Most often, businesses are forced to cut jobs, which is why the Congressional Budget Office reports that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour nationwide would result in 1.4 million lost jobs in a few short years.
The policy would harm younger, less-educated, and otherwise marginalized workers the most—some of the same populations that have been hardest hit by the pandemic.
Wage mandates would also result in exploding costs for essential goods as employers pass new labor costs on through higher prices.
Under a $15 minimum wage, child care costs would rise by thousands of dollars—21% on average, and by more than 30% in 10 states.
Food prices would also increase, including an estimated 38% increase in fast-food prices.
Another unintended consequence is increased automation. Some companies, such as Amazon, have achieved a $15 minimum wage by automating jobs that produce less than $36,000 per year in value (the cost to employers, with taxes, of a $15-per-hour job).
Replacing more workers with self-ordering kiosks, automated customer service systems, and robots won’t produce more good-paying jobs for low-wage workers. //
Job losses of 1.4 million is only a starting point for the Democrats’ proposed tax on workers.
That’s because lawmakers can’t create good jobs or higher incomes simply by mandating them into existence. Opportunities and income growth come from workers achieving the education and experience necessary to help them produce more value.
Cutting off the bottom rungs on the career ladder through a $15 national hourly minimum wage and threatening employers with new taxes on entry-level and low-skilled jobs will do far more harm than good for workers and the American economy.
There are ways, however, that lawmakers can help workers achieve higher incomes without taking away others’ jobs and incomes or taxing employers who provide jobs.
Congress should reduce regulatory burdens on businesses, eliminate unnecessary licensing restrictions for employees, expand nontraditional education options, and keep taxes low on employers and employees alike.
The news media fluffed Biden in unimaginable ways, making the bed they now have to lie in. You see, when you give a politician a pass on everything, do no investigative reporting on him, and essentially worship at his feet to defeat the orange man, that politician will not respect you when the time comes to press him on an issue. Biden feels completely comfortable snubbing the press, and they have no one to blame but themselves. //
Philip Melanchthon Wegmann
@PhilipWegmann
I asked @PressSec why the White House hasn't released virtual visitor logs. Isn't that important for transparency? Wouldn't it be easy?
@PressSec: "He's meeting with members of the Senate virtually today. There, I've released it for you. What else would you like to know?"
Anita Kumar
@anitakumar01
There are no citizen petitions or schedules for the president and vice president posted online. The White House comment line is shut down. The White House won't release virtual visitor logs. Biden has yet to hold a news conference of his own. https://
In truth, the left and its Democrat Party are the most ideologically rigid entities in the western world. It meets disagreement with force, not open-mindedness or debate. It has a habit of “othering” people and you or a group you belong to may go from the toast of the town to being an “other” very quickly. Your acceptability only goes as far as your usefulness.
This is made all the more dangerous by the fact that the left is the establishment now. //
The right is the counter-culture on both a countrywide and global level. We are the real “Resistance.” We’re the rebels, surrounded by a force whose primary goal is domination and subjugation. It is now as it was at our founding, and our Constitution is the barrier between us and the people who would see their way be the way for everyone and to punish those who refuse to go along with their rules.
This should excite the right. Rebellion is in our blood and the idea that we’re actually the new idea on the block is a message that should resonate with everyone, especially the young who are drawn to dynamic ideas and revolutionary thinking.
It’s clear the left’s thinking is old hat, flawed, and boring. The ideas that it wants to institute don’t work and the people generating enthusiasm about it seem plastic and fake.
The right should run with this idea and make sure we focus our speeches, talking points, and more around it.
We’re the revolution, not them.
An optimist’s dreams of an atom-powered future. //
There’s one thing I’m certain “Walt Disney” doesn’t make you think of: nuclear power.
But maybe it should.
It may surprise you to know that Walt Disney dreamed of an atom-powered future. And he wasn’t alone. //
But Walt Disney didn’t just dream. If there was one thing that made him successful in life, it was his belief that you could make your dreams come true. This belief culminated in plans to power his new Disney World Florida megaproject with its own nuclear reactor. He even got permission to build one.
