AV

Biden Seeks $2 Trillion Clean Energy And Infrastructure Spending Boost

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

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

Your not hearing what I'm saying . I'm saying if coal is 40k right now and solar plus wind are 40k ... then if coal is shut off today you need another 10 years of solar and wind installed . That's during a time with people working from home malls and offices closed and minimum staff and 0.5% of electric cars and gas heaters.  Now gas heat is being banned in areas. Electric cars are being pushed . How do you suppose coal dies electric cars rise AND natural gas stalls. No batteries and renewables are nowhere near as cheap as gas. Even if it doubles to 3.20$ or whatever . Please tell me you live off grid and run AC all summer heat on blast all winter via electricity and a electric car powered from home if renewables are cheaper. Sorry but it doesnt add up. Natural gas fast ramp up to demand when renewables fail is what's allowed renewables to grow . Nat gas is the cheap battery.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Your not hearing what I'm saying . I'm saying if coal is 40k right now and solar plus wind are 40k ... then if coal is shut off today you need another 10 years of solar and wind installed . That's during a time with people working from home malls and offices closed and minimum staff and 0.5% of electric cars and gas heaters.  Now gas heat is being banned in areas. Electric cars are being pushed . How do you suppose coal dies electric cars rise AND natural gas stalls. No batteries and renewables are nowhere near as cheap as gas. Even if it doubles to 3.20$ or whatever . Please tell me you live off grid and run AC all summer heat on blast all winter via electricity and a electric car powered from home if renewables are cheaper. Sorry but it doesnt add up. Natural gas fast ramp up to demand when renewables fail is what's allowed renewables to grow . Nat gas is the cheap battery.

Yes it will take about 10 years to eliminate coal. Natural Gas growth rate in electricity has peaked and within 5-10 years the last new NGCC will be commissioned. Renewables will take over because they are really that much cheaper and the cost just keeps going down as scale goes up. Then green H2 or green CH4 will be used in for seasonal load sifting. Oh and batteries are much faster at ramping than gas. That is also a reason they win. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/21/2020 at 7:52 PM, 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. 

 

"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."

 

Address the reality, when are the "[coffers filling]?"

 

Crickets when you're wrong, which is often.

 

Edited by Enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

june deficit.png

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes it will take about 10 years to eliminate coal. Natural Gas growth rate in electricity has peaked and within 5-10 years the last new NGCC will be commissioned. Renewables will take over because they are really that much cheaper and the cost just keeps going down as scale goes up. Then green H2 or green CH4 will be used in for seasonal load sifting. Oh and batteries are much faster at ramping than gas. That is also a reason they win. 

I agree to disagree. But something to think about ... your talking cost lowering due to scale Nat Gas doesnt have scale? Costs dropping Gas well improvements / oil by product.... when renewables have flairing then mabey I'll believe them as cheap. Until then I have news articles with the math showing the hundreds of millions per month in cost additions due to green deals in Ontario. Nothing like charging 80c kwh for 8c electricity and calling it cheap. Then raising the rates the fastest ever 10 years in a row. Great math. (Nat Gas at a 20yr low ? For ytd average) 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

I agree to disagree. But something to think about ... your talking cost lowering due to scale Nat Gas doesnt have scale? Costs dropping Gas well improvements / oil by product.... when renewables have flairing then mabey I'll believe them as cheap. Until then I have news articles with the math showing the hundreds of millions per month in cost additions due to green deals in Ontario. Nothing like charging 80c kwh for 8c electricity and calling it cheap. Then raising the rates the fastest ever 10 years in a row. Great math. (Nat Gas at a 20yr low ? For ytd average) 

Nat Gas is as cheap as it is going to get at scale. It has a marginal cost. Solar and wind have zero marginal cost. As EVs cut into oil demand the amount of NG produced as a waste by product will decrease and the cost of gas will increase.

