Boosters of US Climate Bill Included Clean Energy Companies, Nuclear Developers - and Bill Gates (politico.com) 42
A proposed $369 billion bill would have far-reaching impacts on America's energy landscape — and in a wide variety of ways.
The Washington Post took a close look at its tightly targetted energy-industry tax subisidies. "The goal? To make new green energy production cheaper for utilities to build than fossil fuel plants are." But others benefit too:
The bill contains numerous smaller measures aimed at specific parts of the economy with high emissions: $20 billion for agriculture subsidies to help farmers reduce emissions, $6 billion to reduce emissions in chemical, steel and cement plants, and $3 billion to reduce air pollution at ports.
Yet how do you convince a congressman from a coal-producing state? Politico explores what changed the mind of one of the legislation's last hold-out votes and convinced West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin that "The next generation of clean tech needed Washington's backing to take off."
Brandon Dennison, CEO of the economic development organization Coalfield Development, said he'd argued that the legislation offered a way for the coal-producing region to "stay an energy state.... If we want to benefit from the investments and the jobs that are going to come with that transition, we need to be part of the proactive solutions and policies rather than constantly playing on defense." Jason Walsh, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor and environmental groups, said several West Virginia companies pushed Manchin to back the credits as well — even suggesting failure to pass the bill imperiled their plans to invest in new operations. "There were folks who I can't talk about who are directly involved in potentially developing clean energy manufacturing in the state of West Virginia where site visits had happened where all they needed was a set of investments," Walsh said. "And that communication happened as well."
A senior executive with a utility operating in Appalachia said that his company communicated with Manchin how aspects of the bill such as tax credits to build clean energy manufacturing plants at former coal sites and incentives for developing small nuclear reactors and hydrogen would help West Virginia's economy. "We know coal plants are ultimately going to close," the executive said. "What is going to replace them? What are the jobs? What are we transitioning to? In this case, we are going to explore hydrogen, new nuclear and get manufacturing in the state."
Form Energy, a battery storage startup backed by Gates' Breakthrough Energy Ventures and which has plans for a West Virginia manufacturing hub, walked Manchin's staff through its growth trajectories with and without the proposed suite of legislative incentives, a person directly familiar with the interaction said. That person said Form Energy officials showed the differences on a graph. Its investors — including Gates — also called to assuage Manchin's concerns over disbursing the tax credits to companies through a direct pay system rather than using tax equity markets.
The bill contains numerous smaller measures aimed at specific parts of the economy with high emissions: $20 billion for agriculture subsidies to help farmers reduce emissions, $6 billion to reduce emissions in chemical, steel and cement plants, and $3 billion to reduce air pollution at ports.
Yet how do you convince a congressman from a coal-producing state? Politico explores what changed the mind of one of the legislation's last hold-out votes and convinced West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin that "The next generation of clean tech needed Washington's backing to take off."
Brandon Dennison, CEO of the economic development organization Coalfield Development, said he'd argued that the legislation offered a way for the coal-producing region to "stay an energy state.... If we want to benefit from the investments and the jobs that are going to come with that transition, we need to be part of the proactive solutions and policies rather than constantly playing on defense." Jason Walsh, executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor and environmental groups, said several West Virginia companies pushed Manchin to back the credits as well — even suggesting failure to pass the bill imperiled their plans to invest in new operations. "There were folks who I can't talk about who are directly involved in potentially developing clean energy manufacturing in the state of West Virginia where site visits had happened where all they needed was a set of investments," Walsh said. "And that communication happened as well."
A senior executive with a utility operating in Appalachia said that his company communicated with Manchin how aspects of the bill such as tax credits to build clean energy manufacturing plants at former coal sites and incentives for developing small nuclear reactors and hydrogen would help West Virginia's economy. "We know coal plants are ultimately going to close," the executive said. "What is going to replace them? What are the jobs? What are we transitioning to? In this case, we are going to explore hydrogen, new nuclear and get manufacturing in the state."
Form Energy, a battery storage startup backed by Gates' Breakthrough Energy Ventures and which has plans for a West Virginia manufacturing hub, walked Manchin's staff through its growth trajectories with and without the proposed suite of legislative incentives, a person directly familiar with the interaction said. That person said Form Energy officials showed the differences on a graph. Its investors — including Gates — also called to assuage Manchin's concerns over disbursing the tax credits to companies through a direct pay system rather than using tax equity markets.
Great Nuclear Development! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey now... The Ferengi have a set of rules to guide them and at least _some_ morals.
