Chicago Mayor Releases Roadmap For Transitioning To 100 Percent Renewable Energy By 2035 (pv-magazine-usa.com)

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual has released a roadmap for transitioning to 100% renewable energy by 2035 and to an electric Chicago Transit Authority bus fleet by 2040. The move is especially noteworthy as there are 11 nuclear reactors in operation in Illinois. From a report: Yesterday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel unveiled the Resilient Chicago plan, which with action number 38 commits to "transition to 100% clean, renewable energy in buildings community-wide by 2035." The deadline for all city government buildings to be powered solely by renewables, first established in 2017, has been brought forward to 2025. The policy has been introduced as part of environmental group the Sierra Club's "Ready for 100" campaign, and Chicago is the largest city to join the effort to date. (Editor's note: While Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has announced his city is on a path to 100% renewable energy, it is not clear if the formal goal is 100% renewable or 100% zero-carbon, and LA is not included in the Sierra Club's Ready for 100 list.)

The language of the Resilient Chicago text says "clean, renewable energy," and the Sierra Club does not include nuclear as part of its Ready to 100 campaign. The new policy is a particularly interesting move for Emanuel, once considered one of the more pro-nuclear politicians in the Democratic Party, and a man who brokered the deal that created Exelon. Were Chicago to include nuclear in a 2035 target, it would require either buying power from existing plants instead of investing in new generation, or starting new nuclear plants within six years. Given the high cost of nuclear compared to wind and solar, few decision makers are contemplating that option.

Comments

Sierra Club

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the relevance of this group's opinion? AFAIK, they have absolutely, zero say on *any* energy policy, anywhere in the US. They can oppose this and that, but I don't think it matters one bit.

Re:Sierra Club

[Barsteward]

best you read the summary again, its the Chicago Mayor making the running on 100% renewables. They join the "ready to 00 club" like you do when you join the "mile high club"

Re:Sierra Club

[Chas]

Social capital and lobbying dollars (mainly the second).

Re: Sierra Club

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the same as everybody else.

Re: Sierra Club

[Chas]

Except most people don't have a 100+ year track record and supposedly 3 million members that, ostensibly, agree with the "party" line.

Re:Sierra Club

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The Sierra Club, these days, seems to be an agent of land developers. (Whether wittingly or unwittingly, and whatever they might have been long ago, is immaterial.)

As of a few years back, when my wife checked their government-mandated public records, more than half their donations came from developers.

The algorithm seemd to be:
  1. Developers contribute to the Sierra Club
  2. The Sierra Club harasses and sues a farmer. The farmer adjusts the drainage on a spot that puddles in the rainy season, ending an infestation of disease-carrying mosquitoes? Sue him for "destroying wetlands". Some rare animal happens to nest on his property (typically on some area he doesn't disturb, such as the strip around a field boundary or a drainage ditch), sue him to "protect the endangered species". Block him from building a new shed, using the middle of his land or crossing it with farm equipment, etc.
3. The farmer's operation becomes unprofitable.
4. Now that the farmer's been driven out of business, he sells his land to a developer.
5. The developer builds a subdivision of pricey houses on the site. Goodbye intermittent swamp. Goodbye large areas congenial to the endangered critter. (The developer may make a show of leaving an inadequate patch as critter habitat, but the critter won't be there next year.)
6. The Sierra Club DOESN'T sue their donor.
7. PROFIT!

Re: Sierra Club

[Anonymous Coward]

So again, the same as everybody else? When needed, they work together? Such revelations.

Is water wet? Do frogs fly in the wind? Can a woodchuck chuck wood? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie roll pop?

Re: Sierra Club

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump prolly want Them to use oil and gas instead

Re: Sierra Club

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea ORange Man BAd!

Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Chas]

They're going to basically spend all this money paying for power from "renewable" sources.
Yet, in all likelihood, they're going to be delivered locally generated power from nuclear sources.
And exactly HOW many cars are on the road in Chicago EVERY DAMN DAY?

Also, Metra DOES have one Electric district train setup.
But the majority of their trains are diesel.

So shortsighted...

If they were REALLY looking to make big gains, they'd go after low-hanging fruit in building retrofits.
Remember, roughly 40% of ALL energy demand in the country is for HVAC load.

Take a thermal camera and look at most Chicago buildings.
They leak heat like a sieve.
Basically this means that excessive amounts of money are being spent trying to keep these buildings at livable temperatures, because they're losing heat via conduction and convection.

Simple changes in building codes for new and retrofit construction, along with incentives to do so could yield massive decreases in energy CONSUMPTION.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Registered Coward v2]

Simple changes in building codes for new and retrofit construction, along with incentives to do so could yield massive decreases in energy CONSUMPTION.

Simple? Maybe for you. For property owners, it's an unfunded mandate, basically modern day slavery.

Which is why I think they way to do that is offer incentives, rather than mandate improvements, to reduce consumption. If a property owner doesn’t want to participate then they don’t get any of the incentives. Building owners get to weigh the incentives plus reduced energy costs vs. retrofit costs and decide what they want to do.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[thegarbz]

And exactly HOW many cars are on the road in Chicago EVERY DAMN DAY?

Exactly! We should only ever focus on one cause, even if transportation and power generation have equal shares in the problem. This is just another attack against the clean and healthy power industry at the expense of our ludicrously cheap power.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Anonymous Coward]

I see this type of deception all the time, in government, at the workplace, in the marketplace. Jack up prices, then offer incentives for people who do what you want them to do so that they are back at the original price. End result: the people who aren't doing whatever you wanted them to do are paying more. Why the fuck didn't you just make things simple and penalize the people who aren't doing what you want them to do from the start? Because people are idiots and don't realize when they're being fucked over.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Why the fuck didn't you just make things simple and penalize the people who aren't doing what you want them to do from the start?

