Posted on 07/14/2016 8:18:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
Pressured by radical environmentalists and multi-billionaires like Tom Steyer who stand to profit, the Democratic Party has issued a new platform statement on climate and energy:
Moving beyond the “all of the above” energy approach in the 2012 platform, the 2016 platform draft re-frames the urgency of climate change as a central challenge of our time, already impacting American communities and calling for generating 50 percent clean electricity within the next ten years. The Committee unanimously adopted a joint proposal from Sanders and Clinton representatives to commit to making America run entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and supporting the ambitious goals put forward by President Obama and the Paris climate agreement. Another joint proposal calling on the Department of Justice to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent.
Ignore for a moment that last sentence, implicitly criminalizing courageous people who still believe it’s okay to think independently, at least about allegedly dangerous manmade global warming. (Thomas Jefferson, call your office!) Just think about what the first two sentences embrace: (1) generating 50 percent “clean electricity” within the next decade; (2) “making America run entirely on ‘clean energy’ by mid-century”; and (3) supporting the Paris climate treaty agreement.
By “clean electricity” the Dems mean essentially wind, solar, and geothermal, which as of 2015 provided, respectively, 4.7, 0.6, and 0.4 percent of all electricity in America---after billions of dollars of subsidies plus state mandates that have forced electricity prices to “skyrocket” (fulfilling Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s promise in 2008). In that same year, coal and natural gas each provided 33 percent, nuclear 20, and hydro 6. Yes, you’re right---nuclear and hydro should be considered “clean,” particularly when the main criterion, for climate-change alarmists, is carbon dioxide emissions, but the Greens don’t like them anyway.
So what the Dems want is to multiply wind, solar, and geothermal’s contribution to our electricity supply ten times from a combined 4.7 percent to 50 percent in the next decade and by over twenty times to 100 percent by 2050. And by that magical date of 2050 they also want to turn all the rest of our energy system Green, ending all use of fossil fuels for transportation and other uses as well as for electricity---never mind the fact that we’re light years away from designing batteries that can store enough power in small enough volume and little enough weight to power even a small private plane, let alone a passenger or cargo jet, or to drive a standard passenger car, let alone a large truck or a 200-car train, more than a few hours, and less with the air conditioner running.
What will all this cost?
Summarizing the findings of a major study by Stanford University’s Mark Z. Jacobson and U.C. Davis’s Mark A. Delucchi, environmental scholar Ronald Bailey, in his book The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century, points out that powering the United States with only wind, water, and solar power “would require 590,000 5-megawatt wind turbines, 110,000 wave devices, 830 geothermal plants, 140 new hydroelectric dams, 7,600 tidal turbines, 265 million rooftop solar photovoltaic systems, 6,200 300-megawatt solar photovoltaic power plants, and 7,600 300-megawatt concentrated solar power plants.” (Reality check: just those last two items come to 177 new 300-megawatt solar PV and 217 new 300-megawatt concentrated solar plants every year. Anybody seriously think that’s going to happen?)
Total cost? The calculations are difficult and fraught with errors, but just for the wind and solar parts (i.e., excluding wave devices, geothermal plants, hydroelectric dams, and tidal turbines), $13–$25 trillion. Spread over 35 years that would amount to an annual cost per household of $2,589 to $4,979 per year, or a total of $90,624 to $174,277 per household for the entire period. And remember: that’s just for the wind and solar portions of the makeover.
And as for the Paris climate treaty agreement: It really is a treaty, meeting all the legal requirements of a treaty (though the Obama Administration denies it is, so that it need not face absolutely certain defeat if it submitted it to the Senate for ratification), but if the U.S. honors it, it will probably be the only nation that does. India and China have already announced that they’re not going to be tied to their INDC’s (“Intended Nationally Determined Contributions”---diplomat-speak for comforting promises intended to be broken), and hardly any countries that signed onto the far less draconian Kyoto Protocol lived up to their obligations.
But just for silliness’ sake, what would it cost to implement the Paris treaty in full? About $1--$2 trillion every year after 2030 to the end of the century.
And for even more silliness’ sake, what would be the impact on global average temperature? At best, 0.17°C in 2100, and at worst 0.05°C.
The Democratic Party’s platform on climate and energy policy is, quite simply, absurd.
The left is going full third world despot.
and meanwhile hag clintoon demands a Gulfstream IV or larger for travel to accept her bribes.
Has anyone calculated how much unicorn grazing land is going to be displaced by all those solar arrays and wind farms?
Liberals all live in a pipe dream.
While the liberal global alarmists never say a word about China, the biggest polluters in the world. This global warming sham is all about weakening America.
Is all that defensible? You betcha cuz the so-called “news” media is dominated by pinkos. And they WILL defend it.
If the democrats really believe this crap, why are they flying to the convention? They should all walk.
Because they’re hypocrites, that’s why.
Of course they’re hypocrites. This was never about climate. They know their stated goals cannot be achieved. It’s about rationing. The New Order will tell you how much you get, because people who are subject to rationing are not free. You will be given a ration of energy, education, income, housing, food....
...and liberty. Because it is so precious, liberty will be rationed more strictly than anything else.
The Democrat Party should merge with the CPUSA!
The Republicrat Party needs to surprise us all and become truly Conservative.
Don’t forget to vote for Donald Trump.
If the democratic party is indefensible, how could any of their policy be defensible?
Wind
Wind turbines use a great deal of electricity themselves. Most of them cannot even run without input from the grid. Although they produce electricity intermittently, they consume it continuously.
It may be that large wind turbines use as much electricity as they produce. Whether the wind is blowing in the desired range or not, they need power to keep the generator magnetized, to keep the blade and generator assembly (92 tons on a 1.5-MW GE) facing the wind, to periodically spin that assembly to unwind the cables in the tower, to heat the blades in icy conditions, to start the blades turning when the wind is just getting fast enough to keep them going, to keep the blades pitched to spin at a regular rate, and to run the lights and internal control and communication systems.
http://www.aweo.org/windbackup.html
How does the electrical grid work?
Very simply, supply must be continuously matched to demand. There is no large-scale storage of electricity on the grid.
What is the difference between base and peak load?
Load is the amount of power in the electrical grid.
Base load is the level that it typically does not go below, that is, the basic amount of electricity that is always required.
Peak load is the daily fluctuation of electricity use. It is usually lowest in the wee hours of the morning and highest in the early evening. It also varies seasonally.
Are base and peak loads provided differently?
Base load is typically provided by large coal-fired and nuclear power stations. They may take days to fire up, and their output does not vary.
Peak load, the variable part of the electrical supply and demand, is provided by more responsive and smaller plants whose output can be quickly ramped up and down or that can even be quickly turned on and off.
How does wind power affect base load?
Wind power has no effect on base load. However, since base load providers can not be ramped down, if wind turbines produce power when there is no or little peak load, the extra electricity has to be dumped.
How does wind power affect peak load?
Unlike conventional power plants, wind turbines cannot be “dispatched” in response to fluctuating demand needs. Wind turbines respond only to the wind, so their contribution to supply is essentially random. The wind may be high when demand is low, or vice versa. If there is sufficient demand when the wind rises, wind power may reduce the need for other plants to supply power. On the other hand, if the wind drops when there is still demand, other plants must quickly jump in to cover the loss. The more frequent ramping or switching of these other plants raises costs and may lower their efficiency and increase their emissions.
https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-electricity.php
Note: Base Load Power plants cannot be ‘turned on’ to make up for any short fall from windmills. Base Load Power plants may take many hours, if not days, to change their power output.
Also Peak Load Power plants need to be ready to go online for any Windmill output short fall.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.