No we pay too much when we are paying for others, you know like when we pay for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open without compensation .
What McDonald's Shows About The Minimum Wage
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
black dog
Free America
That the people who make 25.00 and above pay for.
I wonder how happy they are about providing free services to those to lazy to improve there job skills.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
This idiot doesn't work, so it's more free crap for him.
LOL..lots. I work in the renewables world. Offshore wind, specifically. You won't believe how few humans are involved in the production of massive amounts of electricity from offshore wind farms. In just the European "theatre" alone, there are over 6000 offshore wind turbines operating. The same small band of experts moves around the region with their highly specialized skills and vessels, installing/commissioning, on average, one new 8-12 MW turbine every day.
Once in service, the primary operating objective is to keep O&M costs minimized. That means a high degree of automation and relatively few jobs for humans.
I'm in several offshore wind groups and my own paper was presented at one of the largest conferences on wind power...I can get you all the "scholarly sources" you want. ;-)
Google can too:
Google Search
www.google.com
Last edited:
I have a number of people on ignore, so by reading the thread I'm guessing one of our local morons is posting.
PeoplesElbow
Well-Known Member
Bingo
I have little doubt that the story that green jobs are going to be massively available is overblown. It's one thing to have the govertnment subsidize an industry that is in very high demand - say, the dairy or food industry. But you don't "create" demand by subsidizing an industry people aren't interested in, and you don't generate interest by getting the government involved.
In one of the links referred to in this thread, there's the story of Friedman watching a canal being built in India.
“Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels. [Reply to the government bureaucrat of one Asian country who told him that, reason why there were workers with shovels instead of modern tractors and earth movers at a worksite of a new canal, was that: "You don't understand. This is a jobs program."]”
Of course, it illustrates well that make work jobs by the government are grossly inefficient. They have to be. If you want efficient, have people compete for the work. If you want to just burn money, by all means have the government do it.
The farms we support off the the east coast of the UK all the way north to Peterhead, Scotland, have some amazing storms on a fairly regular basis. Crew of one of "our" crew transfer vessels (CTVs) sent us a video clip they recorded from the bridge of the vessel just the other day..a 75' vessel pounding out through 12-18' seas to get to the Service Operations Vessel (SOV) that hosts about 20 -30 technicians, 70 nautical miles offshore in the middle of the wind farm. Pretty impressive..and nasty..conditions.
Key point: The wind power density (average available prevailing wind energy) off the eastern coast of the UK is nearly twice what it is off the "sweetest" spots on our coast. The US offshore wind dreams are large...and will largely fail. We could collectively fart more power than wind turbines are going to reliably produce off the coasts of VA and south of there...and from MD to NY isn't that much better...
The exact opposite. We don't have the prevailing winds they do..not even close. But that aside...there isn't squat for offshore wind here. 5 turbines off Martha's Vinyard and three off the Va coast. Compared to 6000 and climbing over there.
I get you. Why so much investment off of our shores then? Won't you need more turbines then to be able to produce more?
Politics....100%. As much so as the totally misguided state and Federal legislation requiring electric vehicles. EVs are horrible for the environment
heavy metals used to make the batteries are sources of horrible pollution ....
How Green are Electric Cars?
It is mostly thought that electric vehicles (EVs) are far less harmful for the environment than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). Since EVs do not emit any greenhouse gases while they are being driven, one is easily led to think that they have no environmental footprint. This is untrue for a number of reasons. Firstly, EVs run on electricity, and in the United States most electricity is generated from the combustion of fossil fuels. According to the US Energy Information Administration, as of January 2015 fossil fuels meet 82% of US energy demand. [1] Secondly, the production of EVs has a significantly larger enviromental footprint than that of ICEVs. This is mainly because of their intricate lithium-based batteries (Fig. 1), which are costly to make and even more costly to dispose of. Whether these environmental drawbacks are enough to reconsider electric vehicles as "green alternatives" will be the subject of our inquiry here.
Production
In a 2012 paper published in the Yale Journal of Industrial Ecology, a team of researchers lead by Dr. Troy Hawkins gauged the overall environmental impact of the production of EVs. [2] Their study centers on EVs powered by lithium iron phosphate batteries and lithium nickel cobalt manganese batteries, the latter being marginally more energy-efficient and thus environmentally-friendly. It finds that as a whole the global warming potential (GWP) of producing electric vehicles is in the region of 87-95 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per kilometer, of which battery production contributes roughly 40%. It is about twice the 43 g CO2~eq/km associated with the production of ICEVs. Thus, producing the battery of an EV is about as costly to the environment as producing an entire ICEV. This is because the metals used in making the batteries- cobalt, lithium, lead, nickel- are mined mainly in South America and Australia. As such, the environmental costs associated with their extraction and transportation are very high.
