Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Link  

The US Senate has approved a sweeping $700bn (£577bn) economic package that includes major legislation on healthcare, tax and climate change.

The bill seeks to lower the cost of some medicines, increase corporate taxes and reduce carbon emissions.

The passing of the bill - a flagship part of President Joe Biden's agenda - is a boost ahead of mid-term elections.

But it is a significantly scaled-back version of the $3.5tn package that was first proposed by his administration.



This next part is something I don't quite get. They say households could receive tax credits to buy EVs or used cars (the dollar amounts are laughable at best); billions will be spent in an effort to speed up production; and $60B will be given to communities that have suffered fossil fuel pollution. The author of the bill says these things will cut carbon emissions by 40%. None of those things are guaranteed to happen so cutting emissions is speculation at best and I'm not sure how that $60B to communities will help cut emissions unless they are required to spend it on green energy. Will it happen by 2030 remains to be seen. I guess they say this will happen so it sounds good to the rabid eco warriors but there is no guarantee this $369B will do a damn thing other than put us further into debt. 


The bill also includes $369bn for climate action - the largest investment in the issue in US history.


Some households could receive up to $7,500 in tax credits to buy an electric car, or $4,000 for a used car. Billions will also be spent in an effort to speed up the production of clean technology such as solar panels and wind turbines.

There will also be $60bn given to communities that have suffered the most from fossil fuel pollution.

The authors of the bill say it will cut the country's carbon emissions by 40% by 2030.


If they insist on spending money on green energy they need to use that $369B to upgrade the power grid because wind and solar is not going to be enough to do what these people want it to do. If we don't have the infrastructure it's all going to fail. Why doesn't the WH and all government buildings for that matter have solar panels? I just watched 3 weeks of the Tour de France where buildings that are a thousand years old in small villages in the middle of nowhere have solar panels to power whatever business goes on there but government buildings don't. Why aren't motorcades all EVs?  If the government wants us to do something maybe they should lead by example. Yeah, not gonna happen.

At some point, our power grid must go nuclear. Otherwise, until technology catches up and produces an air conditioner that can run on solar powered batteries, charging stations in every household that can do the same, we are going to have to do some serious rationing of energy. Maybe 3rd world country versions of rationing, like only having power for 12 - 14 hours a day.

And even if we achieve all this here in the USA, it's not going to make a rat's rear end worth of difference if China and India are not doing the same.

(08-08-2022, 06:44 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]At some point, our power grid must go nuclear.  Otherwise, until technology catches up and produces an air conditioner that can run on solar powered batteries, charging stations in every household that can do the same, we are going to have to do some serious rationing of energy.  Maybe 3rd world country versions of rationing, like only having power for 12 - 14 hours a day.

And even if we achieve all this here in the USA, it's not going to make a rat's rear end worth of difference if China and India are not doing the same.

Why?  Given that most energy is used during daylight hours, why wouldn't you use large scale solar to support the country's energy needs during the day.

(08-08-2022, 06:44 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]At some point, our power grid must go nuclear. Otherwise, until technology catches up and produces an air conditioner that can run on solar powered batteries, charging stations in every household that can do the same, we are going to have to do some serious rationing of energy. Maybe 3rd world country versions of rationing, like only having power for 12 - 14 hours a day.

And even if we achieve all this here in the USA, it's not going to make a rat's rear end worth of difference if China and India are not doing the same.

India already tried solar for some remote village that had bad power issues. It worked at the start but as more people switched, it started failing. Then battery issues and it was worse than the terrible power company. I can't remember how long it lasted but I think it was done after 1-2 years.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

(08-09-2022, 10:20 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-08-2022, 06:44 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]At some point, our power grid must go nuclear.  Otherwise, until technology catches up and produces an air conditioner that can run on solar powered batteries, charging stations in every household that can do the same, we are going to have to do some serious rationing of energy.  Maybe 3rd world country versions of rationing, like only having power for 12 - 14 hours a day.

