Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey to unveil 'Green New Deal' bill

[seer]

She should have added in pet unicorns for every girl.

And world peace...

[Sparko]

Grabbing some basic numbers off the internet suggests the US consumes 3,911,000,000,000 kWh/year of electricity, and the average wind turbine outputs about 6 million kWh/year, so basic math says you'd need ~650 thousand average wind turbines. So the 4 million figure you suggest seems high by an order of magnitude.

Again grabbing some basic numbers off the internet suggests that a solar panel of 1 square meter in size set up in a reasonably sunny area will give about 1 kWh/day. That means about 11 thousand square kilometers or area would be needed = ~4200 square miles. Arizona is ~114,000 square miles, so you'd need to cover ~3.6% of Arizona's land area in average current technology solar panels to power the US's current energy needs. So Leonhard's image looks about right.

Well according to the chart posted above (see quote below), the current combined yearly output of all wind turbines is 84,000MWH and there are 56,000 wind turbines, so each one averages only 1.5MWH per year. So 3,911,000,000 MWH (your figure) would require 2,607,333,333 turbines. 2.6 BILLION wind turbines.

"In the United States, the direct land use for wind turbines comes in at three-quarters of an acre per megawatt of rated capacity. That is, a 2-megawatt wind turbine would require 1.5 acres of land."
http://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/

So assuming 1.5 acres per wind turbine just for simplicity sake, 3,910,999,999.5 acres. 6,110,937.5 Square miles.

Hey we are doing Ok...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34976[/ATTACH]

There are presently 56,000 wind turbines in the States.

https://www.awea.org/wind-101/basics...ts-at-a-glance

[Bill the Cat]

Well according to the chart posted above (see quote below), the current combined yearly output of all wind turbines is 84,000MWH and there are 56,000 wind turbines, so each one averages only 1.5MWH per year. So 3,911,000,000 MWH (your figure) would require 2,607,333,333 turbines. 2.6 BILLION wind turbines.

"In the United States, the direct land use for wind turbines comes in at three-quarters of an acre per megawatt of rated capacity. That is, a 2-megawatt wind turbine would require 1.5 acres of land."
http://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/

So assuming 1.5 acres per wind turbine just for simplicity sake, 3,910,999,999.5 acres. 6,110,937.5 Square miles.

Add to that the added need for charging stations "everywhere" and you've got a forest of turbines...

[Sparko]

And you know this how? Because you're the smartest person on the planet? I got news for you, Star --- those smart pills they're feeding you are rabbit pellets.

The news reported that Cortez wrote the FAQ herself. Not a staffer. She only pulled it after the mocking response it got. It was an FAQ, not a "draft" by the way.

[Sparko]

Add to that the added need for charging stations "everywhere" and you've got a forest of turbines...

and no more birds.

[One Bad Pig]

That, of course, assumes a consistent output to meet demand and well, it doesn’t and battery technology isn’t quite at the level to store and release based on how the demand cycle works. Simply put, you can’t just buy a bunch of solar panels and turbines and call it good. It would require a total restructure of the US power grid. Have a few trillion sitting around, by chance?

The only "green" source with a fairly consistent output is hydroelectric; you might be able to balance that with solar power in some areas by storing up water in the daytime and releasing it through the turbines at night (which would wreak havoc on reservoirs where lakefront property owners depend on a fairly constant water level). Battery (and solar panel, IIRC) manufacturing generates an enormous amount of toxic waste. I've seen hypotheses for using gigantic underground flywheels to store energy, but I'm not sure how close to practicality they are.

[Sparko]

The only "green" source with a fairly consistent output is hydroelectric; you might be able to balance that with solar power in some areas by storing up water in the daytime and releasing it through the turbines at night (which would wreak havoc on reservoirs where lakefront property owners depend on a fairly constant water level). Battery (and solar panel, IIRC) manufacturing generates an enormous amount of toxic waste. I've seen hypotheses for using gigantic underground flywheels to store energy, but I'm not sure how close to practicality they are.

Geothermal in some areas.

And that is another problem with these sources: location. They only work in certain locations. Wind turbines need a steady supply of wind, which usually only happens near coast lines, solar power requires a lot of sun, which usually means the desert. Geothermal requires specific locations with some seismic activity, Hydroelectric needs rivers, etc. And as you said solar produces a lot of toxic waste. They and wind also seem detrimental to wild life.

