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.
Let's make possession of a chiller a felony except for food preservation or for those with medical conditions that require a steady sickroom ambient temperature, or industrial process requiring cooling.
As a side benefit, Free Air cooling mods for all those office buildings could bring in many construction jobs to the marketplace, and there'd be tons of scrap metal from all those chillers and heat exchangers and cooling towers that would be taken out of service.
Imagine how much less nonsense we'd have to put up with if Congress went back to their pre-HVAC days - they used to recess for most of the summer, like end of May until the end of September.
Every day Congress is not in session is a day when we can put our full attention to doing something production. Ever night they're away from the press and cameras in DC is another night we can sleep with both eyes shut.
Our president has stated, repeatedly, that he wants to end coal-fired power generation.
The means to this has been clearly laid out via the "cap and trade" emissions taxation. Our president clearly intends to tax coal into extinction. If and when the "cap and trade" goes into effect, it will clearly adversely affect Wyoming's coal industry as well as the coal fired power plants in the region.
In fact, there's been several major new coal-fired power plant projects in the area that had recently made it all the way through the approval process and have now been cancelled in light of the "talk" from Washington about the new taxation. These were the latest generation of "clean burning" coal fired plants with scrubbing towers and environmentally sensitive controls. This was the type of technology that the administration was claiming to want to see brought into the industry, but the prospected burden of additional taxation has made them unfeasible.
What is missing from the whole equation is that coal is the primary electric power generation source in the USA at this time, and there's nothing ... not solar, not wind ... on the horizon to replace it for the forseeable future.
My prediction is that if the "cap and trade" is instituted, we will see "rolling brown-outs" as power plants cut back production to meet their taxed limits from time to time. Additionally, there will be a heavy burden upon domestic manufacturing and agriculture to be productive with less power at substantially increased cost.
That also means that domestic use ... household use ... will have to be curtailed due to availability and expense of the power we take for granted now. FACT ... Obama has already endorsed the concept of having your household energy use monitored and controlled by the gov't. He's mentioned that they'd like to centrally control your household thermostats, for example ... and the only reason that they're not massively going after this right now is "because there aren't enough electricians" to make it happen.
Of course, you can count on the elected political ruling class being functionally exempt from all of this due to their need to be comfortable as they guide the rest of us heathens and unworthies through our closely regulated lives. The only requirement we'll have is to keep sending them our money so they can live in comfort.
It seems to be only missing from the equation that presents the complete stop to coal fired plants. New coal fired plants are being built that are incorporating the new things that will be cleaner in the end.
I am sorry you and others seems to feel such fear. I don't believe such gloom and doom is the intent of the cap and trade concept.
It seems to be only missing from the equation that presents the complete stop to coal fired plants. New coal fired plants are being built that are incorporating the new things that will be cleaner in the end.
I am sorry you and others seems to feel such fear. I don't believe such gloom and doom is the intent of the cap and trade concept.
I don't see the doom and gloom either. Everybody yelled the sky is falling when, years ago, the president dictated that all cars would get x number of miles per gallon by year xxxx. Not feasible, so didn't happen.
But in the mean time, those expensive, high sulfur coal users will start wanting cleaner coal and will demand it.
Obama also said that he wanted to see several clean coal plants built in the near future along with exploring more nuclear plants.
I'm not holding my breath for either, but neither am I getting excited yet.
Obama also said that he wanted to see several clean coal plants built in the near future along with exploring more nuclear plants.
Yes, and Obama also said he wouldn't have any Lobbyists: "they won't run my White House, and they won't set the agenda in Washington." Yet there are, last count, 11% of those he has nominated so far have been lobbyists in the not so distant past... hmmm Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
"The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:
Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050."
But then "The Senate voted 67-31 to pass an amendment that says Congress should not try to force cap-and-trade through under the budget "reconciliation" process."- Washington Times
So it seems at least a few people in Washington still have their heads on straight and aren't effected by "rock star" lust. Unfortunately with a majority of Democrats in Senate, Congress, and the Presidency, there is isn't a balance of power, and "checks and balances" will eventually be overridden by loonies, impo. This is definitely a hot-topic.
NVDave ... I think I got your point quite loud and clear. I may have been facetious in taking it a little bit further ... to criminalize what is otherwise now routine, normal, and legal activity. Kinda' like many in the present administration have tried to do in the past with so many other activities ... see 1st and 2nd amendment issues/concerns by Emanuel, Clinton, and others at the top of the prez's advisors and counselors, or cabinet, or attorney general.
