Progressive Ideology

[Farfromgeneva]

The Housing Stability Act worked so well at jacking up rent prices and creating a housing shortage in NYC, The braintrust wants to implement a federal version.

Sen Warren- Watching out for your hard-earned wampum:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/biden-ro ... 46254.html

Was just reading this piece last night-rent control is flat out problematic. It would be an epic mistake to increase/broaden that tool. I’ve seen it first hand financing the four towers that Ruby Schron owns (or did a number of years back) that sit above the GW Bridge. Looks up Cammebys which is the guys entity. It’s coming, urban planning, land use and the federal reserve playing around with rates from 1990-2021 which are the problems.

But Warren moved from well intentioned to populist ass sucker years ago. Bit of a hypocrite too, her seat should’ve gone to someone else at some point in her academic career but she leaned into a fairly fraudulent image she helped create.

https://therealdeal.com/2023/01/25/surv ... ed_article

More rent-stabilized decay on the way: survey

CHIP poll shows where landlords are cutting corners

New York

Jan. 25, 2023 08:45 AM

A photo illustration of CHIP's Jay Martin (Getty, CHIP)
CHIP’s Jay Martin (Getty, CHIP)
It’s no secret that owners of rent-stabilized properties have had a tough time funding repairs.

Facing restrictions on rent increases in the 2019 rent law and rising operating costs, landlords claim they have had to warehouse tens of thousands of units because they can’t afford to fix them up.

A new survey by the Community Housing Improvement Program of its 3,700 owner members revealed where they have cut corners.

Three out of four reported cutting back on essential building-wide repairs, such as a roof or boiler replacement, since the rent law passed. Nearly 90 percent said they had forgone kitchen or bathroom renovations.

Just over half decided against revamping their buildings’ security systems to include cameras or video intercoms or adding storage lockers for deliveries to thwart porch pirates.

Efficiency upgrades have also been pushed to the back burner. Over 40 percent of respondents said they would not replace lighting with LED fixtures that use 90 percent less energy — a budget saver for tenants.

A quarter said they opted against installing fuel computers, which better regulate heat and hot water systems and reduce a building’s energy consumption.

And among owners who have cobbled together the cash to refurbish buildings, many blame citywide delays for preventing them from starting.

The city’s Department of Buildings requires permits for any renovation that involves plumbing, electrical or construction work, as Brick Underground explained. But with the Adams administration beset by staff shortages, 85 percent of owners said it had taken significantly longer to secure them.

“This survey highlights the difficult choices that property owners are forced to make as a result of a perfect storm created by regulatory changes, pandemic-driven inflation and an understaffed government,” CHIP’s executive director, Jay Martin, said in a statement.

The results also underscore the tradeoff for tenants under rent stabilization. The law’s reform in 2019 eliminated the 20 percent rent hike allowed when stabilized units became unoccupied.

It also prevented landlords from using rent hikes to recoup more than $15,000 in apartment renovation costs over a 15-year period. For major capital improvements such as a new boiler, the annual rent increase can now be no more than 2 percent.

These provisions have kept rents down. But a new boiler for a building as small as 10 units can cost $50,000, so landlords have been putting off such upgrades — and complaints about cold apartments are up 25 percent this year citywide.

Four out of five landlords reported their average operating expenses jumped 15 percent since 2019, a survey of the Community Housing Improvement Program’s 3,700 owner members revealed. During that period, the Rent Guidelines Board allowed rent hikes totaling only 6.25 percent.

To correct course, CHIP has asked that owners be allowed a one-time rent increase to market rate once a tenant vacates a unit.

The group has been working on suggested bill language for the proposal, but nothing has been introduced in the state legislature. Tenant advocates have opposed the idea, saying landlords should fund renovations from profits earned before the 2019 law.

[get it to x]

Progressives have now destroyed a 63 year tradition in advertising. M&M Mars, in order to pander to the perpetually offended, is doing away with the animated candy characters in favor of a human spokeswoman. She will appeal to the woke, but not to the kids who might express a preference based on their favorite character or the humor. Prior to the cancellation they were modifying the characters, especially eliminating anything that might be slightly sexist about the "female" characters, like stiletto heels. M&M Mars should be careful. They will be coming for the chocolate soon enough.

"The spokescandies are a team of cartoon M&Ms mascots that have represented the brand in commercials and other marketing materials since 1960. Early last year, the candy brand updated the cartoons and its marketing, rebranding each mascot with a new backstory, clothing and personality to be more inclusive.

