Political Roundtable Part XXXII

[Zonkerbl]

I don't know if I've said this clearly enough in the past - I think you could eradicate terrorism in an instant by legalizing heroin in the us.

Similarly, if we were to seriously commit to addressing climate change by choosing to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, the problems we have in the Middle East and Russia would vanish instantly. This isn't a military problem that we're going to solve by shooting people. This is an economic problem that will be solved through economic policy changes. Rather simple ones, tbh. We have the technology to stop using fossil fuels right now, we just don't want to because it'll be expensive. Let me ask you this though: How much would you pay to solve Israel Palestine TOMORROW? How much would you pay to eliminate Russia's political power completely?

How did you come to the conclusion that legalizing heroism would eliminate terrorism? I googled three random terrorist group and none were funded by the heroin trade. They are funded by other illegal methods and true believers.

well garsh how can i gainsay the word of someone who does his own research?

[dckingsfan]

When it comes to energy, the problem is that if you build it they will come. What does that mean? It means that the world has an insatiable appetite for energy. We are building out new clean energy at record pace but just using more energy.

The transition was always going to be ugly. I just didn't see it being this ugly.

That and we have now blown past 1.5c on our way to 2c.

[pancakes3]

When it comes to energy, the problem is that if you build it they will come. What does that mean? It means that the world has an insatiable appetite for energy. We are building out new clean energy at record pace but just using more energy.

The transition was always going to be ugly. I just didn't see it being this ugly.

That and we have now blown past 1.5c on our way to 2c.

just my 2 cents, most of the reasons why the transition is ugly is not a partisan problem; it's bipartisan blame stretching back 40 years. Three Mile Island in 1979 killed the growth of nuclear power in the US due to public perception and local governments NIMBY'ing. Then the federal government decided to not promote policies and taxes that would curb fossil fuels and promote energy development. And the flip side of that coin is that energy companies are the ones building the plants so to them, and they're not lobbying for one form or the other - just maintain what's cheapest, which will always be the incumbent coal system.

It takes about 10 years from permitting to get a nuclear plant up and running. There were no new reactors built in the US for 40 years between TMI and just recently in Georgia in 2023. The existing plants are humming along just fine, and through improvement of process, have increased power production significantly out of those existing reactors, but as US energy demand grows, the proportion of energy that nuclear provides shrinks, relatively.

this is all just basic, nonpartisan consequences, which highlights the problem with even traditional, Romney-type republican rule. The pre-trump republicans want minimal government oversight but with a lack of policy, the country is beholden to the whims of the corporations who move the invisible hand. there are large scale, society-impacting decisions that need to be made that the invisible hand does not solve. a refusal to act on those decisions is in itself, detrimental.

[dckingsfan]

When it comes to energy, the problem is that if you build it they will come. What does that mean? It means that the world has an insatiable appetite for energy. We are building out new clean energy at record pace but just using more energy.

The transition was always going to be ugly. I just didn't see it being this ugly.

That and we have now blown past 1.5c on our way to 2c.

just my 2 cents, most of the reasons why the transition is ugly is not a partisan problem; it's bipartisan blame stretching back 40 years. Three Mile Island in 1979 killed the growth of nuclear power in the US due to public perception and local governments NIMBY'ing. Then the federal government decided to not promote policies and taxes that would curb fossil fuels and promote energy development. And the flip side of that coin is that energy companies are the ones building the plants so to them, and they're not lobbying for one form or the other - just maintain what's cheapest, which will always be the incumbent coal system.

It takes about 10 years from permitting to get a nuclear plant up and running. There were no new reactors built in the US for 40 years between TMI and just recently in Georgia in 2023. The existing plants are humming along just fine, and through improvement of process, have increased power production significantly out of those existing reactors, but as US energy demand grows, the proportion of energy that nuclear provides shrinks, relatively.

this is all just basic, nonpartisan consequences, which highlights the problem with even traditional, Romney-type republican rule. The pre-trump republicans want minimal government oversight but with a lack of policy, the country is beholden to the whims of the corporations who move the invisible hand. there are large scale, society-impacting decisions that need to be made that the invisible hand does not solve. a refusal to act on those decisions is in itself, detrimental.

I can't disagree with what you are saying in the past. But in the present, no one wants to underwrite nuclear power, why? Because the falling costs of renewables makes nuclear a bad investment. So, nuclear would need to be built by the federal government, and there is no appetite there either.

So, nuclear is out (at least in the US, in Sweden where they build and maintain the plants it is expanding nicely).

