AV

Biden Seeks $2 Trillion Clean Energy And Infrastructure Spending Boost

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Adam Varga said:

Joe Biden expanded his energy and climate plans with a call for spending $2 trillion over four years on climate-friendly infrastructure — a proposal the campaign is casting as part of a wider economic recovery package.
 

https://www.axios.com/joe-biden-clean-energy-plan-7082826b-4836-4164-a8ca-74ce911b2d03.html

 

 

 

Yes i have just watched his speech...The die is cast let the drama unfold..

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these fed "infrastructure" plans are jokes.  None of them address making MORE efficient infrastructure.  They all throw a $$$ sign at people and pretend this is "infrastructure.  And no, electrical grid is doing just fine.  Unless you bring a new tech to the party less susceptible to EMP, no engineer is interested other than these companies peddling this BS snake oil.  There is nothing "smart" about smart grid other than used as a slogan for ignorant stupid shits. 

If the fed wanted to dredge all the rivers/canals, improve the lock system, build hydro storage dams, so seasonality is less and more even hydropower is generated, then there would be something of VALUE in said infrastructure plan.  But there is not. 

If EVERY highway overpass was converted to a divergent Diamond instead of the moron overpasses we have today?  THAT would be an improvement in infrastructure.  Is that anywhere? No.  IF they created a MORE long lasting road bed material and decided to repave all the major highways with it, THAT would be an improvement.  Same goes for bridges so we do not have to TOUCH them for the next 1000 years, but that is not in the bills either. 

These "infrastructure" bills are all absurd pork barrel jokes.  Just so some assholes' 3rd cousin can rent out orange barrels to the DOT for 2 years while 2 weeks of work is being done while allowing the POLICE to charge double for speeding tickets in "construction" zones.

  • Like 6
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two trillion over four years is nothing considering the current deficits running close to a trillion a month.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Most ideas to decarbonize the USA are nice, but there's very little substance to it, i suspect people doesn't wan't to know the anser, Hydro, Nuclear and Geothermal. The untapped potential for hydropwoer in the USA is over 4PWh per year, or around 512 GWa, while for geothermal would be around a 400GW, and oil tech majors like halliburton, schlumberger, baker hughes, weatherford could put their drilling expertise in the development of AUSC geothermal powerplants.

 

making a reactor in the us for less than 2000U$D/KWe is far from impossible, it just kinda hard, and would require a single type of nuclear reactor, most likely a AP-1000 which could get 40% efficiency and a net 1300MWe rating, which it would be better if it had a more conventional containment like the SNUPPS, but it is what it is.

If you had to make 128 3450MWt/1350MWe PWR reactors, and another 256 2900MWt/1600MWe Fast reactors, MSRs if possible, it would cost around 1.2 trillion U$D over a 40 year period for a installed capacity of 582GWe supposing you can make to the 2000U$D/KWe, it would be less than 28 billion U$D per year, which is less than 0.5%, of the US government budget that it will eventually be paid back, of course you would need to prepare , very, very well before such a massive build up.

Edited by Sebastian Meana
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2020 at 1:58 PM, Enthalpic said:

Two trillion over four years is nothing considering the current deficits running close to a trillion a month.

How can you be so wrong, so often, and still be so proud of yourself? If you had an ounce of self awareness you'd be hiding in humiliation. 

Deficit tracker. Hint, it ain't even close. You understand don't you, that it takes a thousand billion to equal a trillion?  

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Most ideas to decarbonize the USA are nice, but there's very little substance to it, i suspect people doesn't wan't to know the anser, Hydro, Nuclear and Geothermal. The untapped potential for hydropwoer in the USA is over 4PWh per year, or around 512 GWa, while for geothermal would be around a 400GW, and oil tech majors like halliburton, schlumberger, baker hughes, weatherford could put their drilling expertise in the development of AUSC geothermal powerplants.

 

making a reactor in the us for less than 2000U$D/KWe is far from impossible, it just kinda hard, and would require a single type of nuclear reactor, most likely a AP-1000 which could get 40% efficiency and a net 1300MWe rating, which it would be better if it had a more conventional containment like the SNUPPS, but it is what it is.