The green M&M, for example, had previously drawn criticism for being marketed as too sexy, so the company switched out her knee-high heeled boots for sneakers and put more emphasis on her feminist values. “Orange” became a mascot riddled with anxiety, and the company added a new purple M&M, which was designed to represent inclusivity."

I'm guessing get it to x never took a simple marketing course. Heaven forbid a company do their research and reach out to appeal to more customers.

You guessed wrongly, for whatever that's worth. Typical lefty assuming one's intelligence is based on some 4 credit college courses. "Orange" became a mascot riddled with anxiety". You mean to say consumers were clamoring for a candy associated with neuroses? Do you think for a minute their wokeness won't have an equal or greater negative impact on sales? Bed, Bath and Beyond's slide was not helped by their discontinuing their relationship with My Pillow. It seemed to happen at almost the same time, although I have to say their service sucked as well. Not a good "marketing" move to shoo away customers.

You need some help here - There has not been a crisis like this at Mars since they introduced BLUE M&Ms and discontinued RED M&Ms.
I suggest you try a Mars Bar before they eliminate that, too. Oh, they did that in 2011. There were no riots in the streets

Just goofball hysteria similar to what peteressexnumbnutsbrownspotonbrain would write and like behavior.

Blue is my favorite color. All of you on the left can't even understand my tongue-in-cheek original post. It's just a social commentary, not a rant. Are you all the "New Puritans"? Sheesh, you guys need a little thicker skin. Speaking of thicker, if you want to talk about fat fitness models, that's a different story.

Pardon us......was the BS post you made about the guy who was just convicted in DC for illegally entering the Capitol (which was recorded live) also you just kidding around as well?

Just askin'

IMHO, the marketing people at M&Ms all deserve raises - everybody is talking about M&Ms.

... but does it produce the sale of even one more bag of M&Ms??? Do M&Ms need advertising? Frankly I think it is all a great troll of the perpetual whiners.

I'm only offended at the perpetually offended. In fact, I won't buy M&Ms again until someone can tell me each color's preferred pronouns. Maybe you can help me there.

[get it to x]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

[a fan]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

We have the same deal in Colorado.....we're putting in a new building, and we've been talking with our Electrical Engineers. They said they met with Xcel Energy to see if they know something they don't know, and that we stand a chance of hitting Colorado's energy goals.

Nope. We won't come even close to hitting it.

And even though some Colorado academics are pushing for what are being called "small advanced nuclear reactors".....we have no one else pushing.

It ain't just the libs.....left, right, center are unable to understand that nuclear is the obvious solution to our energy needs. Wanna be energy independent? Great....you should be SCREAMING for new nuclear plants in every State outside of Hawaii.

[get it to x]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

We have the same deal in Colorado.....we're putting in a new building, and we've been talking with our Electrical Engineers. They said they met with Xcel Energy to see if they know something they don't know, and that we stand a chance of hitting Colorado's energy goals.

Nope. We won't come even close to hitting it.

And even though some Colorado academics are pushing for what are being called "small advanced nuclear reactors".....we have no one else pushing.

It ain't just the libs.....left, right, center are unable to understand that nuclear is the obvious solution to our energy needs. Wanna be energy independent? Great....you should be SCREAMING for new nuclear plants in every State outside of Hawaii.

100%. Litigation at every step of the development process, a glacial permitting process and investment capital now coming with ESG scores for the borrower make it prohibitive to building a nuclear power plant. One would think nuclear US naval vessels would have had a reactor incident, but there has never been an accident.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america ... ct0604.pdf

"U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years
without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health
or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over
134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700
reactor-years of safe operation."

As for power stations:

March 1979
The worst nuclear accident in the United States occurred when a small amount of radiation was released from a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Almost 150,000 people were evacuated after the accident, which was attributed to human error and mechanical failure.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

February 16, 2002
Severe corrosion of reactor vessel head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio.


Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

[a fan]

Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

It's REALLY frustrating that so-called environmentalist and the "energy independence" crowd can't get together to make this happen.

We cannot get where we need to go without nuclear in the mix. We should have figured this out DECADES ago.

I'd REALLY like Republicans to step up, and start green lighting these things in Republican run States. The libs are freaking hopeless on this front for at least another generation, if not more.

