New EPA rule will block all new coal-electric generation

Photobucket

Guest post by Alec Rawls

The upcoming rule:

… will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.

Can this stand, after Obama’s big energy-policy tour last week included not a single mention CO2, greenhouse gases, climate or global warming?

EPA’s endangerment ruling on CO2 is being challenged in the courts right now. In particular, the world’s largest coal company, Peabody Energy Company, is challenging the ruling specifically on the grounds that EPA improperly relied on the IPCC’s bogus claims that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Obama’s retreat from any mention of CO2 or climate, never mind global warming, would seem to be an official admission that Peabody is right and the IPCC is wrong. How can global warming be important enough to warrant shutting down coal, by far the largest source of electricity in the country, if it is not important enough for the president to even mention during his big energy-policy extravaganza?

Obama did mention “clean energy” several times in his Nevada speech, but there is nothing unclean about CO2, certainly not that can hold up in court. CO2 is the beginning of the food chain, the essential nutrient from which all life on earth is constructed. Animals get their carbon building blocks from plants which get it from atmospheric or oceanic CO2 through photosynthesis, and current levels of CO2—about 0.039 percent of the atmosphere—are alarmingly close to the minimum required to sustain life.

From Lawrence Livermore Labs CO2 “fact sheet“:

Carbon dioxide is necessary to sustain life in concentrations of about 0.04 percent of the earth’s atmosphere …

The biosphere craves more of this healthful gas, not less.

The ONLY concern about CO2 is the idea that its greenhouse warming effect might be dangerous, and no such concern is being voiced by Obama. Apparently it is off the table, which ought to clear off all of his green energy plans as well, because their expressed rationale was the greenhouse threat from CO2. That is especially true with the EPA’s endangerment finding for CO2, which explicitly relies on the IPCC reports.

Oral arguments in the consolidated Peabody case took place at the end of February, but if the entire basis for the endangerment finding is no longer operative, the court ought to admit a motion to include that information. It will be a travesty if Obama is allowed to unplug ultimately half the grid on a rationale that he himself now considers too toxic to mention.

About these ads

158 thoughts on “New EPA rule will block all new coal-electric generation

  1. Lets hope the USA follows in the steps of queensland and turfs out anybody involved with AGW

  2. They’d better watch themselves – if the upcoming rule “…will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt…”, then they’re slowly building a case that only a nuclear plant will meet their requirement.

  3. Technology is equal to scrubbing waste co2 from coal power-generation and capturing it in closed-loop pyrolysis. An unintended consequence of this rule may be to force this particular type of cogeneration on the industry.

  4. They’d better watch out – they’re painting themselves into a corner.

    If the new rule “…will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt…”, then they’re leaving little choice other than nuclear.

    If less CO2 is their ultimate goal, how much CO2 does a nuclear plant emit per megawatt?

  5. This is the ultimate victory of the initative started by ENRON, they of the crooked E. The finance of the green sector PR machine by Big Gas is what this was all about: demonize coal and then offer Natural Gas as the ‘low carbon’ alternative. ENRON was trying to monopolize the natural gas sources available at the time when they went down.

    As all monopoly capitalists know, a cartel is as good as a monopoly. This is their moment of victory.

  6. As long as the arguments are not on pure legal grounds alone. The last case they had hinged on whether the EPA had the powers to declare CO2 a pollutant. The SCOTUS cannot rule on scientific matters.

    It would be better to use the evidence within Donna LaFramboise “The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”. Her book demolishes all claims that the IPCC has any scientific standing. More importantly, it is full of references to original documentation. Even getting that book into a case with the SCOTUS as public evidence would be extremely influential.

  7. If I were the next president, Lisa Jackson would be on the payroll about 30 more milliseconds.

  8. President Zero, June 2011:

    “You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”:

  9. Hey we just had a ‘Horizon’ program on the BBC about ‘Climate Weirding’ Lots of dodgy statistics but no science and NO I repeat …NO mention of CO2.

    It’s too quiet…I don’t like it…what are they up to…

    On the bright side tho’ the good old biased bbc happened to mention of the ‘wireless’ this morning that last year was one of the worst years for natural disasters…. Seemed to get their ‘science’ from Lloyds of London the insurance people. No bias there then.

  10. henrythethird says: @ March 28, 2012 at 4:45 am

    They’d better watch themselves –….. then they’re slowly building a case that only a nuclear plant will meet their requirement.
    ____________________________________________
    They are counting on the NIMBYs to kill that option.

    There is a well funded Astro-turf group around who pays local people to demonstrate at nuclear power plant sites. In 1984 (snicker) I ran across a lot of their ads in the Boston Globe when I was job hunting. They were paying twice what burger flipping was and a bit more than a lab tech would earn. ($10/hr min. wage was $3.35)

    However Thorium seems to be gaining some approval from the Greens.
    Thorium: Nuclear Energy’s Clean Little Secret | Change.org News

  11. While Obama distances himself from this, that does not mean he doesn’t believe it. I believe it likely he will say, “The EPA has ruled. I really can’t do anything about that. The scientists know better than I.”

    “Necessarily skyrocket” and “Bankrupt”

  12. Two weeks before the next election, turn off all coal-fired power stations and give the American public a good hard look at their long bleak future.

  13. A Democrat was quoted as saying the ruling will not affect coal generation because no new coal generating stations are currently planned. He waffled a bit when he was cautioned that existing coal generation facilities will need to negotiate with the government (possibly to stay open by sequestering CO2).

    I just don’t get the American political system. The EPA labels CO2 (and indirectly fossil fuels) as a pollutant while the President fast-tracks the Keystone pipeline (to raw crude into the US for refining).

  14. It is important to note what was on the front page of yesterdays Wall Street Journal. There’s Obama talking to Russian President Medvedev telling him, “This is my last election, and after my election I have more flexibility”. This archangel already thinks he’s won it. Let’s prove him wrong in November. And the news media likes dramatic AGW headlines: how’s this for a dramatic headline, ‘Obama to shut down almost half of all U.S. electrical generating capacity.’ That’ll get some pre-election attention. Put him on the spot. And then in parentheses add that he’s doing it while the economy’s still in the doldrums.

  15. cherry-picked some of the reality, but do read for the Omega-3 fatty acids and spirulina segments:

    27 March: Bloomberg: China Beats U.S. With Power From Coal Processing Trapping Carbon
    China passed the U.S. as the top carbon polluter in 2007; it now emits more than the U.S. and India combined, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
    Yet with 1.3 billion people, power-hungry industries and scant oil or natural gas, it has no immediate alternatives to coal for fueling its economy. China gets 70 percent of its energy from coal, three times the U.S. figure. It even converts coal into diesel fuel and ammonia that’s used for making fertilizer.
    After consuming as much coal as did the rest of the planet combined in 2010, China still can’t muster enough electricity to avoid blackouts or accelerate the rise of its western provinces out of poverty, says Zhao Gang, director of a research institute at Beijing’s Ministry of Science and Technology…
    China can’t quit coal…
    Scientists say China must act now. The world has just two or three decades to avoid irreversible climate change, says Kelly Sims Gallagher, an energy professor at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, and author of two books on pollution…
    David Fridley, at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, says it may already be too late to avert higher temperatures, rising seas and melting glaciers. He says China’s emissions won’t stop increasing until its population peaks at 1.45 billion in 2030 — that’s 15 years after he predicts immutable global warming.
    “If global emissions don’t start declining after 2015, all we can do is adapt to a world that will be highly disrupted,” he says…
    Environmentalists say efforts to improve coal power are shortsighted because they divert attention and money from renewable energy.
    “Electricity from coal plants that are designed to avoid filthy and uncontrolled pollution is two to three times more expensive than alternatives like wind and solar,” says Bruce Nilles, deputy conservation director of environmental advocacy group Sierra Club. “Coal is the biggest part of our carbon problem, and we’re fighting to keep it underground.” …
    Companies may adopt carbon trapping because governments are likely to limit CO2 through taxes or emission caps, according to the 2011 annual energy outlook published by Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the world’s largest energy company by market value. By 2040, carbon costs may reach $80 a ton in the U.S. and $30 a ton in China, the report says…
    John Lippert and Chua Baizhen, with assistance from Richard Weiss in Frankfurt, William Mellor in Sydney and Mark Drajem in Washington. Editors: Gail Roche, Jonathan Neumann
    To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: John Lippert in Chicago/Chua Baizhen in Beijing

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/china-beats-u-s-with-power-from-coal-processing-trapping-carbon.html

  16. New ad on WUWT from Nature Conservancy about calculating your “carbon footprint”.
    I don’t care what mine is because it is completely meaningless !!
    But I did click the ad for some ad revenue for the web host !!

  17. …1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt…

    This should read …per megawatt-hour…

    This mistake belongs to the Washington Post.

  18. Mr. Green and his minions Jackson and Chu want to skyrocket energy prices. There is no science to this agenda only the green cause. It is not about big Oil, only about big government in charge of every aspect of our lives here in the U.S. The trace gas CO2 is the lever.

  19. When we can no longer generate enough electrical power to supply our homes and jobs, please let’s remember to first cut the electricity to all of the government CAGW “research” facilities like NOAA, NASA-GISS and NCAR…

    Where are our trolls? Oh yeah – they’re off consuming fossil fuels while advocating policies that will destroy our economy…

  20. I do not know whether the right test is ‘whether CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming as the IPCC contend to be the case’ but if that is the test, it is not easy to envisage that a court of law applying the usual civil standard of the burden of proof would uphold such an allegation as being correct.

    It would be interesting to see that allegation challenged in a court of law where the claim is held to account by rigorous cross examination and the consideration of wider expert evidence. .

    Further, and materially, it is difficult to see how one can allege that burning coal is leading to global warming let alone dangerous global warming in the light of the Chinese experience. Is it not part of the warmist’s case regarding the stall of temperaturess these past 10 to 15 years that these have stalled because of aerosol emiisions from Chinese coal powered stations? Peabody should use that claim.

    It would be interesting to put that evidence before the Court since based on that evidence. is it not clear that there will be no dangerous global warming provided that coal fired generating stations are build to the same emission standards as those deployed in China. If the USA stations are built to the same emission standards as the Chinese stations then US coal powered stations will be doing exactly what the Chinese coal powered stations are doing and through their aerosol emissions they will keep temperatures stalled and hence will not cause gloabl warming let alone dangerous global warming.

    I think that with a well constructed argument, Peabody will have a strong case for coal. They can even use the warmists’ claims against the warmists, and against the present ruling by the EPA!

  21. Yes, this new rule effectively bans any new coal fired power plants, even with the most efficient technology possible. The whole process of building, financing and permitting carbon capture and sequestration is not settled and is therefore not available. And allowing a coal plant to operate without CCS for 10 years with the CO2 capture to be made up later is a fool’s dream, no one would take on that kind of risk.

    Much of EPA’s reasoning on the impact of this rule is predicated on the recent availability of cheap natural gas. Great. But some in the environmental community are already signalling that natural gas is next on their hit list. They have to have something to do, right?

  22. I think a better way to picture the impact of this rule would be a pie chart with the percent of new power plants by type of fuel over the past 5 or so years. And/Or, the percent of planned power plants that are coal.

    We are witnessing the failure of the US system of government. These and other mandates from Federal Agencies are the result of our federal government trying to consolidate power in the Executive Branch.

  23. Can you Americans please hold off completely destroying your country for a few more months, we have a planned 6 week holiday visiting a dozen States starting in July and we would really like a little electricity from time to time.

