten-million t1_iwx148z wrote
Of course they are. They wouldn’t be the best thing in the world if they weren’t.
findingmike t1_iwx7tlz wrote
You do know that the US deserts are massive, right? It's like saying we're concentrating solar in 500k square miles. It's really hard to blow up that much space.
DukeLukeivi t1_iwxle6u wrote
Plenty of car parks and roofs to put them on - but then the terrorists will just attack all the houses and parking lots in the country 🤔🤔🤔
[deleted] t1_iwxospj wrote
How the fuck is rooftop solar in the desert going to power the northeast?
DukeLukeivi t1_iwxtmv9 wrote
Well there are these lines to transmit power that can be built - let's call them "transmission power lines." These "transmission power lines" can be used to move power from one part of the country to another, like how every city doesn't have it's own coal plant?
Also there's tidal, on/off shore wind, and geothermal that can be used and stored more locally, yes?
[deleted] t1_iwyoz3h wrote
Lolol rooftop solar isn't going to be transmitted across the county. Your best bet will always be localized, regional, power.
DukeLukeivi t1_iwyyvtq wrote
And yet (trans/inter) continental transmission lines already exist.... Oh yeah and wind tidal geothermal and solar can all be implemented in the north east as well.
Flash635 t1_iwx6imk wrote
The US needs to concentrate on upgrading the whole electricity grid to power all those EVs that are coming.
Even if the EVs have to be recharged by coal power the net effect is an improvement in pollution levels. But you gotta get those EVs charged.
SelectAd1942 t1_iwyt2xa wrote
EV’a require the same amount of petro chemicals to produce the car as a combustion engine vehicle. They also have extraordinary pollution from the mining of materials like cobalt and lithium plus the problems of what to do with r in he batteries. Things are not black and white and I don’t see people addressing any of these issues when discussing the idea of moving off of fossil fuels.
Flash635 t1_iwyuc6v wrote
Why are you telling me this?
DukeLukeivi t1_iwyzzqb wrote
Because if both cars have similar pollution to produce then the tonnes of CO2 emissions saved over their operational life means literally nothing, reality isn't real, bothsidesarethesame, whyevenbother....
axecrazyorc t1_iwz10ov wrote
Don’t be obtuse. What they’re arguing is that the additional fossil fuels burned to produce the power to charge the electric vehicle dampens or negates the impact of the electric vehicle. Which is true. Saying burning fossile fuels to power electric cars is green is like saying burning coal in a power plant to heat your home in winter produces less pollution than just burning coal in your home. Switching to all EVs means next to nothing if you don’t also update the power generation infrastructure to match it.
If your takeaway from that is “why bother” or “both sides” then the problem is entirely you.
DukeLukeivi t1_iwz29zc wrote
That's literally nothing to do with what they said. They said ev bad because they create pollution to make, they literally never mentioned useable lifetime emissions. Quit moving goalposts from an alt account.
This is also a fundamentally stupid thing for you to say, as green energy is rapidly growing in the international production portfolio, and will continue to do so -- we need to be making the transition to green grid and EV in tandem to start reaping benefits on both ends asap
>There's no point in building EVs if there's still carbon in the grid
>> There's no point in going green grid while there's all these carbon cars
>>>There's no point in anything, realityisntreal, whyevenbother.
[deleted] t1_iwzb71t wrote
[removed]
wagner56 t1_iwyqw89 wrote
imagine the charging station lack
thats if the battery material production can even be achieved for just 50%
nastratin OP t1_iwwjm78 wrote
New aggressive planning is needed to identify the long-duration storage technologies and find the land to grow enough resources to reach Biden net zero emissions goals, a DOE national lab reports.
Four major viable paths to a net zero emissions "clean electricity" power system by 2035 "in which benefits exceed costs" are detailed in an August study by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL.
chin-ki-chaddi t1_iwxppix wrote
I was hearing the Fully Charged podcast recently, and a guest said something so simple and yet so optimistic. We don't have to be 100% renewable, we just have to 90% renewable and there is huuuuge difference between the two. The latter can be done even with today's technology. Keep the peaking plants online for emergencies and all. Just don't burn fossil fuels in them until its absolutely necessary.
Remember, almost half the emissions ohr civilization has made, have been absorbed by natural systems. We cannot push the Earth much further, but we can also expect to see significant changes in CO2 levels as the emissions go down At 90% reduction, across the board, we can expect to be on a permanent path to pre industrial CO2 levels.