Presumably because the previous generation was too stupid.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple changes in building codes for new and retrofit construction

Problem is: that will make home ownership much more expensive and thus unaffordable for many. Home ownership is one of the most important ways to build wealth in the long run.

If you force people into renting you drain them financially for the rest of their lives. Of course that is likely in the interest of law makers who tend to own more properties they can profit off. Bonus points for being able to hide this wealth concentration behind being ""green" and "for the environment".

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[KermodeBear]

"It's not a tax or a fine, it's an incentive! Honest!"

It's a tax. Why can't the tax-and-spend types ever be honest about that kind of thing?

When you get down to it, if you want people to upgrade their buildings, then you have to make it worth their money and time. In many cases, a simple education campaign would help. If you can show that a building 60 years old can save, I dunno let's pick a number, 25% in energy costs over the year with a $X investment, then you don't need to force people to do anything. Many will do it on their own.

Unless, of course, you're poor.

You see, poor people are - imagine this - poor. They don't have the money. They can't just dump thousands of dollars into new insulation and other materials. They can't get a loan to do it and, if they could, they would spend more in interest payments than the original project. So, the idea is to jack up prices on people who already can't afford much and certainly can't afford to upgrade things? Yeah...

And then, what about the energy involved in producing the new materials, installing it, stripping out the old stuff, and disposing of it? What about the waste? Every building in the city? I've seen how fast those union workers do their jobs.

I get the intention. We want people to have energy efficient homes. I do too. Over the long term it is better for everyone. But you can't just wave the Magic Wand of Regulation. It's not that simple. Keep jacking up taxes? You can, but remember: the wealthy can live anywhere they choose. They're wealthy. And when taxes get too high they will leave in droves. Illinois already has massive debt problems. They can't afford to sacrifice any more blood dolls.

We can make all the magical pie in the sky plans we want, and there is a place for dreaming up ideals as something to shoot for, but you still have to fund the damn thing.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Freischutz]

They're going to basically spend all this money paying for power from "renewable" sources. Yet, in all likelihood, they're going to be delivered locally generated power from nuclear sources. And exactly HOW many cars are on the road in Chicago EVERY DAMN DAY?

Also, Metra DOES have one Electric district train setup. But the majority of their trains are diesel.

So shortsighted...

If they were REALLY looking to make big gains, they'd go after low-hanging fruit in building retrofits. Remember, roughly 40% of ALL energy demand in the country is for HVAC load.

Take a thermal camera and look at most Chicago buildings. They leak heat like a sieve. Basically this means that excessive amounts of money are being spent trying to keep these buildings at livable temperatures, because they're losing heat via conduction and convection.

Simple changes in building codes for new and retrofit construction, along with incentives to do so could yield massive decreases in energy CONSUMPTION.

To be fair, just because there are lots of polluting cars in Chicago does not mean they should not switch to renewables. That said, you are right, the whole switching to renewables project would go a lot faster and be easier if they offered tax breaks (or some other form of incentive) for people who insulate their houses since the less houses leak heat the less power you need and the slower demand for power grows. As for the cars, I think the pollution from gasoline cars will probably solve itself, particularly if the city encouraged the construction of charging points for electric cars. You can't just pick the issue apart and focus on individual aspects of it, you have to approach it with a holistic set of solutions.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[CrimsonAvenger]

If you can show that a building 60 years old can save, I dunno let's pick a number, 25% in energy costs over the year with a $X investment, then you don't need to force people to do anything. Many will do it on their own.

Assuming, of course, that $X is less than 25% of your energy costs over the remaining lifetime of the building.

And yeah, poor people aren't going to be in on that game. Unless the government offers low interest loans to poor people to do so. Which will require that the city government borrow moderately enormous amounts of money.

Which is their privilege.

That said, looks like Da Mayor is planning on putting Chicago on the hook for a LOT of money, which bill won't come due till...his successor is in office. Always a great way to run things - promise the sun, the moon, the stars, and if it ends up being too expensive, you get to blame someone else for not doing it right....

Re: Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, because the previous generations could steal elsewhere.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[JaredOfEuropa]

It’s pretty hard to go 100% carbon neutral without either access to reliable renewable power like geothermal or hydro, or by adding nuclear power into the mix. Many so called 100% clean renewable counties, provinces or companies manage that goal by using offsets, i.e. what they can’t generate directly with solar or wind, they buy from external wind and solar providers. The thing is, those providers sell as many MWh of green power as they actually generate, but the actually green power you buy it from them might well be generated by coal or nuclear at that moment. So this model breaks down when everyone tries to go green.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Anonymous Coward]

Statements about 100% renewables are 100% bullshit. What they really mean, is: 100% renewables+gas, and since intermittent renewables may generate 0% at any given time, gas must always be ready to generate 100%. The massive overbuild and gas backup are hugely wasteful and expensive, and don't even reduce carbon emissions.

This has been repeatedly demonstrated, yet the lies persist, because it makes money for fossil and renewable sales. The only "Green New Deal" type efforts that actually worked, were powered by nuclear energy. Any reasonable nation in pursuit of prosperity and affordable clean energy can follow in the footsteps of France or Sweden. The foolish ones will suffer the fate of Germany, wasting enormous resources to accomplish nothing.

Re: Total bullshit for higher power bills

[ceoyoyo]

On average, renting is cheaper than owning. That home ownership thing you said is a line thatâ(TM)s been sold to a couple of generations now, presumably to spur the construction, real estate and mortgage industries, but it has the side benefit of forcing people to save money as well. Owning the home you live in is a pretty effective forced savings plan.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Chas]

Note: I said changes to codes.

Not "We're inspecting you and you need to come up to this in X-days."
That's forced "New Green Deal" bullshit.

