We need a huge infrastructure program...

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,233
20,226
113
Ok so how many years does it take to pay for the cost of installation? I have no idea what a MJ/pkm cost. I'm sure the Japan and Germany examples are counting at full capacity. Would a train from Omaha to KC average 10% of that number? 1%?
Shit no I guess I would expect these trains to basically make a loop around the Midwest honestly. The only places that make sense to me are on the coasts and down south, aka where the people are.

Edit: Like many of the infrastructure of the Midwest, it doesn't really "pay" for itself. Your Omaha KC train would never be profitable.
 

cavalot

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 3, 2003
12,558
9,259
113
Thats a bad example as the trains were a huge improvement on transportation for people and more importantly transporting goods.

A bullet train may be a slight convenience upgrade but at roughly the same amount of time as an airplane. Other than someone saying I prefer it over flying what benefit does it provide?

Is it a bad example though? You see it as a means of travel.. I see it as a way to ship or transport goods and an exceptionally fast rate. Coal can be moved from the east to the midwest in hours. Oil can be transported from the north to the south in half a day. In emergency situations people as well as goods can be transported cross country in half the time it currently takes.

History has proven that there is always naysayers in every progression of man-kinds endeavors. Most of them have been proven to be wrong and lacking foresight.
 

Jim14510

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
17,717
37,182
113
O God yes, but does that mean you are against any and all government infrastructure improvements?

Just from the maintenance side of things at offit there is enough to make you puke. IMO zero level of personal responsibility in govt, and the constant CYA, is responsible for most of it.
Can't be zero. There are many reasons for infrastructure improvements. The infrastructure itself and the jobs provided for the economy being the obvious ones. Least amount possible is a long ways from zero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

cavalot

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 3, 2003
12,558
9,259
113
Government wastes hundreds of billions. The less they get to waste is my ideal world.

That's why I like government/private business ventures. Both entities can hold each-other accountable, profit from a guaranteed funded and taxed endeavor, and benefit the country at the same time.
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,233
20,226
113
Can't be zero. There are many reasons for infrastructure improvements. The infrastructure itself and the jobs provided for the economy being the obvious ones. Least amount possible is a long ways from zero.
Ok then IYO what are the needed and unneeded.

Unfortunately with govt, as cavs buddy can attest, waist is going to be there in the most agreed upon cases.

Everyone is for fixing bridges. Spending 100k on a bridge that sees 20 vehicles a year is the definition of waist IMO, when literally coming from any direction or dwelling it adds 2 miles.
 

Jim14510

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
17,717
37,182
113
Is it a bad example though? You see it as a means of travel.. I see it as a way to ship or transport goods and an exceptionally fast rate. Coal can be moved from the east to the midwest in hours. Oil can be transported from the north to the south in half a day. In emergency situations people as well as goods can be transported cross country in half the time it currently takes.

History has proven that there is always naysayers in every progression of man-kinds endeavors. Most of them have been proven to be wrong and lacking foresight.
Faster than airplanes? Your two examples that can't go by plane are going to be gone in the relatively near future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrueRED777

nordakotahusker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
2,663
2,643
113
Do you think that there were people of the same opinion as yours when the transcontinental RR was being constructed? There are always going to be naysayers, but in the end they are usually wrong.

People don't use train services right now because they are limited and slow. Create a faster service and in return you will need more services.

Im all over infrastructure improvements, but I believe that we should also be investing in the future, not just repairing the past.


Getting transcontinental trains was a huge deal back then. At that point in time, rivers and canals were basically the only transportation system we had. Both for the transportation of goods and people, it was huge. I doubt there were too many naysayers.

Bullet trains would require their own dedicated tracks. The costs would be astronomical. The federal gov't gave away every other section of land for 10 miles on either side of the tracks in order to get the transcontinental lines built. That's the kind of numbers we're talking.

A bullet train is still much slower than a commercial jet. They may make sense in some densely populated areas, but not across the bulk of the country. Sorry.
 

Jim14510

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
17,717
37,182
113
Ok then IYO what are the needed and unneeded.

