Andy

I read a couple of technical papers on batteries a while back. Your assessment is spot on.

What's happening today in battery technology is that they're pushing the extreme edges of the envelope, which is why we now see occasional thermal runaways on batteries.

Today's batteries are one of the least environmentally friendly products built. It would be FAR better for the environment to strip mine coal and burn it for on-demand electricity rather than pursuing some pie-in-the-sky idea of collecting electricity with solar/wind and then storing it for when there's no solar/wind (night/calm winds) and there's still demand for electricity.

PRS Guitars

This thread is fascinating, and illustrates how well the progressive left has infiltrated schools and used this issue to further its agenda.


The backgrounder on the GND clearly states that it is a massive transformation of our society. You can then read the bullet points and see that, it in fact is clear as day pushing us into socialism. Yet, when this is pointed out, GND apologists on here claim that we are wrong, crazy, stupid, watch too much Fox News/Rush/Hanity.

The far left managed to scare a generation into believing that the world will end soon, if we don’t do something drastic, and that something drastic is socialism. Since students are now taught more about climate change than socialism, it’s only natural that they’d be in favor. But once (if) folks see the reality of socialism, which goes completely against human nature, they will regret this stuff.

I don’t know the ages or jobs of the GND apologists on here, but I assume most are young Regional guys. Most probably have aspirations of getting a job at a major. Most have spent a crap ton of money, blood sweat and tears to get where they are. Most would like to be paid well for their sacrifices.

Set aside the elimination of air travel for a moment...Under the GND, their goal will be to make your discretionary income about the same as everybody else’s. There are a lot of ways they can do it, but the likely way (and what AOC has proposed) is an 80% top marginal tax rate with no loopholes. She claims this would only be on ultra wealthy but also acknowledges that that’s not enough. So it will work it’s way down. Something along the lines of:

$0 to $80k has a tax credit that will bring their income up to $80k
$80k to $100k has a 50% rate
$100k plus has an 80% rate

So as a major CA making $300k you’d gross about $120k, and your unemployed (by choice) neighbor would gross $80k. How happy would you be with that after years of hard work? What would be the incentive to work hard?

AOC and her ilk assume a static model of the economy and assume production. But that’s not how it works, because under the above scenario, you’d say, “screw it” I’ll just not work and live like my neighbor.

This is just a simple example of how this could work, but don’t take my word, just look at Venezuela’s dramatic slide into socialism. And no, it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a history lesson. I’m not wearing a tin foil hat or masturbating to Fox News. It is spelled out clearly in the GND.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...w-Deal-FAQ.pdf

Do I think this is likely...not really, but it is her goal, there is no doubt about that.

justumn30

This has legs to it. As you were alluding to, there has been a lot of research already thrown at biofuels and increasing since 2012 and on. USDA, Energy, and Environmentalists have been working on alternatives including ability to incorporate alternative types of feedstocks. I agree this is the closer fix and where the Fed's short term focus should be. As they figure out the costs, I think we will see this sooner than later (hopefully within 10 years).

Although I appreciate the sentiment of protecting our environment, the more realistic approach is as you stated.

justumn30

Well stated!

at6d

The problem with biofuels are what you make them out of. Corn is good for it...but requires a **** ton of water, drought tolerant growing conditions, pest control, healthy soil, space....and petroleum based fertilizer!

Ethanol from Switchgrass or other plants is costly as well.

justumn30

I like the word "infiltrate". The ideological shift in kids coming out of high school is problematic. Our schools and education system is where the indoctrination begins. Socialism has never been successful. Period. It will take another generation to change the dynamics.



Appreciate your thoroughness in the breakdown. Salute!

Seems clear easy math would compute and logic would prevail. People should be rewarded for their work ethic, not in spite. Good post!

UAL T38 Phlyer

Monorail!!

Flytolive

And there it is. YOU extrapolated and projected your own right wing conspiracy theory.

If your arguments could stand on their own there would be no need for such fantastical straw man building.

Mesabah

Cellulose, and waste heat from gen IV nuclear power solves that issue completely, and is carbon negative.

Excargodog

Shorter than Merced to Bakersfield?

It was always intended as a nose under the tent sort of thing, get it started and then try to justify additional taxpayer funding with the argument that it HAD to be done, or waste all the money that was already spent. The route chosen was the cheapest and least population dense area they could find, to keep building cost down, not really designed to be useful. The route chosen was not chosen for economic viability. Exactly how many people in Bakersfield does anyone think want to go to Merced every day, and Vice versa? And those 400,000 people are basically the only customers except perhaps Fresno. But you can’t make very frequent stops with high speed rail or it quickly stops being high speed. Or energy efficient. For the same reason you’ll seldom see a 777 servicing an EAS destination.

High speed train economic viability in practice depends greatly on population density. Western Europe has that. Parts of the East Coast have that. Most of the West simply doesn’t. An agricultural area in the Central Valley of California? Nobody could seriously expect that to be economically viable.