If you had to make 128 3450MWt/1350MWe PWR reactors, and another 256 2900MWt/1600MWe Fast reactors, MSRs if possible, it would cost around 1.2 trillion U$D over a 40 year period for a installed capacity of 582GWe supposing you can make to the 2000U$D/KWe, it would be less than 28 billion U$D per year, which is less than 0.5%, of the US government budget that it will eventually be paid back, of course you would need to prepare , very, very well before such a massive build up.

The atom boys better get busy because in the US wind alone is going to surpass nuclear power production by 2030 and will surpass natural gas by 2040. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

35 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

How can you be so wrong, so often, and still be so proud of yourself? If you had an ounce of self awareness you'd be hiding in humiliation. 

Deficit tracker. Hint, it ain't even close. You understand don't you, that it takes a thousand billion to equal a trillion?  

Read the report yourself, admit your error.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0620.pdf

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-budget-deficit-soars-to-record-864-billion-in-june-higher-than-all-of-last-year-2020-07-13

"The federal government’s budget deficit soared to a monthly record of $864 billion in June."  864 billion is close to a trillion.

 

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

june deficit.png

Unbelievably bad.  #trump

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The atom boys better get busy because in the US wind alone is going to surpass nuclear power production by 2030 and will surpass natural gas by 2040. 

The problem is the nuclear bois need a lot of paperwork to get busy, there isn't a plan in the US of how to do things... for example reprocesing fuel is illegal, and there isn't a single standardized reactor, and neither a turnkey supplier, or the political will to do things

But there are cost reductions

For example russia has a plan, with replacing their RBMKs and old VVERs for New VVER-TOI and maybe fast reactors, japan too. The first batch of VVER-1200 at Leningrad-2 did take 10 years to build, while for Novovoronezh-2 it did take 8 years. They hope to make Kursk-2 VVER-1300 at 5 years and are already months ahead of schedule since they broke ground 1 and a half year ago, cost are showing decline there, Novovoronezh-2 costed 1850U$D/KWe, while Kursk-2 they plan to do it at 1450U$D/KWe, and the 3&4 unit of Kursk 2 they expect it could go as low as 1300U$D/KWe

China built their first 2 AP-1000s at Sanmen for 3500U$D/KWe, and the 2 at hiyang for 2000U$D/KWe.

While the US cancelled 10 of the 12 SNUPPS units and each costed 6 billion U$D and each toke 9 years to build, Japan decided to go back to a turnkey style plant and they made four mitsubishi quad-loop idential to snupps for 2500U$D/KWe in 4 years.

Grand Gulf BWR-6 toke 11 years to build and costed 5000U$D/KWe, Kazhiwazaki-Kariwa 6&7, Hamaoka-5 and Shika 2 ABWRs were built in 3.5 years for around 2200U$D/KWe, 


Japan is now invested in the project of the next-gen-lwr, which they wan't the ambitious task of constructing it in 2.5 years, with the involvement of giants, Kawasaki, MItsubishi, Toshiba, Hitachi, they want to build everything in factories and assembling it like ships in modules, things that the Japanese are very good at.

The most important things is to know that the materials of a new nuclear powerplant are cheap, it would cost less than 600U$D/KWe if you had to pay only for the turbine, parts, pressure vessel, concrete, rebar, the costly things is assembling those things and get the finance for it. 

one of the issues of modern nuclear build up is trying to make a powerplant outside a fordist-scheme, (standardization, constructing the parts before assembling it, having a huge warehouse where you put your parts before assembling it, standardizing stuff, training people before doing things) they want to do it in a toyotist style or on-time logistics (getting the parts while assembling things) that all ends in delays and overruns, time is money.

there's also the financing, for example hinkley point-c would cost less than half if the interest ray on the debt on which it sits was at 3% interest rate instead of 9%.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/14/2020 at 9:55 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If EVERY highway overpass was converted to a divergent Diamond instead of the moron overpasses we have today?

Had to look this up, really good idea. 

On 7/14/2020 at 10:58 AM, Enthalpic said:

Two trillion over four years is nothing considering the current deficits running close to a trillion a month.

They've been arguing about +/-$1T infrastructure endlessly but it's always "theres no money". Now with bigger deficits than ever it's - you get a bridge and you get a dam and you get newwwwww airport!

Call it Oprah economics!

Edited by Strangelovesurfing
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

47 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The atom boys better get busy because in the US wind alone is going to surpass nuclear power production by 2030 and will surpass natural gas by 2040. 