Re: (Score:2)
Gates is still doing more for global health than your own government. So there is that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But most of the cash going to clean energy (Winners and Losers) and Bill Gates (anything) will disappear.
90% of money spent on R&D is wasted. The rest pays back a hundredfold.
Wonder what Bill Gates and the rest of the ruling class want.
RTFA. Bill Gates wants better batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
But most of the cash going to clean energy (Winners and Losers) and Bill Gates (anything) will disappear. Wonder what Bill Gates and the rest of the ruling class want.
Bill Gates is the founder of TerraPower [terrapower.com] and the company is attempting to resurrect fast burner reactor technology based on the cooling cycle IIUC. This is a technology that qualifies for financial assistance under the U.S 2005 Energy Policy Act. IIRC the company will be able to access funding and subsidies under provisions in SEC 635 if the technology passes certain milestones. Having a battery technology would be a logical technological coupling completely in line with the business plans of TerraPower
Re: (Score:2)
In reality this is the only viable path for nuclear energy that makes any sense when you compare it to other reactor technologies (PBMR, SMR, MSR, breeder) because it reaches higher burn-up levels of the transuranic fuel elements (up to 20% approx 66 times more than BWR and PWR in a once through cycle)
MSRs burn up to 96% of their fuel. Why did you think an IIUC burns more fuel than a MSR? I have never heard that before. Also, every reactor burns Pu-239 just fine. If you want to avoid anti-proliferation issues, you want to use Thorium as it makes 1/1000th the PU as an Uranium reactor. This is because it takes 2 more neutron absorption events to make Pu from Th. Also fissile ash? what is that. Do you mean fission products? Fission products mostly decay quickly. There are small amounts of long te
Re: (Score:2)
In reality this is the only viable path for nuclear energy that makes any sense when you compare it to other reactor technologies (PBMR, SMR, MSR, breeder) because it reaches higher burn-up levels of the transuranic fuel elements (up to 20% approx 66 times more than BWR and PWR in a once through cycle)
MSRs burn up to 96% of their fuel.
Can you point me to a working MSR, in operation that has achieved that burn-up rate? The best I've found so far is the Integral Fast Reactor that has a burn up rate of 18%.
If you want to avoid anti-proliferation issues, you want to use Thorium as it makes 1/1000th the PU as an Uranium reactor.
That does not eliminate weapons proliferation,
So it is just a pork bill (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So it is just a pork bill (Score:4, Informative)
Basically, this just a pork bill.
Sure, but the original proposal was $6 Trillion. This is $369 Billion.
That is a 94% reduction, all thanks to the Senator from WV.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you hoping to get modded up by not mentioning Joe Manchin? You hail the reduction as a success while lauding the senator who is currently most wealthy thanks to fossil fuel interests.
But I guess your ideal situation is that no one ever invests anything for any green reason. ShanghaiBill won't be happy until America looks like Shanghai, at least for as far down the road as you can see. On the upside with dense toxic clouds it will be easier to get idiots to start wearing masks next pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Manchin pushed to have a coal tax included in the bill to fund health care for retired miners. That was something the fossil fuel industry opposed. He represents his constituents, not the fossil fuel industry.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be a pork bill and still beneficial. I'm pretty sure someone called the Interstate Highway Act a pork bill in the 1950s, but I would dare you to find a modern spending bill that has done more for the US economy than building a reliable high speed transportation network for hauling goods and services, and opening up long distance travel for literally everybody within the borders.
I honestly don't care if EV manufacturers lobbied for it if it means accelerating the transportation sector's shift to rene
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. You may disagree but climate change is an existential threat that must be addressed. Since the "free market" isn't being properly regulated (taxing all emissions) and therefore has no reason to reduce pollution, the remaining option is to subsidize options that don't pollute. If you think that's a problem then please depart from this planet as you merely continue to pollute it.
Furthermore, the bill is fully funded by what's in it. There is a minimum 15% corporate tax that tax evaders really hate a
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. It's called the Inflation Reduction Act, but according to this study from the Wharton School [upenn.edu] it will have essentially zero effect on inflation long-term, and will increase it in the short term.
Too little too late (Score:2)
Guess climate change will not actually get any effective countermeasures anytime soon. Well, it is clear what is coming in that case. Apparently a lot of people want the really big catastrophe...
Re: (Score:2)
Guess climate change will not actually get any effective countermeasures anytime soon.