  24. I’m not at all a fan of this regulation, but I feel that Mr. Rawls is misrepresenting it here.

    The regulation is on NEW power plants, not existing ones, so it will not lead to anything being “unplugged”. Existing coal plants will keep on operating.

    That said, I agree with just about everything else he has written.

  25. Sigh. So AGW will collapse, and SOME of the policies that were justified by its ‘threat’ will be removed. The hippies have dragged the corpse of AGW on and on and on, no matter how bad the stink has become – but once there is no more use left in the corpse…

    But MANY policies WILL remain, even as AGW is declared dead. The Watermelons will pick something else, and the whole cycle will repeat. And repeat. And repeat.

    They want global socialism, totalitarianism by such things as thought-laws (example the ‘hate’-laws, were the government now no longer merely places limits on behaviors such as theft and murder, but ‘politically-unacceptable’ THOUGHTS as well), and as long as people are stupid cowards, the hippies will continue to advance. Created bogeyman by created bogeyman, used to justify ever more policy, regulation, law, etc. etc.

    Since the hippies are liars, deceivers with no honor and no integrity, there CAN BE NO fair dealings with them. Either they are marked as the enemy of civilization, and their works opposed as such, or else our present, freedom-based, civilization WILL fall.

    Or to put in terms perhaps more familiar: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance… OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN? Mmmm?

    But this reversal will not happen: non-Christians, i.e. humanists and deists and all the other nit-wits, have too much to lose to be able to face the Darkness. (Excepting the ever present exceptions, of course.) Just look at how the murder and abuse of women, children, gays, etc, by a certain group of Very Peaceful People, are IGNORED by the oh-so-very-amazingly-super-brave hippies. Christianity, which has always only really existed as a small percentage of those laying claim to it, is little more than a whisper of a shadow of a ghost: and with its end, so ends the entire civilization that was founded upon it.

    And why not take a quick snapshot of what will be the state of the actual true church at the end-of-days, as per the bible:
    And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

    Gotta agree with Westboro on this: abandon hope, you schmucks. That which stood between you all and obliteration has been destroyed, mainly by your own hands – so now you will all reap the whirlwind, and your children with you. Such is the fate of fools, and those who are theirs and with them.

  26. Surely you don’t think that just because it’s become politically inconvenient to mention CO2, and Obama has stopped, that this for one second alters what he and the unelected bureaucrats think and how they will act behind the scenes? No one is that naive. Particularly since tilting the market towards natural gas benefits a number of large donors and supporters…

  27. We can’t build coal, we can’t build nuclear, we can’t build hydro – all that will be left is wind & solar, both proven to consume more energy than they create.

    I guess some people dream of the good-old-days – i.e. the dark ages.

    Glenn

  28. I am trying to recall where I read about how natural gas business is lobbying Obama administration to come up with new rules against coal plants. I guess Obama is helping his buddies get richer…

  29. I don’t like this rule either, or the rationale for it, but this essay is rather hyperbolic. Obama doesn’t seek to “unplug half the grid” but just to set standards for new coal-electric plants which effectively discourage new ones. Not quite the same thing.

  30. The upcoming EPA rule (a proposal rather than a law-to-be at this point I presume from above) is beyond stupid, It is clinically insane but it may have a purpose for which coal-hating is a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
    Hearing Obama’s speech in Seoul he was promoting Nukes in terms of cutting CO2 emissions and global warming and employed the usual brazen lies to do that – see 9ii) in – http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=444&c=5
    It would seem to me that really they have a long term goal of nuke power all over the place with the USA controlling the technology for it. CO2 and coal then are the bogies to justify that project – which is another line of world domination with international structures and strong states being required to stop proliferation of dangerous by-products.
    Piers Corbyn Weatheraction.com

  31. So it has finally happened–the favorite bumper sticker we mining engineering students used to display on our briefcases while at the U of U in the early ’80’s in defense of our profession and to counter the crazy environmentalism that was gripping the country:

    http://www.cafepress.com/+ban_mining_let_the_bastards_freeze_in_the_dark,460543641

    When this kicks in, I especially don’t want to hear any Mann-lovers or Tree-Huggers complaining. Ya hear?

    Idiots!

  32. If this ruling only applies to new build plant then they are creating the need to keep the old plants running. If they set a realistic target and provided incentives, new plant could be built that would drasticly reduce the amount of plant food that is emitted. Laws of unintended consequencies?

  33. Natural gas is far more valuable to use in homes while coal can be burnt in large plants with extensive cleanup, compared to vice versa.
    The US natural gas supply has been highly variable, exceeding $10/GJ (million BTU) in 2005 and 2010.
    With Japan shutting down their nuclear plants, its price of natural gas has soared to $16 / GJ.

    Shutting down coal is a short sighted foolish action based on a radical environmental / political agenda with where the premium is far more expensive than the danger. It would lay the foundation for very unstable electricity prices and rob future generations of highly valuable natural gas by burning it for a low value use compared to the abundant coal.

    Obama’s “all of the above” policy – is all EXCEPT the most abundant fossil fuels – with the consequence of major increases in fuel costs and in inflation.

  34. Henrythethird said: “then they’re slowly building a case that only a nuclear plant will meet their requirement.”
    I would guess that the 1768 lbs will be the allocation for every MW however it is produced, which is designed to encourage current coal power producers to subsidize solar and wind energy so that the proportion of CO2 per MW is reduced below the 1000lbs. Just a regulation designed to choke coal powered electricity generation. Once the regulation is introduced, it will be a relatively simple matter in future years to adjust the 1000lbs CO2 downwards.

  35. Well, whatcha gonna do about it? Elect Romney, who is just as Green as Obama?

    Until this country develops a SECOND political party, our only hope is total bankruptcy.

  36. Rule makers are a bit like pond scum. Once they get started in a pond they grow until they choke out all life, except their own of course.

  37. The far greater danger is oil supply unable to keep up with growing population and economic growth causing rapidly increasing prices leading to fuel shortages.
    See: World oil import bill nears $2-trillion: IEA Mar. 27, 2012

    Mr. Birol said the bill for importing nations had risen from $1.8-trillion in 2011 and $1.7-trillion in 2008.
    Oil-importing nations are set to pay a record $2-trillion this year for oil imports if crude prices do not fall, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Tuesday, undermining economic recovery. . . .
    If crude were to stay at current levels for the rest of the year – about $125 a barrel for Brent and $107 for U.S. crude – oil import bills would cost 3.4 per cent of gross domestic product, up from 3.1 per cent in 2011, Mr. Birol said . . .
    The cost of oil imports to the United States in an election year would reach a record $426-billion this year, up from $380-billion in 2011.

    We need an urgent war footing effort to develop alternative fuels to replace light oil. Converting coal to liquid fuels is one of the major options. At best EPA is “penny wise and pound foolish”. At worst it is acting like Chicken Little pushing us into much more expensive costs guaranteeing higher unemployment.

    EPA FACT SHEET: Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants

  38. One thing you can count on this year, at least into November, is that BO will utter nothing that might draw negative attention to himself. All existing problems either stemmed from previous admins, or the lack of compromise from the opposing party, never himself. He has stated clearly his intent, and it has nothing to do with the guise of environment nor clean energy, they are merely the medium, not the message*. Apologies to Marshall McLuhan.

    January 2008 Obama, Quote:
    “The problem is not technical, the problem is not uh, sufficient mastery of the intracacies of Washington, the problem is uh, can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing. Uh that requires mobilizing a citizenry, that requires them understanding what is at stake, you know, and climate change is a great example, you know when I was asked earlier about, uh, the issue of coal, uh, you’ll, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants natural gas plants, you name it, whatever the industry was, uh, retrofit their operations, that will cost money that will be passed on to consumers. You can already, you can already see what the arguments are going to be, during the general election, people are going to say ‘Obama and Algore, these folks are gonna to destroy the economy with this $8 trillion dollars or whatever the number is’, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes there’s going to be an increase in the rates of electricty in the front end, but that over the longterm because of the combination of the more efficient energy usage and changing lightbulbs, and more efficient appliances, uh, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit, if we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you, you can uh, you can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington, you’re not gonna get that done.

    *One may argue that decimating our power supply system is the message, then replacing plentiful cheap power with expensive inadequate supply fits ‘the medium is the message’.

  39. Follow your own reasoning ALec. CO2 is obviously necessary for life, just as Oxygen is. But too much is bad. The ratio matters, especially when safe limits are dramatically exceeded. The greenhouse phenomenon is well-known, as you agree, and it is real, as are the consequences for allowing warming to reach unprecedented rates.

    And by the way ALec, the IPCC is not some fly-by-night group. Its reports are the summaries of thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world, signed off by every major Academy of Science in the world and finally the participating governments. Their findings are universally accepted, except a by a few, who, for their own mysterious reasons, refuse to be persuaded. I guess you’re one of those few ALec.

  40. This is getting beyond insane. Does anyone in this administration live in the real world?
    Are they intentionally trying to destroy the country?

  41. RockyRoad says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:16 am
    So it has finally happened–the favorite bumper sticker we mining engineering students used to display on our briefcases while at the U of U in the early ’80′s in defense of our profession and to counter the crazy environmentalism that was gripping the country:
    —————
    By coincidence starting in 1980 when the NEP was started in Canada a similar bumper sticker was popular.

    “The popular western slogan during the NEP – appearing on many bumper stickers – was “Let the Eastern [snip]s freeze in the dark”.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program#Reaction_in_Western_Canada

  42. First, there are no new coal plants on the horizon for free-market business reasons. Natural gas is both cheaper and cleaner than coal. Second, coal plants emit sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, arsenic and many other pollutants. There are real externalized costs to our general health. Third, there will never be a dearth CO2 to support natural cycles. Anyone implying otherwise is an alarmist. Fourth, Obama’s non-mention of CO2 is another spotlight on the broken American political environment and process. Nothing more. And fifth, the current percentage of electricity generated by coal is as irrelevant as percentage of horse-drawn travel in the 1800s. Time and technology changes.

  43. New coal plants with all the pollution controls for NOx,SO2, soot and all the other various pollutants are not all that cheap.

    A new ‘state of the art’ coal plant costs in the neighborhood of $3 billion and a new nuclear plant costs around $5 billion.

    http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/beck_plantcosts/pdf/updatedplantcosts.pdf

    Given the current low price of natural gas fuel in the US and the relatively high price of coal plants the EPA is just getting in front of something that is happening anyway.

    New plant construction charts –

    http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

    Obviously…Peabody coal would at least like the option of building ‘new coal’ plants to exist.

  44. As usual, EPA standards are not designed to be reasonable. They are designed to accomplish a goal by setting standards that cannot be met. They want to kill coal, and then natural gas is next.

    It’s amazing that we cannot get the EPA to understand that CO2 cannot and does not warm the climate and is plant food and not toxic in any way. We need more, not less.

    Of course, that’s just wishful thinking as, just like the global warming scam, it has nothing to do with science or toxic gases or human safety. It is a political agenda designed to subdue and destroy the economy.

    Natural gas is 40-50% hydrogen and coal is 0% hydrogen. It makes sense that natural gas would have half the carbon emissions—it’s simple chemistry.

  45. I assume that the quote should be ‘1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour’, not ‘per megawatt’. The latter is pretty meaningless. Let’s say you have a plant producing 500 megawatts. It’s only allowed to produce 500,000 pounds of CO2…. over what timescale? Per day, per second, per month?

    I always worry about pople taking part in this debate when they don’t know the difference between energy and power.

  46. Hugh Pepper says:

    “CO2 is obviously necessary for life, just as Oxygen is. But too much is bad. The ratio matters, especially when safe limits are dramatically exceeded.”

