«

»

Remember that discussion..

Where I pointed out Obama’s green agenda was anti-energy, and by his own admission – that video people told me didn’t prove anything, despite Obama saying that energy prices where going to go up, and up drastically, if he got his way – only to be hammered for putting words in his mouth? Well, we are now further down the line, and team Obama has been real busy, and guess what we are now finding out: Obama meant what he said about closing down plants and energy prices going up. Oh yes, the piece is by that retard Ezra Klein, and he is really, really trying hard to spin this in a positive manner for the Obama Administration and for the greens, but the facts are indisputable, according to Klein himself:

First, the report agrees that the new rules will likely force the closure of many coal plants between now and 2017, although it’s difficult to know precisely how many. For green groups, that’s a feature, not a bug: Many of these will be the oldest and dirtiest plants around. About 110 gigawatts, or one-third of all coal capacity in the United States, came online between 1940 and 1969. Many of these plants were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act, and about two-thirds of them don’t have scrubbers:

Anything past that is bullshit. We have not built new generation in the US to come close to covering even 5% of what will be lost, and now we are getting an admission that as much as 1/3 of our power generation capability is about to go offline. And how does Klein explain that impact away?

CRS notes that many of the plants most affected by the new EPA rules were facing extinction anyway: “Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel—natural gas—continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.”

Oh yes! They where going to be shut down sooner or later anyway, so losing them all in a very short time span shouldn’t really mean anything. The rest is plain and outright nonsense. Talk about being out there. Seriously, this is how the left thinks. I wish the universe would provide some justice assuring that the nightmare this idiotic scenario is going to cause everyone disproportionately impacts leftist blue states the hardest.

Unfortunately it seems the libs did this to disproportionately hit those red states that have faired the best during this recessionary period they gave us, and I am not surprised. And this news comes at a time when we find out that the green push is failing. Maybe the good news is that with nobody buying those over expensive government pushes stupid electric cars, the draw on the grid this phenomenon would have caused won’t become a factor. Little consolation for those that will see a doubling in their energy costs and even rolling black outs. Maybe the EPA can claim this then is all just another from of government stimulus, like some other idiots did about welfare, too.

At this point the Carter years are starting to look like they where pretty decent compared to what Obama is doing.

41 comments

No ping yet

  1. Hal_10000 says:

    Even if you accept AGW, the idea that the Feds can micro-manage the energy industry is insane.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. CM says:

    Where I pointed out Obama’s green agenda was anti-energy, and by his own admission – that video people told me didn’t prove anything, despite Obama saying that energy prices where going to go up, and up drastically, if he got his way – only to be hammered for putting words in his mouth?

    The plan isn’t to stop energy being created. That’s absurd. There is nothing ridiculous or evil or anti-energy about acknowledging that, at least in the short term, energy prices will rise because of legislative requirements to start to tackle the market-failures of carbon emissions and improve environmental quality (mercury, sulfur-dioxide, nitrogen-dioxide, coal-ash waste, etc). Coal generates 81 percent of carbon dioxide emissions and 94 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions in the United States. As I’ve pointed out a number of times, someone is finally starting to act on a chronic market-failure where costs have not been accounted for within the system.

    It’s also worth noting that most of these coming pollution restrictions easily pass cost-benefit analyses. The EPA, for instance, is proposing to cut U.S. mercury emissions by 50 percent. According to its own analysis, the cost of this rule will come to $3.6 billion per year, while the health benefits would amount to $44 billion annually: “These benefits include preventing between 2,000 and 5,200 premature deaths, and about 36,000 asthma attacks a year.” Indeed, it’s quite possible that these air-quality rules could end up doing even more for public health than the giant health care bill passed earlier this year.

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/74EF19CE603F20548525771500507938

    In that interview he was also specifically talking about cap-and-trade, which died on the vine as he put all his political capital into healthcare instead. However he was also making a larger point that the biggest challenge will be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary.

    It is worth noting that the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with the Chronicle nearly a year and a half ago. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. Furthermore, revenue from auctioned permits will help consumers pay for increased energy prices, according to Obama’s first budget.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/11/mike-pence/pence-claims-obama-said-energy-costs-will-skyrocke/

    There is also the rather important point that work on transitioning away from coal started before Obama become President.

    This is a natural progression, regardless of who is in charge. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to continually update pollution limits to reflect the latest science. The U.S. District Court, for instance, ordered the EPA to set new mercury standards. As a result, new rules have emerged on smog-forming pollutants, on mercury, on coal ash… none of these regulations have anything to do with climate change per se.

    Well, we are now further down the line, and team Obama has been real busy, and guess what we are now finding out: Obama meant what he said about closing down plants

    Again, he was talking about cap-and-trade, not specifically about the EPA rules on coal.

    and energy prices going up

    Almost all of the energy rise in your link is gas prices.

    The household energy index also turned up in July, rising 0.2 percent after a 1.2 percent decline in June. The electricity index, which declined in June, rose 0.8 percent and more than offset a 1.7 percent decline in the index for fuel oil and a 1.2 percent decrease in the natural gas index. The household energy index has risen 2.7 percent over the last 12 months…

    A 2.7% rise over a year for household energy doesn’t sound excessive.

    We have not built new generation in the US to come close to covering even 5% of what will be lost, and now we are getting an admission that as much as 1/3 of our power generation capability is about to go offline.

    That’s not what he said, or what it says in the report he’s referring to.

    WIth respect to replacing what is being lost (from your link):

    …electric utilities can add capacity fairly quickly if needed — from 2000 to 2003, utilities added more than 200 gigawatts of new capacity, far, far more than the amount that will be lost between now and 2017.

    Recent studies estimate 10-75 GW coal capacity at risk for retirement.

    http://www.brattle.com/_documents/UploadLibrary/Upload898.pdf

    Anything past that is bullshit.

    Well no, anything past that just doesn’t match up with your narrative.

    And how does Klein explain that impact away?

    He doesn’t. He’s summarising the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service study which reveals the gross exaggerations being spread and swallowed.

    Oh yes! They where going to be shut down sooner or later anyway, so losing them all in a very short time span shouldn’t really mean anything.

    Who is saying “it shouldn’t really mean anything”. If you’re comparing something accurately and objectively, it’s clearly a valid aspect to consider. So is the fact that “these plants don’t provide as much baseload power as it appears on first glance—pre-1970 coal plants operating without emissions controls are in use, on average, only about 41 percent of the time” and “there is a substantial amount of excess generation capacity at present”. How are those points irrelevant to the analysis?

