Did you watch the climate change town hall meetings this week? Guest columnist Dave Baumeister did!
It was nice to see the Democratic candidates talking about something important without trash-talking other Democrats. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see all of them, but I was impressed by what I saw.
The climate crisis is the single most important issue that we are facing, not just in the United States, but in the world, and it was widely agreed upon that this is where the US needs to lead. One thing I didn’t particularly like was, after going through the litany of what he wanted to accomplish (fight climate change, free college, Medicare for all, etc., etc., etc.), Anderson Cooper asked Bernie Sanders “What is the most important issue to you?” And Sanders, side stepping the question, said, “They are all important!”
The idea behind Cooper’s question was pretty clear – if you could only get one thing accomplished, what would it be – and the answer, too, should have been pretty clear. After all, if everyone on the planet is dead, we don’t really need to be worrying about who will be paying for college, now do we?
In fairness to Sen. Sanders, I didn’t hear a moderator asking anyone else the question of priorities, but as Sanders seems to be the most adamant about making changes, I suppose it was natural that Cooper would ask him that question.
However, this does emphasize a good point. If we want to see a lot of changes, having many people who embrace those changes in Congress is more important than having one person in the White House who wants change.
Look at President Obama: most of what he was able to accomplish had to be done by executive orders, which his replacement can easily overturn.
Remember, the job of the Executive Branch is to enforce laws, but it is the Legislative Branch that has to enact the laws to begin with. So, if people become so focused on retaking the White House that they forget about the House and Senate, the changes they are hoping for will be very unlikely.
I do have hope for this group of Democratic candidates, and it will be important to see if, after the primaries, they can work together in supporting the person who won the nomination. They need to, and so do their supporters, because, if we want to see a better future, then all of these candidates, except maybe Bill de Blasio, should have a seat at the planet-saving table in January 2021.
What are you saying….vote early and vote often ;^) ?
I was darn disappointed in Sanders throwing up his hands and saying there is no solution to nuclear waste, when he is a smart guy and he knows better.
Meanwhile, we haven’t yet provided a solution to energy storage or the waste management of renewables…but full steam ahead!
I don’t mind wind and solar being part of the solution. I just mind them being pre-ordained as the only legitimate means of generating clean energy. We can have a lot more wind, solar, and nuclear than today…and solve climate change.
Of course there is a solution to nuke waste, don’t create anymore of that cancer causing nukey poison.
I don’t believe Sanders is the Second Coming, as many of his ardent followers seem to. I grew tired of his hollering old man schtick 4 years ago. Anyway . . .
I agree that climate change has got to be Issue One. Even if this lovely planet isn’t fried in my lifetime, the changes happening right now will lead to greater political upheaval, desperation and war. It will drastically and negatively affect all the other issues, even if only indirectly.
I see a lot of focus among Democrats on the US Senate and on state houses. We were pretty slow to the party, especially regarding legislatures, but change for the better is happening. I think citizens in many states don’t want to see their states Kansassed, as Brownback tried to wreck the Wheat State.
All that being true, Polluting Pimp has to go and that must be a high priority. The EPA must be restocked with real scientists so that real data can be supplied. Same is true with the rest of the administration. A State Department that has a clue about diplomacy can work on agreements with other nations about carbon, water and other issues. A real Interior Department that protects the Interior, Energy, Education– everything.
Polluting Pimp is on his way to costing this globe 4 years. In a situation this dire, we don’t have 4 years to fritter away on insane, greedy asholery.
Be like California.
“Even as sales of small cars drop in California and across the country, sales of electric cars continue to climb, breaking past 5 percent of the market so far in 2019.
In its quarterly California Auto Outlook, the California New Car Dealers Association reported that even while sales of cars—besides SUVs and pickups—have fallen in the state through the first half of 2019, sales of electric cars have soared from 3.3 percent of the market in the first half of 2018 to 5.6 percent so far in 2019.
The trend, of course, points out the booming success of Tesla, and the fact that electric cars aren’t necessarily small.” https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124891_electric-car-sales-boom-in-california-as-plug-in-hybrids-and-small-cars-sputter
Hi yo
It’s off to work I go”
The only gas smell is from eating to many tamales with red sauce. Booyah!!
Why not stop producing energy altogether? The toxic elements used in solar cells, wind turbines, and batteries do not have a half-life, the volume is much greater, and there is no plan for isolating them. Yeah, let’s build more of those without a plan.
I do not think it makes sense to throw away nuclear waste directly after one pass through the reactor. More than 90% of the available energy still remains in what you call “waste”. We could be getting more clean energy with less mining.
