Slashdot Mirror


Budget Deal Has Tax Credit Extensions For Nuclear, Fuel Cells, Carbon Capture (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A two-year budget deal was approved by the House and the Senate this morning and signed by President Trump a few hours later. The budget (PDF) included a slew of tax credit extensions that will affect how the energy industry plans its next two years. Most notably, the deal extended a $0.018 per-kWh credit for nuclear power plants over 6,000MW -- a tax credit that is primarily going to benefit one project in the US. That project is the construction of two new reactors at the Georgia Vogtle nuclear power plant.

Interestingly, a bipartisan effort to increase and extend tax credits for carbon sequestration passed through this budget. The bill was pushed through by Senators Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). The bill would offer a tax credit per ton of carbon dioxide that is captured and either sequestered, used for another end product, or used for enhanced oil recovery. The credit applies to any facility that started carbon capture construction within the past seven years, and the credit extends for 12 years.

While the budget deal leaves the federal tax credit scheme for electric vehicles unchanged (automakers can still entice buyers with a $7,500 credit for the first 200,000 electric vehicles that roll off that automaker's line), the budget did include and extend some interesting tax credits for other kinds of non-traditional energy. Fuel cell vehicles saw an extension of tax credits that will allow purchasers of new cars a tax credit of between $4,000 and $40,000, depending on the weight of the vehicle (this is probably good news for potential customers of Nikola's in-development fuel-cell semis). Non-hydrogen alternative fuel infrastructure also scored, as the new budget lets installers of infrastructure for alternative fuels like biodiesel and natural gas deduct 30 percent of the cost of installing the new pumps. Two-wheeled electric vehicle buyers will also see a 10-percent credit extended (though that credit has a $2,500 cap). Per-gallon biodiesel and renewable diesel credits that expired at the end of 2017 will continue.

104 comments

  1. Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Gets all the negativity when he signs a bill the left hates, but receives 0 credit for signing a bill the left praises.

    1. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly he understands that Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Dems are clueless about money, they get trolled over and over about deficits by cynical Republicans who know that money is really a consensual hallucination and bluster makes deficits not matter.

    2. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gets all the negativity when he signs a bill the left hates, but receives 0 credit for signing a bill the left praises.

      The left praises? Hardly. He's a Nazi. When he does something that's nominally good (by accident) it doesn't offset the fact that he's a Nazi. I'm sure this will get voted down, but honestly, the sooner you Trumptards acknowledge the fact that he's a Nazi, the better off we'll be.

    3. Re: Trump by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I agree. We need to keep Trump in office. If lower taxes, an improved economy, and lower unemployment is the result of him drinking Diet Coke and coloring with crayons then keep him there. Then when his second term is up then we need another do nothing idiot. Perhaps an idiot with better tastes in soft drinks, but whatever. At least he doesn't drink Bud Light like the last POTUS.

      Can we get a POTUS that just likes coffee with a little cream and sugar? Or even just black coffee? I guess either choice would be considered racist or something.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Ivan. Communists are superior to American dogs.

    5. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh great, now if I try to support renewable energy I'm going to be called a Trumptard and a Nazi.

    6. Re:Trump by blindseer · · Score: 0

      Don't call someone a Nazi if they didn't earn it. Trump is not a Nazi, he hasn't forced millions to die in ovens to later sell off the hair, clothes, and gold teeth of the dead.

      What happens when people call someone a Nazi that just, metaphorically speaking, wrote them a $1000 check in the form of a pay bonus or in the increase on their tax return? People will equate being a Nazi with not being all that bad.

      Trump quite likely is far from an ideal person to have as POTUS. It's also possible he's mentally deficient, ignorant of world affairs, a terrible businessman (successful only because daddy's money hid his failures), among other problems. Call him a loon, call him an ignorant boor, just don't call him a Nazi. That just diminishes the term for when we need to make that analogy stick. If everyone is a Nazi then no one is.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Trump by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he hasn't earned it yet but he is using the german national party's tactic of making the small minded fear immigrants and non-native people by saying they are to blame for all the problems - that was their first baby steps into becoming the Nazis

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    8. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. We need to keep Trump in office. If lower taxes, an improved economy [snip]

      If you believe you get significantly lower taxes, you are a victim of the tax scam, or you're at the very least a millionaire. The improved economy is due to Trump's predecessor, because the current government has until recently not been able to passing any significant laws. The first significant economic measures they managed to take were the tax scam laws, and now the economic good times are almost over. Coincidence? I think not.

    9. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just add it to the long list of things that make you an alt-right Nazi, like free speech and due process.

    10. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So said the economically ignorant socialist millennial. Thank you for your useless input based on nothing.

    11. Re: Trump by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      This budget is going to make it nigh impossible for all three of those points to be true in 10 years.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    12. Re: Trump by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      I give him credit for being mostly inactive during this round.

      And that's almost certainly how this one came about, Trump had little to no idea what it was he was signing, he just had something put in front of him on his tiny little table and got to scribble on it with his crayon. Don't credit Trump for anything in there, credit everyone else for slipping whatever they wanted in there for Trump to rubberstamp.

      Speaking of which, what else did he sign into law without reading it? What booby-traps are hidden in there?

