House Democrats Want US To Jointly Build New EV, Broadband Infrastructure (reuters.com) 155
A group of 10 U.S. House Democrats asked the Biden administration on Friday to use funding to build out broadband internet and electric vehicle charging infrastructure simultaneously. From a report: Congress as part of the $1 trillion infrastructure law approved in November 2021 set aside $42.45 billion in grants to expand broadband, including building fiber or other networks and $5 billion for EV charging. The lawmakers led by Representatives Doris Matsui and Anna Eshoo urged officials to coordinate broadband and EV charging infrastructure efforts to encourage "co-location" of EV and broadband, especially in underserved areas "This approach can address multiple national priorities simultaneously and avoid duplicative efforts," the lawmakers wrote.
Let me guess (Score:2)
It will support all EV charging standards except for Tesla. Make a grid Musk can't use, kill demand for his cars, Enemy Defeated!
Re: (Score:2)
Wait I can't remember, are we pro- or anti-proprietary chargers?
Re: (Score:2)
anti-proprietary
All EVs should standardize on USB-C.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Tesla adapts and follows the standard. This is hardly a new problem. Technology has often had to deal with incompatible protocols and formats, and if a player tries to fight that, they will get shut out of the market.
Re: (Score:3)
Teslas built since May 1, 2019 support CCS charging with an adapter [tesla.com]. Supposedly you can get the functionality added to earlier vehicles as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There's basically just one non-Tesla standard these days and Tesla's can use an adapter to charge with it
But will we actually get it? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to stop handing out money to corporations to build infrastructure without consequences if they don't actually do it.
We have literally given hundreds of billions to telcos to build out internet access and they have not done it.
If a contractor fails to build something we paid them to build, they should have to pay it back. And if they can't, they should have to go bankrupt, and We The People should get ownership of their business. This whole getting nothing and being told to like it thing is just socialism for corporations, and they in turn hand the money over to shareholders and executives.
It gets worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse than that, the telcos actively fight against anyone else doing it (like municipal broadband). My fear is that linking broadband and EV charging stations means that both the telcos AND the oil companies will be using the full might of their lobbyists and owned politicians to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
No we fucking shouldn't. We should be cutting them out of the loop, and that was obvious 20 years ago. There have already been "they should have to pay it back" clauses in the deals. Want to guess at how much of the money ever *did* get returned?
As you say, we've given hundreds of billions to telcos, who have simply walked off with it. Over and over and over again. What's that line about "expecting different results"?
That "investment" has bought us... erm... effectively *literally nothing*, AND we have the
Title incomplete (Score:2)
"House Democrats Want US To Jointly Build New EV, Broadband Infrastructure"... ...with your money.
Let's all just for a second try to remember that 'federal funds' come from somewhere, eh?
I mean, unless we're still doing that "printing money like it's going out of style" er, 'Quantitative Easing ' thing, then it doesn't have come from anywhere! We just steal it from the future through inflation!
Re: (Score:2)
News at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Could have said EXACTLY the same thing about Trump building a wall to prevent illegals coming over the border.
Did you support that?
No?
Then you're a hypocrite, pure and simple.
Thanks for playing though.
Twitching Ronald Reaganites (Score:2)
The dumpster fire (Score:2)
Subsidies that 'encourage' broadband aren't working and the US government wants to add EV infrastructure to the dumpster fire. It's time to realize "You do it" and a blank cheque isn't working. The US government needs to set goals and hold someone accountable: That is the purpose of government, yet Congress ensures it doesn't happen.
I'm always torn on infrastructure. (Score:2)
On the other hand, these places are usually under-served precisely because the people are fucking troglodytes who would voluntarily build five megachurches before they would even consider building a school or a data pipeline, and they (collectively) deserve most of what they get.
Of course the former is the superior answer. If there's a single person worth educating somewhere, then it's worth trying to educ
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that you are in favor of congress passing a law that incentivizes companies to build out electrical infrastructure, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Globally transportation emissions make up 27% of GHG emissions.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehic... [epa.gov]
In the US, auto emissions make up the largest percentage of GHG emissions, so yeah, cutting auto emissions would be a significant part of reducing GHGs.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that is only convincing the choir. As a lot of the people who dismiss EV saying how dirty they are etc... Would rather believe a Ad with a Scary voice saying how bad things are. Than reading an article backed up with facts.