I don’t know if we will end up recycling the fuel, or finding a way to consume today’s waste product in a unique reactor to reduce what needs to be isolated. Both of those things are likely to reduce the radioactivity so that the requisite isolation is much less. It’s only hundreds of thousands of years if you keep the solutions from occurring. The newer fuels should allow for longer burnup….it is just an issue for the current fuels.
Here is a news flash. If you want more electric cars, you will need to generate more electricity. Take a look at the energy pie, and figure out how much new electricity must be generated to displace all of the fossil fuel in transportation. You can do that with renewables and nuclear, or renewables and natural gas.
Agreed! Let’s do build more of those. South Dakota has several turbines in the pipeline already!
That’s why the pipeline has stalled…jerry keeps stuffing windmills in there…
I also maintain that to really do a good job at the waste management for renewables (i.e. extracting bad elements and downcycling or recycling other items) we will need process heat. The only way to do that without emitting carbon is via nuclear (this is why I say nuclear energy instead of just nuclear power….we also can use the heat for a variety of applications).
the TWO ISSUES FOR 2020 ARE:
1. CLIMATE CHANGE. (yes we know, Doc McT, nukes…, but 1st things 1st. Cooperate will you, not like Exxon “cooperation”. Having as your banner “haven’t yet provided a solution to energy storage or the waste management of renewables…” is just stupid.)
2. Economic Inequality (everything else)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190903084035.htm
Reactor turns carbon dioxide into usable fuel. Or so they claim.
Leslie england,
Nuclear must capture its waste product. Renewables do not have to. Yes, it would cost more to do that. There are items in renewable wastes you would not want in your air or water. And we should want to avoid having to burn those wastes to reduce the volume at some point.
Maybe you are correct that you have to force a crisis in waste management to happen before it gets solved. Instead of planning ahead and avoiding future paths for pollution, just go ahead and throw things away like we do today.
I should add that there is no crisis with regard to nuclear waste, and that may be the crux of the current nuclear waste impasse. They could probably do OK for 250 years without an issue.
But we will continue to mine new nuclear fuel instead of recycling the waste, and we will spend a lot more money on that storage that could be better spent elsewhere. And not solving the waste issue means not as many nuclear plants get built, so we will emit more carbon from natural gas backup.
Why not do more renewables and more nuclear? Hmmm…that may take some cooperation….
That reactor is a chemical reactor, not a nuclear reactor. Chemical engineering and nuclear engineering use the term “reactor”.
But your process seems to be more water intensive as opposed to being energy intensive.
As for clean air and water, why worry? Drumpf says we have the cleanest air and water anywhere.
TRUMP: “We have the cleanest air in the world in the United States, and it’s gotten better since I’m president. We have the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean and I always say I want crystal clean water and air. … We’re setting records environmentally.” — remarks Wednesday.
THE FACTS: The U.S. does not have the cleanest air, and it hasn’t gotten better under the Trump administration.
U.S. drinking water is among the best by one leading measure.
Trump’s own Environmental Protection Agency data show that in 2017, among 35 major U.S. cities, there were 729 cases of “unhealthy days for ozone and fine particle pollution.” That’s up 22 percent from 2014 and the worst year since 2012.
The Obama administration, in fact, set records for the fewest air polluted days in 2016. In 2017, after Trump took office, the number of bad air days per metro area went up 20%.
The State of Global Air 2019 report by the Health Effects Institute rated the U.S. as having the eighth cleanest air for particle pollution — which kills 85,000 Americans each year — behind Canada, Scandinavian countries and others.
The Bahamas are kinda glad they didn’t have cancer causing nukey power. South Carolina is 9 Billion in the red for a boondoggle nukey plant that was more corruption than anything else.
“ALL EYES are on the lawsuit that SCANA filed against the S.C. Public Service Commission earlier this month, seeking to overturn the law that temporarily reduces the nuclear surcharge for the reactors that SCE&G abandoned mid-construction. A federal judge has set a hearing for Monday and Tuesday on the utility’s request for a temporary injunction.
Regardless of the outcome, we’re only at the very start of the litigation over the V.C. Summer nuclear plant.
At least 19 lawsuits have been filed against SCANA over its decision, a year ago next week, to abandon the nuclear construction project and keep collecting the costs on our power bills. Four of them have been consolidated into other cases or dropped, and a few have been moved to different courts.” https://www.thestate.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/cindi-ross-scoppe/article215492235.html
The only thing nukey’s are good for is to shoot at hurricanes, ask Chubby trumpy, he has all the details.
