Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Were you making complaints about the EPA under Obama when it was shown they were colluding with environmental groups?
Colluding? As in talking to environmental groups? Imagine that, the Environmental Protection Agency talking to environmental groups. The horror!
I truly look forward to seeing Trump take away the economic programs Obama put in place for those people in Appalachia. Obama was really trying to help those people as the use of coal transitions to other sources. Trump tells them to feel free to pollute and takes away the economic programs to help them? Perfect!
"The 2018 budget proposal submitted to Congress by the White House on Thursday would cut funds to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the U.S. Economic Development Administration. The Washington-based organizations are charged with diversifying the economies of states like West Virginia and Kentucky to help them recover from coal’s decline."
The only thing we have now that can provide baseload is fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro....period. If it cannot produce electric on demand it cannot meet the demands of baseload. If you only need generation from fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro .00000000000000001% of the time you will still incur the capital costs of building those plants which make up a very large part of what you pay for electric.
If you want an analogy here suppose you needed a car that will be able to go 24/7, this dictates you buy a gasoline powered vehicle. Buying an electric vehicle to drive for 6 hours of that 24 hours doubles your capital investment with no benefit because you already have a vehicle to meet your requirements.
Quote:
It is only Rick Perry and those like him that push "base load power...." as code for forcing through more coal/fossil fuel power generation.
The only thing we have now that can provide baseload is fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro....period. If it cannot produce electric on demand it cannot meet the demands of baseload. If if you only need generation from fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro .00000000000000001% of the time you will still incur the capital costs of building those plants which make up a very large part of what you pay for electric.
If you want an analogy here suppose you needed a car that will be able to go 24/7, this dictates you buy a gasoline powered vehicle. But an electric vehicle to drive for 6 hours of that 24 hours doubles your capital investment with no benefit becsue you already have vehicle to meet your requirements.
Drop the mandates and drop the subsidies for renewables and those coal plants will not be idled..... problem solved.
OH! Let's talk about that! Let's drop ALL ENERGY SUBSIDIES INCLUDING FOSSIL FUELS!!!!!!!
"Studies by the International Energy Agency point out that global subsidies for fossil fuels outstrip those for renewable energy nearly 10-fold. The International Monetary Fund said if climate and environmental costs were included, then the fossil fuel subsides increased another 10 times to nearly $5 trillion a year."
By all means, let coal country pollute themselves. Take away all the economic programs Obama put in place for them. And take away all energy subsidies - all of them.
Then let Appalachia and the Rust Belt manage on their own - we should be done with them. They said coal regulations was their problem, now they are gone so let them go get a job.
By all means, let coal country pollute themselves. Take away all the economic programs Obama put in place for them. And take away all energy subsidies - all of them.
I'm all onboard with that as long as we are also removing mandates, the renewable energy sector would collapse overnight...literally. That's right for the horses mouth. Here is the data you need to look at that isn't made up by someone with political agenda, note this doesn't include the vast array of subsidies available at the state level.
If you want some perspective here the subsidies for oil and gas if applied to just gasoline is fractions of a penny per gallon. Exxon's revenue itself would exceed the subsidy for the entire industry in a few days.
I'm all onboard with that as long as we are also removing mandates, the renewable energy sector would collapse overnight...literally. Here is the data you need to look at that isn't made up by someone with political agenda, note this doesn't include the vast array of subsidies available at the state level.
If you want some perspective here the subsidies for oil and gas if applied to just gasoline is fractions of a penny per gallon. Exxon's revenue itself would exceed the subsidy for the entire industry in a few days.
Got anything newer than from five years ago?
I don't see any Republicans calling for the end of subsidies to oil, gas or nuclear. They get ten times the subsidies renewable energy receives. What's more, as renewable energy is strengthened, the subsidies can be decreased. Denmark is almost there. It's called investing in the future.
"After more than four decades of relying on subsidies, Denmark’s renewable energy industry is ready to survive on its own much sooner than anyone expected."
I don't see oil, gas or nuclear using subsidies to become self-sustaining. But now coal can take off like a rocket and we can cut all that assistance to help Appalachia retrain. Since they will be polluting themselves, mission accomplished.
I'm all onboard with that as long as we are also removing mandates, the renewable energy sector would collapse overnight...literally. That's right for the horses mouth.
Sorry, no, that's not true. The 'levelized' cost of energy -- after removing all subsidies -- shows that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy in the market today. That's why, on a global basis, the rapid buildout of solar continues, especially in China and India.
No they did not, the law the EPA is operating under to regulate CO2 was created in 1990. It was never intended to regulate CO2.
That is not true at all, if it was they would have certainly filed a lawsuit. Strange that the spokesman for Murray Energy indicated the same on a PBS broadcast tonight. The courts already ruled that the EPA can regulate Greenhouse gases, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Last edited by Goodnight; 10-10-2017 at 07:38 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
