President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[lpetrich]

'Swallowing a toad': Progressives warm to Manchin's fossil fuel demands to clinch climate package - POLITICO - "Voters' frustration with high energy prices and the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of the House in November have made progressives more open to a deal."

“If [Manchin] wants some increase for short-term production for the broader package of $500 billion on renewables, I am open to that,” said Rep. Ro Khanna of California, a deputy whip in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “It’s not ideal for the climate, but I am not comfortable with Americans paying 6, 7 bucks for gas.”

...
“The reality is we don’t have the votes to do everything we want,” said Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.), a member of the House Climate Crisis Committee. “So compromise is called for. Is it the compromise I would like? No. But we have a saying in the Virginia legislature. Every now and again you have to swallow a toad. And this is swallowing a toad.”

...
“If we are saying that in this moment we need to stimulate the production of fossil fuel, that has to be tied to a longer-term move to prevent this from happening again,” said Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), deputy chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “I am willing to compromise. I am willing to negotiate. Americans are feeling it at the pump.”

...
For example, Khanna, Porter and other progressives have introduced legislation that would tax large oil companies for the huge profits they are reaping from surging crude prices, a policy they say would incentivize more drilling and bring down prices and resulting tax burden.

Progressives including McEachin and Porter are also pushing to provide rebates or direct payments to consumers to help offset high gas prices, an idea backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that could drive up fuel demand.

“It is unfortunate we have to do that, but the time demands action and the American people are certainly deserving of action,” McEachin said.

...
We don’t have a proposal on the table to respond to,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Jayapal acknowledged the current problem of high energy prices presents a “complicated situation” for liberals eager to accelerate climate action, but she suggested there are lines she won’t cross to help fossil fuels.

“We are trying to do as much as we can to focus on the transition and really pushing that, and we don’t want to respond to random suggestions from people who are putting forward things that wouldn’t get the votes in the House,” Jayapal said.

... Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)
“I’ve been encouraged by Manchin saying he is broadly supportive of $550 billion in clean energy incentives, and generally speaking, anything we do to increase deployment of clean energy accelerates the transition away from dirty energy because clean energy is cheaper,” Casten said.

... Rep. Jared Huffman of California
“This is not a situation where we are just going to support anything because we want to see something passed,” Huffman said. “It’s a non-starter for me to say I will do a bunch of pro-fossil fuel things.”

... Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.)
“I have always been of the mind that we should shoot for the moon, but work pragmatically to pass the best thing that can get through the Senate. And the discussions underway right now are consistent with a perspective the vast majority of Democrats in the House Democratic Caucus have,” Jones said.

Seems like a reasonable compromise. More oil development in exchange for advancing renewable energy development elsewhere, like for electricity generation.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

 

[Trausti]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

Both. Would be wonderful if this could be a bipartisan issue.

 

[Patooka]

Both. Would be wonderful if this could be a bipartisan issue.

If we could channel the amount of irony and hypocrisy in this statement, the US wouldn't need nuclear plants. Energy would be limitless.

 

[bilby]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

Wind power... lots of wind power!

*see's Bilby rushing in*

*flees*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

Both. Would be wonderful if this could be a bipartisan issue.

It is! I bet if you went to any right-winger who hates wind energy (because it is carbon free, not because it isn't sustainable), whether they would support a nuclear plant in their county, the answer would likely be, "NO!"

 

[Harry Bosch]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.

I blame Godzilla! For some reason, all the deaths and accidents surrounding non-nuclear power plants just aren't sexy. If we truly wanted safe power, that is constant, that doesn't add carbon to atmosphere, and doesn't fund war efforts, we'd go nuclear.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.

I blame Godzilla! For some reason, all the deaths and accidents surrounding non-nuclear power plants just aren't sexy. If we truly wanted safe power, that is constant, that doesn't add carbon to atmosphere, and doesn't fund war efforts, we'd go nuclear.

I think it was the initial issue with nuclear in the US, followed by the release of The China Syndrome a film that didn't do much until, it was quickly followed right up with Three Mile Island.

 

[bilby]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.

I blame Godzilla! For some reason, all the deaths and accidents surrounding non-nuclear power plants just aren't sexy. If we truly wanted safe power, that is constant, that doesn't add carbon to atmosphere, and doesn't fund war efforts, we'd go nuclear.

I think it was the initial issue with nuclear in the US, followed by the release of The China Syndrome a film that didn't do much until, it was quickly followed right up with Three Mile Island.

There's little doubt that, as with the equally 'strange but true' fact that Elvis was responsible for a significant portion of Polio eradication, a significant portion of climate change is the fault of Jane Fonda.

Celebrity shouldn't be that powerful. But it is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The program was funded through President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure deal

He should put just as much effort into the construction of newer, safer plants.

It's doubtful that they can get much safer than "zero radiation deaths or injuries ever", which is the standard the old plants have set.