    So what exactly is “too much” CO2?? Of course you will not answer that with a specific number, because you are a complete scientific illiterate. You make up your own bogus ‘facts’ and refuse to provide any citations. Because there are no credible references to support your pseudo-science opinions.

    We are still waiting for you to produce your seven (7) papers putatively supporting Michael Mann’s debunked hokey stick. Where are they, Hugh? In your deluded, wacko brain? They certainly do not exist in the real world.

  47. “And by the way ALec, the IPCC is not some fly-by-night group. Its reports are the summaries of thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world”

    You’re joking, right? Their “peer-reviewed studies” included anecdotal reports from mountain climbers in Switzerland and press releases/fund raising publications from the World Wildlife Fund.

  48. “Second, coal plants emit sulfur dioxide, mercury, nitrogen oxides, arsenic and many other pollutants.”

    So? The risks from those emissions are swamped by the benefits of the power generated.

  49. A bit of an exaggeration, isn’t it? “New EPA rule will block all new coal-electric generation”

    Not quite, it’s merely a requirement that new coal fired stations meet a (readily achievable) emissions target. Let’s dial down the extremism perhaps?

  50. Send the EPA the last video of Roy Spencer.. Question. How much CO2 is needed to build to maintain, and after 15 or 20 years break down a windmill ? Who can do the math.

  51. @ EW-3 says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:45 am

    This is getting beyond insane. Does anyone in this administration live in the real world?
    Are they intentionally trying to destroy the country?
    ====================================================
    Does anyone in this administration live in the real world? — NO; They are already living in their fantasy Utopia.
    Are they intentionally trying to destroy the country?– YES; Because in their view the country, indeed the world, as it exists today is obsolete.

  52. Smokey says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:57 am

    Hugh Pepper says:

    Smokey – people like Hugh Pepper love to decry “excess” CO2 and coal fired power plants from the comfort of their air conditioned offices and homes. Remember that it’s EASY being green as long as the lights come on when when you press the light switch…

    To our trolls (like Hugh) – PLEASE STOP USING FOSSIL FUELS…RIGHT NOW…TODAY. That means – no gasoline for your auto, no electricity or heat derived from fossil fuels for your home or office. To do otherwise would of course be hypocritical, and we all know you wish to do the right thing.

  53. fredb says:
    March 28, 2012 at 7:05 am

    A bit of an exaggeration, isnt it? New EPA rule will block all new coal-electric generation

    Not quite, its merely a requirement that new coal fired stations meet a (readily achievable) emissions target. Lets dial down the extremism perhaps?

    OK Fred. Show us how to “achieve” it. Will it cause energy prices to go up? Can you afford it? Can everyone else (especially the poor and those who are out of work)?

  54. Hugh Pepper said:

    “…And by the way ALec, the IPCC is not some fly-by-night group. Its reports are the summaries of thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world, signed off by every major Academy of Science in the world and finally the participating governments. Their findings are universally accepted, except a by a few, who, for their own mysterious reasons, refuse to be persuaded. I guess you’re one of those few ALec…”

    O.M.G.

    Nobody could actually be gullible enough to belive that.

    I believe you’re spouting gibberish just to get a rise out of people.

    That statement could be demolished line-by-line by anyone with a single brain cell.

  55. Cheap energy is the key to helping the poor (along with everyone else as well) and bringing prosperity back to our country. New EPA regulations are driving a stake thru the heart of our economy, killing the poor and destroying the middle class. Obama and his catastrophic global warming cronies (Jackson and $8 a gallan gas Chu) have to go.

  56. Hugh Pepper et.al. of the CO2-is-pollution trolls:

    [SNIP: The management of this site gets really bent out of shape when anyone makes that kind of suggestion. We are just not going there. -REP]

  57. Obama is a politician. A large portion of his base still believes in global warming and he doesn’t dare to alienate them. He needs the votes. The ship of state is being slowly turned. It will be a long time before they can frankly admit that CAGW is a crock but the day will come. In the mean time, actions speak louder than words.

    As Steve from Rockwood points out, no new coal plants are being planned. The new rules will have no immediate effect, other than to convince his base that Obama is still with them. There’s plenty of time after the election to quietly emasculate or dump the CO2 limits.

    As for Romney and whatever beliefs he has … He’s just an older, craftier politician. ;-)

  58. Carbon capture and store is expensive, dangerous and totally irrelevant with respect to having any meaningful impact on reducting global warming. Creating huge reservoirs of CO2 undergroiund in a localized area may eventually lead to death to those who reside over top of it when a leak develops. CO2 vents have already caused death to villages and animals in recent years. Need to go back to the EPA regulatiions in effect in 1980 as they were sufficient enough to protect the environment as well as allow for affordable energy production.

  59. alcheson says:
    March 28, 2012 at 7:32 am

    “Cheap energy is the key to helping the poor (along with everyone else as well) and bringing prosperity back to our country.”

    This is precisely what our trolls don’t understand. But they don’t care, just as long as they get paid their generous salaries (for whatever they do, likely some “research” nobody needs), the lights come on in their offices and homes, some delivers goods to their local stores (all done with the help of fossil fuels BTW).

  60. Hugh Pepper – suggested reading is Donna LaFramboise’s “The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert”.

    Second, see http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/eh/chemfs/fs/carbondioxide.htm and note that for humans high levels aren’t until greater than 1,000 ppm.

    High is relative, and based on our current level of CO2, we are not near any dangerous levels other than being too low for plants to grow well.

  61. When the car industry was faced with tailpipe percent emissions one of the things that they did was to add a compressor to the engine to inject clean air in to the exhaust manifold. This diluted the gasses in the exhaust system and lowered the tailpipe percent emissions to an acceptable level. This met the ‘letter of the law’

    “will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced”

    Use a coal boiler to drive a steam turbine to generate one megawatt, use that one megawatt of generated electricity to drive an electric motor, use the electric motor to drive a 900 kilowatt alternator. Ship out the power from the alternator.

    The above processes generated 1.9 megawatts of electricity. It meets the ‘letter of the law’

  62. Russ R. says:
    March 28, 2012 at 5:56 am

    The EPA has ruled in the past that significant upgrades, or even maintenance is sufficient to turn an “old” plant, into a “new” one.

  63. David L. Hagen says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:39 am

    Since oil won’t be running out for some 300 to 400 years, I don’t see any need to start panicing just yet.

  64. Back in the early 70s, when I was doing pollution effects research at EPA, I testified as an expert witness for the state of Missouri vs Peabody Coal. The pollutants were SO2 and particulates. Missouri won. In this case, I agree with Peabody that CO2 is not a pollutant and I and many others would gladly testify for them. Legally, any regulation of CO2 should be put on hold until this case runs it’s course.

  65. old44 says:
    March 28, 2012 at 5:14 am

    Two weeks before the next election, turn off all coal-fired power stations and give the American public a good hard look at their long bleak future.
    ________________________________________
    You would not even have to turn them off just turn them down. Coal fired plants can be turned down to 20% of capacity.

    The last thing we need in the USA is more head lines like this:

    Kansas Denies Permit for Coal-Fired Power
    – TOPEKA, Kan., Oct. 22, 2007 — Environmental regulators turned down the air permits for two new coal-fired power plants last week because of concerns over carbon dioxide emissions.

    It is the first time a power plant permit has ever been denied because of greenhouse gas emissions and resulting impact on climate change….. http://greenopolis.com/media/headlines/kansas-denies-permit-coal-fired-power-plants

    ………..
    A side issue is if we are denied the possibility of growth in energy and the resulting stifling of job growth, then we DARN WELL BETTER ship all the immigrants, legal and illegal home so we continue to have enough energy available for Americans. The current USA population is above 300 million, about 8% of that population is immigrants. Already a lot of decent US jobs are taken by H-1B Program immigrants and this is generating ill will among frustrated job hunters. The media of course is trying to fight the perception.

    …not all high-immigrant occupations are lower-skilled and lower-wage. For example, 44 percent of medical scientists are immigrants, as are 34 percent of software engineers, 27 percent of physicians, and 25 percent of chemists….

    There are 93 occupations in which 20 percent or more of workers are immigrants….

    …There are 23.6 million natives in these high-immigrant occupations (20 percent or more immigrant). These occupations include 19 percent of all native workers….

    http://www.cis.org/illegalImmigration-employment

    12 million-plus illegal aliens in America

    DHS: ..an estimated 12.6 million LPRs lived in the United States on January 1, 2010. 8.1 million of those LPRs were eligible to naturalize.

    Inner Workings of the H-1B Program

    This type of rhetoric from the Whitehouse is not going to help smooth over the ill will.

    From Whitehouse.gov Startup America
    Reducing Barriers and Making Government Work for Entrepreneurs
    Department of Homeland Security Announces New Initiatives for Immigrant Entrepreneurs

    The White House has released a Blueprint for Building a 21st Century Immigration System, including President Obama’s support for legislative measures that would attract and retain immigrant entrepreneurs seeking to create jobs here in the U.S., such as the Startup Visa Act, strengthening the H-1B program, and “stapling” green cards to the diplomas of foreign-born science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) graduates, as part of comprehensive reform.

    What the heck ever happen to helping AMERICANS?

    No I do not dislike immigrants. I consider them the cream of the crop from the entire world but this is no how the Average Joe is going to view the situation. Especially when HIS taxes and HIS government appears to be helps immigrants and not HIS family.

  66. Steve from Rockwood says:
    March 28, 2012 at 5:16 am

    A Democrat was quoted as saying the ruling will not affect coal generation because no new coal generating stations are currently planned. He waffled a bit when he was cautioned that existing coal generation facilities will need to negotiate with the government (possibly to stay open by sequestering CO2).

    I just don’t get the American political system. The EPA labels CO2 (and indirectly fossil fuels) as a pollutant while the President fast-tracks the Keystone pipeline (to raw crude into the US for refining).
    ______________________________________
    That is simple. This allows the Oil companies to make a profit by refining the oil before shipping it to China.

    When trying to understand politics ALWAYS Follow the Money.

  67. Ed_B says:
    March 28, 2012 at 5:31 am
    How about building the plants in Mexico and importing the electricty and exporting the jobs?

    Already happening in California. About 1/3 of power is imported from outside the state. The CA Energy Commission should be stripped of power. They are true believers in centralized state command and control economy. Never will happen. The Gov, Jerry Brown created the CEC back in 1975.

    States generating power almost exclusively with coal have electricity prices well below average. Going after coal necessarily raises power prices. What little industry we have left may start looking for a new home.

    Abundant inexpensive and reliable power is needed to reboot our economy. That goal is achievable.

  68. Frank K,

    Not quite, its merely a requirement that new coal fired stations meet a (readily achievable) emissions target.

    Burning coal on average produces 208 pounds of CO2 per MMBTU’s.
    So we end up with a maximum allowing budget of 4.8 MMBtu’s/MWh if we burn coal with carbon Capture.(1000/2.08)
    At 100% efficiency is takes 3.4 BTU’s to product 1 watt. So far so good 4.8/3.4 gives us 1.4 MWh with a 1000 lb CO2 budget at 100% efficiency. At 71% efficiency we end up with our 1 MWh/1000 pounds of CO2 if we burn coal.

    There is no such thing as a 71% efficient thermal plant in actual operation. Maybe in a lab somewhere.

  69. I don’t believe it is hyperbole to say that this rule would “unplug ultimately half the grid.” Half the grid is coal fired and there won’t be any new plants under this rule, fhus “ultimately”… As Mark Steyn keeps reminding us, demographics is destiny.

