You must log in or register to comment.

ForHidingSquirrels OP t1_is39je5 wrote

I’ve been wondering why battery manufacturers have been moving to the southeast other than cheap labor. Eventually it’ll be because of supply chain benefits. Access to steel, maybe mining, good highways, well priced electricity, and of course state regulations. Anyone have real information on this?


irishman13 t1_is3gwxd wrote

Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee are already established automotive supplier bases.


ForHidingSquirrels OP t1_is3i63v wrote

Good point, supply chain benefits are probably the main benefit


GoodOmens t1_is48cwb wrote

SK America in GA supplies to VW (id.4) in Chattanooga and Ford in Michigan (but soon TN)


sonofagunn t1_is3odz4 wrote

The article mentions that shipping heavy batteries is expensive so most of the battery factories are planning to be located near the automotive factories.


AbeWasHereAgain t1_is42x7u wrote

state regulations = we will let them pollute the living fuck out of the area.


solardeveloper t1_is5ssec wrote

I hate so much that garbage takes like this get so many upvotes.

Can't be because of supply chains, minimizing freight costs or other factors that greatly reduce cost to you the consumer. No, just "they let them pollute"



Hampsterman82 t1_is5wkul wrote

Bruh.... There's truth to it. Look at rare earth refining. China is no where near a leader in cutting edge tech but they do it all cause it's a bitterly polluting process and in china you can just hellscape a lake with the chemical and heavy element waste.


OldeHickory t1_is5x6cw wrote

The southeast has a history of local politicians being ridiculously corrupt. The lack of regulations is definitely a factor. Why follow CEQA when you can just put your factory in Georgia?


solardeveloper t1_is6it15 wrote

The fact that you cite CEQA demonstrates my point. CEQA is the use of environmentalism to impose NIMBY land use restrictions via plausibly deniable tactics like making development costs so high even for compliant projects that they end up not being built. Fundamentally, its a tool to destroy the economics for even good faith development so as little as possible gets built.

Congrats, we have CEQA in CA. And by far the coubtry's highest working homeless population because manufacturing and many other blue collar jobs don't pay well enough to afford housing out here.

And the irony is the same set of people treating CEQA as a victory are crying about the high cost per Watt hour of batteries, not putting 2 and 2 together about how value chain and supply chain costs are what drive cost of the end product. Due to our special fuel requirements, geographic location relative to existing manufacturing infrastructure and centers, and the lack of housing affordability for truckers, CA is poorly positioned to retain manufacturing of resource intensive items like batteries even without CEQA.


OldeHickory t1_is6jdvy wrote

Lmao guy sees a chance to bash California at any cost. Saying that environmental laws are just for rich nimbys is classic right wing propaganda. They would like to remove section 106, NEPA, and Section 4(f) if they could. They will bash any environmental law claiming it is just for the rich. Such a joke. Spill your propaganda elsewhere please.


solardeveloper t1_isak8ai wrote

I own property in CA and directly benefit economically from CEQA and Prop 13. You need to up your game - not every critique of policy in CA is "right wing" propaganda, and shows how little grasp of actual business and housing development environment here that that's your only response.

If you want to dive deeper into how CEQA is problematic, have a read. Its from the Atlantic, the famously right wing publication (sarcasm)


OldeHickory t1_isaljye wrote

I don’t care lmao. I work in environmental compliance and I hate how weak GEPA is, written by developers and engineering firms as a rubber stamp for whatever they want to do as long as they can avoid triggering federal laws. It’s my livelihood. I am pro CEQA and any other state environmental law with actual teeth. Go on now


Lanky-Detail3380 t1_is6fcaz wrote

You would be surprised how little they are allowed. It will probably change but for now Tennessee is fairly serious about environment quality.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is4gdn0 wrote

Huge stupid labor force

Stupid government

Acceptance of low wages

The least valuable land in the country

That’s why all plants are built there. It’s a whipped society happy to live in squalor for peanuts and they relentlessly elect sociopaths that lip service their racism while funneling all of their productivity out.

This is why my company’s high paid R&D facility is in California, because talent is willing to live here, and manufacturing is in the south- because those people are fully broke horses ready to be ridden.

I hate all of this but that’s the reality of US manufacturing.


AdmiralJTKirk t1_is4hqnz wrote

Born in the south, lived in CA among other places. Can confirm without reservation.


quettil t1_is4r7d4 wrote

This is what Democrats think of the working class and wonder why they vote Republican.


Toggiz t1_is5qsqs wrote

The working class doesn’t vote Republican. The white working class does. Wonder why they split like that?


solardeveloper t1_is5tpog wrote

Bro, a considerable % of hispanic and black working class voted republican in the last election.

And a majority of the non-urban population period vote Republican.

Having lived in one such area for all of my childhood, the urban coastal democrat elitism is a huge factor.

One major reason how the demonized (by the left) Manchin was able to get the IRA passed were the provisions he put in around bonus tax credits for things like solar in areas where coal industry was shutting down or where rural unemployment was extremely high. Because its very apparent that Dems generally don't give a shit about the people who work in those industries who will lose jobs in the green transition and have done nothing to help them grow in the new economy.

