The day after the November elections, Speaker Pelosi increases her members' numbers in the House, and a miracle (Soros-funded, lol) occurs in the Senate & the Democrats take it, 52-48. Shumer turns the leadership over to Warren, and we look forward to the inauguration of President Harris, with Mayor Pete as VP.
Barney Frank has the best wit of any Democrat in the last 20 years. I wish he was running, if only for the humor he would bring to the campaign. Barney as a running mate would be magnificent. Just thinking about the Frank-Pence debate brings a smile to my face.
In a move that surprised me, centrist candidate Biden unveiled an ambitious plan to try to deal with the upcoming climate crisis.
Now, as Mr. Biden runs for president, he has laid out an ambitious climate plan of his own that goes well beyond what Mr. Obama achieved, proposing $1.7 trillion in spending and a tax or fee on planet-warming pollution with the aim of eliminating the nation’s net carbon emissions by 2050.
Although I suspect the NYT may be reflexively joining itself to the centrist candidate, I am hopeful there is something to his plans.
On Tuesday, however, environmental activists largely lauded Mr. Biden’s plan and credited the influence of the Green New Deal.
“He put out a comprehensive climate plan that cites the Green New Deal and names climate change as the greatest challenge facing America and the world,” said Varshini Prakash, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, an environmental activist group that has championed Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal. “The pressure worked.”
Of course, I would support the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, but I feel that the climate crisis is the single most important issue of this election; although Biden is way down my preference list, if Biden is serious about this then I'll be able to support his candidacy with some enthusiasm if he is the nominee.
If this was a witch hunt, it found a lot of witches. -- David Cole, writing about the Mueller investigation.
Biden is not serious about tackling climate change. If he was he would not be using talking points from the coal industry.
quote:The parallels between Biden's language and that of a coal industry group are particularly noteworthy, given how the former vice president has been criticized as insufficiently progressive on the issue of combatting climate change. CREDO's Josh Nelson drew attention to this Tuesday, when he studied Biden's climate change plan and discovered the language about carbon capture sequestration seemed to mirror that used by the Carbon Capture Coalition, a group which includes Arch Coal, Peabody Energy and Shell. The parallel language included both the Biden campaign and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions’ Carbon Capture Coalition describing the technology as a "widely available, cost-effective and rapidly scalable solution to reduce carbon emissions to meet mid-century climate goals."
quote:The parallel language included both the Biden campaign and the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions’ Carbon Capture Coalition describing the technology as a "widely available, cost-effective and rapidly scalable solution to reduce carbon emissions to meet mid-century climate goals.
As of right now Carbon Capture is none of those things. We know the solution is renewables. Climate Capture is an attempt to keep fossil fuels industry relevant. It will slow down move to zero emmisions and will keep energy costs high. Here are a couple recent looks at carbon capture.
quote:Next, neither coal nor natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is remotely close to zero carbon. For example, the Petra Nova project in Texas combines a coal plant with CCS. However, a natural gas plant was built just to run the CCS equipment, and when accounting for the actual efficiency, natural gas combustion emissions, CO2 combustion emissions, and methane leaks from mining the gas, the plant reduces only 22 percent of the carbon it was designed to over 20 years – at an additional cost of $4,200/MW. That same investment could have been spent on wind and solar to replace the entire coal plant and 100% of its emissions.
quote:The role of CO2 in oil extraction is what makes many critics think carbon capture and storage won’t help with climate change. Steven Feit, a lawyer and one of the authors of the Center for International Environmental Law report, said the unbreakable relationship between fuel combustion and CO2 removal helps sustain a vicious circle where fuel is burned, CO2 is produced, then captured, then used to produce more fuel. “We’re talking about a system that would be making fossil fuels harder to transition away from, while also making it easier for old companies to make more oil. There’s a kind of perverse relationship between all these moving parts,” Feit told Climate Liability News. Feit said he believes the majority of researchers and engineers studying negative emissions technologies are well-intentioned, but their solutions will not avoid the need for drastic CO2 emissions cuts and the boosting of solar and wind energy. “What is required to effectively deal with climate change is a transition from the kinds of systems we have to ones which are sustainable and low or zero carbon,” he said.
Yes. We already know carbon capture is not the majik bullet to solve our climate problems. Alternate sources are indeed key.
But, as your sources point out, carbon capture and carbon offsets do increase fossil fuel energy costs. It forces global society, which is firmly entrenched in the fossil fuel mode, to put a more realistic cost on that technology.
