Part of the GND is heavily increasing investment into renewables, so it does promote a viable alternative. Currently solar is cheaper per unit of energy to produce and that's after the fact that we subsidize coal to a much higher degree. (Which is why coal plants are going out of business and we're seeing huge investment in solar) Let's say tomorrow we said "in a year we will totally outlaw fossil fuels". The result wouldn't be mass deforestation. It would be extremely fast production of solar panels, wind turbines, and storage systems. Wood isn't a viable way to produce energy to run a country anymore, so nobody's gonna start retrofitting coal power plants to burn wood.

Nearly all of what you're saying is wrong.

1. There's no "subsidy on coal". Coal power in the US is the most heavily taxed power in the world. If you'd ever been part of an electric coop (rural), which is transparent in cost increases, as opposed to a city power grid, which is opaque, you'd understand this. Your belief that coal is "subsidized" is utterly false. The only subsidies regarding coal are in regards to mining, which is important since not only do we use a lot, but coal is a massive export, and specifically the scrubbers that keep coal "clean". Those who keep their clean coal technologies up to date see breaks in their taxes. It's not a true "subsidy" in the first place. There's nothing being put out. It's merely a decrease in overly-exorbitant taxes taken in.

2. Solar is one of the worst forms of energy. And Solyndra was a perfect example of just how badly we can fuck up "clean" energy. Bottom line is the energy input to create the panels as opposed to what the panels put out is a horrible ratio. Second is the environmental factors of creating the panels in the first place. Solar is far FAR worse than even Coal, which is part of the reason why China is now producing all our panels. We don't give a shit if all of China is poisoned and unlivable, as long as we get our shit, mostly. Not good for the planet, or long term planning, great for hand-wringing communists who want to feel like they're making a magical difference. Toss in the the fact that battery technology that will allow solar to work when the sun is down simply not existing, and it's not feasible. Again, look at the rolling blackouts when California is popping 110-120f heatwaves. Heatstroke deaths on the rise, business lost, even emergency services affected. What's up?

3. If the GND were implemented today, by the end of this winter, there'd be little to nothing of what you care about remaining. The first thing to go? Your computer. Your internet. Your incessant need to say stupid shit in PaRD. The most basic things (heating, cooling, and cooking) involved in all power grids are not sustainable without coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Vehicles are not sustainable (think jobs, buying groceries, TRANSPORTING FREIGHT, etc.) without oil. You can talk about electric cars, but those fall back on primarily coal, natural gas, and nuclear. What, 14% of power does not fall under those 4 categories (oil, gas, nuclear, and coal). So, which 86% of the population are you, the majority who freezes to death or dies of heat exhaustion, or the 14% who can look at an empty internet and wonder where everyone went?

But see, people are people. If you have a fireplace, and you can't heat your home, what do you do? If you don't have a fireplace, but can get an iron barrel, or a cast off bathtub, what do you do? You gonna freeze, or start a fire? If there's risk of suffocation, or certainty of freezing, isn't even poor ventilation worth the risk to avoid certainty of death for you and your family?

Again, I follow the science, not my feelings of what should be. The US has poured several trillion into green energy since the 90's. We lead the world in investment into "green" energy such as wind, solar, geo, and hydro. The fact of the matter is that even with federal, state, local, and private sector investments, the science has simply not progressed far enough for these forms of energy to sustain the population. The true answer would be nuclear, but that's not politically viable.

So, what's your solution? The GND doesn't offer one. Can you? I'd really like to know, as would every power company on the planet. If you can come up with a miracle cure, you'll make somebody a trillionaire.

lol someone mentioned Solyndra and expects to be taken seriously.

Gotta lay off that Fox News, buddy.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Sep 21 2020 08:04am

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/green-firms-fed-cash-give-execs-bonuses-fail/story?id=15851653

>faux news

1. You contradict yourself. You say we don't have coal subsidies then conceded we have coal subsidies. When they get money back that another industry doesn't, even if we don't call it a subsidy, it is still effectively a subsidy. If everybody has a 20% tax but one industry has a 10% tax, that is not meaningfully different from a subsidy. Doesn't seem like you're being honest here.

