President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[thebeave]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Not if we embrace nuclear fission.

The only reason not to is that Jane Fonda and her neo-luddite friends back in the 1970s decided to scare the pants off everyone with a bunch of ludicrous and unfounded scaremongering.



FFS.

This is the reason we can't have nice things.

It certainly was about people who lie. It was the 1970s version of today's vaccine denial. Science and technology are bad, m'kay?

By now, fossil fuels could be a footnote in history. Cars could run on synthetic gasoline made at nuclear power plants; Or on electricity, generated by ... well, you know the answer.

Climate change would be like the Y2K bug - a disaster that was predicted, prepared for, and as a result, averted.

Fossil fuels would be left in the ground, or used solely for lubricants, chemical feedstocks, and plastics, in which roles they don't contribute significantly to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

But Jane Fonda said it was too scary. It probably doesn't matter whether she was hopelessly wrong, or just lying.

You nailed it on the head. I was just thinking about Jane Fonda the other day, regarding her anti-nuclear activism in the '70's and her new climate activism in the '20's. I wonder if she even has enough self awareness to realize that there are few people more responsible for the mess we are in now than herself. Fucking hypocrit and a moron to boot. Why anyone would act on the opinions of Hollywood actors is beyond me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Problem: "we".

It's the future people that will pay the price of inaction, while it's the current people that will pay the price of action. The people in power won't live long enough for it to be a serious problem for them and people in general are very inclined towards can-kicking.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Problem: "we".

It's the future people that will pay the price of inaction, while it's the current people that will pay the price of action. The people in power won't live long enough for it to be a serious problem for them and people in general are very inclined towards can-kicking.

Well in that case who gives a shit? Not caring is definitely easier than caring.

 

[Derec]

Problem: "we".

It's the future people that will pay the price of inaction, while it's the current people that will pay the price of action. The people in power won't live long enough for it to be a serious problem for them and people in general are very inclined towards can-kicking.

 

[Derec]

Not if we embrace nuclear fission.

Agree with you there. Coal is the dirtiest fuel we can use and coal power plants can be replaced with nukes easily since they are both used for baseload generation.

The reason France uses little coal is their ample nuclear power. And the reason, for all their pretenses of being extra environmentally conscious (more öko than thou), why Germany's share of coal is almost twice as much as ours is their ill-conceived Atomausstieg. Although your Australia is even worse.

Which Countries Are Most Reliant on Coal?

Note also the fact that China consumed more coal in 2022 than the rest of the world combined.

 

[Derec]

If feasible, a pay per mile makes more economic sense for road use and carbon emission reductions than a gas tax.

It may make sense for road use, at least if heavily dependent on weight, but it definitely does not make sense for carbon or other emissions as it does not extinguish how much different vehicles pollute. The Washington plan does not even make sense for road use, as it does not distinguish heavy vehicles from light ones - an Escalade would pay the same as a Civic. The road damage is heavily dependent on the axle load - the 4th power approximation is often used where a 2 axle vehicle with twice the weight damages the roadway 16 times as much.

As far as making economic sense and feasibility, taxing fuels, be they gasoline or coal for power plants, is easy to do. And it would also take care of energy mix for EVs - if you get more of your electricity from coal, you pay most tax, natural gas, less, nuclear and renewables, least.

Taxing driving per mile is more difficult to implement and you get into privacy concerns with certain plans that include GPS monitoring of drivers to assess the fees.

Plus it prevents electronic vehicle owners from avoiding road use charges via a gas tax.

That is going to be an issue in the future when most cars on the road are electric. At this time, governments should encourage EV transition, not impede it.

Ideally, a road use payment would depend on weight, but the gas tax doesn’t ideally adjust for weight. While mpg does tend to vary with weight, it is not an exact correlation.

Better than no correlation at all, as WA program would do with their flat fee regardless of vehicle weight or pollution.

 

[bilby]

LOL at 9t being called a "Big Rig". A two axle (medium) rigid truck in Australia has a General Mass Limit (maximum load for driving on ordinary roads without a permit) of 15 tonnes; A heavy rigid truck (more than two axles) has a GML of 30 tonnes, and an eighteen axle BAB or ABB quad road train has a GML of 122.5 tonnes.