Unfortunately with govt, as cavs buddy can attest, waist is going to be there in the most agreed upon cases.

Everyone is for fixing bridges. Spending 100k on a bridge that sees 20 vehicles a year is the definition of waist IMO, when literally coming from any direction or dwelling it adds 2 miles.
There will always be waste. The less they get gives them less opportunity to waste. Maintaining and improving roads and bridges is necessary. Can I identify all of the roads and bridges that are necessary and those that aren't? Of course not. There may even be a legitimate reason for your bridge. Certainly doesn't appear to be a game changer but I'm certainly not getting the other side of the story. Question for whoever is in charge of making that decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

nordakotahusker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
2,663
2,643
113
Is it a bad example though? You see it as a means of travel.. I see it as a way to ship or transport goods and an exceptionally fast rate. Coal can be moved from the east to the midwest in hours. Oil can be transported from the north to the south in half a day. In emergency situations people as well as goods can be transported cross country in half the time it currently takes.

History has proven that there is always naysayers in every progression of man-kinds endeavors. Most of them have been proven to be wrong and lacking foresight.



Why would you want to waste the energy to transport freight so quickly? Talk about needlessly adding to the carbon footprint. How many windmills/solar panels do you suppose it would take?

It would defeat the purpose of bullet passenger trains too. They need their own dedicated tracks. That's one of the big reasons Amtrak is so slow. Freight trains have priority, and passenger trains have to wait for them.

Coal? Are you shitting me? I thought you were forward looking.

Can you imagine the carnage when an oil train going 200 mph crashes? The safest cheapest way to transport oil is in pipilines. There is absolutley no reason to move oil at 200 mph.

Goods need to be moved. Unless you have a clean, free energy source, there's no reason to move them at 200 mph.
 
Last edited:

nordakotahusker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
2,663
2,643
113
Ok then IYO what are the needed and unneeded.

Unfortunately with govt, as cavs buddy can attest, waist is going to be there in the most agreed upon cases.

Everyone is for fixing bridges. Spending 100k on a bridge that sees 20 vehicles a year is the definition of waist IMO, when literally coming from any direction or dwelling it adds 2 miles.


measurements_700.jpg


That's the definition of waist in my opinion.
 

cavalot

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 3, 2003
12,558
9,259
113
Why would you want to waste the energy to transport freight so quickly? Talk about needlessly adding to the carbon footprint. How many windmills/solar panels do you suppose it would take?

It would defeat the purpose of bullet passenger trains too. They need their own dedicated tracks. That's one of the big reasons Amtrak is so slow. Freight trains have priority, and passenger trains have to wait for them.

Coal? Are you shitting me? I thought you were forward looking.

Can you imagine the carnage when an oil train going 200 mph crashes? The safest cheapest way to transport oil is in pipilines. There is absolutley no reason to move oil at 200 mph.

Goods need to be moved. Unless you have a clean, free energy source, there's no reason to move them at 200 mph.

Geez look at Mr Green New Deal here. I can't win with you can I. Now you're concerned with the environment? Last I checked we are still using coal and will continue to do so until renewable sources are made easily accessible to all.

Every person who has stood in the way of progress had a multitude of excuses as to why something new shouldn't be tried. While you have some valid points they are not reasons why we shouldn't be looking for new ways to travel and move goods.
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Why would you want to waste the energy to transport freight so quickly? Talk about needlessly adding to the carbon footprint. How many windmills/solar panels do you suppose it would take?

It would defeat the purpose of bullet passenger trains too. They need their own dedicated tracks. That's one of the big reasons Amtrak is so slow. Freight trains have priority, and passenger trains have to wait for them.

Coal? Are you shitting me? I thought you were forward looking.

Can you imagine the carnage when an oil train going 200 mph crashes? The safest cheapest way to transport oil is in pipilines. There is absolutley no reason to move oil at 200 mph.