That we see people calling for safer designs, given the history of the current crop, tells you everything about the insanity of the anti nuclear lobby. Literally no level of safety will ever be safe enough for these idiots.

I blame Godzilla! For some reason, all the deaths and accidents surrounding non-nuclear power plants just aren't sexy. If we truly wanted safe power, that is constant, that doesn't add carbon to atmosphere, and doesn't fund war efforts, we'd go nuclear.

I think it was the initial issue with nuclear in the US, followed by the release of The China Syndrome a film that didn't do much until, it was quickly followed right up with Three Mile Island.

There's little doubt that, as with the equally 'strange but true' fact that Elvis was responsible for a significant portion of Polio eradication, a significant portion of climate change is the fault of Jane Fonda.

Celebrity shouldn't be that powerful. But it is.

It wasn't as much the celebrity as it was a movie about a nuclear incident (which oddly enough didn't actually kill (or harm) anyone either), followed by the Three Mile Island incident (no killed or harmed in that either). Nuclear was newish and this impacted public perception a lot, a sort of 'this is only the beginning' mindset. And in the end, it was almost nothing at all.

Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.

 

[bilby]

Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.

Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.

Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.

Except Lemmon's character was right the whole time. Regardless, it planted a seed that bloomed quickly and has had pretty bad consequences on the perception of nuclear in the US.

 

[Toni]

Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.

Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.

Except Lemmon's character was right the whole time. Regardless, it planted a seed that bloomed quickly and has had pretty bad consequences on the perception of nuclear in the US.

Not as much as 3 Mile Island, Tokaimua, Fukushima and Chernobyl (see current conflict in Ukraine).
Which just updated what we learned or failed to learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before anyone comments, yes, I'm aware of the years each of these happened. I'm also aware of the danger of Chernobyl right now, this very minute. I'm aware of the dangers of mining uranium to the miners and to the environment. I'm aware of the dangers of waste from nuclear power plants.

None of this because of The China Syndrome.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.

Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.

Except Lemmon's character was right the whole time. Regardless, it planted a seed that bloomed quickly and has had pretty bad consequences on the perception of nuclear in the US.

Not as much as 3 Mile Island, Tokaimua, Fukushima and Chernobyl (see current conflict in Ukraine).
Which just updated what we learned or failed to learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before anyone comments, yes, I'm aware of the years each of these happened. I'm also aware of the danger of Chernobyl right now, this very minute. I'm aware of the dangers of mining uranium to the miners and to the environment. I'm aware of the dangers of waste from nuclear power plants.

None of this because of The China Syndrome.

But the mental picture of the "dangers" of nuclear power plants is the tandem of Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome movie (of which is a great movie still!).

You list those four incidents, yet, even with the complete and utter fuckup that was Chernobyl, the devastation was more caused by the despotic Soviet regime than the radiation. The failure of Fukushima was where they put the diesel generators. The number of people harmed because of nuclear power plants, all the way down to mining is extraordinarily low. Is there danger in mining Uranium? Yeah. So is with coal. And stockpiles or working in scaffoldings.

Nuclear is the only hope... well viable hope of carbon free power generation in our time. And really, we might be running out of time to make a difference in the short-term.

 

[Toni]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.

 

[Toni]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.

We’ve barely tried it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We need to keep trying with regard to renewables. We should have been trying for decades. We're so good at dropping the ball. We need to juggle renewables and nuclear. Generation III nuclear plants are safer than Generation II in that they have more passive safety measures in place. Measures that require no electrical, mechanical or human action for effect. I'd go into detail, but I'd murder it.
Regardless of subsidies, our Generation II plants are still old and will still need to be retired.
If France can supply seventy percent of their electricity needs through nuclear power and figure out what to do with the worst of the waste, we can too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even with that, The China Syndrome wasn't a one-way nuclear sux train. Lemmon's character is defending the thing the whole way.

Yeah, and in Die Hard, Alan Rickman made a compelling case in favour of the use of hostages to secure vast unearned wealth.

The introduction of an antagonist to a movie is not typically a genuine attempt at balance on the part of the screenwriters.

Except Lemmon's character was right the whole time. Regardless, it planted a seed that bloomed quickly and has had pretty bad consequences on the perception of nuclear in the US.

Not as much as 3 Mile Island, Tokaimua, Fukushima and Chernobyl (see current conflict in Ukraine).
Which just updated what we learned or failed to learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Before anyone comments, yes, I'm aware of the years each of these happened. I'm also aware of the danger of Chernobyl right now, this very minute. I'm aware of the dangers of mining uranium to the miners and to the environment. I'm aware of the dangers of waste from nuclear power plants.

None of this because of The China Syndrome.

Sure there are hazards from nuclear. They're a lot less than the hazards of any fossil fuel and roughly equal to the risks of renewables. (Who comes out ahead comes down to how you measure the risk. Nuke remains the best if you don't allocate the stupid Fukushima evacuation deaths to nuclear--staying put was a lot safer than leaving.)