 

[Derec]

LOL at 9t being called a "Big Rig". A two axle (medium) rigid truck in Australia has a General Mass Limit (maximum load for driving on ordinary roads without a permit) of 15 tonnes; A heavy rigid truck (more than two axles) has a GML of 30 tonnes, and an eighteen axle BAB or ABB quad road train has a GML of 122.5 tonnes.

Maybe they mean just the tractor unit, without the semi-trailer. Or at least the unladen weight, with an empty trailer.

 

[bilby]

LOL at 9t being called a "Big Rig". A two axle (medium) rigid truck in Australia has a General Mass Limit (maximum load for driving on ordinary roads without a permit) of 15 tonnes; A heavy rigid truck (more than two axles) has a GML of 30 tonnes, and an eighteen axle BAB or ABB quad road train has a GML of 122.5 tonnes.

Maybe they mean just the tractor unit, without the semi-trailer. Or at least the unladen weight, with an empty trailer.

The road damage is in proportion to the mass of the vehicle when loaded (as demonstrated by the fat man on a freakishly heavy bicycle).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

LOL at 9t being called a "Big Rig". A two axle (medium) rigid truck in Australia has a General Mass Limit (maximum load for driving on ordinary roads without a permit) of 15 tonnes; A heavy rigid truck (more than two axles) has a GML of 30 tonnes, and an eighteen axle BAB or ABB quad road train has a GML of 122.5 tonnes.

Maybe they mean just the tractor unit, without the semi-trailer. Or at least the unladen weight, with an empty trailer.

The road damage is in proportion to the mass of the vehicle when loaded (as demonstrated by the fat man on a freakishly heavy bicycle).

Agreed, but they were apparently giving damage for the big rig, the damage for the trailer would be even worse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If feasible, a pay per mile makes more economic sense for road use and carbon emission reductions than a gas tax.

It may make sense for road use, at least if heavily dependent on weight, but it definitely does not make sense for carbon or other emissions as it does not extinguish how much different vehicles pollute. The Washington plan does not even make sense for road use, as it does not distinguish heavy vehicles from light ones - an Escalade would pay the same as a Civic. The road damage is heavily dependent on the axle load - the 4th power approximation is often used where a 2 axle vehicle with twice the weight damages the roadway 16 times as much.

There are definitely two schools here.

First, access. A Civic driving on a highway, is driving on the highway. Its mass is irrelevant. The cost to build the road is no different based on the masses of the vehicles. The need for the road is the same for any car that drives on it, whether once a month or once a day.

Second, wear. A road surface and subgrade wears more, much more based on the masses of the vehicles. Electric cars are typically heavier and will also do more damage than gasoline vehicles. But really, the wear is about the same among normal cars, relative to semi-trailers.

I would note that there is no indication in the article you cited that trailers would pay the same per mile fee.

Plus it prevents electronic vehicle owners from avoiding road use charges via a gas tax.

That is going to be an issue in the future when most cars on the road are electric. At this time, governments should encourage EV transition, not impede it.

Maybe 20 years ago.

But Jane Fonda said it was too scary. It probably doesn't matter whether she was hopelessly wrong, or just lying.

You nailed it on the head. I was just thinking about Jane Fonda the other day, regarding her anti-nuclear activism in the '70's and her new climate activism in the '20's. I wonder if she even has enough self awareness to realize that there are few people more responsible for the mess we are in now than herself. Fucking hypocrit and a moron to boot. Why anyone would act on the opinions of Hollywood actors is beyond me.

Hypocrite or was she simply mistaken? It is funny that The China Syndrome was cited, as it actually didn't play entirely on the nuclear angle, but the issue was construction and the ability to trust contractors to build these things. Cutting corners, saving money, less inspection was what almost led to a problem (spoiler alert, the plant didn't meltdown). Jack Lemmon is the middle man in this, defending nuclear power!

Three Mile Island occurs about two weeks after the release of the film. That is what shaped America's fear of nuclear. Three Mile Island wasn't devastating, however, it wasn't exactly helping with confidence in the newer style of electricity production. People fear change. People hated trains too when they were first coming out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Problem: "we".

