Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said via Twitter: “OPEC’s decision to cutback on production is a blatant attempt to increase gas prices at the pump that cannot stand.”
“We must end OPEC’s illegal price-fixing cartel, eliminate military assistance to Saudi Arabia, and move aggressively to renewable energy,” he added.
It would be great if Bernie supported advancing nuclear, but he’s adamantly opposed, and even called for phasing it out entirely in his presidential campaign.
Yeah, this is why I don't vote for him. He makes good points when it suits him but he's been in politics for too long
Find me someone better to vote for. He’s generally way more right than wrong.
And generally a man of honor which is super rare in politics
At the minimum, you know what you’re getting.
yep, this. if you are looking for a politician who is perfect on every single policy point, good luck to you lol
Bernie takes principled stances and sticks with them far more than most other politicians. That’s true whether he’s “right” or “wrong”.
Perfectly said. People think that we can just "go solar" but fail to consider its limitations, especially in VT.
Yeah, it's a tough sell for a cloudy, northern state to be dependent on a resource that relies on clear skies and long daylight hours.
But not hopeless- I’ve produced about 5000 more kWh than I’ve consumed YTD from my solar array.
Yeah solar actually works pretty well. And you can have standby power plants that operate on natural gas in case of emergency.
Germany is one of the largest solar producers. And its further north than us.
Sure, I'm not arguing it's impossible. It's definitely a solution that can work, my take is just that it's not the most efficient solution. If you look at energy sources in terms of comparative advantage, it doesn't really make sense.
If I had to wager why Germany has so much solar energy, I'd guess it's the same reason that Vermont has so much solar energy. We have some of the most expensive energy in the country in Vermont. The only remedy that an individual household has for that is to a) reduce their energy consumption, or b) produce their own energy. For the environmentally conscious consumer, they really only have way to generate their own power. Buy solar panels.
If you do a cost-benefit analysis, it's actually a much better ROI to buy solar panels if you live in VT than if you live in AZ. That's not because the solar panels produce more energy here, it's because even if they produce half the energy of a panel in AZ, it still offsets more cost for the end-user due to our high energy prices. I'm guessing that's exactly why Germans use so much solar energy. Energy is expensive, and solar is the only way they can make their own. Whether it's efficient or not doesn't matter when it's the only game in town.
My "it's a tough sell" take assumes that the end goal is to reduce total consumption, though. It's not enough to just replace the oil and gas industry with a wind/solar/hydro industry, the end goal should be to reduce the total amount of resources required to produce energy and simultaneously reduce the total energy demand.
With that background, I stand by my statement. It's a tough sell, and the reason it's a tough sell is because solar is fundamentally not an efficient means of producing energy in Vermont. In AZ, they might be able to replace one nuclear power plant with 1,000,000 solar panels. In Vermont, though, it might take us 3,000,000 solar panels. In that scenario, we've effectively wasted 2 million solar panels worth of material for no good reason, since the output of the nuclear power plant was constant and didn't change based on climate. I'd share the same criticism of Germany. Solar panels contain heavy metals which are destructive to mine and more destructive to dispose of. Right now, most of them come from Xinjiang where they're manufactured by Uyghur Muslims in forced labor camps. We shouldn't be using them if they're not an efficient solution.
IMO it's easy to make the case "I should buy a solar panel" here, but it's really hard to make the case "Vermont should invest in solar energy". We just don't have the climate for it. There are solutions that are not only more cost effective for our state, but also fundamentally less damaging to the environment.
[deleted]
Subsidies...(Tax benefits).
[deleted]
Right. But the fundamental question is not which solution has the lowest dollar cost to the end user after subsidies. The question is which solution produces the most energy balanced against the lowest environmental impact.
Private investors don't foot the bill 30 years from now when heavy metals are leeching into the soil around a landfill. What a private investor does today is absolutely irrelevant to the question at hand. If it were, well, why aren't we just going all-in on oil and gas? It has by far the largest market share. Private investors love the fossil fuel industry. It must be the future, then, right?
Yea? How is that working out for them?
They are far more dependent on Oil and Natural Gas than they were 20 years ago before the green party destroyed their nuclear power.
There is no energy future without nuclear getting us there first. Vermont produced LESS carbon before Vermont Yankee was closed, so we went YEARS backwards because Shumlin was an idiot.
Germany may not be the best argument for going green. Despite all of there solar generation they are genuinely worried that people are going to freeze to death this winter because of the energy crisis.