Walt Disney died in 1966 before Disney World was complete, and somewhere along the way the plans for a small nuclear reactor were abandoned. //
Evidence of Disney’s atomic dreams is still visible today: the original concept of Disney’s Tommorowland parks was to showcase nuclear technology. Perhaps the greatest example of Disney’s nuclear legacy is the educational movie, titled Our Friend, the Atom, commissioned in 1957 by Mr Walt Disney himself (there is also an accompanying book).
The movie is incredibly positive about the future of nuclear power, predicting that nuclear will displace dirty fossil fuels as the way we produce electricity but also as a means to power our ships, planes and rockets (you could say Disney predicted ‘deep decarbonization’ with nuclear).
There was a very definite 'Atomic Dream' during the industry's beginnings in the 1950s. It was an intoxicating vision in which science leads to progress and abundance, and it was surrounded by incredibly strong and enduring icons. Marie Curie. Albert Einstein and E=mc^2. For 100 years the symbol of the atom has represented pure science and genius itself.
The PIME audience saw in another case study how IBM brought its invisible and highly complex Watson artificial intelligence 'to life' using an atom-like animation.
Why doesn't the nuclear industry use its own icons? Did it, at some point, actually give up on its own dream?
That could be why the leading icons for nuclear energy are the ones given to it by popular culture – cooling towers, the radiation symbol and its three notorious accidents.
Today the atomic age icons seem stale. Industry doesn't know how to connect to them and it hasn't developed any replacements. But are the values of nuclear energy really so different now to what its icons used to represent? Doesn't nuclear energy still sometimes still trade on science, progress and abundance? Aspiration to development is a very strong motivator in the many countries bringing in nuclear energy for the first time.
Many nuclear advocates wonder at the success of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar. By this I don’t mean their technical success in terms of their share of energy (around 4%), but rather their popularity (check this recent IMechE research).
Here’s the thing. The renewable energy industry understands the power of symbols; the nuclear industry doesn’t. //
Now let’s play the same Pinterest game with nuclear. Here, we get danger yellows, warnings about radioactivity, gas masks, meltdowns, skulls and a biological hazard sign. Symbols of nuclear in popular society are of the terror of nuclear war, fallout and apocalypse. //
Even though the nuclear industry uses more neutral images for their logos (typically plays on electrons orbiting a nucleus), the dominant symbols in the public’s mind are those thrown up by Pinterest. Is this the industry’s fault? Not entirely, but saying the nuclear industry hasn’t been successful at deploying symbols is probably giving them too much credit. They haven’t really even tried (at least since the “golden era” of the 50’s and 60's). //
Why has the nuclear industry’s branding sucked so badly up to now? That question requires a long answer I don’t have space for here. I liked energy comms expert Jeremy Gordon’s summary: the nuclear industry stopped dreaming.
https://www.fluent-in-energy.com/post/creativity-a-games-changer
A [poor] human driver might do what the Tesla did and maintain or increase speed while the BMW was attempting to pass — an aggressive pass, sure, but hardly anything that unusual. A decent driver would have, again, let off the throttle, let the BMW pass, and then, ideally, gotten out of the passing lane.
So, in this example that was sent to me specifically as an opportunity for me to finally redeem myself and give Autopilot some of the praise that it desperately craves, I’m afraid I’ve failed. I’ve failed because I can’t praise Autopilot here — it is driving like an idiot, and if this is what’s being shown as examples of Autopilot “saving lives,” then I think we’d be better off fending for ourselves, thanks.
The Brazos Electric Power Cooperative filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 1, 2021 after receiving a bill from ERCOT totaling $2.1 billion after ERCOT raised the price of wholesale electric power to $9,000 per megawatt hour during the February 2021 winter storm that hit Texas. //
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative Executive VP Clifton Karnei was a ERCOT board board member until Feb. 25; when the cooperative received a $2.1 billion bill from the manager of Texas’ power grid. //
Karnei was on the ERCOT board when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a report urging Texas’ power grid to winterize. The 357-page report detailed nine separate findings that showed exactly what happened inside ERCOT’s power grid that left millions without power for so long.
According to the FERCE report, the single largest problem during the cold weather event was the freezing of instrumentation and equipment.