Where is this info found?

https://www.celsiusenergy.net/p/powerburn.html?m=1

Edited by Rob Kramer
Web insert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

My own analysis based on the historical rise of wind and future projection based on the advent of off shore wind on the US east coast. 

Wind is now above water: 

image.png.ed5b0b49069787df678d47078225fc86.png

purple is intense steady wind, off shore wind industry will be based in the NJ windport https://www.nj.gov/windport/

image.png.3ae9adeacde2587e927ad73fc5dca88c.png 

 

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Read the report yourself, admit your error.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0620.pdf

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-budget-deficit-soars-to-record-864-billion-in-june-higher-than-all-of-last-year-2020-07-13

"The federal government’s budget deficit soared to a monthly record of $864 billion in June."  864 billion is close to a trillion.

 

Nice try buckwheat, but you said deficits, plural. The current account deficit clearly explained in my link, a direct result of the "tax holiday" wherein the April 15th deadline for paying income tax was skipped.  The taxes have come due, the coffers will fill, and speaking of fill, you're full of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Nice try buckwheat, but you said deficits, plural. The current account deficit clearly explained in my link, a direct result of the "tax holiday" wherein the April 15th deadline for paying income tax was skipped.  The taxes have come due, the coffers will fill, and speaking of fill, you're full of it. 

April was 738 billion., May "only" 399 billion...  all enormous deficits

Feel free to reject reality and replace it with some trump fantasy; personally, I like empirical data.

 

 "Coffers will fill" okay when exactly? When can I expect to see this massive surplus? Seriously, if all those taxes are coming in we will see it shortly, no?   Put a date on it Mr smart accountant.

 

“However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.”
― Winston Churchill

 

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Nice try buckwheat, but you said deficits, plural. The current account deficit clearly explained in my link, a direct result of the "tax holiday" wherein the April 15th deadline for paying income tax was skipped.  The taxes have come due, the coffers will fill, and speaking of fill, you're full of it. 

From your link:

"Monthly revenue was down $93 billion compared to a year ago, of which $43 billion came from delaying corporate tax payments while $42 billion came from delaying individual and payroll tax payments."

So $85 billion missing from tax delay.... I'll credit you that adjustment.  864 - 85 = 779 billion in one month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

image.png.3ae9adeacde2587e927ad73fc5dca88c.png

That’s an impressive resource base. Resistance is futile.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

My own analysis based on the historical rise of wind and future projection based on the advent of off shore wind on the US east coast. 

Wind is now above water: 

image.png.ed5b0b49069787df678d47078225fc86.png

purple is intense steady wind, off shore wind industry will be based in the NJ windport https://www.nj.gov/windport/

image.png.3ae9adeacde2587e927ad73fc5dca88c.png 

 

 

Is there a way to know current number of windmills? Also is that taking into account nat gas growth? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

21 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The atom boys better get busy because in the US wind alone is going to surpass nuclear power production by 2030 and will surpass natural gas by 2040. 

 

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

My own analysis based on the historical rise of wind and future projection based on the advent of off shore wind on the US east coast. 

Wind is now above water: 

image.png.ed5b0b49069787df678d47078225fc86.png

 

According to your own chart wind has never advanced against natural gas. Looks like 2040 to reach nuclear . But coal has a long way to fall and that includes on non windy days and on not sunny days ... the 2x as hard part for renewables. I dont doubt they'll keep increasing. I'm also positive electricity prices are going to look like the renewable power chart tho (especially if coal dies and nat gas stalls). 

Also remember according to the eia coal nat gas and oil are 80% of the power used in the country. You place all cars, stoves and furnaces on the electricity grid and you've essentially tripled the demand. Even double wind by 2030 or tripple wind by 2040 is a small portion of demand.  Therefor I think either electric cars or stalled natural gas power growth is impossible. 

https://www.celsiusenergy.net/p/powerburn.html?m=1

^ if anyone hasn't looked it's very cool. Daily natural gas burn for electricity and at bottom of page % contributed over the day vs last year and 7 day average. Wind 6% electricity today solar 2%. 

Edited by Rob Kramer
Addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

 

According to your own chart wind has never advanced against natural gas. Looks like 2040 to reach nuclear . But coal has a long way to fall and that includes on non windy days and on not sunny days ... the 2x as hard part for renewables. I dont doubt they'll keep increasing. I'm also positive electricity prices are going to look like the renewable power chart tho (especially if coal dies and nat gas stalls). 