We have lots of open unused fields that are perfect for solar arrays. Combined with power storage solar is actually pretty good in vt.
What storage are your referring to? The vast majority of solar installations do not include any significant energy storage infrastructure as far as I'm aware. Batteries are very expensive and not very good for the job.
I certainly hope you're right, but I've been around too long not to be at least a little skeptical of new revolutionary battery startups. I'll believe it when I see it, just like all the other largely theoretical grid level storage solutions. I don't want our strategy be naive trust that currently-intangible technologies will save us sometime in the indefinite future, I would rather see us invest in tried and true solutions like nuclear and offshore wind, and do it NOW.
I just meant we have lack of sun in VT. Also, we don't have great/affordable storage.
What about winter when there is less sun and snow covers the panels? Also battery storage is prohibitively expensive right now. We could put wind turbines on hillside maybe but that means cutting down trees.
Precisely. The wind doesn't always blow nor does the sun always shine. We need a reliable grid and the grid needs reliable sources of generation.
What near term infrastructure change is not possible in less than 20 years? Especially in VT?
Bernie is right, we must move aggressively, not shrug and resign to waiting "20 years"
> We need to produce our own oil, etc
the united states is already the world's largest producer of oil
WHY ARE YOU SO RATIONAL!
kidding
we for some reason have problems talking about some topics and they are the topics that need to be talked about the most. We need more grnmtnboy0's out there.
And the waste that last 10,000 years?
Goes great with maple syrup on pancakes
Better to make sure our planet lasts 10,000 years than not take action to address it’s most immediate challenge now.
Planet isn’t in jeopardy, humanity is.
We've figured out safe methods of storing nuclear waste, and even repurpose depleted uranium for other applications.
Nuclear energy is by far the best investment we could make. It actually generates less radiation than coal during operation - unless you're in Chernobyl and russia says - TEST THE SHIT OUT OF YOUR REACTOR!
seriously though, don't discount nuclear energy. It's basically just hydro electric in a closed system. basically fuel rods radiating energy causing water to boil turn a turbine, its really that simple.
It’s literally ripping apart the universe to satisfy our own wishes. Nah dog, I’ll pass.
> It’s literally ripping apart the universe to satisfy our own wishes.
how so?
That’s what fission is…
fission isn't required for a reactor. literally the radiation of the element is what boils the water. the fuel rod isn't energized or doing any science fiction - they just put the mother fucker in there.
fission is what happens when nuclear bombs are dropped - that is the reaction of splitting an atom.
ffs - if mr. gunderson was here he could school your ass in this.
According to the US Energy Administration and I quote, “All nuclear power plants use fission.” Lol
admittedly - I had fission confused for fusion. you are correct. i cannot brain today.
Nope. Fusion is what the sun does. Bombs are still fission.
correct. and I need sleep or more coffee. cant decided yet.
I like to drink a bunch of coffee and then go to sleep to make up extra refreshed. Good luck!
That' a problem, yes, but not insurmountable. We will figure it out in time. I think the benefits far outweigh the costs
Figure it out in time!? You have that much faith left in humanity? Seriously.
Faith in governments? No, not much. But I do have faith in humanity.
That’s great. I do not. Not in the system we’re currently in. Solutions only happen if the come with profit.
Screw the Saudis!
Bernie is right on many things. his lack of support for nuclear is not one of them
we need massive increases in grid capacity and resiliency, and matching increases in production to meet decarbonization goals through electrification (the only viable option we have right now). solar and wind are part of it, but won't be good base load till we have storage sorted out and battery storage is horrible in terms of battery production and performance over time
the only existing tech that gets us off fossil fuels in 50 years is nuclear.
Sucks but it is true. We need nuclear for now.
Storage and/or a better grid (w/ respect to your baseload comment). If we could transmit power longer distances, renewable surpluses in one area can be pushed to another. Especially in the case of wind turbines. (Doesn't help solar at night, obviously)
right, but we don't have a grid built for that, and it'll take 30 years to build it
storage is great, but we don't have the tech for utility size storage yet. you can get a battery to cover your house or even a medium sized office building for a night, but not a city. we're decades away from that
we're decades away from new nuke plants too, between permitting and construction. I guess the unfortunate reality is we need to prepare to live with climate change while we try to address it.
I agree for the most part. But I also think if we actually cared and prioritized the issue, we could solve the problem and get off oil in a couple decades.
