stop using chat gpt to argue

I’ve never used ChatGPT in my life, you can shove your accusations where the sun doesn’t shine.

30 million acres of land is used to grow ethanol that is mixed into petrol

The majority of ethanol based crop production comes from growing corn in the Midwest, specifically Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Indiana. Ranked by population density that’s:

• Nebraska #43
• Kansas #41
• Iowa #36
• Missouri #28
• Indiana #17
• Illinois # 12

By percentage of the US population that’s

• Nebraska @ 0.5%
• Kansas @ 0.8%
• Iowa @ 0.9%
• Missouri @ 1.8%
• Indiana @ 2%
• Illinois @ 3.7%

There are practical reasons why we typically try to generate power close to where it will be used. Yes, theoretically you can realistically supply power up to 3000 miles away, but most power plants only provide power to around 500 miles away. Yes we could cover the Corn Belt with solar panels and then wire it to the coasts, but doing so has it’s own risks and drawbacks. Ethanol agriculture makes sense where it is because the population density is so low and both corn and ethanol can be shipped with relatively low loss.

As for batteries, they are recyclable (as the video goes into). They do add to the cost of renewables but not so much that they cancel out having to constantly mine coal and set it on fire to never be used again

I’m not arguing that they aren’t recyclable but rather they aren’t accessible at the volume needed. A quick google search said that current utility scale battery storage exceeds 26 GW (10^9), but only represents 2% of total generating capacity. To provide power for approximately half the day, based on our previous math, we would need need ~7x10^11 W.

Just so my math is clear from the beginning, 17x10^12 W / 2 (half the day) / 12 (hours per half day) = 7x10^11 W of battery which is 27 times more than we currently have.

Renewables aren’t the “cheapest form of power generation”, they are the “cheapest form of new power generation”. It is cheaper to keep running existing gas-fired and nuclear power stations until they reach EOL than it is to tear them down prematurely and replace them with solar. A large number of power stations are rapidly reaching EOL and it’s very important that we don’t build any more coal-fired power plants right now

I think this is a fair and nuanced point. In my opinion the solution is not one singular option, such as 100% solar, but a mix of options which might include some percentage of non-renewable energy. I think reduction of non-renewable should be the goal, but switching 100% to renewable does not seem feasible to me.

Yeah, the video is 1.5 hours long. I don’t care how good you found it to be, I’m just not going to watch that long of a video, you need to convey what is important in the video through written dialogue or else you may as well not use it. While I did make a mistake in my math my fundamental point is still true, the video’s point was entirely based on scaling renewable power usage for cars to all power usage and the math just doesn’t provide a sound basis for it.

The extra electricity needed for EVs is zero or maybe even negative

That’s unlikely to be the case, the US already does use batteries in power production and the amount more we would need to switch all US power to solar would be astonishingly high.

Power plants can’t react to the amount of power needed at any time and they get inefficient trying

They can’t react in the minute by minute basis, but they do react to usage. Most coal fired plants only operate at about 50% capacity most of the time and bring on reactors to match the predicted power usage curve. When building a power curve profile the power company typically takes into account constant power as a baseline (solar and hydro being always on during the hours it is active and the power output of a given number of reactors is relatively set). Power is then supplemented with smaller generation sites which might use natural gas or even petroleum products. The smaller sites are far less efficient and make less power, but the name of the game when making power is making sure you always have enough for demand.

Let’s say it’s peak day, 25 solar farms are making 675 MW right now, each coal plant reactor can make 500 MW and the demand right now is 1250 MW. You start up your natural gas turbine plant to make up the difference during peak day, but as the sun goes down you start up reactor 2 and 3. As reactor 2 and 3 get going the power usage goes up to 1600 as people come home and the solar farms stop generating power so you continue using your turbine plant but also start drawing from your batteries. Once reactor 2 and 3 are up and running you might stop using your turbine and keep drawing from your batteries, but when people go to sleep the power usage drops to 700 MW. Now power usage has dropped but you keep the reactors going for a while or begin to shut them down (they will still make some power as they shutdown) to recharge the batteries.

All these numbers are hypothetical, but it’s a description of how the process works.

I worked the problem a different way, first of all I evaluated both ends of both spectrum (2.2-5.2 trillion for adding cars to get the number of solar farms needed and 5-10 acres per MW rating, this is how I built my range). I believe I have an error in the number of solar farms needed (2-2.5 million farms in my original post), but I have not been able to replicate my math that got me the error. I made this post in sections and at some point realized that 27 MW doesn’t make 648 MWh, but I might have missed switching it out somewhere to get the math I got.

Rerunning the math I took the amount produced and needed (~17 trillion Wh) and divided it by the production for one 27 MW site (150 MWh) to get the number of plants and then multiplied that by 27x10.