    The rest is plain and outright nonsense.

    How so?

    Unfortunately it seems the libs did this to disproportionately hit those red states that have faired the best during this recessionary period they gave us, and I am not surprised.

    That link is your evidence to support that paranoid conspiracy theory?
    I think you need to dig a little deeper to provide something even remotely supportive of that claim. You’d need to provide strong evidence that:
    1. That the current and evolving legislative framework does economically impact on states which predominantly vote Republican.
    2. That it was done deliberately.

    And this news comes at a time when we find out that the green push is failing.

    The ‘green push’ is a little more complicated than and one store removing it’s outdated charges (many of which apparently stopped working a while ago).

    Little consolation for those that will see a doubling in their energy costs

    Link?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  3. Seattle Outcast says:

    Once you start quoting politifact, all credibility is lost.

    You’re missing a few things in your analysis.

    1) Power generation in the US has come to a standstill in recent decades – every new power facility is sued into oblivion by the greentards. There is no power to spare, and rolling blackouts are becoming far more common when they shouldn’t exist at all.

    2) The old coal-fired plants would have been replaced decades ago except for the point I just made. If you can’t build a new one, you keep the old one running until it dies

    3) Don’t expect these plants to be replaced or upgraded now that the need is more urgent. Lawsuits from organizations such as Greenpeace will keep coming with the stated intent of limiting power generation.

    If you’d bothered to pay attention to the envirotards for the last 30 years you’d remember a few things:

    1) Everyone needs to do with less. Less power, less comfort, less resources, less consumption

    2) Technology is evil unless is it is being used by the “correct” people for the “correct” purposes

    3) The ultimate goal is control of everyone else, and has been mentioned in a large variety of ways for decades by the various green groups (marxists)

    This is to be done by regulation and control of energy, which is why AGW is pushed so hard. CO2 has been known to be almost completely meaningless as a greenhouse gas since the early 70′s. However, CO2 is a byproduct of energy generation/consumption, and is a measure of industrial capacity – using CO2 as backdoor to controlling the worldwide economy was frequently mentioned during the 80′s, which is when AGW began being pushed.

    It has been a stated goal of the watermelons to limit power generation as much as possible and to drive the cost of energy through the roof to its “proper” prices.

    That you have devoted so much energy to a post that attempts to whitewash this tells me you’re a true believer in the envirotard agenda.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

      
  4. CM says:

    Once you start quoting politifact, all credibility is lost.

    Why? What did I quote that
    (a) is demonstrably wrong?
    (b) changes anything in the rest of the post?

    If you don’t point out the specifics, it just looks like you’re trying to weakly dismiss my post by claiming that one (unimportant) source is biased. Personally I think that tactic is the fastest way possible to lose credibility.

    1) Power generation in the US has come to a standstill in recent decades – every new power facility is sued into oblivion by the greentards. There is no power to spare, and rolling blackouts are becoming far more common when they shouldn’t exist at all.

    Not true. Renewable generation is coming along quickly (exponentially).

    In its latest biennial assessment, the Potential Gas Committee increased U.S. natural gas resources by nearly 45 percent to 1,836 TCF [trillion cubic feet], largely because of increases
    in unconventional gas across many geographic areas. Pipeline capacity has similarly
    increased, by 15 BCFD [billion cubic feet per day] in 2007 and 44 BCFD in 2008, with an
    increase of 35 BCFD expected in 2009. Storage capacity has also increased substantially.

    http://www.lawandenvironment.com/uploads/file/CRS-EPA.pdf
    (pg 37)

    Can’t see any evidence of “every new power facility is sued into oblivion by the greentards”.

    2) The old coal-fired plants would have been replaced decades ago except for the point I just made. If you can’t build a new one, you keep the old one running until it dies

    I guess I’d like to see some evidence that this is why none have been built for decades. Was there demand for more?
    This article suggests that as at 2008 there were 100 planned.
    http://www.grist.org/article/is-that-a-bonanza-in-your-docket

    3) Don’t expect these plants to be replaced or upgraded now that the need is more urgent. Lawsuits from organizations such as Greenpeace will keep coming with the stated intent of limiting power generation.

    I guess we’ll see. Why would Greenpeace object to a plant being retrofitted to meet the EPA standards? On what basis would a lawsuit be accepted?

    If you’d bothered to pay attention

    Why don’t we all make an effort to try and keep this civil? Let’s see if we can do it. Just once?

    None of what you then claim has to be the case. I don’t accept the premise that the purpose is ‘control’, when there is a perfectly legitimate argument that makes sense.

    This is to be done by regulation and control of energy, which is why AGW is pushed so hard.

    I haven’t seen any evidence that the scientists working on climate change science are doing it because they believe that regulation and control of energy is important. So I don’t accept the premise.

    CO2 has been known to be almost completely meaningless as a greenhouse gas since the early 70′s.

    Says who? Not a single reputable scientific body in the world would agree with that statement. And as I pointed out, new rules have emerged on smog-forming pollutants, on mercury, on coal ash… none of these regulations have anything to do with climate change per se.

    However, CO2 is a byproduct of energy generation/consumption, and is a measure of industrial capacity – using CO2 as backdoor to controlling the worldwide economy was frequently mentioned during the 80′s, which is when AGW began being pushed.

    I’m sorry but that’s just an unproven narrative.

    It has been a stated goal of the watermelons to limit power generation as much as possible and to drive the cost of energy through the roof to its “proper” prices.

    Who specifically are these ‘watermelons’ and are they in positions of power now? Do they have no science to support the regulations?
    Prices which don’t reflect costs are artificial prices. They’re market-failure prices.

    That you have devoted so much energy to a post that attempts to whitewash this tells me you’re a true believer in the envirotard agenda.

    In order to claim that the report is a whitewash you’d need to at least begin to demonstrate it. Neither you nor Alex are anywhere close yet. All you’ve both said is that you both disagree with the broad conclusions.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  5. Mississippi Yankee says:

    I’ve watched this story for the past few days during which I hoped (and almost prayed… but to whom?) that I would see something more than impotent angry little fist wagging in the air. But alas. ain’t gonna happen, there will be no line drawn in the sand (or coal dust).