    13. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clearly don't know which side the Russians are stumping for. Or more likely you're the Real Russian. Go home Natasha, you're out of your league.

    14. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is afraid? No one is afraid of the illegal alien slave workers you want here so you can have a cheaper veggie burger, you SJW whiner.

      They only want one thing: enforce the laws already on the books.

      If we did nothing more than enforce and require valid I9 documents and not allow multiple people to file taxes under the same stolen ssn, the bulk of the problem would vanish over night.

      You are a straw man wielding SJW racist.

    15. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't call someone a Nazi if they didn't earn it.

      He earned it when he mocked the reporter with a speech impediment.

      He earned it when he had his brownshirts beat the crap out of people at his rallies.

      He earned it when he questioned Obama's birth certificate (because he's black).

      He earned it when hired a porn star to fuck after his (third) wife had just given birth.

      Shall I continue?

      He earned it when he said "I just grab em by the pussy."

      He earned it when he said "we're going to build a wall."

      He earned it again when he said "Mexico is going to pay for it.

      He earned it when it denied knowing who David Duke is.

      He earned it when he blocked arabs and people from predominantly Muslim countries from otherwise legally traveling here.

      Had enough?

      He doesn't need to kill jews in gas chambers to to qualify as a Nazi.

      And don't pretend to be Holier Than Thou, especially when you're not.

    16. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Trump] hasn't forced millions to die in ovens

      History fail. Hitler didn't kill the Jews with ovens. He gassed them with Zyklon B. The bodies were incinerated – in the ovens – after they were already dead.

      If everyone is a Nazi then no one is.

      If everyone is a Nazi, then everyone is a Nazi. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial. AFAIC only Twitler and his supporters qualify as Nazis. We have a long way to go to get to everyone.

    17. Re: Trump by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be a Nazi to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

      OTOH demonizing immigrants is one hallmark of a Nazi.

      Having your brownshirts beat the crap out of people at your rallies is another.

    18. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trees are valued only by their boardfeet to an economist. I consider the value in the tree's story, its knowledge.

      Your economics is crass and as reality-based as divine right of rule.

    19. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. We need to keep Trump in office. If lower taxes, an improved economy [...]

      The S&P500 / SPY is currently up 14% under Trump since his inauguration. The same index was up 31% at the exact same time in Obama's first term:

      * https://twitter.com/crampell/status/961730767679361024

      More jobs were added to the US economy in Obama's first year than Trump's.

      Perhaps Trump should emulate Obama's policies more and dismantle them less.

    20. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's about right. I recall reading an article that celebrated the inability for a group to freely assemble and have someone speak to them. It was a while ago but I found it again.
      http://daily-iowan.com/2016/12/09/brown-isu-and-the-alt-right/

      We had a group at the Iowa State University invite a speaker to campus, but the heckler's veto shut down the event. Then we had someone on the editorial board at the University of Iowa campus newspaper hold this up as some example of saving the nation from hate, or something. Given how Milo and his friends have been "greeted" on other campuses across the nation this is far from unique to Iowa. What the fuck is going on with students at American universities?

      Who's the greater Nazi here? Is it the person that speaks hate, or the guy that punches him in the face for speaking?

      Apparently people can speak freely on American university campuses if they file all the right forms in triplicate, get permission from the administration, and provide funding for security. This might be moderately acceptable on a private university campus but these are public universities. They get their funding from the government. This is not some private individual wishing to "de-platform" someone they don't agree with. This is straight up government censorship.

      We had a state funded university claim that they lacked the funds to provide security for the event. What the fuck do we pay our taxes for then? Call in some state troopers, pay them overtime if you must, but this should be a "nothing burger" for a gay guy to get up on stage and say whatever foolish thing he wanted to some college students.

      Last I checked American universities seemed to be in the business of having gay men say a bunch of stupid stuff in front of college students. They'll even give you a degree if you do it often enough.

    21. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What booby-traps are hidden in there?

      If there are booby traps then they got by Democrats and Republicans alike.

      Republicans may have a majority in both houses of Congress but Democrats still hold more than 40% of the Senate. If there is a booby trap in anything he signs then it got past a lot of Democrats in the House and a Democrat filibuster in the Senate.

      Democrats will like to pretend they are innocent of anything that happens because they are in the minority. Anyone that is paying attention will know whatever laws got signed last year, and whatever gets signed this year, will have Democrat fingerprints on it.

      You can blame Trump for whatever happens. You can blame his Republican buddies too. What no one can do is claim the Democrats are innocent. There are no innocent parties here.

    22. Re: Trump by blindseer · · Score: 1

      More jobs were added to the US economy in Obama's first year than Trump's.

      I'm sure that was Bush's fault.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    23. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Trump faction certainly have a negative view of immigrants (at least illegal ones), but they don't blame them for everything. Immigrants are regarded as a serious future problem, rather than the reason that America is not currently Great.

      A closer modern-day analogy to the way Jews were regarded by Nazis is the way men are regarded by feminists. In that case, men and a nebulous patriarchy (like Jews and Zionism) are blamed for everything wrong with the current state of society. In addition to demonising men for criminal activity (similar to the Trump faction's approach to illegal immigrants), feminists also promote discrimination against them in high-status professions like medicine and science ... which is a spot-on match to Nazi policies of the early 1930s. Heck, there are even feminists promoting "feminist physics" like the "Aryan physics" of 80 years ago.