Goods need to be moved. Unless you have a clean, free energy source, there's no reason to move them at 200 mph.
I can appreciate your points in this post. I agree.
 

nordakotahusker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
2,663
2,643
113
Geez look at Mr Green New Deal here. I can't win with you can I. Now you're concerned with the environment? Last I checked we are still using coal and will continue to do so until renewable sources are made easily accessible to all.

Every person who has stood in the way of progress had a multitude of excuses as to why something new shouldn't be tried. While you have some valid points they are not reasons why we shouldn't be looking for new ways to travel and move goods.


I was shocked that you were worried about transporting coal. Natural gas produces 50-60% less carbon. While not completely green, its a step in the right direction. Burning gas is a much better way to generate electricity until greener options are more economically viable.

I'm all for looking into new things, no luddite here. I don't see the need to transport freight so quickly. Maybe there are reasons for it, but on the surface it sure seems like a waste of energy to me. As far as high speed passenger trains, I've already said, if they're economically feasible, I'm all for them. I'm not opposed to progress. I am opposed to creating additional drains on our system. There are enough hungry people in America. I'd rather see them eat than ride a fast train.
 

TrueRED777

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2014
737
1,583
93
Geez look at Mr Green New Deal here. I can't win with you can I. Now you're concerned with the environment? Last I checked we are still using coal and will continue to do so until renewable sources are made easily accessible to all.

Every person who has stood in the way of progress had a multitude of excuses as to why something new shouldn't be tried. While you have some valid points they are not reasons why we shouldn't be looking for new ways to travel and move goods.

Why are trains considered "progress" again? Seems to be the premise of your argument, but I don't know why. Bullet trains are 300+mph slower and cost more in many situations. The farther the distance to your destination, the more economical air travel becomes compared to high-speed trains. Our country is ready-made for air travel. We have optimized a system of air travel for around 100 years.

Don't get me wrong, I love riding on trains in Europe and Asia, but I don't choose that mode of travel because of economics or saving time. I choose that mode of travel for the "experience." Seeing the countryside, visiting multiple cities and countries over the summer, etc. It cost more and took 3 times as long, but it was fun to do every now and then. A guy can make an economic case if he chooses to get a sleeper and ride all night long instead of getting a hotel, but still, that use-case isn't very common. And defeats the purpose of having a bullet train.

I hate to agree with Narkota on anything, but I do in this thread. Bullet trains = more legroom and only a slight economic advantage if and only if multiple high-density destinations are in close proximity. That advantage doesn't work for most destinations in the US.

Data shows when customers have a choice between legroom and cheaper tickets, they choose a cheaper ticket. We complain about air travel a lot, but most of us will choose what we complain about if it means we can save $50 bucks.

The top two factors individuals choose between modes of travel are (1) cost and (2) travel time. Bullet trains don't beat air travel in either of those except for a few regional exceptions (and even in those exceptions, only by a marginal amount).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,533
38,128
113
Because its unreliable and hard to store? What do you do at night and on calm days?
But it's the cheapest even when accounting for an accompanying storage. And...you know...it didn't fail in Texas as bad as natural gas.

On top of all of that, Antarctica literally relies on it to survive, so that doesn't sound like a reliability issue.
 

throwin bones50

Nebraska Legend
Sep 3, 2009
34,647
46,857
113
Officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas said that grid operators implemented blackouts to avoid a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months.

Texas’ power grid was “seconds and minutes” away from a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months, officials with the entity that operates the grid said Thursday. As millions of customers throughout the state begin to have power restored after days of massive blackouts, officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which operates the power grid that covers most of the state, said Texas was dangerously close to a worst-case scenario: uncontrolled blackouts across the state.

The quick decision that grid operators made in the early hours of Monday morning to begin what was intended to be rolling blackouts — but lasted days for millions of Texans — occurred because operators were seeing warning signs that massive amounts of energy supply was dropping off the grid.

As natural gas fired plants, utility scale wind power and coal plants tripped offline due to the extreme cold brought by the winter storm, the amount of power supplied to the grid to be distributed across the state fell rapidly. At the same time, demand was increasing as consumers and businesses turned up the heat and stayed inside to avoid the weather.