It's the future people that will pay the price of inaction, while it's the current people that will pay the price of action. The people in power won't live long enough for it to be a serious problem for them and people in general are very inclined towards can-kicking.

The people in Phoenix and the Pacific NW would likely disagree, as they are paying for it now. Or those living near the Gobe or Sahara.

 

[bilby]

It is funny that The China Syndrome was cited, as it actually didn't play entirely on the nuclear angle, but the issue was construction and the ability to trust contractors to build these things.

Of course it didn't play on "the nuclear angle"; There is and was no nuclear angle to play on. They only had insinuations about trustworthiness left, so they turned them up to 11.

cf. The antivax insanity. Take the irrational fear of the audience, add in any hints of harm, however unlikely, or how trivial, and insinuate that a huge and deadly disaster is imminent but being covered up.

It's psychological manipulation 101.

Three Mile Island occurs about two weeks after the release of the film. That is what shaped America's fear of nuclear.

Without the psychological priming from the film, Three Mile Island would have been seen for what it was - a trivial industrial accident in which, despite a number of failures, nobody got hurt. Such accidents occur every week; Normally the only people who care are the regulators to whom they are reported under WHS rules, and the owners and operators of the factory or facility involved. If the risk of injury or death was very high, other companies in the same industry would probably also be warned to implement safeguards against any recurrence. The only place that such things make headlines, is obscure trade papers read by a tiny audience of technical experts and professionals.

 

[bilby]

Cutting corners, saving money, less inspection was what almost led to a problem (spoiler alert, the plant didn't meltdown). Jack Lemmon is the middle man in this, defending nuclear power!

It turns out that meltdowns are only bad because they turn a very expensive reactor into a pile of scrap metal. Nobody dies; Nobody outside the power plant itself is even placed at any risk.

Why would anyone outside the industry care? Investors stand to lose a stack of cash, so they care deeply about avoiding meltdowns. But nobody else stands to lose a cent, or to suffer any harm whatsoever.

We know this, because we have now seen four Gen I reactors actually melt down, all on the same site. And nobody died. Total radiation injuries for that event were two men who spent one night in hospital with beta-burn to their legs after wading through contaminated water; And one lifelong heavy smoker who died too soon after the event for the event to plausibly be the cause of his lung cancer, who persuaded a friendly court to award hos widow compensation.

That's not quite "...you're lucky to be alive. For that matter, I think we might say the same for the rest of Southern California".

Jack Lemmon's character is portrayed as a fool who believes that his nuclear power plant is inherently safe. He's a strawman; A target for our mockery and/or pity.

The movie goes to great pains not to point out the inconvenient fact that he is absolutely 100% correct.

 

[lpetrich]

What a great dilemma for right-wingers.
Democrats’ climate law set off a wave of energy projects in GOP districts. A backlash followed. - POLITICO

President Joe Biden’s year-old climate law triggered a deluge of clean energy spending in almost every state — and it’s splitting conservatives across rural America.

Some communities are welcoming their slice of the $370 billion pot of federal tax incentives meant to accelerate the development of renewable energy and the deployment of electric vehicles as a way to bring back jobs. Others see the Inflation Reduction Act as a vehicle for boosting Chinese businesses and the reach of their government.

While Republicans on the campaign trail and in Congress regularly bash the law — which Biden signed a year ago Wednesday — as big-government overreach by Democrats bent on killing off fossil fuels, its benefits are disproportionately landing in their communities. And as the measure supercharges efforts to combat climate change, it’s also rekindling economies where people have felt forgotten, potentially softening how some voters view Biden as he seeks reelection.

“We always knew that it would fall across America, not in one particular state or another,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in an interview. “We know that rural areas have been neglected, we know that rural areas have fallen behind, and we wanted to help those rural areas. And if some of those rural areas are red, so be it.”

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Cutting corners, saving money, less inspection was what almost led to a problem (spoiler alert, the plant didn't meltdown). Jack Lemmon is the middle man in this, defending nuclear power!

It turns out that meltdowns are only bad because they turn a very expensive reactor into a pile of scrap metal. Nobody dies; Nobody outside the power plant itself is even placed at any risk.