And this has been an issue for Dems and especially progressives for a while now.


Toggiz t1_is5wisw wrote

Hillary had an entire plan for how to help coal workers and other dying industries retrain and transition. Trump said he’d make coal great again with no plan.

I’m not saying there isn’t resentment towards city folk, there obviously is. But Democrats actually have policies to try and help while Republicans just take away support for rural communities and shove it in rich peoples pockets.

Democrats are losing the messaging war despite taking the plight of rural Americans more seriously than Republicans.


Bananaman60056 t1_is7xppl wrote

The soft racism of low expectations. Dems are, and have always been the real racists.


Toggiz t1_is82rcv wrote

LOL. If we try to help it’s racist, if we don’t we are ignoring rural America. Good to know.


Bananaman60056 t1_is83d0k wrote

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Your "help" is not helping. It has had a negative impact. When was the last time you heard a Dem tell a black person that they can be successful, that they can achieve the American dream and reach the highest echelon of power? Get educated, work hard, stay focused, don't ever give up?
That is not ever their message. Why?


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is817zs wrote

I know right? So many confederate flags and nazi flags and KKK members at Clinton events! Black people in congress are 98% dem and black folks in general are 95% Dem but surely it’s them being racist against themselves and not the poor innocent conservative rural whites, with their long history of racial tolerance!

What an absolute joke


Bananaman60056 t1_is81ygt wrote

You are talking about an infinitesimally small group of people that in no way represents conservatives. Its a straw man argument. All liberals are communists, or neofascists right? When you want to be serious start over.


[deleted] t1_is82dtz wrote



Bananaman60056 t1_is83io2 wrote

She's a despicable person that hates America.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is84682 wrote

She’s one of the most loved, popular human beings on the planet. The figureheads leading the GOP are all some of the most detested. I don’t remember Michelle Obama operating fake charities and shit talking vets and stealing classified documents while kissing Putin’s ass and then trying to overthrow democracy to install herself dictator... You have a fucked up definition of what hating America is.

You’re a fully radicalized extremist existing in a propaganda bubble of pure bullshit. You’re totally immune to reality, so, have fun with that. This exchange is clearly useless.


Littleman88 t1_is6qhbk wrote

And those rural Americans spat back in the Democrats' faces because they were told to by the Republicans or simply because they weren't Republicans. Ruralites are looking for an easy out or to at least to stay in their comfort zone (like mining and huffing coal.)

Dems can only lead them to water, but if they refuse to drink because a snake told them the water is poisoned, then there's nothing left to do but watch them take to their own graves.

And yes, Democrats/lefties are awful with messaging and refuse to ever consider changing it when it's pointed out. Much less embarrassing to hide behind some morality card and insist their critics are racist/sexist assholes for suggesting their advertising game needs improvement.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is61w93 wrote

Lol. That “elitism” is called actually paying attention to policy. The Republicans literally do not even have a platform anymore. Their 2020 platform was “whatever Trump says”. That’s a joke. It’s a white grievance party at this point and nothing more. They aren’t taken seriously because there is nothing to take seriously.

And only 8% of black people voted for Trump 🙄


wgc123 t1_is6epq7 wrote

> Manchin was able to get the IRA passed were the provisions he put in around bonus tax credits for things like solar

Wasn’t that one of the main points of the bill he was blocking? Manchin gets credit for allowing cutting off environmental review for infrastructure products, especially that new gas pipeline he’s trying to push, and he gets credit for blocking energy portfolios to help push renewables, and credit for blocking increased taxes on polluting industries


wgc123 t1_is6fr9t wrote

> Having lived in one such area for all of my childhood, the urban coastal democrat elitism is a huge factor.

I do remember this existing where I grew up in a rural area as well. However now that I’m an “urban coastal democrat elitist”, I can’t for the life of me understand how it ever made sense. The only factors I can see is that I was young and naive, and we had limited and biased news sources. I imagine there was resentment over the focus on things that were not relevant to us, but only the cities, however that’s not an excuse for not considering facts or ideas based on their merit


BoringBob84 t1_is82q6f wrote

I grew up in a rural area, and the rural elitism towards "city slickers" was *much* worse than the urban elitism that I see now in the urban area where I live.

It is all about perception. Right-wing outrage media muckrakers are making bank by yanking the chains of rural and working class people - keeping them afraid and angry to the point that they vote against their own best interests.


Bananaman60056 t1_is7xdor wrote

Because the dems love to keep minorities dependent on government. They are the modern day plantation owners. Promise free shit, tell them they're victims, pretend they're not smart enough to get I.D.s among a million other low expectations of them.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is60pxl wrote

This is true but not in the way you think lol. A lot of the white working class is desperate to be lied to that all of their problems are because of people like me telling them the truth, and dirty brown/black/gay/jewish/media/elites etc all plotting to get them. That’s where the stupid part comes in. It’s pathetic, when the actual problem is income inequality. The middle class died when wage increases were decoupled from productivity increases in the Regan era, and that sure as hell wasn’t the fault of progressives or Mexicans.

Trump’s cult are addicted to hate and don’t give a single fuck about policy or reality in general, humoring their fragile feelings is pointless. The only way to help them is to work around them.