“It needed to be addressed immediately," said Bill Magness, president of ERCOT. “It was seconds and minutes [from possible failure] given the amount of generation that was coming off the system.” Grid operators had to act quickly to cut the amount of power distributed, Magness said, because if they had waited, “then what happens in that next minute might be that three more [power generation] units come offline, and then you’re sunk.”

Magness said on Wednesday that if operators had not acted in that moment, the state could have suffered blackouts that “could have occurred for months,” and left Texas in an “indeterminately long” crisis.

While generators rapidly dropped off the grid as the weather worsened, operators monitored the difference between the supply of power on the grid and the demand for that power. As supply dwindled and demand grew, the margin narrowed to more and more dangerous levels, forcing grid operators to enact emergency protocols to either increase supply or decrease demand.

The worst case scenario: Demand for power outstrips the supply of power generation available on the grid, causing equipment to catch fire, substations to blow and power lines to go down. If the grid had gone totally offline, the physical damage to power infrastructure from overwhelming the grid could have taken months to repair, said Bernadette Johnson, senior vice president of power and renewables at Enverus, an oil and gas software and information company headquartered in Austin.

“As chaotic as it was, the whole grid could’ve been in blackout,” she said. “ERCOT is getting a lot of heat, but the fact that it wasn’t worse is because of those grid operators.”
As somebody who owns DE and CAT along with a handful of other companies that would benefit from this great idea brought up by Trump originally I support this. I just hope Biden's adult diapers work when he shits himself
 

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,494
66,056
113
Lafayette, Indiana
As somebody who owns DE and CAT along with a handful of other companies that would benefit from this great idea brought up by Trump originally I support this. I just hope Biden's adult diapers work when he shits himself

Too bad the donald never followed through on another meaningless promise. Remember after the midterms when he said he wasn't going to talk about an infrastructure bill until Nancy stopped being mean to him? But congrats on the Deere and CAT. I've been loving Deere since corn and beans started exploding last fall.

PS: And that diaper thing is extra funny, given that the donald actually wears one.
 

nordakotahusker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
2,663
2,643
113
But it's the cheapest even when accounting for an accompanying storage. And...you know...it didn't fail in Texas as bad as natural gas.

On top of all of that, Antarctica literally relies on it to survive, so that doesn't sound like a reliability issue.


How many people are relying on it? With no backup system? I'd be surprised.

The reliabilty issue I'm talking about is due to the fact that there are days when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. You need to account for that. If battery technology is there, its time.

There seem to be problems in Germany, the country with the strongest push toward green energy that I'm aware of. Generally relating to cost. I'm thinking there are still some kinks to be worked out. If not, give it hell.

Windfarms are a hell of an eyesore. Can we put them in your back yard instead of mine?
 

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,494
66,056
113
Lafayette, Indiana
How many people are relying on it? With no backup system? I'd be surprised.

The reliabilty issue I'm talking about is due to the fact that there are days when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. You need to account for that. If battery technology is there, its time.

There seem to be problems in Germany, the country with the strongest push toward green energy that I'm aware of. Generally relating to cost. I'm thinking there are still some kinks to be worked out. If not, give it hell.

Windfarms are a hell of an eyesore. Can we put them in your back yard instead of mine?

I think they’re pretty cool looking. They add some spice to our farmland north of Lafayette, IN. I believe that’s the second largest one on the continent.
 

nordakotahusker

Senior
Gold Member
Nov 2, 2001
2,663
2,643
113
I think they’re pretty cool looking. They add some spice to our farmland north of Lafayette, IN. I believe that’s the second largest one on the continent.


To each their own I guess. I think they're butt ugly. And you can see them for miles.

Wind farms are starting to get resistance from landowners around here. I know of one project that got axed because of it. Not sure exactly what their issue with them was.

P.S. Feel free to put up more in Indiana. That means less for us up here.
 

throwin bones50

Nebraska Legend
Sep 3, 2009
34,647
46,857
113
Remember after the midterms when he said he wasn't going to talk about an infrastructure bill until Nancy stopped being mean to him?
Nope.

