New EPA coal regs = $180 billion
- Thread starter Tempest
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Sat in front of? Parents have a dual fuel coal/oil stoker to heat their mountain home.
So start up, operate, dump ash, etc.? Yes.
So start up, operate, dump ash, etc.? Yes.
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
There was a news report a while back where someone broke one of those CFL's in their house and was dumb enough to call the government for "assistance" in cleaning it up properly. The cost was roughly $2000.
Enjoy!
I would like to see that information sited.
There was a news report a while back where someone broke one of those CFL's in their house and was dumb enough to call the government for "assistance" in cleaning it up properly. The cost was roughly $2000.
Enjoy!
I would like to see that information sited.
Originally Posted By: MarkM66
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
There was a news report a while back where someone broke one of those CFL's in their house and was dumb enough to call the government for "assistance" in cleaning it up properly. The cost was roughly $2000.
Enjoy!
I would like to see that information sited.
*cited
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
There was a news report a while back where someone broke one of those CFL's in their house and was dumb enough to call the government for "assistance" in cleaning it up properly. The cost was roughly $2000.
Enjoy!
I would like to see that information sited.
*cited
Coal price worldwide is collapsing, not just in the US.
http://www.platts.com/newsfeature/2012/thermalcoal/index
and maybe the coal industry can stop blaming EPA for their own investment mistakes.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/719541-coal-is-dead-long-live-natural-gas
http://www.platts.com/newsfeature/2012/thermalcoal/index
and maybe the coal industry can stop blaming EPA for their own investment mistakes.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/719541-coal-is-dead-long-live-natural-gas
I don't see the coal industry complaining about the EPA in you link. In fact:
Quote:
One possible policy change that might help coal mining is that the environmentalists and the EPA manage to stop hydraulic fracturing of natural gas, which will curb natural gas supply and make dirtier coal a viable option again—a bit ironic, isn't it?
Rather entertaining.
They took a risk and lost. They didn't see the drastic effect of new mining techniques on the supply of natural gas. Not sure many people did.
Maybe they should be lobbying for a bailout to "save jobs"?
Quote:
One possible policy change that might help coal mining is that the environmentalists and the EPA manage to stop hydraulic fracturing of natural gas, which will curb natural gas supply and make dirtier coal a viable option again—a bit ironic, isn't it?
Rather entertaining.
They took a risk and lost. They didn't see the drastic effect of new mining techniques on the supply of natural gas. Not sure many people did.
Maybe they should be lobbying for a bailout to "save jobs"?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
And the new (CO2) regs don't apply to the old plants in the first place.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307524051798192.html
The companies that elected to close down their existing plants are doing it for their own reasons,
Quote:
that will effectively block the construction of new coal-burning plants and make natural gas even more attractive as a fuel for generating electricity.
Thanks for posting an article that directly shows how the government arbitrarily alters the economic landscape and picks winners and losers. This activity prevents a free market.
And people wonder why there isn't a natural turnover of power plants.
And cherry picking the CO2?:
Quote:
By 2012, the state’s utilities must reduce annual sulfur dioxide emissions to 244,000 tons, a 47 percent cut from 2010 levels. Its nitrogen oxide levels must fall about 8 percent.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energ...ower-plants.ece
This is for existing plants.
And the new (CO2) regs don't apply to the old plants in the first place.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307524051798192.html
The companies that elected to close down their existing plants are doing it for their own reasons,
Quote:
that will effectively block the construction of new coal-burning plants and make natural gas even more attractive as a fuel for generating electricity.
Thanks for posting an article that directly shows how the government arbitrarily alters the economic landscape and picks winners and losers. This activity prevents a free market.
And people wonder why there isn't a natural turnover of power plants.
And cherry picking the CO2?:
Quote:
By 2012, the state’s utilities must reduce annual sulfur dioxide emissions to 244,000 tons, a 47 percent cut from 2010 levels. Its nitrogen oxide levels must fall about 8 percent.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energ...ower-plants.ece
This is for existing plants.
Comprehension skills lacking much ?
CO2, as per links provided by others is identified as the "barrier" for new plants...and is not retrospective...i.e. it doesn't apply to older plants (or their coal mines), so is moot.
Acid rain and smog are just part of doing business for a new plant (yes, even in China), are not a barrier to new entrants, and yes, are being applied retrospectively to plants that is basically up to the stage of re-licencing...and as the EPA have stated in the links that you and others have provided...is negotiable, and the decision to close plants is that of the station owners, not the EPA.
Faux have argued that they are there to provide entertainment for their target audiences, NOT facts and truth.
You lot must be thoroughly entertained
CO2, as per links provided by others is identified as the "barrier" for new plants...and is not retrospective...i.e. it doesn't apply to older plants (or their coal mines), so is moot.
Acid rain and smog are just part of doing business for a new plant (yes, even in China), are not a barrier to new entrants, and yes, are being applied retrospectively to plants that is basically up to the stage of re-licencing...and as the EPA have stated in the links that you and others have provided...is negotiable, and the decision to close plants is that of the station owners, not the EPA.
Faux have argued that they are there to provide entertainment for their target audiences, NOT facts and truth.