Re:unhappy with EV charging (Score:5, Informative)
Where does the extra electricity come from for millions of EV's and what do those GHG emissions look like?
Those GHG emissions look like less than if you used ICEVs.
And as we continue to shift our production towards renewables, they decrease still further. And that is in fact the trend.
If what you were trying to say is that EVs don't improve anything because you think they have the same level of emissions, you're an ignoramus. And now that I look at your username... "Oh, right."
Re: (Score:3)
EV's take 3 and a half years to work off their carbon debt
So what?
are 80 percent charged by fossil fuel
So what?
and then after 7 years leave toxic batteries that are not recycled.
You're lying.
The recharging time alone is a deal breaker
Owners disagree.
besides the $15K more cost for the low end ones compared to ICE vehicles
TCO is lower, most new cars are financed, this is irrelevant.
Common man can't afford that in this era of Biden economic ruin.
BLUE MAN BAD!!!!!11!!ones
Lousy deal, not ready for prime time.
You left a total bullshit comment, and I know you — you will fail to defend it with actual logic. You're not ready for Slashdot time.
Re:unhappy with EV charging (Score:5, Informative)
EV's taking 3.5 years [...] to pay off carbon debt is a huge deal breaker.
ICEVs take 2.5 years to pay off their carbon debt, but are so much more efficient than EVs that they have lower cradle to grave emissions — literally the only emissions number that matters.
half of their $22K toxic unrecyclable battery's life,
EV batteries are being recycled right now.
There is no recycling of EV batteries, look it up, it doesn't exist.
I did look it up. It exists. There is very little of it because "dead" EV batteries still have 50%+ capacity, and are still useful for solar power storage. I have literally watched the prices of used EV batteries outpace inflation.
People don't have the money for down payment for EV
I already explained why you're wrong.
Owners are angry being told they can't recharge in grid high use times
Nope. There are different on and off peak rates, though.
Owners are angry standing in line for a half hour boost that only will get them a few miles.
A half hour of fast charging is at least a 50% charge on any EV.
Here's a nickel, kid. Shove it up your ass and fuck off, because you're never going to get a real argument.
Re: (Score:2)
You really believe that EV batteries are unrecyclable? Where did you get that idea? That's also quite expensive for a battery, but I guess if you're going for the higher end vehicles it might cost that.
EV owners typically charge at night at home (convenient and a grid low time). We should be expanding infrastructure to make this possible in more places like apartments and public lots so more people can do it. It's much more convenient to plug in at night than to have to visit a gas station
Re: unhappy with EV charging (Score:2)
These messages brought to you by the coal vehicle PAC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why the transition away from GHG-producing electrical generation is also occurring. But because there's two problems to solve doesn't mean you just sit on your hands about one problem and wait for the other one to be solved. That's simply an argument for the status quo, and the only reason I can see anyone making that argument in this case is either because they're just a contrarian, or they own O&G stock, and are terrified that the transition will begin happening sooner rather than later, and
Re: (Score:2)
16% is a pretty big percentage, reducing it would be a great step in lowering global emissions.
Re:unhappy with EV charging (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but the ICE is at the end of its technological cycle. There aren't really any more major increases in efficiency to be found in that outdated technology. EVs are pretty much equal to ICEs right now, in terms of total impact on the environment over the life of the vehicle. EVs are at the beginning of their technological cycle. Based on the rate of relevant inventions, they will be far ahead soon. The sooner we commit to that direction, the greater our lead over the rest of the world will be, and the greater our profits.
Now, I get that your tribe has made support of ICEs mandatory for membership and status in the tribe, but that really doesn't matter because your tribe is shrinking quite rapidly and will soon be irellevant. The rest of us don't need to factor your preferences into our decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's quite a provocative post, so let's go through your big points:
Sorry, but the ICE is at the end of its technological cycle. There aren't really any more major increases in efficiency to be found in that outdated technology
New ICE engines and designs, with improvements in all aspects, continue to be made, and these engines will be produced in mass quantities long after you're gone.