Bananaman60056 t1_is7y3zl wrote

No, we expect the black, brown, gay people to use their access to education, coupled with hard work, to achieve the American dream. You don't have those same expectations. Your way leads to fatherless households, urban decay, and despair.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is7zfe3 wrote

Lol what 100 octane dogshit😂

Equal access to education and healthcare for everyone are the entire foundational points of progressivism. Thanks for doing a live performance of how all you run on is hate though I guess. Did you even read that last sentence of mental illness before you hit post or is the indoctrination so deep that the propaganda just happens no matter how stupid it makes you sound?

Building schools in the neighborhoods that white supremacy waged war on for decades and destroyed doesn’t lead to broken homes and urban decay you utter clown, white conservatives did that with redlining and the drug war and by denying them access to transit and jobs and militant over policing.


Bananaman60056 t1_is814r2 wrote

Sure thing. Dems are the people you're talking about. They have been on the wrong side since before Lincoln. They destroyed the inner cities, were against the black vote, and the civil rights act. I live in Chicago, CPS teachers get paid more than any large district in America, and the return is abysmal education for their students. Face it, Dem rule is a failure in cities. They have destroyed the safety and quality of life in almost every large city in America. Their ideas are garbage.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is81iwn wrote

Believe it or not, we’re talking about today and progressives. Not conservative Dems of 50+ years ago that all flipped to Republicans after Dems passed civil rights legislation. That’s how obviously stupid your argument is. Current Republicans are so overtly intolerant that the entire reason they became Republicans was out of hatred for black people. The southeast was deep blue until then. It doesn’t take a 6th grade level education to understand what changed.

If your dumbfuck propaganda needs a time machine and a complete absence of critical thinking ability or history education to work, it might be time to accept that you’re just full of shit.


Bananaman60056 t1_is827k3 wrote

Dude, they never flipped anywhere, they just changed tactics and you sheeple follow along nodding and drooling. FYI, we love all races, we want them to succeed, not acquiesce, and accept the garbage the progress say will help them. Dems have been promising them shit for 60 years and their situations have not improved much at all. Dem ideas suck and progressives are fucking insane.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is82vwl wrote

So you’re denying the kindergarten level easy to understand differences between these maps and the timing of the change?

You live in an utter fantasy


Bananaman60056 t1_is83wm5 wrote

I really don't care where people live and how they vote. My opinion is that the south got smarter and the masses in large cities bought the bullshit the dems were selling even as their cities were turning into corrupt dem run cesspools.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is84o59 wrote

The south ranks at the bottom of every measurable metric from health to education to economic output. The blue states are all at the top.

Objectively. Consistently.

Again, everything you’re saying is comically easy to disprove.


Bananaman60056 t1_is85ny1 wrote

Really, then why are people fleeing the blue states? You people are delusional. Illinois lost a Representative, New York lost a Representative, Cali, made up for the outbound immigration by counting the millions of undocumented immigrants that have moved there. The southern states are expanding. Many are rural. Farming is a major reason why they don't have the economic might of large blue states. If they charged you $5 for a potato or ear of corn it would be different. They feed all the rats that love congested cities.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is85rzp wrote

We aren’t, you believe bullshit.


Bananaman60056 t1_is85zbx wrote

The house of representatives begs to differ. Show the states that lost representatives then come back and apologize.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is8mcno wrote

You legitimately don’t understand anything at all.

It’s almost impressive and sure as hell not wasting time explaining to you. Google house apportionment then apologize clown


Bananaman60056 t1_is8n26h wrote

The loss of how many residents does it take to lose a Representative? You really aren't the sharpest tool in the drawer are you?


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is8ndo7 wrote

You’re the living embodiment of Dunning Kruger.

You obviously didn’t look it up because you still clearly don’t know what you’re talking about and I don’t owe your neutron star dense ass an education. Blame your parents for ending up this way.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is8ooag wrote

You have a literal forcefield against educating yourself.


Bananaman60056 t1_is8qwuc wrote

It's called the truth. Apportionment is based on population. All the formulas used come down to a states population in the most current census. Texas gained 2 seats, Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, Oregon gained a seat. Cali, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, and Ohio, lost a seat.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is8ud9a wrote

You’re so close to understanding


Bananaman60056 t1_is8vef1 wrote

Lol, learn mathematics.


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is8vm07 wrote

I want to ruin it and expose how fucking utterly uneducated you are again but I’m not going to.

It’s more fun knowing that you know something’s wrong but aren’t smart enough to figure out what.

I’m blocking you now! Ta ta!


King_in-the_North t1_is61fj8 wrote

You do realize millions more people have voted democrat than republicans in every presidential election for the last 20 years correct?

Who are these democrats that aren’t working class that somehow significantly outnumber those great working class republicans you hold so dear?


RedCascadian t1_ishkh2b wrote

This is what many of us think of large portions of the white, southern working class.

I'm a white working class guy in the PNW. I'm also a progressive and am organizing a union in an Amazon warehouse.


[deleted] t1_isi805q wrote

You rock! Unions are what will save this country. Otherwise, we will regress to feudalism.


