Helping rural Americans to transition to green energy by giving them money is very good!!!! These folks have been left out for decades ! It's just funny how rural America has gotten so much help under biden yet they hate his guts. They're getting their infrastructure fixed, career opportunities, broadband internet and all sorts of help. Democrats always play nice and help others and it doesn't do them any good. Your right wing trolls will always hate
I'm talking about national dems. Biden is investing more in rural America than any president in modern history has. This is just a fact and it's not even close. I have no idea why dems bend over backwards in the name of morality but here we are.
cf. ‘Over My Dead Body’: Backlash Builds Against $3 Trillion Clean-Energy Push Ballooning size of wind and solar projects draws local ire as they march closer to populated areas https://www.wsj.com/articles/inflat...n-energy-wind-solar-f3d4d900?mod=hp_lead_pos5 excerpt: LAWRENCE, Kan.—The federal government has ignited a green-energy investment spreethat’s expected to reach as high as $3 trillion over the next decade. The road to spending that money, though, is increasingly hitting speed bumps from the likes of Gerry Coffman. About an hour southwest of Kansas City, she turned down a wind lease last year on a farm that has been in her family since 1866. Someone knocked on her door a few months later, paperwork in hand, and offered $6,000 to hang a wind-power transmission line across her land. If she agreed to store construction equipment, she stood to make an additional $4,000. Ms. Coffman said no. Ms. Coffman rotates corn and soybeans and has cattle pasture on her part of the family farm, which includes a wooded ribbon of water called Eight Mile Creek. Ms. Coffman doesn’t want to see native forest or prairie disturbed and thinks the industrial nature of towering wind turbines would change the community for the worse if a proposed project were built. “A year ago we were a nice, quiet neighborhood,” said Ms. Coffman, who has attended a series of contentious public meetings over several months as the county considers revising regulations for wind-energy development. County-by-county battles are raging as wind and solar projects balloon in size, edge closer to cities and encounter mounting pushback in communities from Niagara Falls to the Great Plains and beyond. Projects have slowed. Even in states with a long history of building renewables, developers don’t know if they can get local permits or how long it might take. In Kansas, wind power grew rapidly for two decades and supplies around 45% of the electricity generated in-state, ranking it third in the nation. But at least five counties in more-populous eastern Kansas have recently placed moratoriums or bans on new wind or solar projects, joining 18 others that already restricted wind development to preserve the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Kansas lagged behind nearly every state in large project construction and new clean power capacity last year, according to the American Clean Power Association, an industry group for wind, solar and battery storage. President Biden’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Inflation Reduction Act, aims to make the nation’s electric grid and fuel industries cleaner. Companies have already announced plans for $150 billion in investment in renewables and battery storage in the eight months following the law’s passage, according to the American Clean Power Association. Potential private investment over the next decade spurred by federal tax incentives and loans could include $900 billion in renewable-energy projects and $100 billion in battery storage, according to Goldman Sachs. Adding investments in such areas as carbon capture and electric vehicles, total spending could reach $3 trillion, the firm estimates. more at the link
Wsj which has huge big oil advertisements are pushing a hit piece against green energy lol. You're so naive. I pray for you that one day you wake up. Read local newspapers to get a good feel. You're so bad at debating
But seriously why would you even consider a mouth piece for a trillion dollar industry a credible source? I simply don't get you. Like I would assume a professor would have these basic deductive reasoning skills.
And? Like mentioned, there isn’t oil everywhere in America. Also, who is stopping drilling in Pennsylvania?