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

I agree to disagree. But something to think about ... your talking cost lowering due to scale Nat Gas doesnt have scale? Costs dropping Gas well improvements / oil by product.... when renewables have flairing then mabey I'll believe them as cheap. Until then I have news articles with the math showing the hundreds of millions per month in cost additions due to green deals in Ontario. Nothing like charging 80c kwh for 8c electricity and calling it cheap. Then raising the rates the fastest ever 10 years in a row. Great math. (Nat Gas at a 20yr low ? For ytd average) 

Now Rob, don't try to confuse the poor lost soul with simple math.  Cost of coal/gas has massively dropped, yet electricity prices have gone flat(only in TX where gas is free...) or up... Lets ask the reason why... oh yea, buying gobs of ultra expensive "renewables" and calling them "cheap" by offloading all of their costs onto Gas/Coal etc. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

 

"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."

 

Address the reality, when are the "[coffers filling]?"

 

Crickets when you're wrong, which is often.

 

Stupid and obstinate, not a great look on you, but you must be used to it by now. 

June doesn't matter, look at April, which is the normal filing deadline. April 15 in the US, which got delayed by months. Look at your little chart for April and notice the big number compared to this April. I'm right you're wrong that's that. Here's your prize

04597A4F-3E09-40C4-949F-9C7B03C5077F.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nat Gas is as cheap as it is going to get at scale. It has a marginal cost. Solar and wind have zero marginal cost. As EVs cut into oil demand the amount of NG produced as a waste by product will decrease and the cost of gas will increase.

Not true. Pey.to and PONY.to can deliver gas at 1.20$ and replace the well at 1.60$ CAD a MCF. Making all in costs 2.80$ CAD. I'm pretty sure there not the only ones on the planet. But that's 2$ USD gas at 60years proven reserves.  No tech advances (very unlikely in 60 yrs) . You can believe what you want the proof is nat gas and oil PAY royalties and tax green energy takes royalties and tax. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Not true. Pey.to and PONY.to can deliver gas at 1.20$ and replace the well at 1.60$ CAD a MCF. Making all in costs 2.80$ CAD. I'm pretty sure there not the only ones on the planet. But that's 2$ USD gas at 60years proven reserves.  No tech advances (very unlikely in 60 yrs) . You can believe what you want the proof is nat gas and oil PAY royalties and tax green energy takes royalties and tax. 

Good grief, how many millions did the oil industry borrow over the past few years to pay those dividends? Its called a Ponzi scheme. 

Yes, a few producers might be able to go lower but not the industry at scale.And you cite $2USD. I was thinking $1.50. But regardless wind and solar costs keeo dropping each year and the only reason gas is below $2 is because it is being created as a waste by-product of oil production. 

In energy the fuel with the lowest marginal cost wins. Solar and wind have zero marginal cost so they will win. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Stupid and obstinate, not a great look on you, but you must be used to it by now. 

June doesn't matter, look at April, which is the normal filing deadline. April 15 in the US, which got delayed by months. Look at your little chart for April and notice the big number compared to this April. I'm right you're wrong that's that. Here's your prize

 

You avoided the question again, when are those coffers filling from the back taxes?  Simple question accountant.  

You know deep down they will not.  You are just suffering massive cognitive dissonance and just can't accept that the world is failing under trump. The deficits will rise even more as he desperately tries to buy votes with borrowed money.

You were right about what? I said the deficits are near a trillion a month and they are.  I pointed out real numbers.  You, of course, put some trump fudge factor and claim the deficits are not real - they very much are.

Feel free to look at difference in receipts from the two Aprils, 535 versus 241.  Your missing taxes argument is very weak, sure some income is missing, but not that much, and some of those delayed taxes will never be collected as the companies failed in the meantime.

 

LOL "June doesn't matter" like those numbers don't exist in reality.  #trumpLogic #AlternativeFacts

 

 

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2020 at 1:49 PM, 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. 

Modular nukes will be ready by the time solar/wind dominance increases the value of dispatchable sources. Granted, people might still have an irrational fear of nuclear. Too hard to predict. Hydrogen, in contrast, isn't scary even though it is dangerous. 

Both nuclear and hydrogen would have small footprints. Nuclear because it's energy dense and hydrogen because it is stored in underground salt caverns. I don't think cost will be very important because they'd only power 10% of the grid. 