And even if we achieve all this here in the USA, it's not going to make a rat's rear end worth of difference if China and India are not doing the same.

India already tried solar for some remote village that had bad power issues. It worked at the start but as more people switched, it started failing. Then battery issues and it was worse than the terrible power company. I can't remember how long it lasted but I think it was done after 1-2 years.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

100% renewables can work with energy storage.  The island of El Hierro has done it.  It didn't work in India because the poverty and corruption probably led to them cutting corners.

Lol. Like America isn't known for cutting corners. It's one reason why we have supply chain issues. Almost nothing is manufactured here and everything the government spends money on goes to the lowest bidder.

(08-09-2022, 01:53 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-08-2022, 06:44 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]At some point, our power grid must go nuclear.  Otherwise, until technology catches up and produces an air conditioner that can run on solar powered batteries, charging stations in every household that can do the same, we are going to have to do some serious rationing of energy.  Maybe 3rd world country versions of rationing, like only having power for 12 - 14 hours a day.

And even if we achieve all this here in the USA, it's not going to make a rat's rear end worth of difference if China and India are not doing the same.

Why?  Given that most energy is used during daylight hours, why wouldn't you use large scale solar to support the country's energy needs during the day.

Solar as it stands now can handle lighting, and other low amperage demands. Not large motors. Batteries as they exist today would have to have huge capacity to run your heat pump/strip heating 24/7. At the moment, they don't. Technology would need to advance for this to be viable. Same with solar field power plants. Great for base load lighting and other low amp devices, but at this moment in our energy technology history, system peak loads, which are mostly driven by HVAC, are supplied by turbines which cannot be run off of batteries or solar fields. They require a generating source that can supply the amps to run them. And, of course, HVAC runs mostly in the daytime. The cleanest energy that we currently have the technology to produce that will handle the demands of our electric grids is nuclear. France, Spain, England, Japan, China and others know this. We do too, but we're self hamstrung by the distant memory of a hack movie in the late 70's starring Jane Fonda, and a botched accident by the Russians. And even though we still haven't had a nuclear accident yet, public opinion is still negative. What about all the nuclear missiles that we have just sitting around in silos since the 60's thru today? And nuclear subs? Not one accident with those either, and yet we cant get out of our own way when a clean energy solution is right in front of us.

Btw, I'm not trying to be a know it all here, but I did load demand studies and power generation analysis for 8 years with the Jacksonville electric utility in the Generation planning and load forecasting departments. I did cost/safety analysis on all types of source fuel including oil, coal, petroleum coke, natural gas, biomass, solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear. So I do have some hands on experience with these issues.

(08-09-2022, 11:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2022, 10:20 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]India already tried solar for some remote village that had bad power issues. It worked at the start but as more people switched, it started failing. Then battery issues and it was worse than the terrible power company. I can't remember how long it lasted but I think it was done after 1-2 years.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

100% renewables can work with energy storage.  The island of El Hierro has done it.  It didn't work in India because the poverty and corruption probably led to them cutting corners.

With all due respect, comparing an island of 10k people and a large country with millions is like comparing a kiwi to a watermelon. Plus, the island has hydro as part of this system, which is currently a small % of the energy mix in the US.

(08-09-2022, 11:35 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. Like America isn't known for cutting corners. It's one reason why we have supply chain issues. Almost nothing is manufactured here and everything the government spends money on goes to the lowest bidder.

I wouldn't recommend that the continental US attempt what that island did.  But I do recommend we install more wind, solar, and nuclear.

But perhaps one of the Hawaiian islands or Virgin Islands would benefit from an El Hierro inspired plan.

(08-09-2022, 11:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2022, 10:20 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]India already tried solar for some remote village that had bad power issues. It worked at the start but as more people switched, it started failing. Then battery issues and it was worse than the terrible power company. I can't remember how long it lasted but I think it was done after 1-2 years.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

100% renewables can work with energy storage.  The island of El Hierro has done it.  It didn't work in India because the poverty and corruption probably led to them cutting corners.