EVs are at the beginning of their technological cycle. Based on the rate of relevant inventions, they will be far ahead soon.
It's not only impossible to know the latter, but most of the promises of quantum-leaps in electric vehicles have thus far been mostly hot air. They still take too long to charge, use up their juice too fast on the roads (especially when hauling heavier loads), and continue to
Re: (Score:2)
Show me any new technology that will increase engine efficiency more than 1 or 2%. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Most automakers have plans to phase out ICEs, whether you like it or not.
The increases in battery life, efficiency, and decreases in cost for EVs are well known, and quite remarkable. And we are only getting started with this technology.
I don't vote based on cliques, or what letter someone has after their name. I vote based on who will push for the policies I prefer.
Given that red states h
Re:unhappy with EV charging (Score:4, Interesting)
In 15 years, new IC engines will be a niche product while used engines will become collector items or sent to poorer countries. This is not just automobiles but even small CC engines that power lawn equipment.
Right now the battery tech for small engines (residential lawn care) and automobiles is on part with ICE. Battery tech for commercial or industrial use just isn't there yet but will likely be matured over the next 10 years. At that point anyone with easy access to electricity will likely chose battery over ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the imagination, but, wow, no.
Not many people know this, but the E in EV stands for "electric". And thanks to a combination of propaganda and astroturfing running from the 1970s to the present day, and good old-fashioned bribes to politicians, electricity is in pretty short supply.
Just ~3 years from now, California will have a 5GW shortfall in generation, and thousands will die because of it every year. Texas is its own special clusterf**k. I don't know about the East Coast, but I'm betting it's not
Re: unhappy with EV charging (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Irrelevant if ICE at end of tech cycle, if EV are "equal to ICE" right now then then there is no need to switch right now.
Okay, but they aren't. EVs are better than ICEVs right now. That makes that sentence irrelevant.
Of course EV are not equal right now
Right! They're superior.
they cost too much more for the common person
That is nonsense. EV TCO is less than ICEV TCO, and most new cars are financed. Further, the rebates have been extended.
They take too long to charge, hour or hours at a charging station
Really ICE still has efficiency improvements that can be done
Really ICE does not still have significant efficiency improvements that can practically be done. It's a fundamentally inefficient technology, and trying to make it more effici
Re: (Score:2)
they cost too much more for the common person
That is nonsense. EV TCO is less than ICEV TCO, and most new cars are financed. Further, the rebates have been extended.
TCO is one of those luxuries that upper-middle class and the wealthy enjoy.
The intial cost (including month to month cost) is much more relevent when you do not have lots of disposable income.
I have a hyrbid and an SUV. My hybrid had issues and cost me $2,400 to fix. With gas prices the way they are, I'll easliy recoup that on gas spend for my hybrid versus my SUV. 10 years ago, even if that had been true then, it wouldn't had mattered as I wouldn't have had the upfront money to hit the TCO savings.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what TCO is. Costs of financing, maintenance, fuel, etc. Regular people care very much about it, or they'd all be driving used 7-series and S-classe because those are dirt cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
TCO is one of those luxuries that upper-middle class and the wealthy enjoy.
The intial cost (including month to month cost) is much more relevent when you do not have lots of disposable income.
The vehicle is the collateral on the loan, so it is not a problem to get a loan for a vehicle you cannot afford to pay off today, as long as it is feasible that you will be able to continue making the payments tomorrow. And you can make a higher payment if you don't have to buy petroleum distillates for it to run on, so the term of the loan for an EV doesn't have to be any longer than for an ICEV for you to afford it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there's no need to switch now. Nobody is saying there is. The point where it will make economic sense for most Americans to switch is about 5 years from now.
Batteries are the biggest downfall of EVs right now, they are toxic, and take a lot of energy to produce. But there are battery technologies in the works now which don't use heavy metals at all, and can be recharged very quickly. 2-5 years out, but still looking very promising. Couple that with new electrically excited synchronous motor techno
Re: (Score:2)
No, I do not believe auto makers will hit those targets. Do you? What evidence do you have that they are on track to do so? Also, I firmly believe that the listed MPG is an outright lie, on every ICE sold today. I've never seen a car that gets close to its rated MPG in actual use.