I'm talking improvements in code-minimums for new construction and retrofits.
So, if it were to change TODAY, exactly NOBODY would be immediately affected.

The act of submitting a new building for construction, or for a retrofit project is what would trigger this.
If they decide to NOT move forward, there's no residual onus on them to make the changes anyhow.

Like right now, code for insulation in walls in Chicago.

Walls (existing): R13
Walls (new): R21

New values would be determined (honestly, in a place like Chicago, going beyond R21 in walls doesn't yield terribly better performance.

There would be codes for things like air-sealing and elimination of cold bridges through the structure.

And remediation of things like this don't have to be hideously expensive or involved.
There are inexpensive ways to get this stuff done, even on a macro scale like a high rise or skyscraper.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Chas]

Why the fuck didn't you just make things simple and penalize the people who aren't doing what you want them to do from the start? Because people are idiots and don't realize when they're being fucked over.

Because the science and technology behind this sort of thing has come a LONG LONG WAY in just the last 30 years.
The average building age in Chicago is 32+ years.
And the code minimums have gone UP quite a bit in that time.

Something built in 1990 has only slightly better thermal and air sealing characteristics than a turn-of-the-century barn.
You can build a modern home in the same style, yet require less than half the HVAC plant and less than a quarter of the actual power consumption.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Chas]

Passive House and Net Zero have been around for decades.
The problem is inertia in the building trades.
And the fact that a house that costs you a quarter of your current bills isn't as sexy as something with marble countertops, oak trim, wood floors, and all the home-bling-bling.

And again, nobody is forcing anyone to build new or retrofit at any given point.

The idea is that, when you do, you simply conform to the newer standard.
And in an ideal situation, because of the way this type of building trades off, the final bill for everything should be at or under that of a current code minimum home (the absolute shittiest new/re-build the law allows.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Chas]

No. I'm simply pointing out that the issues in Chicago are multifaceted.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Chas]

Some of it is a tradeoff.
Yeah, marble countertops, rainfall shower room, hardwood floors.
Or you initially furnish more modestly, split the difference on your physical plant and wind up with a home that isn't going to require enormous monetary input that goes right up a flue or rots out in 5-10 years.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[WhiplashII]

That really isn't necessary. I'm the condo president of one of the largest buildings in downtown Chicago. Every other year, we have an energy audit done on the building. We basically implement the plan that has the highest return. No coercion is required.

The people that ran the building before it became a condo were not very good managers. Our first couple projects had a 180 day payback period! But now we are looking at payback periods of 15 years or so, which is still worth it if you finance the work.

Good management will make building more efficient over time. Poor managers eventually get replaced by good managers, because the building is worth more to the good manager. There is no need to hold guns to peoples head in the name of the environment.

Re: Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Anonymous Coward]

On average, renting is cheaper than owning.

Where is renting cheaper than owning? Seriously, citation please. I rented for 12 years & finally got enough cash for the down payment to buy a condo. The bubble burst a few years later & in that working class neighborhood, it finally came back to what I paid for it just last year.

I'd been renting it out since 2013 as I got married & moved. Lost my tenant so I sold it for just a few K more than I paid. What does this mean? I got a big fat check out of the deal that I would never have got if I had rented. With basically no increase in value, it was still far better than renting. The payments, association fees, & maintained was actually slightly cheaper than renting in that same neighborhood.

As you say, a forced savings plan. It worked out well for me. I even bought a second condo in that same area at the bottom of the market & rent it out. It works out to about 8% a year in return on the original investment not counting it's increase in value, almost 300%.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate the energy companies so much? You spouting off about saving energy and using efficient building codes is just going to cost jobs. Do you hate jobs?

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[thegarbz]

No. I'm simply pointing out that the issues in Chicago are multifaceted.

No you weren't. If you were then you really need to learn to write. Start by not emphasizing your incredible disagreement using carefully selected all-caps. You can then continue by not saying if they "really" wanted to make a difference they'd do something else.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Chas]

So now I'm supposed to posit an argument however YOU decide I should.

Pfft. Fuck off.

Re: Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is renting cheaper than owning? Seriously, citation please.

Any major city. Well, at least the ones with stupidly bad zoning laws like New York, SF, Seattle (the more expensive parts, at least), etc. In those places, buying property is a game for the rich. The upper-middle class and below either move to the suburbs or rent.

Here's some hard numbers on the price-to-rent ratio of US cities. Another site suggests any ratio over 16 means "it is typically better to rent than buy".

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[_Sharp'r_]

When you make new construction more difficult and more costly, existing apartment and housing prices also increase as a result of the decline in new construction to compete with it. See also, SF Bay area.

Re:Total bullshit for higher power bills

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, don't you know progressives are better than you, and you should ALWAYS do what they say because they know more about everything than you do.. Jeez learn to progtard.

There is no such thing as renewables

[rossdee]

The sun is not renewable.

They need to start calling these energy sources "Non Carbon Energy"

Which also includes fission based power plants and geothermal.

Re:There is no such thing as renewables

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you have us there. The sun isn't renewable, it will run out in 10 billion years. Something that will become more and more pressing for me when I approach retirement.

Re:There is no such thing as renewables

[Anonymous Coward]

The sun is for all intents and purposes an inexhaustible energy source. It existed billions of years before the appearance of Man, and will continue exist billions of years after Man has bit the dust

Re: There is no such thing as renewables

[jovius]

In all practical sense Sunâ(TM)s radiative energy is renewable, as long as thereâ(TM)s Sun. Itâ(TM)s about the primary energy source. Some deplete by using them and some donâ(TM)t. Sun, wind, geothermal etc are not depleted from the use.

There will likely be big advances in how renewable energy sources are tapped and how the energy is stored. There hasnâ(TM)t been so much push before for that, so theyâ(TM)ve been mostly left out of focus.