I also know Nancy wasn't going to give him a win prior to an election. So I get it.
But congrats on the Deere and CAT. I've been loving Deere since corn and beans started exploding last fall.
They've been nice. Just think with the interest rate environment and it likely to continue they're good plays. Also, with construction being such a demand I don't see it slowing down.

DE also has the farmers having some of their best years. That is just based on what I heard from Cramer and confirmed from a handful of my clients.

Kinda the perfect storm for these two iyam
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,928
12,515
113
Officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas said that grid operators implemented blackouts to avoid a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months.

Texas’ power grid was “seconds and minutes” away from a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months, officials with the entity that operates the grid said Thursday. As millions of customers throughout the state begin to have power restored after days of massive blackouts, officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which operates the power grid that covers most of the state, said Texas was dangerously close to a worst-case scenario: uncontrolled blackouts across the state.

The quick decision that grid operators made in the early hours of Monday morning to begin what was intended to be rolling blackouts — but lasted days for millions of Texans — occurred because operators were seeing warning signs that massive amounts of energy supply was dropping off the grid.

As natural gas fired plants, utility scale wind power and coal plants tripped offline due to the extreme cold brought by the winter storm, the amount of power supplied to the grid to be distributed across the state fell rapidly. At the same time, demand was increasing as consumers and businesses turned up the heat and stayed inside to avoid the weather.

“It needed to be addressed immediately," said Bill Magness, president of ERCOT. “It was seconds and minutes [from possible failure] given the amount of generation that was coming off the system.” Grid operators had to act quickly to cut the amount of power distributed, Magness said, because if they had waited, “then what happens in that next minute might be that three more [power generation] units come offline, and then you’re sunk.”

Magness said on Wednesday that if operators had not acted in that moment, the state could have suffered blackouts that “could have occurred for months,” and left Texas in an “indeterminately long” crisis.

While generators rapidly dropped off the grid as the weather worsened, operators monitored the difference between the supply of power on the grid and the demand for that power. As supply dwindled and demand grew, the margin narrowed to more and more dangerous levels, forcing grid operators to enact emergency protocols to either increase supply or decrease demand.

The worst case scenario: Demand for power outstrips the supply of power generation available on the grid, causing equipment to catch fire, substations to blow and power lines to go down. If the grid had gone totally offline, the physical damage to power infrastructure from overwhelming the grid could have taken months to repair, said Bernadette Johnson, senior vice president of power and renewables at Enverus, an oil and gas software and information company headquartered in Austin.

“As chaotic as it was, the whole grid could’ve been in blackout,” she said. “ERCOT is getting a lot of heat, but the fact that it wasn’t worse is because of those grid operators.”
Funny, you point out one State who has a serious problem that needs to get fixed, ignore a potentially worse situation in California, ignore the fact that in most states, the electrical grid is just fine (except for the need for better cyber security, something that most of the utilities are investing in big time), then title your post "we need a huge infrastructure program".

Maybe the utilities need to fix their systems and charge their users for that fix, not a big "program" that makes people like me who live in a place where the system is reliable (something we have paid for) pay for the ones that are not (including Texas and California). Maybe we should define infrastructure as it's true engineering term - systems for providing reliable, efficient, and cost effective water, sanitation, transportation, communication, and energy to the population. Not expanding day care, not providing farm subsidies based on the color of your skin, not paying off campaign contributors and cronies.

Federal Government money is only a part of the infrastructure issue. It's up mainly to the people of Texas, the people affected here, to get their act together. It's not the taxpayers of other states with a well run power generation and distribution system who should pick up their tab.
 
Last edited:

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,494
66,056
113
Lafayette, Indiana
Funny, you point out one State who has a serious problem that needs to get fixed, ignore a potentially worse situation in California, ignore the fact that in most states, the electrical grid is just fine (except for the need for better cyber security, something that most of the utilities are investing in big time), then title your post "we need a huge infrastructure program".