    It’s really too bad too, this administration has way,way more on it’s plate then it can handle at this particular time. If someone, say a governor of a state that will feel this injustice sooner rather then later, maybe one that has political aspirations beyond his (or her) state, were to refuse to close the coal-fired plants in their state. Someone to say “you have no right” or more fittingly “YOU SHALL NOT PASS”. Oh can you just imagine the outcry? No probably not, libertarians save their passion for the debate, and impotent fist shaking after all.
    Too bad because we could use an Andrew Jackson type patriot to stand up to the Hydra of Federal Government, now even more then in his time.

    Although I refuse to respond to the loquacious troll I’m sure CM,or his apprentice, will tell me were I’m going wrong.

    And for the record, putting ones foot down is not the same as calling for open revolt. At least not at this juncture.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  6. AlexInCT says:

    I am not even goign to bother answering CM anymore after that rant of his. Just make a post with more links than he has, content or source don’t matter, then accuse him of not having the facts on his side. That’s how he works.

    The indisputable fact is that the Obama Administration’s new EPA on steroids is shutting down 1/3 of US energy generating capacity, while allowing zero new geenration to be added unless it is mickey mouse bullshit green stuff from companies that seem all to have gone bankrupt now that the government largesse has been stopped, at a time when we have already been experiencing shortages in many locations accross the country. This means that the people online and generating power still, as long as the EP doesn’t decide they too should be shut down for whatever reason, are now going to have to charge far more for their product – and if the retards in DC try to use the power of government to control supply, which I am certain they will, it will be even worse for the people – and many will have to go without.

    But CM, like Erza Kline did in that garbage piece, will continue to fantasize that there is an alternative outcome that’s going to be just fine, because they both need that to be so for ideological reasons. When the shit goes wrong, they will all blame it on bad luck. Just like Obama did a few weeks ago.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  7. AlexInCT says:

    CM says that not only is that a great idea, but that we ar stupid for worrying about it. All is fine with the emperor’s new cloths. I knew he would say exactly that too.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Seattle Outcast says:

    Politifact is about as accurate and neutral as Daily Kos – since you started off there with your post, the rest of it is to be jettisoned whole as utter bunk.

    Next time, try to not out yourself as a total envirotard cocksucker in the first paragraph…

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      
  9. Xetrov says:

    Even if his source is questionable, there’s no need to resort to name calling. Try facts, they get further in rational discourse.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  10. CM says:

    I am not even goign to bother answering CM anymore after that rant of his. Just make a post with more links than he has, content or source don’t matter, then accuse him of not having the facts on his side. That’s how he works.

    I completely agree, the number if links is meaningless in itself. I apologise if I gave any other impression, it was not my intention. I addressed your comments/content with detailed specifics, backed up by links as relevant. If you’ve got contrasting or differing information, then post it and we can look into why/how it’s different. I’ll happily agree that the information I’ve put forward is wrong if it can be shown to be wrong.

    The indisputable fact is that the Obama Administration’s new EPA on steroids is shutting down 1/3 of US energy generating capacity

    Link?
    Even the critics within the coal industry itself aren’t trying to claim anything of the sort. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) concluded (based on controls which they assumed would be more strict) that:

    …new EPA regulations would cause the unplanned retirement of 17 to 59 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired electric capacity (5.4% to 18.8% of the current coal-fired total of about 315 GW) by 2015

    Even the top end of that (18.8%) is substantially less than your claim of 100%.

    (Page 1)

    Also, from Page 8:

    First, most of these rules have been a long time in the making. As noted, the coal combustion waste rule is the result of legislation passed in 1980; another rule, the utility air toxics rule (or “Utility MACT”), which appears to be the most costly of the rules thus far proposed, is required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Some may question why EPA is undertaking so many regulatory actions at once, but it is the decades of regulatory inaction that led to this point that strike other observers.

    The inaction stemmed in large part from special consideration given electric utilities by Congress: both the Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act required special studies and reports to Congress before EPA could set standards for certain pollutants emitted or wastes disposed by electric utilities. Meanwhile, other industries that emitted the same pollutants or similar wastes (e.g., municipal solid waste incinerators and medical waste incinerators, and any industry generating hazardous waste) have been subject to more stringent emission controls or waste management standards for a decade or more.

    Second, as we have noted in an earlier report on EPA regulations,both the legislative authority for these rules and, in most cases, the development of the rules themselves predate the current Administration. With the exception of greenhouse gas emission rules, all of the rules discussed below began development under the Bush Administration or earlier, including several that were promulgated under that Administration and subsequently were vacated or remanded to EPA by the courts. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Utility MACT rule, and the Cooling Water Intake rule, for example, fit that description. Other EPA actions, such as the Obama Administration’s reconsideration of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, have actually delayed for several years implementation of Bush Administration rules that would have strengthened existing standards.

    while allowing zero new geenration to be added unless it is mickey mouse bullshit green stuff

    Many existing plants can be retrofitted. But as outlined, many were getting to the end of their lifespan anyway and are in the process of being replaced.

    Virtually all the analyses agree that coal will continue to play a substantial role in powering electric generation for decades to come. EPA, for example, in the Utility MACT RIA, concluded that coal-fired generation will be roughly the same in 2015 as it was in 2008, despite the impact of the MACT and other rules.72 By 2030, the agency projects that 43% of the nation’s electricity will still be powered by coal.73 (The current level is 45%.) EEI projected that coal will be responsible for 36% to 46% of electricity generation in 2020, depending on the scenario.

    There will be retirements of coal-fired capacity, however, as all of the analyses conclude. The number of these retirements, and the role of EPA regulations in causing them, are matters of dispute. The most extreme scenario in EEI’s analysis showed 76 GW of coal-fired capacity retirements by 2020 (a little less than 25% of current capacity) as a result of the regulations it analyzed. As noted in the discussion of the individual regulations, in many cases EEI’s analysis assumed regulations far more stringent than EPA actually proposed.

    The units that would retire are the least economic and/or those currently operating with minimal pollution controls. As noted in Figure 5, there are 110 GW of coal-fired plants (about one-third of all coal-fired capacity) that began operating between 1940 and 1969, and two-thirds of these plants do not have scrubbers. These are the prime candidates for retirement.

    (Pg 28)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. CM says:

    Whether you worry or not is entirely up to you. But you should certainly only do so (or not) after informing yourself properly. It doesn’t appear that you’ve read the actual report that you are attempting to critique.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  12. CM says:

    Good call Xetrov.
    But then you know me well enough to know that I’m not an envirotard cocksucker ;-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. Xetrov says:

    Oh, I didn’t say that his statement was incorrect… :P

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  14. CM says:

    Haha, onya. ;-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  15. CzarChasm says:

    And for the record, putting ones foot down is not the same as calling for open revolt. At least not at this juncture.