Fighting our climate problems requires a multi-pronged approach. Carbon capture puts a more meaningful cost on our present energy scheme incenting development of alternate sources. It is but one program among the many we need to put into place.
We're not going to abandon fossil fuels anytime soon no matter how many pricey alternatives we develop and we need to invest to develop a lot of them and make them cheaper. The political/economic present responds to cost not altruism. Cost will move society.
An example. Last year Tesla made around $2 billion selling its carbon offsets to other car manufacturers. $2 billion is a pretty good incentive to improve the efficiency and economic viability of electric cars. And those gas guzzling monsters now cost a bit more to sell. GM has to recover the cost of buying those offsets somehow.
It also incents GM to move toward its own electric vehicle. Or, since part of Tesla's issues is slow manufacture, maybe it could incent GM to buy Tesla and put making electric cars on a faster cheaper track.
Look at the solar power news coming from a small Iowa town. Note the price (low)
Democrats need to start talking about the economics of solar and wind.
There is big news from a small Iowa town (just outside of Omaha, Nebraska), South Sioux City. I just read a Sioux City Journal article in my local Nebraska paper today. I did a google search and found there was also an AP article (from just a day ago) too.
U.S. News and World Report also took notice of the AP story.
People should try to read both the AP article and the local Mason Dockter article.
I can't get any article to load on my computer (except part of a U.S. News and World Report snip), but my (slow) computer won't paste it.
The article mentions that a $1.8 million battery will be added to the solar (and also the wind?) power production that already is on-line. It will have the appearance "of a semi trailer without wheels" and will have a location right next to the city's 2.3 megawatt solar panel site. It will be a "large-scale battery" which will have 1.5 megawatt storage capability.
The actual 1,200 panel site site is 21-acres and 2.3 megawatt production is roughly 5% of the city's roughly 45 megawatt needs. (I don't know the population of this city)
Here are snips from the Mason Dockter article (I will have to type it from my local Lincoln Journal Star newspaper from today)
The city's 2-year-old solar park provided roughly 5 percent of the city's 45 megawatt electricity usage. That electricity costs roughly two-thirds the expense of electricity purchased from elsewhere, Hedquist said.
A year ago, the city also approved an agreement with NextEra Energy that could bring 15 megawatts - the equivalent of 33 percent of the city's power needs - via the Cottonwood Wind Energy farm in south-central Nebraska's Webster County.
The city already gets about half of its electricity from renewable sources (which includes hydroelectric). The wind deal would bring that up to 80%!
In two years, an "anticipated gasifier plant, which can turn wood waste into methane, which in turn is used to generate electricity", will be up.
A five-megawatt natural gas plant is also being proposed.
Rod Koch is the South Sioux City mayor that is big on wind and solar, and this seems to be a city that will be seen as a "demonstration" for green energy's potential. My google searches were full of references to this "demonstration city".
Iowa already gets about 40% of its energy from wind. Nebraska is far behind, despite being a state with an even smaller population. Nebraska has around 2 million people, Iowas has about 3 million. Both have the same amount of wind blowing through.
Solar power is cheaper than fossil fuels in raw price per megawatt, but I wonder what the price per megawatt will be when the battery price is added. Solar can become "base load" with a battery, but at what price? We know it is 33% cheaper when it is ONLY part of the total energy mix (as it does not require a battery). Very valuable at any rate.
(Additionally, we had a poster, "Jon", who said there was not enough land-area to produce enough solar power, but it looks like 420 acres would be enough land to produce all of the solar power South Sioux City needs for the grid).
Democrats need to talk economics, even if they actually do understand the environmental issues at stake.
The city is in Nebraska (Since Sioux City was in Iowa, I assumed that South Sioux City was too).
It has about 13,000 people as of 2017.
That makes it just about 0.6% of the total Nebraska population.
420 acres is about 2/3 of a mile.
That means that Nebraska would need about 100+ miles of solar panels to be 100% of the grid.
Out of 100,000 (?) square miles total area.
It would need to be around 300 square miles of panels if the population was as much as the national average.
Does not seem like land area is a big deal, but perhaps I am missing something. The solar panel (plus land?)price is 33% cheaper than fossil fuels, according to the article I read. Perhaps subsidies are part of the lower, but 33% cheaper is still impressive. I wonder what the price would be without the federal help.
Nebraska is not a particularly sunny state either.