Also remember according to the eia coal nat gas and oil are 80% of the power used in the country. You place all cars, stoves and furnaces on the electricity grid and you've essentially tripled the demand. Even double wind by 2030 or tripple wind by 2040 is a small portion of demand.  Therefor I think either electric cars or stalled natural gas power growth is impossible. 

https://www.celsiusenergy.net/p/powerburn.html?m=1

^ if anyone hasn't looked it's very cool. Daily natural gas burn for electricity and at bottom of page % contributed over the day vs last year and 7 day average. Wind 6% electricity today solar 2%. 

Coal is in free fall. It is on track to drop below nuclear this year. Wind will pass it by 2025.

Wind and solar are advancing against gas by a lot starting this year. Gas is beginning to stall because of fear of investing in stranded assets. Moving to EV will increase the cost of gas because it will no longer be a waste product of oil production. This will make it even more expensive than renewables. Daily intermittency is solved with the rollout of batteries.  The additional demand for electricity due to EV and deep electrification will by handled by renewable build out. There is no point in changing a gas heater to an electric heater if the electricity is just going to be made by gas.

planned U.S. electric generating capacity additions

planned U.S. electric generating capacity retirements

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 There is no point in changing a gas heater to an electric heater if the electricity is just going to be made by gas.

So many downsides to that, one upside.

Downsides: Huge energy losses from energy inter-conversion (chemical to thermal to electrical then back to thermal).

Upside: The pollution generated can be distanced from the consumer.  Unless you are poor, because that's where the rich will put the plant.

 

Nobody this far north will be giving up their natural gas furnace anytime soon.

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

That’s an impressive resource base. Resistance is futile.

That is a computer model...  Not reality.  What it does not show is seasonality.  By "computer model" Kansas should be the best place in the USA to build a windfarm along with the Wyoming Gap.  Neither have many wind turbines, nor will they.  Why?  Power drops off by 50% during winter/summer in those regions.  So, Texas is good along with Oklahoma, but Kansas, Nebraska stink whereas everyone is flocking to Iowa, S. Dakota, even Illinois with INFERIOR winds power potential.  Why?  The wind is more consistent. 

So, he wants NJ to be a wind capital... sorry dude, that will never happen as offshore in the USA has the Kansas problem.  Great in spring/fall, but SUCKS in summer.  Now if you go down SOUTH to N. Carolina = good ALL YEAR wind.  Go up to MAINE, or better yet, to Nova Scotia, and you get all year wind.   In between the two sites, is New Jersey... with piss poor consistency. 

THis is why the BEST wind site in the world is in Northern Scotland.  HIGH winds, which are consistent on VERY shallow seas.  If wind will work anywhere, it will be there before anywhere else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

That is a computer model...  Not reality.  What it does not show is seasonality.  By "computer model" Kansas should be the best place in the USA to build a windfarm along with the Wyoming Gap.  Neither have many wind turbines, nor will they.  Why?  Power drops off by 50% during winter/summer in those regions.  So, Texas is good along with Oklahoma, but Kansas, Nebraska stink whereas everyone is flocking to Iowa, S. Dakota, even Illinois with INFERIOR winds power potential.  Why?  The wind is more consistent. 

So, he wants NJ to be a wind capital... sorry dude, that will never happen as offshore in the USA has the Kansas problem.  Great in spring/fall, but SUCKS in summer.  Now if you go down SOUTH to N. Carolina = good ALL YEAR wind.  Go up to MAINE, or better yet, to Nova Scotia, and you get all year wind.   In between the two sites, is New Jersey... with piss poor consistency. 

THis is why the BEST wind site in the world is in Northern Scotland.  HIGH winds, which are consistent on VERY shallow seas.  If wind will work anywhere, it will be there before anywhere else. 

The stuff you come up with is almost as good as Mark's. Kansas and Wyoming don't have power lines to get the electricity out yet, that is why there hasn't been a wind build out. Iowa, Dakotas and Illinois are popular because they have power lines and proximity to the markets.

The wind fluctuates seasonally all along the east coast. New Jersey is in the middle, a great place for a supporting port. Construction starts next year.

Seasonal load shifting will be handled by green hydrogen or green ch4. Along with underwater HVDC connecting the seasonally different wind areas.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.