Germany abandons nuclear

This is big news. Germany will phase out nuclear power by 2022, according to Angela Merkel, leader of Germany. Of course, it requires approval from parliament which could disapprove. I have often said that nuclear is too dangerous, not just from accidents, but from terrorist attacks. Then there is all that money going down the rathole, when renewables are the future. Right now.
nuke-plant

So, think about that !
bullwinkle

Tax incentives for solar/wind needed. Unfortunately, they are in danger.

Wjhy? Everyone, just about, loves renewable energy. Ah, the budget crisis is to blame. Well, how about increasing taxes? It isn’t as if this hasn’t been done before. I know that taxes and solar/EVs don’t have much in common, but I couldn’t resist mentioning that during the Eisenhower Administration, the top tax rate was 91% on those couples who had income over $400,000. And the economy did not crash and burn. Check out these top tax rates. I hope you can read this. Think about it !
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913–2003
Introduction
This is a table of the top marginal tax rate faced by married couples for most of the last century in the US.

Note that these are top marginal rates only, not average effective rates. That is,

the rate is not an average rate (total tax paid divided by total income), but a marginal rate (the rate paid on dollars of income over the “top bracket,” listed below as “Taxable income over–“);
the rate does not take into account all possible exemptions and deductions, so taxes actually paid may have been lower than these nominal rates indicate.
The table is limited to married couples merely to make the presentation simpler.

Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Table – column headings are:
Tax year Top marginal tax rate (%) Top marginal
tax rate (%) on earned income, if different<1> Taxable
income over–
1913 7 500,000
1914 7 500,000
1915 7 500,000
1916 15 2,000,000
1917 67 2,000,000
1918 77 1,000,000
1919 73 1,000,000
1920 73 1,000,000
1921 73 1,000,000
1922 58 200,000
1923 43.5 200,000
1924 46 500,000
1925 25 100,000
1926 25 100,000
1927 25 100,000
1928 25 100,000
1929 24 100,000
1930 25 100,000
1931 25 100,000
1932 63 1,000,000
1933 63 1,000,000
1934 63 1,000,000
1935 63 1,000,000
1936 79 5,000,000
1937 79 5,000,000
1938 79 5,000,000
1939 79 5,000,000
1940 81.1 5,000,000
1941 81 5,000,000
1942 88 200,000
1943 88 200,000
1944 94 <2> 200,000
1945 94 <2> 200,000
1946 86.45 <3> 200,000
1947 86.45 <3> 200,000
1948 82.13 <4> 400,000
1949 82.13 <4> 400,000
1950 84.36 400,000
1951 91 <5> 400,000
1952 92 <6> 400,000
1953 92 <6> 400,000
1954 91 <7> 400,000
1955 91 <7> 400,000
1956 91 <7> 400,000
1957 91 <7> 400,000
1958 91 <7> 400,000
1959 91 <7> 400,000
1960 91 <7> 400,000
1961 91 <7> 400,000
1962 91 <7> 400,000
1963 91 <7> 400,000
1964 77 400,000
1965 70 200,000
1966 70 200,000
1967 70 200,000
1968 75.25 200,000
1969 77 200,000
1970 71.75 200,000
1971 70 60 200,000
1972 70 50 200,000
1973 70 50 200,000
1974 70 50 200,000
1975 70 50 200,000
1976 70 50 200,000
1977 70 50 203,200
1978 70 50 203,200
1979 70 50 215,400
1980 70 50 215,400
1981 69.125 50 215,400
1982 50 85,600
1983 50 109,400
1984 50 162,400
1985 50 169,020
1986 50 175,250
1987 38.5 90,000
1988 28 <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 28 <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 28 <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 31 82,150
1992 31 86,500
1993 39.6 89,150
1994 39.6 250,000
1995 39.6 256,500
1996 39.6 263,750
1997 39.6 271,050
1998 39.6 278,450
1999 39.6 283,150
2000 39.6 288,350
2001 39.1 297,350
2002 38.6 307,050
2003 35 311,950

Graph
This graph is a plot of year (first column in the table) against the corresponding top marginal rate (second column in the table) (in blue). Where the top marginal rate on earned income differs (1971–1981), it is also plotted (in red).