Maybe the utilities need to fix their systems and charge their users for that fix, not a big "program" that makes people like me who live in a place where the system is reliable (something we have paid for) pay for the ones that are not (including Texas and California). Maybe we should define infrastructure as it's true engineering term - systems for providing reliable, efficient, and cost effective water, sanitation, transportation, communication, and energy to the population. Not expanding day care, not providing farm subsidies based on the color of your skin, not paying off campaign contributors and cronies.

Federal Government money is only a part of the infrastructure issue. It's up mainly to the people of Texas, the people affected here, to get their act together. It's not the taxpayers of other states with a well run power generation and distribution system to pick up their tab.
That was a linked article.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,928
12,515
113
Michigan hasn't threatened to leave the union. They are generally on board with federal programs intended to help its 49 siblings. So Flint's water I am very on board with helping.

These states constantly rail on help until it's their turn. Then they show up with hat in hand. Rick Perry said texans are willing to deal with blackouts. I think we should let them.
Lots of states (20 in the past 10 years) have had petitions to leave the union, including California, New York, and Michigan.
 

Jim14510

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
17,717
37,182
113
For those without their heads buried in the sand yes, we need a major infrastructure program. Without the excessive pork of course.
For those with their heads buried in the sand and Mr Federal Govt ass raping them. A major infrastructure program without excessive pork headed by the federal government will never ever happen.

Major Infrastructure program with lots of excessive pork maybe.
 

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,494
66,056
113
Lafayette, Indiana
For those with their heads buried in the sand and Mr Federal Govt ass raping them. A major infrastructure program without excessive pork headed by the federal government will never ever happen.

Major Infrastructure program with lots of excessive pork maybe.

You're probably correct with that assessment.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,928
12,515
113
For those without their heads buried in the sand yes, we need a major infrastructure program. Without the excessive pork of course.
Why does every one of your responses require insulting another person or group of people for you to make your point?

I've been in the infrastructure business for 36 years and simply have an opinion that the federal government needs to focus on things that involve interstate commerce and that most infrastructure should be the responsibility of the States, Counties, Cities, and organized municipalities (as far as funding and execution).

The feds have a responsibility to set uniform standards for many things to protect interstate commerce and to protect the environment, but they shouldn't be providing money for new schools, roads, water and wastewater plants, etc. This is the responsibility of the States and lower governmental entities.

The main reason is that when the feds spend big money, much of it gets spent on crap that we don't need or on things that have nothing to do with infrastructure.

Another thing, and this is something that my friends in the civil engineering business don't want said, but our infrastructure as a whole is not in anywhere as bad a shape as is reported in the media. We spend almost $0.5 trillion every year in this country on infrastructure already, so some politically motivated budget authorization doubling that over 8 years (if it was all spent on infrastructure) would be impossible, as there's not enough engineers, construction companies, and materials to do that much work unless you want to suspend commercial and residential building construction for 8 years. It's really hard to find good Civil, Water/Wastewater/Transportation engineers right now. What's it going to be like if you try to double the workload?

The bottom line is that if you doubled the spending on infrastructure now, you'll spend all of the money, and get probably 20% more infrastructure restoration. Shoot, try getting an estimate for some home remodeling right now.

To you, does having some freaking practical knowledge of what is going on in this sphere mean that you have your head buried in the sand?
 

Jim14510

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Dec 19, 2017
17,717
37,182
113
Why does every one of your responses require insulting another person or group of people for you to make your point?

I've been in the infrastructure business for 36 years and simply have an opinion that the federal government needs to focus on things that involve interstate commerce and that most infrastructure should be the responsibility of the States, Counties, Cities, and organized municipalities (as far as funding and execution).

The feds have a responsibility to set uniform standards for many things to protect interstate commerce and to protect the environment, but they shouldn't be providing money for new schools, roads, water and wastewater plants, etc. This is the responsibility of the States and lower governmental entities.

The main reason is that when the feds spend big money, much of it gets spent on crap that we don't need or on things that have nothing to do with infrastructure.