The only thing that would not be dependent on the environment and location would be nuclear, which the liberals want to ban.

...Maybe if we can get fusion reactors to work and be efficient, and the liberals don't want to ban them.

[Mountain Man]

By far the most efficient source of power currently available are nuclear plants, but those aren't "green" enough for the environmental wackos who want to cover our landscape with unsightly and unhealthy wind turbines along with strip mining to get at the rare metals needed for fuel cells.

[Bill the Cat]

The news reported that Cortez wrote the FAQ herself. Not a staffer. She only pulled it after the mocking response it got. It was an FAQ, not a "draft" by the way.

The spin from the AOC camp is hilarious:

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-aoc-green-new-deal-controversy-unwilling-to-work-line-faq-2019-2

Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti, also took to Twitter on Saturday afternoon to address the controversy, arguing that people should focus on the legislation, and not the since-deleted webpage.
Both argued that there was indeed at least one doctored version of the FAQ, but that the authentic page on Ocasio-Cortez's website was published "by mistake" after a lengthy brainstorming and drafting process.
"We did this in collaboration with a bunch of groups and offices over the course of the last month. As a part of that process, there were multiple iterations, brainstorming docs, FAQs, etc. that we shared. Some of these early drafts got leaked," Chakrabarti tweeted.
He continued: "There separately IS a doctored FAQ floating around. And an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn't represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake (idea was to wait for launch, monitor q's, and rewrite that FAQ before publishing)."

He finished by noting that "mistakes happen," and that the text of the legislation accurately represents the Green New Deal.
Ocasio-Cortez, too, tweeted that there were "multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around," as well as "a draft version that got uploaded + taken down."
"Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109," she said, adding, "When I talk about the GND, this is what I'm referring to - nothing else."

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

The spin from the AOC camp is hilarious:

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/ocasio-cortez-aoc-green-new-deal-controversy-unwilling-to-work-line-faq-2019-2

Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti, also took to Twitter on Saturday afternoon to address the controversy, arguing that people should focus on the legislation, and not the since-deleted webpage.
Both argued that there was indeed at least one doctored version of the FAQ, but that the authentic page on Ocasio-Cortez's website was published "by mistake" after a lengthy brainstorming and drafting process.
"We did this in collaboration with a bunch of groups and offices over the course of the last month. As a part of that process, there were multiple iterations, brainstorming docs, FAQs, etc. that we shared. Some of these early drafts got leaked," Chakrabarti tweeted.
He continued: "There separately IS a doctored FAQ floating around. And an early draft of a FAQ that was clearly unfinished and that doesn't represent the GND resolution got published to the website by mistake (idea was to wait for launch, monitor q's, and rewrite that FAQ before publishing)."

He finished by noting that "mistakes happen," and that the text of the legislation accurately represents the Green New Deal.
Ocasio-Cortez, too, tweeted that there were "multiple doctored GND resolutions and FAQs floating around," as well as "a draft version that got uploaded + taken down."
"Point is, the real one is our submitted resolution, H.Res. 109," she said, adding, "When I talk about the GND, this is what I'm referring to - nothing else."

© Copyright Original Source

and the resolution is really just a list of vague goals, without any specifics. But if you read between the lines, it is saying the same idiotic stuff. Like it now just says "investing in high speed rail" instead of "eliminating airplanes" and "working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible" instead of "eliminating cow farts and cattle"

[Cow Poke]

And world peace...

no, victualize whirled peas

[Cow Poke]

The spin from the AOC camp is hilarious:

What's equally hilarious is the extent to which Starlight and Tassy are going to defend the child.

[One Bad Pig]

012568dc7aaea706ef3d03beb766319445c2673c6357689bc65bb0ed4117034b.jpg

[Bill the Cat]

What's equally hilarious is the extent to which Starlight and Tassy are going to defend the child.

Meme1.JPG

[rogue06]

The only "green" source with a fairly consistent output is hydroelectric; you might be able to balance that with solar power in some areas by storing up water in the daytime and releasing it through the turbines at night (which would wreak havoc on reservoirs where lakefront property owners depend on a fairly constant water level). Battery (and solar panel, IIRC) manufacturing generates an enormous amount of toxic waste. I've seen hypotheses for using gigantic underground flywheels to store energy, but I'm not sure how close to practicality they are.

Environmentalists tend to hate dams.