RedCascadian t1_isibixq wrote

Thanks! Yeah management seems nervous after rhe "raise" we got pissed a lot of folks off.


innofuel t1_is4xl2m wrote

but California cannot supply poor people a damn roof.

Look at how many working homeless in California vs TN/AR/KY. When you are poor in US your choices are between being a broke horse and a street camper.


ZeePirate t1_is53ugx wrote

I’d imagine the overall poverty levels of AR and KY are higher.


innofuel t1_is55yyi wrote

Federal poverty line is $26,500 for a family of 4. Outside of fancy suburbs, you can easily buy a 3BR in most small town and inner city areas of TN/AR/KY paying 800 per month on mortgage, but $26500 a year not even enough for rent anywhere in CA.

If you consider rent, the actual poverty line in CA should be $50000 for 4, which will put CA's poverty rate to the same level with TN/AR/KY.


solardeveloper t1_is5uiix wrote

>That’s why all plants are built there

That and its expensive as fuck to freight or ship raw materials from factories already on the gulf/Ohio river to California and then ship/freight back to market. CA's special snowflake fuel standards and lack of affordability for truckers makes it economically non-viable to manufacture in the state. Nothing to do with "broken" workforce as manufacturing labor in PA, OH, AL, etc are unionized too. And can actually afford housing in those places

But instead of looking at actual supply chain costs or finances, we can lean into the CA superiority complex narrative and ignore the fact that the state has steadily pushed away high paying manufacturing/fabrication jobs and is essentially a specialty R&D zone at this stage.

And I say this as someone living comfortably in Marin, so not speaking out of some kind of sour grapes.


wgc123 t1_is6g9km wrote

Yeah, you might want to actually look at how big an economy they have based on manufacturing and agriculture


georgejettson t1_is56cqg wrote

Lol California has been turned into a shit hole by idiots like you


HiCanIPetYourCat t1_is5zbzk wrote

California is the richest, most productive state in the country whether that hurts your fee fees or not.


Pac_Eddy t1_is3ffw3 wrote

Texas has terrible electricity prices when it gets cold.


Jeramus t1_is3ghfl wrote

Texas isn't southeast.


Pac_Eddy t1_is3hh9b wrote

I realize that. But it does have a giga factory. Take a look at the linked article.


germanmojo t1_is42guj wrote

They're also topping that factory with solar panels.


ZeePirate t1_is5339r wrote

Amazed Texas would allow such a thing


OuidOuigi t1_is5e5bi wrote

Really? Because they produce the most green energy out of every state.

Texas is at 34 millions of megawatt-hour , then Washington at 25, California in 3rd with 19


ZeePirate t1_is5mgng wrote

Surprising they would let them produce their own power versus buying from someone


Toggiz t1_is5qxim wrote

They do. And it works great. And they shit talk it and blame it for all their natural gas plant failures.


Traevia t1_is4l8dc wrote

That area has a lot of the prime test plants of many of the manufacturers. The band across Michigan is just as relevant. This is the main manufacturing area of Michigan where access to quality talent is very very easy with a lot of plants nearby.

For the Kentucky/Tennessee border area, look up automotive plants in the area. It is a major production area for manufacturers.

Going by traditional factors:

Transportation- you are close to current factories

Costs - these areas are fairly reasonable and have strong power grids

Talent - there are plenty of experienced workers in these areas

Resources - really isn't as relevant as many are sourced globally


pete003 t1_is4cnyk wrote

Right to work states no unions allowed- look at all the European car plants. So much easier to adjust the workforce.


OuidOuigi t1_is5egp1 wrote

Yeah because UAW doesn't exist?

Everyone that worked here for GM was in the union. Amazes me how people will just make up whatever without the slightest bit of research.


solardeveloper t1_is5sy75 wrote

They like to cry about lack of solutions, but then shoot down every proposed solution because they all fail to meet some made up moral purity test.


Lanky-Detail3380 t1_is6fnka wrote

Fuck, you should see the anarchy at the workers fighting and in revolt when they don't like it at VW


Spaceman-Spiff t1_is3l8hf wrote

Because long term it’s not feasible to run a factory out west? Plus the south east is Republican run states that are much more tax friendly to corporations and rich people.


Ok_Communication5221 t1_is3rnag wrote

My wife’s family is from West Tennessee. Ford bought 3500 acres for Ford Blue Oval. It’s just far enough East of Memphis to be more property cheap but still very close to FedEx and right off Interstate 40 and 50 miles from the Mississippi River as well as close to BNSF Intermodal. My understanding is this will be a combo battery and F-150 Lightning factory. Tennessee has very “company” friendly labor laws which is why Nissan and VW have auto plants there. Jim Farley is very bold taking on UAW and their dealership network simultaneously.


wgc123 t1_is6d6a8 wrote

I see one in NY! It had previously been an IBM town until They switched to a services model and the town has been kind of depressed since they left. However a lasting legacy was a pretty good tech school. A gigafactory is located here because it’s based on research/patents from Binghamton University plus is now a lower cost of living area.

Im sure they haven’t forgotten a legacy of pollution from early IBM days and the much earlier leather and other manufacturing, and will not accept that again. My childhood had too much hazardous waste cleanup from 100+ years ago and there will still be people who remember that


botaine t1_is3lw9q wrote

maybe all these batteries will lead to cheap energy storage for solar


Reniconix t1_is3wb26 wrote

We have a few options on the market, they're not incredibly expensive but I wouldn't call them cheap.

