2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[The Lone Alliance]

Yes I have read it.
It was very very stupid.

How so? What is wrong with it?

The US cannot sustain itself on 100% Renewable energy without nuclear power, which this plan is against.

That's how you get your energy grid to collapse, and with that there goes the economy and the nation.

[Mystic Warriors]

How so? What is wrong with it?

The US cannot sustain itself on 100% Renewable energy without nuclear power, which this plan is against.

That's how you get your energy grid to collapse, and with that there goes the economy and the nation.

To answer the deleted post.

Any 100% renewable plan that does not propose expanded Nuclear power to make up for the loss of Fossil fuels is a plan doomed to failure, from what I have read I see nothing in this plan proposing expanding nuclear.

And if we're going by the little FAQ that AOC's office released she's actual proposing to decommission nuclear power plants instead.... so I don't see how that's very "Open" to nuclear.

Though the FAQ itself isn't part of the bill so we can't say for sure that will be the cement policy so for now I hold that the official policy is to keep the existing Nuclear framework, but replace everything else with Solar..... and I don't see that working.

Here is what each state would need to go renewable.

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#

[Hediacrana]

How so? What is wrong with it?

The US cannot sustain itself on 100% Renewable energy without nuclear power, which this plan is against.

That claim does not suggest that you in fact read it. Please keep the discussion factual.

This it what is actually says:

3. meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading existing renewable power sources; and
(ii) by deploying new capacity;

(Source)

Which leaves the door wide open to nuclear.

[The Lone Alliance]

The US cannot sustain itself on 100% Renewable energy without nuclear power, which this plan is against.

That claim does not suggest that you in fact read it. Please keep the discussion factual.

This it what is actually says:

3. meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading existing renewable power sources; and
(ii) by deploying new capacity;

(Source)

Which leaves the door wide open to nuclear.

That is not nuclear, Nuclear power is not considered a renewable resource. At best the plan proposes keeping the existing nuclear plants (Which I guess is good) but replacing everything else with renewable, which I can't see working.

And if we're going by the little FAQ* that AOC's office released she's actual proposing to decommission nuclear power plants instead.... so I don't see how that's very "Open" to nuclear.

Though the FAQ itself isn't part of the bill so we can't say for sure that will be the cement policy so for now I hold that the official policy is to keep the existing Nuclear framework, but replace everything else with Solar and wind..... and I don't see that working. Maybe possibly hydroelectric could bridge the gap maybe but as it is. No.

*Of course considering how badly the FAQ was written that could have been a simple mistake.

[The of Japan]

We should embrace nuclear fully.

[Mystic Warriors]

We should embrace nuclear fully.

Nah. We don't need it.

[The of Japan]

We should embrace nuclear fully.

Nah. We don't need it.

Its a hell of a lot better than Coal plants. The only real issues are the build costs and misguided political opposition to nuclear energy.

[The Lone Alliance]

We should embrace nuclear fully.

Nah. We don't need it.

Do you seriously believe the entire United States can be run on Solar and Wind?

Nah. We don't need it.

Its a hell of a lot better than Coal plants. The only real issues are the build costs and misguided political opposition to nuclear energy.

Hell even Coal plants are radioactive.

[Hediacrana]

I hold that the official policy is to keep the existing Nuclear framework, but replace everything else with Solar and wind

...which is not the same thing as going to 100 percent renewable as you first claimed the plan said.

[The of Japan]

We should embrace nuclear fully.

Nah. We don't need it.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014 ... enewables/

[The Lone Alliance]

I hold that the official policy is to keep the existing Nuclear framework, but replace everything else with Solar and wind

...which is not the same thing as going to 100 percent renewable as you first claimed the plan said.

I was also using the FAQ as a possible example as proof that the idea was 100% renewable but after reading through the rest of the FAQ I quickly realized it was so poorly written to really be sure that this was actually supposed to explain what the plan of the Green New Deal was.

If the FAQ is false then it's possible that the plan is to keep existing Nuclear and make everything else renewable, which will fail and I still oppose the current plan.
If the FAQ is true, it's 100% Renewable and my original opposition remains.

[Mystic Warriors]

Nah. We don't need it.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014 ... enewables/

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#


Also if you read the article you posted its main complaint is the inability to store energy and our current system isn't setup for renewable. To go 100% it would include storage for excess and modernization of the grid. So yeah, we don't need nuclear.

[Mystic Warriors]

Nah. We don't need it.

Do you seriously believe the entire United States can be run on Solar and Wind?

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#

Solar, wind, hydro..... There are more than two. Even the earths own heat.

[The of Japan]

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014 ... enewables/

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#


Also if you read the article you posted its main complaint is the inability to store energy and our current system isn't setup for renewable. To go 100% it would include storage for excess and modernization of the grid. So yeah, we don't need nuclear.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gowrisan/pdf_ ... ttency.pdf

Intermittency is also an issue for renewables.

[The of Japan]

Do you seriously believe the entire United States can be run on Solar and Wind?

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#

Solar, wind, hydro..... There are more than two. Even the earths own heat.

we have enough hyrdro and geothermic for around 8% of our power grid, and it cant really be expanded.

[The Lone Alliance]

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#

Solar, wind, hydro..... There are more than two. Even the earths own heat.

we have enough hyrdro and geothermic for around 8% of our power grid, and it cant really be expanded.