No worries jerry. I’m sure that all the cancer causing toxic elements from the windmills and the solar panels damaged or destroyed by the hurricane were captured and contained……if you send out some hopes and prayers I am sure they won’t go into the environment.
Good news, the nuclear plants hit in the South were safe and secure during the hurricane.
It sounds like stopping in mid-construction is an issue that needs to be resolved. There are cases where the issue is not the grid and it is not nuclear power whatsoever, but it is how they managed the construction.
Some of that is because we have not been building nuclear reactors to replace the older ones as we intended. So the manufacturing base has gone overseas. Guess what happens to the price when that occurs, and then when there are delays?
But some of the issue with getting the plant completed can also be due to the current economics of the grid.
So what can be done?
First, stop subsidies for renewables. If renewables must earn income by actually generating electricity (perish the thought), they will figure it out. That will be the real driver for storage to work, so that they can sell electricity when the price is higher.
For the nuclear plants that are already operating, the alternative to state subsidies given the current economics of the electricity grid is to shut down the nuclear plant.
That means you must replace the energy it was generating, probably in part with coal and gas. And don’t forget that the nuclear waste doesn’t go anywhere. That storage and security is not free. And then the tax base from the nuclear plant and the associated economic activity disappears.
If you do the math, I don’t believe that is worth it…especially when you will be emitting more carbon after the nuclear plant is shut down, and that amount of carbon will increase as we charge up your electric cars. And even more so when you consider the bulk amount of clean energy generated.
Nukes are a corruption boondoggle that is a con. If they were such a good deal, why are they shutting them down? Damn things can’t work in this environment, it’s too hot. Just another failed idea, stick to what they are good for, blowing up hurricanes. Countries don’t want them, including us. Cost too much and are way too dangerous.
Give me our old Zenith windcharger, modernized of course and solar. Yes, we must use the solar as we are warming up man.
As they say, ironic. Now doc wants to build a big nukey plant in South Dakota. Probably near a reservation so the Natives can bask in the radiance of it all.
“Nuclear power is one of the world’s biggest sources of carbon-free electricity. But it has an Achilles’ heel: it needs lots of water to operate.
That’s bad news right now. Europe’s heatwave—which led to wildfires in Greece and Sweden, droughts in central and northern parts, and made the normally green UK look brown from space—is forcing nuclear plants to shut down or curtail the amount of power they produce. French utility EDF shut four reactors at three power plants on Saturday, Swedish utility Vattenfall shut one of two reactors at a power plant earlier last week, and nuclear plants in Finland, Germany, and Switzerland have cut back the amount of power they produce.”
https://qz.com/1348969/europes-heatwave-is-forcing-nuclear-power-plants-to-shut-down/
Stay cool with wind and welcome sunny days for the solar. They both are consistent and matters not if the water is too hot. Safe as well. Don’t hate the wind like Chubby trumpy does, so much so that when he thinks of it, he wants to nuke it, love the wind like cool folks do.
I see you ignored the damage done by the hurricanes to renewables. But that is OK…you would have to replace them anyway every 15-20 years. Maybe sooner if they are next to or in the ocean.
If renewables are so great, then why aren’t they cooling the water for the reactors?
We should build the newer reactors that Homer Simpson could walk away from without causing a problem, and if you want, some of those would not need water for cooling.
A smaller reactor in South Dakota is a great idea jerry. But I don’t think that is conceivable until we find a political solution for the nuclear waste issue.
Probably that means not all of it goes in one place. Long-term we may need more than one facility eventually. It would be helpful if we could reduce the heat and radioactivity of what finally gets isolated. Golly gee whiz…do you think we could use science to solve this problem? Or maybe we should send out some thoughts and prayers and the nuclear waste will disappear ;^) ?
Science? According to your dream gal, science cannot even differentiate the difference from hemp and cannabis. Science is on a hiatus during the Chubby trumpy era…get used to it doc.
Toro and the U of Minn are working together to bring farmers COWBOT! From the Strib:
“scientists and Toro researchers have been working on the robotic mower for about a year and expect it to be ready for a cattle pasture by the end of next summer.
“When fully operational, the self-driving machine could automate one of the more tedious chores for farmers — mowing down weeds in pastures after cows have grazed — while also cutting the use of fossil fuels and the release of climate-change gases.
“The cowbot marks the U’s first major step in developing robots for farm work. The state Legislature has given the school two grants, totaling $1.65 million, over the past few years to create the solar-charged machines in hopes of reducing agriculture’s large carbon footprint across the state.
