SoCal Deek Posted July 6, 2022 Posted July 6, 2022 39 minutes ago, Delete_Account said: To address your first two questions: I would guess about $150 billion total over the next 10 years. Is that correct? And do you know what the ANNUAL military budget is? Something around $750-800 billion and rising, I believe. And don’t forget that the highest of the seven income brackets is at only 37%. And don’t forget MMT options, either, for those non-libertarians who properly understand that federal debt is not the same as personal household debt. Like I’ve said all along…the main problem is a lack of political willpower, not technology or cost. Your third question: No, I don’t know anything about the status of U.S. transmission/distribution line workers. If there is a labor shortage, then that sounds like the impetus for a good old-fashioned public works project! Yay! Keynesian economic solutions FTW! Your last question: No, I don’t know the supply chain status for transmission line materials. Are you referring to steel? Copper? Aluminum? There are actions the private market and/or government can take over the next 10+ years to smooth out material supply chain networks. I seriously doubt the situation is hopeless. I would also be remiss to not mention here that transmission/distribution line materials are an active area of research in nanotech and strongly correlated electron system physics. Inexpensive ceramic superconductors that operate in the 250-300 Kelvin range would be considered their holy grail, I suppose, albeit way too pie-in-the-sky for a timeline of three decades. In the meantime, materials scientists and engineers still have a fair amount of unexplored geometrical leeway for making practical power loss reductions in ohmic and dielectric heating. Your last paragraph: you said that 70% of our electrical power grid is 25+ years old. So if the infrastructure is long overdue for an upgrade, might as well do it now and do it right this time (i.e. build it so that it is ready to accommodate a 21st century future replete with renewables). Delete...if you ever get into the 37% income tax bracket I'm guessing you won't call it "only" 37%....and if you already are feel free to send in more money. The rumor is that they'll gladly take it. The problem is that you eventually run out of other people's money. 1 1 1
T master Posted July 6, 2022 Author Posted July 6, 2022 53 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: I agree but I also believe any government financial commitment requires an evaluation and change in current spending priorities to reallocate funds rather than some "blank check" program of increased borrowing and debt. Many seem to think that along with natural resources, financial resources are also infinite. So are you trying to imply here that the US gov't our gov't is totally irresponsible when it comes to spending money & not having a plan to balance the nations check book am i understanding this right ? PLEASE Say it isn't so !! I had such high expectations & so much faith that this POTUS & those in the future were going to be totally responsible with the nations deficit & our future ...
Precision Posted July 6, 2022 Posted July 6, 2022 8 hours ago, Delete_Account said: To address your first two questions: I would guess about $150 billion total over the next 10 years. Is that correct? And do you know what the ANNUAL military budget is? Something around $750-800 billion and rising, I believe. And don’t forget that the highest of the seven income brackets is at only 37%. And don’t forget MMT options, either, for those non-libertarians who properly understand that federal debt is not the same as personal household debt. Like I’ve said all along…the main problem is a lack of political willpower, not technology or cost. Your third question: No, I don’t know anything about the status of U.S. transmission/distribution line workers. If there is a labor shortage, then that sounds like the impetus for a good old-fashioned public works project! Yay! Keynesian economic solutions FTW! Your last question: No, I don’t know the supply chain status for transmission line materials. Are you referring to steel? Copper? Aluminum? There are actions the private market and/or government can take over the next 10+ years to smooth out material supply chain networks. I seriously doubt the situation is hopeless. I would also be remiss to not mention here that transmission/distribution line materials are an active area of research in nanotech and strongly correlated electron system physics. Inexpensive ceramic superconductors that operate in the 250-300 Kelvin range would be considered their holy grail, I suppose, albeit way too pie-in-the-sky for a timeline of three decades. In the meantime, materials scientists and engineers still have a fair amount of unexplored geometrical leeway for making practical power loss reductions in ohmic and dielectric heating. Your last paragraph: you said that 70% of our electrical power grid is 25+ years old. So if the infrastructure is long overdue for an upgrade, might as well do it now and do it right this time (i.e. build it so that it is ready to accommodate a 21st century future replete with renewables). Dude not over the next 10 years, $150 billion per year over 10 years might work. Transmission lines cost roughly $1 million/mile to upgrade. There are 200,000 miles of transmission lines in the US. Below is the link for the Oneida County to Albany County upgrade approved last year $845 million for 93 miles, as