It's a no brainer though that even with dirty sources of electricity, EVs pollute less than a ICE car. You just can not scrub carbon and other pollutants out of a million cars as easily as you can from a single power plant.
Funny ho
Re: (Score:2)
I have usually been able to meet EPA mileage estimates when I drive for efficiency. When I drive for speed, not so much. But the most efficient ICEVs are piss-poor compared to the least efficient EVs...
Re: (Score:2)
If they'll be ready for prime time in 5 years the government is doing exactly the right thing by getting the infrastructure in place today.
That target is a combined MPG across their fleet. They are going to make that goal by putting more EV's in their fleet. We are reaching the time of diminishing returns on ICE vehicles. Turbo's, GDI and CVT transmissions have all helped but those all add complexity, cost and with GDI and CVT they have had their own costly reliability issues. If I am Toyota, GM, Ford d
Re:unhappy with EV charging (Score:5, Insightful)
Counterpoint, the transition to EVs will create incentives for private companies NOT to let their power grids go the way of deeply unregulated states like Texas. It also provides incentives for more decentralized power generation, like solar.
Oddly enough, here in New Mexico we aren't facing rolling blackouts or any sorts of downtime. I can't remember the last time the power went out. Maybe unregulated utilities are the problem?
Did you know that those same natural disasters also affect pipelines, oil storage, and processing plants?
In any case, without a real comparison of down times, this is wildly speculative handwaving. I get that you want to find reasons why EVs are bad and ICEs are good, but motivated reasoning like that only leads to foregone conclusions. You start from the outcome you want, like "EV bad, ICE good" and you reason back to find evidence to support your desired world view, while ignoring other evidence that does not support your desires.
Re: (Score:3)
I recently took a 400 mile trip. I left my destination with 60% of charge, I ended up charging for about 30 minutes total, 15 minutes for every 2 - 3 hours of driving. It was actually fine for me to take 1 charging stop, but I knew every 2 to 3 hours I would need to stop driving for some biological issues.
If I were to take the same trip with a 400 mile range car, I would still probably be taking those stops, parking the car go to the rest area, then go back into the car and fill up with Gas and actually ad
Re: (Score:2)
My hybrid easily makes 500 miles on a 14 gallon tank. I really think this is where we should be pushing as it doesn't add more energy demands to the grid and still overall improves the things we're hopinig EVs will fix.
Re: unhappy with EV charging (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What math? EVs are no cleaner than ICEs to actually build
Right, they're actually dirtier. But they are so much more efficient that even if you charge them purely from coal, their cradle to grave emissions are lower than an ICEV. So frankly, that statement is wholly irrelevant. You could look this up if you wanted to know, but that would take time out from your lying.
Re: (Score:3)
So, over - say - a 20 year period (so 10 years of declining fossil fuel energy for electricity and 10 years of no fossil fuel electricity), you're claiming the maths makes the two vehicles equal at best? Ok, let's see your maths.
The math's been done. https://youtu.be/L2IKCdnzl5k?t... [youtu.be]
tl;dr: you're burning such a ridiculous amount of gas when driving an ICE vehicle that it pretty quickly offsets any extra emissions incurred during manufacturing or electricity generation on a typical mix.
Re:unhappy with EV charging (Score:5, Interesting)
Or get a plug-in hybrid. 95% of the time I get to charge at work (and never notice the gas price rise and fall last month), but the rest of the time I can still use the gas in the tank with a very high MPG rating for longer trips. Since it has the tank, I went with a lower EV range of only 30 miles, but it's enough for my commute. The other plug-in I looked at had a larger range (Clarity) but was also a larger vehicle and I was worried about getting it into my garage (I had that problem with a loaner once where it took some careful manuevering to get it in).
I know a lot of people who have more than one car, the EV for commuting, the other for the spouse and when needed for long trips. Two cars may seem excessive to some but it's quite common and having one be an EV is a win.
