More Green New Deal: Let’s replace air travel with high-speed rail

[Moderate Right]

Exactly, and the adversarial approach to fossil fuels renders all the rest suspect. Fossil fuels aren't disappearing in 12 years or 50 years, probably much, much longer.

But but but AOC says we've only got 12 years left!

 

[Moderate Right]

And as usual, you make no argument. You throw out the same claim of why its stupid, even claim "you leave out the parts that show its stupid" yet you can't even point out what those parts are. Then you just go on rant about socialism that has nothing to do with here Green Energy proposal.

Again, are you seriously that stupid that you don't know what an argument is and can't back it up? I backed up everything I said with facts that support it. All you do is say "you left out parts" and repeat it is stupid, then argue things that aren't even there.

Typical conservatives, making up positions nobody made to argue against and ignoring the actual argument




So moronic you can't even back up your statements with any facts, logic or reasoning. The conservative way of arguing, all you have to do is make a statement, don't need to back it up at all.

Shows who really is moronic

The thing is stupid from the very first word.

 

[Moderate Right]

Why don't you actually read it and find out. That way maybe you will be informed and can actually put forth an intelligent argument, as opposed to asking dumb deflecting questions like this

I know, conservatives don't read, its just better to make up arguments or parrot what Fox news tells them to.

You can't even understand the question.

 

[Moderate Right]

Sure, you can do that on a small scale. But what about the millions of acres of farmland it takes to grow the wheat, corn, soybeans, etc. that it takes to feed this nation, not to mention what we export to the rest of the world? You're not doing that with battery power, at least not with some major unforeseen breakthrough in technology.

The energy required to drag a plow through the ground is orders of magnitude above what it takes to push a Tesla down the highway. Current battery capacity wouldn't last any time at all -- I'd guess minutes before needing a recharge. Certainly not anywhere long enough to be practical.

Sorry, but fossil fuels will be around for many years to come.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

Horses can drag a plow. Oh wait a minute, do horses fart? Bad idea then. Or, are horse farts better for the environment than cow farts?

 

[Moderate Right]

You said "where practical". You don't know whatie to tell next. :lamo

The bill specifically states that the goal is a 100% transition to green energy.

If Trump had said something like that the left would call him a liar.

 

[Moderate Right]

Retrofitting every single building in the entire country? Its obviously Alexandria Ocasio Cortez who is moronic. That alone will cost the entire US GDP, even stretched out over ten years its around $2trillion US. Its absurd to expect that spending and more of the same absurdity on top of it.

Beefing up the grid and making transportation strides towards electric? Sure but let market forces handle it. We already heavily incentivize electric cars.

Nothing is impossible in liberal fantasy land.

 

[Moderate Right]

Every single one of us right now is using fossil fuels to power the many servers all over the world to use the internet. That takes an extraordinary amount of power. Most people plug in their smartphones everyday which also uses fossil fuels. We also just discovered last week during the Polar Vortex that electric car batteries dont work when its that cold. They lost 50% of there storage and people got stranded.

https://news.yahoo.com/electric-cars-really-hate-winter-110724255.html

Well, we could have cows turn around in circles to create electricity to power the internet. Since Al Gore invented it, maybe he could give us some ideas on how to power it.

 

[apdst]

Nothing is impossible in liberal fantasy land.

Success is irrelevant. Ultimate control is the ultimate goal.

 

[phattonez]

What parts of government-run healthcare, ‘family sustainable’ wages, paid leave, and ‘affordable’ housing are necessary for achieving clean renewable energy?

A society that continues to refuse these things will face political instability. It's almost like how in this country we've seen wages falling, work hours increase, and the cost of living increase, and now we're getting crazy socialist politicians like AOC. Maybe if we had helped out workers a bit we wouldn't have people like AOC in the House of Representatives. Yet here we are, and all because we give every benefit to capital at the expense of workers.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I think you're best bet would be to start doing some actual thinking and give up the smarmy/snarky routine.

We could not possibly build enough "hydroponic factories" to grow enough beats, hemp, or whatever else you think could produce fuel, to meet our current demand for fuel. Rather than waste time and resources pursuing a dead end, we would be better served pursuing something else.(maybe hydrogen?)

Market forces are already moving in this direction man. Ok you want me to drop the snark, fine. Let me give you a rundown on exactly why you are wrong.