    We’re not talking about a long time either. Many of the existing plants are already old. Neither can anything be done to reduce the amount of CO2 released except by sequestration, which besides being absurd (sequestering plant food) is at present infeasible.

    The Supreme Court’s acceptance of the EPA’s characterization of CO2 as “pollution” showed a remarkable scientific illiteracy, but the basis for allowing this was still in that case very clearly the claimed global warming danger from CO2. Thus the apparent withdrawal of the global warming rationale still vitiates the EPA’s position. They can’t say that it is “pollution” even if we are no longer concerned about greenhouse effects.

    Of course the Obamatons are only pretending that their alternative energy goals are no longer about CO2 (supposedly we are to put all of our eggs in these non-floating baskets in order to save the economy), but it is the administration’s public position that ought to weigh with the courts.

  70. John@EF says:
    March 28, 2012 at 7:36 am

    Frank K. says:
    Will it cause energy prices to go up?

    No. Natural gas is cheaper.

    OK. Let’s get fracking!

    Some fracking news…

    New Study Shows No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing

    Feb. 16, 2012

    VANCOUVER, British Columbia Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination, based on evidence reviewed in a study released Thursday by the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin.

  71. First it starts with the new plants, then it trickles down to existing plants.

    This rule is unnecessary for many reasons, starting with the bogus science. Next, natural gas is a plentiful and economical and companies are going to naturally prefer to build them instead. The real threat, mentioned above, is that this will soon be used to close existing plants leading to rolling blackouts and skyrocketing power rates throughout much of the country.

    Not to worry, however, as Secretary Chu’s backing of green companies run by Obama bundlers and the families of Democrat politicians will soon lead to… expensive, intermittent power that can never replace the coal plants. Hmmm…

    ~More Soylent Green!

  72. Is this what the Mayans understood as the end of the fifth sun? In any case it seems to be confined to the US, or at least this illness has spread mostly to english speaking countries.
    Gosh, you are doomed! This is a Jackson´s Thriller! :-)

  73. Alec Rawls says:
    “Many of the existing plants are already old. Neither can anything be done to reduce the amount of CO2 released except by sequestration, which besides being absurd (sequestering plant food) is at present infeasible.”

    Great. Retire them and replace with cheaper, cleaner natural gas.

  74. Random Information on Energy
    An Interesting Government Paper on Coal fired energy: Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-fired Power Production

    Energy Information Administration listed 594 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. in 2009, down from 645 coal-fired power plants in 2001. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, it is not economical to retrofit existing coal plants with carbon capture technology.

    There seems to be a <a href="http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2008/Indonesia2008.pdf"30-40 year lifespan for a coal-fired power plant.

    So as the USA continues to close down and not replace older coal powered plants China is opening another coal-fired power plant every week to 10 days. and China currently has 13 nuclear power plants with varied capacities. According to state-run Beijing Review, China at present has approved 43 nuclear power plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million kw.

    Notice the USA has ONE new nuclear plant approved and it will be on line by 2020 if the NIMBYs do not delay it.

    Nuclear Plant Construction

    Most reactors currently planned are in the Asian region, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

    Many countries with existing nuclear power programs (Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Czech Rep., France, India, Japan, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Korea, South Africa, Ukraine, UK, USA) have plans to build new power reactors (beyond those now under construction).

    In all, over 150 power reactors with a total net capacity of some 177,000 MWe are planned and over 330 more are proposed. Rising gas prices and greenhouse constraints on coal, coupled with energy security concerns, have combined to put nuclear power back on the agenda for projected new capacity in many countries.

    In the USA there are proposals for about twenty new reactors and 12 combined construction and operating licence applications for these are under review, with the first one issued in February 2012. All are for late third-generation plants, and a further proposal is for two ABWR units. it is expected that some of the new reactors will be on line by 2020….

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html

    Please. Can’t we bring our entire government up on charges of treason and hang the whole bunch of rent seekers in DC?? Pretty Please?

  75. burnside says:
    March 28, 2012 at 4:48 am
    “Technology is equal to scrubbing waste co2 from coal power-generation and capturing it in closed-loop pyrolysis. An unintended consequence of this rule may be to force this particular type of cogeneration on the industry.”

    There is so much wrong with what you say I guess you should start chemistry 101 all over again.

  76. Coal IS clean, except that it produces more plant food than natural gas. The small amounts of other pollutants it produces are not harmful at all. It is also cheap, and it diversifies our energy supply. To shift to massive consumption of natural gas is crazy. Gas should be used for home heating, cooking etc. Coal should ultimately be replaced with nukes, where the supply really is essentially inexhaustible. In the meantime, coal is great. Where the market displaces coal with gas, okay, but price volatility is going to limit that. It is only because of the unscientific barriers to coal that the switch is so dramatic now.

  77. harrywr2 says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:11 am
    “There is no such thing as a 71% efficient thermal plant in actual operation. Maybe in a lab somewhere.”

    A planned hypermodern huge coal plant in Germany, in NRW, called Datteln 4, 1000 GW, would achieve 45% (Gas and Steam cogeneration). Courts, Red-Green NRW government and local green NIMBY foot soldiers and the last cohorts of anti CO2 warmists are trying to block it and will probably succeed.

  78. What do you expect when the Marxist news media propagandizes a population, brainwashed by Marxist designed public education, causes a bunch of 60’s radicals, who hate the US, hate Western Civilization, and hate freedom to gain control of all institutions in the country?

    BTW, one does not need to run around waving a red flag shouting “Workers of the world unite!” to be a Marxist. If a person thinks with a Marxist world view, they are a Marxist.

  79. DirkH says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:59 am
    “A planned hypermodern huge coal plant in Germany, in NRW, called Datteln 4, 1000 GW, would achieve 45% (Gas and Steam cogeneration). ”

    Typo: 1000 MW, not GW, of course.

  80. Nerd says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:06 am

    I am trying to recall where I read about how natural gas business is lobbying Obama administration to come up with new rules against coal plants. I guess Obama is helping his buddies get richer…
    Perhaps you were think of this web site: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01

    Oil & Gas

    This industry, which includes multinational and independent oil and gas producers and refiners, natural gas pipeline companies, gasoline service stations and fuel oil dealers, has long enjoyed a history of strong influence in Washington. Individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle, 75 percent of which has gone to Republicans….

    …These companies are also wary of cap-and-trade climate change legislation, such as the measure Democratic President Barack Obama supports. Yet Obama still received $884,000 from the oil and gas industry during the 2008 campaign, more than any other lawmaker except his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

  81. Hugh Pepper says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:45 am
    Follow your own reasoning ALec. CO2 is obviously necessary for life, just as Oxygen is. But too much is bad. The ratio matters, especially when safe limits are dramatically exceeded. The greenhouse phenomenon is well-known, as you agree, and it is real, as are the consequences for allowing warming to reach unprecedented rates.

    And by the way ALec, the IPCC is not some fly-by-night group. Its reports are the summaries of thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world, signed off by every major Academy of Science in the world and finally the participating governments. Their findings are universally accepted, except a by a few, who, for their own mysterious reasons, refuse to be persuaded. I guess you’re one of those few ALec.

    hUGH, since you are a true believer, this will surely be the last we hear from you. If you are sincere, you must unplug from the power and the internet, sell your electronics and live in an entirely self-sustaining shack in the woods where you use no fossil fuels, consume nothing produced with fossil fuels, or nothing transported using fossil fuels. You must also pledge to never reproduce, or if you have already done so, never do so again, hUGH.

    Otherwise, hUGH, you’re not part of the answer, you’re just part of the problem.

  82. TDBraun says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:14 am

    I don’t like this rule either, or the rationale for it, but this essay is rather hyperbolic. Obama doesn’t seek to “unplug half the grid” but just to set standards for new coal-electric plants which effectively discourage new ones. Not quite the same thing.
    _________________________________
    A case of boiling the frog slowly, but boiling it just the same.

  83. Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:02 am

    You got a blog yet?

    Somewhere where some of your ‘arguments’ can be de-constructed without soiling Anthony’s place?

    On second thought, never mind. I’ll start one …

    .

  84. For those of us wanting to do something we can put comments on the Federal Register.

    Farmers managed to shout down the USDA and the proposed NAIS (National Animal ID) a few years ago in this way.

    In hunting around the internet I found this:

    TarheelDem March 27th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
    The Proposed Rule (PDF, 257pp). This is a pre-publication version. Waiting for the rule to hit the Federal Register and Regulaitions.gov. http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/pdfs/20120327proposal.pdf

    The standard: fossil fuel generating plants over 25MWe must meet a standard of 1000 lbs CO2 per megawatt-hour. Coal-fired plants can meet this standard by carbon-capture-and-storage.

    …‘carbon capture and
    storage’ or CCS. By this, we mean the use of a technology for
    separating and capturing CO2 from the flue gas or syngas stream
    with subsequent compression and transportation to a suitable
    location for long term storage and monitoring….

    http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/27/the-end-of-coal-new-epa-rules-will-limit-ghg-emissions/

  85. In addition to anti-coal lobbying by the gas industry, there is also green crony capitalism involved in subsidizing gas. The big recent news here was Obama’s attempt to subsidize natural gas infrastructure for his leftist billionaire buddy Soros. Heritage has the story:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/26/soros-may-benefit-from-white-houses-natural-gas-proposal/

    “George Soros, a billionaire investor and major backer of President Obama, stands to reap a windfall from legislation promoting natural gas-powered vehicles. The White House unveiled a proposal on Thursday that would do just that.”

    T. Boone Pickens, another billionaire natural gas mogul, was in with Soros on this. The legislation failed.

  86. Alec Rawls says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:59 am
    Coal IS clean, except that it produces more plant food than natural gas. The small amounts of other pollutants it produces are not harmful at all. It is also cheap, and it diversifies our energy supply. To shift to massive consumption of natural gas is crazy. Gas should be used for home heating, cooking etc. Coal should ultimately be replaced with nukes, where the supply really is essentially inexhaustible. In the meantime, coal is great. Where the market displaces coal with gas, okay, but price volatility is going to limit that. It is only because of the unscientific barriers to coal that the switch is so dramatic now.

    Alec, we are already shifting towards natural gas and away from coal. In part this is due to market forces — natural gas is cheap and abundant (and so is coal, as you know). In part, it’s because of the regulatory environment, or fear of new regulations like this one.

    We have plenty of natural gas and coal. But coal doesn’t burn as cleanly nor can it be mined and processed as cleanly as natural gas.

    I do agree that we should make more use of nuclear power. Another potential use of natural gas — gas-to-liquid technology can let us use natural gas in place of oil for gasoline. I believe GTL is cheaper than than coal-to-liquid (CTL), but if we have as much oil in this country as I believe we do, we may not need either of these.

  87. I normally don’t reply all that much or leave 2 replies but I couldn’t resist. Obviously CO2 is now considered a pollutant and I wondered whether mouth-to-mouth resuscitation should now be outlawed because the person receiving it will also be receiving that dangerous pollutant from the resuscitators breath. In researching this I came across the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center which appears to be affiliated with the Department of Energy. They have a website for ‘Frequently Asked Global Change Questions.’ One of the questions is: ‘Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?’ Answer: ‘No.’ Wow. This is how Wasington uses our tax money to educate us. It’s nice to know they think us plebeians are this stupid. I’m sure glad the ‘all knowing’ Obama’s in charge.