Re: (Score:2)
Do plug-in hybrids also charge when the gas engine is running (like non-plug-in hybrids?) That would be the best of all worlds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Relative efficiency aside, that's exactly the energy profile I want. I want something that I use 95% of the time as a plug-in electric, but that has an on-board gasoline or diesel generator that I can use when I need to boost the range. Heck, make the generator portion removable or available as an option. I was really hoping the Volt was going in this direction, but then they went to a regular hybrid drivetrain like everyone else.
Still toying with the idea of getting an EV that has a trunk big enough to
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's real hybrid engine with listed 55 MPG. The battery even charges a reasonable amount when going down a mountain. Basically when charge gets down to about 20% it flips over to being hybrid. You can manually set to hybrid mode, which I do to save on battery for going up the mountain as it's got more torque.
All this depends upon driving style though. I get 30 miles on a charge, but the rated value is only 25 miles. But you easily increase the range by not having lots of fast acceleration or speed
Re: unhappy with EV charging (Score:2)
My 2015 Volt can optionally do that in some of the drive modes. I seldom use them. Why do you think that would be so useful ? The emissions from the CA power grid are much lower than those from burning gas. It costs less per mile to drive it with electricity than gas also. The occasions to use HOLD or MOUNTAIN modes on the Volt are rare.
Re: (Score:2)
The exact behavior varies from vehicle to vehicle. For instance, the Mitsubishi Outlander can self-charge if you want it to.
Re: (Score:2)
I plan on moving rural and this is what I want too. Plug in hybrid since charging won't be great. Waiting for a much better battery range though, like 100mi would be sweet.
Re: (Score:2)
Or get a plug-in hybrid. 95% of the time I get to charge at work (and never notice the gas price rise and fall last month), but the rest of the time I can still use the gas in the tank with a very high MPG rating for longer trips.
Or just rent an ICE car for longer trips. As a bonus, you can get a minivan/larger vehicle than you'd normal drive for extra space/comfort, and probably roadside service/a new car if you have problems with it during the trip.
A hybrid just means paying extra for an ICE on top of the electric, lugging around a big heavy ICE all the time, and paying for the maintenance of an ICE.
Re:unhappy with EV charging (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense.
I just drove a Tesla on a road trip, totalling 8,048 miles this summer. EV charging on the Interstates is adequate if you can use the Tesla network. The newer 250kW chargers are awesome; we were pretty much always taking longer to use the bathroom or buy food than it took to charge the car.
Where it's a problem is going off the Interstates. We had to plan carefully for going off the highway in Minnesota (I used Plugshare to find a hotel with charging available across the street). Yellowstone and Craters of the Moon were a little tricky. Going from Boise to Los Angeles meant detouring west since you can't go north-south in Nevada yet (but it made the trip better for us, fortunately).
So there's a need for a lot more EV charging on more rural highways and especially national parks.
But if you aren't in a Tesla, don't plan on public charging outside of California. Bribing Tesla to open up the network to all EVs would solve this (though there are technical issues with adding adapters and cables not being long enough for cars with charge ports in the wrong locations).
Re:unhappy with EV charging (Score:4, Informative)
Bribing Tesla to open up the network to all EVs would solve this
Tesla is already adding CCS to their charging networks. They are currently doing a pilot program [tesla.com].
Re: (Score:3)
But if you aren't in a Tesla, don't plan on public charging outside of California.
You can go most places in the US along interstate routes on non-Tesla charging these days. Electrify America has a crap ton of fast DC stations across the US, and there are loads of level 2 and DC Fast charging stations from other companies. The only areas you are really going to run into issues are southwest Texas/New Mexico when you get away from I10, central Nevada, and Wyoming/Montana/South Dakota where even the interstates are not fully covered for DC Fast/Type 3 yet except for Tesla supercharger stat
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, at least, there are exactly two types of connector: J1772 (the standard one) and Tesla (the proprietary one). Every electric car that isn't a Tesla uses the J1772 in the US.
To be fair to Tesla, the J1772 wasn't a standard when Tesla shipped its first cars; but now that there is a standard, Tesla should use it.