Of note, the F150 Lightning is dollar for dollar the best value for a home battery. It's also a truck.


HolyGig t1_is44w5e wrote

They have a ways to go before they are producing those in anywhere near enough numbers to meet demand


GoodOmens t1_is47l8a wrote

And price. If you want anything but a 75k+ Lariant good luck. That buys a lot of Tesla batteries with the solar tax credit.


Reniconix t1_is50x2d wrote

The Lightning Lariat actually has more battery than the same price of Powerwall and is still a truck. Tax credit doesn't apply to the battery yet.


ialsoagree t1_is5awuq wrote

Tax credits do apply to the batteries, but only if you buy enough solar to charge them, and only if you keep them in a mode that powers them from solar and not the grid (although the latter is harder to enforce).


ElectrikDonuts t1_is4djyi wrote

You will not be able to get a lightening anytime soon and when you do it wont be anywhere near what you expect it to be today. Ford did a lot of false advertising with that one.


Arinium t1_is426t4 wrote

There are better ways to store power for the grid at scale. Like pumping water uphill or some geothermal uses.

But for individuals with panels it will hopefully lead to better grid independence.


dec7td t1_is47gfw wrote

No one is permitting or financing pumped hydro anymore. I can get a battery storage project in the ground in 2 years. Good luck getting pumped hydro in under a decade. Wall Street is funding utilities and developers to build battery projects for grid scale; it's around 99% of projects.


IIIpl4sm4III t1_is4u7sp wrote

Evryone just ignoring nuclear like it isnt the solution to our problems


ialsoagree t1_is5b7iu wrote

Nuclear isn't the magic bullet it's made out to be.

It will take years, even a decade or more to get plants built if we start today. Those plants must be built near water supplies. And all their waste will be stored on site because we have no where to put it. And the electricity produced will likely be more expensive than what you're used to, so expect rate hikes. Nuclear costs about double what solar or wind costs per kwh.


Southern-Exercise t1_is5gyvw wrote

And it's not walk away safe which is what it will take for me, personally, to support it.

If some natural disaster or massive pandemic takes out a large chunk of the population, I'd rather not have a bunch of nuclear power plants making large sections of the planet unsafe with no way for the average person to even be aware they are in danger.

You can safely walk/live near any solar/wind power plant without any need for a trained and qualified staff to safely shut it down in the event of some disaster.


IIIpl4sm4III t1_is70z7z wrote

This is a good point and should be thought about in newer reactor designs. I haven't done any research on how designs have changed since then, but i would like to think they thought about it concerning the past history with nuclear.


Southern-Exercise t1_is77hd1 wrote

As far as I'm aware, there are no systems online that are walk away safe. There are several that are in testing, etc, but nothing that is being deployed.

NuScale is one system that is working on setting up their first plant, but nothing is online as far as I know.

They can supposedly shut down and cool down without any people, computers, power or water which is not true for what's currently being used.


EtrnlPUNishment t1_is632ww wrote

There isn't really a magic bullet solution. Solar and Wind depend on environmental factors out of our control. Nuclear provides more stable power generation but has public safety concerns. As for nuclear waste, I have been wondering if the issue has been blown too far out of proportion. Kyle Hill made a video some time ago discussing it which does put things in another light. He's obviously pro nuclear and very optimistic about the technology but I think the points are still valid. Nuclear power seems remarkably safe when handled properly. Long term storage can be solved in safe ways as long as the people in charge treat it with the respect that it needs. Whether we can realistically expect that to happen is another story...


wgc123 t1_is6he9s wrote

It doesn’t even matter anymore whether you’re pro or anti nuclear: those projects take way too long to help us limit climate change. There’s really no longer any point in arguing the technical pros and cons.

By all means, let’s continue research, let’s roll out small modular reactors, let’s see if the utopia promised by fusion ever pans out. But we need to address climate change ASAP, and we have proven technologies in conservation, wind, solar, heat pumps and EVs that are already rolling out, are inexpensive, and will get us at least halfway there. We need to add urgency to these rollouts while still developing the next phases


IIIpl4sm4III t1_is70ixv wrote

Sure, it might take that time (10yrs for each plant), but at least we are doing something during that time which essentially guantees a respectable power output. Im not sure about the economics, because nuclear is expensive to build but cheap to run, so what timeline is being used to judge kwh cost? Id rather pay more for reliable energy generation.

Im not going into the waste thing because its been beat to death, and not to be as big of an issue people thought when properly stored, and we have breeder reactors that use waste too.


ialsoagree t1_is73wuu wrote

>Im not going into the waste thing

Of course not. Why would you deal with a problem that there's no good solution for? It kind of blows up your whole argument. Why acknowledge that.

Oh, there's good long term storage solutions? Where?

Oh, there's breeder reactors we can send it to? Where?

>Sure, it might take that time (10yrs for each plant)

10 years is about the minimum time, 40+ years is not an unreasonable length of time for it to take to complete a single nuclear power plant.