easy an install as possible as it is rural. New York approves $854M transmission line, outlines path to reach storage, renewables goals Also, there are 5.5 million miles of distribution lines in the US. Upgrade costs of those can run anywhere from $200K-$500K/mile dependent upon location (above ground, underground, urban, rural). All told the upgrade only of these lines (no new lines) add up to anywhere from 1.5-3 trillion dollars. I like the public works idea, maybe turn welfare recipients or illegals into line workers. Can't be difficult work, high voltage, heights, nothing dangerous or anything, ha ha ha. If you spent a billion dollars today to hire line workers guess how many additional line workers you would have in 1 year, zero. It takes roughly 4 years and 7,000 hours of apprenticeship to train a line worker dependent on the state. There is currently a severe shortage of integrated circuits. What has the government done to alleviate it? Nothing. There are shortages of the raw materials you mentioned as well as many others (such as insulations). Even if the materials were widely available (they are not) the wire and cable is manufactured, extruded and jacketed (insulation applied) in a funny place called a factory. Most factories can't keep up with current demand regardless of the raw materials. A grid buildout would only exacerbate this problem and require the construction of additional factories. As far as nanotech geometric superconductors, you've been watching too many Star Wars movies pal. I am an electrical engineer and a Director of Engineering with over 30 years of experience. Nothing you are talking about will be commercialized any time soon if ever. I'm giving you a hard time with my response, but this is exactly what the general public needs to understand. This is exactly what the general public needs to educate themselves in. Upgrading the grid (not even addressing generation) isn't running fiber and some switches. It is a "putting a man on the moon" effort. This endeavor means raising taxes on everyone as well as cutting defense and social programs. If we don't all have the stomach to pay our share, then let's not fool ourselves into starting a half assed effort. 1
SoCal Deek Posted July 6, 2022 Posted July 6, 2022 6 minutes ago, Precision said: Dude not over the next 10 years, $150 billion per year over 10 years might work. Transmission lines cost roughly $1 million/mile to upgrade. There are 200,000 miles of transmission lines in the US. Below is the link for the Oneida County to Albany County upgrade approved last year $845 million for 93 miles, as easy an install as possible as it is rural. New York approves $854M transmission line, outlines path to reach storage, renewables goals Also, there are 5.5 million miles of distribution lines in the US. Upgrade costs of those can run anywhere from $200K-$500K/mile dependent upon location (above ground, underground, urban, rural). All told the upgrade only of these lines (no new lines) add up to anywhere from 1.5-3 trillion dollars. I like the public works idea, maybe turn welfare recipients or illegals into line workers. Can't be difficult work, high voltage, heights, nothing dangerous or anything, ha ha ha. If you spent a billion dollars today to hire line workers guess how many additional line workers you would have in 1 year, zero. It takes roughly 4 years and 7,000 hours of apprenticeship to train a line worker dependent on the state. There is currently a severe shortage of integrated circuits. What has the government done to alleviate it? Nothing. There are shortages of the raw materials you mentioned as well as many others (such as insulations). Even if the materials were widely available (they are not) the wire and cable is manufactured, extruded and jacketed (insulation applied) in a funny place called a factory. Most factories can't keep up with current demand regardless of the raw materials. A grid buildout would only exacerbate this problem and require the construction of additional factories. As far as nanotech geometric superconductors, you've been watching too many Star Wars movies pal. I am an electrical engineer and a Director of Engineering with over 30 years of experience. Nothing you are talking about will be commercialized any time soon if ever. I'm giving you a hard time with my response, but this is exactly what the general public needs to understand. This is exactly what the general public needs to educate themselves in. Upgrading the grid (not even addressing generation) isn't running fiber and some switches. It is a "putting a man on the moon" effort. This endeavor means raising taxes on everyone as well as cutting defense and social programs. If we don't all have the stomach to pay our share, then let's not fool ourselves into starting a half assed effort. They’ve been trying to build a single bullet train line down the middle of California for over a decade. They’ve gotten nowhere and they’ve exhausted all the money. And that’s just a single rail line through rural farmland.
Precision Posted July 6, 2022 Posted July 6, 2022 11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: They’ve been trying to build a single bullet train line down the middle of California for over a decade. They’ve gotten nowhere and they’ve exhausted all the money. And that’s just a single rail line through rural farmland. I've read about that. Feel bad for the good people of CA. Not a fan of the politics there but no one should have to put up with what you folks have to!