      And then you've got the ones actually advocating genocide: those tweeting #killallmen, people with actual political power (university officials, journalists) talking about how nice it would be if men were exterminated, etc. There are a few on the far right tweeting #killallmuslims, sure - but they're far fewer, and dare do so only anonymously. The feminists are further down the Nazis' path than any other current hate group.

    24. Re: Trump by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Last I checked American universities seemed to be in the business of having gay men say a bunch of stupid stuff in front of college students. They'll even give you a degree if you do it often enough.

      They aren't ALL gay men. Some of them are bisexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Like Prof. McCloskey.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I remember his/her name because it was mentioned as an author to a paper one of my instructors recommended that we read, which happened to be about the same time he/she was interviewed on The Rubin Report. Prof. McCloskey taught in a handful of schools in the Midwest, including Iowa.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    25. Re: Trump by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      ROFL...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    26. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like trees, too. Do not create a false dichotomy or a straw man whereby you make yourself the philosopher king and all others are crass scumbags.

      However, my crass economics also puts food on your table, builds and delivers the table, and the crummy apartment you share with 4 other people because you don't have a work ethic or any employable skills of note. My crass economy and high GDP growth also create productivity efficiencies that allow for huge national parks as well as local city and neighborhood parks full of trees and clean air and water. As opposed to your social utopia shit holes like the Soviet Union and modern China that destroy the environment with their ineffective and inefficient economic models that make SJW children feel good about their virtue signaling but ultimately kill people, animals, land, sea, air, and any concept of human freedom and expression.

      Suck on that, millennial socialist ignoramous the next time you're at the super market while people are literally starving in Venezuela, North Korea, and large parts of Africa where they don't have my crass economics.

      Hypocrite.

    27. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown Shirts? You mean the leftists in Antifa?

    28. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your little rant: aka, "SJW upset Hillary lost because she was a shitty candidate on he really deathbed and broke numerous laws and got busted".

      Not a single one of those things screams, "Nazi" to people who lived through that era.

      I read your list and see, "crass man who wants to enforce the immigration laws already on the books that have been ignored by the political class for political and selfish economic reasons since the 1960s".

      Nazi? Yawn....

    29. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can be sure he is no nazi, the nazis had strong environmental protection laws.

    30. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism violates the Lockean Proviso, by enclosing all land and shutting off access to the means of production of food, for example. Government increasingly is shutting down access to public lands, modeling itself on capitalism.

      I was better off before capitalism.

      See Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Economy http://ppesydney.net/karl-widerquist-prehistoric-myths-modern-political-philosophy/

      [...] neither the state nor the property rights system have benefited the least advantaged people in contemporary capitalist states. The very poor, socially isolated people, and the victims of modern diseases are worse off than they could reasonably expect to be if they were allowed to live in a stateless society without a private property system.

      You invent stories about wasteful and mindless production for its own sake.

      Ancient knowledge teaches that the more you know the less you need.

      Your faith-based economics normatively asserts that more stuff is always better.

      If I want to follow ancient paths, you deny access to both land where I used to be able to roam freely, and to the vast persistent surplus due mostly to technology created by dead people.

      To be consistent, you should at least liberalize suicide markets so I have death as a way out of your nightmare of a system.

    31. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please use something other than "Nazi." Ethnic Japanese who were also US citizens were placed in camps during WW2. In case you are unaware, that's the war where the US successfully defeated the Nazis. Your assertion would have us conclude that the US was Nazi during the WW2 period. Please use some other descriptor than Nazi. An accurate one would be preferred.

    32. Re: Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reagan's budgets made the dot-com boom impossible because there was never enough money for it to have even gotten started.

    33. Re:Trump by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      > The left praises? Hardly. He's a Nazi. When he does something that's nominally > good (by accident) it doesn't offset the fact that he's a Nazi. I'm sure this will get > voted down, but honestly, the sooner you Trumptards acknowledge the fact that > he's a Nazi, the better off we'll be.

      You seem to be angry...are you angry? I think you're angry.

      All the Nazis are on the Left; Soros (the darling of the Left) is an actual, bonafide, Hitler-loving Nazi.

      Need to look in the mirror dude. And stop being so angry all the time!

      Ferret

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    34. Re:Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What about:

      He earned it when he dropped the MOAB on a village and killed 90,000 people? Does that count?

  2. Nikola--what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuel cell vehicles saw an extension of tax credits that will allow purchasers of new cars a tax credit of between $4,000 and $40,000, depending on the weight of the vehicle (this is probably good news for potential customers of Nikola's in-development fuel-cell semis).

    "Nikola's" ??? What the fuck. I know 'corporations are people' and all that now, but seriously, did someone just anthropomorphize a company?

    1. Re:Nikola--what? by Rei · · Score: 1

      That's perfectly normal usage. It's weird that you'd focus on that aspect and not on the fact that Nikola is a company running purely on hype and without anywhere near the funding to achieve what they want to, nor the fact that none of their numbers actually add up. Or the fact that they keep changing their business model once or twice a year.

      --
      It's time for Operation Crazy Plan.
    2. Re: Nikola--what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is talking about a fuel cell semi by a company called Nikola and not the electric semi being designed by Tesla Motors.