[PizzaSnake]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

We have the same deal in Colorado.....we're putting in a new building, and we've been talking with our Electrical Engineers. They said they met with Xcel Energy to see if they know something they don't know, and that we stand a chance of hitting Colorado's energy goals.

Nope. We won't come even close to hitting it.

And even though some Colorado academics are pushing for what are being called "small advanced nuclear reactors".....we have no one else pushing.

It ain't just the libs.....left, right, center are unable to understand that nuclear is the obvious solution to our energy needs. Wanna be energy independent? Great....you should be SCREAMING for new nuclear plants in every State outside of Hawaii.

100%. Litigation at every step of the development process, a glacial permitting process and investment capital now coming with ESG scores for the borrower make it prohibitive to building a nuclear power plant. One would think nuclear US naval vessels would have had a reactor incident, but there has never been an accident.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america ... ct0604.pdf

"U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years
without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health
or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over
134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700
reactor-years of safe operation."

As for power stations:

March 1979
The worst nuclear accident in the United States occurred when a small amount of radiation was released from a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Almost 150,000 people were evacuated after the accident, which was attributed to human error and mechanical failure.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

February 16, 2002
Severe corrosion of reactor vessel head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio.


Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

You do understand that your assertion is not supported by the carefully conditioned statement from the US Navy, correct? In addition, the operating conditions of naval reactors are significantly different than terrestrial ones, not to mention the scale.

Now, would some sort of smaller thorium reactor be useful? Perhaps, but the main issue here is the unwillingness to consider the true problem: inefficiency and distribution. Just swapping a different baseload generation facility (nuclear) for coal or gas fired turbine doesn't address the fact that the national grid is a fcuking antique held together with baling wire and chewing gum. Quick, what is the energy consumption of a fully energized "grid" with no draw? Delayed or no maintenance of vital infrastructure after 40+ years of "no new taxes" abetted by financial sophistry has lead us to this donnybrook. Took a while to get this fcuked, going to take a while, and, probably more money than was "saved" over the years to get out. Incidentally, who should pay for this long-delayed renovation and upgrade? The people who benefited from the parsimony, or the current rate payers?

Present an integrated vision of distributed generation that utilizes the best generation for a geographical location and reduces or eliminates the need for incredibly wasteful high-voltage "long-haul" distribution and I'll believe that you are informed and serious. Otherwise, regretfully, you'll have to be filed under the "know-nothing bray-loudly" category.

[get it to x]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

We have the same deal in Colorado.....we're putting in a new building, and we've been talking with our Electrical Engineers. They said they met with Xcel Energy to see if they know something they don't know, and that we stand a chance of hitting Colorado's energy goals.

Nope. We won't come even close to hitting it.

And even though some Colorado academics are pushing for what are being called "small advanced nuclear reactors".....we have no one else pushing.

It ain't just the libs.....left, right, center are unable to understand that nuclear is the obvious solution to our energy needs. Wanna be energy independent? Great....you should be SCREAMING for new nuclear plants in every State outside of Hawaii.

100%. Litigation at every step of the development process, a glacial permitting process and investment capital now coming with ESG scores for the borrower make it prohibitive to building a nuclear power plant. One would think nuclear US naval vessels would have had a reactor incident, but there has never been an accident.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america ... ct0604.pdf

"U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years
without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health
or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over
134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700
reactor-years of safe operation."

As for power stations:

March 1979
The worst nuclear accident in the United States occurred when a small amount of radiation was released from a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Almost 150,000 people were evacuated after the accident, which was attributed to human error and mechanical failure.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

February 16, 2002
Severe corrosion of reactor vessel head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio.


Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

You do understand that your assertion is not supported by the carefully conditioned statement from the US Navy, correct? In addition, the operating conditions of naval reactors are significantly different than terrestrial ones, not to mention the scale.

Now, would some sort of smaller thorium reactor be useful? Perhaps, but the main issue here is the unwillingness to consider the true problem: inefficiency and distribution. Just swapping a different baseload generation facility (nuclear) for coal or gas fired turbine doesn't address the fact that the national grid is a fcuking antique held together with baling wire and chewing gum. Quick, what is the energy consumption of a fully energized "grid" with no draw? Delayed or no maintenance of vital infrastructure after 40+ years of "no new taxes" abetted by financial sophistry has lead us to this donnybrook. Took a while to get this fcuked, going to take a while, and, probably more money than was "saved" over the years to get out. Incidentally, who should pay for this long-delayed renovation and upgrade? The people who benefited from the parsimony, or the current rate payers?