Comments
For a more detailed discussion, see the references below. Note that

the table does not address the tax treatment of capital gains;
the table does not take into account the alternative minimum tax or its predecessor, the minimum tax; and,
care should be taken in comparing the income levels at which the top rate applies, not only because of the effects of inflation, but because the definition of the income base has varied over time.

Data source
Most of the data were taken from reference [3]. Some of the footnote text was drawn and modified from reference [2].

Footnotes
<1> This figure is cited when the top marginal rate for earned income differs from that for unearned income.
<2> For 1944-1945, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 90% of statutory “net income.”
<3> For 1946-1947, the highest rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 85.5% of statutory “net income.”
<4> For 1948-1949, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 77% of statutory “net income.”
<5> For 1951, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 87.2% of statutory “net income.”
<6> For 1952-1953, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 88% of statutory “net income.”
<7> For 1954-1963, the highest tax rate was subject to a maximum effective rate limitation equal to 87% of statutory “taxable income.”
<8> For 1988-1990, some taxpayers faced a 33% marginal tax rate in an income bracket above the one cited for the 28% rate. However, the marginal rate returned to 28% above this 33% bracket. That is, for all sufficiently high incomes, 28% was the marginal rate.

References
[1] “2003 tax rate schedules,” in Internal Revenue Service, 2003 Tax Table
[2] Robert A. Wilson and David E. Jordan, “Personal exemptions and individual income tax rates, 1913-2002” (Rev. 6-02), in Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Bulletin (Publication 1136), Spring 2002, pp. 216-225
[3] “Table A.–U.S. individual income tax: personal exemptions and lowest and highest bracket tax rates, and tax base for regular tax, tax years 1913-2003” (Rev. 4-2003), in Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Bulletin (Publication 1136), Winter 2002-2003
[4] “Tax brackets by year,” under “Tax Facts,” Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

chimp

Wind Conference in CA. Fun wind facts.

Key Wind Facts:

– Wind added more than 35 percent of all new generating capacity in America over the
past four years, more than coal and nuclear combined.

– The U.S. installed 5,116 MW of wind power capacity in 2010, posting 15% growth for the year.

– The entire U.S. wind fleet for utility-scale wind totals 40,181 MW of capacity, or 21% of the world

Wind Conference in CA. Fun wind facts.

Key Wind Facts:

– Wind added more than 35 percent of all new generating capacity in America over the
past four years, more than coal and nuclear combined.

– The U.S. installed 5,116 MW of wind power capacity in 2010, posting 15% growth for the year.

– The entire U.S. wind fleet for utility-scale wind totals 40,181 MW of capacity, or 21% of the world

Americans support 60 mpg reqmts. 2/3 say Yes.

The survey from the Consumer Federation of America found 75 percent of Americans believe it is important to increase fuel economy standards to cut fuel consumption and reduce emissions.

Sixty-five percent also said they would support a 60-mpg standard by 2025 — which is being considered by the Obama administration — when told high-mileage cars would have a five-year payback period.

The survey comes at a time of increased concern about high fuel consumption (87 percent said it was important to reduce oil use) and skyrocketing gasoline prices (85 percent said that was a concern).

Midwest flooding a sign of global warming?

When the Mississippi River spilled over its banks late last month in Mark Twain’s boyhood home of Hannibal, Mo., it was the sort of flood the Army Corps of Engineers expects to occur once every 10 or 25 years.

If Hannibal could only be so lucky.

The town saw similar floods in 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2001. Worse still was the 200-year flood in 2008. But none of those compared to the devastation in 1993, when river gauges at Hannibal measured floodwaters at levels expected only once in five centuries.
Does this give you the hint that flooding is happening more often and with greater impact? This is exactly what global warming scientists predict.