    3. Re:Nikola--what? by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      "If true, this could double Nike's profits in 2 years."

      To you, this is an abuse of English? Methinks you're perhaps overestimating your authority on the subject.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  3. Nuclear credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, will the nuclear credit cover the billions of dollars of cost in regulatory and judicial delays to nuclear construction? Nuclear is competitive; malicious politics is very expensive.

    1. Re:Nuclear credit by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I suspect the USA will have cheap and plentiful nuclear energy about one year after China or Russia does.

      It used to be that the USA yearned to be first and best in everything, now it just doesn't want to end up in third place. What happened? Why is second place good enough?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Nuclear credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If China is best with nuclear energy, and Switzerland is best at public schooling, and Germany is best at manufacturing cars, and Mexico is best at growing avocados....seems like a reasonable position to me for the US to be number 2 at all those things. Yeah, it's not where I really want to see the land of the "free", and I think we can do better, but in the meantime there's a lot of areas where we need to shoot for a lot of improvement to get to the number two spot. Most corrupt first-world nation. Nation with the lowest percent of population in jail or prison. Best neighbor. Best medical care. In a lot of cases I wish we just weren't dead-last.

  4. so planting trees gets us tax credit by elcor · · Score: 1

    not bad, what's the ##

    1. Re:so planting trees gets us tax credit by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not bad, what's the ##

      What's the ... catch?

      Reforestation is important, not just to capture carbon but also to replace trees lost to logging, development, fires, disease, and pests.

      The catch is that trees take a long time to grow. So they are only part of the solution to all of the above. Managing existing forests carefully has to be considered also.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:so planting trees gets us tax credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The catch is we are still deficit spending. Outside of a recession or depression, budgets should be balanced.

      Deficit spending should be illegal.

    3. Re:so planting trees gets us tax credit by pubwvj · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not just planting trees but also growing them and harvesting them - in other words sustainable forestry.

      Even better than trees, in terms of carbon sequestering, is pasture. Pasture sucks up far more carbon than forest and then our livestock turns that biomass (grass, clover, etc) into delicious meat. Green eggs and ham. This too is carbon sequestering.

      Those are both part of what we do on our farm but I doubt that there will be any tax benefit.

    4. Re:so planting trees gets us tax credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If banks reported the equivalent of debt-to-GDP it would be in the thousands of percent.

      You want to legislate morality, essentially. That deficits are bad is an article of faith.

  5. What do they have against solar/wind power? by RyanFenton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Carbon capture? Really? As in the fig leaf that defines 'clean coal'?

    I understand that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good - but the whole clean coal thing mostly marketing for essentially free-wheeling carbon spewing, rather than an actual process to prevent environmental degredation.

    It's like one of those phone calls for police/firefighter funerals - that when asked only give "up to" 15% of their take to their cause - they're PRETENDING to give to something you want to help, eating up all the good will that should be going to something the public wants to help, consuming that good will while the actual cause withers.

    Sure - carbon capture can take a small percentage off of some effects of carbon spewing - but it only exists to pretend that you're doing something about a fundamentally wrong approach for our shared efforts as humans. It's basically the opposite of actually doing anything for the environment and the future of humanity - a fig leaf instead of clothing.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. Credit for CCS, nuclear, biofuels and yet nothing for energy storage. Politically it makes sense: special interests get the goodies but ultimately it's a waste of money.

      In the end, ratepayers will be on the hook for these expensive legacy technologies while the real solutions are delayed. Yet another failure of foresight as an inability to nurture the technologies of the future just mean gifting the benefits of production of those technologies to foreign countries.

    2. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Because you don't understand the chemistry of a simple Bosch Reaction?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wind and Solar require that you place them in either exactly right area, or have high-uptime year round. Hell you can look in California and Texas over the last 40 years and find millions of dead solar farms and wind farms. They don't survive here because we already have cheap energy. In most cases they require massive subsidies in order to operate as well. North America is resource rich, very resource rich. It is cheaper to build a dam, and flood thousands of KM of land then it is to build windmills in mountain passes. Use the coal in the ground, build nuclear power plants well anywhere, lots of places to do that even in Western Canada.

      Keep this in mind, because I'll now explain what drives people against green energy. In Ontario(again very resource rich), the government believed that handing huge tax breaks and giving massive payouts to get these things off the ground was a great idea. So to be viable, you could see rates where they were paid by the IESO upwards of $1.50kWh, most were in the $0.70-0.90kWh range. It broke the market. The price for electricity before they started paying these companies and microfits money hand over fist was around $0.09kWh at peak, off-peak $0.035-0.068kWh. 10 years later the peak because the entire province(mainly non-businesses) now pay $0.185kWh. The price that is still paid to these green energy boondongles is still in the $0.30-0.76kWh range.

      This is what happened: Electricity rates are so high, that the government had to put into law that winter disconnection wasn't allowed. It does get down to -35C here most winters. Then there's the stories like this: The system is so broken because of green energy that people are making the "roof vs heat" choice. This is what happens when extreme poverty and high electricity prices collide(2016/2017) and the charities which pay for heating ran out of money in December of 2016. Most charities got more money this year, but again most will run out of funding by February. That still leaves, March and April, and possibly May(it can get as cold as -10C even here in Southern Ontario as late as May 24th - which most people consider the actual end of winter, it can also be 27C enjoy Canada yet?).