Another thing, and this is something that my friends in the civil engineering business don't want said, but our infrastructure as a whole is not in anywhere as bad a shape as is reported in the media. We spend almost $0.5 trillion every year in this country on infrastructure already, so some politically motivated budget authorization doubling that over 8 years (if it was all spent on infrastructure) would be impossible, as there's not enough engineers, construction companies, and materials to do that much work unless you want to suspend commercial and residential building construction for 8 years. It's really hard to find good Civil, Water/Wastewater/Transportation engineers right now. What's it going to be like if you try to double the workload?

The bottom line is that if you doubled the spending on infrastructure now, you'll spend all of the money, and get probably 20% more infrastructure restoration. Shoot, try getting an estimate for some home remodeling right now.

To you, does having some freaking practical knowledge of what is going on in this sphere mean that you have your head buried in the sand?
I feel dirty but this is 100% correct.
 

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,494
66,056
113
Lafayette, Indiana
Why does every one of your responses require insulting another person or group of people for you to make your point?

I've been in the infrastructure business for 36 years and simply have an opinion that the federal government needs to focus on things that involve interstate commerce and that most infrastructure should be the responsibility of the States, Counties, Cities, and organized municipalities (as far as funding and execution).

The feds have a responsibility to set uniform standards for many things to protect interstate commerce and to protect the environment, but they shouldn't be providing money for new schools, roads, water and wastewater plants, etc. This is the responsibility of the States and lower governmental entities.

The main reason is that when the feds spend big money, much of it gets spent on crap that we don't need or on things that have nothing to do with infrastructure.

Another thing, and this is something that my friends in the civil engineering business don't want said, but our infrastructure as a whole is not in anywhere as bad a shape as is reported in the media. We spend almost $0.5 trillion every year in this country on infrastructure already, so some politically motivated budget authorization doubling that over 8 years (if it was all spent on infrastructure) would be impossible, as there's not enough engineers, construction companies, and materials to do that much work unless you want to suspend commercial and residential building construction for 8 years. It's really hard to find good Civil, Water/Wastewater/Transportation engineers right now. What's it going to be like if you try to double the workload?

The bottom line is that if you doubled the spending on infrastructure now, you'll spend all of the money, and get probably 20% more infrastructure restoration. Shoot, try getting an estimate for some home remodeling right now.

To you, does having some freaking practical knowledge of what is going on in this sphere mean that you have your head buried in the sand?
Our infrastructure is ranked 17th in the world, which doesn’t seem acceptable for the #1 economy in the world. Would you agree with that?
 

1160

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Oct 18, 2001
13,262
10,183
113
Officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas said that grid operators implemented blackouts to avoid a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months.

Texas’ power grid was “seconds and minutes” away from a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months, officials with the entity that operates the grid said Thursday. As millions of customers throughout the state begin to have power restored after days of massive blackouts, officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which operates the power grid that covers most of the state, said Texas was dangerously close to a worst-case scenario: uncontrolled blackouts across the state.

The quick decision that grid operators made in the early hours of Monday morning to begin what was intended to be rolling blackouts — but lasted days for millions of Texans — occurred because operators were seeing warning signs that massive amounts of energy supply was dropping off the grid.

As natural gas fired plants, utility scale wind power and coal plants tripped offline due to the extreme cold brought by the winter storm, the amount of power supplied to the grid to be distributed across the state fell rapidly. At the same time, demand was increasing as consumers and businesses turned up the heat and stayed inside to avoid the weather.

“It needed to be addressed immediately," said Bill Magness, president of ERCOT. “It was seconds and minutes [from possible failure] given the amount of generation that was coming off the system.” Grid operators had to act quickly to cut the amount of power distributed, Magness said, because if they had waited, “then what happens in that next minute might be that three more [power generation] units come offline, and then you’re sunk.”

Magness said on Wednesday that if operators had not acted in that moment, the state could have suffered blackouts that “could have occurred for months,” and left Texas in an “indeterminately long” crisis.