Go read about it. All your liberal leaders, charities, and companies went all out to create this thing and it failed. They stopped talking about it and the MSM never followed up. It wasn't done by India and didn't fail because of corruption. The legacy power was terrible and people still preferred that.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

(08-09-2022, 11:27 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2022, 11:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]100% renewables can work with energy storage.  The island of El Hierro has done it.  It didn't work in India because the poverty and corruption probably led to them cutting corners.

Go read about it. All your liberal leaders, charities, and companies went all out to create this thing and it failed. They stopped talking about it and the MSM never followed up. It wasn't done by India and didn't fail because of corruption. The legacy power was terrible and people still preferred that.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Quote:Conclusion
The Dhnarai project failed because of high prices associated with solar power and the grid’s unreliability. Villagers were warned not to use high power appliances like televisions and refrigerators. When solar projects like that in Dharnai are initiated, the developers do not mention how sustainable the energy is, its longevity and what happens when the technologies age or how much of the demand the project could meet. When Dharnai was connected to the region’s coal-powered grid in 2016, villagers had access to a much cheaper and more reliable power source that allowed them to use high-powered appliances. The Dharnai experience should be a warning to others. While developed countries may have the expertise to keep the system operational, the cost in Dharnai was 3 times that of reliable coal power.

They didn't install enough panels and batteries to give the kVA that the villagers were used to getting from their generators, then, they didn't maintain the little equipment they did have properly.  These are consequences of poverty.  
In an area that already has a backbone of expertise and electrical infrastructure and generation, utility level solar panels make a lot of sense. In an area that doesn't have these things yet, well, they have to crawl before they walk. Sometimes developing areas can skip ahead in their development.  Sometimes they can't.  El Hierro had a diesel plant for decades while they built their renewable infrastructure. 
The point remains that a developed country like ours should be building out renewables to the greatest extent possible so we can not only produce more energy but also have more fossil fuel to sell to these developing economies that aren't fully ready for renewables.

(08-09-2022, 12:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2022, 11:35 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Lol. Like America isn't known for cutting corners. It's one reason why we have supply chain issues. Almost nothing is manufactured here and everything the government spends money on goes to the lowest bidder.

I wouldn't recommend that the continental US attempt what that island did.  But I do recommend we install more wind, solar, and nuclear.

But perhaps one of the Hawaiian islands or Virgin Islands would benefit from an El Hierro inspired plan.

What could go wrong cutting corners when building a nuclear reactor.

(08-09-2022, 11:47 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-09-2022, 12:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't recommend that the continental US attempt what that island did.  But I do recommend we install more wind, solar, and nuclear.

But perhaps one of the Hawaiian islands or Virgin Islands would benefit from an El Hierro inspired plan.

What could go wrong cutting corners when building a nuclear reactor.

I wonder.... Three Mile Island comes to mind on the domestic front. 

It's not to say we shouldn't use it but it would cost money to do it right and there could be no room or incentive for corruption but that will never happen.

(08-10-2022, 06:07 PM)Ronster Wrote: [ -> ]

Ummm that's a little concerning

It would appear that the only people concerned about 87,000 new IRS agents are those doing the wrong thing.

The IRS has always had a surprising amount of interface with drug smugglers, Marijuana growers, etc. You'd think that was just DEA/ATF but the IRS is just as involved. They're not trying to keep drugs off the streets but they are trying to track all taxable flows of money.

(08-10-2022, 06:40 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]It would appear that the only people concerned about 87,000 new IRS agents are those doing the wrong thing.

Poppycock.

(08-10-2022, 06:40 PM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]It would appear that the only people concerned about 87,000 new IRS agents are those doing the wrong thing.

Ya, like holding the wrong political views. I am sure you like that part. Ya, most fascist do..