Present an integrated vision of distributed generation that utilizes the best generation for a geographical location and reduces or eliminates the need for incredibly wasteful high-voltage "long-haul" distribution and I'll believe that you are informed and serious. Otherwise, regretfully, you'll have to be filed under the "know-nothing bray-loudly" category.

So what are your answers to the grid issues? We have what we have and as far as power generation, nuclear meets almost everyone's goal. The perfect need not be the enemy of the good.

[RedFromMI]

A few days ago someone posted on my Twitter feed the "death rate" for all common sources of power. Solar and maybe one other (maybe geothermal) were the ONLY ones with a lower rate than nuclear (which includes Chernobyl and Fukushima). Coal was quite large due to pollutants.

[a fan]

A few days ago someone posted on my Twitter feed the "death rate" for all common sources of power. Solar and maybe one other (maybe geothermal) were the ONLY ones with a lower rate than nuclear (which includes Chernobyl and Fukushima). Coal was quite large due to pollutants.

Yep. Drives me nuts the way Americans think (and this has drifted to other nations)........they think it makes more sense to get poisoned slowly and continually, rather than not get poisoned with a small CHANCE of a major failure. Mitigate the major failure is the obvious thing to do...especially here in the West where there is plenty of land with next to zero inhabitants.

It's how we handle both food and nuclear power.

So guys like DocB stick their head in the sand, pretend their nuclear power plant hasn't been giving California clean power for 50 years and counting.....and instead of opening more nuclear plants to supplement wind and solar........ turn to coal and natural gas for energy.

It makes ZERO sense, but here we are.

[MDlaxfan76]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

We have the same deal in Colorado.....we're putting in a new building, and we've been talking with our Electrical Engineers. They said they met with Xcel Energy to see if they know something they don't know, and that we stand a chance of hitting Colorado's energy goals.

Nope. We won't come even close to hitting it.

And even though some Colorado academics are pushing for what are being called "small advanced nuclear reactors".....we have no one else pushing.

It ain't just the libs.....left, right, center are unable to understand that nuclear is the obvious solution to our energy needs. Wanna be energy independent? Great....you should be SCREAMING for new nuclear plants in every State outside of Hawaii.

100%. Litigation at every step of the development process, a glacial permitting process and investment capital now coming with ESG scores for the borrower make it prohibitive to building a nuclear power plant. One would think nuclear US naval vessels would have had a reactor incident, but there has never been an accident.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america ... ct0604.pdf

"U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years
without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health
or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over
134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700
reactor-years of safe operation."

As for power stations:

March 1979
The worst nuclear accident in the United States occurred when a small amount of radiation was released from a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Almost 150,000 people were evacuated after the accident, which was attributed to human error and mechanical failure.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

February 16, 2002
Severe corrosion of reactor vessel head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio.


Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

You do understand that your assertion is not supported by the carefully conditioned statement from the US Navy, correct? In addition, the operating conditions of naval reactors are significantly different than terrestrial ones, not to mention the scale.

Now, would some sort of smaller thorium reactor be useful? Perhaps, but the main issue here is the unwillingness to consider the true problem: inefficiency and distribution. Just swapping a different baseload generation facility (nuclear) for coal or gas fired turbine doesn't address the fact that the national grid is a fcuking antique held together with baling wire and chewing gum. Quick, what is the energy consumption of a fully energized "grid" with no draw? Delayed or no maintenance of vital infrastructure after 40+ years of "no new taxes" abetted by financial sophistry has lead us to this donnybrook. Took a while to get this fcuked, going to take a while, and, probably more money than was "saved" over the years to get out. Incidentally, who should pay for this long-delayed renovation and upgrade? The people who benefited from the parsimony, or the current rate payers?

Present an integrated vision of distributed generation that utilizes the best generation for a geographical location and reduces or eliminates the need for incredibly wasteful high-voltage "long-haul" distribution and I'll believe that you are informed and serious. Otherwise, regretfully, you'll have to be filed under the "know-nothing bray-loudly" category.

So what are your answers to the grid issues? We have what we have and as far as power generation, nuclear meets almost everyone's goal. The perfect need not be the enemy of the good.

I think he gave a bit of a hint in "smaller" nuclear which could be more localized, less long haul distribution. Likewise, localized solar offers major benefits in distribution efficiency. In some places, wind has these benefits too, as does geothermal.