ClayLady ... as a manufacturer's rep actively involved in the coatings industry for emissions controls for coal fired power plants ... I'm not seeing any new plants being built. On the contrary, the power generation industry is finding it far more cost effective to retro-fit existing licensed plants than to go through all the hoops of environmental studies and all the other requirements to build a new plant. Existing plants have lower standards to do this than an entirely new plant has.
You folks may "pooh-pooh" the legitimate concerns that some of us have as "fear" and "gloom and doom", but you've apparently missed the point of what "cap and trade" is all about in the way it's planned transfer of wealth from the producing countries to the ones that don't have the development and hence, have "carbon credits" to sell. It's clearly a planned transfer of wealth, and as I don't believe in the anthropogenic concept of global warming ... it's strictly all about political and economic power. Follow the money .... which will affect everything that you might purchase that is manufactured or grown or processed or transported. No human activity will escape the taxation burden of "cap and trade", except for your dreams ... and you get those while you sleep.
Fortunately, for the most recent of moments, Congress has indicated that they'll not be favorable to "cap and trade" legislation as part of the "budget" process. But given the unbalance of power in the US Congress these days, and a very loud "green" movement with the ear of the President ... that could change in a heartbeat. The current amendment doesn't preclude considering and implementing cap and trade as a new issue to be considered under it's own banner. Especially in light of the prez's comments that he'd destroy the coal power industry as part of his campaign platform ... I'm taking him seriously on that point.
As far as the "fears" about better fuel economy vehicles ... I voted for improved fuel economy for my transportation needs all the way back into the 1960's ... when I drove under 1 liter cars, 1.3-1.5 liter cars (Sprites, MGA's, TR's, Alfa's, Porsche's), and in the 1970's, when I started driving MB 2.2 liter diesels and Peugeot Diesels that got in the low-mid 30 mpg range, and a 1972 BMW 2002 that turned in the high 20's until the 55 mph limit went in and I dropped 6 mpg at the lower rpm in 4th gear that was off the breathing range of the cam. IMO, that was a "better" way to "vote in" fuel economy/efficiency standards than Federal Regulation. I still drive 30 mpg and up cars, although I now need diesel 3/4 ton pick up trucks for my farm/ranch operations ... even then, I use them only when hauling a load, and can use my Subie wagons for livestock ... yes, we're the folks you've seen going down the road with goats or sheep in the back of the station wagon. So ... what were you driving through all those years, ElkH? Did you "vote" for "progress" or did you wait until the Fed's rammed it down your driveway?
Coal isn't so bad just think what millions and millions of wind mills on the wyoming,iowa ,north dakota, south dakota,nebraska land scape would look like. Is that not pollution to?
Our president has stated, repeatedly, that he wants to end coal-fired power generation.
The means to this has been clearly laid out via the "cap and trade" emissions taxation. Our president clearly intends to tax coal into extinction. If and when the "cap and trade" goes into effect, it will clearly adversely affect Wyoming's coal industry as well as the coal fired power plants in the region.
I'm originally from the Parkersburg, West Virginia area so I always paid attention to the coal industry. President Obama said that he would make taxes so high so that no new coal plants would be built and that existing ones would be put out of business. I need to find the quote and post it on here. I remember it because I remember thinking he won't be winning WV anytime soon.
If solar and wind power worked then lots of areas would be using it. It obviously doesn't work as well as oil or coal.
Cap and Trade would destroy manufacturing in this country. We would see unemployment jump to 30% within a week. Almost every plant in this country would go out of business or move to a country where there aren't all these ridiculous regulations to deal with.
What I cannot figure out is why people seem to think there is an energy crises in this country? There isn't. And there is no reason to think there is or will be.
And I never see any proof that there is some kind of crises. It is always we need to move to "clean" energy and be "energy" independent. I never hear a reasonable reason for this from Washington.
Politicians have been saying this garbage for at least 30 years. If coal and oil are so polluting then why is life expectancy in countries that produce/use them higher than at any time in human history? If all this stuff was so bad wouldn't we all be dying from air pollution? Why do people in industrialized countries that "pollute" live longer, healthier, happier, more productive lives than people in countries that don't pollute?
Solar and Wind Power DON'T WORK. They cannot provide a constant source of energy for the folks who expect something will happen when they flip the switch "on" for a power consuming device.