  88. To John@EF, who said:

    “First, there are no new coal plants on the horizon for free-market business reasons”

    That is absolutely wrong. From the original article referenced above, from the Washington Post: “There are about 20 coal plants now pursuing permits”

    Additionally, the new EPA rules do not apply only to newly constructed power plants. The wording of the tailoring rules makes the standard apply to any “new source”, which includes any replacement or upgrade of existing sources. You’re basically telling investors that if you invest in a coal power plant, you won’t get any ROI because the plant will be obsoleted prematurely. I would strongly advise against investing in any energy company before closely examining their portforlio. I would also advise dumping any CSX railroad stocks you might currently have.

    I think anyone who is pushing this thing should put their money where their agenda is, and buy some con-ed stocks to help them pay for upgrades. They really don’t have much of a choice in many cases. For some plants it will come down to a decision between two evils. In the worst case, the plants could be closed and take big losses for the stock holders, or alternatively, you keep the plants open and install costly upgrades, which still results in a loss, but not as big.

    The end result will be higher costs for energy, which will hit food producers really hard and damage US food exports due to uncompetitive prices, as well as higher prices for literally everything we buy.

    Don’t believe me? Skip the media hype and check out the EPA rules and tailoring adendums themselves. The effects won’t be immediate, but they will be a lot bigger than the EPA is claiming. The only thing that makes this even close to feasible is the recent boon in natural gas.

    One more thing to add to an already long post. Expect organizations like Greenpeace to push lawsuits with the aim of asking for broad interpretation of the EPA’s wording, which has been left intentionally vague. There will be attempts to expand the compliance mandates through liberal court justices, who are willing to do just about anything for the special interest groups.

    Link to the rules: http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/pdfs/20120327proposal.pdf

    Oh, and btw, the EPA doesn’t have the budget or manpower currently to enforce this, and the current plan pushes the bulk of the costs down to the State level. Good luck getting a permit when they are backed up by months, or even years.

  89. John@EF says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Great. Retire them and replace with cheaper, cleaner natural gas.

    If natural gas plants, are in fact cheaper, over all, then the power companies don’t need federal diktats, to order them to do what is already in their best interests.

  90. Thanks to a combination of factors, including (1) new EPA regulations and (2) the ‘de-regulated’ Texas electricity market, Texas faces potential electricity shortages this year … ERCOT has already run PSA (Public Service Announcement) radio messages regarding conservation. I have never seen conservation messages run before in Texas while not actually being ‘in situ’ during a crises.

    Here is ERCOT’s press release dated March 1st 2012:

    ERCOT expects tight reserves for summer
    Initiatives underway to address capacity concerns

    March 1, 2012, AUSTIN – Generation capacity for the state’s wholesale power system is expected to be tight this summer, according to a preliminary summer assessment released today by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the state grid operator and manager of the wholesale electric market.

    “Based on the National Weather Service’s three-month outlook, we are expecting above-normal temperatures this summer – though not as extreme as last summer’s,” Vice President of Grid Operations and System Planning Kent Saathoff said. “If that’s the case, we expect to be able to meet the peak demand on the grid, unless we have above-normal generation outages,” he said.

    Saathoff noted that initiatives are underway to increase voluntary demand reduction during peak summer hours.

    News media account, WFAA.com:

    Conservation’s the word to avoid summer blackouts says ERCOT (WFAA TV-8 Dallas) March 11, 2012

    DALLAS – It’s only March, but already Texans are being warned about the scorching summer heat.

    ERCOT, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, said the rolling power blackouts experienced in 2011 could be back in 2012.

    “It will be a tight summer for us,” said President and CEO H.B. “Trip” Doggett. “If we have the kind of extreme summer we had last year, we have the potential for rolling outages.”

    ERCOT operates Texas’s power grid, and Doggett is preaching one word for the upcoming summer: conservation.

    Remember that ‘Smart Meter” rollout? Yup, that is going to play a part in “demand reduction” too.

    – – – – – – – – –

    Now, explaining how the de-regulated electricity market enters into ‘effecting a shortage’ of electricity supply gets a little complex. Producers of electricity, the ‘generators’ of electricity must somehow be induced to invest (read that as “spend”) millions in plants and equipment which can be expected to operate only a portion of the year, during peak demand periods, usually during our summer months … given the economics of the situation, this can result in the cost in those ‘peaks’ of electric supply to range upwards of US $3,000 a MW-Hour, whereas baseload plants can produce at about US $40 a MWHour.

    So, to encourage additional expenditures on those used-just-few-months-of-the-year ‘peak’ generation facilities, the top ‘cap’ paid for bulk electricity production is probably going to be raised:

    Texas regulators look at raising wholesale electricity prices to spark new power plants By Laylan Copelin

    (Austin TX) AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF, Published: 9:29 p.m. Wednesday, March 7, 2012

    The Texas Public Utility Commission on Wednesday signaled a willingness to address looming electricity shortages by allowing wholesale prices to hit new highs during peak demands for power.

    The three commissioners agreed that wholesale electricity prices, now capped at $3,000 per megawatt-hour during peak demand, must be raised to encourage investors to build more generation plants.

    They disagreed, however, on how high and how soon.

    The state narrowly avoided rolling blackouts during last summer’s historically hot and dry conditions. This summer is projected to be slightly better, but by 2014 the state’s electricity reserves are forecast to diminish in the face of growing demand for electricity unless new plants are built.

    Generators have said they can’t attract investment unless wholesale electricity prices go up.

    .

  91. Gail Combs,

    So as the USA continues to close down and not replace older coal powered plants China is opening another coal-fired power plant every week to 10 days.

    http://www.chinamining.org/News/2012-03-14/1331688172d55207.html

    China is expected to consume 270 million mt/year less standard coalequivalent for electricity generation by 2015, compared with 2011 levels, China Electricity Council said in a report Monday….China’s coal-fired power sector consumed a total of 1.262 billion mt of standard coal equivalent in 2011, according to Platts calculations.

    In the US we use natural gas fired plants as peakers. China doesn’t have much natural gas so they use coal fired plants as peakers. In the US we have roughly 300 GW of coal fired plant that consumed until recently about 900 Million metric tonnes of coal/year. In China they have 800 GW consuming 1200 Million metric tonnes of coal.

    The bulk of Chinese coal consumption is for things like cement and steel. They built enough new ‘urban housing’ in the last 10 years to house 200 million people.(about 60 million was for population growth and 140 million for rural to urban migration..urban living is less energy intensive then rural living).

    They are also putting up a lot of windmills and hydro-dams which have to be backed up with something(coal as they don’t have much natural gas).

  92. We are on the cusp of a sharp inflection (downward) in population, in the midst of a global economic crisis, still in a relative low concentration band of CO2 (vs the standards of all Geological Time), in a world bristling with WMD, dangerously close to the end of the interglacial. Yet, the utopian would be intellectuals clamor for a self imposed reduction in activity and increased costs for all. This is very ugly.

  93. My understanding has been that traditional grid structure is to use coal and nuclear plants to create a baseload structure and then deploy natural gas turbine plants in the urban areas to provide supplemental load at peak times. This has worked extremely well for a long time. The EPA regulations have actually hampered the improvement of coal plants because they added a long list of very costly pollution upgrades of only marginal effectiveness that are required for any upgrade application. So not only are our coal fired plants getting old, they are less efficient than they should be. Why would someone even try to bring a new plant on line when they can get just a few more years out of the current set of boilers that are already 20 years past their expected design life. The problem is this is a train wreck waiting to happen. These plants or going to reach end of life failure at some point and they are all old enough that we could lose 20% of the baseload to plant failures in a very short order – this would probably blackout large portions of the grid. I just hope the site technicians shut things down before they get to catastrophic failure levels. People die when compressed steam plants give way.

  94. The left’s agenda is exposed: D.C. insider blows whistle on ‘global warming’

    Sen. Inhofe, elected to Congress in 1994, has been one of those true watchdogs in the effort to “hold things together.” His work on the Committee on Environment and Public Works now seems like a divine appointment; it has given him the opportunity to be a whistleblower on “global warming.”

    That’s one reason I was so excited to read his latest book, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.” . . .
    Another strong vantage point Inhofe has in exposing “the greatest hoax” is as a citizen of the state of Oklahoma, a key oil-producer. Inhofe has seen too many cases of people leaving the business because of over-regulation.

  95. polistra says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:31 am

    Well, whatcha gonna do about it? Elect Romney, who is just as Green as Obama?

    Until this country develops a SECOND political party, our only hope is total bankruptcy.
    _________________________________
    That is why I am an independent and not a Demi-RAT or Re-BOOB-lican.

    What can we do??
    Keep a close eye on the federal register and scream bloody murder every time one of these non-elected government groups proposes another unconstitutional “Regulation” that will harm the country.

    This page is especially important:
    Regulations Open for Comment ~ http://www.regulations.gov/
    Hot Off the Presses at the Federal Register: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/news.html

    From WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Register

    …In essence, the Federal Register is a way for the government to think aloud to the people, and also serves as official journal of record for the approved acts of the U.S. Government. The notice and comment process outlined in the Federal Register gives the people a chance to participate in agency rulemaking….

    The agencies required to publish in the Federal Register are those who are required to promulgate regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”)….

  96. All IPCC predictions of warming are illegitimate because they are based on models using the non-existent carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. I say this because Ferenc Miskolczi’s work on the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere proves it. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he demonstrated that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for the last 61 years (E&E 21(4):243-262, 2011). At the same time the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of all this carbon dioxide to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation, not based on any theory, and it overrules any theoretical calculations that do not agree with it. Specifically, it overrules and invalidates all climate models that depend upon the greenhouse effect to predict warming, which means all IPCC climate models. Carbon dioxide does not do any warming even if you double it, hence the sensitivity of temperature to doubling of CO2 is exactly zero. His peer reviewed paper has been available in the scientific literature for more than a year now but no peer reviewed articles opposing it have appeared in this time. One has to assume that this is not for lack of trying. Hence, it is time to retract the fairy tales about warming, stop subsidies to boondoggles for “clean” energy, and reverse all emission control laws.

  97. Gail Combs says on March 28, 2012 at 8:53 am:

    Notice the USA has ONE new nuclear plant approved and it will be on line by 2020 if the NIMBYs do not delay it.

    Nuclear Plant Construction

    In the USA there are proposals for about twenty new reactors and 12 combined construction and operating licence applications for these are under review, with the first one issued in February 2012.

    Let’s review the facts from a reputable source.

    This is from the NEI website (NEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute is the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process) where we find:

    The independent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted in February 2011 to grant a combined construction and operating license for two reactors at Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle, near Waynesboro. It is the first combined license ever approved for a U.S. nuclear energy facility, which will become the nation’s first new nuclear units built in 30 years.

    Some 16 companies and consortia are considering building more than 30 nuclear power plants. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is actively reviewing 11 combined license applications from 10 companies and consortia for 18 nuclear power plants

    The data? This page New Nuclear Plant Status leads to a downloadable .xls spreadsheet …

    .

  98. Anthony, in light of this thread perhaps a quick thread about the Federal Register might be appropriate. People from other countries might want to chip in with info on any similar process in their countries. Heck I do not even know if states have anything similar. I only know about the Federal Register thanks to a farming group.

    After all we can not complain about our government and the laws and regulations if we do not vote and we do not tell the idiot bureaucrats where to stick some of their crazier ideas.

    Let Your Voice Be Heard

    Regulations.gov is your source for U.S. government regulations and related documents. Here you can find, read and comment on documents.

    http://www.regulations.gov/#!home

  99. @ Russ R. says:
    March 28, 2012 at 5:56 am
    “The regulation is on NEW power plants, not existing ones, so it will not lead to anything being “unplugged”. Existing coal plants will keep on operating.”