Germany now generates over 35% of its yearly electricity consumption from wind and solar sources. Over 30 000 wind turbines have been built, with a total installed capacity of nearly 60 GW. Germany now has approximately 1.7 million solar power (photovoltaic) installations, with an installed capacity of 46 GW. This looks very impressive.
Unfortunately, most of the time the actual amount of electricity produced is only a fraction of the installed capacity. Worse, on “bad days” it can fall to nearly zero. In 2016 for example there were 52 nights with essentially no wind blowing in the country. No Sun, no wind. Even taking “better days” into account, the average electricity output of wind and solar energy installations in Germany amounts to only about 17% of the installed capacity. //
The question is, whether it makes sense at all to depart from the tried-and-proven model of a stable electricity system based on continuously functioning sources, a large percentage operating in base load mode.
If we want the system to be largely CO2-free, then the only available option is nuclear energy.
Current Transformers produce an output in proportion to the current flowing through the primary winding as a result of a constant potential on the primary //
We can see above that since the secondary of the current transformer is connected across the ammeter, which has a very small resistance, the voltage drop across the secondary winding is only 1.0 volts at full primary current.
However, if the ammeter was removed, the secondary winding effectively becomes open-circuited, and thus the transformer acts as a step-up transformer. This due in part to the very large increase in magnetising flux in the secondary core as the the secondary leakage reactance influences the secondary induced voltage because there is no opposing current in the secondary winding to prevent this.
The results is a very high voltage induced in the secondary winding equal to the ratio of: Vp(Ns/Np) being developed across the secondary winding. So for example, assume our current transformer from above is used on a 480 volt to earth three-phase power line. Therefore:
current transformer secondary voltage
This high voltage is because the volts per turns ratio is almost constant in the primary and secondary windings and as Vs = Ns*Vp the values of Ns and Vp are high values, so Vs is extremely high.
For this reason a current transformer should never be left open-circuited or operated with no-load attached when the main primary current is flowing through it just as a voltage transformer should never operate into a short circuit. If the ammeter (or load) is to be removed, a short-circuit should be placed across the secondary terminals first to eliminate the risk of shock.
This high voltage is because when the secondary is open-circuited the iron core of the transformer operates at a high degree of saturation and with nothing to stop it, it produces an abnormally large secondary voltage, and in our simple example above, this was calculated at 76.8kV!. This high secondary voltage could damage the insulation or cause electric shock if the CT’s terminals are accidentally touched.
Current & voltage in power circuits
If the voltage or current in a power circuit are too high to connect measuring instruments or relays directly, coupling is made through transformers. Such measuring transformers are required to produce a scaled down replica of the input quantity to the accuracy expected for the particular measurement.
Regarding the parallel and series connection of CT's:
Secondary of the CT can be considered as CURRENT SOURCE!
Connecting two CT'S in parallel means two current sources outputs connected to the load, which means the result is the algebraic summation of the two secondaries of the CT's i.e:
If CT1 = 300/5 A
CT2 = 300/5 A
Then output result of parallel connection of the two secondaries of the CT's:
CT3 = 300/10 A, which is equivalent to 150/5 A.
NOTE: any two CT's can be connected in parallel even when they are not similar (they have different ratio)
Connecting two CT's in series is possible just in case if the two CT's are similar to avoid any current circulation between the two CT's!
This connection has an advantage to increase the burden of the output of the CT.
If CT1= 300/5, burden 15 VA
CT2= 300/5, burden 15 VA
Then:
CT3= 300/5, burden 30 VA
I hope this can simplified the idea of parallel and series connection of the CT's
This article is the first in a 12-part series on the differences between grounding and bonding.
Article 250 provides requirements for the grounding and bonding of electrical installations. It covers two different concepts:
- “Grounding” is the connection to the earth. The grounding requirements provide a path to the earth to reduce overvoltage from lightning strikes, line surges, or unintentional contact by higher‑voltage lines [Sec. 250.4(A)(1)].
Failure to ground metal parts to earth can result in millions of volts induced on those metal parts. This energy seeks a way to the earth within the building, taking whatever paths are available (not just “the one with least resistance”, see Kirchhoff’s Law of Parallel Circuits). This can easily result in a fire and/or electric shock either by direct contact or from a flashover.