[deleted] t1_iwwsk79 wrote
Good thing we have nuclear to sidestep land use issues.
PlusMeasurement1615 t1_iwx25vh wrote
More nuclear and reliable , less environmentally damaging solar and turbines!!!
HowWeDoingTodayHive t1_iwxrzte wrote
Yeah well we could’ve also reached close to 100% vaccination rate but look how that turned out. The more progress we make towards this end, the more the “did their own research” crowd will go against it out of nothing more than spite and partisanship.
cornerblockakl t1_iwx4swr wrote
How come all the commenters on articles such as this have all the answers? Is there a super high concentration of genius scientists/engineers/investors attracted to articles solving the global energy crisis?
DukeLukeivi t1_iwxk0ql wrote
No, because it doesn't take a genius to repeat answers that have been internationally known for decades. Carbon based global warming was being discussed in scientific papers during the Civil War, Ford had all electric vehicle prototypes in the 50s, Carter put solar on the White House in the 70s.
Did you think you were intelligently calling people out here, Mr.s Dunning Kruger?
cornerblockakl t1_iwxnxls wrote
Intelligently? Of course not. Logically, yes.
DukeLukeivi t1_iwxt600 wrote
Logically strawmanning basic scientific literacy as Dunning Krueger r/iamverysmart so you can straight up Dunning Krueger r/iamverysmart at everyone in thread whilmst'd've contributing nothing - logically. Yep.
cornerblockakl t1_iwxwycl wrote
I hope you are a young lad and will pray every day you live to a ripe old age.
DukeLukeivi t1_iwxxnhc wrote
Reading will benefit you and the rest of humanity more than praying ever will, do that instead.
cornerblockakl t1_iwxy3fz wrote
I’m an atheist. It’s an expression. I just hope in 30 or 40 years you realize neither you nor scientists can predict the future. (A very simple concept)
DukeLukeivi t1_iwxyr4e wrote
Humanity has predicted eclipses and global rotational variances (zodiac procession) since antiquity? Fundamental laws of physics don't change over time - results of their interactions are completely predictable.
not_a-mimic t1_iwxz07x wrote
Don't scientists predict the weather? And when eclipses happen?
mad_wood_scientist t1_iwx6ea1 wrote
Yea welcome to Reddit.
cornerblockakl t1_iwx6j5u wrote
Has nobody heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?
mad_wood_scientist t1_iwx6omh wrote
“If those kids could read they’d be really upset”
Sentsuizan t1_iwzsf0o wrote
Not at all but even the most casual knowledge of renewable power shows we already have the theory. The hard part is getting people on board with sweeping systemic change which typically moves at the speed of government.
RizzoTheSmall t1_iwyihdc wrote
Potentially, but if we all continue to rely on fossil fuels then even tougher "there not being any" and "the planet being dead" questions lay ahead.
wagner56 t1_iwyqjve wrote
we have 500 years of coal in the ground at current energy use
Fusion might be a good project to get working.
[deleted] t1_iwwjzuu wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_iwwnvp4 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/nastratin:
New aggressive planning is needed to identify the long-duration storage technologies and find the land to grow enough resources to reach Biden net zero emissions goals, a DOE national lab reports.
Four major viable paths to a net zero emissions "clean electricity" power system by 2035 "in which benefits exceed costs" are detailed in an August study by the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/yyvs8x/us_can_reach_100_clean_power_by_2035_doe_finds/iwwjm78/
[deleted] t1_iwwom5a wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwworxt wrote
[removed]
Kickfrenchs t1_iwwtes2 wrote
Let’s hope the recession we’re about to hit doesn’t extend this.
[deleted] t1_iwwx9hr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwx1kb9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwx65hz wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iwxsewk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwy03i0 wrote
[removed]
Thisappleisgreen t1_iwyc8jl wrote
By clean power they mean bio gas fuels i.e. chopping wood.and burning it i.e. coal.
Renewable maybe, clean, absolutely not.
EMP_Jeffrey_Dahmer t1_iwykq5r wrote
The article is misleading and full of misinformation. Certain conditions must be met in order to reach clean power by that year. Getting everyone to stop using fossil fuel is near impossible at the moment because the economy and everything relies on it. The technology simply isn't there yet.
[deleted] t1_iwz4n5w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwz8fmy wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwzg7ly wrote
[removed]
Trygolds t1_ix0663c wrote
Only wage we minimize conservatives. Republicans are hell bent on stoping this.