Couple that with the growing need/appetite for new energy and the transition is going to be ugly. Biden's IRA was a good step in the right direction - it could have been even stronger if Congress had allowed and inflation hadn't reared its ugly head.

One more thing, if you are going to go back 40 years, you can look at how badly we have maintained/not upgraded our grid. So yeah, you are more right than wrong on this one...

[Zonkerbl]

Well then you have to rebuild the power grid. As currently designed it can't accommodate more than a small share of renewables

[dobrojim]

When it comes to energy, the problem is that if you build it they will come. What does that mean? It means that the world has an insatiable appetite for energy. We are building out new clean energy at record pace but just using more energy.

The transition was always going to be ugly. I just didn't see it being this ugly.

That and we have now blown past 1.5c on our way to 2c.

just my 2 cents, most of the reasons why the transition is ugly is not a partisan problem; it's bipartisan blame stretching back 40 years. Three Mile Island in 1979 killed the growth of nuclear power in the US due to public perception and local governments NIMBY'ing. Then the federal government decided to not promote policies and taxes that would curb fossil fuels and promote energy development. And the flip side of that coin is that energy companies are the ones building the plants so to them, and they're not lobbying for one form or the other - just maintain what's cheapest, which will always be the incumbent coal system.

It takes about 10 years from permitting to get a nuclear plant up and running. There were no new reactors built in the US for 40 years between TMI and just recently in Georgia in 2023. The existing plants are humming along just fine, and through improvement of process, have increased power production significantly out of those existing reactors, but as US energy demand grows, the proportion of energy that nuclear provides shrinks, relatively.

this is all just basic, nonpartisan consequences, which highlights the problem with even traditional, Romney-type republican rule. The pre-trump republicans want minimal government oversight but with a lack of policy, the country is beholden to the whims of the corporations who move the invisible hand. there are large scale, society-impacting decisions that need to be made that the invisible hand does not solve. a refusal to act on those decisions is in itself, detrimental.

Nukes have 2 issues working against them they are unlikely to EVER overcome:

1. They can’t be made price competitive with renewables and that combined
with the extremely lengthy timetable to build leads directly to #2

2. Capital markets HATE them. They are WAY too risky to invest in.
They are only being built in command economy nations. No private
market investor with any savvy would consider investing in them.
There are far superior investment opportunities.

BTW, existing plants are nearing or at the end of their projected lifespans.
Decommissioning them is going to be a hugely expensive undertaking.

[dobrojim]

Well then you have to rebuild the power grid. As currently designed it can't accommodate more than a small share of renewables

The existing grid is built on an antiquated model from 100 years ago.

We should neither want to keep or replicate it.

Power companies need to transition away from generation for retail customers
and become grid managers.

[dobrojim]

Several years ago while an undergrad, my son became acquainted with Dave Zirin
of The Nation. Zirin recently wrote about the Nex Benedict and I’m so proud of Max
after Zirin sought out Max and quoted him at some length in the piece.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/nex-benedict-oklahoma-war-transgender-kids/

[Pointgod]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=3GPp61l76h-DPQGq2d2x2Q&s=19

[pancakes3]

Read on Twitter

?t=3GPp61l76h-DPQGq2d2x2Q&s=19

talk about choices between parties. it's either give $40/mo/child in EBT or nothing. Obviously R's are ghouls here but what the heck are D's doing in proposing $40/mo/kid? Even if it's meant to replicate free lunch programs during the school year, they could only muster $40/mo/kid?

Even at the bare minimum, a 10lb bag of rice is $15, a 4lb bag of beans is $8, chicken thighs are $8/lb or ground beef at $3/lb. Cooking oil at $3/bottle, a 2lb bag of baby carrots is $4/bag, and let's just call it $5 for salt/pepper/etc.

That's already about $50 right there, with no milk, no juice, no fruit, no other vegetables, no snacks, no variety.

[bsilver]

Read on Twitter

?t=3GPp61l76h-DPQGq2d2x2Q&s=19

talk about choices between parties. it's either give $40/mo/child in EBT or nothing. Obviously R's are ghouls here but what the heck are D's doing in proposing $40/mo/kid? Even if it's meant to replicate free lunch programs during the school year, they could only muster $40/mo/kid?

Even at the bare minimum, a 10lb bag of rice is $15, a 4lb bag of beans is $8, chicken thighs are $8/lb or ground beef at $3/lb. Cooking oil at $3/bottle, a 2lb bag of baby carrots is $4/bag, and let's just call it $5 for salt/pepper/etc.