- “Bonding” is mechanically connecting electrically conductive components to ensure electrical conductivity between metal parts [Art. 100]. The bonding requirements establish a low‑impedance fault current path back to the source of the electrical supply so overcurrent protective devices (OCPDs) operate if there’s a ground fault [Sec. 250.4(A)(3)].
These two systems overlap, but each serves a different purpose. You need them in both solidly grounded systems [Sec. 250.4(A)] and ungrounded systems [Sec. 250.4(B)].
Renewable wind, solar, hydro and biofuels cannot fill the gap //
So you don’t like CO2? What you need to know, then, is that there’s no alternative to advanced nuclear power.
Concern about the climate effects of man-caused CO2 emissions has prompted gigantic investments into so-called renewable energy sources: wind, solar, hydropower and biofuels. Meanwhile, in a huge mistake, nuclear energy – a reliable CO2-free power source producing 14% of the world’s electricity – has been left far behind.
Germany provides a bizarre example, albeit not the only one. Here the government’s commitment to its so-called climate goals has been combined, paradoxically, with the decision to shut down the country’s remaining nuclear power plants by 2022.
Would it not be more rational, if we believe that human emissions of CO2 are destroying the planet, to expand nuclear energy as quickly as possible, rather than shut it down? //
I believe we are facing a branching point in global energy policy. What should be the priority? Assuming it should be a goal to drastically reduce world emissions of CO2 in the medium and long term – which I don’t want to argue about here – is it wise to invest so much in renewable energy sources, as many nations are doing today? Or should we allot only a limited role to the renewables, and go for a massive expansion of nuclear energy instead? //
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, $288.9 billion was invested into renewable energy in 2018, the bulk of which went into wind and solar energy. Despite this, CO2 emissions worldwide continue to grow relentlessly.
China, for example, leads the world in the size of its investments into renewable energy, with over $100 billion invested in 2018 alone. At the same time China also leads the world in the construction of new coal power plants, which are the single biggest source of CO2 emissions by human activity. Since the start of 2018, China has brought 42.9 gigawatts of new coal-fired power plants online, with another 121.3 GW under construction and 200 GW or more in various stages of planning. //
The simple fact is, that in the foreseeable future no amount of investment into renewables, however large, will be sufficient to eliminate humans’ dependence on coal, oil and natural gas. That is, unless we are willing to collapse the world economy.
If we are really committed to reducing CO2 emissions, then there is no way around nuclear energy, and lots of it. The reasons are elementary.
Suppose that by some means we could completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels for transport and heating. This is hardly conceivable without greatly increasing the global consumption of electricity, which can already be projected to more than double over the next 25 years. Where will all the electricity come from?
Establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, and John Thune are focused like laser beams not on stopping the Biden agenda or anything else beneficial to average Americans, but rather on purging the Republican Party of Trump supporters whom they despise. Where is their outrage about the job-destroying executive orders? The assault on constitutionally-guaranteed liberties? The insanity of permitting biological men to compete in women’s sports? The overwhelming belief of their own constituents who are certain the 2020 election was stolen? The opening of the border to a flood of potentially diseased illegal aliens? The soaring gasoline prices at the pump directly attributable to Biden’s actions? The House Republican leadership’s orchestration of the caucus vote that kept Liz Cheney in her position despite her vote to impeach? The purported RINO congressional leaders are AWOL and only concerned about consigning President Trump and his supporters to the dustbin of history. //
The gold standard of Republican candidates is receiving a Trump endorsement, as was clearly shown during the 2020 election, during which 120 of 122 or his endorsed candidates won election. //
President Trump’s clarion call at CPAC to restore the Republican Party to its core principles and boot Establishment Republicans and RINOs is the correct way-ahead. Do not be fooled by third parties or PACs not endorsed by President Trump, as those are diversions that serve the Uniparty, not regular Americans.
