We’ve all heard about the Green New Deal being proposed by Congresswoman
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Based on a study done by the former head of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this proposal (which is all it is at the
moment) could wind up costing this country upwards of 93 trillion dollars over
a ten-year period. It may cost more, it may cost significantly less, no one
knows yet. The one thing that this proposal leaves out is HOW we transition into
this brave new world. I ‘d like to address the more technical aspects of things
since this will have a huge impact on how we go about our daily lives.
Let’s start with the electrical grid because that’s going to
be the primary driver in all of this. If AOC was serious about this proposal,
then the first thing that would need to be addressed is the amount of
electrical power currently being generated by fossil fueled and nuke plants nationwide.
How many megawatt hours do each of these plants put out on a daily basis?
What sort of power generating capacity does a single wind turbine have? How many
of them would be required to replace a non-renewable source/plant? The same
could be said about solar. How many acres of panels would be needed? The other
thing to consider is what capacity are our current plants running at on a daily
basis? What sort of surge capacity is available to these plants during peak
demand periods or at times when power generating assets need to be taken offline
for maintenance, repair, or upgrades?
The aforementioned requirements ONLY address a one-for-one
swap at our current demand level for electricity. The push to go green will necessitate
an even larger investment in electrical infrastructure for various reasons,
among these will be:
1.
Replacing fossil fuel burning vehicles with
electric powered vehicles or vehicles running on some other power source. The
only other one that comes to mind would be hydrogen fuel cells, but that technology
isn’t widely available yet. So, concentrating on electrically powered vehicles
to replace the gas guzzling ones we currently have would mean an increase in
charging station infrastructure at the residential and commercial levels. This,
of course, would put an even bigger strain on the power generating capacity we now
have.
2.
Replacing air travel with high-speed inter-city
rail systems. With the exception of the Acela corridor (Washington D.C. to
Boston) and a few major metropolitan areas, not much of our current rail
networks are electrified. The desire to replace our existing air travel networks
with rail-based ones will require a build-out of our current systems, as well
as their electrification. Will these high-speed transit systems run on existing
railbeds, or will they need dedicated high-speed rail technology like we see in
Europe or parts of Asia? Then there’s the elephant in the room, our rail-based
freight system. The vast bulk of rail mileage in this country exists for the movement
of freight from point A to point B. All of this will need to be electrified.
Furthermore, all of the freight locomotives that currently conduct most of the
long-haul operations, as well as any switching engines not already electrically
powered, will need to be replaced with electrically powered ones. Again, our
current electrical infrastructure is not capable of supporting this.
Speaking of air travel, how does one travel to another
country if commercial aircraft are going to be done away with? Mexico and
Canada are no-brainers since they share common borders with the United States,
but what about destinations further afield? It might be easy for someone in Seattle
or El Paso to drive across the border and catch a commercial flight/s to their destination,
but what about those of us in the heartland where such a thing isn’t possible?
Do we go back to the days of ocean travel by ship? If so,
what ports would be on the list of those approved by the government to travel
out of? Remember, cruise ships are powered vessels that rely on the burning of
fossil fuels for their means of propulsion, as well as a host of ship’s
services such as electricity, hot water, sewage, and heating ventilation and
air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Another sticking point would be the huge
number of freighters that ply the waters of this planet. As the world’s number
one consumer market, we buy an awful lot of the goods that are delivered by
these vessels. What happens to them (and our goods) if they aren’t allowed free
access to our ports?
Travel beyond the confines of our borders, as stated earlier
would be a difficult proposition at best, that is, unless we make certain
assumptions/exceptions. Let’s start with the premise that foreign air carriers
would still be allowed to fly into international gateway cities like New York,
Chicago, Atlanta, LA, San Fran, Seattle, etc. This would at least allow travel
to global destinations for Americans and allow foreigners the ability to visit here
as well. Of course, U.S. carriers wouldn’t take that sitting down. They would
lobby for an exemption to the air travel ban in order to stay competitive with their
foreign counterparts. Given the concentration of available choices of transportation
at these nodes, they would become de-facto centers of commerce, industry, and I
daresay, wealth. Not exactly what AOC and her counterparts had in mind.
Speaking of commerce, we live in an incredibly connected
world where we have the ability to go online, order something and have it
delivered the same day or within the next two. That “need it right now” desire
would definitely have to be curbed since we wouldn’t have access to the sort of
transportation infrastructure that we currently have and take for granted. That
overnight trip for the item we just ordered 15 minutes ago would turn into at
least a two-day ordeal, since Amazon, Wal-Mart, and others would no longer have
the luxury of being able to plunk it on a cargo plane and have it at our doorsteps
the next day. A lot of industries and businesses that have based their supply
chains around the just in time inventory delivery model would be sent back to
the bad ole days where they had to again concern themselves with supply stockpiling,
warehousing and the like. Their overhead would incur additional costs due to this
extra burden. And who do you think is going to pay for these added costs? The
consumer, of course.
I’m sure that AOC and the coauthors of this document meant
well when they put it together, but as the saying goes, the road to hell is
paved with good intentions. It’s not about what you’re trying to do, but how
you go about accomplishing it. Without proper planning, timely execution and
continual follow-up, even the most noble-minded intentions will come to naught.
My two cents, for what it’s worth.