      Ontario is interesting, because the government is very anti-industrial anything. Their entire economic policy was based on driving businesses out of the province and pushing 'service' jobs. So now you have people working 2-3 sometimes 4 PT-jobs to make ends meet, in a family that that's both parents working 3PT jobs and barely making ends meet in most of the province. Now, toss in those 30k illegals from the US? This is where it gets fun, because those people who couldn't even work or afford housing were being thrown out of low-income housing to put illegals up in them. FYI the average wait-time in most of Ontario for low-income housing is between 4 and 8 years.

      And I'm sure someone is going to go, hur-dur it's all them conservatives fault. Sorry guys, this is 100% right on the Liberal Party of Ontario which has been in power since the early 00's.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ontario sounds like Seattle. Last spring, it was announced that five hydropower dams were being shutdown in the PNW (well, if you count the extreme northern part of CA as the pacific northwest), and people here were happy about that.

    5. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We overproduce electricity by as much as 66% if you look at an energy flow diagram https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/co... you see that 25 quads were rejected out of 38 quads of electricity generated. Yet transmission loss is on the order of 5%. The rest of the rejected energy is overproduced.

      In Washington they turn off windfarms and Microsoft wastes energy to meet its wholesale quota. We should be paid to use electricity.

    6. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      I remember a prominent figure in nuclear power saying once, "If we can't be as cheap as coal then why bother?" That was Leslie Dewan, as I recall, though she may not have come up with it first.

      I'll hear the claim that wind and solar are as cheap as coal. Assuming that is true then what of the storage needed to make it reliable? If wind and solar cannot be as reliable as coal then why bother?

      Also, do you believe that storage technology will allow wind and solar to compete? I have my doubts. A common complaint of nuclear power is that it cannot respond to shifting demands quickly enough and that if there is a problem at the nuclear power plant then they will need on site power for things like pumps, computers, sensors, lights, and so on. What better way to address this than a big battery? That was what allowed the nuclear reactors at Fukushima to melt down, the backup batteries ran down and they were rendered blind on what was actually happening in the containment building. The reactor containment survived the tsunami. It's quite possible the reactor was damaged to the point it could not produce power again but they had cooling for the reactors but no power to run the pumps.

      Still not convinced? What of natural gas? We could cut in half the CO2 output from coal boiler power plants by replacing them with natural gas boilers. This has the same problem of the nuclear power plant though, it can't shift power output quickly enough to match usage. This means burning natural gas in less efficient turbines or.... having storage. That big battery in Australia performed superbly to keep the electric grid stable when they had that coal plant shut down unexpectedly, so this storage technology is highly useful for every energy source, even coal.

      This storage will cost money. For wind and solar to be cheaper than coal then the costs of the storage as part of the system needs to be included. This need for storage is "conveniently" left out on the claims that wind and solar being cheaper than coal. If wind and solar were honestly cheaper than coal then the combinations of market forces and public relations would be more than enough to shut down every coal plant overnight and see them replaced with wind and solar.

      You know what? Maybe you are correct, this is all about money for special interests. The government is just rolling out pork to prop up legacy energy because wind, solar, and storage are so wonderfully successful that they don't need any government hand outs. Shouldn't that make you happy?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      Because you don't understand the chemistry of a simple Bosch Reaction?

      Everything I did in chem lab turned into a Botched Reaction. Course, everything I did in woodworking turned into sawdust. I got into software development because that and politics were the only options left where repeated failure was acceptable. I wasn't rich enough to be a politician.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    8. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget fuel cells. There is no cost-effective means today to mass produce hydrogen other than stripping it from fossil fuels. Fuel cells just move the point of production of the carbon compounds from the vehicle to a central facility. Of course, you already spotted that biofuels are just another way to delay the passing of the diesel and gas powered vehicles.

      The changes in these tax credits are all designed to protect the status quo and intentionally slow our advancement. A great America is one modeled on the '50s, including the '50s tech.

    9. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We overproduce electricity by as much as 66% if you look at an energy flow diagram https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/co... you see that 25 quads were rejected out of 38 quads of electricity generated. Yet transmission loss is on the order of 5%. The rest of the rejected energy is overproduced.

      In Washington they turn off windfarms and Microsoft wastes energy to meet its wholesale quota. We should be paid to use electricity.

      Uh, no. You don't understand the chart you linked to.
      Rejected energy is NOT overproduction of electricity generated.
      Rejected energy, in the chart you referred to, is mostly energy lost due to thermodynamic cycle efficiencies and heat loss due to design limitations. Think Carnot cycle, Rankine cycle, etc.
      This has nothing to do with the periods of overproduction in wind farms (or solar).

    10. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I understand that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good

      Before you can make that claim you need to consider if carbon capture can even be classified as "good". Outside of a small pilot here and there there's yet to be anything substantial to show this is even workable.

      What there has been is the promise of carbon capture in return for government funding and subsidies then bankrupt projects that make away with billions leaving the stock standard but brand spanking new dirty coal in their wake.

      Example: https://nextcity.org/features/...