A hydroponic factory, or vertical farm as some people call it. Gives yields of around 350 times higher than traditional farms. Using about 1 percent of the water a traditional farm uses, none of the pesticides, and a fraction of the land.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronald...ld-be-the-future-of-agriculture/#331fe1281175

Now, it does come with a higher initial investment. 1 acre of a vertical farm vs 1 acre of a normal farm, and you will notice a huge price difference. But, vertical farms don't require long supply chains. A 3,000 mile food supply chain is shortened to 50. Tractors don't need to be bought. The soil isn't being depleted. Weather doesn't matter. And it produces so, so, so, so, so, much more it works out better.

Now, I've already established that hemp biofuel is better for diesel engines than petroleum, it can also replace all the other petroleum products as well like plastics. In fact the same crop, can produce fuel and plastic, and fiber for paper and clothes. At the same time. Because different parts of the plant are used. And the process that creates the fuel also creates charcoal.

Do you see where I'm going?

The reason I'm snarky, is because this stuff isn't hard to find out if you just look.

We would already be here, doing this on a huge industrial scale if hemp wasn't made illegal a hundred years ago. Now that the laws are changing, it's inevitable because it's always been superior over petroleum. From the production, because it's renewable and not deep under the ****ing ground, to the versatility.

And hydroponic farms are the future as well, every year farmers are overtaxing their land and getting lower and lower yields, adding chemicals to make up the difference. Adding pesticides. Taking government handouts to stay afloat. It's not sustainable.

We should work to hasten these things so the transition is shorter and less painful, instead of prolonging it so a handful of companies can squeeze ever last drop of profit out of an unsustainable business model that endangers our grandchildren's very lives.

Rail is a good idea, we can viably power it without fossil fuels, and literally everything you "know" about current tech in the green energy field is either outdated by decades or propaganda from the industries that will literally die out in thirty years once we take their subsidies and tax breaks (socialism) away.

And you can figure this all out for yourself with something called Google. A random asshole on the internet shouldn't have to spend this amount of time giving out common knowledge.

And here comes the blanket "nuh uh" statement. Where you assert you were correct all the time because that's just how it is...

 

[Jack Fabulous]

And here comes the blanket "nuh uh" statement. Where you assert you were correct all the time because that's just how it is...

I don't recall having much interaction with you before this so this comment is rather puzzling. I'm not a "nuh uh" kind of guy. What I will do, though, is use a little basic math to back up my position that attempting to grow hemp or anything else(beats, corn, ect...) as a replacement for fuel is a dead end.

Market forces are already moving in this direction man. Ok you want me to drop the snark, fine. Let me give you a rundown on exactly why you are wrong.

A hydroponic factory, or vertical farm as some people call it. Gives yields of around 350 times higher than traditional farms. Using about 1 percent of the water a traditional farm uses, none of the pesticides, and a fraction of the land.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ronald...ld-be-the-future-of-agriculture/#331fe1281175

Now, it does come with a higher initial investment. 1 acre of a vertical farm vs 1 acre of a normal farm, and you will notice a huge price difference. But, vertical farms don't require long supply chains. A 3,000 mile food supply chain is shortened to 50. Tractors don't need to be bought. The soil isn't being depleted. Weather doesn't matter. And it produces so, so, so, so, so, much more it works out better.

Now, I've already established that hemp biofuel is better for diesel engines than petroleum, it can also replace all the other petroleum products as well like plastics. In fact the same crop, can produce fuel and plastic, and fiber for paper and clothes. At the same time. Because different parts of the plant are used. And the process that creates the fuel also creates charcoal.

Do you see where I'm going?

The reason I'm snarky, is because this stuff isn't hard to find out if you just look.

We would already be here, doing this on a huge industrial scale if hemp wasn't made illegal a hundred years ago. Now that the laws are changing, it's inevitable because it's always been superior over petroleum. From the production, because it's renewable and not deep under the ****ing ground, to the versatility.

And hydroponic farms are the future as well, every year farmers are overtaxing their land and getting lower and lower yields, adding chemicals to make up the difference. Adding pesticides. Taking government handouts to stay afloat. It's not sustainable.

We should work to hasten these things so the transition is shorter and less painful, instead of prolonging it so a handful of companies can squeeze ever last drop of profit out of an unsustainable business model that endangers our grandchildren's very lives.

Rail is a good idea, we can viably power it without fossil fuels, and literally everything you "know" about current tech in the green energy field is either outdated by decades or propaganda from the industries that will literally die out in thirty years once we take their subsidies and tax breaks (socialism) away.