    While this statement is certainly not verifiably inaccurate, I believe a state putting its foot down against the .fedgov does indeed carry with it the implied threat of challenging the .fedgov’s authority to force compliance, and that threat is only credible if the state is willing to wield the same compliance tools as the .fedgov is, meaning of course, violence. This is why, even if a given state were to make the threat of putting its foot down in defiance of new .fedgov policy or directives, it would be a hollow threat. It might garner some cheers from that state’s citizens, and increased popularity for its governor and supportive politicians, but if Obama (or any other president) were to push it to its logical conclusion, I’ll guarantee you that the state would back down.

    I’m not necessarily opposed to demonstrations of rhetorical threats from states. One on this subject may embolden others in other states, and if there’s a umm….confederation of states taking the same defiant stand, then perhaps the threat wouldn’t be empty. I think this is possible in coming years. I also think environmental issues are likely to be the catalyst to such bold partnerships. It will certainly be a component. I also think it’s too late though. I think the Constitution is too far gone, and the alphabets are too deeply entrenched in “law-making” by fiat. Both can’t exist together in the same country, and one, or even 10 or 20 states, is not going to have the power to turn it around. I think a total collapse is inevitable. All we’re arguing about on boards like this is who will be responsible for the onset of civil war, conservatives trying to hold onto constitutional republicanism, or leftists pushing the green agenda. In the end it won’t matter a wit. No one will win no matter which side can be legitimately said to have been at fault, and the rhetorical threats that preceded the conflagration will not be seen as either negative or positive towards the “right” ending. They will be forgotten for the meaningless posturing they were, while people starve and small conclaves start to try to rebuild a failed civilization. New states will emerge, a new country will emerge from them, and like everything else in life, the natural recycling of thought, deed and society will ensue. Closing of energy production facilities by the current leftist government is as predictable as rightists decrying it and leftists cheering it in the above scenario. Might as well brace ourselves and prepare as much as possible for the rest of it to play out.

    CC

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. AlexInCT says:

    Actually CM, I did read it. And I pointed out it was a whole lot of bullshit and wishful thingking, by both the EPA and Kline, because the math and engineering simply doesn’t work out. No matter how hard they, or now you, wish it to. Did you miss that?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  17. AlexInCT says:

    Link?

    Erm, that very fluff piece article by Erza Kline that this post is based on? Kline is the one that threw out that number himself, CM.

    Even the top end of that (18.8%) is substantially less than your claim of 100%.

    You miss the part where the EPA wants to shut down ALL coal plants, and hence put regulation in place that lets it do just that? Was that on purpose?

    Many existing plants can be retrofitted. But as outlined, many were getting to the end of their lifespan anyway and are in the process of being replaced.

    Replaced by what, CM? Because I have seen exactly zero new nuclear, gas, or even oil plants on the board for the immediate future, and nothing at all long term either. Can you point me to any new power generating facilities being built that can cover even the meager numbers you claim are scheduled for shutdown?

    And retrofitting? Even you admit they are old and simply not worth the investment. So without new generation serious and real capacity, even hydro, geothermal, or tidal would make me happy at this point, coming online, we are going to have less energy with growing demand. Because people are not suddenly going to use less energy unless they are forced to do that, through regulation, price, or lack of availability.

    Oh wait! I know. They are being replaced with solar or wind farms from all those companies the Obama Admin kept talking about as part of that green energy revolution. You know, the same ones that got all those subsidies as stimulus, ranging in the big tens of millions, then went belly up as soon as that dried up. Unicorn farts do not produce real electric energy that we can use in the real modern world, the one that revolves around energy, despite the fantasies of those that think so.

    Let me say so again: there is no serious and real generation capacity of any kind coming online that can close even the initial gap, and that’s why they are talking of rolling brown outs and massive price hikes. By the time the assholes in the EPA get their way, we are going to be in the same boat as shitty third world countries like Haiti, Venezuela, or Iraq.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. balthazar says:

    Envirotard, yes.

    Cocksucker, no idea and have no desire/need to know!!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  19. blameme says:

    The issue with states taking a stand is that the suck at the government teat in every way possible. All the fed has to do is threaten to take away some of those dollars and the dependents (states) scurry back inline to wait for their crumbs.

    The states are addicted to the fed. They are dependent on the fed. Picking one issue to stand on while at the same time being a parasite on the fed is not a workable situation.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  20. CM says:

    Actually CM, I did read it.

    Then why have you gotten it all so wrong? I’ve demonstrated that in detail.

    And I pointed out it was a whole lot of bullshit and wishful thingking, by both the EPA and Kline, because the math and engineering simply doesn’t work out. No matter how hard they, or now you, wish it to. Did you miss that?

    I read the report, Kline’s summary, and then your post. Your post doesn’t reflect what the report or Kline’s piece say at all.

    Where have you demonstrated that “math and engineering simply doesn’t work out”? I certainly missed that.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    Erm, that very fluff piece article by Erza Kline that this post is based on? Kline is the one that threw out that number himself, CM.

    Read it again Alex. That’s not what he said. And if you HAD actually read the report on which the piece is based, or even what I quoted from the report, you’d realise that very quickly.

    You miss the part where the EPA wants to shut down ALL coal plants, and hence put regulation in place that lets it do just that? Was that on purpose?

    Where on earth does it say that? Who is claiming that (other than you)?

    Replaced by what, CM? Because I have seen exactly zero new nuclear, gas, or even oil plants on the board for the immediate future, and nothing at all long term either. Can you point me to any new power generating facilities being built that can cover even the meager numbers you claim are scheduled for shutdown?

    Read the report Alex. Or what I quoted. Stop being so lazy. By 2030, the EPA projects that 43% of the nation’s electricity will still be powered by coal. The current level is 45%.

    And retrofitting? Even you admit they are old and simply not worth the investment.
    So without new generation serious and real capacity, even hydro, geothermal, or tidal would make me happy at this point, coming online, we are going to have less energy with growing demand. Because people are not suddenly going to use less energy unless they are forced to do that, through regulation, price, or lack of availability.

    As above, your premise is flawed because you haven’t read the report. Just like when you didn’t read the corrective action notice.

    Let me say so again

    Say it as many times as you like, doesn’t mean it’s true.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. AlexInCT says:

    Then why have you gotten it all so wrong? I’ve demonstrated that in detail.

