OK


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_Moscow#:~:text=Trump%20wrote%20that%20he%20had,although%20the%20plan%20ultimately%20fell


Donald Trump is reported as having first envisaged a Trump building in Moscow during a visit to Moscow in 1987,[6] which he also mentioned in his own 1987 book The Art of the Deal.[7][8] Trump wrote that he had talked with Yuri Dubinin about "building a large luxury hotel, across the street from the Kremlin, in partnership with the Soviet government."[7][8] The development was originally envisaged as a joint venture with the Soviet Union's tourism agency, Goscom Intourist, although the plan ultimately fell through.[9][7] Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Trump's interest in a Moscow tower continued. In 2005, the Trump Organization signed a one-year contract for a construction project in Moscow with the Bayrock Group real estate firm. One of the firm's principals was Felix Sater, a Russian-born businessman with mob connections.[10] Sater identified a site for a Trump skyscraper. It was stipulated any spas or fitness areas be branded "The Spa by Ivanka Trump."[11]

2050: That’s the deadline that President Joe Biden has set to decarbonize the U.S. power sector and supposedly save the planet from man-made climate catastrophe. In issuing his December executive order prioritizing a “Clean Energy Economy,” Eco Joe pledged you, the American taxpayer, to spend billions in the next three decades to achieve, by midcentury, net zero carbon emissions “across federal operations”. However, what few are talking about is how unfeasible the plans actually are.

They are not just impossible. They are pie in the sky, flying unicorns, bull goose looney impossible. You may say that my critique may seem harsh. But is it justified? Well, to answer that question, we’ll review what I postulate it will take to accomplish Biden’s plans. First, a brief tutorial is necessary to understand terms. Then we’ll look at the energy needs to determine what the United States will require by 2050.

To start, energy is always measured as power generated or consumed over a period of time. A familiar unit is the kilowatt hour (kWh), which means one thousand watts of power used in one hour. The average U.S. home uses around 1,000 kWh of electrical energy per month which equates to using approximately 1.4 kW per month, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

But when referencing electricity needs across the U.S. per year, we enter the realm of trillions of kilowatt hours. Luckily, there is another prefix that conveniently stands for all those zeros: the petawatt hour is one quadrillion watt hours. The World Energy Council estimates that, based on current trends, by 2050, total global energy consumption will reach 244 pWh per year. Since EIA estimates that the United States uses one sixth of the world’s energy, we can easily determine our share by simple division that our share is 40.7 pWh/year which equates to a generating capacity of 4.6 tW and so-called renewables making up around 20 percent of the current average energy mix. This includes wind and solar along with biomass, geothermal, hydro, and tidal power, meaning that so called renewables will need to replace roughly 80 percent or 3.7 tW generating capacity if Joe pulls the plug on demonized “fossil” fuels.

Since “renewable energy” purists focus on wind and solar, we’ll simply install more windmills and solar panels, right? So, how many will we need? That answer requires a few calculations to determine.

First, we’ve already established how much new energy generating capacity is required – 3.7 tW. That’s 3.7 TRILLION watts. And per the United Nations Paris climate agreement, the U.S. has until January 1, 2050 to add this generating capacity. With little more than 10,000 days in which to build, install, test, and commission all the new generators, we need to add roughly 363 mW of energy generating capacity – 363 MILLION – EACH DAY until 2050. The computation is 3.7 tW divided by 10,230 days = 363 mW.

You heard that right: an additional 363 mW of capacity PER DAY of “renewables” have to be added to the energy mix FOR THE NEXT 28 YEARS if we are to phase out coal, oil, and natural gas.

So, what will it take to reach Biden’s lofty goals of zero carbon emissions by 2050? Before looking at how many wind turbines and solar panels that number entails, it’s important to address several points.

First, electrical energy must be produced as it is used, and used as it is produced. Obviously, there are peaks and troughs in demand. Electricity distributors quantify these fluctuations with a peak to average ratio, which experts acknowledge could be as high as 2.3. Then roughly 15 percent reserve capacity is needed to ensure grid stability. Together these two factors can more than double our 363 mW figure.

Other variations in efficiency and heat loss would further influence the number, not to mention the additional energy necessary to manufacture and install the myriad generators that carbon neutral goals demand. However, for simplicity’s sake, we will omit these considerations because even if we cut our conservative figures in half, the result would still send unicorns into orbit.
So, armed with our 363 mW estimate, let’s calculate how many clean, green generators we will need to add each day across the globe by 2050.

We’ll start with that darling of the green set.