Not while [2004] Republicans are needed to pass them. If more people voted for Democrats then we might have a chance. Right now a lot of people are whining that Democrats have failed to stop Republicans which somehow means voting is pointless.
Apparently a lot of people want the really big catastrophe...
It's not that people want it, it's that they are incapable of grasping the true gravity of the situation until they are face-to-face with it. Even then, there are people who would sooner die then admit to themselves that they were wrong as COVID-19 has proven. Most
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently a lot of people want the really big catastrophe...
It's not that people want it, it's that they are incapable of grasping the true gravity of the situation until they are face-to-face with it. Even then, there are people who would sooner die then admit to themselves that they were wrong as COVID-19 has proven. Most humans are exceptionally poor at foreseeing negative consequences and are unwilling to take any action when it may be ineffective. Simply put, 99% of humans are short-sighted, selfish, demanding everyone else act first, and will absolutely be stunned and surprised as projected future events come to pass.
Well, yes. I was being sarcastic. The numbers are not that bad though, we have something like 15% of people that can actually competently form an opinion. We apparently have also around 10% that will stick to their misconnections, no matter what, and even if they are in the process of killing them. The rest is sheep and follows the herd. That is obviously not good enough to count as a generally intelligent species, and what is going on nicely demonstrates that every day. Maybe, if some fragment of civilizat
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, if some fragment of civilization makes it through climate change, they will find a way to improve that situation.
The solution is not complicated: make spreading disinformation/misinformation not just unprofitable but very damaging to a company, demonize anti-intellectualism, provide additional funding for accurate sources of information, properly fund teachers/school for K-12, fully fund higher education with a focus on education, and provide free adult education for pretty much anything.
However, one thing we should look into is the cause behind people growing enlarged right amygdalas ("fear center") because it makes
Re: (Score:2)
While the solution may not be complicated, implementing it is basically impossible at this time.
Educated and rational people would have avoided this mass extinction event.
Indeed. And that is the core problem: You can educated people, but noting seems to be able to make them rational.
Re: (Score:2)
While the solution may not be complicated, implementing it is basically impossible at this time.
Well... I thought we were talking about he fragment of humanity that survives.
Indeed. And that is the core problem: You can educated people, but noting seems to be able to make them rational.
You will never get 100% of people but if you can filter out what makes people easy to manipulate, like I wrote, then you can make the general population rational. Assuming that society must be rebuilt by survivors then they may be open to implementing controls on power that exclude individuals that have been deemed "irrational", effectively making them second-class citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to classify something like 85% as "irrational". That is not going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what classification system you invented but I was pretty clear people with enlarged right amygdalas were a problem group because they are easy to manipulate using fear.
Re: (Score:2)
Social sciences tells us that around 10% of all people are unreachable for arguments of any kind and around 60% always only follow the ones around them without any fact-checking whatsoever. The rest falls into sometimes rational and mostly rational. There is no reliable physiological way to identify these groups and your claim is just as bogus as all the others that have come before it. Eugenics has a long history of justifying evil and of failing to provide anything substantial.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting the use of eugenics. If anything then it's that someone who's rationality can be easily compromised is not reliable enough to choose people for leadership positions.
Entertainment and opinion programming masquerading as news (and some religious teachers) regularly exploit an "amygdala hijack" [healthline.com] which is much easier in people with enlarged or overactive right amygdalas. As a result, a Pavlovian fear response is formed to specific topic and phrases. This makes any discussion on these topics
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that people want it, it's that they are incapable of grasping the true gravity of the situation until they are face-to-face with it.
Or they are trained engineers who have done the math and know that the plan put forth by the Democrats won't work (and also are old enough to remember that it is the Democrats who killed nuclear power in the 80s). These are not partisan opinions. These are calculations done based upon physics and how it works. This isn't about cost. This is about possibility. So unless you think mining asteroids for Lithium is a cost-effective way to acquire resources, perhaps you should check your owner argument first
Re: (Score:2)
Put yourself in my shoes, what would you think of you if situations were reversed? Not pretty is it?
No, it would be terrible because I'd be a little troll that conveniently omits some basic truths, possibly out of ignorance.
I would be so distraught about my own bullshit that I doubt I would be able to go on. Kudos for pushing on.
Manchin (Score:2)
You can be pretty sure that he only changed his mind because some money will be allocated to doing that.
Looking forward (Score:2)
I'm looking forward to the day when Bill Gates runs out of money and I don't have to hear about him any more. Or the Kardashians.