Annotation 2020-07-23 113103.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Modular nukes will be ready by the time solar/wind dominance increases the value of dispatchable sources. Granted, people might still have an irrational fear of nuclear. Too hard to predict. Hydrogen, in contrast, isn't scary even though it is dangerous. 

Both nuclear and hydrogen would have small footprints. Nuclear because it's energy dense and hydrogen because it is stored in underground salt caverns. I don't think cost will be very important because they'd only power 10% of the grid. 

Annotation 2020-07-23 113103.png

Solar/Wind dominance is already causing the value of dispatchable resources to increase. With every marginal increase in solar production the value of that solar power decreases because it is all being produced at the same time. Batteries allow solar and wind to capture their high quantity low value peak production and transfer it to the next demand peak. Batteries pay for themselves very rapidy and drastically increase the value of solar and wind by turning them into dispatchable resources.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

You avoided the question again, when are those coffers filling from the back taxes?  Simple question accountant.  

You know deep down they will not.  You are just suffering massive cognitive dissonance and just can't accept that the world is failing under trump. The deficits will rise even more as he desperately tries to buy votes with borrowed money.

You were right about what? I said the deficits are near a trillion a month and they are.  I pointed out real numbers.  You, of course, put some trump fudge factor and claim the deficits are not real - they very much are.

Feel free to look at difference in receipts from the two Aprils, 535 versus 241.  Your missing taxes argument is very weak, sure some income is missing, but not that much, and some of those delayed taxes will never be collected as the companies failed in the meantime.

 

LOL "June doesn't matter" like those numbers don't exist in reality.  #trumpLogic #AlternativeFacts

Your IQ is so low it gives me a headache to try and communicate with you. 

The world is failing because of Covid 19! Are you as stupid as Pelosi and want to call it Trump virus. Because the whole intelligent world knows it started in Wuhan. Your mileage is certain to vary. 

Second, when you say in June that the deficit is running $1trillion a month, someone with, I don't know, let's call it intelligence just for fun, would say, "wow, that means the current deficit must be around $6 trillion. But wait, even with massive spending it isn't? Wow, someone must be talking out his ass, again

Yup, receipts are down and we're running a printing press while fully half the government is actively attacking their own country! Yet in your personal psychosis you think Trump is responsible for all this? You're a real piece of work. Either start coming up with intelligent things to say or I'll just do myself a favor and block you. You're not that interesting, you're barely smart enough to be dangerous. Barely. 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

35 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 

The world is failing because of Covid 19!

...

Second, when you say in June that the deficit is running $1trillion a month, someone with, I don't know, let's call it intelligence just for fun, would say, "wow, that means the current deficit must be around $6 trillion.

No, things change.  If I wanted to say annual deficit I would have.  The little voice in your head is broken, read the actual words.

 

Yes, I know about covid, and so do you, yet you said the coffers will be filling regardless; because you have to maintain that trump fantasy.  At least you got around to admitting that was hogwash (also known as you were wrong).

 

You do nothing but insult and promote some fantasy that trump is improving things, even though you can find no evidence whatsoever thereof.  You do, however, make endless excuses / scapegoats for him.   Leaders unite, trump promotes division - that's why your government is infighting so much.  The infighting has only got worse under trump, so yes, that is also on him.

 

People who are actually smart do not mention IQ nearly as often as you.  You are coming across like a virgin who talks about sex all the time.

 

Can't take the heat, feel free to accept your loss.  I will find a new plaything who can form a better rebuttal than "but China!"

 

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

No, things change.  If I wanted to say annual deficit I would have.  The little voice in your head is broken, read the actual words.

Yes, I know about covid, and so do you, yet you said the coffers will be filling regardless; because you have to maintain that trump fantasy.  At least you got around to admitting that was hogwash (also known as you were wrong).

You do nothing but insult and promote some fantasy that trump is improving things, even though you can find no evidence whatsoever thereof.  You do, however, make endless excuses / scapegoats for him.   Leaders unite, trump promotes division - that's why your government is infighting so much.  The infighting has only got worse under trump, so yes, that is also on him.

People who are actually smart do not mention IQ nearly as often as you.  You are coming across like a virgin who talks about sex all the time.

Can't take the heat, feel free to accept your loss.  I will find a new plaything who can form a better rebuttal than "but China!"