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 11 hours ago, SoCal Deek said: Delete...if you ever get into the 37% income tax bracket I'm guessing you won't call it "only" 37%....and if you already are feel free to send in more money. The rumor is that they'll gladly take it. The problem is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Paying tax in my opinion is the patriotic duty of a citizen. However, when the working slogan from the government is “Look how gracious and benevolent we are—we’ll even let you keep some what you earned after May 15th!” it’s fair to complain. 1
SoCal Deek Posted July 7, 2022 Posted July 7, 2022 45 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: Paying tax in my opinion is the patriotic duty of a citizen. However, when the working slogan from the government is “Look how gracious and benevolent we are—we’ll even let you keep some what you earned after May 15th!” it’s fair to complain. When I’m paying a higher percentage of my income than others are…I get to complain. Nobody wants to hear it, but I’m still going to complain. 😉 But…when people say I’m paying ‘only’ the highest rate there is….I’m going to complain, a lot! 1
ComradeKayAdams Posted July 10, 2022 Posted July 10, 2022 On 7/6/2022 at 8:09 AM, All_Pro_Bills said: I agree but I also believe any government financial commitment requires an evaluation and change in current spending priorities to reallocate funds rather than some "blank check" program of increased borrowing and debt. Many seem to think that along with natural resources, financial resources are also infinite. Certainly not me. What’s our current debt-to-GDP ratio? ~130%? $30.5 trillion debt divided by $23 trillion annual GDP? I’d like to see us work that number down to sub-60% by mid-century, in anticipation of the eventual petrodollar collapse and a possible end to our world reserve currency supremacy. Trust me, I’m far from a mindless MMT disciple! I only brought it up to make the point that halting progress with something as critical as renewable energy infrastructure because of uber-rigid fiscal austerity measures is irrational. I would first cut into the ridiculously bloated military budget before anything else, in the range of a 25-33% reduction. Next, I would raise the highest marginal tax rate to 45-50% (most demand-siders say it should be 65-70% for optimal macroeconomic growth…) while closing certain tax loopholes and raising Wall Street speculation taxes. If we still need to find more energy infrastructure revenue somewhere, then we can have an exhaustive bipartisan evaluation committee on wasteful government programs. And if we still need more, then as our next resort we can turn to MMT economic guidance and relax our debt reduction benchmarks. On 7/6/2022 at 6:01 PM, Precision said: Dude not over the next 10 years, $150 billion per year over 10 years might work. Transmission lines cost roughly $1 million/mile to upgrade. There are 200,000 miles of transmission lines in the US. Below is the link for the Oneida County to Albany County upgrade approved last year $845 million for 93 miles, as easy an install as possible as it is rural. New York approves $854M transmission line, outlines path to reach storage, renewables goals Also, there are 5.5 million miles of distribution lines in the US. Upgrade costs of those can run anywhere from $200K-$500K/mile dependent upon location (above ground, underground, urban, rural). All told the upgrade only of these lines (no new lines) add up to anywhere from 1.5-3 trillion dollars. I like the public works idea, maybe turn welfare recipients or illegals into line workers. Can't be difficult work, high voltage, heights, nothing dangerous or anything, ha ha ha. If you spent a billion dollars today to hire line workers guess how many additional line workers you would have in 1 year, zero. It takes roughly 4 years and 7,000 hours of apprenticeship to train a line worker dependent on the state. There is currently a severe shortage of integrated circuits. What has the government done to alleviate it? Nothing. There are shortages of the raw materials you mentioned as well as many others (such as insulations). Even if the materials were widely available (they are not) the wire and cable is manufactured, extruded and jacketed (insulation applied) in a funny place called a factory. Most factories can't keep up with current demand regardless of the raw materials. A grid buildout would only exacerbate this problem and require the construction of additional factories. As far as nanotech geometric superconductors, you've been watching too many Star Wars movies pal. I am an electrical engineer and a Director of Engineering with over 30 years of experience. Nothing you are talking about will be commercialized any time soon if ever. I'm giving you a hard time with my response, but this is exactly what the general public needs to understand. This is exactly what the general public needs to educate themselves in. Upgrading the grid (not even addressing generation) isn't running fiber and some switches. It is a "putting a man on the moon" effort. This endeavor means raising taxes on everyone as well as cutting defense and social programs. If we don't all have the stomach to pay our share, then let's not fool ourselves into starting a half assed effort. Yeah, I kinda noticed the condescension. I’m an engineer as well (biomedical background, a bit of research experience in nanotech and materials physics and E+M waveguides, math training at level of a standard ABD experimental physicist), so I’d rather you not treat me like some ditzy far-left Pollyana-ish renewables fangirl. Oh and that’s another thing: I’m a female, so please don’t call me a “dude.” I’m also not your “pal” because I don’t know you personally. Finally, I did not appreciate the “Star Wars movies” comment. If you were to re-read my post, I openly acknowledged that practical superconductors were “pie-in-the-sky” for the next few decades. I wouldn’t say never, however, as you have suggested. Until the mechanism that explains high-temperature/non-BCS superconductivity is well-understood, there’s no definitive physics-based reason why room-temperature superconductors are impossible. With all those unpleasantries now out of the way, let’s talk electrical power. You may have laughed at my guess in costs, but we also failed to outline some basic assumptions and specifications to make any cost estimates meaningful. Using your expertise in this subject matter, maybe we can put together a sensible back-of-envelope determination of a TOTAL price tag that taxpayers could expect for a FULL 21st century electrical grid upgrade?? Assumptions: construction timeframe of 25 years (2025-2049), full eventual transmission/distribution line replacements, no new line networking (or is that too rough of an assumption?), using only current technology, nuclear fission power generation (but we’ll keep this cost separate because I’m only interested in the power grid’s network upgrades), ~350 million EV’s in circulation to be serviced by 2050 (FYI we’re currently at about 280 million total cars in the U.S.), 80% of all vehicles on road to be EV’s by 2050, expected 50% of all new car sales to be EV’s by 2035 and 75% by 2040 and 100% by 2045. Now with those general assumptions in mind, here’s where I’m hoping you can fill me in: 1. Transmission lines (material costs, factory processing, special supply chain finagling): $??? billion 2. Distribution lines (material costs, factory processing, special supply chain finagling): $? trillion 3. Public charging stations, power substations, step-up/step-down transformers: $?? billion 4. Government-funded labor training and utility installation work payroll: $??? billion 5. Government funding for research and design: $??? million If we add these 5 numbers up, what might that total be? Say, ~$3 trillion?? That would average out to be $120 billion per year from 2025-2049, or perhaps we front-load it to be $300 billion per year from 2025-2034. No biggie! I would take that out of our defense budget without hesitation. You could then raise Wall Street speculation taxes to pay for the nuclear fission power component of the electrical power grid renovations.