We do not, IMO, need to assume "we have what we have" as the end of the discussion...efficient distribution technology and infrastructure would go a long way to needing to produce less power, but get it distributed with more total output.

But do as much localized energy production as possible.

It's crazy, at least to me, that we don't insist on all commercial construction to include solar on roof, at least in high sun regions. And same for all new residential. With subsidies for conversion.

Repeat: Get as much localized production of energy as possible!

[Farfromgeneva]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

Watch out for CRE…. 4-6% cap rates going to 6.5-10% will be hell on LTVs.

To your point though in the Lev Loan market you get 1% annualized amortization of principal paid quarterly or similar typically. At year 7, if it gets there and when it does there’s a problem, you’ve still got 93% of the original principal outstanding.

[Farfromgeneva]

Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

It's REALLY frustrating that so-called environmentalist and the "energy independence" crowd can't get together to make this happen.

We cannot get where we need to go without nuclear in the mix. We should have figured this out DECADES ago.

I'd REALLY like Republicans to step up, and start green lighting these things in Republican run States. The libs are freaking hopeless on this front for at least another generation, if not more.

There’s conflicts in every single issue advocate. This is no different. Somebody has to exert the executive function occasionally. Consensus building ultimately leads to no decisions. Incentive structure need to be designed differently.s

[Farfromgeneva]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

We have the same deal in Colorado.....we're putting in a new building, and we've been talking with our Electrical Engineers. They said they met with Xcel Energy to see if they know something they don't know, and that we stand a chance of hitting Colorado's energy goals.

Nope. We won't come even close to hitting it.

And even though some Colorado academics are pushing for what are being called "small advanced nuclear reactors".....we have no one else pushing.

It ain't just the libs.....left, right, center are unable to understand that nuclear is the obvious solution to our energy needs. Wanna be energy independent? Great....you should be SCREAMING for new nuclear plants in every State outside of Hawaii.

100%. Litigation at every step of the development process, a glacial permitting process and investment capital now coming with ESG scores for the borrower make it prohibitive to building a nuclear power plant. One would think nuclear US naval vessels would have had a reactor incident, but there has never been an accident.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america ... ct0604.pdf

"U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years
without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health
or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over
134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700
reactor-years of safe operation."

As for power stations:

March 1979
The worst nuclear accident in the United States occurred when a small amount of radiation was released from a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Almost 150,000 people were evacuated after the accident, which was attributed to human error and mechanical failure.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

February 16, 2002
Severe corrosion of reactor vessel head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio.


Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

You do understand that your assertion is not supported by the carefully conditioned statement from the US Navy, correct? In addition, the operating conditions of naval reactors are significantly different than terrestrial ones, not to mention the scale.

Now, would some sort of smaller thorium reactor be useful? Perhaps, but the main issue here is the unwillingness to consider the true problem: inefficiency and distribution. Just swapping a different baseload generation facility (nuclear) for coal or gas fired turbine doesn't address the fact that the national grid is a fcuking antique held together with baling wire and chewing gum. Quick, what is the energy consumption of a fully energized "grid" with no draw? Delayed or no maintenance of vital infrastructure after 40+ years of "no new taxes" abetted by financial sophistry has lead us to this donnybrook. Took a while to get this fcuked, going to take a while, and, probably more money than was "saved" over the years to get out. Incidentally, who should pay for this long-delayed renovation and upgrade? The people who benefited from the parsimony, or the current rate payers?

Present an integrated vision of distributed generation that utilizes the best generation for a geographical location and reduces or eliminates the need for incredibly wasteful high-voltage "long-haul" distribution and I'll believe that you are informed and serious. Otherwise, regretfully, you'll have to be filed under the "know-nothing bray-loudly" category.

So what are your answers to the grid issues? We have what we have and as far as power generation, nuclear meets almost everyone's goal. The perfect need not be the enemy of the good.

Easy to infer he believes any solution requires combination of generation with T&D.

[Farfromgeneva]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

We have the same deal in Colorado.....we're putting in a new building, and we've been talking with our Electrical Engineers. They said they met with Xcel Energy to see if they know something they don't know, and that we stand a chance of hitting Colorado's energy goals.

Nope. We won't come even close to hitting it.

And even though some Colorado academics are pushing for what are being called "small advanced nuclear reactors".....we have no one else pushing.