    11. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The figures indicate a 40% efficiency rate for electricity generation. But hydroelectric is 80%, and fossil fuel plants would have to operate at something like 20% efficiency to create all the reported loss. It is much more likely that significantly more energy is being produced than is needed.

      Wind farms being turned off and Microsoft burning energy to get a lower rate are indications of the overproduction, which is systematic rather than periodic.

    12. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      One problem with service jobs, aside from their dead-end (and frequently part-time or seasonal) nature, is that they require *other* people to have disposable income before you even HAVE service jobs. Once you're topheavy with service jobs, or when the economy takes a downturn, where does the money come from??

      As to wind power, earlier today I tripped over this interesting set of charts:

      https://stopthesethings.com/20...

      Last winter I spoke to someone in Ontario whose home was blessed with electric heat. Their monthly power bill had, in a single season, spiked from $100/mo. to almost $700/mo. Affordable, renewable power!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, toss in those 30k illegals from the US?

      Have you considered building a wall? And making US pay for it?

    14. Re:What do they have against solar/wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The figures indicate a 40% efficiency rate for electricity generation. But hydroelectric is 80%, and fossil fuel plants would have to operate at something like 20% efficiency to create all the reported loss. It is much more likely that significantly more energy is being produced than is needed.

      No, you're just plain wrong here and you don't know what you're talking about. The figures you are quoting have absolutely nothing to do with overproduction.

  6. The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

    E.g. there's a shitload of extra cash for the military

    https://www.politico.com/story...

    Friday's pact, signed by President Donald Trump, adds $165 billion to the Pentagon budget over two years. That means the military will receive at least $1.4 trillion in total through September 2019 to help buy more fighter planes, ships and other equipment, boost the size of the ranks, and beef up training - a level of funding that seemed a long shot just months ago.

    Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has long pushed for a $700 billion annual budget for the military, said in a statement that the agreement finally gives the Pentagon the "budget certainty it needs to begin the process of rebuilding the military."

    "The deal is a huge win for defense hawks," said Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute. "The groundwork was being laid for years culminating in what I predict will be the peak year of defense spending since the last peak in 2010."

    Basically the deal is that everyone gets what they want and the deficit goes through the stratosphere. GO USA!

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And Rand Paul is considered an extremist for opposing it.

    2. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically the deal is that everyone gets what they want and the deficit goes through the stratosphere. GO USA!

      So kind of like 2009, except for the everybody part?

    3. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by stabiesoft · · Score: 4, Insightful

      one difference, in 09 we were on the verge of a collapse like the great depression. Now we are in moderate economic growth. During times like these is when you should start to prepare for the next downturn by reducing debt, not increasing it.

    4. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At nearly $20 (T)rillion in debt, why give a fuck anymore? Half of this is thanks to Obama. This policy *will* end this country eventually.

    5. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, 2009 was a good year. No economic problems to deal with. No major collapse. I mean, there was *no reason* to raise spending!

      Wait.....THERE WAS.

    6. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At nearly $20 (T)rillion in debt, why give a fuck anymore? Half of this is thanks to Obama.

      (In a very tired voice.)

      Source?

    7. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, fiscal years are named for the year in which they end. So, 2009 was GWB's last budget passed in 2008. It was indeed monstrous due to the monstrous problem allowed on his watch which has taken years to recover from.

      Since then, the budget deficit has decreased every year until the turbulence of the 2016 election cycle with Congress on both sides trying to buy votes with spending pushed it up a little bit.

      It is now forecast to increase every year for the next ten. Personally, I believe there will be a much larger increase than forecast because the banks are getting right back into the same problem they were in before, but the reigns are being loosened instead of tightened. As the retail apocalypse proceeds, there will be large loan defaults that will cause another banking crisis similar to 1986 and 2008-9.

    8. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. The Obama whose deficits decreased every year he was in office until a minor increase in the lame duck sessions. The Obama who did not have a single year as high as GWB's 2009 deficit. The Obama who oversaw a stock market rally that had a nearly constant increase from its miraculous reversal from the GWB damage just 3 months after his taking office to the end of his eight years. The Obama whose total stock market rally exceeded those of every President since the LBJ times except for Clinton and beats Clinton's if you count the rally from the April 09 turnaround instead of his taking office in Jan 09.

      The kool-aid you folks drink is some pretty serious shit. You should consider stopping.

    9. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could anyone in 1985 imagine America still number one with trillion-dollar deficits? Trillion is the new billion.

    10. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banks have matched books, insuring and hedging against defaults. The insurance piece failed in 2008 because AIG was insuring MBS by investing premiums in MBS. But we know how to fix it: the Fed became money dealer for the world, and the dollar got stronger.

    11. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in 1985 I imagined we'd still be number one for the foreseeable future. Since we're no longer number one in much of anything, I guess it was just a dream.

    12. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically the deal is that everyone gets what they want and the deficit goes through the stratosphere. GO USA!

      So kind of like 2009, except for the everybody part?

      The boom, not the slump, is the time for austerity at the Treasury. -- John Maynard Keynes (1937)

      The US economy is approaching full employment, the Fed has ben increasing interest rates to cool potential inflation, and you want the government to SPEND MORE to STIMULATE the economy? Really?