SoCal Deek Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 51 minutes ago, Delete_Account said: Certainly not me. What’s our current debt-to-GDP ratio? ~130%? $30.5 trillion debt divided by $23 trillion annual GDP? I’d like to see us work that number down to sub-60% by mid-century, in anticipation of the eventual petrodollar collapse and a possible end to our world reserve currency supremacy. Trust me, I’m far from a mindless MMT disciple! I only brought it up to make the point that halting progress with something as critical as renewable energy infrastructure because of uber-rigid fiscal austerity measures is irrational. I would first cut into the ridiculously bloated military budget before anything else, in the range of a 25-33% reduction. Next, I would raise the highest marginal tax rate to 45-50% (most demand-siders say it should be 65-70% for optimal macroeconomic growth…) while closing certain tax loopholes and raising Wall Street speculation taxes. If we still need to find more energy infrastructure revenue somewhere, then we can have an exhaustive bipartisan evaluation committee on wasteful government programs. And if we still need more, then as our next resort we can turn to MMT economic guidance and relax our debt reduction benchmarks. Yeah, I kinda noticed the condescension. I’m an engineer as well (biomedical background, a bit of research experience in nanotech and materials physics and E+M waveguides, math training at level of a standard ABD experimental physicist), so I’d rather you not treat me like some ditzy far-left Pollyana-ish renewables fangirl. Oh and that’s another thing: I’m a female, so please don’t call me a “dude.” I’m also not your “pal” because I don’t know you personally. Finally, I did not appreciate the “Star Wars movies” comment. If you were to re-read my post, I openly acknowledged that practical superconductors were “pie-in-the-sky” for the next few decades. I wouldn’t say never, however, as you have suggested. Until the mechanism that explains high-temperature/non-BCS superconductivity is well-understood, there’s no definitive physics-based reason why room-temperature superconductors are impossible. With all those unpleasantries now out of the way, let’s talk electrical power. You may have laughed at my guess in costs, but we also failed to outline some basic assumptions and specifications to make any cost estimates meaningful. Using your expertise in this subject matter, maybe we can put together a sensible back-of-envelope determination of a TOTAL price tag that taxpayers could expect for a FULL 21st century electrical grid upgrade?? Assumptions: construction timeframe of 25 years (2025-2049), full eventual transmission/distribution line replacements, no new line networking (or is that too rough of an assumption?), using only current technology, nuclear fission power generation (but we’ll keep this cost separate because I’m only interested in the power grid’s network upgrades), ~350 million EV’s in circulation to be serviced by 2050 (FYI we’re currently at about 280 million total cars in the U.S.), 80% of all vehicles on road to be EV’s by 2050, expected 50% of all new car sales to be EV’s by 2035 and 75% by 2040 and 100% by 2045. Now with those general assumptions in mind, here’s where I’m hoping you can fill me in: 1. Transmission lines (material costs, factory processing, special supply chain finagling): $??? billion 2. Distribution lines (material costs, factory processing, special supply chain finagling): $? trillion 3. Public charging stations, power substations, step-up/step-down transformers: $?? billion 4. Government-funded labor training and utility installation work payroll: $??? billion 5. Government funding for research and design: $??? million If we add these 5 numbers up, what might that total be? Say, ~$3 trillion?? That would average out to be $120 billion per year from 2025-2049, or perhaps we front-load it to be $300 billion per year from 2025-2034. No biggie! I would take that out of our defense budget without hesitation. You could then raise Wall Street speculation taxes to pay for the nuclear fission power component of the electrical power grid renovations. Nice resume there…sounds like you’ve got everything figured out. Good to know you’re on it.