2.
a.) Solyndra was a failed company that received a government backed low interest loan, and was part of a larger subsidy program that made loans to green energy companies. The program made a profit for the federal government since the failures were few and far between.
b.) The ratio of energy from solar panels is greater than 1, meaning they put out more energy than they take to manufacture. Solar panels will typically be good for 20 years and massively pay back the energy debt needed to create them. Unless you have a specific source on this that says how much energy it takes to create a solar panel versus it's lifetime output this is false.
c.) China makes our solar panels because they subsidized and incentivized their solar panel industry far more than we did, and as a result they are reaping the reward in the form of new technology jobs and international sales. It isn't because manufacturing them is dirty (although it likely is), we were lazy in innovation largely because conservatives have historically reversed investment in new technologies relating to green energy.

3. I can tell you haven't read the GND, because it gives no dates for when things would be made illegal, gives no spending targets, and gives no specific action. The GND is a set of goals, not binding legislation. We could pass it tomorrow and literally nothing would change because it contains exactly zero binding language.

For somebody who says they believe in science and want to keep emotion out of it, your language is loaded with emotion, and is mostly just parroting propaganda.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Sep 21 2020 08:24am

Perfect example of why progressives are seen more and more as an anti-science quasi-religious faction uninterested in facts. Solyndra was propped up heavily to be the game changer. Turned out they sucked at innovation, and prior to their great unveiling of the new thing, China had already improved on it. On top of that, due to environmental regulation and the damage the creation of the panels did, the cost was exorbitant, and 1/100th just buying from China.

That's not coming from "Fox News". That's coming from "All News". Solyndra didn't have "tax breaks". They were granted over a half billion in a taxpayer-secured loan which they defaulted on. Half a billion simply pissed into the wind, based on a promise that was worth less than the paper the words were printed on. THAT is a subsidy. Reducing tax rates on power consumption by 10% from companies who produce fewer emissions is not a "subsidy" it's "reducing a crippling, business-killing tax rate to reward good behavior".

You've got all your screws cross-threaded.

lol

Perhaps your understanding is simply lacking.

Subsidy: a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.

Tax Break: a tax concession or advantage allowed by government.

You see, by providing a half a billion dollar loan specifically to Solyndra that was backed by tax dollars, which Solyndra defaulted on, they were literally provided a subsidy.

Coal power being taxed at a percentage point or two lower due to high quality scrubbers that remove active pollutants + CO2 from the stack is not a subsidy, it's a tax break. The government is not "paying" or "assisting" in any way. They're simply charging less.

Definitions matter. There are no subsidies whatsoever on coal, gas, or oil. Each of these is actively taxed, multiple times each. The only concession is in regards to minor tax breaks based on good behavior. On the flipside, again using coal as the example, if the stacks do not have up to date scrubbers, the power company is fined a massive bulk sum. Likewise, when the coal is mined, there's an excise tax. There's another tax based on amount burned. Again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

You remind me of AOC, in many ways. "Money we lose from Amazon we can spend elsewhere!" No. The money doesn't exist. You aren't paying them anything. A tax break is not income, it's simply being charged less. A subsidy such as Solyndra was given (we'll stick with given, since they defaulted on the loans, and the American people swallowed the bill) is an actual subsidy. The fact that you don't know the difference says maybe you should turn off The Young Turks.

China makes them because it's mostly uneconomical to make them here. That's why companies like SolarCity have been struggling and even when integrated with Tesla they still suck. The 'new' tech in this industry is focused on storage not manufacture, that's the real issue with solar, that's why the market is placing so much value on companies like Tesla who are advancing battery tech.

Thing is, with solar, it still requires heavy duty mining of lithium and other rare earths. Mining is mining, it will never be 'clean' and pass the green new deal standards. Also used up batteries are extremely poisonous and damaging to the environment. There isn't this easy fix to energy needs like people keep pretending. Only dumb fucks think we can get off coal/oil/gas in the short to medium future.

Solyndra was indeed a failure, but it was part of a broader program that was incredibly successful. The only reason anybody focused on Solyndra is because they wanted to run a propaganda piece against green energy, and you fell for it so well you're still talking about it like 6 years later.

The government taking less is the same as the government taking the same and paying it back. That's really the only difference. Regardless, it doesn't matter. Solar is cheaper than coal even after you consider all the money that isn't taken, or is given back. After everything is considered, solar is more efficient than coal.



Yep, it's not perfect. But it's better than fossil fuels even with the drawbacks. Nobody, here at least, is pretending solar is a perfect solution.