AREssshhhk t1_ix0yxhq wrote
This is such a lie, I don’t even know where to start. Even if we put 1000% more effort into going green, there’s no way we would go %100 green energy by 2035. Even %50 would be hard to believe
ovirt001 t1_ix5b811 wrote
Frankly if residential prices for battery+solar keep coming down and energy markets stay volatile we'll see the transition come from the masses rather than major producers.
Doug_Muler42497 t1_iwwpvi7 wrote
Geothermal needs to be mandated across the country.
killcat t1_iwwrgk1 wrote
It doesn't work everywhere, at least not economically at the moment.
Scope_Dog t1_iwwsj60 wrote
Very promising stuff going on with geothermal! Just hoping those fancy new drills pan out.
CarBombtheDestroyer t1_iwwvlko wrote
Already been stated but geothermal doesn’t work most places. My cousin started a geothermal company and found that out the hard way.
ten-million t1_iwwzbi4 wrote
Do you mean ground source heat pumps or real geothermal?
Doug_Muler42497 t1_iwz01l8 wrote
Both are more effective than traditional fuel sources and should be used as a primary source. The amount of energy savings in the summer would be huge
ten-million t1_iwz0r8u wrote
Yeah I built my house and put in a ground source heat pump. Ten years later I added solar and now we produce as much as we use. It's pretty outstanding and very comfortable. Definitely pays for itself.
There is some company that says they have a new and better drilling technology and they claim they can dig deep enough to put a real geothermal plant anywhere.
Sentsuizan t1_iwzslgt wrote
I feel like people don't talk enough about geothermal, but isn't a giant hole in the ground pretty bad for the environment?
NullDivision t1_iwx5qyf wrote
Peh, could've done it a long time ago if we actually wanted to.
tech57 t1_iwxckx8 wrote
Bureaucracy. Permits. NIMBYism. Rich people. These are holding it back. Which makes more sense? Tax credit on EVs or tax credit for microgrid and grid scale? Could have spent more subsidies on rooftop solar and batteries.
The big thing for land use is going to be power lines. More so than solar farms.
>Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035 under three of NREL’s scenarios but could more than double to 27% with siting and permitting constraints on generation and transmission, models found.
Vaulters t1_iwxsqlo wrote
No, it can't, because of the QOP and corporate lobbying.
SelectAd1942 t1_iwyspni wrote
You’re cute, corporate lobbying isn’t a right or left thing. HRC spent $1.5 billion running for president, who pays that and what do they expect in return for their money? Also no one seems to appreciate what all petroleum products are used for in todays society. They are far to imbedded into everything.
Vaulters t1_iwyt138 wrote
Didn't say it was a left or right thing, you made that connection.
And strawman argument about it being widely used in non-energy applications.
And are you alluding that cute people can't be intelligent? That's not very cute.
FM_103 t1_iwyowju wrote
To reach this goal the US needs to update their power grids and build Nuclear Power plants.
22Starter22 t1_iwyq3rf wrote
Not if the US keeps spending trillions of dollar more on endless wars, they won't 🙄
metro2036 t1_ixdpniq wrote
Even the military is working on electrification.
[deleted] t1_iwxq44r wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iwxwx9k wrote
[deleted]
SelectAd1942 t1_iwysfnp wrote
I’m not sure I believe any research done by our federal government, their ability to estimate time and costs hasn’t really been accurate.
Android_304 t1_iwzdbk8 wrote
That's why if plans aren't all in on nuclear, I'm not a fan. Coal plants are the cheapest and most reliable form of energy production behind nuclear.
kenlubin t1_ix1mzmz wrote
You might want to double check your numbers. Coal has been getting priced out of the US energy market for a decade now.
Android_304 t1_ix1na4v wrote
Largely due to government regulations. Thankfully we won a suit against the EPA, so prices have the potential to come down again
wagner56 t1_iwyqe58 wrote
Costs and secondary Costs
Imagine it costing 5X as much to operate a car or for all your power usage and increase in Prices on Everything (Everything has a power COST)
metro2036 t1_ixdogez wrote
What a load of bullshit. Anyone with solar panels and an electric car knows it's a fraction of the cost to operate.
wagner56 t1_ixu6nzx wrote
please quote me the prices of these cars
thats the first multiplier - you have to buy them before you can use them
and then have the assumed shortages of the materials used for a vastly increased number being built - something you might try to consider the impact of.
likewise the manufacture will need to be clean too, and recycling as well.