      The time for deficit spending, to help kickstart demand, was during the Great Recession. Demand from the private sector tanked, which is why it was desirable for the government to step in and bring up demand to soften the shrinking of the economy.

      A short explanation of Keynesianism (and demand-side economics):

      1. Economies sometimes produce much less than they could, and employ many fewer workers than they should, because there just isn’t enough spending. Such episodes can happen for a variety of reasons; the question is how to respond.

      2. There are normally forces that tend to push the economy back toward full employment. But they work slowly; a hands-off policy toward depressed economies means accepting a long, unnecessary period of pain.

      3. It is often possible to drastically shorten this period of pain and greatly reduce the human and financial losses by “printing money”, using the central bank’s power of currency creation to push interest rates down.

      4. Sometimes, however, monetary policy loses its effectiveness, especially when rates are close to zero. In that case temporary deficit spending can provide a useful boost. And conversely, fiscal austerity in a depressed economy imposes large economic losses.

      * https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/keynesianism-explained/

      Of course when the economy is running well, then there is little / no need for "excessive" government spending programs.

    13. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, it is like 1980s, and all of 2000, until O put a stop to it ( and then allowed it again in his last year; he turned GOP for his last year).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      cool.
      So, please list us the bills that O did, that increased the debt by $10Trillion.
      U can not. The reason is that most of that was done by the GOP under W and then the GOP refused to make cuts like we needed.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:The budget includes everything anyone asked for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dollar is still king, despite trillion-dollar deficits replacing Reagan's billion-dollar deficits. If only you had been right and civilization had collapsed because of debt, wiping out humans and leaving the Earth to recover! But no such luck, because deficits don't matter and the debt is a distraction.

  7. Deficit spending should be illegal.- and GOP sane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Deficit spending should be illegal." It should be, but you're basically proposing we get rid of the Republican party that created it. Great idea.

  8. Where are the editors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
    Units operational: 2 × 1215 MW; Units under construction: 2 × 1117 MW. Total: 4664 MW

  9. Or LA Gets Oxygen/Water/Graphite factories by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    That Carbon Sequester tax credit could very well be a major environmental solution for Los Angeles. Take sea water, use electrolysis to get oxygen and hydrogen. Bottle the oxygen for medical purposes. Add smog to the hydrogen, use the Bosch process to create water and bulk graphite. Sell the bulk graphite for pencils or whatever, gather the distilled water and sell it for filling swimming pools.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Or LA Gets Oxygen/Water/Graphite factories by blindseer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Where do we get the power for these processes? That's where the nuclear power credit comes in. Too bad California has declared itself a "nuclear free zone". It seems a bunch of idiots in California have equated nuclear power with nuclear weapons, and somehow that nuclear weapons are bad.

      I wonder where how they think nuclear weapons are bad? I mean North Korea is developing nuclear weapons as a means to defend itself against nuclear weapon owning USA. I ask, does anything think that if the USA launched all it's nuclear weapons into the sun that North Korea would stop developing nuclear weapons? Obviously not. Nuclear weapons are a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. We can't wish them away.

      If we are going to survive then that means nuclear power for clean air, and cheap energy. If we are going to keep idiots in North Korea and the rest of the world from taking it from us, or destroying it because they can't get it, then we need to have the ability to plausibly scour them from the surface of the planet. We are afforded the luxury to speak softly only so long as we have a big stick.

      Those idiots in LA can protest nuclear power because we have nuclear powered "big sticks" like this one:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Or LA Gets Oxygen/Water/Graphite factories by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Given the process, tidal generators would make a bit more sense than nuclear. (if you're sucking up seawater anyway for electrolysis, it's nothing to sequester a bit more in your tidal pool then add turbines on the outflow).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  10. Re: The budget includes everything anyone asked fo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, that was one of the fundamental problems with the Obama era budgets: we couldn't replace the people and equipment we were using up in his wars.

  11. Re:Deficit spending should be illegal.- and GOP sa by blindseer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Democrats cared about the environment they'd have kicked Carter in the balls for holding up nuclear power. The Democrats have held up nuclear power since Carter signed the law that created the Department of Energy. They spent all this money on a cabinet level department to solve our energy problems and we've not seen a new nuclear power plant in 40 years.

    If the issue is energy independence, clean air and water, and reducing our carbon dioxide output then they've failed miserably. This is because of the Democrats. They complain about not having a place to put nuclear waste and when a place is found and construction starts the Democrats pull out the rug from under its feet.

    Which also gets to the wasteful spending from the Democrats. They'll "create jobs" and "build infrastructure" on a nuclear waste site but when it comes time to actually put nuclear waste there then everyone is fired, the site abandoned, and we have nothing to show for all that money spent.

    I don't like the Republicans, but the Democrats are no angels either. The Democrats had a hand in deficit spending too, like building roads to a nuclear waste site they had no intention on allowing to actually hold nuclear waste.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  12. Re:Deficit spending should be illegal.- and GOP sa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, its because greedy people that have lyfestylez dependent extracting and burning hydrocarbons throw suitcases full of cash at the government in exchange for allowing them to maintain said lyfestylez.

  13. Because FREE MARKET right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USAmericans are such hypocrites Babby Jeesus is rolling in his grave...

  14. Re: The budget includes everything anyone asked fo by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0

    http://www.janes.com/article/7...