    Russ, you need to do more research on this. There are already 19GW of planned plant shutdowns going into effect in 2015. The reserve generation capacity in PJM area is going down significantly. Bottomline is that most existing coal plants will keep on operating – till 2015. However, there are already 2 plants shutting down in 2012 solely due to EPA mischief.

  100. Couldn’t a smart company get around this by building three natural gas plants for every one coal fired plant and stating it is part of the same complex? The three gas plants produce 2400 lb of CO2 for three megawatts and the coal plant produces 1600 lb of CO2 for 1 megawatt leading to an 4000 lbs of C02 emitted for four megawatts produced.

  101. Hugh Pepper says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:45 am
    ….the IPCC is not some fly-by-night group. Its reports are the summaries of thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world, signed off by every major Academy of Science in the world and finally the participating governments. Their findings are universally accepted, except a by a few, who, for their own mysterious reasons, refuse to be persuaded….
    ________________________
    Hey Hugh, I have this really great bridge I want to sell, It is to be auctioned this week with a starting bid of just $100 Trillion. I am sure YOU are one of the ones who will want to bid on this great bridge…

    For others take a look at the actual “the thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world” that is in the IPCC: Climate Bible Gets 21 ‘F’s on Report Card

    or the book: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/

  102. “Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
    polistra says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:31 am

    Well, whatcha gonna do about it? Elect Romney, who is just as Green as Obama?

    Until this country develops a SECOND political party, our only hope is total bankruptcy.
    _________________________________
    That is why I am an independent and not a Demi-RAT or Re-BOOB-lican. ”

    This will ultimately be self correcting as it will destroy our economy and people will start freezing in the dark, starting with California. However, there could be much pain before it corrects. A second political party, now there’s a great idea. It will assure the re-election of the leftists by splitting the vote of those who do any thinking.

  103. MarkW says:
    March 28, 2012 at 9:44 am
    John@EF says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Great. Retire them and replace with cheaper, cleaner natural gas.

    If natural gas plants, are in fact cheaper, over all, then the power companies don’t need federal diktats, to order them to do what is already in their best interests.

    That’s like claiming I would save money by selling my 1999 pickup truck and replacing it with a passenger vehicle. Sure, I would save on fuel but a new car, like a new natural gas plant, costs money. I can’t possibly save enough money on gasoline to economically justify spending $500 a month on a new vehicle payment.

    I’ve tried this argument on my wife, and she doesn’t buy it. You don’t need a computer model to figure it out. Anybody who can follow a household budget shouldn’t fall for what your proposing, either.

    Now, when that coal plant is at the end of it’s service life and it ready for the scrap heap, that’s a different story.

  104. The actual figure– 1000 pounds– seems carefully calibrated to target coal plants. I’m no legal scholar, but I have to wonder if that’s legal. Is EPA required to have some basis for that level?

  105. Excuse me but just because Obama stops talking about CO2 or harmful climate change during an energy policy tour does not mean he is backing away from it. Just lump it in with the Russian missile talk slip where he intends to not talk about his intentions until after the election. Defuse, deflect, and defend is the name of his game and honest discussion with the American people on what makes sense in policy terms is completely out the window. This is all about special interest management and nothing to do with logic or making sense with taxpayer resources!

  106. EW-3 says: @ March 28, 2012 at 6:45 am
    …Are they intentionally trying to destroy the country?
    _______________________________
    YES
    You can not have “Global Governance” aka World Government with a strong patriotic USA so the USA had to be emasculated. Look into the Traitor, Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. White was the chief force behind the post-World War II Bretton Woods arrangements, which created the World Bank and the IMF.

    David Rockefeller in his autobiography ‘Memoirs’ admits he is part of a secret cabal working to destroy the United States. this is the direct quote from his book on pg 405:

    ….Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will.If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it….

    Memoirs: http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-David-Rockefeller/dp/0812969731

    CRU it was founded in 1970’s by two Big Oil companies (Shell and BP) and the last I looked that hadn’t been removed from their Wikipedia page (yet):

    Initial sponsors included British Petroleum, the Nuffield Foundation and Royal Dutch Shell.[5] The Rockefeller Foundation was another early benefactor, and the Wolfson Foundation gave the Unit its current building in 1986.[4]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

    Here is an alternate source:

    …The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was established in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich in 1972.

    Acknowledgements
    This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

    British Council, British Petroleum, … Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED),…., Royal Society, … Shell, … Sultanate of Oman, … United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    Phil,
    I can’t quite see what all the fuss is about Watson – why should he be re-nominated anyway? Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC? One could argue the CC issue is more important for the South than for the North. Watson has perhaps thrown his weight about too much in the past. The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.

    If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable but to be honest is anyone really surprised? All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA’s support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII nomination)….
    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt (link seems dead now)

    So who is Watson? (Robert Watson) He was a senior advisor to the World Bank. Just like Maurice Strong, chair of the 1972 Earth Summit and the Kyoto Accord, was a senior advisor to the World Bank. Strong also worked for Rockefeller in Saudi Arabiaand was a Rockefeller foundation trustee and served on the UN Commission on Global Governance.

    If you want to chase down leads there is the Rockefeller/Morgan bank Chase who supplied several World Bank presidents, and all the Rockefeller foundations donating to the likes of Greenpeace. Then you can start on the JP Morgan family…

    Banks and Oil run though out this act of treason.

  107. If this nation’s coal plants are to be gradually phased out, it needs to be done in a carefully planned, organized way and on a schedule that allows the utilities the time (and money) they need to replace them with natural gas and/or nuclear plants. Watching the irresponsible way it is happening now, with the EPA merely regulating them out of existence without any thought to the effects its actions will have outside of environmental protection, could very well leave us sitting in black/brownouts and the consequent effects it has on our lives and the economy. Once coal gets freed up enough in the years ahead, we should start building coal-to-liquids plants to reduce our dependence on imported oil for our transportation needs. We spend something like $350 billion a year on imported oil….that’s over $1 trillion in three years. Having that money stay at home could be a significant boost to the economy, and it would turn the EPA’s irresponsibility into a positive. But I guess expecting government to act in a responsible and thoughtful way is, at times, asking way too much.

  108. More Soylent Green! says:
    March 28, 2012 at 9:13 am

    I expect hUGH will fashion an iPad from twigs (and power it with faeries).

  109. _Jim says:
    March 28, 2012 at 9:18 am

    Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:02 am

    You got a blog yet?

    Somewhere where some of your ‘arguments’ can be de-constructed without soiling Anthony’s place?

    On second thought, never mind. I’ll start one …
    _________________________
    Please do Jim you attacks on me here are getting quite old especially when they are NEVER backed up by a smidgen of fact.

    At least Hugh tries to back up some of what he says. You just go for the throat with absolutely no reason given.

  110. EW-3 says: @ March 28, 2012 at 6:45 am
    …Are they intentionally trying to destroy the country?
    _______________________________

    Gail Combs says on March 28, 2012 at 11:17 am:

    YES
    You can not have “Global Governance” aka World Government with a strong patriotic USA so the USA had to be emasculated. Look into the Traitor, Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. White was the chief force behind the post-World War II Bretton Woods arrangements, …

    Can you specifically post or cite the exact language which began all this, language that states that the US is to be emasculated? Or cite that language which states global governance is the desired end goal? (Bear in mind mankind’s history; our trek ‘out of the muck’ that brings us to ‘modern times’ today.)

    Nothing tertiary this time, and nothing that requires wide latitude in the ‘reading between the lines'; we need specifics, please.

    I tend to think the end of our civilization will ‘end’ along these lines (see link immediately below), with a sort of ‘corruption’ from within (and beginning at the low, not high, levels), with an ever-more dependence of people on government and government services, and that the running-up the flag pole of this ‘whirled government’ is just so much ‘navel gazing’ among a ‘populist’ crowd that, like the CAGWers thinks that they and they alone ‘see’ yet another EOTW event.

    The End of Families Means the End of Our Civilization

    http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2012/03/end-of-families-means-end-of-our.html

    .

  111. Obama just put another nail in the coffin of his reelection bid and has guaranteed the demise of the or at least a huge slap down /scale back of the hated economy killers at the EPA.

  112. Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 9:37 am

    RockyRoad says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:16 am

    So it has finally happened–the favorite bumper sticker we mining engineering students used to display on our briefcases..

    http://www.cafepress.com/+ban_mining_let_the_bastards_freeze_in_the_dark,460543641

    ______________________________
    You can add the ” Don’t cuss a farmer with your mouth full” to the other side.
    Farm wars has free “No Farms No Food” can’t find the other one anymore.

    My favorite (from the geologists) is “Earth First! We’ll mine the other planets later.”

  113. Jim G says: @ March 28, 2012 at 10:24 am

    “Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
    That is why I am an independent and not a Demi-RAT or Re-BOOB-lican. ”
    _________________________________________
    Jim G says: @ March 28, 2012 at 10:24 am
    This will ultimately be self correcting as it will destroy our economy and people will start freezing in the dark, starting with California. However, there could be much pain before it corrects. A second political party, now there’s a great idea. It will assure the re-election of the leftists by splitting the vote of those who do any thinking.
    ________________________________________
    I am well aware of that. However as an independent I am very careful to look at each candidate, especially on the more local level.

    Unfortunately this is a very, very dangerous time for a third party to emerge because of a possible three way split of the vote. That is what happened in the presidential election of 1912. You had Incumbent President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt running against each other which handed the Presidency to Wilson. The fourth in the melee was Eugene V. Debs, nominee of the Socialist Party of America.

    So as usual we are left picking the lesser of two evils.

    Ron Paul could be very dangerous in this election if he runs third party because he has picked up a bigger following since 2008 and his followers are very loyal. Therefore this survey is very worrisome

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-competitive-against-obama-in-latest-rasmussen-poll-2012-03-12

    Paul statistically ties President Barack Obama in a head-to-head matchup, according to a recent Rasmussen survey of likely voters.

    Notable in the poll is that among alternatives to Massachusetts establishment-moderate Mitt Romney, Ron Paul is the most competitive when matched against the incumbent President. Paul is statistically tied with President Obama with a strong 41 percent to Obama’s 42 percent, and outperforms faux Romney alternatives Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

    As Republican nominee, Rick Santorum would lose the White House with only 43 percent to Obama’s 46 percent, while Newt Gingrich would give it away with a six-point 46 to 40 percent landslide victory for Obama. Particularly worrisome for conservatives is Rasmussen’s stark prediction that, “The president runs strongest within his party when Gingrich is his opponent.”

    According to Rasmussen, “Paul currently does best of the four [Republican candidates] among
    voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties” — a crucial bellwether in electability….

  114. @TDBraun

    Obama doesn’t seek to “unplug half the grid” but just to set standards for new coal-electric plants which effectively discourage new ones. Not quite the same thing.

    +++++++++

    The issue is that the coal fired power plants are nearing the end of their life. Many are operating on a 10 year extension and will have to close soon. The banning of new ones means many lost coal mining jobs, to which some say good riddance – that is how some people (who are not coal miners) are. The coal won’t go away, but in the meantime gas companies can charge 5 times as much. It’s the American way.

    The victory is for those who bought gas producing regions and paid PR agencies to promote CAGW. The losers will be the same losers who were the useful idiots that promoted the scam. As the whole thing was about money in the first place, making money off the difference between CO2 from gas and coal per MJ, the whole raison d’etre can fade away, supported and believed only by little remnant corners of the populace that meets to fantasize that we are so powerful we can fine tune the entire planetary atmosphere at will – we are suffering but we are so clever.

    Once the rubes that blindly supported the CAGW wake up to the fact they have been helping the ENRON’s of the world rip them off, it will be far too late.