Re:There is no such thing as renewables

[KermodeBear]

Thank you, Mr. Pedantic, for your insightful contribution to the discussion.

Re:There is no such thing as renewables

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always one pedantic asshole to be found...

do you also chime in "but we're a Republic!" anytime someone mentions democracy in America...

Re: There is no such thing as renewables

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy vs Republic is actually an important distinction. It's why "B-b-but she won the popular vote!" is a sniveling whine, instead of an indication of malfeasance.

Re: There is no such thing as renewables

[Anonymous Coward]

But the USA is not a republic, it is a representative democracy

Power of the Gun

[Anonymous Coward]

On Lake Shore Drive. No, no. South side of Chicago. Or keep going south until you hit Gary. Then get out and puke. It the home to Michael Jackson. Puke like an alterboy in a rectory. Then run, run as fast as you can, as far away as you can. Now! Beware the copper. He gonna shoot you in the back like he did Danny Omerta 14 times.

Renewable source tax in the works!

[Anonymous Coward]

Guarantee the Mayor is looking to create yet another tax for Chicagoan's! Even though our power is overall pretty cheap compared to others and we have plenty of investment to the West of Chicago in Wind energy and solar. Apparently the catch phrase for Democrat's now is on saving the planet. Don't worry about all the violence and killing going on Mr. Mayor.

Re:Renewable source tax in the works!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah like they did in NYC, first made "bike lanes" to promote "green" now they're gonna charge "congestion fees" because most roads lost a few lanes for this bike lane nonsense they can't carry the same traffic anymore.
Meanwhile the subway still sucks balls, needs a major overhaul.

Might get close

[Anonymous Coward]

100% No way. The majority? Yeah, Chicago is the most likely of any major urban center to do it. The wind on the great plains never stops really, and it's a lot easier and cheaper to drop turbines in corn fields than offshore. Comically, the heartland if waaaay better positioned to go majority renewable in our lifetimes. The steady cheap wind cuts the storage complications a lot.

The idea that California could do it with solar is laughable at the moment, and they're about to find out how much more difficult that last 50% of power is to replace... but Chicago could be 80% renewable without breaking the bank if it had a mind to do it. It would take overcapacity of wind, but if you've ever lived there you know space isn't exactly at a premium.

Re:Might get close

[Anonymous Coward]

The deadline for all city government buildings to be powered solely by renewables, first established in 2017, has been brought forward to 2025.

Gee, guess they missed that date, wonder why? But oh boy they'll definitely make it happen in the next 6 years, for sure.

Holler at me...

[Anonymous Coward]

When O'Hare and Midway "go renewable"

Re: Holler at me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Bio fuel.

Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[jfdavis668]

You think the mayor of Chicago would be more concerned with the city's murder rate right now, instead of energy generation.

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[h33t l4x0r]

Or maybe we can use murder as a renewable fuel? Only in Chicago though.

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[ScentCone]

You think the mayor of Chicago would be more concerned with the city's murder rate right now, instead of energy generation.

The reason they have such a murder rate in Chicago is because of their sophisticated gang member recycling program. Arrest them, and then put them right back out on the street so they can commit more crime. It's super efficient!

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[kick6]

Maybe increase the murder rate? Less citizens, less power usage...

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the mayor of Chicago would be more concerned with the city's murder rate right now, instead of energy generation.

That's a myth. Chicago's murder rate is about average compared to the rest of the country. That myth was started by the NRA as "evidence" of their unsubstantiated claim that gun ownership reduces crime. And Chicago's "ultra-strict" gun control they caused the "extra crime - that doesn't exist.

Of course, the NRA never points out that places that enacted strict gun control, homicides dropped precipitously. For example: Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he can do something you can't... like work on both things. Let me guess, you had to give up eating today so you can submit your post.

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us can work on multiple things concurrently. Look into it if you get a chance.

Also look into the per capita homicide rate in Chicago versus other US cities, rather than parroting your master's talking point.

All the best.

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Regarding the homicide rate of big cities, Chicago is number 4, with Baltimore, Detroit, and Memphis ahead of it. This is for the rate, not the number of homicides. And when you consider that Chicago has about 1.5 times the number of residents as those other 3 cities combined, there is no question why Chicago is considered the murder capitol of the US. High rate, high population, high number of murders.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are less likely to be murdered in Chicago than you are in rural America.

Itâ(TM)s just the police donâ(TM)t write up so many suicides. Or cancer deaths. Or whatever fills in the blanks.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Actually, you are less likely to be murdered in Chicago than you are in rural America.

Citation needed.

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[alvinrod]

They mainly do kill other gang members though, so releasing the most efficient killers is probably more effective at reducing the number of gang bangers in the street than anything else. I say they should ramp up such efforts. Just tell the gang members that it’s highlander rules and eventually there will be only one. Just take that guy to the next city with a gang problem and rinse and repeat.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are less likely to be murdered in Chicago than you are in rural America.

Itâ(TM)s just the police donâ(TM)t write up so many suicides. Or cancer deaths. Or whatever fills in the blanks.

Ahh yes, another jerk on their iphone thinking they can get their bigotry rocks off in a socially acceptable way by pivoting from race to politics.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government of the United States(just call your senator for their latest crime report), the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, US News and World Report, Heartland Alliance, National Rural Health Alliance, and that isn't even counting the death rate from accidents which is also higher in rural America.

Sorry, but all your handwringing about cities is ignoring the actual suffering of the rural victims being ignored since it is much easier to straw man against perceived urban failings.

They make for a convenient target. Like Gays and AIDS.

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[ScentCone]

But the problem is that the high rate of mostly gang-related murder in these small, concentrated areas, is used as an excuse to strip constitutional rights away from the 300,000,00 or so people who have nothing to do with it. Places like Chicago and Baltimore are allowing their local dystopias to damage the entire rest of the country.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Looks to me that cities and the immediate suburbs are much more dangerous than rural America. Violent crimes and property crimes are twice (or more) likely per capita in cities and their immediate suburbs as compared to rural America.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shows what you know, I was using your Mom's iphone.