17x10^12 / 150x10^6 x 27 x 10 = 30,600,000 or 30.6 million acres.

All that aside we are still talking about 75x more land usage before we talk about time zones, day night cycles, distribution of the panels, etc. The big counterpoint that people seem to have is batteries, but we already use batteries and the amount more we would need to provide 24 hour coverage with just solar would be astonishing.

Market forces push business decisions, the only way solar power would be cheaper for the consumer is if it was also cheaper for the business. If solar was realistically cheaper then power production facilities then corporations would be switching to it and probably not drop our end costs because that would just be extra profit. Whether it’s a lack of battery capability, unattainable capital costs, lack of reliability, or something else at play, solar power would not be cheaper for the end user or else corporations would be switching to it.

EDIT: Good work on your math.

You literally just reshared the same video the guy I’m responding to shared in the post I am responding to. Obviously you didn’t read anything.

Okay, so I’ve double-checked all the most important numbers you’ve used. One thing I’ve noticed is that Alec compared the land-use of ethanol and solar power, but our fuel is only 10% ethanol. Even then though that doesn’t explain the whole number you got to.

As I said in my post, this guy is talking about fuel for cars, not the entire power usage

With 270 million acres, and 1mW for every 10 acres, that’s 27 million mW (648 trillion Wh a day). Far more than what you say is needed for all cars to be electric

I basically skipped over your 3rd and 4th paragraph

That is literally what I said in paragraph 3 “The US currently has ~12.5k utility scale electric power plants, to replace those with solar and switch all cars to electric you would need ~2-2.5 million solar farms the size represented in the video.”

America consumes 25,000tWh of energy per year (about 7Twh per day)

My research said the US produces 11 trillion Wh per day and said that if all US vehicles were electric it would require 2.2-5.5 trillion Wh more per day. Looking at consumption is important, but looking at production is more accurate. Some electricity is sold or wasted, but that’s to ensure demand is met when the grid sees a spike in usage.

27 million mW (648 trillion Wh a day)

You must have skipped paragraph 2 as well. A 27 MW solar plant is rated as such because that is the maximum instantaneous power outout, but most places only have ~16 hours of sunlight and won’t be running at 27 MW for all 16 hours. As such a 27 MW solar farm will only make ~130-150 MWh/day.

I’m not gonna watch the full hour and a half, but I skimmed through to make sure his message was at least mostly consistent. This guy is talking about renewable energy for cars and vaguely extrapolates that to all energy requirements.

Doing a quick Google search came up with 2.2-5.2 trillion watt-hours as the amount of energy needed if all US vehicles were electric. Currently the US generates ~11 trillion watt-hours per day so this would increase that amount ~20-50%. In this video the guy mentioned a 27 megawatt solar farm (~130-150 MWh/day), but a large coal plant generates 15-24k MWh/day (500-1000 MW instantaneous).

The US currently has ~12.5k utility scale electric power plants, to replace those with solar and switch all cars to electric you would need ~2-2.5 million solar farms the size represented in the video.

The industry standard is that each megawatt a solar farm is rated takes 5-10 acres. For nuclear that value is ~0.8 acres/megawatt and for coal it’s ~0.64 acres/megawatt. While large power plants generate ~500-1000 MW they vary in size dramatically so the actual average is closer to 50 MW per plant. By that math, the current total land for existing plants should be ~400,000 acres but the equivalent if we switched to 100% solar power would be 270-675 million acres of land.

I’m not saying that renewables are bad or that we shouldn’t pursue them, I’m also not arguing that we should all hold on to gas burning cars, but there is not compelling enough evidence that switching to 100% renewable energy would be cheaper.

EDIT: The estimates here don’t include things like the coal mines included in them but it also doesn’t take into account the production of panels, batteries, or the component materials in either of them such as lithium mines. I think solar probably wins out when comparing just that side, but their land usage alone likely tips things.

Seriously flawed Sheriff in Wyoming, honestly I could think of worse fates.

I’ll stop playing before that happens

You are correct, it did not stick, but by US law Bourbon does have to be made in the US. Associating alcohols to a region has always been a tedious argument, but distilled alcohol is especially silly. For things like Champagne they can claim things like the soil of the area impacts the flavor (Vidalia onions), the culture of specific grapes in the region are important (this isolated variety of grapes are only cultivated here), or maybe something in the air contributes to the process (Belgian sours), but Bourbon just requires it be made with at least 51% corn and stored in a charred oak barrel.

Bourbon may have originated from Kentucky there is nothing about Kentucky or the US that impacts the process. I can make IPAs without being in the UK and I can make Berliner Weisse without going to Germany, I see no difference with Bourbon.