And you can figure this all out for yourself with something called Google. A random asshole on the internet shouldn't have to spend this amount of time giving out common knowledge.

The sentence I highlighted in bold is important. "350 times more efficient". Do you remember the acreage I showed you earlier regarding the land requirement to grow enough corn to yield enough ethanol to replace our current fuel usage? Divide that amount by 350. 680,000 square miles divided by 350 equals about 1950 square miles. 1950 SQUARE MILES of "hydroponic growing factory" that currently does not exist. The scale of such a project is beyond comprehension.

My position that a better use of resources would be to explore other alternatives remains unchanged.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I don't recall having much interaction with you before this so this comment is rather puzzling. I'm not a "nuh uh" kind of guy. What I will do, though, is use a little basic math to back up my position that attempting to grow hemp or anything else(beats, corn, ect...) as a replacement for fuel is a dead end.



The sentence I highlighted in bold is important. "350 times more efficient". Do you remember the acreage I showed you earlier regarding the land requirement to grow enough corn to yield enough ethanol to replace our current fuel usage? Divide that amount by 350. 680,000 square miles divided by 350 equals about 1950 square miles. 1950 SQUARE MILES of "hydroponic growing factory" that currently does not exist. The scale of such a project is beyond comprehension.

My position that a better use of resources would be to explore other alternatives remains unchanged.

Do you recall I asked you to make a few quick google searches on why corn is the absolute worst crop to grow for ethanol? And even one on ethanol vs hemp biofuel.

Now, ask yourself, why do they also call them vertical farms?

Your simple math is based on doing it the dumbest most inefficient way, with the most inefficient biofuel, while disregarding how tall we can make buildings.

which you would know, if you used google like I asked.

which means, your response is "nuh uh I was correct all this this time for reasons."

Which is why I was snarky, I saw it coming. Put a lot of effort in, do the research, provide sources, even break down research papers point by point. I've done all these things. And the best I ever get in response is "Nuh uh, you're wrong because of this reason that was already addressed that I didn't pick up on."

So explain to me, why I should ever not be snarky with people who can't do simple ****ing google searches to learn just the most basic concepts?

 

[TheRepublican]

So like a subway nah I like it right now

 

[Nickyjo]

Are you saying that AOC's ideas are terrifying if she were serious?

If she was planning to abolish air travel and cow farts as the Ocasio Obsessed seem to think.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Do you recall I asked you to make a few quick google searches on why corn is the absolute worst crop to grow for ethanol? And even one on ethanol vs hemp biofuel.

Now, ask yourself, why do they also call them vertical farms?

Your simple math is based on doing it the dumbest most inefficient way, with the most inefficient biofuel, while disregarding how tall we can make buildings.

which you would know, if you used google like I asked.

which means, your response is "nuh uh I was correct all this this time for reasons."

Which is why I was snarky, I saw it coming. Put a lot of effort in, do the research, provide sources, even break down research papers point by point. I've done all these things. And the best I ever get in response is "Nuh uh, you're wrong because of this reason that was already addressed that I didn't pick up on."

So explain to me, why I should ever not be snarky with people who can't do simple ****ing google searches to learn just the most basic concepts?

Simple google searches may be great for learning about the advancements in hydroponic technology or the latest talking points by the "legalization now" crowd but they don't do a thing to educate people on the concepts of scale.

Scale is what this is all about and scale is why the idea that hemp(or any other form of vegetation for that matter) is not a viable replacement for oil.

I used corn because the facts about ethanol yield were easy to find and did a simple breakdown solely based on the square footage of growing space needed. The growing space makes it an impossibility. Then you offered that hydroponic hemp is 350X as efficient. 350X the efficiency is STILL an impossibility. You then offered that corn is not nearly as good as hemp as a fuel. Okay? Make hemp 3X as productive... It's STILL an impossibility. Now you're saying that you could build these things VERTICALLY. Okay? You still need the same amount of square footage, though.

Building these hydroponic factories vertically brings up another issue. I was envisioning something like giant greenhouses which use sunlight. Wouldn't going vertical make it necessary to use something like high pressure sodium bulbs as a replacement for natural sunlight? If so, what is the energy requirement to power these things?

You're looking at the possibilities of hydroponic hemp based on the SCALE of a small operation without ever considering one of the most basic scientific principles... scale dependence vs. scale independence. You could try to google it but I would recommend the core curriculum of a science degree like Geology, Physics, Hydrology, ect... if you actually want to understand it to the point where it becomes useful.