You lot must be thoroughly entertained
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
http://seekingalpha.com/article/719541-coal-is-dead-long-live-natural-gas
'Long live natural gas'??? Not if the enviro-activists get their way:
The war oncoal natural gas.
Quote:
...low natural gas prices resulting from the industry’s success in drilling likely have caused the Sierra Club to fear renewable energy may never be competitive, so its new position is aimed at reducing the gas supply and driving up its price.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/719541-coal-is-dead-long-live-natural-gas
'Long live natural gas'??? Not if the enviro-activists get their way:
The war on
Quote:
...low natural gas prices resulting from the industry’s success in drilling likely have caused the Sierra Club to fear renewable energy may never be competitive, so its new position is aimed at reducing the gas supply and driving up its price.
JHZR2
Staff member
You realize that either end of the spectrum is whacko, and anyone brainwahsed at any point inbetween is equally as bad, right?
Renewables will get their play. I know a ton of folks very happy with that stuff already. They pay over 40c/kWh and make out well. Dont doubt that with three billion energy users coming on line, we will be paying that at some point too.
Having zero foresight because of cost convenience is as criminal as the stuff posted about the sierra club.
Renewables will get their play. I know a ton of folks very happy with that stuff already. They pay over 40c/kWh and make out well. Dont doubt that with three billion energy users coming on line, we will be paying that at some point too.
Having zero foresight because of cost convenience is as criminal as the stuff posted about the sierra club.
Silly regs in Oz gave solar PV 5 credits for every actual, and paid early adopters 60c/KWhr versus a domestic tarrif of $22c.
Pretty well wiped out the biomass industry overnight...
that being said, energy policy needs to have a "budget". There is only one source of energy that is there all day every day...every other "fuel" was once that energy, and has been stored in one way or another, and we are burning it at unsustainable rates (generation <<< consumption)
Pretty well wiped out the biomass industry overnight...
that being said, energy policy needs to have a "budget". There is only one source of energy that is there all day every day...every other "fuel" was once that energy, and has been stored in one way or another, and we are burning it at unsustainable rates (generation <<< consumption)
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
You realize that either end of the spectrum is whacko, and anyone brainwahsed at any point inbetween is equally as bad, right?
Renewables will get their play. I know a ton of folks very happy with that stuff already. They pay over 40c/kWh and make out well. Dont doubt that with three billion energy users coming on line, we will be paying that at some point too.
Having zero foresight because of cost convenience is as criminal as the stuff posted about the sierra club.
Absolutely agreed. Shannow should take note!
The last line is particularly poignant. Anyone else get that?
Those of us who imagine that they are the intellectual elite and should lead the rest of the unwashed into the future are a huge part of the problem here, as each side simply manipulates the media "facts" to suit their personal agenda.
You realize that either end of the spectrum is whacko, and anyone brainwahsed at any point inbetween is equally as bad, right?
Renewables will get their play. I know a ton of folks very happy with that stuff already. They pay over 40c/kWh and make out well. Dont doubt that with three billion energy users coming on line, we will be paying that at some point too.
Having zero foresight because of cost convenience is as criminal as the stuff posted about the sierra club.
Absolutely agreed. Shannow should take note!
The last line is particularly poignant. Anyone else get that?
Those of us who imagine that they are the intellectual elite and should lead the rest of the unwashed into the future are a huge part of the problem here, as each side simply manipulates the media "facts" to suit their personal agenda.
JHZR2
Staff member
Yeah, my angle is that making points supposedly based upon economics (which could be arguable, really just stinginess and lack of regard for anything) is as criminal as any Sierra Club price fixing pipe dream.
Agreed...
the problem with the slash and burn brigade is that any restriction is in and of itself inherently evil.
the problem with the rabid greens is that any environmental consequence of any description is in and of itself inherently evil.
Neither act in the best interests of society.
the problem with the slash and burn brigade is that any restriction is in and of itself inherently evil.
the problem with the rabid greens is that any environmental consequence of any description is in and of itself inherently evil.
Neither act in the best interests of society.
It also does not serve the best interests of society when government agencies like the EPA favor one extreme over the other.
EPA Offfical Forced to Resign Over ‘Crucify Oil Companies’ Comment
EPA Offfical Forced to Resign Over ‘Crucify Oil Companies’ Comment
JHZR2
Staff member
You do realize that this person was forced to resign for this, right?
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Yeah, my angle is that making points supposedly based upon economics (which could be arguable, really just stinginess and lack of regard for anything) is as criminal as any Sierra Club price fixing pipe dream.
What is clean air?
Yeah, my angle is that making points supposedly based upon economics (which could be arguable, really just stinginess and lack of regard for anything) is as criminal as any Sierra Club price fixing pipe dream.
What is clean air?
Quote:
is negotiable, and the decision to close plants is that of the station owners, not the EPA.
So if the EPA had not put out new regulations on emissions, the power plants would close anyway?
Are you saying that the EPA's decision has no bearing on the decisions of the power companies to close these plants?
is negotiable, and the decision to close plants is that of the station owners, not the EPA.
So if the EPA had not put out new regulations on emissions, the power plants would close anyway?
Are you saying that the EPA's decision has no bearing on the decisions of the power companies to close these plants?
- Status
Similar threads