That's already about $50 right there, with no milk, no juice, no fruit, no other vegetables, no snacks, no variety.

The article is very confusing. It mentions the free school lunch program, and then the $40 EBT program where they can get food from grocery stores, etc. These programs are not the same. If you add a free lunch and the $40, then the programs seem more generous.

One thing I don't understand is why many well off children get a free lunch. I live in New Haven, CT along with my grandchildren, and they pay nothing for lunch even they can afford to pay. There's an odd rule, " if a kid lives in a school or school district where 40 percent or more of the kids are eligible for free lunch, then they are also eligible for free lunch even if their family income would otherwise be too high". This seems pretty wasteful.

[Zonkerbl]

Read on Twitter

?t=3GPp61l76h-DPQGq2d2x2Q&s=19

talk about choices between parties. it's either give $40/mo/child in EBT or nothing. Obviously R's are ghouls here but what the heck are D's doing in proposing $40/mo/kid? Even if it's meant to replicate free lunch programs during the school year, they could only muster $40/mo/kid?

Even at the bare minimum, a 10lb bag of rice is $15, a 4lb bag of beans is $8, chicken thighs are $8/lb or ground beef at $3/lb. Cooking oil at $3/bottle, a 2lb bag of baby carrots is $4/bag, and let's just call it $5 for salt/pepper/etc.

That's already about $50 right there, with no milk, no juice, no fruit, no other vegetables, no snacks, no variety.

The article is very confusing. It mentions the free school lunch program, and then the $40 EBT program where they can get food from grocery stores, etc. These programs are not the same. If you add a free lunch and the $40, then the programs seem more generous.

One thing I don't understand is why many well off children get a free lunch. I live in New Haven, CT along with my grandchildren, and they pay nothing for lunch even they can afford to pay. There's an odd rule, " if a kid lives in a school or school district where 40 percent or more of the kids are eligible for free lunch, then they are also eligible for free lunch even if their family income would otherwise be too high". This seems pretty wasteful.

ooh ooh ooh as an economist I can answer this. Means testing is EXPENSIVE. The poorer you are, the more expensive it gets, particularly if the family is so poor that the parent is an illiterate, single, drug addicted street walking mom. That is the kind of person who will find filling out the forms next to impossible. So if you means test, what you end up with is only providing services to the relatively "wealthy" poor people who have the time and means (and basic reading/writing skills) to fill out a bunch of stupid forms. Well, the whole point of the program is to be part of the safety net that rescues kids from having illiterate, drug addicted street walking single parents. If you don't means test, yeah you end up giving out free food to wealthy families who don't need it, but you are also more likely to get the food to the kids who need it the most. It's not the kids' fault, why penalize them for having poor parents. And if you target zip codes that have a high poverty rate the number of wealthy families you will be giving free lunches to will be relatively low.

I don't know the specifics of the program in New Haven but that's the general idea.

[pancakes3]

Read on Twitter

?t=3GPp61l76h-DPQGq2d2x2Q&s=19

talk about choices between parties. it's either give $40/mo/child in EBT or nothing. Obviously R's are ghouls here but what the heck are D's doing in proposing $40/mo/kid? Even if it's meant to replicate free lunch programs during the school year, they could only muster $40/mo/kid?

Even at the bare minimum, a 10lb bag of rice is $15, a 4lb bag of beans is $8, chicken thighs are $8/lb or ground beef at $3/lb. Cooking oil at $3/bottle, a 2lb bag of baby carrots is $4/bag, and let's just call it $5 for salt/pepper/etc.

That's already about $50 right there, with no milk, no juice, no fruit, no other vegetables, no snacks, no variety.

The article is very confusing. It mentions the free school lunch program, and then the $40 EBT program where they can get food from grocery stores, etc. These programs are not the same. If you add a free lunch and the $40, then the programs seem more generous.

One thing I don't understand is why many well off children get a free lunch. I live in New Haven, CT along with my grandchildren, and they pay nothing for lunch even they can afford to pay. There's an odd rule, " if a kid lives in a school or school district where 40 percent or more of the kids are eligible for free lunch, then they are also eligible for free lunch even if their family income would otherwise be too high". This seems pretty wasteful.

zonk already answered the question re: means testing, but re: why EBT when there's already free lunch, it's because there's no year-round school, so you risk kids going hungry when at home during summer vacation.

[dckingsfan]

...it's because there's no year-round school, so you risk kids going hungry when at home during summer vacation.

The biggest beneficiary of year-round school is the impoverished kid.

[popper]

...it's because there's no year-round school, so you risk kids going hungry when at home during summer vacation.