Why would anyone outside the industry care? Investors stand to lose a stack of cash, so they care deeply about avoiding meltdowns. But nobody else stands to lose a cent, or to suffer any harm whatsoever.

We know this, because we have now seen four Gen I reactors actually melt down, all on the same site. And nobody died. Total radiation injuries for that event were two men who spent one night in hospital with beta-burn to their legs after wading through contaminated water; And one lifelong heavy smoker who died too soon after the event for the event to plausibly be the cause of his lung cancer, who persuaded a friendly court to award hos widow compensation.

That's not quite "...you're lucky to be alive. For that matter, I think we might say the same for the rest of Southern California".

Jack Lemmon's character is portrayed as a fool who believes that his nuclear power plant is inherently safe. He's a strawman; A target for our mockery and/or pity.

The movie goes to great pains not to point out the inconvenient fact that he is absolutely 100% correct.

Lemmon is the guy who believes the nuclear power plant concept is perfectly fine. He does so in the bar after the water level hiccup.

Due to a vibration he felt, he investigates and uncovers a construction short cut regarding inspection (see Hartford Civic Center roof collapse which was the result of a shitty roof design that was becoming apparent due to truss connections not lining up and the contractor just winged it. Corporate trust in America was not at an all-time in the 70s.) He believes in the real problem. He is ultimately proven right. And there is no meltdown.

 

[ZiprHead]

Biden’s climate law has led to 86,000 new jobs and $132 billion in investment, new report says

A year after Democrats passed their sweeping $750 billion climate and health care law, it’s leading to a surge of clean energy projects and job creation, according to a recent Bank of America report.

More than 270 new clean energy projects have been announced since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), with private investments totaling $132 billion, according to the report. These investments are expected to be accompanied by more than 86,000 jobs, including 50,000 jobs related to electric vehicles.

The Inflation Reduction Act “is not only working to strengthen supply chains but also to boost domestic manufacturing and create new jobs,” Bank of America said in the report.

The White House is attempting to keep focus on the one-year anniversary of the lnflation Reduction Act’s passage this week with an assortment of senior officials traveling across the country to mark the occasion – selling the bill to voters, a White House official says. A recent poll found most voters still don’t know what’s in the law.

 

[TV and credit cards]

$220 billion is helping build US cleantech infrastructure. Here are the projects.

Get the funds committed before the Republicans can take over.

But a Republican-led committee in the House of Representatives recently approved a bill that would weaken the IRA, while the rightwing Heritage Foundation think-tank’s Project 2025 has already created a lengthy manual calling on a potential future Republican administration to roll back the legislation.

Too bad we don't have an education spendapalooza in place to fill all these jobs.

More than 1 million US jobs for computer scientists and engineers risk going unfilled by the end of the decade, said a July report from the Semiconductor Industry Association and Oxford Economics. Associated Builders and Contractors, a construction lobbying group, says the US faces a shortfall of 500,000 construction workers this year alone as it tries to meet demand fueled by the new factory announcements.

“There’s just so many new [plants] going out,” said Gregg Lowe, chief executive of Wolfspeed, a semiconductor manufacturer that announced a $5 billion factory in North Carolina last year. “[The biggest challenge] is probably going to be the labor to build the factory ... then the second challenge is once you build the factory, you got to fit it out with tools, and lead times for semiconductor tools have definitely stretched out.”

By time anything gets built, outfitted, and the employees in place, they'll be all set to make outdated products.

 

[TV and credit cards]

So is Bidenomics working? Looks like it is. All the Right has to squeak about is inflation. I think it's a pretty good indication when the other side's only complaint is a hot economy.

Bidenomics Is Working: The President’s Plan Grows the Economy from the Middle Out and Bottom Up—Not the Top Down | The White House

President Biden and Vice President Harris came into office determined to rebuild our economy from the middle out and the bottom up, not the top down—and that strategy is working. Even as they faced an immediate economic and public health crisis—with a raging pandemic, elevated unemployment...

www.whitehouse.gov

Seems to me this is what making America great again looks like. All Biden's predecessor did was make the wealthy wealthier again.