    The idea that Obama can be hoodwinked or bought off by the gas or green vote and that a Bush or a Cheney cannot is laughable. Whoever is sits in that Office, Americans always have the best laws and the best government money can buy. Your money. From your wallet.

  115. Jim G says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:24 am
    “Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
    polistra says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:31 am

    The notion that a solution to our dire dilemma lies in electing different politicians relies on the implicit fallacy that people who acquire their positions of power through winning elections still constitute our actual government. We are long past the point where that notion passed into a comforting delusion. In reality our actual government is now composed of teeming hordes of petty, and not so petty, bureaucrats at every level of our governance from the smallest village council to the massive federal regulators like the EPA. Although they all supposedly serve at the will of our elected officials the reality remains that, once created, the possibility that any of these fiefdoms will ever be killed is about the same as possibility that Freddie Krueger ever will be. Actually Freddie is more vulnerable, because when his movies stopped making money his grip on existence was severely reduced. Even if we could replace every elected official in the country, at every level from the smallest locality up through the President, with hardcore Libertarians, the moment they attempted to disempower our bureaucratic overlords they would face a popular revolt. We all love to mouth platitudes about our freedom and liberty and most of us do really want that, at least for ourselves. But for a substantial majority whenever one of our neighbors decides to do something that we find objectionable we are all too eager to marshal the forces of bureaucracy to bludgeon him into compliance with our will. It has long since been demonstrated that government regulations, which are always advanced as providing protections for the general public, actually serve to protect incumbents. Either politicians seeking to preserve their office, corporations seeking to preserve their market share and prices, property owners seeking to preserve the value of their holdings and exclude unsavory newcomers, enviro wackos and warministas seeking to inflict their misanthropic vision of utopia on all who are not them.

    There are countless examples of governmental entities which have long since outlived their usefulness, if they ever had any to begin with, which almost everyone agrees could be productively eliminated but which, when an actual attempt is made to do that, have an interested constituency of beneficiaries sufficient to generate enough hue and cry to derail any such effort. The reality of life is that the population of those who really desire to live a life of freedom and liberty while also being willing to embrace the personal responsibility for the consequences that liberty generates has always been a distinct minority. In their amazing wisdom Our Founders recognized this fact and constructed a form of government whose seemingly arcane checks and balances our present “Constitutional scholar” President sees as “negative rights” and fatal flaws.

    In reality the core notion and absolute genius of the Constitution they created was not to guarantee individual rights, which they assumed as a given, but to place the strongest limits possible on governmental tyranny, which had eventually destroyed every attempt at democratic governance before them and has since. Unfortunately, as the just concluded arguments before the Supreme Court concerning the egregious Obamacare have thoroughly demonstrated, not even the most conservative members of that court are willing to contemplate attempting to resurrect that notion.

    We are well into the third generation whose entire formative years were spent in the public indoctrination system whose main goal is raising revolutionary consciousness in its inmates and where creating the capacity for critical thought is actually anathema. In this environment the prospects of creating a real Constitutional Reformation are very slim but. like those 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, it is a fight we must make or face the eternal condemnation of that future posterity where Liberty again rises to challenge the “consensus” of oligarchy.

  116. _Jim says:
    March 28, 2012 at 12:32 pm
    “Can you specifically post or cite the exact language which began all this, language that states that the US is to be emasculated? Or cite that language which states global governance is the desired end goal? (Bear in mind mankind’s history; our trek ‘out of the muck’ that brings us to ‘modern times’ today.)”

    The Brundtland report. 1987.

    http://www.earthsummit2012.org/historical-documents/the-brundtland-report-our-common-future


    Rockefeller
    wikipedia:
    “and second by David Rockefeller in a statement to the United Nations Business Council in September 1994, [...]
    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”[2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#New_World_Order

    Notice that while it is listed under conspiracy theories, the quote is real.

    WBGU Schellnhuber PIK Transformation, 2011 (Scientific advisory panel of German Fed government)

    http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf

  117. Dave Wendt says:
    “March 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    Jim G says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:24 am
    “Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
    polistra says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:31 am”

    Dave Wendt,

    So……what is your solution?

  118. Gary Swift:

    Your post at March 28, 2012 at 9:41 am is an excellent summary of the issues.

    I intended to write a similar summary but I could not improve on yours. I commend everybody to read it.

    Richard

  119. Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Gail Combs,

    If it gets bad enough, and I believe it is close now, people will, hopefully, throw the bums out but the third party route would pevent that due to all of the folks on the public dole consistently voting for free s##t for themselves at the expense of those who work and produce something. Much more of this and we will be locked into a situation in which the majority are beholden to the government and then it’s game over without a revolution of one type or another. And you never know the form that might take, look at the old USSR and their transformation from communism to mafia run “free enterprise” with the same players who were the commisars. No real violence occured but there was a revolution of sorts. All we need to do is go broke…wait, we are broke.

  120. Would it be possible for all the coalfired power stations supplying Washington DC to shut down, to show their good will? It could be a good show when the government lost most of its elctricity and heating. It could be an a-ha experience.
    Unfortunately i think that some Homeland-security would be mowing, but they could just as well move because of the EPA ruling.

  121. “There are countless examples of governmental entities which have long since outlived their usefulness, if they ever had any to begin with, which almost everyone agrees could be productively eliminated but which, when an actual attempt is made to do that, have an interested constituency of beneficiaries sufficient to generate enough hue and cry to derail any such effort. ”

    That’s just the noise. It’s the money to politicians as “contributions” from the beneficiaries that keep the useless going. If one party calls for cuts, then gets elected, they just take money from the contractors involved in the area of the proposed cuts, and nothing gets done. Democrats just smile and shrug their shoulders, Republicans will blame “unions” or poor people. It’s funnier on the Republican side, to watch their duped minions see their hopes of austerity vanish every election. But then, they believe in magical tax cuts for the rich too, so really, they deserve their treatment.

    This election will really about which party will be more audacious in their spending, all the while pretending they are not spendthrifts. Republicans are so used to lying about that, they have no problem. But the Dems…I predict moral panic after moral panic will flash through the media as they ever more have to think about how their party is just a corportist shell. Like this thing going on in Florida at this time. It is a classic liberal moral panic, with the white outhern racist bugaboo at its center.

  122. “If this nation’s coal plants are to be gradually phased out, it needs to be done in a carefully planned, organized way and on a schedule that allows the utilities the time (and money) they need to replace them with natural gas and/or nuclear plants. ”

    It’s not about strategy. And by the way, you risk being called a “socialist” by the nutso crowd if you suggest America should have such a policy that interferes with “capitalism.” The policy is to increase demand for natural gas now to increase natural gas prices now to increase profits now. Obama is totally in the natural gas-nuclear camp. (Remember BP and Exelon?) Banning coal means more money for them from our pockets. The best way to do it is to use the CO2 ruse because that will completely kill any thoughtful criticism on their parts–they fear ostracization by questioning beliefs. That’s why “climate deniers” works so well. The big boys use that not to convince “deniers,” but to keep their own flock in fear.

  123. commieBob (March 28, 2012 at 7:35 am) said “Obama is a politician. A large portion of his base still believes in global warming and he doesn’t dare to alienate them. He needs the votes”

    The other posters have it right, Obama is beholden to anti-coal and other economic special interests, not voters. Secondly he is generally anti-business could care less that small businesses like Joe the plumber or your local pizza parlor will be the most hurt with a substantive carbon tax, and the portion of his base that believes in global warming engages that same type of thinking (or nonthinking). But 97% of those voters would dump him in a heartbeat if they thought he would implement a real carbon tax that affects them (e.g. one that results in $10 gas, $1000 heating bills). They would ask to “carbon tax” the rich instead. (the 3% that agree with $10 gas are mostly students or other idealists who ride bicycles and have someone else paying their heating bill). Of course he would oblige with the class warfare crowd and we would end up with no net carbon cuts but would trash the economy anyway.

  124. To Reinforce Gails point about immigration.

    Unregulated immigration will destroy the demos, ie the national identity. Once that is gone, what is to prevent a Global government? After all, there will be no nations!

    DaveE,

  125. Jim says:
    March 28, 2012 at 12:32 pm
    …Can you specifically post or cite the exact language which began all this, language that states that the US is to be emasculated?…

    Problem => Reaction => Solution

    So it is deeds not words Jim, First you have to create the “Problem.” You can start with the ratification of the World Trade Organization that put the US trade balance in the red. Graph The World Trade Organization has also exported millions of US jobs. There was a 2005 WTO that stated that as a part of their fact sheet. The same President and Congress also passed five banking laws that set-up the USA for the foreclosure implosion.

    After the Great Depression, several laws were put in place to prevent another depression. The 1933 and 1934 Security and Exchange laws, the McFadden Act of 1927, the Glass-Steagall Act and Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.

    ClintonAdmin laws that repealed the above: Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

    In addition there were more pro-banking laws put in place by Clinton.
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991: This allows big banks to gobble up smaller banks more easily.

    Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and RTC Completion Act – Housing and business loans to minorities.

    Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 – left CDSs unregulated and set up AIG bailout and Foreclosuregate by letting banks “Bundle” mortgages and sell them as AAA rated securities and then insure them.

    The other prong of the attack is aimed at Energy which is the life blood of industry. We see that attack happening now.

    So that is the set up of the “Problem”

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    If the EPA manages to strangle coal and natural gas plants by regulating CO2 and Chu and Obama manage to hike fuel prices through the roof then we are going to see a really big REACTION set in in a few years time. The doubling of our money supply is going to add hyperinflation to the mix. I am already seeing it with the price of hay climbing from $2 a bale to $7 – $10 and a 50# bag of feed going from $3 to $12.

    >>>>>>>>>>>

    GLOBAL GOVERNANCE is the SOLUTION

    No national politician worth his salt is going to admit he is busy working toward a world government and against the best interest of his nation. Therefore “Global Governance” must be implemented slowly. From what I can see most of it is already set up.

    From my point of view if the laws within a nation are imposed from outside and the wishes of the national population is ignored you have a de facto world government. This is what happened with NAIS/Food Safety, a fight I followed for several years. There is no question that the Food Safety Modernization Act came from influence outside the USA. See: http://www.nicfa.us/ and http://arkansasanimalproducers.8k.com/whats_new_12.html

    A second indication of a de facto world government is a world currency and right on cue we have: Pascal Lamy: Need Truly Global Monetary System

    The Director General is Pascal Lamy. He has this to say about Global Governance.

    Of What Use is Global Governance?
    A new paradigm of global governance exists, and its name is Europe.

    If there is one place on earth where new forms of global governance have been tested since the Second World War, it is in Europe. European integration is the most ambitious supranational governance experience ever undertaken. It is the story of interdependence desired, defined, and organized by the Member States. In no respect is the work complete—neither geographically nor in terms of depth (i.e., the powers conferred by the Member States to the E.U.), nor, obviously, in terms of identity….

    More from Lamy on the WTO.org website:

    Lamy calls for a strengthened system of global governance

    Global governance, to what end?
    For me, global governance describes the system we set up to assist human society to achieve its common objectives in a sustainable manner, that is, with equity and justice. Growing interdependence requires that our laws, our social norms and values, our mechanisms for framing human behaviour be examined, debated, understood and linked together as coherently as possible. This, in my view, is the prerequisite for genuinely sustainable development in economic, social and environmental terms.

    To this end, any system of governance must satisfy four requirements:

    (1) It has to provide leadership, embody a vision, and inspire political enterprise, in order to create momentum;

    (2) it needs to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure support for decisions that lead to change, in order to overcome the natural propensity to adhere to the status quo;

    (3) it must also ensure efficiency by bringing about concrete and visible results for the benefit of the people;

    (4) lastly, it needs to be coherent, which means that compromises have to be found in respect of frequently contradictory objectives.