But the situation isn't going to get more out of hand.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have an EV?
99% of my driving is my normal commute, and Charging up overnight with slowish 240v 30amp to be more than enough. When I go on longer trips, I find that I need to stop every few hours (for my own biology), where I just plan to stop at a charger then charge a few percentage while relieve myself. by the time I get back in, I have added a few hours of driving back to my car.
For those who don't have EV, they look at the data incorrectly. They look at charging from 0% to 100% times, while pra
Re: (Score:2)
I live out in the boonies, but work is only about 35 miles away. Easy for home charging with an EV. Adding charging stations doesn't make it easier. And like I said, I avoid trying to charge during lunch. Even if the parking spots are closer to the entrance. (plus the rates are expensive compared to why I pay for electricity)
For driving long distance I usually go 200-300 miles before I need to take a break. Depending on how strenuous the driving is, highway versus mountain roads. In my ICE I pick up fuel wh
Re: (Score:2)
For the vast majority of people, an EV with a 350-mile range is more than enough. Most people do nothing more than city driving. Hence, if you plug it in at night it'll be charged and ready for you to use all day. OK sure, for some people this won't be enough but for a good 95% of people, EVs will work just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about range. I'm talking about access to charging and its lack of scalability. Throwing money at the problem won't remove the inherent limitation that charging takes a while and that demand for a limited number of charges is only going to get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:$5 billion for EV charging (Score:5, Insightful)
The same infrastructure bill has $65 billion in grid upgrades
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/serv... [pwc.com]
The $65 billion designated for grid infrastructure and resiliency includes:
$23 billion to enhance the resiliency of the power infrastructure and investment in renewable energy
$21.5 billion to develop clean energy demonstrations and research hubs
$9 billion to enhance manufacturing facilities and projects
$5 billion to boost energy efficiency and clean energy creation
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know if it was the same bill but there was a pile of money allocated to keep existing nuclear power plants open, but no money to build new ones.
Democrats are trying to tell us that nuclear power is bad. So bad we should not open another nuclear power plant. But not bad enough that we should close nuclear power plants that are reaching 60 years old. Is nuclear power safe? Is nuclear power affordable? If yes then we should build more. If not then we should close all nuclear power plants as quick
Re: (Score:3)
There's also billions for advanced reactor research and development.
The original Build Back Better bill had over 10x the money for nuclear in it, a very large investment so maybe we can cast a little aspersions for Republicans for not supporting that? I also have not seen a Republican Nuclear bill in the works, not even in the previous admins 4 years so let's not act like it's a one sided issue. Republicans conviently only support it when they can ding Democrats about it, they don't give it any actual care
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The original Build Back Better bill had over 10x the money for nuclear in it, a very large investment so maybe we can cast a little aspersions for Republicans for not supporting that?
Not really. That bill had all kinds of non-energy spending. It was the "Green New Deal" in a new wrapper, with a bunch of spending on social programs with a few bits on energy sprinkled in so that Democrats can claim the Republicans hate the environment if they voted against it. If the Democrats were serious about lowering CO2 emissions then they wouldn't keep poisoning energy programs with amendments they know that Republicans would vote against. It's not that hard to lower CO2 emissions if Democrats t
Re: $5 billion for EV charging (Score:2)
I am sure your continued blame of the Democrats about everything will address the fundamental policy, regulatory, cost, safety, infrastructure and political issues nuclear power faces.
As an advocate for it I am kinda disappointed if the refusal to address any of that and find it counterproductive to the cause. Im a Democrat and I have a compelling sales pitch for nuclear that doesn't involve blaming a particular party and addresses those issues.
Re: (Score:2)
for all it's faults the French model is by far the most effective model for nuclear power
Yeah, look at that though. Their uptime is garbage, their costs are stupendous, and even with reprocessing (which raises costs still further) they still have to export waste.
Re: (Score:2)
I can acknowledge that it is far from perfect but I have never claimed nuclear power wins on the economics, I see it more as a national security and infrastructure issue.