    Thanks for the hearty laugh there CM. As I already pointed out, what you have done is parrot the wishful thinking of the green movement that hopes to convince enough stupid people that what they are doing will have no impact, until it is too late.

    Their claims that they will retrofit any of these older facilities is patently false. And there is no new real generation capacity coming online. All the talk to the contrary is just talk.

    Where have you demonstrated that “math and engineering simply doesn’t work out”? I certainly missed that.

    Not surprised you missed that at all CM. It’s how you work. Point me to the new and real generation capacity that they are creating to replace what they are shutting down just in this first stage – I won’t bother asking for when the EPA goes after all other coal plants since you will just pretend that isn’t going to happen until it does, when you will ignore that it did anyway – and you might have a discussion.

    You already told me on another post that they weren’t going to do anything that was going to raise costs, and that wa stheir agenda, and we are already here, with proof that it is happening, not even a couple of months later. But of course I am the one that’s wrong again in your book.

    HEH!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. AlexInCT says:

    Brining this down here:

    Read it again Alex. That’s not what he said. And if you HAD actually read the report on which the piece is based, or even what I quoted from the report, you’d realise that very quickly.

    Well let’s go to Kline and quote what he says:

    Over the next 18 months, the Environmental Protection Agency will finalize a flurry of new rules to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants. Mercury, smog, ozone, greenhouse gases, water intake, coal ash—it’s all getting regulated. And, not surprisingly, some lawmakers are grumbling.

    Industry groups such the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, and the American Legislative Exchange Council have dubbed the coming rules “EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck.” The regulations, they say, will cost utilities up to $129 billion and force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity. Given that coal provides 45 percent of the country’s power, that means higher electric bills, more blackouts and fewer jobs. The doomsday scenario has alarmed Republicans in the House, who have been scrambling to block the measures. Environmental groups retort that the rules will bring sizeable public health benefits, and that industry groups have been exaggerating the costs of environmental regulations since they were first created.

    That’s the fact in bold there. When coal produces 45% of your energy and 1/5th of that capacity will be shut down immediately because it isn’t financially viable to keep it up & running that means you right out of the bat lose close to 10% of your total electricity generation capacity immediately. There is no way to downplay how big and massive of a hit to generation, and to price pre KWh, this will mean on a grid that is already taxed to the limit. And with NOTHING but fantasy to replace this loss. N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

    But it will not end there. These regulations are going to be pushed to the limit because both Obama and the EPA have already made it clear this is just the beginning and their agenda is to make electricity production with coal non-viable. Others with more realistic understanding of what the EPA and Obama administration’s plan to placate the envirotard movement is, have figured out that more than half, and as much as ¾, of the coal generating capacity in the US will eventually be taken offline, as these rules become enforced by the rabid EPA jackasses because it is simply not economic to keep these facilities running without even more massive price hikes on energy. That’s going to mean we are losing close to 1/3 of our power generating capacity.

    And the end goal for team Obama is zero coal. He said it himself and that’s what the greens want. I can link you the video again if you want it. You can pretend this is all not important. But after you and I went round & round on this very topic on another post I made about Obama’s EPA wanting to do just this, here we are now. We are getting/experiencing exactly the problems I pointed out in the first place with capacity being taken offline in incredible numbers, with nothing to replace it, resulting in massive price spikes, and a huge power deficit, that you so cavalierly dismissed back then. Now that it has come to pass, you are dismissing the issue again, and trying to make like it isn’t going to be a big deal. At least you are still consitently pretending that these people are not trying to end the use of coal entirely. For now. When this disaster plays out and goes bad, I am sure you will just do more of the same goal post moving.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. CM says:

    As I already pointed out, what you have done is parrot the wishful thinking of the green movement that hopes to convince enough stupid people that what they are doing will have no impact, until it is too late.

    Um no, I just pointed out what you’ve gotten wrong (which is pretty much everything you’ve written). You’ve clearly not even read the report. The report is the EPA response to reports/assessments from some coal industry groups.

    Their claims that they will retrofit any of these older facilities is patently false.

    The EPA aren’t going to retrofit. The owners of some coal plants will retrofit when it makes financial sense for them to do so. Here is a website full of examples (took me 1 minute on Google to find it):
    http://www.power-eng.com/coal/coal-retrofits-upgrades.html

    And there is no new real generation capacity coming online.

    Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true.
    2010 saw the largest build of new coal capacity since 1985. “Eleven new coal-plants totaling 6,682 MW were Commissioned in 2010; the most in 25 years”
    http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

    Notwithstanding this, the amount of energy being produced by renewable sources is growing quickly each year.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

    All the talk to the contrary is just talk.

    Well clearly the opposite is true.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. CM says:

    Not surprised you missed that at all CM. It’s how you work. Point me to the new and real generation capacity that they are creating to replace what they are shutting down just in this first stage – I won’t bother asking for when the EPA goes after all other coal plants since you will just pretend that isn’t going to happen until it does, when you will ignore that it did anyway – and you might have a discussion.

    First you have to establish exactly what is actually going to be shut down, and when. And, as outlined in the EPA report, you need to include considerations such as the fact that old plants aren’t even remotely running to capacity. So it’s no use claiming their full capacity.

    If you read the actual EPA report, and start backing up your claims with evidence, THEN we can perhaps start to have a discussion.

    You already told me on another post that they weren’t going to do anything that was going to raise costs, and that was their agenda,

    Don’t think so.

    and we are already here, with proof that it is happening, not even a couple of months later.

    The report doesn’t suggest anything different to what I’ve ever said. You’ve provided no rebuttal other than your opinion, after not even having read the report.

    But of course I am the one that’s wrong again in your book.

    I just set it all out in detail why your claims didn’t match up with your source material.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. CM says:

    Alex, this was your claim:

    now we are getting an admission that as much as 1/3 of our power generation capability is about to go offline

    1/3 of our power generation capability is about to go offline

    Here is what the industry is (incorrectly, as indicated in the non-partisan report) claiming:

    The regulations, they say, will cost utilities up to $129 billion and force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity

    One-fifth (20%) of 45% is 9%.
    9% is nowhere near your claim of 1/3rd.
    And that’s even if we take the industry dooms-day claims as gospel, even though they clearly have a vested industry to make things seem as bad as possible. As outlined in the EPA report, their figures are based on assumptions that are no longer correct (one example being that the EPA has built more flexibility into the transition system).