Life Cycle Analysis
Hawkins et al.'s overall life cycle analysis of European EVs versus ICEVs shows that despite having twice as large a GWP in production phase, EVs typically had a lesser GWP over their entire lives. They estimate that from its production until its retirement, an EV has a GWP that is 20%-24% less than that of an equivalent gasoline powered ICEV, and 10%-14% less than that of a diesel-powered one.
These figures are contingent upon a number of important assumptions. The expected vehicle lifespan of a vehicle is 150,000 km, which is generous for an EV. The marginal benefit of EVs shrinks when this expectation is reduced to 100,000 km. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the assumed energy source for powering the EVs is average European electricity. This is another favorable assumption, as Europe is heavily invested in renewable energy, and no more dependent on coal than it is on nuclear.
As such the GWP associated with EVs' power consumption is low in Europe. In a country such as China, which relies more heavily on "dirty" energy, the use phase GWP of EVs is far more significant and may actually exceed that of ICEVs. In 2012, a study of the externalities associated with EV and ICEV usage in Shanghai showed that because of their dependency on coal-generated power, EVs in Shanghai were of greater harm to air quality than ICEVs overall. [3]
Disposal
The Lithium batteries that power EVs are difficult to dispose of and harmful to the environment. They contain toxic metals- namely nickel, lead and copper- as well as toxic and flammable electrolytes containing LiClO4, LiBF4, and LiPF6. Exposure to these materials during the battery production phase is strictly regulated by US federal law, but the legislation on their disposal is inconsistent internationally. They present a serious human hazard, especially in areas that lack the infrastructure for solid waste collection and recycling, both in the US and abroad. There is an additional threat: even discharged EV batteries can deliver powerful shocks, or present a serious fire hazard, if mishandled. [4]
Recycling EV batteries is, as a whole, expensive yet feasible. There is little incentive for manufacturers to recycle EV batteries when Lithium- their "main ingredient" - costs five times more to recycle than to produce. EV manufacturers have attempted different ways to reduce costs. Toyota is shipping used American Prius batteries back to Japan, where it can recycle at lower cost; GM and Nissan have started selling used batteries to power companies for the storage of excess wind and solar energy. While these recycling methods have been successful in mitigating the damage caused by EV battery disposal, they are costly and still far from being protocol. Specialized EV battery recycling plants are appearing, but only by the graces of government subsidy. In 2011 The US department of energy funded a $9.5 million dollar EV battery recycling plant in Ohio, today managed by Toxco. Efforts in the UK are still in their experimental stages.
Electric Cars Aren’t Nearly as Green as People Think
Tesla's Electric Cars Aren't as Green as You Might Think
Rare metals only exist in tiny quantities and inconvenient places—so you have to move a lot of earth to get just a little bit. In the Jiangxi rare earth mine in China, Abraham writes, workers dig eight-foot holes and pour ammonium sulfate into them to dissolve the sandy clay. Then they haul out bags of muck and pass it through several acid baths; what’s left is baked in a kiln, leaving behind the rare earths required by everything from our phones to our Teslas.
At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling.
And, as in every stage of the process, mining has hidden emissions. Jiangxi has it relatively easy because it’s digging up clay, but many mines rely on rock-crushing equipment with astronomical energy bills, as well as coal-fired furnaces for the final baking stages. Those spew a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the process of refining a material destined for your zero-emissions car. In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found.
“We’re shifting pollution, and in the process we’re hoping that it doesn’t have the environmental impact,” says Abraham. He believes that when you add all the environmental impacts, they still come out in favor of electric vehicles. (The Union of Concerned Scientists agrees; it found that even when you add in emissions from battery manufacturing, EVs generate half the emissions of a conventional car over the course of its life.) Still, consumers and investors should understand what it takes to make the materials that enable their green choices. “I don’t think there’s been much discussion of that,” Abraham says. “We can’t look at mining as an over-there thing and at Tesla as an over-here thing. They’re intricately linked.”
Overall, “the greenhouse-gas-emissions footprint of electric vehicles can be pretty high on the front end, as they’re being built,” says McConnell. “And so you need to get a lot of benefits on the other side, when you use it.” And after you're done using it.
Rare metals only exist in tiny quantities and inconvenient places—so you have to move a lot of earth to get just a little bit. In the Jiangxi rare earth mine in China, Abraham writes, workers dig eight-foot holes and pour ammonium sulfate into them to dissolve the sandy clay. Then they haul out bags of muck and pass it through several acid baths; what’s left is baked in a kiln, leaving behind the rare earths required by everything from our phones to our Teslas.
At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling.
And, as in every stage of the process, mining has hidden emissions. Jiangxi has it relatively easy because it’s digging up clay, but many mines rely on rock-crushing equipment with astronomical energy bills, as well as coal-fired furnaces for the final baking stages. Those spew a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the process of refining a material destined for your zero-emissions car. In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found.