Even with it's issues France is still in a better position to ease off fossil fuels and not be reliant on Russia or energy imports. There is also the economic activity generated by the availability of stable and plentiful power. I think even with it's issues France sees more benefits from it's nuclear program than liabilities and they se
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that base load doesn't exist. It's that what we need is more load following power, not more base load power. Base load power is great when everything is predictable and constant. But power demand isn't constant. It could be made more constant with more storage, and then more base load would be more useful — but the same storage that would make nuclear plants more effective will also make renewables more effective. By the same token, it's often discussed how renewables mean we need more grid u
Re: (Score:2)
money allocated to keep existing nuclear power plants open, but no money to build new ones.
That's reasonable. We should keep existing nukes running until we have enough renewables to replace them.
But building new LWRs is insane after the financial debacle at Vogtle, and no reason to believe "Next time will be different."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a reason to believe the next time will be different. The next time you have people with experience in building a nuclear power plant. The time after that you have people with experience building two nuclear power plants. The next time? Even more experienced workers. Each time a nuclear power plant is completed there are more experienced people for the next one. That means fewer mistakes, fewer delays, less cost, and higher quality.
We can't keep the existing nuclear power plants operating unti
Re: (Score:2)
There is a reason to believe the next time will be different.
That's what they said before Vogtle.
The next time you have people with experience in building a nuclear power plant.
The people who started Vogtle are now retired or nearing retirement. It has been a loooong, slow, extremely expensive process, and it still isn't done. The workers aren't going to leave their homes in Georgia to work elsewhere. There is little reason to believe their "competence" (if you want to call it that) will be passed on to the next project.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, we are all going to give up on nuclear fission power because one out of hundreds of civil nuclear power plants didn't go exactly as planned.
You need to inform the people that are currently constructing 55 civil nuclear fission power reactors right now that they are wasting their time.
https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
Yep, Vogtle was the pinnacle of the technology, we can do no better, and so we can all stop trying now that we figured that out. I am surely glad we got that straight.
Or, maybe you are ful
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, we are all going to give up on nuclear fission power because one out of hundreds of civil nuclear power plants didn't go exactly as planned.
One? ONE? ALL of the recent nuke projects in first-world countries have been financial debacles. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing a success.
Vogtle will produce power at four times the rate originally promised. It is more than a decade behind schedule.
The Summer plant [wikipedia.org] in South Carolina would have been a similar disaster, but they had enough sense to pull the plug and halt construction after wasting "only" $3 Billion.
Re: (Score:3)
One? ONE? ALL of the recent nuke projects in first-world countries have been financial debacles. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing a success.
That is an oddly specific request. Why limit this to first-world nations? Can you even define "first-world" for me so I know if I'm out of bounds? Why must the successes be "recent"? And how would you define "recent"? If anyone, any where, at any time, could complete a nuclear power plant on time and under budget then we proved it possible. If in recent times and in first world nations there is an inability to complete a nuclear power plant on time and on budget then it would appear that the problem i
Re:$5 billion for EV charging (Score:4, Insightful)
So that's:
$20B donated to whichever greenwashed manufacturers of windmills and solar panels made the right "campaign contributions", with $3B left over to donate to PG&E etc so that they can continue to not maintain century-old equipment, pocket the cash, and burn down another 100,000K square miles of forest, and suffer no consequences for it. AGAIN.
$21.5B to be split into $50M chunks.
Half will go to "really promising" startups that are definitely not at all connected to politicians and donors, who will all "demonstrate" that they "have a novel design for a fusion reactor" that will be ready "in 10 years" if they were given a few $B instead.
1/4 will go to universities that are definitely not at all the alma maters of politicians and donors with similar results.
1/4 will go to "think tanks", definitely not owned, run, and staffed by the children of politicians and donors, who will produce Powerpoint presentations grounded in magic and crayons suggesting that spend $70T trying to fill the flyover states with solar panels, in a project that should only take 60 years once they can source the materials - plus another 30 years for the interconnects that weren't part of the initial submission.
$9B donated to Tesla, Ford, etc never to be seen again other than as a way for them to generate further profit for themselves.