She says "mmmrrrffffpphhhhhhmmmm" which I assume means you need to stop masturbating on your sister's toys and cook the meth up proper.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on numbers from the FBI from 2016:

Chicago: 28.0
United States: 5.3

So it looks like you're talking out your ass.

Oh, and I can actually cite my sources.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-6/table-6-state-cuts/illinois.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-1

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't check for what I pointed out did you? You looked up the wrong thing.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[LynnwoodRooster]

You pointed out nothing. A random list of names of agencies, no links, no citations, nothing. I've provided hard facts that counter your position. Sorry, you're wrong. Proven so. Violent and property crimes are much higher, per capita, in cities and their immediate suburbs than in rural America. Facts are facts, and your wishes don't change them.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the CIA, Congress, and the private prison industry.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't countered my position at all, it was upthread a bit so maybe you've forgotten what it was, but I haven't.

Luckily, even with your demonstrably poor memory, you can actually follow the replies up as long as you remain focused, which might be a problem, but you would have to ask for an accommodation to reflect your disability then.

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[LynnwoodRooster]

In this entire thread, the only links have been from myself. You've posted nothing other than making provably false statements. Sucks to be you!

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read what I said again, understand it and do note the fundamental flaw in your numbers. You do realize it is obvious you failed to comprehend my words?

Look, you didn't state your own properly. LynnwoodRooster, you are dumber than RayMorris, and RayMorris literally failed to comprehend the difference between a plan with a certain number of customers and the entire customer base of an ISP. Please go back to school. Ask them how to follow through to the end of the post.

You need stamina. Try the long blue pills. Also try not to fall for any more IRS scams.

Re:Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://heyjackass.com/

Let me just leave this here for you..

Re: Maybe lower the murder rate first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you literally have proved nothing. You said a few words and said "You're wrong and I'm right!!" Even know you cited 0 sources and have 0 evidence. You must be one of the "COLLUSION!!!! PROOF HERE" people.

--Highdude702(mods)

Re: Israeli Club

[Anonymous Coward]

He would say oops sorry never again

easy when you apparently don't have to pay for it

[argStyopa]

Chicago has $9 bn in assets, and $42 bn in liabilities. It is a city so poorly run that they have been losing population steadily and in pretty sizable numbers.

Pray, tell: who will pay for this, or are they just going to sell unicorn rides?

The Sun is renewable.

[Anonymous Coward]

At the end of its life, it will go supernova, blast its material into space where it will be recycled into planets, moons, other suns, and maybe a life form. ;-P

Re:The Sun is renewable.

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: Our sun will not go supernova, it will become a red giant, then shed its outer layers, and then shrink to a white dwarf which will very slowly cool.

How much from Chicago?

[Anonymous Coward]

And how much of the renewable energy will be generated **in** Chicago? Or even within sight of Chicago?

My prediction: hundredths of a percent

Bold plan with substantial costs

[TuballoyThunder]

It will be interesting to see how they end up funding the change given the other large obligations that the city and county have. In particular they are facing a steep pension funding shortfall. Raising taxes will probably increase the rate of high earners leaving the area. They could try to reduce pension benefits, but I'm not sure how much traction that will get. I guess there is always the bond market...

Re: But AOChe says no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get fucked,traitor

So Fucking Easy!

[Anonymous Coward]

It might sound hard, even impossible to accomplish such an aspiration. Most especially when you consider all the buildings still running on 100 year old or more heating systems.

But, it's fucking easy to do. They just reclassify/redefine what renewable energy is/means. It's a growing trend in the greenwashing field.

Remember how using paper was a bad thing and everyone was encouraged to save a tree? But, now it(wood) is a renewable resource that we need to use more of. Think about it... By the same measure, coal is a renewable resource. Oil probably is renewable too.

The politicians have an entire new generation of gullible idiots slurping up their bullshit and praising their self-serving malfeasance.

That Rahm Emanual is (STILL) the mayor of Chicago tells us just how incredibly fucking stupid his constituents are.

Re: But AOChe says no!

[ScentCone]

Right, because only traitors think nuclear power is an important source of electricity, while patriotic socialist heroes who say we should shut them all down have a totally sane grasp on our actual energy needs. Gotcha. Thanks for your insightful contribution, especially the way you addressed the substance of the matter.

All Energy

[Anonymous Coward]

is Renewable. So the switch to 100% renewable energy sources is complete, right now. Congratulations! Job well done!

Re: But AOChe says no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Traitors do take money to betray and corrupt their professed country or origin, I mean, we all know you are, in fact, a native Russian based on your diction and ideation, but since you claim to be American, we get to call you a traitor and treat you accordingly.

Enjoy your Marlboro, cowboy.

Read more carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

The deadline was first established in 2017 for a date in the 2030s but has been moved forward five years.

Lame duck mayor

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Rahm is quitting because his office sat on a video of a cop shooting an unarmed black guy a dozen times and the community was justifiably pissed. He can promise free trips to Mars if he wants but he's out in April and no one wants his endorsement - the ultimate lame duck.

Lame ducks proposing radical legislation

[rsilvergun]

is an important part of our political process. It's how progress happens.

And we're going to switch to renewable soon one way or another. Besides dwindling reserves of the cheap, easy to get to oil (and you won't like what it does to the water table to get to the hard stuff) if we don't do something about climate change we're all gonna die. Not in the changed climate, but from the massive war over food and water that's gonna happen. If we're lucky we won't use too many nukes. But trust me, there will be nukes.

Re:Lame ducks proposing radical legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

if we don't do something about climate change we're all gonna die.
 