It ain't just the libs.....left, right, center are unable to understand that nuclear is the obvious solution to our energy needs. Wanna be energy independent? Great....you should be SCREAMING for new nuclear plants in every State outside of Hawaii.

100%. Litigation at every step of the development process, a glacial permitting process and investment capital now coming with ESG scores for the borrower make it prohibitive to building a nuclear power plant. One would think nuclear US naval vessels would have had a reactor incident, but there has never been an accident.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america ... ct0604.pdf

"U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years
without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health
or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over
134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700
reactor-years of safe operation."

As for power stations:

March 1979
The worst nuclear accident in the United States occurred when a small amount of radiation was released from a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Almost 150,000 people were evacuated after the accident, which was attributed to human error and mechanical failure.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

February 16, 2002
Severe corrosion of reactor vessel head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio.


Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

You do understand that your assertion is not supported by the carefully conditioned statement from the US Navy, correct? In addition, the operating conditions of naval reactors are significantly different than terrestrial ones, not to mention the scale.

Now, would some sort of smaller thorium reactor be useful? Perhaps, but the main issue here is the unwillingness to consider the true problem: inefficiency and distribution. Just swapping a different baseload generation facility (nuclear) for coal or gas fired turbine doesn't address the fact that the national grid is a fcuking antique held together with baling wire and chewing gum. Quick, what is the energy consumption of a fully energized "grid" with no draw? Delayed or no maintenance of vital infrastructure after 40+ years of "no new taxes" abetted by financial sophistry has lead us to this donnybrook. Took a while to get this fcuked, going to take a while, and, probably more money than was "saved" over the years to get out. Incidentally, who should pay for this long-delayed renovation and upgrade? The people who benefited from the parsimony, or the current rate payers?

Present an integrated vision of distributed generation that utilizes the best generation for a geographical location and reduces or eliminates the need for incredibly wasteful high-voltage "long-haul" distribution and I'll believe that you are informed and serious. Otherwise, regretfully, you'll have to be filed under the "know-nothing bray-loudly" category.

So what are your answers to the grid issues? We have what we have and as far as power generation, nuclear meets almost everyone's goal. The perfect need not be the enemy of the good.

I think he gave a bit of a hint in "smaller" nuclear which could be more localized, less long haul distribution. Likewise, localized solar offers major benefits in distribution efficiency. In some places, wind has these benefits too, as does geothermal.

We do not, IMO, need to assume "we have what we have" as the end of the discussion...efficient distribution technology and infrastructure would go a long way to needing to produce less power, but get it distributed with more total output.

But do as much localized energy production as possible.

It's crazy, at least to me, that we don't insist on all commercial construction to include solar on roof, at least in high sun regions. And same for all new residential. With subsidies for conversion.

Repeat: Get as much localized production of energy as possible!

And that any discussion of generation in isolation is pointless. And yet the response still split the two into discrete aspects…

[a fan]

Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

It's REALLY frustrating that so-called environmentalist and the "energy independence" crowd can't get together to make this happen.

We cannot get where we need to go without nuclear in the mix. We should have figured this out DECADES ago.

I'd REALLY like Republicans to step up, and start green lighting these things in Republican run States. The libs are freaking hopeless on this front for at least another generation, if not more.

There’s conflicts in every single issue advocate. This is no different. Somebody has to exert the executive function occasionally. Consensus building ultimately leads to no decisions. Incentive structure need to be designed differently.s

Agree..that's why I pointed to Republican run States......show some leadership, and get it done.

[Farfromgeneva]

Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

It's REALLY frustrating that so-called environmentalist and the "energy independence" crowd can't get together to make this happen.

We cannot get where we need to go without nuclear in the mix. We should have figured this out DECADES ago.

I'd REALLY like Republicans to step up, and start green lighting these things in Republican run States. The libs are freaking hopeless on this front for at least another generation, if not more.

There’s conflicts in every single issue advocate. This is no different. Somebody has to exert the executive function occasionally. Consensus building ultimately leads to no decisions. Incentive structure need to be designed differently.s

Agree..that's why I pointed to Republican run States......show some leadership, and get it done.

Just need to take it all in, synthesize and conclude the beat balance one can. Balance being the key word.

[get it to x]

Minnesota leading the nation in foolishness. The left is allowed to ignore "the science" to the point where lives are at risk.

https://alphanews.org/minnesota-house-p ... ergy-bill/

The last person leaving Minnesota won't have to turn out the lights.