Watts Bar began construction in 1973, unit 1 was completed in 1996, unit 2 was completed in 2015. Combined, the plant can produce ~2.33GW of power and cost more than $23 billion to construct.

Meanwhile, offshore wind costs about $1.3 million per MW.

For $23 billion, you can build about 17.7GW of offshore wind, and it will be finished sooner than the 1 nuclear plant that produces about 1/10th the power.


IIIpl4sm4III t1_is7fyfk wrote

If you think the waste management problem of nuclear "brings down my whole arguement", I dont know if you realize just how small of a drop in the ocean it really is compared to the shit we are doing now.

>Oh, there's good long term storage solutions? Where?

Using vitrification? Anywhere. >Oh, there's breeder reactors we can send it to? Where?

I wonder why there are none after the big stink people made about nuclear. Putting the cart before the horse.


ialsoagree t1_is7kxmw wrote

>I dont know if you realize just how small of a drop in the ocean it really is compared to the shit we are doing now.

It's such a small problem, that beyond all the environmental regulations and monitoring we have to do, we also have an entire government program dedicated to the security of just nuclear waste:

It's literally described as "the most highly regulated and heavily guarded of all civilian infrastructure."

But tell me more about how small an issue it is.

>Using vitrification? Anywhere.

Which currently isn't being practiced in any substantial quantity in the US.

Even if it were, vitrified waste is still radioactive and must be carefully stored. While it does make the issue a little easier to manage, it is not a solution to the storage problem.

You cannot store vitrified nuclear waste "anywhere."

>I wonder why there are none after the big stink people made about nuclear. Putting the cart before the horse.

Actually it has nothing to do with that.

Breeder reactors were phased out primarily for two reasons:

We found more uranium fuel sources, so the need to get all the energy out of the uranium we had greatly diminished.

The navy needed pressurized water reactors because they were the only design that could be shrunk down to a size that would fit on ships - submarines in particular.

Because the navy poured so much money into the research and development of PWRs, the cost to build them commercially was highly subsidized. There was far less research completed on making reliable, safe breeder reactors, so the costs to pursue them were substantially higher.

I also appreciate that you didn't address the fact that per dollar, we can get almost ten times the power output from offshore wind, and we can do it faster.


MachineGoat t1_is5heug wrote

Get your facts straight on waste storage. More or less zero effort is spent containing the waste from solar and wind generation.

Solar panel production is a very dirty industry, as is dealing with decommissioned turbine blades.

Stop spreading lies about waste streams.


ialsoagree t1_is5hoqb wrote

Please quote something I said that is a lie.

If you're going to accuse me of lying, be specific about what I lied about.


MachineGoat t1_is5jxt4 wrote

All of your points were a comparison of nuclear versus other methods of power generation.

You statements are just like the news, full of fear and doubt to drive a position but without any substance and if examined for more than a few seconds they fall apart.

You voiced a very strong opinion without stating any facts. What was your point if not to drive a position using misleading information?

Misleading is lying.


ialsoagree t1_is5krgn wrote

So you couldn't quote a single thing, got it.

Meanwhile, solar panels and wind turbine blades are recyclable.

Who is recycling nuclear waste again? Or right, no one, it's not recyclable. It's radioactive for tens of thousands of years and requires nuclear plants to keep full time security staff at every plant to prevent terrorists from getting to it.


[deleted] t1_is5l8aj wrote



ialsoagree t1_is5mkbp wrote

This is just propaganda from the oil companies, are you a paid shill?

That's not to say wind turbine blades are widely recycled, they aren't, but they can be, and anyone stating otherwise is spreading misinformation and lying.

Further, the toxicity of solar panel production is overstated due to a non-peer reviewed study that reached erroneous conclusions by using deceptive comparisons with spent nuclear fuel.

You can read more about that here:


Arinium t1_is58d6z wrote

Its a part of the solution. It just needs a massiver PR campaign


mynamesnotsnuffy t1_is6tlj7 wrote

Maybe for individuals, but for storing solar energy on a grid scale, molten salts and water reservoirs are probably the more effective methods for storing energy.


marigolds6 t1_is3t8q6 wrote

Every single one of these is a future superfund site.


kidicarus89 t1_is6mp46 wrote

There are thousands of refineries, mines, mills, chemical and industrial plants spread across the country. Strong regulations can prevent future superfund sites, so what’s your point?


Zech08 t1_is4lddj wrote

Oh man those things are a nightmare from what ive read.


Numismatists t1_is49l1b wrote

Now now! Think of the money!

Besides the robot army of the future needs batteries.


ForHidingSquirrels OP t1_is3w2s6 wrote

No, these aren’t nuclear facilities


marigolds6 t1_is3x3np wrote

Few superfund sites are radiation contaminated. The most common (and some of the most toxic) sites are former dry cleaners. It’s all about the chemicals used, and these sites will be swimming in heavy metals.


HolyGig t1_is458t6 wrote

Heavy metals are fairly easy to clean up for the most part. Its the shit that seeps into groundwater and travels that really sucks to clean up.

Chlorinated solvents aren't used at dry cleaners anymore for a good reason nor do we allow floor drains that seep directly into the earth


Numismatists t1_is49q91 wrote

I'll bet you don't mind having solar panels over your water supply either.