There is a cheaper, healthier and easier answer to this question but fat ass Americans won't hear it: Vegetarianism.
 
  Not in the changed climate, but from the massive war over food and water that's gonna happen.
 
Even more reason to push for vegetarianism over renewable energy sources.
 
Not to say both can't and shouldn't be done but vegetarianism helps a lot more than the initiative presented here. But too many people in The States will scream "Muh Bacon!!!"

Re:Lame ducks proposing radical legislation

[sysrammer]

There is a cheaper, healthier and easier answer to this question but fat ass Americans won't hear it: Vegetarianism...Even more reason to push for vegetarianism over renewable energy sources.

Agreed. A properly marinated and roasted vegetarian is cheaper and better for the environment.

Re:Lame ducks proposing radical legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

> if we don't do something about climate change we're all gonna die

Guess what we all are, just at different times, some with fulfilled lives, some without.

Deal with the murders, homeless and general malaise, messing with trace gasses won't do a damn thing.

Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[bobbied]

All this "green energy" zero emissions stuff is fine and dandy, as long as it's not a mandate. Once you do stupid stuff like this, making it mandatory, you do two things.

1. Make it more expensive. You heard me right "green" is NOT free, it's actually much more expensive than current alternatives, namely Natural Gas. This economic truth is rarely understood much less acknowledged and the effect of this on the local economy is measurable and not in a good way. When energy becomes more expensive, people, industry, and jobs leave.

2. Spend lots of money on revamping, renewing, changing technology. When you change all your vehicles to electric, it means that you have to git rid of the current fleet and by a new one. In this case, government will have to replace all their vehicles, from the police cars all the way though city buses. This means junking parking lots full of expensive things which where supposed to last another few decades. It also means buying all the infrastructure to support the new energy sources, which is in itself expensive.

So, what does all this mean? In the end, it means the already brisk pace folks are leaving Chicago and the state will continue to increase as they ditch Illinois for it's high taxes, high costs of living and lowering standards of living. It also means that the city of Chicago will be adding greatly to it's already unmanageable debt, either raising taxes or lowering services to compensate and either of those accelerates the departure of the people who are just trying to live a better life.

Illinois is heading to being like Detroit on a state wide basis. Keep it up you loonies.. Just shoot yourselves in the foot, both hands and the head and get it over with. A quick death is better than a long lingering bout in the ICU.

Save the planet, just go ahead and commit suicide if you like, just do it quick. This slow meandering death is bad for the environment. Just set up the "death" centers and start up a lottery to decide who gets to visit because the way I see it, to get what you want we need to cut down the population by about 50%, world wide...

Re:Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[Anonymous Coward]

"Green" is also significantly "dirtier" than nuclear. After its lifespan of 30 years, a solar panel is thrown away because it isn't recyclable, meaning landfills have to absorb a significant portion of heavy metals and junk silicon. Solar also requires storage which, as you may already know, requires raping the earth in order to acquire the raw lithium and cobalt required for manufacturing batteries.

Nuclear is the only way forward. When the total lifecycle is considered, it has less than 25% of the carbon emissions of solar power (for those who care about carbon), and compares even better than that when measured against wind. Even when accounting nuclear waste, the total emissions of toxic and dangerous materials is a tiny fraction of that of its "green" alternatives.

Re:Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[Anonymous Coward]

You heard me right "green" is NOT free, it's actually much more expensive than current alternatives, namely Natural Gas.

While nothing in life is free, your assertion simply isn't true: some utility-scale "green" energy sources are cheaper than current alternatives, including Natural Gas. From the U.S. EIA's Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2018 (pdf warning):

Table 1a. Estimated levelized cost of electricity (capacity-weighted average) for new generation resouces entering service in 2022 (2017 $/MWh):

Dispatchable technologies
Plant type | 2018 LCOE including tax incentives
Coal with 30% CCS | NB
Coal with 90% CCS | NB
Conventional CC | 48.3
Advanced CC | 48.1 <–– Natural Gas
Advanced CC with CCS | NB
Conventional CT | NB
Advanced CT | 79.5
Advanced nuclear | 90.1 <–– Cherenkov Blue
Geothermal | 40.3 <–– Green
Biomass | 102.2 <–– Green

Non-dispatchable technologies
Wind, onshore | 37.0 <–– Green
Wind, offshore | 106.2 <–– Green
Solar PV | 46.5 <–– Green
Solar thermal | NB <–– Green
Hydroelectric | 73.9 <–– Green

As you can clearly see, utility-scale Onshore Wind, Geothermal, and Solar PV are all currently cheaper than Natural Gas. Of those three, only Solar PV becomes more expensive than NatGas when tax credits are excluded (59.1 vs 46.5 $/MWh).

Re:Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[thegarbz]

1. Make it more expensive. You heard me right "green" is NOT free, it's actually much more expensive than current alternatives

You don't say! Green is more expensive? Man it sounds like you DEFINITELY need to mandate it then otherwise no one will do anything and we'll happily crap on our own future health and survival because hey, gotta save that dollar man!

2. Spend lots of money on revamping, renewing, changing technology.

Errr... Good.

Re:Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[bobbied]

You must not be from around Chicago... Everybody knows that the city AND the state are on the brink of bankruptcy and the population of both are in a rapid decline as those who have the means are leaving, taking their money with them. Which leaves mostly the poor and middle class, who DON'T have the money to do this green thing, so it's going to just destroy their standards of living... Again.... But that's the breaks in Illinois these days, the taxpayer is getting reamed while the government is blowing money on stupid stuff that helps nobody.