WIND

The Department of Energy reports that the average power rating of turbines in the United States is three megawatts (mW), which is 3,000 kW. However, this “nameplate rating” does not reflect how much the turbine will actually contribute, only its capability under ideal conditions. Since wind doesn’t blow all the time, well-sited turbines average about 35 percent of nameplate capacity. So, a three MW rated turbine would therefore produce around one mW on average. That means we’d better get busy building, installing, commissioning, and bringing online 363 turbines EACH DAY between now and 2050. And keep in mind that these are not Dutch windmills. Modern turbines tower 30 stories or more above the ground, with blades that can add nearly 200 feet to overall height. Positioned too closely to each other, turbulence from upwind rotors destroys downwind machines.

Then, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates about 85 acres per megawatt of nameplate capacity are needed for each omni-directional turbine. That means clearing nearly 31 thousand acres every day, or almost 493 thousand square miles in the U.S. by 2050.

By comparison, the contiguous land in the U.S. comprises 2.96 million square miles in area. That amounts to nearly 20 percent of available square mileage in the country by the time we’re through. And I need to mention that we will need to replace many of them before 2050 since a turbine’s average lifespan is 20 years.

And bye bye birdies; the American Bird Conservancy estimates that wind turbines kill as many as 1.2 million birds annually. That number is bound to rise exponentially as wind farms expand. Likely so will negative effects on human health. Research from the Washington University School of Medicine reveals problems including nausea, vertigo, tinnitus, ear pressure, and sleep disturbance reported in areas where turbines are installed.

Additionally, going green with wind means a complete revamp of the electrical grid, from power stations to gas heated homes. Perhaps this is a bad time to ask what happens when wind stops blowing and there is no reliable generator to take up the slack.

But never fear; SOLAR is here!

However, you may be disappointed to know NREL posits that a utility scale solar installation averages about 6.9 watts per square yard, depending on multiple variables including location, temperature, and time of year. So, to deliver our daily 363 mW, we would have to cover more than 800 square miles of graded and treeless ground with functioning solar panels every single day from now until 2050.

Moreover, the average lifespan of solar panels is 25 years, so many will not live to see their day of green glory in 2050. And as does wind, solar requires a complete grid overhaul. And every night when the sun isn’t shining, solar will need reliable backup. But wind could help only on blustery evenings.

Another possibility is NUCLEAR POWER, which could easily stand on its own and replace all so called renewables and fossil fuels, but we’d need to get started immediately bringing 2.2 gW power plants online every six days from now until 2050. That’s a total of almost 1700 new nuclear reactors. But we could save ourselves the grid revamp.

But even if we only use nuclear as backup, we still need between 50 and 90 percent of the total generating capacity in nuclear “for the all too frequent times when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.”

To put things in perspective, the United States currently has about 104 nuclear power generating plants, built over the last 70 years. Some required up to a decade of litigation and approvals from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other bureaucratic agencies. We had better get litigating pronto if we’re going to build at least 850 new nuclear plants by 2050.

So, admittedly, this analysis omits many variables that also merit consideration. For example, we haven’t looked at the cost of each installation project in terms of time, energy, real estate, and manufacturing. Top consulting firm McKinsey slaps a price tag of “around $30 billion per day for the next 25 years” on UN net zero emissions targets. However, even without that figure it is easy to see why these “plans” can be called “looney.”

Another matter we overlooked is the real-life example of Germany, where Forbes reports a renewables transition to the tune of $580 billion by 2025. The country is also looking at “a 50 percent increase in electricity prices, flat emissions, and an electricity supply that is 10 times more carbon intensive than France’s,” where nuclear is king.

The punch line is that all this upheaval of world energy sectors is to prevent a hypothetical human caused 2.7° F rise in average global temperature. Perhaps that will be a consolation when we’re paying exorbitant utility bills by candlelight.

On the way to my son's house today, we passed by the Owens Corning fiberglass plant that I spent 10 years working in. And it dawned on me. Bear with me here.

Ok. So wind energy is good for the environment, right?
Well, the giant blades for those wind turbines are made from fiberglass, right?
Do you know whats involved in making that product, and what kind of energy it takes? What kind of chemicals are used? How much water is used? How much non decomposable waste goes into the landfill?

That plant has two gas fired furnaces, and I don't remember how many gas fired channels just to get the liquid glass to an electric bushing where the actual fibers are formed. The equipment that winds it into a spool, chops it up, or whatever is all run on electricity.
An operation of this type requires massive amounts of gas, and electricity in order to make the products that you think are needed to save the planet.

Square this with me if you can greenies.