“The cowbot is essentially the U’s first phase — to create a machine that can maneuver across a relatively simple and square pasture. Next up is to build smaller bots that can drive themselves up and down rows of cornstalks and soybeans, spot the weeds as they form and literally nip them in the bud.
“A robot would be able to work with a much smaller battery because, rather than working a regular shift, it could work at anytime of day for a few hours at a time. When it ran out of battery it would simply recharge itself and then resume.”
is.gd/HwMhTM
I forgot to mention that the Cowbot has a solar panel and a small shed with solar panels and a recharging station would be nearby for recharging.
Now that’s some science there Ms. Debbo. But here is not so good science. Science that our very lives depend on regarding weather. No Chubby has corrupted that too.
“Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president.
In an agency wide directive sent Sept. 1 to National Weather Service personnel, hours after Trump asserted, with no evidence, that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”
So will it blizzard, who knows. Will there be a big tornado, who knows. Will Chubby shoot a nuke at a hurricane? From now on, just go outside and stick up your middle finger. If it’s wet, it’s raining. If it is cold, your guess is as good as you want it to be.
Awesome pickup and SUV, perfect for South Dakota’s terrain. Who needs gas and diesel to check the cows, just hop in the electric pickup and move on smartly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMfxJEfb4lw
Suns up and a gentle wind makes for a perfect day to charge the beast for new adventures!
Oh great. When the lawn mowers become self-aware, we will all be in trouble ;^). But if you do not care when the lawn is mowed during the week nor how much is mowed during a particular day, then autonomous solar lawn mowing is fine.
Here’s an idea…dedicate more of your lawn to native plants that you do not need to water or mow. Then you avoid recycling issues with the batteries and the solar cells :^) .
Jerry, science can differentiate between hemp and cannabis. But not in the timely fashion that they want with the tools they can budget, and particularly for a political philosophy that wants to restrict government, not expand it.
It sounds like supporters should find a way to pay for the necessary and sufficient analytical infrastructure if they want the state to approve hemp. Unless corporations are bad, in which case you will not support corporate hemp. Hmmmm….
While we’re talking about future technology, there’s a big article in the Strib Business section about 5G cell phone transmission. You know, the one that’s so “dangerous” to our health? 😊😊 Here’s the original source of that tidbit:
“Media in Russia, a country with no manufacturers at the telecom industry’s highest levels, have aggressively stoked fears about 5G devices.” http://strib.mn/2ZUYTo9
Of course. If Pootie can’t do it, he doesn’t want his US acolyte to do it either.
There are a few US lawmakers with concerns too. I think they heard too many Pootieisms.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1120589_rivian-r1t-pickup-r1s-suv-ready-for-future-800v-upgradepossibly-in-2022
The pickup truck promises 200 miles on a 30 minute recharge. Which means that range will decrease over time.
One of the interesting engineering approaches is that they take measures to warm/cool the batteries to help with faster recharging.
https://www.autotrader.com/car-reviews/rivian-r1s-electric-suv-first-look-281474979899394
The battery pack is also protected by Kevlar to help avoid issues with going offroad. But this is likely to be a $90K vehicle.
Nope, “Currently, Rivian has two models available for pre-order with delivery in late 2020: the R1T, a pickup truck with a base price of $69,000, and the R1S, an SUV with a base price of $72,500. Both trucks have 754 horsepower and can go from zero to 60 miles per hour in three seconds, with a top speed of 125 miles per hour.Apr 24, 2019”
Half truth doc, “Rivian says that it will have a charging capacity of 160 kW, which is going to be able to add approximately 200 miles of range in around 30 minutes of charging.”
“The middle step has 754 hp (562 kW), 826 lb-ft (1,120 Nm), and a 135 kWh battery with a range over 300 miles (483 kilometers).Jun 5, 2019”
Plenty of juice to get you around the home place and then, with a 30 minute quick charge, you’re off to see the wizard for another 200 miles. Ain’t that sweet, and all the while you are watching the sun charge your home place and the wind just chillin like a villain…sweet And at $69,000.00 right up there with current pickup prices.
From the second link: “Rivian says pricing for the R1S will start at about $72,500 for the base battery version, while the large battery versions will rise to about $90,000.”
So if you want the fastest charging and the most available power, it is $90K. Recharging to full truth!!!
You say potato and Rivan says potato. A F-150 pick up can go for $65,000.00 and you have to fill it more than a Rivan, while a Ford Ranger starts at $24,000.00, then goes up…same same for filling that little rascal up with petrol…the bigger the battery, the more it costs, makes sense to me.