That and environmentalists hate dams for some reason.

[Mystic Warriors]

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#


Also if you read the article you posted its main complaint is the inability to store energy and our current system isn't setup for renewable. To go 100% it would include storage for excess and modernization of the grid. So yeah, we don't need nuclear.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gowrisan/pdf_ ... ttency.pdf

Intermittency is also an issue for renewables.

That article only focuses on one. And again, storage and others.

[Shrillland]

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#


Also if you read the article you posted its main complaint is the inability to store energy and our current system isn't setup for renewable. To go 100% it would include storage for excess and modernization of the grid. So yeah, we don't need nuclear.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gowrisan/pdf_ ... ttency.pdf

Intermittency is also an issue for renewables.

I have to agree with this. I support the Green New Deal, but I'm under no illusions of both the limitations of the sources themselves and the space needed, which would cut in to agricultural space and reduce food yields. We will have to include nuclear power as part of the solution, and we should remember that nuclear technology has come a long way since 1986. Hell, we can commission newer plants to replace the older more hazardous ones. All we need to do is keep them away from dangerous areas such as fault lines or likely tsunami/wildfire zones.

[Mystic Warriors]

http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#

Solar, wind, hydro..... There are more than two. Even the earths own heat.

we have enough hyrdro and geothermic for around 8% of our power grid, and it cant really be expanded.

Source...

[Shrillland]

we have enough hyrdro and geothermic for around 8% of our power grid, and it cant really be expanded.

Source...

For hydro, it's mostly the conflicting plans of environmentalists. Hydro dams require widening rivers and building new lakes, which can cause significant damage to local and regional ecosystems and potentially cause species to die out. On top of that, you'd have whole towns and villages forced to relocate, and that can take years to get through the legal wrangling.

[Hediacrana]

...which is not the same thing as going to 100 percent renewable as you first claimed the plan said.

I was also using the FAQ as a possible example as proof that the idea was 100% renewable but after reading through the rest of the FAQ I quickly realized it was so poorly written to really be sure that this was actually supposed to explain what the plan of the Green New Deal was.

Understood.

If the FAQ is false then it's possible that the plan is to keep existing Nuclear and make everything else renewable, which will fail and I still oppose the current plan.
If the FAQ is true, it's 100% Renewable and my original opposition remains.

Going by the formal version of the plan alone (a link to the FAQ and especially the relevant passage would be appreciated) I still don't see how it explicitly rules out expanding nuclear power either. It seems quite carefully worded to say that fossil needs to go without going into too much detail about what kind of mix of renewables/clean/zero carbon should replace it. Which in terms of political tactics would make sense given the existing disagreements on the latter part. Politicians of various philosophies on the matter can endorse this without tying their hands too much on the specifics.

To get more on-topic, I'd be interested to see how the various Democratic contenders respond to this.

[The Lone Alliance]

I was also using the FAQ as a possible example as proof that the idea was 100% renewable but after reading through the rest of the FAQ I quickly realized it was so poorly written to really be sure that this was actually supposed to explain what the plan of the Green New Deal was.

Understood.

If the FAQ is false then it's possible that the plan is to keep existing Nuclear and make everything else renewable, which will fail and I still oppose the current plan.
If the FAQ is true, it's 100% Renewable and my original opposition remains.

Going by the formal version of the plan alone (a link to the FAQ and especially the relevant passage would be appreciated) I still don't see how it explicitly rules out expanding nuclear power either. It seems quite carefully worded to say that fossil needs to go without going into too much detail about what kind of mix of renewables/clean/zero carbon should replace it. Which in terms of political tactics would make sense given the existing disagreements on the latter part.

Yes it looks like it's been run through enough lawyer speak to say nothing either way towards it. However the FAQ makes things more interesting.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document ... w-Deal-FAQ
(The NPR source AOC deleted it from her site after the Right mocked it)
But the line in question in the FAQ was as follows:

Is nuclear a part of this?
A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and
would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to
decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of
nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.

There's quite a few other questionable things in the FAQ that the right pounced on, it's clearly something that wasn't run through a proofreader or political writer.

To get more on-topic, I'd be interested to see how the various Democratic contenders respond to this.

I'm thinking most are going to generally support some or most of it as part of the Primary test, though apparently Pelosi was hostile to the GND and pretty much wrote it off I think the more moderate Democrat candidates will go "It's a step in the right direction" while the more Progressive candidates will go "We must do this and now!"

[Mystic Warriors]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421765-poll-majorities-of-both-parties-support-green-new-deal%3famp

More than 80 percent of registered voters support the Green New Deal proposal being pushed by progressional Democratic lawmakers, a new poll found.

The survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans back the Green New Deal plan.

Just one poll, but still.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421765-poll-majorities-of-both-parties-support-green-new-deal%3famp

More than 80 percent of registered voters support the Green New Deal proposal being pushed by progressional Democratic lawmakers, a new poll found.

The survey conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans back the Green New Deal plan.

Just one poll, but still.

‘Tis a rather unorthodox way of causing total economic collapse, but that’s one way to do it I guess.

[Mystic Warriors]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/421765-poll-majorities-of-both-parties-support-green-new-deal%3famp




Just one poll, but still.

‘Tis a rather unorthodox way of causing total economic collapse, but that’s one way to do it I guess.

Never you mind it wouldn't.