    When coal produces 45% of your energy and 1/5th of that capacity will be shut down immediately because it isn’t financially viable to keep it up & running that means you right out of the bat lose close to 10% of your total electricity generation capacity immediately.

    Ok, so you’re now acknowledging that it’s nowhere near the 1/3rd you claimed. Cool.
    The next step is to acknowledge why/how the industry numbers are clearly not accurate. The details of this are all in the report, which is the basis of Kline’s piece.

    There is no way to downplay how big and massive of a hit to generation, and to price pre KWh, this will mean on a grid that is already taxed to the limit.

    There is no way to downplay what the industry is telling you and the politicians they hope will help them? Instead of ‘downplaying’ anything, the rational response would be to consider whether the industry numbers are correct. Which is the whole reason for the report we’re talking about.

    And with NOTHING but fantasy to replace this loss. N-O-T-H-I-N-G!

    See above. First you actually have to establish what is likely to be lost, which is clearly much less than the dooms-day scenarios claimed by various industry groups. And then you have to explain why all the new plants (the most in 25 years) that have been commissioned don’t count, and why the exponential growth in renewable capacity and natural gas doesn’t count either.

    But it will not end there. These regulations are going to be pushed to the limit because both Obama and the EPA have already made it clear this is just the beginning and their agenda is to make electricity production with coal non-viable.

    As outlined, very little of the EPA rules are anything to do with Obama. The EPA have a legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to use the most up-to-date science to amend standards, and most of the initial work on all these new controls began under Bush.
    Also:

    By 2030, the EPA projects that 43% of the nation’s electricity will still be powered by coal. The current level is 45%.

    Others with more realistic understanding of what the EPA and Obama administration’s plan to placate the envirotard movement is, have figured out that more than half, and as much as ¾, of the coal generating capacity in the US will eventually be taken offline, as these rules become enforced by the rabid EPA jackasses because it is simply not economic to keep these facilities running without even more massive price hikes on energy. That’s going to mean we are losing close to 1/3 of our power generating capacity.

    That’s a lot of words to admit that you made up that figure.

    And the end goal for team Obama is zero coal.

    Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced on Tuesday an enormous expansion in coal mining that threatens to increase U.S. climate pollution by an amount equivalent to more than half of what the United States currently emits in a year.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/24/obama-coal-mining-expansion

    He said it himself and that’s what the greens want. I can link you the video again if you want it.

    You’re hanging an entire narrative on one statement during a SF Chronicle interview (about CAP And TRADE) and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, even evidence that you yourself link to. So you’ve got a multitude of issues to overcome for your narrative to have a chance of being correct.

    Obama’s energy plan, which he began promoting in 2007, called for investing in “low emissions coal plants” and creating “5 ‘first-of-a-kind’ commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration.” His position in support of clean coal was clear.
    http://factcheck.org/2008/09/not-coming-clean-on-coal/

    You can pretend this is all not important.

    Energy security and affordability is very important. Which is why it’s important to try and be as accurate as possible when discussing it.

    But after you and I went round & round on this very topic on another post I made about Obama’s EPA wanting to do just this, here we are now.

    Yes, we’re doing the same dance. You post a narrative, I respond with facts which suggest that the narrative is false, you simply repeat your narrative.

    We are getting/experiencing exactly the problems I pointed out in the first place with capacity being taken offline in incredible numbers, with nothing to replace it, resulting in massive price spikes, and a huge power deficit, that you so cavalierly dismissed back then.

    But you’ve demonstrated none of that. You’ve posted a link to a piece by Ezra Klein which summarises a report by the the CRS in response to dooms-day claims made by some in the coal industry. You’ve ignored almost all the actual content and focused on the initial dooms-day claims, and made it clear that you take those claims on face value, even though the report points out good reasons why you shouldn’t. And you got your main stat widely wrong.
    You’ve demonstrated nothing about what actual capacity will be taken off-line or when, you keep claiming that there is nothing to replace it (whatever ‘it’ may be) even though these is plenty of evidence everywhere that there other energy sources are growing exponentially, and you’re claiming massive price spikes and a huge deficit as a result.

    Now that it has come to pass, you are dismissing the issue again, and trying to make like it isn’t going to be a big deal.

    I’ve not stated a personal opinion. I just used available information (including some you provided yourself) to show that what you’re claiming isn’t accurate.

    At least you are still consitently pretending that these people are not trying to end the use of coal entirely. For now. When this disaster plays out and goes bad, I am sure you will just do more of the same goal post moving.

    So you now, all of a sudden, admit that your claims are all based on your narrative.
    Sheesh.

    Which goal post have I shifted? Please explain.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  27. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Surely you must understand I wasn’t speaking of any state nor was I zeroing in on just any issue.

    Texas does a whole lot less sucking at the federal teat (yanno, with their growing economy) and has turned down federal stimulus money, Also, initially, Texas will be effected the greatest.

    But somehow I think you already knew that tho right?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Mississippi Yankee says:

    As much as I may enjoy a novelette as the next guy all my poorly educated brain got from it was:

    A) the USA is surely doomed. WASF (we are so fucked)
    B) this issue needs to be kicked down the road.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. CM says:

    Dare I ask for a definition of envirotard?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CzarChasm says:

    Fair ’nuff, but…

    A) Do you disagree, and if you do, do you have anything to counter the assertion as you read it?

    B) No, not what I meant at all. Quite the opposite in fact. It should have been prepared for by both individuals and groups, and to whatever extent that prepping was neglected, it should start right this second. Otherwise, the events that I foresee will swallow up the unprepared. Kicking it down the road is the problem, acknowledging and preparing is the solution.

    CC

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. AlexInCT says:

    One-fifth (20%) of 45% is 9%.
    9% is nowhere near your claim of 1/3rd.

    Did you miss me saying exactly that in the above post CM? And pointing out that’s only the first wave of closures. Because as far as the EPA is concerned – and they are taking their order from the guy that told us he wants to end the use of coal period – they plan even tougher rules for the near future leading to more closures. Yeah, you did.

    And that’s even if we take the industry dooms-day claims as gospel, even though they clearly have a vested industry to make things seem as bad as possible. As outlined in the EPA report, their figures are based on assumptions that are no longer correct (one example being that the EPA has built more flexibility into the transition system).

    I would. Remember that we are dealing with people here that are blocking exploration for oil even as the price of oil went bananas tens of thousands of jobs went away, and the economy is teetering on an edge where higher energy costs will definitely plunge us into a recession, and they have not even flinched.