Precision Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 (edited) On 7/10/2022 at 7:59 PM, Delete_Account said: Certainly not me. What’s our current debt-to-GDP ratio? ~130%? $30.5 trillion debt divided by $23 trillion annual GDP? I’d like to see us work that number down to sub-60% by mid-century, in anticipation of the eventual petrodollar collapse and a possible end to our world reserve currency supremacy. Trust me, I’m far from a mindless MMT disciple! I only brought it up to make the point that halting progress with something as critical as renewable energy infrastructure because of uber-rigid fiscal austerity measures is irrational. I would first cut into the ridiculously bloated military budget before anything else, in the range of a 25-33% reduction. Next, I would raise the highest marginal tax rate to 45-50% (most demand-siders say it should be 65-70% for optimal macroeconomic growth…) while closing certain tax loopholes and raising Wall Street speculation taxes. If we still need to find more energy infrastructure revenue somewhere, then we can have an exhaustive bipartisan evaluation committee on wasteful government programs. And if we still need more, then as our next resort we can turn to MMT economic guidance and relax our debt reduction benchmarks. Yeah, I kinda noticed the condescension. I’m an engineer as well (biomedical background, a bit of research experience in nanotech and materials physics and E+M waveguides, math training at level of a standard ABD experimental physicist), so I’d rather you not treat me like some ditzy far-left Pollyana-ish renewables fangirl. Oh and that’s another thing: I’m a female, so please don’t call me a “dude.” I’m also not your “pal” because I don’t know you personally. Finally, I did not appreciate the “Star Wars movies” comment. If you were to re-read my post, I openly acknowledged that practical superconductors were “pie-in-the-sky” for the next few decades. I wouldn’t say never, however, as you have suggested. Until the mechanism that explains high-temperature/non-BCS superconductivity is well-understood, there’s no definitive physics-based reason why room-temperature superconductors are impossible. With all those unpleasantries now out of the way, let’s talk electrical power. You may have laughed at my guess in costs, but we also failed to outline some basic assumptions and specifications to make any cost estimates meaningful. Using your expertise in this subject matter, maybe we can put together a sensible back-of-envelope determination of a TOTAL price tag that taxpayers could expect for a FULL 21st century electrical grid upgrade?? Assumptions: construction timeframe of 25 years (2025-2049), full eventual transmission/distribution line replacements, no new line networking (or is that too rough of an assumption?), using only current technology, nuclear fission power generation (but we’ll keep this cost separate because I’m only interested in the power grid’s network upgrades), ~350 million EV’s in circulation to be serviced by 2050 (FYI we’re currently at about 280 million total cars in the U.S.), 80% of all vehicles on road to be EV’s by 2050, expected 50% of all new car sales to be EV’s by 2035 and 75% by 2040 and 100% by 2045. Now with those general assumptions in mind, here’s where I’m hoping you can fill me in: 1. Transmission lines (material costs, factory processing, special supply chain finagling): $??? billion 2. Distribution lines (material costs, factory processing, special supply chain finagling): $? trillion 3. Public charging stations, power substations, step-up/step-down transformers: $?? billion 4. Government-funded labor training and utility installation work payroll: $??? billion 5. Government funding for research and design: $??? million If we add these 5 numbers up, what might that total be? Say, ~$3 trillion?? That would average out to be $120 billion per year from 2025-2049, or perhaps we front-load it to be $300 billion per year from 2025-2034. No biggie! I would take that out of our defense budget without hesitation. You could then raise Wall Street speculation taxes to pay for the nuclear fission power component of the electrical power grid renovations. Your bioengineering degree clearly doesn't apply in this conversation as evidenced by your lack of knowledge on the subject matter. I have chemical engineers that work for me. When I don't understand the subject matter, I try not to sound like an expert, a little career advice for you. Don't care if you are a female, if I was condescending or if I hurt your feelings. I deal with butt hurt engineers all day, one more is nothing to me. I took the liberty of calling you dude and pal because I thought it more polite than what I could have called you. I went to the trouble of documenting the simple costs and difficulties of upgrading the grid only. No generation, no charging stations, no peak demand, no charging throughput during peak transportation hours. Upgrading the grid, transmission and distribution lines would run roughly $1.5-$3.0 trillion dollars. The costs will be less expensive if stretched over a longer period of time as it will help mitigate supply chain difficulties. There is no finagling the supply chain. You buy product at the going rate which is largely dependent on supply and demand. If the product you need is not available, you wait for it or pay a higher price. If the government wants to construct wire and cable factories that's great but it will merely push the bottleneck to the next link in the chain, likely compounds for insulators or raw materials. Public charging stations are an especially difficult subject. What percentage of electric vehicle owners will use home charging versus a station? An 8-pump gas station can service over 30 vehicles an hour, with the capability of taking all vehicles from zero energy storage to full energy storage during that time. How many charging stations would it take to provide the same throughput? Are we talking level 1, 2 or 3 charging stations as the cost is much different between them. Should the cost of the real estate to build a "parking lot" of charging stations be included in the per unit charging station cost? Too many difficult questions