Can the Green New Deal really achieve 100% renewable energy from wind and solar alone despite wind and solar aren't recyclable or renewable?
since millions of hectares, if not billions of hectares, from pit mines, deforestation, loss of wild life habitat, and use of fossil fuels to separate toxic heavy metals from rocks are required to manufacture and erect these machinery.
Source: Planet of the Humans
- electricpoleLv 74 weeks agoFavourite answer
It is possible, if every person on the plant lives like the average North Korean.
- Anonymous3 weeks ago
Dirac is a paid troll. FACT.
- Toe-KneeLv 43 weeks ago
The problem with any of this is that even if the US goes fully green the worst polluters like China and India will not. It's like being in an apartment complex of 1,000 apartments and you are the only one who recycles.
There is no way we will be entirely 100% green, maybe one day but not in our lifetime. Maybe in a few hundred years.
- DiracLv 44 weeks ago
Skeptik pointed out that "renewable energy" refers to energy, not to things like ores. Nothing is truly renewable, since entropy always increases. Nevertheless, we can do much better than what we've been doing and cut our output of greenhouse gases drastically.
We already do lots of mining to support fossil fuels, in case you hadn't noticed.
I think solar is the key, I don't believe there is enough wind energy available for our needs.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- JimZLv 74 weeks ago
Of course not. It is a pipe dream but they have a planet to save (and a country to destroy). They and their solutions are the real threat.
- Anonymous4 weeks ago
First of all, coal and gas are not recyclable. Nature can not cope with the amount of waste we dump in the environment which is why global warming is happening. The Green New Deal is not suggesting 100% renewable energy from wind and solar alone. Although it is quite possible to do that. Small nuclear reactors, hydro and geothermal are already operating.
Right now wind is the cheapest form of electricity. Farmers can still graze animals or grow crops under them if they are based on land. Solar is on par with gas (even without taking into account the negative externalities of burning gas and dumping the wast products in to the environment) Abandoned wells are leaking methane and at the current rates, oil companies are not going to be able to pay for the cleanup, they will just go bankrupt like coal.
At $1,49 per Watt, rooftop solar is now well below the cost of electricity supplied to the house, over the lifetime of the system. Homeowners would be silly not to install those systems. This is going to be the biggest disruption to the electricity market, we have already seen a shift the time in peak electricity usage. (I produce more electricity in a year then what I use just from the rooftop solar.)
Tesla announced an over 50% reduction of cost for batteries and being able to store the electricity you generate and in the long run, you will be able to disconnect from the grid. Trumps tariffs on imported solar panels and other equipment will go and as a result make solar even more competitive. Electric cars will become the norm as will electric trucks.
This is going to turn the grid into a mess for a while, existing plants will shut down unable to compete with renewables and the existing ones will charge huge premiums when they do run. This will only result in more wind and solar being build and we will have an overcapacity of electricity. With that we can do useful things, like resupply the aquifers or make hydrogen for use in winter. In winter, a fuel cell will become a viable option, providing both heat and electricity for the home. The biggest issue I see with that, is that hydrogen is even more dangerous then methane.
Government can choose to facilitate an orderly transition, or they can try to let the free market sort it out. Problem with the free market is that poor people will carry the brunt of the cost as they are unable to pay the upfront cost of switching. But one thing is sure, the source of electricity will change to mainly renewables. Government can put in regulation to ensure the materials used are recyclable, the problem right now is that deniers are too busy barking up the wrong tree. Lets end the $5trillion in fossil fuel subsidies worldwide, lets make sure the companies clean up after themselves, lets have an orderly transition and lets make renewables recyclable.
At this stage the transitions is driven more by economics then a desire to do something about global warming
- kswck2Lv 74 weeks ago
Of course not. It has not been thought out to Any extent other than an Idea.
And its broad based COST for future years is higher than the current GDP?
- random_manLv 74 weeks ago
A few comments:
- 100% renewable energy is not going to happen anytime soon. But we can certainly increase the % of our energy supply that is renewable. It's not all-or-nothing.
- Yes, all sources of energy that I can think of have at least some environmental impact. However, it's clear that wind and solar have a reduced carbon footprint, and lower environmental impact than coal or oil.
- Anonymous4 weeks ago
Yeah, this is really a nonsense argument. Any kind of energy use requires environmental destruction. But what distinguish wind and solar is that once the devices are constructed they don't require any new environmental degradation to create power. Coal fired power plants require massive environmental destruction to construct as well. But once they're constructed they also required continued, lifelong, environmental destruction, both in the mining and transport of coal and in the burning of it.
- Anonymous4 weeks ago
Non renewable? Last I heard there was no shortage of wind or sunlight. Maybe you heard something different