    There is no way to downplay what the industry is telling you and the politicians they hope will help them? Instead of ‘downplaying’ anything, the rational response would be to consider whether the industry numbers are correct. Which is the whole reason for the report we’re talking about.

    I will take the words of a circus clown over anyone in the Obama administration or the media (redundant I know) when it comes to vital things, especially energy, and they are busy trying to suck off their environmental lobby with idiotic moves like this.

    See above. First you actually have to establish what is likely to be lost, which is clearly much less than the dooms-day scenarios claimed by various industry groups. And then you have to explain why all the new plants (the most in 25 years) that have been commissioned don’t count, and why the exponential growth in renewable capacity and natural gas doesn’t count either.

    Actually even Kline admitted that the older plants will be lost and not retrofitted. That’s that 1/5th number. Their retrofit is not economically viable. Even more ridiculous is the notion that because they might be able to fix some of these plants that they will not be offline for decades, tied up in lawsuits, by the envirotards, before they give up and go away.

    As I mentioned: we have not build ANY new serious generation capacity in the US for over 3 decades now, and even if they got permission tomorrow from government, it would take decades to bring them online in the current climate. Hence, the likely scenario is that what does go offline will stay offline. There will be massive shortages, to the tune of 10%, at a minimum.

    As outlined, very little of the EPA rules are anything to do with Obama. The EPA have a legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to use the most up-to-date science to amend standards, and most of the initial work on all these new controls began under Bush.

    Oh that was funny? The EPA is doing what it is doing because of Obama. Bush shot all that shit down. They where told at the EPA that their “proposed work” was bogus and abused the Clean Air Act, and it was shelved. that is until Obama won and gvae them the nod to do it. To pretend otherwise is insulting.

    That’s a lot of words to admit that you made up that figure.

    Actually I got that figure off three different sites I trust implicitly to be right on, and they all projected a minimum of at least 1/3 of our energy generation tied to coal was now at risk with the gung-ho EPA envirotards getting their way. You can take it up with them if you want. I believe them, because they have been right in the past. BTW, one of them was Instapundit whom also points out that 1/3 of our capacity is being threatened now.

    You’re hanging an entire narrative on one statement during a SF Chronicle interview (about CAP And TRADE) and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, even evidence that you yourself link to. So you’ve got a multitude of issues to overcome for your narrative to have a chance of being correct.

    Obama’s energy plan, which he began promoting in 2007, called for investing in “low emissions coal plants” and creating “5 ‘first-of-a-kind’ commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration.” His position in support of clean coal was clear.

    Noted: Goalposts moved. Yet again.

    Energy security and affordability is very important. Which is why it’s important to try and be as accurate as possible when discussing it.

    Oh dude, another laugh. Please stop! I can’t take this anymore. Seriously, are you trying out to be a comedian? The environmental movement has never given a rats’ ass about either accuracy or energy generation, and they are driving these moves. Most of them are content to make everyone else, not themselves of course, go back to living in 18th century standards to save Gaia.

    I gave up on the rest of your post. It was just you again telling me I was not right then, even though we are now seeing exactly what I predicted then play out now, and how you still refuse to accept the facts as such. In the mean time we are losing 10% of our capacity in the next few months, facing skyrocketing rate increases and rolling brown outs, and that’s only the first stage of the EPA and the Obama Administrations game to get rid of coal entirely.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  32. AlexInCT says:

    An envirotard is someone that puts unicorn fantasies and mother Gaia ahead of the reality of how the world operates and the fact that without energy modern society is not possible. Usually they are also the people that think everyone else should live by 18th century standards while they are absolved from the same sacrifices, because they care.

    Most of them get stinking rich of these scams they impose on us and/or get a ton of power from them too. Al Gore would be a great example, but you can pick any democrat talking about poor Gaia and how mankind is abusing her, thenlook into their own actions or waste and carbon footprint, and see that phenomenon at work.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. Mississippi Yankee says:

    CC.

    A) Somewhat agree only I will insist, with both blood and treasure, that USA 2.0 is reformed according to original documents. Using the prism of the 21st century only where absolutely necessary.

    B) as stated previously, it’s time to draw a line in the coal dust.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    Did you miss me saying exactly that in the above post CM?

    You do seem to have realised your significant error, which is great.
    Unfortunately you’re also still trying to claim:

    …means you right out of the bat lose close to 10% of your total electricity generation capacity immediately

    No it doesn’t mean that at all. Here are three reasons to start with:
    1) That was an industry figure, not an independently arrive at figure
    2) Regulations are not as bad as the assumptions made to rely on that figure
    3) Nothing has to occur immediately

    Read the actual report.

    And pointing out that’s only the first wave of closures. Because as far as the EPA is concerned – and they are taking their order from the guy that told us he wants to end the use of coal period – they plan even tougher rules for the near future leading to more closures. Yeah, you did.

    No, they’re undertaking what they are legally REQUIRED to do under the Clean Air Act. If tougher measures come in later then that will be the result of the relevant science. Nothing to do with Obama. And you’re STILL misrepresenting what Obama said.
    This seems to be just another manifestation of your chronic ODS.

    I would.

    Well you shouldn’t. There is no rational reason to. In this case there is good evidence that you would have been right not to. Yet you’re still determined to believe their figures despite the unarguable points raised in the this independent report which voids them.

    Remember that we are dealing with people here that are blocking exploration for oil even as the price of oil went bananas tens of thousands of jobs went away, and the economy is teetering on an edge where higher energy costs will definitely plunge us into a recession, and they have not even flinched.

    The report is by the Congressional Research Service. Is it your contention that they are making it all up to serve the interests of a current President? Why would they do that? That’s just loony-tunes.

    I will take the words of a circus clown over anyone in the Obama administration or the media (redundant I know) when it comes to vital things, especially energy, and they are busy trying to suck off their environmental lobby with idiotic moves like this.

    Who are? The Congressional Research Service?
    What idiotic moves and by whom? The EPA, for undertaking their legal responsibilities?

    Actually even Kline admitted that the older plants will be lost and not retrofitted.

    Sorry but nobody is claiming anything different.

    That’s that 1/5th number.

    No, that’s not Kline’s figure, he just quotes it from the CRS report. The figure is from the American Legislative Exchange Council (the one’s claiming that the prospective legislative changes are “EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck). Their claim (actually 19%) is as at 2018, which is still over 6 years away (not “immediately” as you say).

    Their retrofit is not economically viable.