As they get closer, the date will be extended if the state is too far off. It’s like a term loan with a balloon maturity. Nobody expects it to be paid out of cash flow at maturity.

We have the same deal in Colorado.....we're putting in a new building, and we've been talking with our Electrical Engineers. They said they met with Xcel Energy to see if they know something they don't know, and that we stand a chance of hitting Colorado's energy goals.

Nope. We won't come even close to hitting it.

And even though some Colorado academics are pushing for what are being called "small advanced nuclear reactors".....we have no one else pushing.

It ain't just the libs.....left, right, center are unable to understand that nuclear is the obvious solution to our energy needs. Wanna be energy independent? Great....you should be SCREAMING for new nuclear plants in every State outside of Hawaii.

100%. Litigation at every step of the development process, a glacial permitting process and investment capital now coming with ESG scores for the borrower make it prohibitive to building a nuclear power plant. One would think nuclear US naval vessels would have had a reactor incident, but there has never been an accident.

https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america ... ct0604.pdf

"U.S. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) have safely operated for more than 50 years
without experiencing any reactor accident or any release of radioactivity that hurt human health
or had an adverse effect on marine life. Naval reactors have an outstanding record of over
134 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power, and they have amassed over 5700
reactor-years of safe operation."

As for power stations:

March 1979
The worst nuclear accident in the United States occurred when a small amount of radiation was released from a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Almost 150,000 people were evacuated after the accident, which was attributed to human error and mechanical failure.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

February 16, 2002
Severe corrosion of reactor vessel head forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio.


Proven technology not dependent on wind or sunlight. Waste product manageable except for NIMBY's. We will eventually figure this out, but not before a lot of pain and suffering.

You do understand that your assertion is not supported by the carefully conditioned statement from the US Navy, correct? In addition, the operating conditions of naval reactors are significantly different than terrestrial ones, not to mention the scale.

Now, would some sort of smaller thorium reactor be useful? Perhaps, but the main issue here is the unwillingness to consider the true problem: inefficiency and distribution. Just swapping a different baseload generation facility (nuclear) for coal or gas fired turbine doesn't address the fact that the national grid is a fcuking antique held together with baling wire and chewing gum. Quick, what is the energy consumption of a fully energized "grid" with no draw? Delayed or no maintenance of vital infrastructure after 40+ years of "no new taxes" abetted by financial sophistry has lead us to this donnybrook. Took a while to get this fcuked, going to take a while, and, probably more money than was "saved" over the years to get out. Incidentally, who should pay for this long-delayed renovation and upgrade? The people who benefited from the parsimony, or the current rate payers?

Present an integrated vision of distributed generation that utilizes the best generation for a geographical location and reduces or eliminates the need for incredibly wasteful high-voltage "long-haul" distribution and I'll believe that you are informed and serious. Otherwise, regretfully, you'll have to be filed under the "know-nothing bray-loudly" category.

So what are your answers to the grid issues? We have what we have and as far as power generation, nuclear meets almost everyone's goal. The perfect need not be the enemy of the good.

I think he gave a bit of a hint in "smaller" nuclear which could be more localized, less long haul distribution. Likewise, localized solar offers major benefits in distribution efficiency. In some places, wind has these benefits too, as does geothermal.

We do not, IMO, need to assume "we have what we have" as the end of the discussion...efficient distribution technology and infrastructure would go a long way to needing to produce less power, but get it distributed with more total output.

But do as much localized energy production as possible.

It's crazy, at least to me, that we don't insist on all commercial construction to include solar on roof, at least in high sun regions. And same for all new residential. With subsidies for conversion.

Repeat: Get as much localized production of energy as possible!

So while we wait for the "cavalry" to arrive, which will take years and massive investment, we can hope the sun shines and the wind blows. BTW, I am OK with a "Marshall Plan" to upgrade our electrical infrastructure. We can even find good paying jobs for all of these people we are paying to sit home and binge watch Netflix. Win/win.

[a fan]

BTW, I am OK with a "Marshall Plan" to upgrade our electrical infrastructure.

So is every REAL conservative. Unfortunately, as you know, the Republican party has gutted the real conservatives, and we're left with Trump's minions .....who grew Federal spending by 66% in four years....all without spending a freaking cent on infrastructure.

The current National Republican party wouldn't know what a real 70's-era Conservative was if one sat on them. Old School Republican Conservatives believed in investing in our future....and in spending money that gave our Nation a return on investment.