    There are today three levels of governance which respond unequally to these requirements: the international legal order, the European Union and national systems. As a metaphorical illustration, let us take the three physical states of matter: gas, liquid, and finally solid. Today’s system of governance is a combination of these three states.

    Gas: the coexistence of particles devoid of any hierarchical differentiation; this is the international system made up of sovereign States organized around essentially “horizontal” principles, with a decentralized responsibility mechanism. This is the operational model followed by most international organizations, including the WTO.

    The liquid state is reflected in the European Union, the perfect example of an international integration organization in which member States have consented to give up elements of sovereignty in order to strengthen the coherence and the efficiency of their actions.

    Finally, the solid state is represented by the national level, the wielder of hard power, with the capacity for coercion, as exemplified by tax enforcement, road safety enforcement and deployment of State force.

    Our challenge today is to put in place a system of global governance that offers a better balance between leadership, efficiency and legitimacy, as well as coherence, in order to bring global governance out of its gaseous state…

    I can not find a primary source but some on the internet are claiming 80% of the UK laws are EU laws that are “rubber-stamped” we see that in the USA also with the push to “Harmonize” our laws..

    Financial Post: Time to Harmonize Trading Regulations US ambassador says

    United States Mission to The European Union
    …The U.S.-EU Summit in November rightly focused discussions on how to ensure balanced and sustainable economic growth and how to create jobs. Our Presidents agreed that the most effective way to achieve these goals was to promote innovation, harmonize regulation, and eliminate barriers to trade and investment.

    They gave us a clear mandate to focus the Transatlantic Economic Council agenda…

    This is old (2008?) and the newer link is not as clear in its language

    International Harmonization

    http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html

    The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.

    And then we leave the WTO and come to the United Nations and find the same thing.

    [United Nations] Commission on Global Governance: Our Global Neighbourhood

    ….The need to work together also guided the visionary men and women who drew up the Charter of the United Nations. What is new today is that the interdependence of nations is wider and deeper. What is also new is the role of people and the shift of focus from states to people. An aspect of this change is the growth of international civil society….These changes call for reforms in the modes of international co- operation–the institutions and processes of global governance…. There is a need to weave a tighter fabric of international norms, expanding the rule of law world- wide and enabling citizens to exert their democratic influence on global processes…The development of global governance is part of the evolution of human efforts to organize life on the planet, and that process will always be going on.

    As this report makes clear, global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of the terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government…
    [And if you believe that I have this bridge for sale...]
    This is not to say that the goal should be a world without systems or rules. Far from it. A chaotic world would pose equal or even greater danger. The challenge is to strike the balance in such a way that the management of global affairs is responsive to the interests of all people in a sustainable future

    The Concept of Global Governance
    There is no alternative to working together and using collective power to create a betterworld.
    Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co- operative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest.

    Chapter Five: REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS
    The UN’s failings are the failings of its member states. The option of renewal, making greater, more creative use of the UN Charter.
    Reforming the Security Council, making it more representative and democratic. The issues of permanent members and their veto.
    Strengthening the General Assembly. Trusteeship of the Global Commons. A role in the UN for global civil society and a right of petition on
    security issues.

    Chapter Six: STRENGTHENING THE RULE OF LAW WORLD-WIDE
    Realising the potential of the World Court. The process of making international law….
    http://www.reformwatch.net/fitxers/168.pdf

    Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture

    Preface

    The United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) have joined forces to produce this assessment of the long-term prospects for global governance frameworks. This exercise builds on the experience of the two institutions in identifying the key trends shaping the future international system. Since the mid 1990s, the NIC has produced four editions of its landmark Global Trends report. The most recent one, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, published in late 2008, noted that momentous change was ahead, with the gap between increasing disorder and weakening governance structures widening. The EUISS produced the first EU-level report on the factors affecting the evolution of the international system in 2006, The New Global Puzzle. What World for the EU in 2025? The report stressed that a multipolar system is emerging and that matching the new distribution of power with new rules and institutions will be critical to preserving international peace and stability. The US and the EU do not always see eye to eye on every issue on the international agenda, but they share fundamental values and strategic interests to an extent not matched by any other partners in the world. Transatlantic agreement is no longer enough to effectively manage global challenges. Doing so will require renewed efforts to address governance gaps and strengthen multilateralism, in partnership with other pivotal centers of power and with the international community at large. This report provides an informal contribution to an important international debate on the way forward for global, regional, and bilateral institutions and frameworks to meet emerging challenges. It is not meant as an exhaustive report card evaluating the performance of individual institutions. While not being policy prescriptive, the report shares a strong belief—as exemplified by multilateralist approaches of the US and EU governments to resolving global problems such as the recent financial crisis—that global challenges will require global solutions.

    http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf

  126. Hugh Pepper says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:45 am
    “…the IPCC is not some fly-by-night group. Its reports are the summaries of thousands of peer reviewed studies from all over the world, ”
    =================================================
    On the core issues there are only very few studies: 1 or 2 on the calculation of the “global warming” and 0 PHYSICAL studies, that prove CO2 being capable to cause the alleged warming (the well known fact, that CO2 can absorb and re-emit some IR radiation does not prove its capability to cause significant warming). The calculation of the “global warming” made by Hansen and Lebedeff back in 1987 has no basis in science, I strongly recommend to read it: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf .

    At the same time, there is no mention in the IPCC reports about the experiment by professor R.W.Wood from 1909, that debunked the hypothesis about warming “greenhouse gasses”: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html.

  127. Today, gas hit a 10 year low.

    The gas producers and traders are desperate for demand to crerate a market to drive up gas prices.

    Against this commercial background, it is easy to see that there is intense lobbying against coal not only from the green movement.

  128. Jim G says:
    March 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm
    Dave Wendt says:
    “March 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    Dave Wendt,

    So……what is your solution?

    There is no “solution”. What is required is that those that truly value Liberty and personal responsibility be willing to match the dedication and tenacity of purpose of those that seek to dominate the lives of the rest of us have demonstrated throughout history, and to do so not just in this moment but in perpetuity. Unfortunately the value and benefit of Liberty and Freedom are assumed to be so obvious that no one having experienced them would ever willingly surrender them and that, no matter how many small wounds the tyrant class succeeded in inflicting on Lady Liberty, they could never really deal her the death blow. Recent history, and indeed all the rest of human history as well, has demonstrated the colossal folly of that assumption.

    Am I confident that this battle is winnable in the present moment? Not so much. But if we continue to lay down and surrender it is eminently losable. In the end there is only one real choice, either dedicate ourselves to fight tooth and nail to avoid our seemingly destined fate or just accept that we have once again arrived at the terminal point on “The Road to Serfdom.”

  129. Jim G says:
    March 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Dave Wendt says:
    “March 28, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    Jim G says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:24 am
    “Gail Combs says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:01 am
    polistra says:
    March 28, 2012 at 6:31 am”

    Dave Wendt,

    So……what is your solution?
    =====================================

    Rather than starting a new political party (which usually only helps one side, not the system), we need to address how we vote. Instead of one vote, we should consider going to an instant runoff election method (IRE). In IRE, you rank ALL candidates in your order of preference. The results are run repeated (dropping the lowest ranked candidate every run) until you have a winner. This would have the effect of eliminating the “splitting the vote” problem and would naturally force candidates to address all issues competently (in an attempt to court voters not in your base to rank you second or third) and, consequently, ends the hammering away at just one issue during the election.

    Just google – gag…., err, ixquick instant runoff elections, there is plenty of info on it…

  130. If the Republicans can regain control of the Senate, while keeping control of the House in the upcoming election, we will be slowly bled to death, rather than quickly.

  131. just think what everybody will be thinking and saying in 100 years from now about the biggest fraud in our lifetime ,

  132. tango says:

    At March 29, 2012 at 2:44 am you say;

    “just think what everybody will be thinking and saying in 100 years from now about the biggest fraud in our lifetime ,”

    Nobody will be thinking or saying much about it.

    Nobody says or thinks much about the similar eugenics scare which was supported by all the ‘great and good’ around the world 100 years ago: indeed, most people think the eugenics scare was constrained to Germany in the 1930s.

    So, history suggests people 100 years in the future will be concerned with their own false scare.

    Richard

  133. Dave Wendt,

    So……what is your solution?
    =====================================

    “Rather than starting a new political party (which usually only helps one side, not the system), we need to address how we vote. Instead of one vote, we should consider going to an instant runoff election method (IRE). In IRE, you rank ALL candidates in your order of preference. The results are run repeated (dropping the lowest ranked candidate every run) until you have a winner. This would have the effect of eliminating the “splitting the vote” problem and would naturally force candidates to address all issues competently (in an attempt to court voters not in your base to rank you second or third) and, consequently, ends the hammering away at just one issue during the election.

    Just google – gag…., err, ixquick instant runoff elections, there is plenty of info on it…”

    A better solution would be for each citizen to get as many votes as dollars of taxes they have paid since the last election. This would be self regulating as people voted to pass taxes along to those not paying as much thereby giving them more votes and so on…… Add term limits to this and it’s fixed.

  134. Jim G says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:24 am

    This will ultimately be self correcting as it will destroy our economy and people will start freezing in the dark, starting with California.

    Why would it be self correcting? More likely, if the economy is destroyed, it will stay destroyed.

  135. I recommend that power companies obtain voting lists and compare them to their customer lists. Democrats, presumeably voting backers of these the eco-fruitcakes, should be informed that “conservation is as good as new generation” so any changes or requests for new service connections will not be accepted any longe for them. Cancelation of service requests will of course be accepted.

    The power companies should also inform their regustered Democrat customers that they need to ptractice load shedding and conservation by conducting periodic area blackouts. Power outages for some areas will be blacked out 768/1000 of a week,, to meet EPA CO2 mandates.

    These load shedding excercizes should only be planned or exercised in historic Democrat voting Precincts exclusively. As these are the probable source of the problem.

    Lets see how long till the Obamacites crazies cave in, and are fired.

  136. Harrywr2,

    These antiquated coal plants still existing are the result of Lefist anti-Nuke demagogues as most of these plants were meant to be retired when the numerous nuclear plants came online, they were protesting were never finished and cancelled. So they had to continue to run as there was no other choice.

    Then the Carterite idots proposed tough new pollution regulations requiring any sustantial change to a plant required the very best in pollution controls being added, costing millions of dollars. Once again these ignoramuses just insured that these dirty coal plalnts would not be updated at all; and just were forced to run without any pollution controls, at all.

    Proving that if you want to frind a really great Polluter, find a Greenie, the Greenpeacers, or Sierra Clubbers and blame them. They are the very worst practicing polluters, with the practical consequences of their brainless ideas.

  137. Beale says:
    March 30, 2012 at 9:56 am
    Jim G says:
    March 28, 2012 at 10:24 am

    “This will ultimately be self correcting as it will destroy our economy and people will start freezing in the dark, starting with California.

    Why would it be self correcting? More likely, if the economy is destroyed, it will stay destroyed.”

    People usually do not make drastic changes until they are hungry, freezing, etc. Economic disaster has historically lead to major political change, which we need. In a less major way Carter’s disaster lead to Reagan and economic prosperity, even if much of it occured on Clinton’s watch..

  138. John@EF says:
    March 28, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Great. Retire [the old coal fired plants that currently generate half] them and replace with cheaper, cleaner natural gas.

    Using what?

    And after that demand is added to the NG supply, how cheap will it be?

Comments are closed.