Blah blah blah. The coffers will fill as the taxes come in. Will they recoup all the losses caused by the illegal, illiterate and immoral shut downs foisted on America by democrat leaders? No chance, and I never said it would or could. 

I know smart and I know smart ass. You are the latter. I'm not your plaything and I'm not interested in filling your pathetic life. Look over on the left of your screen. I'm the number one most popular poster on this site this week with more upvotes than I've ever seen you get. You're just trying to catch some of my sunshine. Speaking of virgins, you're just hanging around the popular kid to see if any popularity rubs off on you. I don't see it. 

You're blocked now, play elsewhere. 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

31 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

 

I know smart and I know smart ass. You are the latter. I'm not your plaything and I'm not interested in filling your pathetic life. Look over on the left of your screen. I'm the number one most popular poster on this site this week with more upvotes than I've ever seen you get. You're just trying to catch some of my sunshine. Speaking of virgins, you're just hanging around the popular kid to see if any popularity rubs off on you. I don't see it. 

You're blocked now, play elsewhere. 

Popular means quality in your mind?  Wrong on so many levels.

Goodbye! Enjoy your low-quality fast food, bud light, and reality TV. 

"Popular... on the internet, like are you an influencer? OMG Karen!!!"

FYI throwing some ad hominem attack and then covering your eyes is losing.

Edited by Enthalpic
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 12:46 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Good grief, how many millions did the oil industry borrow over the past few years to pay those dividends? Its called a Ponzi scheme. 

Yes, a few producers might be able to go lower but not the industry at scale.And you cite $2USD. I was thinking $1.50. But regardless wind and solar costs keeo dropping each year and the only reason gas is below $2 is because it is being created as a waste by-product of oil production. 

In energy the fuel with the lowest marginal cost wins. Solar and wind have zero marginal cost so they will win. 

A)Your mixing apples and oranges.  Trying to call a 95% gas company (5% NGL - not 5% oil) a shale oil (60% oil) company. 

B) Remember 140$ brent oil in 2014 without shale what would it have been? 200$ since 2014?. How much has that benefited the USA? Net importer all those years.  So oil took on consumer debts there while making lower income.

C) a forced government 2Trillion might be another way of saying good grief how much tax debt is green piling on. 

D) Still agreeing to disagree.

E) Low income USA is gonna be hurt by "green" and vote the next more socialist party for handouts and the beginning of the end starts. Welcome to Canada lol.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2020 at 8:55 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

There is nothing "smart" about smart grid other than used as a slogan for ignorant stupid shits. 

Get off the fence footeab! tell us what you really think!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2020 at 2:42 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

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.

What do you suppose we do with all the wind turbine blades in the future? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2020 at 3:49 PM, 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. 

Which is sad. Nuclear should have received all of the subsidies put forth for wind and solar. The amount of money we've put towards those two has been spent at a massive opportunity cost. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2020 at 2:32 PM, 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.

None of your options would compare favorably to natural gas plants. Natural gas is the true green option while also being the least expensive, most abundant fuel. It has proven this by allowing America to make the most progress in reducing emissions of any large country in the world. Meanwhile China and India have increased coal use. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/21/2020 at 3:49 PM, 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. 

Jay, talk is cheap and bullshit too. How about some real references to back up your claim. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Cheap-Natural-Gas-To-Remain-Fuel-Of-Choice-For-Decades-To-Come.html

 

Edited by ronwagn
added reference
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 10:54 AM, Rob Kramer said:

Not true. Pey.to and PONY.to can deliver gas at 1.20$ and replace the well at 1.60$ CAD a MCF. Making all in costs 2.80$ CAD. I'm pretty sure there not the only ones on the planet. But that's 2$ USD gas at 60years proven reserves.  No tech advances (very unlikely in 60 yrs) . You can believe what you want the proof is nat gas and oil PAY royalties and tax green energy takes royalties and tax. 

That is one of many great reasons we need to reelect President Trump. The Green New Deal with the cooperation of Biden would scrap fossil fuels and rely on far more expensive "renewables" which CANNOT do the job needed. At least not in this century.

  • Like 2

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.