Cuomo’s career was already finished because of another vastly more serious scandal that, coincidentally, is being buried by the media’s relentless focus on these salacious but ultimately trivial charges suddenly being levied by a couple of Democrat operatives—in the first instance almost three years after the fact. //
Cuomo’s career was already finished because of another vastly more serious scandal that, coincidentally, is being buried by the media’s relentless focus on these salacious but ultimately trivial charges suddenly being levied by a couple of Democrat operatives—in the first instance almost three years after the fact.
And this other more egregious scandal has the potential to blow up and encompass many more major party players.
I’m speaking, of course, about Cuomo’s March 25 order barring New York nursing homes from turning away patients diagnosed with COVID-19. //
- It turns out that three other Democrat governors whose states also experienced an extraordinarily high number of reported COVID-19 nursing-home fatalities also issued the exact same orders as Cuomo.
- The orders forcing nursing homes to accept patients diagnosed with COVID-19 issued by the quartet may wind up being responsible for an enormous proportion of the total number of reported U.S. deaths.
- Because of the way COVID-19 diagnoses have been incentivized by the government, those orders wound up raking in a fortune for nursing homes.
- Cuomo also signed a law passed by New York state’s Democrat-controlled legislature giving nursing homes immunity against civil liability from COVID-19 related lawsuits. //
It would have been tough for the media to keep ignoring Cuomo’s burgeoning nursing home scandal had Lindsey Boylan not given them those salacious but ultimately trivial three-year-old accusations of unwanted advances to start hyping instead. Likewise, if Charlotte Bennett hadn’t come along a few days later to help give the story legs.
And that nursing home scandal which, coincidentally, was so effectively buried by their stories had the potential to not only lead to criminal charges. It was likely to engulf three other major league Democrat politicians and expose just how much of the US official COVID-19 death tally was due to their actions.
The average number of fatalities suffered by states that imposed lockdowns last spring vs those that didn’t is also represented. And one important piece of information here is that states which locked down wound up with more reported COVID-19 fatalities on average than states that remained free.
Average COVID-19 Fatalities per million as of February 24, 2021:
Lockdown States: 1558
Free States: 1475
Hybrid energy systems have drawn increasing attention of late but the possibility of melding the benefits of nuclear power with those of renewables harbours the potential to revolutionise energy generation as we know it.
By performing a sort of balancing act, nuclear power can enhance the efficiency of renewables while ensuring the overall system is reliable and low carbon.
Yet while some countries have already successfully adapted nuclear power plants to be load following—that is, to provide flexible operation based on energy demand and fill the gaps in output left by intermittent sources such as wind and solar—the issue more economic than technical.
Nuclear plants require significant invesment, and as such they need to run for as many hours as possible, and it’s not economic for them to stand idle for a period of time just because the wind happens to be blowing—they generate no income during that period.
Here Aliki van Heek, unit head at IAEA, speaks to Nuclear Engineering International about the feasbility of merging nuclear power and renewables into a hybrid energy system, and the impetus phenomena such as climate change have created with regard to making such a concept a reality.
Construction of Snowy 2.0, a major pumped-hydro expansion of Australia’s renowned Snowy Mountains Scheme, is well underway, with tunnelling about to begin.
A nationally-significant renewable energy initiative, Snowy 2.0 is also unique in international terms, combining a high head differential (more than 700m), long tunnels and reversible pump-turbines.
It will link two existing Snowy Scheme reservoirs, Tantangara and Talbingo, through 27km of segmentally-lined waterway tunnels, approximately 10m in diameter, and a power station about 800m underground.
Snowy 2.0 will add 2,000 megawatts (MW) of energy generation and, with the capacity to generate power for seven days without recharge pumping, it will provide 350,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of energy storage.
The grim failure of Operation Hat resurfaced this month after violent floods killed over 50 people in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. The floods most likely began when a chunk of the Nanda Devi glacier broke off and trapped flowing water, forming a lake that eventually burst through and swept through nearby valleys. The undeniable oddness of a glacial breaking apart during the winter has led some locals to speculate that perhaps the plutonium generator, which is still likely producing heat, led to the deadly floods.
There’s no evidence for the hypothesis, though even after years of reconnaissance missions and rigorous chemical assays of the surrounding area, nobody knows where the CIA’s lost nuclear powered spy oven is.