We have this plant making the materials for your dream machines that uses more water, gas, and electricity in 15 minutes than I use in a year. Yet, your dream machines, be they wind, or solar can't make a scratch on the energy needed to make them.
How are we going to get to the point by 2030 where the materials needed to make replacement parts for these machines are made by power produced from these machines? How?

Gee, Archie,, without much more detailed info no one can answer what you question... only with the actual amount in figures could the electricity used be compared to any other use.. yours and mfg.. as well you know the energy used at any mfg plant , even small ones will far exceed the amount used in any of our homes.

also the parts of the wind generators which are difficult if not impossible to recycle now, will be recyclably in due course, Mfg improvements will be made and over all consumption will be more in line with the amount generated..

Just for your info.. In the great state of Minnesota we have a problem.. In the wind filled south western part of the state we voted to express the development of wind energy.. a great success, wind machines all over the place, problem.. This sparsely populated area of farming, does not have the electric grid to move energy to the urban zones which are crying for more and green energy. so now we have very nearly one half of the generators sitting doing nothing.. because we can not move the product.. a supply chain issue if ever we had one.. so now we upgrade the grid and then the waiting customers will finally have access to the energy we have been holding..

So much to smooth the wrinkles out of , but it is the coming situation.. and is what we will have in the near future..

No system has ever been made which did not have it own share of problems to overcome.. and energy is no different.. but it is being done..

OK


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_Moscow#:~:text=Trump%20wrote%20that%20he%20had,although%20the%20plan%20ultimately%20fell


Donald Trump is reported as having first envisaged a Trump building in Moscow during a visit to Moscow in 1987,[6] which he also mentioned in his own 1987 book The Art of the Deal.[7][8] Trump wrote that he had talked with Yuri Dubinin about "building a large luxury hotel, across the street from the Kremlin, in partnership with the Soviet government."[7][8] The development was originally envisaged as a joint venture with the Soviet Union's tourism agency, Goscom Intourist, although the plan ultimately fell through.[9][7] Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Trump's interest in a Moscow tower continued. In 2005, the Trump Organization signed a one-year contract for a construction project in Moscow with the Bayrock Group real estate firm. One of the firm's principals was Felix Sater, a Russian-born businessman with mob connections.[10] Sater identified a site for a Trump skyscraper. It was stipulated any spas or fitness areas be branded "The Spa by Ivanka Trump."[11]

If wind & solar will require less energy to generate in the future,
if the materials needed are economically available from domestic or friendly sources,
if wind turbines will be cheaper to produce and be recyclable in the time, and
if the needed transmission lines can efficiently be built and used on a national level:

Then why not let it happen on it's own as a natural part of an economical cycle and stop using government money we don't have to force feed green energy down everybody throat?

OK


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower_Moscow#:~:text=Trump%20wrote%20that%20he%20had,although%20the%20plan%20ultimately%20fell


Donald Trump is reported as having first envisaged a Trump building in Moscow during a visit to Moscow in 1987,[6] which he also mentioned in his own 1987 book The Art of the Deal.[7][8] Trump wrote that he had talked with Yuri Dubinin about "building a large luxury hotel, across the street from the Kremlin, in partnership with the Soviet government."[7][8] The development was originally envisaged as a joint venture with the Soviet Union's tourism agency, Goscom Intourist, although the plan ultimately fell through.[9][7] Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Trump's interest in a Moscow tower continued. In 2005, the Trump Organization signed a one-year contract for a construction project in Moscow with the Bayrock Group real estate firm. One of the firm's principals was Felix Sater, a Russian-born businessman with mob connections.[10] Sater identified a site for a Trump skyscraper. It was stipulated any spas or fitness areas be branded "The Spa by Ivanka Trump."[11]

I think the problem, or at least some of it was no one had a plan,, least of all trump himself..

so his ill-advised tariff/trade activities had to lead to a bailout.. with these results..

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932#:~:text=Direct%20farm%20aid%20has%20climbed,Development%20and%20more%20than%20the

‘Here’s your check’: Trump’s massive payouts to farmers will be hard to pull back
The president was already spending double his predecessor to spare farmers the cost of his trade war. Now the price is reaching unsustainable levels.


Government payments to farmers have surged to historic levels under President Donald Trump as the Agriculture Department floods the industry with cash to stem the financial losses from Trump’s tariff fights and the coronavirus pandemic.

But as agriculture grows more reliant on unprecedented taxpayer support, farm policy experts and watchdog groups warn the subsidies are growing too big and too fast, with no strings attached and little oversight from Congress — and that Washington could have a difficult time shutting off the spigot.