The biggest beneficiary of year-round school is the impoverished kid.

Bravo. I agree with both posts.

[pancakes3]

When it comes to energy, the problem is that if you build it they will come. What does that mean? It means that the world has an insatiable appetite for energy. We are building out new clean energy at record pace but just using more energy.

The transition was always going to be ugly. I just didn't see it being this ugly.

That and we have now blown past 1.5c on our way to 2c.

just my 2 cents, most of the reasons why the transition is ugly is not a partisan problem; it's bipartisan blame stretching back 40 years. Three Mile Island in 1979 killed the growth of nuclear power in the US due to public perception and local governments NIMBY'ing. Then the federal government decided to not promote policies and taxes that would curb fossil fuels and promote energy development. And the flip side of that coin is that energy companies are the ones building the plants so to them, and they're not lobbying for one form or the other - just maintain what's cheapest, which will always be the incumbent coal system.

It takes about 10 years from permitting to get a nuclear plant up and running. There were no new reactors built in the US for 40 years between TMI and just recently in Georgia in 2023. The existing plants are humming along just fine, and through improvement of process, have increased power production significantly out of those existing reactors, but as US energy demand grows, the proportion of energy that nuclear provides shrinks, relatively.

this is all just basic, nonpartisan consequences, which highlights the problem with even traditional, Romney-type republican rule. The pre-trump republicans want minimal government oversight but with a lack of policy, the country is beholden to the whims of the corporations who move the invisible hand. there are large scale, society-impacting decisions that need to be made that the invisible hand does not solve. a refusal to act on those decisions is in itself, detrimental.

Nukes have 2 issues working against them they are unlikely to EVER overcome:

1. They can’t be made price competitive with renewables and that combined
with the extremely lengthy timetable to build leads directly to #2

2. Capital markets HATE them. They are WAY too risky to invest in.
They are only being built in command economy nations. No private
market investor with any savvy would consider investing in them.
There are far superior investment opportunities.

BTW, existing plants are nearing or at the end of their projected lifespans.
Decommissioning them is going to be a hugely expensive undertaking.

re: cost-competitive - I'll concede the point re: actual dollar costs partly because the overall conclusion that nuclear costs more than renewables is true and partly because there are just way too much information that I'm not 100% sure on that suggests that renewables have a wider variance on cost, compounded with the issue of energy storage and location-dependence, really muddles the waters on just how much renewables are cheaper, even though, as mentioned, yes, on average, the cost is cheaper

re: cost-compettive 2 - my contention is that in putting actual dollar costs aside (i.e. considering hidden costs that the invisible hand does not solve) there are unquantifiable costs such as loss of green space, interference with migratory patterns, KW generated per SF, how we handle waste for each respective power source, general loss of nuclear r&d, etc. that do make a compelling case for nuclear to be part of the energy portfolio, especially with respect to fossil fuels, but also with a green energy portfolio.

re: cost-competitive 3 - my other contention is that this is a governmental issue, because capital markets have proven to be much to slow in adopting sufficient new tech to combat climate change. I reject the private market investor's savvy because these guys are too myopic in their goals, and things like infrastructure and energy (along with education, housing, food production and other essential markets) require governmental intervention or else the free market is going to screw it up. Private companies are not the ones making headway on fusion research (even though the first commercially viable fusion reactor is still probably decades away from viability), they're not the ones making headway on energy storage research, they're not spending dollars on increasing efficiency of PV cells or recyclable materials for turbine blades all of which are necessary to move the industry forward.

sidebar: this tech is all being built on the backs of grad students at national labs and research universities, and therefor the government needs to incentivize private corporations to invest in these nascent technologies to provide jobs for those grad students when they graduate. China graduates 1M engineers a year, partly thanks to their command economy. The US graduates about 250k engineers, a quarter of which are international students (it's like 75% international students for grad programs). The US government is doing these students 0 favors both in terms of growing their industry as well as their immigration policy. Read a shocking article that DeSantis is rolling up his sleeves to help the brain drain even though it is 0% of his job to do so, and arguably unconstitutional to be meddling with immigration policy (https://fortune.com/2024/02/27/nvidia-billionaire-cofounder-florida-ron-desantis-ai-china-talent/)

re: general political point - I don't have a strong feeling either way. If we scrap every nuclear plant tomorrow, along with fossil fuels, and replace it with renewables, so be it. I may disagree with it personally but at least I can understand the counterarguments. This is what should be a partisan disagreement. The current partisan divide on energy is so far from what a sane political disagreement should be. Trump is still running on Drill baby drill, oil production is now being talked about by both parties as a matter of national security, fracking is back on the menu (Ohio just awarded bids to frack oil and gas under state parks, wildlife areas) it's absolutely mind boggling.