    The Obama administration planned to upgrade all legs of the âtriadâ(TM). This includes a new nuclear-capable Long Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile, 12 Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to replace the Ohio class, Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) to largely replace silo-based Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and new Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider long-range nuclear bombers.

    The Trump administration will continue those efforts, plus add low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and a new nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM). Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood told reporters the funding numbers for this new plan would not be revealed until the fiscal year 2019 budget is submitted later in February.

    You can argue that the Columbia subs are necessary - the UK is doing the same thing. I suppose the same argument applies replacing the Minutemen. The LRSO is basically an updated version of the ACM - a missile the US deployed and then withdrew

    And one of the justifications for the LRSO was that it has selectable yields, unlike other US nukes. However the new SLBMs and SLCM duplicate this. Actually the US did have nuclear SLCMs before but phased them out - there were nuclear armed Tomahawks.

    I.e. there's a fair bit of fat that could be trimmed off either proposal.

    If it were up to me I'd build new subs, keep the current Trident II SLBMs, replace Minutemen and keep the cruise missiles and spend any spare cash on missile defence.

    Or you could go really radical and go to a pure SLBM/SLCM system because subs are very hard for an adversary to zap in a first strike and then use all the spare money on missile defence. Those silo based missiles are vulnerable to a first strike.

    Maybe do a deal with Russia and China to phase out silo and bomber based missiles? I'm not sure they go for that though - they presumably fear that US missile defence would at some point give the US nuclear primacy. Still the US had that in 2006 and it didn't seem to worry them then. Since then they've both introduced SLBM subs which are not vulnerable to a first strike on patrol.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  15. Re: Trump in Harrison Bergeron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we need is Eugene Levy in Harrison Bergeron (1995 film). Trump is a good approximation, but not close enough.

  16. Re: The budget includes everything anyone asked f by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking idiot, right there.

  17. There is a huge difference by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Republican keep harping that they are for reducing the debt and deficit, when they are not in power - you don't seem democrat making that point one of their campaigning point. But republican are are in power it is deficit & debt glutony all over. That is the hypocrisy Rand Paul as speaking about a few days ago.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  18. Re: Deficit spending should be illegal.- and GOP s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says the person with the solar-powered phone made from mud, right? Oh, you mean your lifestyle is dependent on all of that too? Who woulda thunk that??

  19. Just what we don't need by mspohr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    These are all subsidies that go to big business and they are obsolete, ineffective technologies.

    Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive. It's more expensive than coal, gas, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. It's inflexible and has nasty waste problems. The only people who like it are the big utilities since it lets them raise electricity rates.

    Fuel cells are fool cells. The most inefficient way to generate electricity. There are no natural stores of H2 so you have to generate it using natural gas (good for fossil fuel companies) or electricity (very expensive). By the time you go through the whole generate H2, compress it, ship it, run it through a fuel cell you only get about 20% efficiency. Complete waste.

    Carbon capture is the wet dream of coal companies and other fossil fuel companies. "Clean coal" doesn't exist. It has never worked. It will always be too expensive for anything but a pilot plant. Waste of money and an excuse to burn more fossil fuels.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Just what we don't need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are all subsidies that go to big business and they are obsolete, ineffective technologies.

      Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive. It's more expensive than coal, gas, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. It's inflexible and has nasty waste problems. The only people who like it are the big utilities since it lets them raise electricity rates.

      Fuel cells are fool cells. The most inefficient way to generate electricity. There are no natural stores of H2 so you have to generate it using natural gas (good for fossil fuel companies) or electricity (very expensive). By the time you go through the whole generate H2, compress it, ship it, run it through a fuel cell you only get about 20% efficiency. Complete waste.

      Carbon capture is the wet dream of coal companies and other fossil fuel companies. "Clean coal" doesn't exist. It has never worked. It will always be too expensive for anything but a pilot plant. Waste of money and an excuse to burn more fossil fuels.

      Instead of "man-splaining" your twisted dreams to us try contributing to an intelligent conversation by making some sensible counter-suggestions.

    2. Re: Just what we don't need by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Don't spend money on these obsolete technologies.
      Spend money on solar, wind and storage.
      Is that clear?

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  20. Solar/Wind subsidies are still there by tomhath · · Score: 1

    This puts back credits for a couple of things that Obama cut (nuke, fuel cells, etc.). It doesn't remove the subsidies that solar and wind need to stay in business.

  21. Re: The budget includes everything anyone asked fo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't understand why the market rose. When you pour trillions of free dollars into the economy, thus devaluing the dollar, the market will respond by sponging up those free dollars and thus rising.

    An increasing DOW is not necessarily a positive economic indicator. It depends on how much of that rise is due to inflation and other potentially negative factors on the rest of the economy.

    It doesn't help the average citizen is the DOW triples due primarily to inflation but their take home pay only went up 5%.

  22. Retard alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another bullshit tax give away to the good-ol-boy-club corporation by our elected nazi assholes.
    Another "fuck america" move by your government.

    You douchbags are certainly making america hate again. not much else.

  23. Already there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're already there buddy. Your gov is truly a nazi dictatorship in every sense of the word. You and yours as a citizens mean nothing to them. They will be taking care of themselves and their corporate donors instead of any of you stupid fucks.