Edit to add that the downvoters on K Street know exactly what I am talking about.


wilburthebud t1_is46qyh wrote

I am hopeful of Sulphur-Aluminum tech quickly scaling up and taking some of the lithium problems away.


Whoretron8000 t1_is4kpub wrote

Greater than 15? Is it 16? 15.5? I know it's not 14... But what about that worth?! Is it $4,000,000,000.01?


jweezy2045 t1_is56m03 wrote

Both uses of “greater” in the title make OP sound like an AI coming up with a title for a post. Not sure that’s the case, but I agree that they both make the title sound super weird.


Western_Cow_3914 t1_is5jfk8 wrote

Battery tech is going to be pretty incredible in a decade with how much money and research is pouring into it


FuturologyBot t1_is3ess6 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/ForHidingSquirrels:

I’ve been wondering why battery manufacturers have been moving to the southeast other than cheap labor. Eventually it’ll be because of supply chain benefits. Access to steel, maybe mining, good highways, well priced electricity, and of course state regulations. Anyone have real information on this?

Please reply to OP's comment here:


Commercial-Ninja1 t1_is3lsyf wrote

Other than access to cheap labor, I've been wondering why battery manufacturing have been shifting to the southeast.


creedman21 t1_is5n267 wrote

What’s the pay difference of manufacturing for people starting out in manufacturing of these automotive companies from other places compared to the south east?


sonofhappyfunball t1_is5f5tv wrote

If they can barely put out one Lithium car battery if it catches on fire what are they going to do if an entire factory catches on fire?


joeg26reddit t1_is3y1hu wrote

So why are lithium stocks down? ALB went down about 8% today


okmiddle t1_is48e8v wrote

Massive numbers of new lithium mines are opening up across Australia and Chile over the next 1-3 years. Market is predicting that lithium prices will fall as a result.


Traevia t1_is4lh94 wrote

More Lithium mines are coming online in the coming years and processes have been developed for scalable Lithium extraction from the ocean. This is massive as the world's supply is 60 years while the ocean's supply is a current problem for it.


HardcoreHazza t1_is44inx wrote

Probably Elon Musk said something that spooked the lithium stock market.

I’m dead serious.


ElectrikDonuts t1_is4dq9p wrote

Yeah, he said “buy my perfume to fund my twitter deal” basically. Which means anything near his name must automatically go down 15%


edblardo t1_is3dl6d wrote

Why does the Fed care about a specific sector of private industry?


ForHidingSquirrels OP t1_is3i9o7 wrote

It writes reports like this all the time, it’s their job to know about business


edblardo t1_is3q2dx wrote

I didn’t know that. I thought the majority of their dealings were with banks and don’t have the power to directly support any industry without Congress or the Treasury asking first.


ForHidingSquirrels OP t1_is3wfgg wrote

They’re not supporting here - just reporting on it so they can better predict and understand the economy


edblardo t1_is559yn wrote

This link is for the Dallas Fed. Is there a place I can go to read other analysis from them or do I have to go to each Fed district website?

Why am I getting down votes for trying to understand something? It’s literally the main reason I use Reddit.


ChrysMYO t1_is4iecw wrote

There are various Fed branches who tend to track the nature of different sectors that concentrate in their region. For example, the Dallas Fed keeps up with the energy market regularly.

The FED doesn't directly alter private industries but their monetary policy affects these businesses. Banks consult with their business partners and trade groups and banks consult with the regional FED and this has an influence on how the FED reacts to quarterly policy decisions.


DirtyReseller t1_is3dzz9 wrote

I think it cares about all sectors… and this is a new one.


M_u_l_t_i_p_a_s_s t1_is3htf1 wrote

It should start caring about not fucking up the global monetary system as the world reserve currency because it’s *checks notes* oh yea their one job…


Tom_Neverwinter t1_is3kuv5 wrote

Wizard of Oz wants its failed political bs back.


M_u_l_t_i_p_a_s_s t1_is54viq wrote

Lol. It’s not political. No red or blue here. It just is. Dollar milkshake theory. It’s happening as we speak.


Tom_Neverwinter t1_is65f7o wrote

You do realize what you just said is literally what the political narrative in the wizard of Oz right....


M_u_l_t_i_p_a_s_s t1_is6mjwx wrote

I understand the allegory of Wizard of Oz. My question is what aspect(s) of what I mentioned do you think of as bs and why.


Tom_Neverwinter t1_is6mw8u wrote

I present to you read and understand the political items of that day. What backed what. What is speculation and the real value of money


M_u_l_t_i_p_a_s_s t1_is6nl7x wrote

It’s a controversial topic my guy. I want to know what your opinions are regarding it.


Tom_Neverwinter t1_is6rskc wrote

Fake outrage and fear porn isn't selling these days..


M_u_l_t_i_p_a_s_s t1_is6yqa0 wrote

Fake outrage and fear porn?? You lost me there. If you think the Fed has nothing to do or has little to no control over the economic landscape we find ourselves in today, then you’re willfully ignorant or just young and naive.