on this topic to even take a swag at the cost. Also, can the upgraded grid even handle a surge like this, especially if there is a large concentration of charging stations in a small geographic area? I don't have a good metric of the number of utility workers required as there are many factors involved. Do you hire an equal number of workers across the country and stretch the work over 25 years? Do you hire a smaller number, pay them more and build the grid a geographic region at a time? How do you taper up/down the number of positions required or do you just let all of them go when the work is complete? There is a limited pool of individuals that are willing to become a utility worker. The positions are difficult to fill due to dangerous high voltage lines, heights, physically strenuous, weather and terrible hours. It is the third most dangerous job in the US behind loggers and agricultural workers. Government subsidies can help fill some of these positions, but these are jobs most Americans refuse to do regardless of compensation. R&D is problematic as no one has definitive answers regarding home/station charging, peak demand, charging station density, and charging throughput. It is an issue no one will have an answer to until we get there. Your expectation of a 25-year buildout is overly optimistic. With a limited supply of workers and material, regardless of funding there is a maximum number of miles per day that can be upgraded. If anyone had that information, I would love to see it. Additionally, fission reactors take on average 10 years to build and their use in the US is declining so I would look for another method of generation. From the USEIA... Since you are willing to cut defense spending for this buildout it should be good for the rest of us, correct? Regardless of anyone else's relationship with national defense or loved ones in the armed forces? What about the large number of people who live in an urban area and use public transportation? Should they subsidize this project? What is their benefit? My choice would be to cut social programs. Last year the US spent $2,397 billion on Medicare and welfare, 3X as much as the $754 billion spent on national defense. Maybe some of these eternal freeloaders could get a job or something, no biggie, right? I tried to allude to this in my last post but the only way something like this gets accomplished is through shared sacrifice. Both defense/social cuts and higher taxes for everyone. Edited July 12, 2022 by Precision
SoCal Deek Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 Or we could just let the once free market take care of it, as it always does, and get government the heck out of the way!
All_Pro_Bills Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Or we could just let the once free market take care of it, as it always does, and get government the heck out of the way! If the government got out of the way the renewables would be limited to a market segment of people believing they're engaging in social good that would be paying a premium for their energy needs to demonstrate it, but few others. Given the economic fundamentals, force must be applied to get consumers and businesses to adopt them. And what better and more effective source of force is there than the US government? Force aside, the fundamental problem is these "renewables" do not have an energy density, reliability level, or cost efficiency greater than the output and cost effectiveness achieved through the use of fossil fuels. If they did then the conversion would be happening because the market would recognize the benefit. If you look at history one energy source has replaced another which resulted in greater energy output at lower overall costs. Which lead to "productivity". Adopting a practice that costs more to produce less which leads to lower productivity isn't a best practice in any capacity. If you want tor replace fossil fuels with an objective of keeping society running increased levels of growth and efficiency and productivity and increased standards of living then you need to find something more efficient. Like theoretical quantum fusion. I'm sure there are continuous improvements in the form of technological advancements in efficiency and cost for renewable generation but I fail to see any of that translate to market adoption.
SoCal Deek Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 14 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: If the government got out of the way the renewables would be limited to a market segment of people believing they're engaging in social good that would be paying a premium for their energy needs to demonstrate it, but few others. Given the economic fundamentals, force must be applied to get consumers and businesses to adopt them. And what better and more effective source of force is there than the US government? Force aside, the fundamental problem is these "renewables" do not have an energy density, reliability level, or cost efficiency greater than the output and cost effectiveness achieved through the use of fossil fuels. If they did then the conversion would be happening because the market would recognize the benefit. If you look at history one energy source has replaced another which resulted in greater energy output at lower overall costs. Which lead to "productivity". Adopting a practice that costs more to produce less which leads to lower productivity isn't a best practice in any capacity. If you want tor replace fossil fuels with an objective of keeping society running increased levels of growth and efficiency and productivity and increased standards of living then you need to find something more efficient. Like theoretical quantum fusion. I'm sure there are continuous improvements in the form of technological advancements in efficiency and cost for renewable generation but I fail to see any of that translate to market adoption. Do you believe everyone had a radio or a television when they were first invented? How about an automobile? These advances/changes take time. The problem is that our government has placed an artificial timetable on this latest shift and as presently structured, government is not good at doing anything quickly.