Yeah, it may have changed. Here is the website for commissary eligibility, it looks like civilian employees get limited access (mainly grocery store like items). Here is a link to the Exchange, they get limited privileges or conditional unlimited privileges depending on their situation. Here is the website posting the Army Civilian benefits. Looking online they do have access to on base housing, but active duty get higher priority and may have to wait for an opening.

Here is the general DOD website for the civilian employee benefits, it looks like they get general federal employee insurance (generally considered to be good), and the general federal pension (20 years of service by 50 years old). This site also has more information about the exchange and family care.

To add to this, something I like to point out to people, but (for the US) only ~60% of military personnel are ever deployed. Of those 60% only 10-20% will ever see combat. To top that off ~25% of the military are actually civilian service members, people who work for the military but are not soldiers.

So in summary, for each soldier that sees combat there are:

• ~6 deployed soldiers who will never see combat.
• ~11 non-deployed soldiers who never will be.
• ~6 civilian military staff who will probably never need to move for work.

Of these 24 people, all have access to the commissary, retirement and pension, top tier insurance, paid child care, up to 26 days of paid time off with 13 sick days and 11 fed holidays. The only things the military civilians don’t get are the VA, loan programs, and special protections.

So unless you’re a complete block head with no skills or talent your odds of joining the military and basically getting socialism with no risks is pretty high. Remember this the next time someone gets mouthy about respecting “the troops” or “serving their country,” odds are they didn’t do shit.

I used to work with a whole group of guys who their whole military career (20 years) was running a wastewater treatment plant on an Air Force base in the US, that’s it.

I remember a reddit post from forever ago where the guy said that the grocery store had asked his mom to let them know when their son went to college because him leaving would impact the quantities of chocolate milk they stocked.

Yeah, that doesn’t really work in the US. You kind of need worker protections for that to work. We, the liberals of the US, have been fighting for them for decades but haven’t been very successful across the board, only in a few states. The US has more people than it has essential roles for the most part, unless I can convince a majority of people in my work sector to agree to strike it won’t really mean anything.

EDIT: My work says I can take leave, after that I am no show, after two strikes of no show at work without cause (protesting isn’t a cause) I can be terminated. So following your model I lose my job and nothing changes unless everyone else does it at the same time. No, we do not have a union.

Yeah, the portion of the US that wants help isn’t the portion that was super 2nd amendment, that was the people who are currently in power. Your argument is like hearing cries for help from the party not in control and then using the argument points of the party in power as a reason not to.

Also, what do you expect to happen? Liberals across the US are going to go buy guns and then mount an armed revolt? Unlike January 6, 2021, these fascists will be more than happy to mow down armed liberals for insurrection.

US citizens are really limited in options, either Trump dies and the party in power falls apart, mid-terms come and successfully limit power (if we even get elections again), whole states go into a new civil war, or a third party goes to war with the US and overthrows the current party. Other than that there are meaningless peaceful protests or failed armed rebellions. Ultimately we are talking about a government that can spy on you anywhere and everywhere unless you live in a Faraday cage, can hit you with precision strikes from no where, or levy more force than any militia.

The US escalation of power has negated the effectiveness of small time militias which is why Democrats have been arguing for reductions in 2nd amendment rights in the first place. The time of being able to pick up arms against your own government (in the US) is functionally passed and so it makes more sense to reduce the availability of arms for criminals and mass shootings.

I go back to the saying, the first people the Nazi’s invaded where their own. Once things passed a certain point there wasn’t much the german people could do, without outside help, to stop the Nazis. Now if you just expect mass martyrdom then that’s another thing.

I don’t know that I would agree with that, what’s your metric for standards which sets Aldi above every other chain in the USA?

Aldi’s great, don’t get me wrong, I love several of their business decisions such as the quarter for a cart, allowing customers to take excess boxes to reduce clean up, and they let their cashiers sit. That said, they are an overstock/discount/outlet style store and don’t reliably have the exact product you might want. If you’re looking for good prices they will generally have something you want, but it might be a different brand or style. In my mind it’s like a Ross, Marshals, or TJ Maxx but for groceries. Another plus is that Aldi has interesting items not typically seen at other stores such as German or European items.

Other people in these comments mentioned that their Aldi looks nice while having good prices, but the 4 Aldi’s near me look like they are still in the 1990s. Other USA brands more reliably have staple items but might be more expensive. Publix, Harris Teeter, Kroger, Whole Foods, and Fresh Market are definitely nicer than Aldi in quality. Food Lion and similar stores are comparable quality and maybe just slightly more expensive, and then the Aldi clones are there too (Lidl, Trader Joes, etc).