Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Love sees no species.
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.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!