The only thing this idea will ensure is that both Chicago and Illinois will be further in to debt, able to provide even less services and security for it's citizens, and make that inevitable bankruptcy happen sooner, while it lines the pockets of the "green" energy executives who sell all the services and equipment that will need to be purchased. Companies like Soylindra will go boom democrat donors will collect huge paychecks, then the boom will be a bust when Chicago's creditors stop buying bonds to finance the democrat machine that runs the city and state.

So yea, feel free to go "green" if you like... It won't work, even if you try. All you will do is create pain and suffering, expand urban blight, drive more folks out of the middle class into poverty. But that's what this green thing really boils down to isn't it? To *really* address this climate change issue, we are going to need to return to pre 1900's days, including farming and transportation techniques, which will necessitate the return to pre 1900's population levels, WORLD WIDE. This is absolutely impossible, short of a natural disaster or pandemic that removes half the world's population. Like it or not, if you do this "green" thing and push it too far by regulations, the social and economic impacts will end up with the deaths of untold numbers though starvation, war, pestilence and just plain violence. I don't want to see that.

Re:Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[thegarbz]

You must not be from around Chicago... Everybody knows that the city AND the state are on the brink of bankruptcy

Interesting. This exact argument has often been used to justify why poor 3rd world shitholes should continue to pollute unabated because it's "cheaper". My my how Chicago has fallen.

Re:Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[Anonymous Coward]

Illinois is heading to being like Detroit on a state wide basis. Keep it up you loonies.. Just shoot yourselves in the foot, both hands and the head and get it over with. A quick death is better than a long lingering bout in the ICU.

Shoot ourselves in the foot? Great, more gun violence that needs to be legislated away. By they time their done there won't be a legal gun in Illinois (lots of illegal guns still)

Re:Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[bobbied]

Sometimes, you gota do what you gota do.

When your town is bankrupt, you got to stop spending somewhere somehow. Adding expenses should not be undertaken lightly or for vain reasons. You have to stop running on the emotional "Yea, I like that idea" and start running on the "We cannot live w/o that" for awhile. Chicago needs to major on things it *needs* like police, fire services, keeping the roads clear and in good repair and picking up the trash. It needs to have a commitment to paying off it's massive debt load and at least try to keep it's tax base from fleeing any faster. It's got to stop the death spiral.

Doing the green thing doesn't help ANY of that. It will only force the city into bankruptcy faster, ending all of these programs before they can have any noticeable effect on Chicago or the world, make Chicago into a urban waste land like Detroit and create a environmental nightmare of rotting buildings and homes where nobody wants to live and nobody has the money to knock down so they will crumble, burn and harbor crime for decades to come. THAT's not good for Chicago at all.

Re:Let's just hasten the death of IL..

[Anonymous Coward]

Cop cars are typically replaced before they hit 100k miles because fat police budgets and not having to hire more mechanics.

The nations infrastructure has been in dire need of upgrade for the last 40 years, it's only going to get upgraded by force since the private corps hate performing maintenance and upgrades because they harm current quarter profits.

fixing the infrastructure fixes the nations unemployment and underemployment problem the same way building said infrastructure did a hundred years ago, so stop crying about having to pay a pittance in taxes since the resulting benefits far outweigh the costs.

We're pushing 9% unemployment

[rsilvergun]

if you take out temp work, 6 month contractor gigs and Uber. We need stuff like this to employ folks. These are the "jobs of the future" everybody keeps getting promised when talk of Automation comes up.

The only downside to stuff like this (e.g. the "Green New Deal") is it benefits _everybody_. If you're one of the 1% that's no good. Also, if you're a bitter old "I got mine fuck you" coot (and to be blunt, /. is full of those, I might have turned into one myself if two major family illnesses hadn't opened my eyes).

And besides, we better do something with those out of work coal miners. Trump hasn't helped them in the slightest (two more plants just closed) and they're gonna get more extreme with the next Demagogue they get behind. Meanwhile if Trump actually does anything with that national emergency besides declaring it then we're on our way to a dictatorship. I mention that because the "I got mine" crowd claims to abhor dictatorships. So now's the time to put up or shut up.

Re: We're pushing 9% unemployment

[Anonymous Coward]

Building out 100% renewable in ten years is nuts. Replacing almost all air travel with planes in 10 years is nuts. Either the ones proposing it are moronic, lying, corrupt, or power-grabbing, because that should be obvious.

If they actually meant it, they'd set a 20-30 year time horizon, which would cut the cost of the project by more than half, since it can replace infrastructure as it nears maximum lifespan.

Re: We're pushing 9% unemployment

[blindseer]

If they actually meant it, they'd set a 20-30 year time horizon, which would cut the cost of the project by more than half, since it can replace infrastructure as it nears maximum lifespan.

If they actually meant it then they'd set a two year goal to go with the 20 to 30 year grander plan.

Without that goal in the time frame of an election then there is no accountability. Maybe they could make a 4 year plan, to fit in a term of POTUS. Maybe a 6 year plan to fit that of a US senator. Maybe an 8 year plan like JFK did in 1962 to send a man to the moon and bring him back safely. That would fit in the two terms that a POTUS could serve.

Any plan beyond the term in office of the person making the plan is worthless. Maybe I can believe a 20 year plan if it's got milestones at every 2 years or so. That way we can know they are serious. If they miss the 2 year goal then they must explain why it was missed and how they plan to meet the next goal in another 2 years.

You want to get to 0% carbon in 30 years? Okay, then tell me you will get a 3% reduction in the next year. Then another 3% the year after. And so on. If you can't do even as little as 3% this year then why should I expect 100% in 30 years?

Re:We're pushing 9% unemployment

[_Sharp'r_]

The only downside to stuff like this (e.g. the "Green New Deal") is it benefits _everybody_. If you're one of the 1% that's no good.

Reading through AOC's “Green New Deal” document as published by NPR, there seem to be a few additional downsides for everyone, including banning:

all forms of plastic and fossil fuels,
all carbon emissions, regardless of source,
all nuclear power plants,
non-union jobs related to renewable energy (or anything to do with the GND),
airplanes,
and famously, farting cows.