    WTF? Who’s retrofit are you referring to? Which plant? Every plant is going to be different as the circumstances will be different.

    Even more ridiculous is the notion that because they might be able to fix some of these plants that they will not be offline for decades, tied up in lawsuits, by the envirotards, before they give up and go away.

    Maybe.
    Steps required to retrofit all obviously depend on the circumstances at each plant.

    Retrofitting costs/difficulties:

    …it is perfectly feasible and economic to retrofit existing coal plants to prevent most of the air pollution and the damage that they cause. The costs is far less than what is required to deal with carbon dioxide (pipes to capture and put it all into large places underground).

    As I mentioned: we have not build ANY new serious generation capacity in the US for over 3 decades now, and even if they got permission tomorrow from government, it would take decades to bring them online in the current climate.

    You do keep saying that, even though it’s patently false, as I keep pointing out. You’re a brick wall against fact and evidence which doesn’t support your narrative.
    Look at the graph here:
    http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1830
    Look at the size of the yellow and green parts on the right hand side and then come back and repeat it again.

    Hence, the likely scenario is that what does go offline will stay offline. There will be massive shortages, to the tune of 10%, at a minimum.

    Well that’s based on nothing but your imagination. There is an incredible amount of information out there which shows that you’re wrong.

    Oh that was funny?

    Was it? Wasn’t meant tto be.

    The EPA is doing what it is doing because of Obama. Bush shot all that shit down. They where told at the EPA that their “proposed work” was bogus and abused the Clean Air Act, and it was shelved. that is until Obama won and gvae them the nod to do it. To pretend otherwise is insulting.

    Evidence?

    Bush tried to circumvent the Clean Air Act to help out his energy industry buddies. The Court shot him down in no uncertain terms:

    WASHINGTON, DC, March 20, 2006 (ENS) � A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the Bush administration from implementing a regulation that would have eased clean air requirements for some 17,000 industrial facilities, including coal-fired power plants and oil refineries. The court handed down a stinging rebuke of the regulation, which it said is “contrary to the plain language” of the Clean Air Act.

    Actually I got that figure off three different sites I trust implicitly to be right on, and they all projected a minimum of at least 1/3 of our energy generation tied to coal was now at risk with the gung-ho EPA envirotards getting their way.

    If you trust those sources then provide links to them. If you don’t then I must assume that they either don’t exist, or that you actually know they won’t stand up to scrutiny.
    You also clearly stated that you thought “as much as 1/3 of our power generation capability is about to go offline”. Not “/3 of our energy generation tied to coal”. Huge difference.

    The beliefs of those currently working at the EPA are irrelevant. Blame the politicians who enacted the Clean Air Act, which mandated that the EPA amend controls based on the latest available relevant science.

    You can take it up with them if you want.

    Can’t really assess the veracity of what they say if I don’t know who they are Alex.

    I believe them, because they have been right in the past. BTW, one of them was Instapundit whom also points out that 1/3 of our capacity is being threatened now.

    Woo-hoo, that’s coming seriously close to a link. I’ll go searching though, wouldn’t want to put you to any trouble (or risk being accused of asking for a disertation!).

    Noted: Goalposts moved. Yet again.

    Yeah that makes no sense.
    However you’re the one alluding continuously to a quote specifically about Cap and Trade while arguing about legally-required EPA controls.

    The environmental movement has never given a rats’ ass about either accuracy or energy generation, and they are driving these moves.

    Again, these controls are from the EPA which is legally required to update them.

    Most of them are content to make everyone else, not themselves of course, go back to living in 18th century standards to save Gaia.

    Now you’re back in vague old narrative-land, writing meaningless drivel.

    I gave up on the rest of your post. It was just you again telling me I was not right then, even though we are now seeing exactly what I predicted then play out now, and how you still refuse to accept the facts as such.

    I’d be happy to consider some facts if you have some. Anytime.

    In the mean time we are losing 10% of our capacity in the next few months, facing skyrocketing rate increases and rolling brown outs.

    Link? 10% capacity of total energy supply, or 10% of coal capacity?

    and that’s only the first stage of the EPA and the Obama Administrations game to get rid of coal entirely

    I already linked to where Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced an enormous expansion in coal mining that threatens to increase U.S. climate pollution by an amount equivalent to more than half of what the United States currently emits in a year. So you’re contention is clearly rubbish.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  35. CM says:

    An envirotard is someone that puts unicorn fantasies and mother Gaia ahead of the reality of how the world operates and the fact that without energy modern society is not possible. Usually they are also the people that think everyone else should live by 18th century standards while they are absolved from the same sacrifices, because they care.

    Ok well they sound like idiots then. We shouldn’t listen to envirotards.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. CM says:

    ….Instapundit whom also points out that 1/3 of our capacity is being threatened now.

    Can’t find this, please provide the link.

    Further clear evidence that Obama is not trying to bring about the end of the coal industry:

    By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources,” said Obama. “Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all.”

    From his 2011 State of the Union address.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/453/create-clean-coal-partnerships/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. CM says:

    Hiaason nails it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  38. Mook says:

    Obama promised that he would bankrupt the coal industry and now he’s using the EPA to keep his promise. He’s going to “transform” this country.. into a shithole

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  39. CM says:

    As covered more than once already (you really should read the other comments first), Obama was specifically talking about a scenario under Cap and Trade. But Cap and Trade didn’t happen.
    How is he “using the EPA”? What specific mandates is he giving the EPA that they are then passing down?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  40. AlexInCT says:

    But Cap and Trade didn’t happen.How is he “using the EPA”? What specific mandates is he giving the EPA that they are then passing down?

    Cap & Tax would have been a lwa created by the body the constitution gave that duty to: congress. The EPA should be enforcing those laws, not writing their own or interpreting laws in such a way that they can still go out and do what congress realized was a bad idea and never passed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. Mook says:

    Since the EPA bases many of its regulations on the anti-science assumption that devil-gas CO2 is destroying mother earth, then if CO2 isn’t nearly as bad as they told us it was, then EPA regulations to to with CO2 based on bogus science need be rolled back and EPA decision makers fired, right? That is, if you’re truly in favor of the idea that science should trump politics.

    I think that would be an excellent Pro-Science platform for Rick Perry or Sarah Palin to run on – Obama administration is enacting leftwing policies that run counter to scientific research.. everything from the refusal to issue offshore drilling permits based on bogus science counter to actual scientific research, to business-stifling EPA regulations based on leftwing dogma not science.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.