While generators rapidly dropped off the grid as the weather worsened, operators monitored the difference between the supply of power on the grid and the demand for that power. As supply dwindled and demand grew, the margin narrowed to more and more dangerous levels, forcing grid operators to enact emergency protocols to either increase supply or decrease demand.

The worst case scenario: Demand for power outstrips the supply of power generation available on the grid, causing equipment to catch fire, substations to blow and power lines to go down. If the grid had gone totally offline, the physical damage to power infrastructure from overwhelming the grid could have taken months to repair, said Bernadette Johnson, senior vice president of power and renewables at Enverus, an oil and gas software and information company headquartered in Austin.

“As chaotic as it was, the whole grid could’ve been in blackout,” she said. “ERCOT is getting a lot of heat, but the fact that it wasn’t worse is because of those grid operators.”

Most of Texas problem is the unprecedented growth they've witnessed in the last seven and especially the last five years.

As smart as our country is, we constantly prove how ignorant we are at the same time. I don't know why it always takes a catastrophic event before our governmentmental agencies get off there asses and due something.

Terrorism in this country will more than likely be directed at our water systems and power grids as witnessed by the Colonial pipeline.

I'm all for inferstructure stimulation, but loathe all the politicians from both sides with there hands out for bullshit pet pork that have nothing to do with these types of bills.
 

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,494
66,056
113
Lafayette, Indiana
Most of Texas problem is the unprecedented growth they've witnessed in the last seven and especially the last five years.

As smart as our country is, we constantly prove how ignorant we are at the same time. I don't know why it always takes a catastrophic event before our governmentmental agencies get off there asses and due something.

Terrorism in this country will more than likely be directed at our water systems and power grids as witnessed by the Colonial pipeline.

I'm all for inferstructure stimulation, but loathe all the politicians from both sides with there hands out for bullshit pet pork that have nothing to do with these types of bills.

I’m in 100% agreement with your thoughts here.

As always.

😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1160

tb233

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2017
5,793
11,547
113
Our infrastructure is ranked 17th in the world, which doesn’t seem acceptable for the #1 economy in the world. Would you agree with that?

Sounds like Randy sucks at his job. He's been doing it for 36 years and we're 17th in the world? Tough look Rand
 
  • Like
Reactions: IndyHusker

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,928
12,515
113
Our infrastructure is ranked 17th in the world, which doesn’t seem acceptable for the #1 economy in the world. Would you agree with that?
That's if you actually believe in stupid rankings. China ranks low in number of COVID cases and deaths.

There's a major disconnect in the way the left views how crappy America is in almost all spheres, yet millions of people risk their lives to get here.

For the size of our country, our infrastructure is amazing. You literally never have to worry about whether you can drink the water, the stores are always full, even the poor can have a car and drive, the power grid is VERY reliable, as well as the gas and telecommunication systems. The medical care is second to none. Our standard of living is way better on average than all but the small isolated kingdoms. And don't go on about places like New Zealand where the GDP per capata is 65% of the USA or other isolated kingdom States like Luxembourg. Do a poll and see how many people would rather live in Luxembourg as opposed to the USA.

Yet, we suck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: burntorange72

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,494
66,056
113
Lafayette, Indiana
That's if you actually believe in stupid rankings. China ranks low in number of COVID cases and deaths.

There's a major disconnect in the way the left views how crappy America is in almost all spheres, yet millions of people risk their lives to get here.

For the size of our country, our infrastructure is amazing. You literally never have to worry about whether you can drink the water, the stores are always full, even the poor can have a car and drive, the power grid is VERY reliable, as well as the gas and telecommunication systems. The medical care is second to none. Our standard of living is way better on average than all but the small isolated kingdoms. And don't go on about places like New Zealand where the GDP per capata is 65% of the USA or other isolated kingdom States like Luxembourg. Do a poll and see how many people would rather live in Luxembourg as opposed to the USA.

Yet, we suck.
We don’t suck. We just aren’t as good as we should be, nor as good as you’d like us to be. And you’re way off on medical care too. We aren’t top ten. Now if you want the best brain surgeon in the world then yeah, decent chance he practices here.
 

Latest posts