All_Pro_Bills Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Do you believe everyone had a radio or a television when they were first invented? How about an automobile? These advances/changes take time. The problem is that our government has placed an artificial timetable on this latest shift and as presently structured, government is not good at doing anything quickly. You're referring to the adoption rate which might be the standard "S" curve here. Sure adoption takes time. But a requirement for adoption is it must be viewed as progress. Cheaper and better. The problem is this conversion is not an advancement. What fossil fuel efficiency is to renewable efficiency is like demanding you replace your 65" 4K HD TV with a 19" black and white analog set because the government and environmental activists says its necessary to save the Earth. What's the adoption rate for that? Edited July 12, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills
SoCal Deek Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: You're referring to the adoption rate which might be the standard "S" curve here. Sure adoption takes time. But a requirement for adoption is it must be viewed as progress. Cheaper and better. The problem is this conversion is not an advancement. What fossil fuel efficiency is to renewable efficiency is like demanding you replace your 65" 4K HD TV with a 19" black and white analog set because the government and environmental activists says its necessary to save the Earth. What's the adoption rate for that? You and I agree here. We’re coming at it from a different line of attack. Let’s use the VHS vs Beta analogy. The market won out there, as it should here. Like you, I’m not convinced this push for renewables is sustainable….and I 100% know that government is the wrong entity to decide for us. (My house has been solar powered for fifteen years. It works really well in Southern California.) 1
T master Posted July 13, 2022 Author Posted July 13, 2022 On 7/10/2022 at 6:59 PM, Delete_Account said: Certainly not me. What’s our current debt-to-GDP ratio? ~130%? $30.5 trillion debt divided by $23 trillion annual GDP? I’d like to see us work that number down to sub-60% by mid-century, in anticipation of the eventual petrodollar collapse and a possible end to our world reserve currency supremacy. Trust me, I’m far from a mindless MMT disciple! I only brought it up to make the point that halting progress with something as critical as renewable energy infrastructure because of uber-rigid fiscal austerity measures is irrational. I would first cut into the ridiculously bloated military budget before anything else, in the range of a 25-33% reduction. Next, I would raise the highest marginal tax rate to 45-50% (most demand-siders say it should be 65-70% for optimal macroeconomic growth…) while closing certain tax loopholes and raising Wall Street speculation taxes. If we still need to find more energy infrastructure revenue somewhere, then we can have an exhaustive bipartisan evaluation committee on wasteful government programs. And if we still need more, then as our next resort we can turn to MMT economic guidance and relax our debt reduction benchmarks. Yeah, I kinda noticed the condescension. I’m an engineer as well (biomedical background, a bit of research experience in nanotech and materials physics and E+M waveguides, math training at level of a standard ABD experimental physicist), so I’d rather you not treat me like some ditzy far-left Pollyana-ish renewables fangirl. Oh and that’s another thing: I’m a female, so please don’t call me a “dude.” I’m also not your “pal” because I don’t know you personally. Finally, I did not appreciate the “Star Wars movies” comment. If you were to re-read my post, I openly acknowledged that practical superconductors were “pie-in-the-sky” for the next few decades. I wouldn’t say never, however, as you have suggested. Until the mechanism that explains high-temperature/non-BCS superconductivity is well-understood, there’s no definitive physics-based reason why room-temperature superconductors are impossible. With all those unpleasantries now out of the way, let’s talk electrical power. You may have laughed at my guess in costs, but we also failed to outline some basic assumptions and specifications to make any cost estimates meaningful. Using your expertise in this subject matter, maybe we can put together a sensible back-of-envelope determination of a TOTAL price tag that taxpayers could expect for a FULL 21st century electrical grid upgrade?? Assumptions: construction timeframe of 25 years (2025-2049), full eventual transmission/distribution line replacements, no new line networking (or is that too rough of an assumption?), using only current technology, nuclear fission power generation (but we’ll keep this cost separate because I’m only interested in the power grid’s network upgrades), ~350 million EV’s in circulation to be serviced by 2050 (FYI we’re currently at about 280 million total cars in the U.S.), 80% of all vehicles on road to be EV’s by 2050, expected 50% of all new car sales to be EV’s by 2035 and 75% by 2040 and 100% by 2045. Now with those general assumptions in mind, here’s where I’m hoping you can fill me in: 1. Transmission lines (material costs, factory processing, special supply chain finagling): $??? billion 2. Distribution lines (material costs, factory processing, special supply chain finagling): $? trillion 3. Public charging stations, power substations, step-up/step-down transformers: $?? billion 4. Government-funded labor training and utility installation work payroll: $??? billion 5. Government funding for research and design: $??? million If we add these 5 numbers up, what might that total be? Say, ~$3 trillion?? That would average out to be $120 billion per year from 2025-2049, or perhaps we front-load it to be $300 billion per year from 2025-2034. No biggie! I would take that out of our defense budget without hesitation. You could then raise Wall Street speculation taxes to pay for the nuclear fission power component of the electrical power grid renovations. $3 trillion to start then add inflation each year the cost of materials going up like the lumber thing did form $3 a 2x4 to $8 over doubling which then in turn causes the gov't to have to print more & more money to cover the costs which means the deficit goes up instead of down cost of living raises for workers . Then by the time it's completed technology has totally changed as it does which means there has to be more upgrades plus the fact of maintenance so what starts out to be a $3 trillion project winds up being double quite possibly triple by the time it's all said and done . And it truly will never be done because those in power will find ways to always ned more & more money . Hell i just paid my electric bill 5 minutes ago and from last month to this month it has increased $60 so if Joe keeps going your prices can expect to do the exact same thing . I'm no staying it can't or won;t be done but fossil fuels will always be a part of the equation no matter what the green energy folks want to think .