And please address the ever present issue of where the power comes from for these autos - explain how all that electricity will be generated without fossil fuels being involved.
As usual, the entire picture of the actual needed solution is avoided to make such claims.
metro2036 t1_ixyncar wrote
>> please quote me the prices of these cars >> thats the first multiplier - you have to buy them before you can use them
Sticker prices of EVs are typically higher, but total lifetime cost is lower due to electricty/mile being cheaper than gas/mile as well as reduced maintenance costs. Source1 Source2 Source3
>> and then have the assumed shortages of the materials used for a vastly increased number being built - something you might try to consider the impact of.
This doesn't make any sense. If I'm choosing between buying an EV or a gas car, both will need materials, and it doesn't change the number of cars being built if I'm choosing between one or the other. Choosing the EV isn't going to cause a shortage of materials vs choosing a gas car, other than the materials being different for some components. Either way, it's irrelevant to whether it costs more to own an EV.
>> likewise the manufacture will need to be clean too, and recycling as well.
Why? Does the gas car have have clean manufacturing? No. And this is still irrelevant to ownership cost.
>> And please address the ever present issue of where the power comes from for these autos - explain how all that electricity will be generated without fossil fuels being involved.
Like I said--you can power them with the sun. No fossil fuels needed. I have solar panels on my roof and only pay the energy company a connection fee.
wagner56 t1_iy32rg4 wrote
"""US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds, but tough reliability and land use questions lie ahead"""
This is the WHOLE SYSTEM
It includes all the 'dirty' stuff generated by EVERY ASPECT of this thing to makle it work.
It requires the whole system being reworked.
Funny is : I just noticed the word "can" in that above statement which technically means it does not limit the solution to reasonable cost or lack of imposed tyranny or all the other serious issues and concerns which will likely have to be made use of to achieve this 'goal'.
It sounds very much like a communist 'five year plan' when you consider how it is expressed. The scope of it is also is as potentially catastrophic as such plans historically were.
Notice that word 'but' there too - which already indicates that serious problems ALREADY lay in the path of any such 'solution'.
metro2036 t1_iy4oe3v wrote
Did you lose track of the conversation? We weren't discussing the headline. We were discussing your notion that operating an EV has 5X the total cost of an ICE vehicle.
wagner56 t1_iyc82mv wrote
well I was always talking about the headline
a huge added cost trying to drive massive change in such a short time
forced instead of letting progress be done by what is workable in the market.
And finally the proposal being filled with weasel words to cover the impracticality and postential disaster of such a thing being attempted
CarBombtheDestroyer t1_iwwv9fz wrote
It more than likely won’t and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There are huge amounts other shit that this could negatively affect like food/water supply and poverty/jobs, it’s important to do this without putting too much strain on society, with the this big looming recession etc. If society gets impacted and life becomes too tough you will see us move backwards fast.
Scrybblyr t1_iwx9zpx wrote
In other news, in addition to "reaching clean power by 2035" being an impossible, cataclysmic, and just plain stupid idea, there is actually no need to do it.
Observe the huge reduction in CO2 which occurred when COVID 19 shut down the world. (Or lack thereof.)
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Also of note, 500,000 years ago, CO2 levels were 8 to 20 times higher than they are today, and the global temperature was only about 10 degrees higher than now. Rumor has it that no cars or factories were the cause for the elevated CO2 levels, just as is the case right now.
dewafelbakkers t1_iwxx777 wrote
There are multiple academic outlets that address the trends seen due to covid, including Nature and - as luck would have it - NOAA. Perhaps you should find and read them.
Scrybblyr t1_iwxxgei wrote
Fine. Address the second point then?
dewafelbakkers t1_iwxxlp5 wrote
There is none.
[deleted] t1_iwxxnnk wrote
[removed]
wagner56 t1_iwyqrhs wrote
I had not heard it was that high that recently
Dinosaur times the levels were like that and the whole earth was a green paradise
FishMichigan t1_iwwuljh wrote
There is no land use problem for solar. 45% of all acres of corn is in use for Ethanol. We'd need 7.5% of all corn acres for 10,000 sq miles of solar. If you want to blame high food prices on anything, blame ethanol. Lets be honest, you wouldn't put all the solar in the midwest and there is plenty of desert land in the west to power the left 1/3 of the USA.