Instead we bicker about how exactly we should tackle the problem, or whether climate change actually exists or not. Meanwhile countries like Germany and Scotland are miles ahead of us (km, perhaps?), generating significant portions of their electricity demand with renewables. Germany at about 50%, Scotland at "the equivalent of" 100%. We could do way better.
95%+ of the problem is economics. energy is so much more expensive in Europe, the shift to renewables and the huge focus on efficiency actually makes economic sense. here in the US, thanks to essentially unrestricted lobbying, we give maybe tax credits to oil companies in the name of jobs and continued unsustainable economic growth.
If we flipped that around and used oil tax credits to incentive the shit out of energy efficiency and renewable projects, we'd have 5-10 years of economic pain but will have turbo charged the shift away from energy sources that are a feedback loop (more fossil fuels equals more CO2 means higher temperatures equals greater energy demand equals more fossil fuels) and be on a path that doesn't end up with waterworld.
EU natural gas prices, before the Ukraine war, were 2-3 times what they are in the US. now they're off the charts. I really hope Putin's greatest accomplishment by starting the war is shifting Europe to renewables completely.
That makes a lot of sense. Due to the EROI, it's almost never cheaper (at least right now) to go with renewables.
I think flipping the subsidies makes sense. Even if the goal is not switching to renewables, the fact we still subsidize such a highly profitable industry (oil) is baffling.
the tax incentives for renewables is the only thing that makes renewables make financial sense. fortunately the incentives just got extended.
renewables are close to cost parity with expensive fossil fuels like coal, but not natural gas - yet. I can heat my home for $700/ year on the VT gas network, but it'll cost me twice that to use a heat pump.
if I lived outside the gas network and used LP or oil, a heat pump would be far cheaper, even when you factor in needing backup heat on the coldest days.
on utility scale, however we've got a way to go. now if we stopped subsidizing coal and gas, the cost would skyrocket and push us towards a renewable system.
the cost of changing has to be less than the cost of staying the same, and we keep fossil fuels artificially cheap. we are our own worst enemy
To your last point: "the cost of changing has to be less than the cost of staying the same..."
Part of the issue here is we only look at the short-term dollar signs. We don't assign any cost to maintaining the status quo and heating up the planet. Increased storms (and storm damage), lowered crop yields, droughts, etc. These costs annually will be in the billions in the coming decades.
In that sense, low-carbon energy is far cheaper than fossil fuels even without the subsidies.
you're absolutely right.
someone needs to do a net present value calculation on a trillion dollar investment's return vs 50 years of climate change at 8% (what was considered to be a decent return in the market a couple years ago)
the challenge will be getting consensus on what the cost of climate change is annually, since a good sized chunk of the us population doesn't think it's real.
Exactly. Calculations like that need to be ran based on data available and incorporated into policy.
Fortunately companies are beginning to see the threat in the long-term, which is good to see. Companies think longer term than most people or politicians, so I see some hope there.
Case in point: several auto manufacturers have pledged to no longer sell ICE cars in 10-15 years. That's certainly not from regulatory pressure.
YES
Is nuclear perfect? No one who knows anything is saying "yes" but that isn't the point. A fully renewable grid would be awesome, I think we can all agree. There are even some pretty compelling plans to make that happen, but they all rely on theoretical technologies that don't exist being implemented at crazy scales and I think that's an unwise bet.
Nuclear, in contrast, is a mature technology that we have TODAY. RIGHT NOW. We know how it works, we know it solves our short term crisis, and there nothing stopping us from building reactors except our own fear.
I agree with the last two, but how does Bernie think we can end OPEC?
With legislation already approved in committee to declare the cartel an illegal manipulator of supply. That opens them up to lawsuits and other means of redress.
To the point about nuclear; molten salt and thorium reactors are the next gen reactors that will provide energy to supplement renewables starting in about 10 yrs time.
Also lift the pointless sanctions on Venezuela and Iran. You don’t have to like those countries but there’s nothing the do that is even half as bad as the shit to gulf states get up to.
administration lifted sanctions on venezuela yesterday, actually
Well there you go
Saudis should buy their arms from Russia, not us
Time for degrowth
Environmental advocates have pushed for degrowth since the 70s and its both a terrible political message, and unsuccessful in achieving our climate and security goals. We need to further densify our cities and invest massively in/remove existing barriers to zero/low carbon energy sources (renewables/nuclear/geothermal), public transit, and multi family housing.