“We’re shifting pollution, and in the process we’re hoping that it doesn’t have the environmental impact,” says Abraham. He believes that when you add all the environmental impacts, they still come out in favor of electric vehicles. (The Union of Concerned Scientists agrees; it found that even when you add in emissions from battery manufacturing, EVs generate half the emissions of a conventional car over the course of its life.) Still, consumers and investors should understand what it takes to make the materials that enable their green choices. “I don’t think there’s been much discussion of that,” Abraham says. “We can’t look at mining as an over-there thing and at Tesla as an over-here thing. They’re intricately linked.”
Overall, “the greenhouse-gas-emissions footprint of electric vehicles can be pretty high on the front end, as they’re being built,” says McConnell. “And so you need to get a lot of benefits on the other side, when you use it.” And after you're done using it.
Minimum-Wage Complexities
This is troubling for two reasons. First, low-income households tend to spend a higher share of their income on low-wage industries such as fast food, so the higher prices are regressive. And second, many low-wage workers do not live in poor households and instead are, for instance, middle-class teens or secondary earners — meaning that some beneficiaries of a higher wage are better off than the folks paying the higher prices. As the CBO has calculated, “roughly 40 percent of workers directly affected by the $15 [minimum wage] in 2025 would be members of families with income more than three times the federal poverty threshold.” For reference, three times the poverty threshold is north of $75,000 today for a family of four.
Then there’s the matter of how much of a wage hike the beneficiaries would actually get to keep. Minimum-wage supporters often treat it as a selling point that low-wage workers can qualify for government benefits such as food stamps, cash welfare, housing subsidies, and the like, and that they’d rely on these benefits less if they were paid more. No conservative should celebrate reliance on government aid either, of course, but it must be said that these programs can be downright punitive toward workers who get raises.
In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that households with children just above the poverty line tend to lose about half of any additional income to benefit cuts and taxes. More generally, those who make at least 75 percent of the poverty line normally lose at least a fifth of any new income, though people poorer than that can face lower or even negative tax rates thanks to the safety net’s work incentives. (As a benchmark, a 40-hour-a-week minimum-wage job will lift an individual over the poverty line this year and even keep a two-person household above the 75 percent mark.) This, too, complicates the question of whose money is being transferred to whom: The government is playing the game as well.
This is troubling for two reasons. First, low-income households tend to spend a higher share of their income on low-wage industries such as fast food, so the higher prices are regressive. And second, many low-wage workers do not live in poor households and instead are, for instance, middle-class teens or secondary earners — meaning that some beneficiaries of a higher wage are better off than the folks paying the higher prices. As the CBO has calculated, “roughly 40 percent of workers directly affected by the $15 [minimum wage] in 2025 would be members of families with income more than three times the federal poverty threshold.” For reference, three times the poverty threshold is north of $75,000 today for a family of four.
Then there’s the matter of how much of a wage hike the beneficiaries would actually get to keep. Minimum-wage supporters often treat it as a selling point that low-wage workers can qualify for government benefits such as food stamps, cash welfare, housing subsidies, and the like, and that they’d rely on these benefits less if they were paid more. No conservative should celebrate reliance on government aid either, of course, but it must be said that these programs can be downright punitive toward workers who get raises.
In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that households with children just above the poverty line tend to lose about half of any additional income to benefit cuts and taxes. More generally, those who make at least 75 percent of the poverty line normally lose at least a fifth of any new income, though people poorer than that can face lower or even negative tax rates thanks to the safety net’s work incentives. (As a benchmark, a 40-hour-a-week minimum-wage job will lift an individual over the poverty line this year and even keep a two-person household above the 75 percent mark.) This, too, complicates the question of whose money is being transferred to whom: The government is playing the game as well.
I don't know much about EVs , except that I would imagine them to be unreliable. I mean what if you need a high powered vehicle to get through difficult roads, or have to travel long distances out in the middle of nowhere. But how are they not environmental? I don't know you, but I am picking your brain. I hope you don't mind...
Gurps answered your EV question. This short video is worth a watch too...recently posted in the Environmental sub-forum by @limblips
https://www.prageru.com/video/whats...bNr8GBWNXCFNDFX35as8qRn5AwB5mvepCGTv_GOuXh01o
Thanks for sharing. The student makes great points. The issues of efficient recycling of the lithium batteries and the rest of electronic waste, is something that obviously needs to be fixed in order to move forward. I appreciate the backed up sources and that it is a physics paper. I appreciate discussion points backed up. Thanks!!!!
It's around 25% according to most sources, including ERCOT. The largest source of their electricity is from natural gas...from 51-56% depending on the source.
Their 25% reliance on wind is certainly part of the problem in their recent power disaster. The UK and Germany, which have even higher wind power percentages have had similar problems recently.