Electric Vehicle Illusions No one can really say whether widespread adoption of EVs will cut carbon emissions. https://www.city-journal.org/article/electric-vehicles-and-carbon-emissions excerpt: A dozen states have joined California and many countries in passing legislation to ban the sale of conventional cars and push everyone into electric vehicles (EVs), many within the decade. Similarly, in a feat of regulatory legerdemain, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed emissions rules that would effectively require automakers to sell mostly EVs. And of course, the ill-named Inflation Reduction Act, a.k.a. the Green New Deal, gushes subsidies across the EV ecosystem. The rush to subsidize and mandate EVs is animated by a fatal conceit: the assumption that they will radically reduce CO2 emissions. That assumption is embedded orthodoxy not just among green pundits and administrators of the regulatory state but also among EV critics, who take issue with a forced transition mainly on grounds of lost freedoms, costs, and market distortions. But the truth is, because of the nature of uncertainties in global industrial ecosystems, no one really knows how much widespread adoption of EVs could reduce emissions, or whether they might even increase them. (And no, this has nothing to do with the truth / joke that Teslas are coal-fired when fueled at night in many places.) While grid realities will indeed matter more than most realize, the relevant and surprising emissions wildcard comes from the gargantuan, energy-hungry processes needed to make EV batteries. This is one of those technical issues that tends to attract slogans, simplifications, and illusions of accuracy; a better understanding requires some patience. EV emissions realities start with physics. To match the energy stored in one pound of oil requires 15 pounds of lithium battery, which in turn entails digging up about 7,000 pounds of rock and dirt to get the minerals needed—lithium, graphite, copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, neodymium, manganese, and so on. Thus, fabricating a typical, single half-ton EV battery requires mining and processing about 250 tons of materials. (These figures hold roughly true for all lithium chemistries.) For the carbon-counters tracking such things, the global mining and minerals sector uses 40 percent of all industrial energy—dominated by oil, coal, and natural gas—and that’s before we take into consideration the massive expansion that would be required to supply all the battery factories planned for widespread EV adoption. The inherent uncertainties about calculating real-world EV emissions arise from myriad “known unknowns” about mining and refining activities. Those all happen elsewhere, upstream, before assembly at a battery or EV factory—that is, before the first mile driven on a grid-supplied kilowatt-hour. Of course, a conventional car also has upstream emissions, though these derive mainly from steel and iron, which account for 85 percent of its weight. For conventional cars, those upstream emissions are a minor factor; burning gasoline dominates the CO2 footprint. But the need for far more materials, and different types, dominates an EV’s total footprint. Production of those metals, such as copper, nickel, and aluminum, uses on average three to ten times more energy per pound than does steel production. All the other EV minerals are similarly energy-intense. The International Energy Agency (IEA) flagged these realities in a 2021 report. While that report focused on the inadequacy of the supplies of “energy minerals” (something that has since, finally, become widely known), the researchers noted that upstream CO2 emissions from fabricating an EV can “vary considerably across companies and regions.” Indeed. Changing the source of copper or nickel, for example, can lead to doubling or more than tripling those metals’ emissions intensities, depending on a facility’s age, process types, and locations. Building an EV requires several hundred more pounds of copper than building an internal-combustion car. Assumptions about aluminum matter too, because EVs also typically require several hundred pounds more of that material, and two-thirds of global aluminum production comes from coal-fired grids in China, Russia, and India. (The U.S. produces just 2 percent.) In general, refineries in China, which account for 50 percent to 80 percent of global “energy minerals” supply, have emissions 1.5 times greater than those in the European Union or U.S. A review of dozens of studies of upstream emissions revealed that the bottom-line estimates of EV lifecycle emissions varied by fivefold. It gets worse. That same review found that, across those studies, the median size of the battery assumed for the analyses was 30 kilowatt-hours. But the overwhelming majority of U.S. EVs bought last year sported batteries two to three times bigger. Tripling battery size triples the upstream emissions. None of these variabilities appears in government forecasts for “zero emissions” cars. In fact, the range of upstream emissions is so wide that it renders meaningless any use of an average number to calculate an EV’s overall carbon footprint. But that’s what analysts do, whether at the IEA or EPA. more at the link
TLDR: EVs do not emit greenhouse gases, but emissions are generated during the production of all vehicles, whether they are EVs or non-EVs. People sometimes conflate these two issues or misunderstand them. Longer version: To explain this relationship, we can use a few variables. N represents the total number of vehicles produced, and this number is dependent on demand. Nv represents the number of EVs produced, and Ng represents the number of non-EVs produced. P represents the power used to produce vehicles, and this power usage is also dependent on demand. Pe represents the emissions generated during production, and it is dependent on both the total number of vehicles produced and NOT whether a given vehicle is an EV or non-EV. As the number of EVs produced (Nv) increases, the proportion of vehicles produced that are EVs also increases, resulting in reduced emissions. N = # of vehicle produced Nv = EV vehicle Ng = non-EV vehicle N= Nv + Ng N depends on demand. P = power used to produce N P = P of Nv + P of Ng P depends on demand. Pe = emission due to P Pe is dependent on N (and of Nv or Ng). As Nv goes up, there is less emission. Reducing Pe is important also, but that is not dependent on Nv.