Of course degrowth doesn’t work, the monetary market system is based on infinite cyclical consumption, which is why it must be phased out for a decentralized access based system, also known as a resource based economy. Trillions of stranded fossil fuel assets if we switch to renewables so that will never happen in the current state. Based on Ethiopias largest model corbetti, 460 geothermal plants could power the US. Earth overshoot day is a real thing. We must switch from Geopolitics to biosphere consciousness
TLDR; capitalism bad
Regardless of whether this system you propose is feasible or not, the probability of it coming to fruition is literally zero. Meanwhile, there’s clear empirical evidence that growth can be decoupled from emissions, and it’s the direction that the public and policymakers support.
Isn't degrowth effectively just genocide in the name of environmentalism?
No, I think you're thinking of the more reactionary Malthusian population control stuff that's like eugenics's cursed cousin. Degrowth is a collection of frameworks and ideas that critique the economy's (destructive and unsustainable) need for infinite growth in order to function. It's less genocidal and more influenced by anti-capitalism, anti-colonialism, feminism, anarchism, etc.
Oh yes I was thinking of population degrowth.
My own opinion: I think degrowth scholarship is really important. We need to question these fundamental assumptions about our world. For example, we take it for granted that GDP is the most important measure of an economy, but is it really?
Just talking about potentially big paradigm shifts is so important because otherwise our imaginations become stunted by the times we live in. You can see in this very thread how even people who recognize that we're destroying the only habitable planet just can't imagine a world that different from how it is right now. People using words like "realistic" and "feasible" without really examining the assumptions that go into that. We spent $300 million per day for 20 years in Afghanistan alone, but moving off fossil fuels somehow isn't realistic.
It reminds me of all those philosophers during the enlightenment who pushed for liberalism, rule of law, and a constitution, but at the same time mocked those who thought they could actually get rid of the monarchy or abolish slavery for being unrealistic.
No that’s the market system’s prerogative with the ‘green growth decoupling’ myths. Justifies itself by the recognition of scarcity yet due to its structural mechanics promotes and rewards infinite cyclical consumption lol. A steady state ‘sustainable’ society would destabilize nations in the market economy. We saw during the shutdowns how the earth started to heal just by us doing less. Earth overshoot day is a thing. Infinite growth, no regard for biosphere replenishment
I'm Thanos, and I approve this message
Nothing about nuclear energy?
He is wrong. Oil is still traded globally on the dollar. It doesn’t matter who is buying a barrel of oil it is bought in dollars. This props up our economy in ways we can’t imagine and makes the dollar the international currency that it is. Russia and Saudi want to change this, if oil is traded on the yen which opec has the ability to do, our dollars are suddenly worth half of what they are now. This is the line that must be walked and it is a huge part of the Russian pea-cocking going on right now.
Even if we use no oil in the United States the international oil trade stabilizes our currency. It is essentially the foundation of the “good faith and credit” that our money is based on.
You devalue the dollar oil sands oil becomes cheap and the Saudis fuck themselves.
You pull out as an ally of Saudi Arabia, someone else fills the void. China, Russia whoever sets up shop. There’s no point in cutting ties with oil producing nations until we don’t need the oil anymore.
Secondly the oil producers are getting out ahead of the recession. They know demand is going to drop significantly as the summer months wane and economies buckle, they’re not going to keep oversupplying from the goodness of their hearts.
The reality is we are kicking and whining like spoiled children when we’ve spent decades NOT doing the necessary things to avoid oil dependency. If only Saudi Arabia was nice to us!
Neither China nor Russia is in any position to fill the military support role the US serves for the Saudis. They need us and will bend when we show resolve to actually cut off military support. Simple steps like restricting maintenance products and spare parts.
They'll get the message.
Bernie is the richest Socialist in Vermont
Bozo.
Fuck off bot
Wow what a duche bag you are.
El Duche?
Bernard Sanders is literally a hybrid human
Part lizard.
Solid and well researched point, I chose to disagree but you do have nearly insurmountable evidence
Their logic is impenetrable, I believe Bernard is lizard man now.
Wheat & Tares d;;;
Wheat&Tares,Watson
grnmtnboy0 t1_ir9tx20 wrote
I'm all for sticking it to the OPEC thugs (see below), but there is no way renewables will have the capacity to replace oil in less than 20 years. We need to produce our own oil, etc. while shifting over. We also need to invest heavily in new nuclear power plants. New designs are hundreds of times safer and more efficient than the ones that gave nuclear power a bad rap.
Before anyone freaks out over what I've said, remember, I agree with getting away from oil. I'm just pointing out near-term infrastructure changes that we have to make for this to work more smoothly