[dckingsfan]

re: cost-competitive 1 - I'll concede the point re: actual dollar costs partly because the overall conclusion that nuclear costs more than renewables is true and partly because there are just way too much information that I'm not 100% sure on that suggests that renewables have a wider variance on cost, compounded with the issue of energy storage and location-dependence, really muddles the waters on just how much renewables are cheaper, even though, as mentioned, yes, on average, the cost is cheaper

re: cost-compettive 2 - my contention is that in putting actual dollar costs aside (i.e. considering hidden costs that the invisible hand does not solve) there are unquantifiable costs such as loss of green space, interference with migratory patterns, KW generated per SF, how we handle waste for each respective power source, general loss of nuclear r&d, etc. that do make a compelling case for nuclear to be part of the energy portfolio, especially with respect to fossil fuels, but also with a green energy portfolio.

re: cost-competitive 3 - my other contention is that this is a governmental issue, because capital markets have proven to be much to slow in adopting sufficient new tech to combat climate change. I reject the private market investor's savvy because these guys are too myopic in their goals, and things like infrastructure and energy (along with education, housing, food production and other essential markets) require governmental intervention or else the free market is going to screw it up. Private companies are not the ones making headway on fusion research (even though the first commercially viable fusion reactor is still probably decades away from viability), they're not the ones making headway on energy storage research, they're not spending dollars on increasing efficiency of PV cells or recyclable materials for turbine blades all of which are necessary to move the industry forward.

sidebar: this tech is all being built on the backs of grad students at national labs and research universities, and therefor the government needs to incentivize private corporations to invest in these nascent technologies to provide jobs for those grad students when they graduate. China graduates 1M engineers a year, partly thanks to their command economy. The US graduates about 250k engineers, a quarter of which are international students (it's like 75% international students for grad programs). The US government is doing these students 0 favors both in terms of growing their industry as well as their immigration policy. Read a shocking article that DeSantis is rolling up his sleeves to help the brain drain even though it is 0% of his job to do so, and arguably unconstitutional to be meddling with immigration policy (https://fortune.com/2024/02/27/nvidia-billionaire-cofounder-florida-ron-desantis-ai-china-talent/)

re: general political point - I don't have a strong feeling either way. If we scrap every nuclear plant tomorrow, along with fossil fuels, and replace it with renewables, so be it. I may disagree with it personally but at least I can understand the counterarguments. This is what should be a partisan disagreement. The current partisan divide on energy is so far from what a sane political disagreement should be. Trump is still running on Drill baby drill, oil production is now being talked about by both parties as a matter of national security, fracking is back on the menu (Ohio just awarded bids to frack oil and gas under state parks, wildlife areas) it's absolutely mind boggling.

cost-competitive 1 - if you want to put this in context for the US, then you have to consider the market that builds out the infrastructure, the time it takes and the risk that goes with it. Today, it is far more expensive, takes far longer and has far greater risks to build out nuclear compared to renewables. Pretty sure you agree with this.

cost-competitive 2 - this is a valid point. But if you look at the s-curve adoption of renewables and the falling costs of storage and the new storage technology innovations you can understand why industry is reticent to invest in nuclear. I think you agree with this as well.

cost-competitive 3 - only if the federal government gets involved will we have nuclear. And that hasn't been done. When progressives brought up the idea that the grid needed to be upgraded the blowback from the right was epic. There is no path forward (IMO) where the right would be willing to invest. They even tried to block the IRA and the infrastructure bills. We might "want" to see this happen but I am pretty sure you agree that there isn't a path forward for this right now.

sidebar: Remember Obama's comment to give every foreign student a visa as part of his proposal on immigration? It was largely derided by the right. Or the many proposals (by progressives) to make college free to develop more STEM based students, it was deemed communist.

The point here is that most libertarians join the far right in blocking investment in the country. This is broadly adopted around the grid, infrastructure, immigration, education, healthcare, et. al. If you want to blame folks for this mess, blame the independent Libertarians. They have forgotten their history (building our railroads, grid, roads, space, etc.) and how it expands the country.

[pancakes3]

dang, it's crazy when even Mitch McConnell throws his hands up and calls it quits

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4494536-mcconnell-to-step-down-as-senate-gop-leader/

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?t=uX0ZNuEoECw4SSqpO9Ejwg&s=19