Direct farm aid has climbed each year of Trump’s presidency, from $11.5 billion in 2017 to more than $32 billion this year — an all-time high, with potentially far more funding still to come in 2020, amounting to about two-thirds of the cost of the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development and more than the Agriculture Department’s $24 billion discretionary budget, according to a POLITICO analysis. But lawmakers have taken a largely hands-off approach, letting the department decide who gets the money and how much.

2050: That’s the deadline that President Joe Biden has set to decarbonize the U.S. power sector and supposedly save the planet from man-made climate catastrophe. In issuing his December executive order prioritizing a “Clean Energy Economy,” Eco Joe pledged you, the American taxpayer, to spend billions in the next three decades to achieve, by midcentury, net zero carbon emissions “across federal operations”. However, what few are talking about is how unfeasible the plans actually are.

They are not just impossible. They are pie in the sky, flying unicorns, bull goose looney impossible. You may say that my critique may seem harsh. But is it justified? Well, to answer that question, we’ll review what I postulate it will take to accomplish Biden’s plans. First, a brief tutorial is necessary to understand terms. Then we’ll look at the energy needs to determine what the United States will require by 2050.

To start, energy is always measured as power generated or consumed over a period of time. A familiar unit is the kilowatt hour (kWh), which means one thousand watts of power used in one hour. The average U.S. home uses around 1,000 kWh of electrical energy per month which equates to using approximately 1.4 kW per month, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

But when referencing electricity needs across the U.S. per year, we enter the realm of trillions of kilowatt hours. Luckily, there is another prefix that conveniently stands for all those zeros: the petawatt hour is one quadrillion watt hours. The World Energy Council estimates that, based on current trends, by 2050, total global energy consumption will reach 244 pWh per year. Since EIA estimates that the United States uses one sixth of the world’s energy, we can easily determine our share by simple division that our share is 40.7 pWh/year which equates to a generating capacity of 4.6 tW and so-called renewables making up around 20 percent of the current average energy mix. This includes wind and solar along with biomass, geothermal, hydro, and tidal power, meaning that so called renewables will need to replace roughly 80 percent or 3.7 tW generating capacity if Joe pulls the plug on demonized “fossil” fuels.

Since “renewable energy” purists focus on wind and solar, we’ll simply install more windmills and solar panels, right? So, how many will we need? That answer requires a few calculations to determine.

First, we’ve already established how much new energy generating capacity is required – 3.7 tW. That’s 3.7 TRILLION watts. And per the United Nations Paris climate agreement, the U.S. has until January 1, 2050 to add this generating capacity. With little more than 10,000 days in which to build, install, test, and commission all the new generators, we need to add roughly 363 mW of energy generating capacity – 363 MILLION – EACH DAY until 2050. The computation is 3.7 tW divided by 10,230 days = 363 mW.

You heard that right: an additional 363 mW of capacity PER DAY of “renewables” have to be added to the energy mix FOR THE NEXT 28 YEARS if we are to phase out coal, oil, and natural gas.

So, what will it take to reach Biden’s lofty goals of zero carbon emissions by 2050? Before looking at how many wind turbines and solar panels that number entails, it’s important to address several points.

First, electrical energy must be produced as it is used, and used as it is produced. Obviously, there are peaks and troughs in demand. Electricity distributors quantify these fluctuations with a peak to average ratio, which experts acknowledge could be as high as 2.3. Then roughly 15 percent reserve capacity is needed to ensure grid stability. Together these two factors can more than double our 363 mW figure.

Other variations in efficiency and heat loss would further influence the number, not to mention the additional energy necessary to manufacture and install the myriad generators that carbon neutral goals demand. However, for simplicity’s sake, we will omit these considerations because even if we cut our conservative figures in half, the result would still send unicorns into orbit.
So, armed with our 363 mW estimate, let’s calculate how many clean, green generators we will need to add each day across the globe by 2050.

We’ll start with that darling of the green set.

WIND

The Department of Energy reports that the average power rating of turbines in the United States is three megawatts (mW), which is 3,000 kW. However, this “nameplate rating” does not reflect how much the turbine will actually contribute, only its capability under ideal conditions. Since wind doesn’t blow all the time, well-sited turbines average about 35 percent of nameplate capacity. So, a three MW rated turbine would therefore produce around one mW on average. That means we’d better get busy building, installing, commissioning, and bringing online 363 turbines EACH DAY between now and 2050. And keep in mind that these are not Dutch windmills. Modern turbines tower 30 stories or more above the ground, with blades that can add nearly 200 feet to overall height. Positioned too closely to each other, turbulence from upwind rotors destroys downwind machines.