But don't worry, they'll guarantee:

Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work

And hey, they even have momentum:

Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say they back the Green New deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee.
        o 45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original resolution

But yeah, Executive orders instead of laws was bad when Obama did it and it's still bad if Trump does it. Funny how I don't recall you opposing Obama's use of them to magically create full blown immigration programs, though.

Re: But AOChe says no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill yourself faggot.

Fantasy

[Pinky's Brain]

Chicago set cold weather records this year, how the fuck will you heat homes with renewable energy by 2035?

I'm not saying there are no ways to carry renewable energy forward in time or across the country for winter use, but not by 2035. District heating with massive hot water reserves, power to gas, cross country HVDC distribution networks ... that's all much further out.

Even then any sane state should still have fuel based backups and a strategic reserve of fuel.

Re:Fantasy

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicago set cold weather records this year, how the fuck will you heat homes with renewable energy by 2035?

This is the right question, but you're not taking it seriously. Heating homes with fossil fuels in 2035 might not be an option. If we're not planning now how to heat them with non-fossil-fuel sources, then the alternative is not heating them (better known as poor people dying of exposure).

(Of course, as with basically everyone else on this thread, I agree that that planning has to at least consider nuclear as an option for that "non-fossil-fuel" source of energy.)

End times

[drwho]

Well, say goodbye to Chicago. A weakened city, brought to its knees. I wonder how many people who will freeze without proper heating will vote Demo/Green after this. Go Nuke or Go Broke.

It won't work...

[blindseer]

The guy can promise rainbows and unicorns and get the same result.

Chicago is called the Windy City not because of the climate, it's called that because of all the hot air from politicians that inhabit the place. They simply cannot build enough windmills to run the entire city and keep it affordable. There will not be any city in the USA that can run on 100% renewable energy except with the same funny bookkeeping that many businesses use to make the same claim. If they reach this goal it will be because they buy more expensive electricity from wind and solar projects around the USA and ignore that they are able to do this because of the ample production of cheaper (and far more reliable) energy from coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

There's also the matter of the time frame. He can make no promise that extends beyond his term. If he made a promise that was within his term in office, such as a 3 or 5 year plan, then I might believe him. A plan that's 10 to 20 years in the future starts to get to the point where any politician is unlikely to be in office, and perhaps beyond their own expected lifespan. No, this will not happen. Just more hot air from a windy politician.

Again, if he made some goal for the next 2 or 3 years, maybe as far as 8 years, then I might believe him. That way he could be held responsible. When JFK made his "going to the moon" speech people may have thought him crazy but at least it was within the potential frame of his time in office. We need more politicians like that. I'm thinking the nation is just craving for them. Give me a goal in the next 8 years, and even the slightest idea of how to get there, and I'll vote for that.

Like money, electricity is fungible.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

They're going to basically spend all this money paying for power from "renewable" sources.
Yet, in all likelihood, they're going to be delivered locally generated power from nuclear sources.

When the energy from renewable sources and nuclear reactors go into the same grid, how do you identify which energy was pulled out?

Re:Like money, electricity is fungible.

[Chas]

Bingo.

Re:Like money, electricity is fungible.

[blindseer]

When the energy from renewable sources and nuclear reactors go into the same grid, how do you identify which energy was pulled out?

That's easy, the renewable energy costs twice as much.

I keep hearing on how renewable energy will dominate the world because it is cheaper than coal. Well, then why do I keep getting these letters in the mail from the local utilities that want to charge me more for "green" energy? If it's cheaper than coal then they should be sending letters on how if I switch to "green" energy that my electric rates will be reduced.

Wind and solar are not cheaper than coal. If it was then they wouldn't need government subsidies, and higher rates from consumers, to sell it.

I saw an announcement from a local nuclear power plant that they intend to shutdown years before the originally planned retirement date because they could no longer compete with wind subsidies. That might be fine for the electricity consumers on the short term, they get cheaper electricity because the costs they bear are spread out among the taxpayers in coal country. What happens if everyone does this? Or, the subsidies end? That means a spike in electricity rates and a rush for more cheap energy. This means more nuclear and/or coal.

We can't keep driving nuclear power out of the market artificially and not expect rates to climb, energy shortages, or both. I prefer more nuclear sooner than later. The sooner we get more nuclear the less risk we run of another energy crisis.

Re: But AOChe says no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Communist fucks such as yourself will pay the price!

Re: But AOChe says no!

[Anonymous Coward]

The last nuclear plant to go online in the US was a relic from the 1980s that the TVA stopped finishing once Reagan demanded they not close their coal plants. They spent more on maintenance to keep it doing nothing than it would have cost to complete at the time.

The only reason it was completed? GWB (and Cheney, ok, really Cheney) wanted to pour billions down a rabbit hole for Vogtle and Summer, which have already been abandoned, along with lots of others. Billions and billions, almost as bad as their warmongering against terrorists they literally paid to attack America.

Sorry, but nuclear power is already moribund. I know you froth at the mouth over whatever your crazed imagination tells you that a woman, any woman, says, but man up and admit the truth. Nuclear is dead and the Gipper killed it. And don't blame his wife. He wasn't married to the Bush family.

cough

[Texmaize]

cough,typical of democrat run city, cough

He's gone

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's acknowledge the fact that Rahm Emanuel has announced he won't seek re-election and therefore this is just him posturing. I'd love to see my home city attain this, but...he's really got little to no say on the matter, doesn't he?

Clean? Where? input? output?

[Your Average Joe]

Well where does that nuclear energy come from? Does the nuclear plant errich fuel as well or is that done in some third world country where lives do not matter? Then what do you do with the spent nuclear fuel?