Big Blitz Posted July 17, 2022 Posted July 17, 2022 Blackburn: Inflation Raising the Possibility of Food Shortages Friday on FNC’s “Hannity,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) explained how inflation, which she said was caused partly by the Biden administration’s embrace of the so-called Green New Deal, could lead to problems down the road. Blackburn told “Hannity” fill-in host Sean Duffy that food shortages were possible because of farmers’ inability to plant as much because of the rising cost of fertilizer. SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): I say that now they’re trying to make it the people’s fault, because we didn’t fall in line with that Green New Deal and that socialist agenda and do this decades ago. And if we had, then we wouldn’t be having this problem now. It is just amazing to me. They cannot ever say that Joe Biden said, he was going to end the oil and gas industry. And on day one, he said about taking the steps to make that promise come true. With the Keystone with taking ANWR offline with your offshore drilling being ended, stopping fracking. The list goes on and on. He’s had 42 regulations since he took office that are directed directly at making it more difficult for the oil and gas industry to drill, to explore, to produce, to refine here in the United States. One of the counties was telling me about how the price of energy and inflation affects everything, all these county budgets, they needed some eight-inch pipe for a water line, they had been paying $4 a foot for that pipe. You know what it is right now? $14.50 a foot. So all of these products that come from derivatives of oil and gas, you’re seeing the price hikes there too. Inflation at 9.1 percent, your groceries going through the roof, your price at the pump through the roof. People just cannot afford this. And you know what, Sean, the food shortages, the fear this is causing with people, the way they’re anticipating food shortages, because in rural America, they know that the farmers are not planting as much this year to go into that supply chain for our food that you’re going to see on the shelves next year. And the reason they’re not planning, the cost of fertilizer, the cost of diesel, they cannot afford to get the crop in the ground. https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/07/16/blackburn-inflation-raising-the-possibility-of-food-shortages/ Thanks Covidiots 1
Big Blitz Posted July 27, 2022 Posted July 27, 2022 They lied about Alzeheimers research - you think they haven't been lying about the freaking weather for 50 years? University of Minnesota scientist responds to fraud allegations in Alzheimer's research While defending results, U researcher said it is "devastating" that a colleague might have doctored images. https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.startribune.com%2Fsenior-university-of-minnesota-scientist-responds-to-fraud-allegations-in-alzheimers-research%2F600192351%2F Oh.....and they lied about Covid to.
T master Posted July 28, 2022 Author Posted July 28, 2022 On 7/16/2022 at 7:21 PM, Big Blitz said: Blackburn: Inflation Raising the Possibility of Food Shortages Friday on FNC’s “Hannity,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) explained how inflation, which she said was caused partly by the Biden administration’s embrace of the so-called Green New Deal, could lead to problems down the road. Blackburn told “Hannity” fill-in host Sean Duffy that food shortages were possible because of farmers’ inability to plant as much because of the rising cost of fertilizer. SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN): I say that now they’re trying to make it the people’s fault, because we didn’t fall in line with that Green New Deal and that socialist agenda and do this decades ago. And if we had, then we wouldn’t be having this problem now. It is just amazing to me. They cannot ever say that Joe Biden said, he was going to end the oil and gas industry. And on day one, he said about taking the steps to make that promise come true. With the Keystone with taking ANWR offline with your offshore drilling being ended, stopping fracking. The list goes on and on. He’s had 42 regulations since he took office that are directed directly at making it more difficult for the oil and gas industry to drill, to explore, to produce, to refine here in the United States. One of the counties was telling me about how the price of energy and inflation affects everything, all these county budgets, they needed some eight-inch pipe for a water line, they had been paying $4 a foot for that pipe. You know what it is right now? $14.50 a foot. So all of these products that come from derivatives of oil and gas, you’re seeing the price hikes there too. Inflation at 9.1 percent, your groceries going through the roof, your price at the pump through the roof. People just cannot afford this. And you know what, Sean, the food shortages, the fear this is causing with people, the way they’re anticipating food shortages, because in rural America, they know that the farmers are not planting as much this year to go into that supply chain for our food that you’re going to see on the shelves next year. And the reason they’re not planning, the cost of fertilizer, the cost of diesel, they cannot afford to get the crop in the ground. https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2022/07/16/blackburn-inflation-raising-the-possibility-of-food-shortages/ Thanks Covidiots But, But, But, Tibs & Billstime said it's all because of what Trump did while in office & they are the 2 smartest political minds on the page maybe we should ask them their opinion on how to fix the problem they always have sound explanations on this kind of stuff !! 🤔 1
Recommended Posts