emissions are also generated in producing the electricity that charges the batteries of the EVs. People sometimes forget this additional issue or ignore it
Emissions are indeed generated in producing the electricity that charges the batteries of EVs. However, these emissions are decreasing as the electricity grid becomes cleaner with the addition of more renewable energy sources and the phasing out of fossil fuels. It is likely that at some point, if we haven't crossed it already, the emissions from electricity generation for EVs will be lower than those generated during the production of gasoline or diesel for traditional vehicles. This is why it is important to address emissions related to the energy generation side.
Largest mine in America and the one that biden folks are investing heavy in is pretty much net zero? Their creating the magnet facility in all of North America. People have no idea how much work the administration is putting in to onshore our manufacturing capabilities https://mpmaterials.com/sustainability/ @rocketsjudoka you were complaining about the lack of transmission lines for electricity to keep up with the EV boom. Biden just created first ever Electric Transmission Corridor which will deregulate and turbocharge the building of transmission lines.
Department of energy has been funding and helping for some time. If they're announcing it then it's real. They have the full support of the government
Look, I'm very hopeful, but I'm a physicist, and I know we have some significant hurdles for realizing sustainable, scalable fusion. Anyway, I'm so happy that we are trying -- it's a total game-changer, of course, if we can get the engineering right. I'm just sounding (and have been sounding) notes of caution for a long time.
We need an area the size of Texas for wind and solar. Here’s how to halve it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/renewable-energy-land-use-wind-solar/?itid=hp_Climate box_p011_f001 excerpts: Imagine that all 462 billion watts of electricity consumed in the United States last year were supplied by a single source of power, rather than a mixture of different technologies. This is how much land each power source would require. If nuclear power plants generated all U.S. electricity, that would occupy 469 square miles of land, including the land for mining uranium, storing spent fuel and connecting to the electricity grid. That’s about the size of Madison County, Idaho, population 53,000. Natural gas needs land for fracking and pipelines as well as power plants. If it generated all U.S. electricity, it would need as much land as Huerfano County, Colo. Coal needs a lot of land for mining. If coal generated all of U.S. electricity, it would use as much land as West Virginia — aptly, a major coal state. Solar panels’ fuel is sunlight, requiring no mines, drills or pipelines. But sunlight is often unavailable, and solar farms need more land to produce the same amount of electricity as fossil fuel-powered plants running round-the-clock. {shows graphic of area size of South Carolina, 29,711 sq. miles} Wind turbines require even more land than solar panels. If the United States were powered solely by onshore wind turbines, they would occupy an area larger than Montana. Wind and solar — what many hope will be the power plants of the future — will need far more land than the power plants of the past. Where will this land come from? Leading plans to halt climate change involve replacing natural gas and coal with solar and wind — all while doubling electricity production as cars and other fossil-powered machines are plugged in. “We need a massive build out,” said Nels Johnson, senior practice adviser for renewable energy development at the Nature Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit. “It probably exceeds the interstate highway system in terms of its scale, in terms of its cost, in terms of the time it’s going to take to complete.” Johnson and colleagues have just released a new study on how to reduce the amount of land needed for a project that size. They have lots of detailed proposals, but one idea underlies them all: the current way of building renewables will not work. “If we take the business-as-usual approach, land conflicts will probably prevent us from getting to these ambitious clean energy targets,” said Jason Albritton, director of the Nature Conservancy’s North American climate mitigation program and one of Johnson’s co-authors. Democracy dies in darkness. more at the link