$5B to... I'm guessing "clean coal" and similar fake science?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most charging is done at home at night when there's plenty of extra power. We're adding solar capacity to the grid faster than we're adding EV charging, which takes care of the daytime demand.
Re: $5 billion for EV charging (Score:3)
Re: $5 billion for EV charging (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have no f___ clue
This is Slashdot, not your day care. You can say fucking here. If you don't have the courage to write out the word, pick a less scary one.
Night isn't a problem; there's tons of extra capacity.
It is a f_____ problem when EVs become popular
There is plenty of time in the next three decades that it's going to take to get EVs into the hands of the majority (based on vehicle lifespans) to make grid improvements.
Where does the electricity come from at night?
Wind. It's always blowing somewhere.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
Completely irrelevant
it's not "horribly inefficient"
It's less efficient than batteries.
It's as if you think EV batteries grow on trees.
You think hydrogen grows on trees.
Re: $5 billion for EV charging (Score:2)
Dont forget that making solar panels requires coal and oil derived chemicals https://youtu.be/rekmjLrpONs [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
'course they might get it where they are getting that sweet broadband capacity from.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, California's situation is more emblematic of PG&E's incompetence than anything else.
Re: $5 billion for EV charging (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The best day of Trump was when he stayed home from Biden's inauguraton, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Biden is the union President. If Tesla were unionized, it would be his best friend. Too bad he can't see past that to how Tesla is completely in line with the rest of his agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
True, in terms of the big 3 American auto makers I would say Ford has been the strongest in terms of EV investment recently even in the face of the Volt/Bolt.
To be truly accurate though credit would have to be given to Tesla obviously but Musk has done nothing but snipe at Biden on Twitter so I am sure the admin is in no rush to praise them any more than necessary.
Of course Tesla is also a whole bunch of American workers and not just Musk but we do not exist on Vulcan and he is a very public face of that co
Re: (Score:2)
To be truly accurate though credit would have to be given to Tesla obviously but Musk has done nothing but snipe at Biden on Twitter so I am sure the admin is in no rush to praise them any more than necessary.
Remember when we were hoping for a president not ruled by his ego? Not sure that is possible with anyone that has the desire to the the US leader, but it was a nice dream :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I agree but that is politics I suppose. In the end Musk and Tesla get theirs though with the return of the EV tax credit which at this moment helps Tesla the most of any automaker, plus I am sure they will see some other funds from this charger rollout money I imagine.
So while it would be nice to see less ego in the rhetoric at least now it's not working it's way into ego driven punitive legislation and executive orders like the last admin.
don't say Tesla (Score:2)
Re: don't say Tesla (Score:2)
Own goal? They're getting a huge legislative win. This is just ego shit from both Biden and Musk.
Biden gets his bill and Tesla will eat as much government cash as they can get and right so.
Re:Go Home Congress, You're Drunk (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress has been incentivizing or outright paying for infrastructure for most of its history. Canals, railroads, telegraph (and later telecommunications) lines, highways, electrical grids. Hell, even the Internet exists because taxpayer money was pushed into a project to create a network that could survive an EMP. The invisible hand doesn't ultimately build large scale infrastructure, but it has sure the hell benefitted from it.
Re:Go Home Congress, You're Drunk (Score:4, Informative)
Congress has been incentivizing or outright paying for infrastructure for most of its history.
The Constitution tells them to.
To establish post offices and post roads
In a time before the Internet, electricity, and plumbing, post roads were the entirety of large-scale infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but we're $31 Trillion in debt. It's time we cut the damn credit card up already until we pay the damn thing down.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're missing is that when the government is subsidizing things I like, such as single-family home ownership, pickup trucks, and meat, it's very cool and good. When it's subsidizing thing I don't like, such as healthcare, school lunches, or EVs, that's communism.
Re:Go Home Congress, You're Drunk (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with taxing and spending - it's how the Internet was developed, it's why there's a road network - hell, it's why most people here have an education and weren't limited to harvesting crops from the age of 11. As still happens in some heavily anti-tax States, whatever the Federal law says on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that's their job right? The government collects taxes and then spends the money collected on stuff to benefit the public good.