Then, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates about 85 acres per megawatt of nameplate capacity are needed for each omni-directional turbine. That means clearing nearly 31 thousand acres every day, or almost 493 thousand square miles in the U.S. by 2050.

By comparison, the contiguous land in the U.S. comprises 2.96 million square miles in area. That amounts to nearly 20 percent of available square mileage in the country by the time we’re through. And I need to mention that we will need to replace many of them before 2050 since a turbine’s average lifespan is 20 years.

And bye bye birdies; the American Bird Conservancy estimates that wind turbines kill as many as 1.2 million birds annually. That number is bound to rise exponentially as wind farms expand. Likely so will negative effects on human health. Research from the Washington University School of Medicine reveals problems including nausea, vertigo, tinnitus, ear pressure, and sleep disturbance reported in areas where turbines are installed.

Additionally, going green with wind means a complete revamp of the electrical grid, from power stations to gas heated homes. Perhaps this is a bad time to ask what happens when wind stops blowing and there is no reliable generator to take up the slack.

But never fear; SOLAR is here!

However, you may be disappointed to know NREL posits that a utility scale solar installation averages about 6.9 watts per square yard, depending on multiple variables including location, temperature, and time of year. So, to deliver our daily 363 mW, we would have to cover more than 800 square miles of graded and treeless ground with functioning solar panels every single day from now until 2050.

Moreover, the average lifespan of solar panels is 25 years, so many will not live to see their day of green glory in 2050. And as does wind, solar requires a complete grid overhaul. And every night when the sun isn’t shining, solar will need reliable backup. But wind could help only on blustery evenings.

Another possibility is NUCLEAR POWER, which could easily stand on its own and replace all so called renewables and fossil fuels, but we’d need to get started immediately bringing 2.2 gW power plants online every six days from now until 2050. That’s a total of almost 1700 new nuclear reactors. But we could save ourselves the grid revamp.

But even if we only use nuclear as backup, we still need between 50 and 90 percent of the total generating capacity in nuclear “for the all too frequent times when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.”

To put things in perspective, the United States currently has about 104 nuclear power generating plants, built over the last 70 years. Some required up to a decade of litigation and approvals from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other bureaucratic agencies. We had better get litigating pronto if we’re going to build at least 850 new nuclear plants by 2050.

So, admittedly, this analysis omits many variables that also merit consideration. For example, we haven’t looked at the cost of each installation project in terms of time, energy, real estate, and manufacturing. Top consulting firm McKinsey slaps a price tag of “around $30 billion per day for the next 25 years” on UN net zero emissions targets. However, even without that figure it is easy to see why these “plans” can be called “looney.”

Another matter we overlooked is the real-life example of Germany, where Forbes reports a renewables transition to the tune of $580 billion by 2025. The country is also looking at “a 50 percent increase in electricity prices, flat emissions, and an electricity supply that is 10 times more carbon intensive than France’s,” where nuclear is king.

The punch line is that all this upheaval of world energy sectors is to prevent a hypothetical human caused 2.7° F rise in average global temperature. Perhaps that will be a consolation when we’re paying exorbitant utility bills by candlelight.

I think the problem, or at least some of it was no one had a plan,, least of all trump himself..

so his ill-advised tariff/trade activities had to lead to a bailout.. with these results..

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/14/donald-trump-coronavirus-farmer-bailouts-359932#:~:text=Direct%20farm%20aid%20has%20climbed,Development%20and%20more%20than%20the

‘Here’s your check’: Trump’s massive payouts to farmers will be hard to pull back
The president was already spending double his predecessor to spare farmers the cost of his trade war. Now the price is reaching unsustainable levels.


Government payments to farmers have surged to historic levels under President Donald Trump as the Agriculture Department floods the industry with cash to stem the financial losses from Trump’s tariff fights and the coronavirus pandemic.

But as agriculture grows more reliant on unprecedented taxpayer support, farm policy experts and watchdog groups warn the subsidies are growing too big and too fast, with no strings attached and little oversight from Congress — and that Washington could have a difficult time shutting off the spigot.

Direct farm aid has climbed each year of Trump’s presidency, from $11.5 billion in 2017 to more than $32 billion this year — an all-time high, with potentially far more funding still to come in 2020, amounting to about two-thirds of the cost of the entire Department of Housing and Urban Development and more than the Agriculture Department’s $24 billion discretionary budget, according to a POLITICO analysis. But lawmakers have taken a largely hands-off approach, letting the department decide who gets the money and how much.