The Rivian is way cooler though. You could watch while your locally produced wind or solar power your electric jalopy up. Sweet
You will also have a lot of time to sit and watch your electric vehicle if the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine….
But you will probably plug into a grid which will deliver electricity for you made mostly by burning natural gas. That is the only way you can recharge in 30 minutes or less.
grudznick said gravy-laden potatoes for breakfast this morning, and I asked for the extra-large portion, please. Everybody wants the biggest and the best, and you just have to be able to pay for it. But these electric cars are like the vegetable Whopper at the Burger King, and they just drive the demand for the real deal up even more.
(testing Mr. H’s fancy new blog edit)
You can edit and fix your errors, but you can’t go back later and change your whole opinion on a blogging after grudznick out-debates you.
(Mr. Howie, insaner than most, even agrees with grudznick)
http://www.rightsidesd.com/?p=35601
Sun is always shinning in Philadelphia, wind power is the only power on earth that has been threatened with a nuke attack.
The only time when the sun doesn’t shine is when that thing called darkness comes and then the wind charger would kick in. If both don’t work, hey this is South Dakota, give it 30 minutes and the wind will pick up….or plug into the grid with electricity generated from wind chargers at another location. The wind always blows.
There are these things called clouds that you may want to investigate. And the sun changes its angle during the day. Rotating the panels requires power.
If the wind doesn’t blow hard enough, there isn’t enough power. If the wind blows too hard, they shut down. The capacity is roughly 30-33% of the time you are in a production window.
If you connect your vehicle to the grid, some of that power can come from wind or solar. But some of that power is always going to come from a carbon-emitting source today (gas or coal).
You could have that back-up power coming from nuclear, or you could have no carbon and a much longer wait for a recharge. The ability for fast recharging doesn’t matter if you don’t get timely power.
I’ve looked at clouds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbn6a0AFfnM
Back up power from batteries dude, where ya been? Australia uses them. The local operation in Mitchell uses solar, but but, what about utilities? you might ask.
“Utilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants” https://phys.org/news/2019-02-invest-big-batteries-power.html
Goodness me.
If batteries were enough to work for renewables on the grid, they would be enough to pair with nuclear. So you are doing the work for me in this regard.
But good luck. The combination is cheap upfront, particularly if you ignore other life cycle costs. Like constraints on the supply of lithium, or environmental regulations for mining lithium, or the safety issues of lithium batteries, or the waste management and recycling of lithium (which is NOT in place).
So at the moment, renewable does not really equate to sustainable, or affordable after you replace the whole wind farm and batteries several times over.
The one advantage that wind/solar and batteries have is that it is currently more likely to gain approval for siting. But that will change when the siting occurs closer to people more often. Then nuclear will get another look (much more energy in a smaller footprint, and it is available 24/7).
Hey Doc,
Don’t you know that uranium, like lithium, is also on the critical elements list?
STD’s are available 24/7 but who wants them? Naw, I think we’ll do just fine without nukes, been there done that. More exciting to think of and see the results of renewable energy rather than looking at a no moving slab of concrete, that cannot work in the summer, so very limited and expensive.
Doc, you’re mumbling to yourself, just like Chubby. Soon you will want to nuke a hurricane.
I hear you Dr. McT,
We don’t mine nearly enough uranium to assure enough of a domestic supply. I think roughly 10% come from US suppliers.
But if we were to recycle more, we would not have to mine as much.
US only supplied like 2% of its own lithium in 2018.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-minerals-lithium/u-s-electric-car-sector-wary-of-china-seeks-more-domestic-lithium-idUSKBN1J82HS
The need for recycling is something that uranium and lithium both have in common.
Doc,
You mean nuclear and renewables may have a lot of common interests?
You betcha.
Here you go jerry,
I found this article about the choices we are making related to risk of cancer from storing nuclear waste, and the severity of impacts from climate change.
Good reading prior to the next climate debate for the Democratic candidates. I will assign you a quiz so you can pick up some points this semester…
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/460280-we-need-to-reconsider-concerns-about-nuclear-power
“The acceptable lifetime cancer risk was chosen by Congress to be one chance in 100,000 lifetime. At this level, if we conservatively assume at most 10,000 people at risk in the Yucca Mountain area, much more than the present population, it would require ten lifetimes to accumulate 100,000 people — resulting in approximately one additional cancer case every 700 years. ”
Meanwhile,there could be millions of deaths during that same time due to drastic effects of climate change.
It is thus better to pair our renewables with flexible nuclear energy until the whole energy storage thing can be figured out (technical issue)…or until you can convince people to live with energy only as it comes from solar and wind (political issue).