TLDR: We’ve printed ourselves out of every recession we were supposed to have since the dotcom bubble including 08 and very much including COVID. We essentially kicked the deflationary environment can down the road addicted to easy money from QE to the point where we are now. It served us well in the short term but made the inevitable problem exponentially worse in the long term since it just kept adding to the Debt/GDP ratio which is at asinine levels right now. Basically, from this point forward, we’re screwed whether we print or not. Why? Because if we keep going through the current QT we were supposed to properly do two decades ago, deflation happens, but with all the added momentum of not deflating for the last two decades meaning severe depression. If we decide to keep printing, it just adds to the inflation which could easily tip into hyperinflation. Both shit. Both very real outcomes and very in front of your face today. That’s why if you follow up on any financial news, you’ll clearly see a lot of creaking going on ie BoE margin calls government step ins, Credit Suisse, US government approval for banks to tap into peoples pensions and insurance accounts for “liquidity,” German bank executives implying “Global margin calls”, etc etc.

No fear porn or fake outrage here. Just verifiable facts.


Tom_Neverwinter t1_is7003y wrote

Seems like your leaving out the big one... The tax cuts for the rich.. That item also corrected directly with these items... Why can't you reduce variables down for that one?


M_u_l_t_i_p_a_s_s t1_is7427u wrote

Sure that’s also a problem. There’s many problems we can cherry pick and expand on. But I just gave you the macro-ist problem that affects everything else. What’s your point?


kjbaran t1_is3hjt8 wrote

Because energy storage is a massive part of our infrastructure.


warwickben t1_is3jw6e wrote

cause a stupid amount of members of the government are investors in electric car start ups and battery manufacturing. why Tesla wasn't invited to the ev summit.


o2bprincecaspian t1_is4x83v wrote

My money is on hydrogen. Might take a little longer, but it beats my neighbors coal powered tesla.


dunderpust t1_is59xdw wrote

What powered the production of your hydrogen, if I may ask...?


SweetBiscuit t1_is7q2ke wrote

Wind and solar. Here in Australia we're going to be exporting huge amounts of green hydrogen to countries like Japan, the agreements are already in place.

The great thing about hydrogen is that it can be made in a remote area with good wind/solar, then shipped to parts of the world where wind/solar are not viable (on ships also powered by green ammonia)


Southern-Exercise t1_is5n2u7 wrote

You like the idea of being tied to a "pump"?

For my money, I'd rather the option of charging at home.

Sure, not everyone has that choice, but nothing is perfect.

And it's still cleaner to run an ev on coal than to run an individual ice car.

Not to mention, as you replace coal with cleaner options, you clean up every single EV in that chain.


Numismatists t1_is49e3v wrote

"Green" is right! Way to rake in the dough and just at the right time since the EPA can no longer REGULATE the industry.

Absolutely WONDERFUL news for our rivers and remaining environment! Should be devastating! WTG


2CentsActual t1_is3ut8w wrote

Well they're not and they're not as of yet. And the tech needs to come a long way to be green. Which IS what the entire premise of EVs are built up on. And it's a sham.


Arinium t1_is42oyc wrote

The tech doesn't advance to being greener without investment. Laboratories can only take the tech so far. Now the tech is nearing a point where economies of scale make it cheap enough to profit. And once those supply chains are established it will be easier to retool and integrate any future advancements.


ialsoagree t1_is5cfxg wrote

To be fair, even in West Virginia, where more than 90% of power comes from coal, EVs are still greener than ICEs.


2CentsActual t1_is3rrle wrote

The entire industry will fall on its face once the public realizes that EVs are not green at all.


tunaburn t1_is3uby2 wrote

They are much better for the environment than standard cars. And would be much much much better if we also used renewable energy for homes more.

warning Boring article with lots of math


2CentsActual t1_is3vcx3 wrote

They are not any greener than a standard car. That's just what you've been told. It takes energy to mine the lithium, purify the lithium, build the lithium batteries, to charge those batteries and to dispose of them properly. Energy is not free.


tunaburn t1_is3vkrp wrote

I literally linked you a very detailed article explaining all the math.


dec7td t1_is47rwr wrote

Lol this guy "that's what you've been told" which is just projection for how they get their information.


tunaburn t1_is490df wrote

It's absolutely hilarious because the only reason he's arguing against proven facts is because that's what he's been told.


Numismatists t1_isjq1eb wrote

Thank you for sharing the truth even though, in here, the truth is harrased by fossil fuel industry stooges and ignorance.


Numismatists t1_is49v11 wrote

That's not the multi-billion dollar mass manipulation campaign talking.


Penguigo t1_is3tcf0 wrote

The open secret about EVs is that they're not about being green, they will be cheaper and easier to manufacture, and cheaper and easier to own than traditional vehicles. EVs are the future of the industry regardless of environmental impact.

Edit: Downvoted by a lot of people who aren't mechanics, I see! The truth is EVs have less moving parts. They're way easier to maintain and manifacture because of it. We're right on the border of them being cheaper to produce than traditional vehicles already, and in a few years once that scale tips, we'll never go back. Source - Almost all of my friends and family work for Ford or GM, several as engineers. These companies aren't investing in EVs out of the goodness of their heart, they know it makes financial sense.