The Greens Hijack Biden’s $3.5 Trillion Budget Proposal (That Could be a Blessing)
Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.
Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.
This post originated on MishTalk.Com
Thanks for Tuning In!
Mish
Subscribe
14 Comments
Newest
2 years ago
Democrat train wreck coming at slow speed then accelerating rapidly. The Democrat answer to economics is simply far less consumption. Get ready to shut down your AC, spend far more for consumer goods, turn down your heating temperature, spend far more for housing construction, and reduce personal transportation. No one knows if 100% RE grid is feasible. What will a 100% RE grid cost? How will energy demand and supply be balanced when the grid entirely depends on the wind and sun? How will a totally 100% RE grid provide reliable power with highly increased demand from 100% EVs and electric heat? How will a totally 100% grid support periods of low RE generation (hot summer late afternoons and sunless winter periods) as well as extremely high RE generation (mid summer days with solar and autumn nights with wind)? What will be the costs of enormous networks of lossy transmission capacity, over capacity of RE plants (to deal with very low periods of energy generation), large industrial energy storage capacity, complex control systems, and negative energy pricing? Forget nuclear power in the USA and most of Europe. The greens will not permit nuclear power. 20 years ago it was feasible for the enormous research and development for new nuclear power plants. Political power has made nuclear power not viable.
2 years ago
Three things about fossils fuels:
1) There’s a finite supply, especially of oil and natural gas. I used to be in oil exploration. If it were not for better computers and signal processing techniques we’d be in a very tight spot today. Twenty or thirty years from now, who knows? In the end, when it’s gone it’s gone. It is true the US has about 1000 years of coal, which is OK if you don’t mind strip mining Appalachia and having air that looks Beijing’s. We’re going to have to go to clean energy, might as well do it now rather than the last minute when it might be too late. To me, that means nuclear/fusion, hydro and geothermal in the US is pretty much tapped out, I’m not convinced solar and wind can supply what we need (although I could be wrong about that).
2) It is true that China produces the lion’s share of green house gasses. Solution: don’t buy any of the crap they make. You can debate on whether manufacturing jobs are going to come back to the US, but I haven’t heard anyone say that the US isn’t capable of manufacturing what it needs. China is not our pal and shipping our manufacturing capacity to them just so that the Walmart heirs can make more billions is a very bad idea.
3) If you eliminate oil and gas, exports from the entire Middle East equate to exports from Finland, a country with four million people. Alot of people in the middle east hate the US, perhaps they’re justified, perhaps not. In any case, why sent dollars to our enemies?
These are three big reasons to go to clean energy, none of which is related to climate change. Now, whether the check Biden wants to write is a good idea to do that is another issue…..
2 years ago
No shortage of oil/NG. The shortage of oil/NG is a pricing issue. The alarms about oil/NG shortage have been rung for decades without fulfillment. If there is a true imbalance between supply and demand, market forces will provide alternative forms of power.
2 years ago
“The senator also told The Hill that while the details of the standard will have to be worked out in negotiations, she’s hoping to see a requirement for 80 percent clean electricity by 2030.”
Requirement without the means of getting there.
There were several days of flex alerts in L.A. recently. It used to be that people were asked to do laundry after 7 pm, but now the time has been revised to after 10pm.
New York City was having power availability issues recently as well, during hot weather.
Imagine it is 2030 and the U.S. power grid is like that of a third world country.
2 years ago
If Pelosi is in on it, then it is likely to be full of those bogus “public-private partnerships”, which is a euphemism for corporate giveaways and subsidies. Like Obamacare or Medicare Part D or EITC.
2 years ago
Nuclear is the future. Almost all nuclear plants are based on technology from the 1960s. If they lose cooling water, they melt down. Current technology has advanced to the point where the reaction requires cooling water to work, so if the primary loop fails, the reaction stops. And they can re-use the fuel rods, so disposal is far less of a concern.
Renewables have their place, but they’re impractical for much of the world. Wind and solar are unreliable. Hydroelectric is good, but it can only be built in select places. And we need to stop placing windmills on the tops of mountains. They’re ugly and ruin the scenery. I don’t know how any environmentalist thinks placing windmills on the tops of mountains is a good idea.
2 years ago
The problem with nuclear is that there is also a shortage in uranium.
2 years ago
Agree that nukes have to be part of the energy future. Uranium is a complicated market, for both economic and political reasons. But nuke plants don’t need that much., right? …fuel is only 5% of their operating cost, compared to 70% for gas. And here in the West (US and Canada) mines are mothballed at least partly because Russia and Kazakhstan dump their product to undercut the market and stay dominant on market share.
2 years ago
Well, if Pelosi is for it, then it is likely to be some kind of a private sector giveaway, which is what most of the government programs from either right-wing party are anyway. Like EITC is a subsidy for employers that pay low wages, and Obamacare is a government giveaway to private insurance companies, and Medicare Part D is a government giveaway to Big Pharma and on and on.
That said, the fact that other countries are not making much progress on going green, should not stop us. It is crazy to not do anything just because the others aren’t. After all, we didn’t stop from inventing the automobile because all other countries were still in the bullock-cart age, nor did we stop our moon landing program because most other countries were only flying weather balloons or toy rockets at most. We took the lead and the others followed. We should be the leader once again.
2 years ago
It is not easy to find if the main problems with the cost of energy will come from the fight against climate change or by the reduction and finally extinction of ressources. I think that the second will be the main problem.
2 years ago
I agree with most of what you said, but that doesn’t mean some things aren’t going to change…and there will be a trend in this general direction, of relying less on FF’s and taxing them more and lending lots of cheap money to purveyors of Green-ness, some real, no doubt some bogus. Money will be made. Fossil fuels might someday be used more frugally and sensibly
(Sorry I was just dreaming. I don’t really think that) .
2 years ago
Just finished Marin Katusa’s book. It’s very good and on some things we have parallel thinking. The uranium story is very interesting and I wasn’t aware how much of it is controlled by Russia and Russian-controlled areas. France owns a big uranium mine in Niger and around 30% of their uranium comes from there. It’s no surprise that when the Sahel was threatened by the Tuareg rebellion they would send in the troops.
2 years ago
They haven’t even got the “bipartisan” $1t infrastructure passed.
2 years ago
Tax or Tarif what’s the difference??