I'll give you the best example I know of in the real world today: The State of Hawaii.
They have abundant sunshine and wind energy throughout the islands.
They also have one of the highest KWH electric rates, because all their electricity is generated by imported fuel oil. They don't even have long distances for transmission and distribution because of the small total area of the islands that they serve. The wind farms could be very close to the existing T&D infrastructure, so that's not the deterrent.
If there was ever a place in the current economic and power generation industry where solar and wind could be competitive with fossil fuel generated electricity, this would be the model. But they haven't and they don't have "green" energy ... not even solar used for domestic hot water heating, or for their swimming pools, etc. Why Not? because it's not economically feasible to do so.
Or maybe it's not socially acceptable ... after all, it "spoils the view" for the islanders and the tourists. Just ask the folks in New England who have aggressively fought any wind farms in their offshore region ... folks with names like Kennedy. Oh, wait a minute ... Uncle Teddy did prevent wind farms in his area, didn't he? Even though they'd have been so far offshore of Cape Cod that you'd need a telescope to see the wind towers from his family properties on the ocean shore.
I know they don't work. I never knew that about Hawaii. Interesting. I lived in Bowling Green, Ohio and they put some wind mills just north of town to produce energy. One problem they ran into was the suction that was produced. Lots of birds got sucked in and were killed by the blades. Nice job environmentalists. LOLs.
It's sort of like hybrid cars. President Obama wants GM and Chrysler to start making hybrids as part of the restructuring. I believe he said for them to make cars Americans want. LOLs.
If those were the cars Americans wanted then GM and Chrysler would've been mass producing them already. And wouldn't be needing bail out money in the first place.
I have been in manufacturing for many years now. If wind mills worked better than fossil fuels I would:
1. Get a loan from a bank.
2. Purchase a plant.
3. Hire some engineers and workers
4. Start producing and selling wind mills.
5. Make a freakin' fortune.
Only problem would be I would need some coal and/or oil to operate the plant.
I don't think you understand what 'cap and trade' is about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clay Lady
It seems to be only missing from the equation that presents the complete stop to coal fired plants. New coal fired plants are being built that are incorporating the new things that will be cleaner in the end.
I am sorry you and others seems to feel such fear. I don't believe such gloom and doom is the intent of the cap and trade concept.
I don't fear anything. I'm pretty much completely self sufficient, regardless of what the idiots in DC do.
Sorry to be the one to give you the doom-and-gloom facts, but here they are:
I'll sum up that wad of legalese for you: While that decision addressed only one power plant in Utah, as a result of that decision at least 30 planned coal-fired plants under construction in the US have basically suspended work pending the outcome of further EPA regulatory analysis whether they're going to use the recent SCOTUS ruling that classified CO2 as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act.
The Democrats and environmentalists have fostered this deliberate mis-understanding that 'cap and trade' is about 'emissions' -- what they're not making clear is that the 'emissions' are not pollutant by-products like NOx, SOx, etc -- they're talking about CO2. CO2 -- like you exhale. CO2 like you get from burning anything that contains carbon - wood, paper, coal, natural gas, oil, etc.
In other words, thanks to the US Supreme Court, environmentalists and the EPA, you, personally, are now a point source of pollution, for as long as you're breathing.
We could, conceivably, reduce our CO2 emissions as a nation by converting more power plants to using natural gas. Converting power plants to NG would reduce CO2 "emissions" per BTU by about 40% or so (depending on the type of coal we're talking about). How much energy do we need to replace? About 23 quads (ie, quadrillion BTU's). That would amount to more than doubling the production of natural gas in the US from present levels - ie, a whole lot of drilling would have to happen. And a whole lot of natural gas, especially in the west, has now been put off-limits to drilling, thanks to the Clinton-era Roadless Forest initiatives, plus the recent wildness designations. How much? About 50 trillion cubic feet is the median estimate.
The trouble is, every sector of industry burning oil or coal will want natural gas under cap-n-trade for the same reason, and we probably don't have enough NG resources left available in the US to meet all of these requirements. On top of energy consumption of NG, we have chemical and fertilizer consumption of NG worldwide. In other words, when the world economy finally gets going again, if we're going down this road to eliminating coal, natural gas becomes the hydrocarbon fuel of choice and suddenly everyone wants it.
If you like imported oil, you'll love imported LNG.
What other options do we have? Well, nuclear would be the single best option here - skip the conversion to NG and go straight to a power source with no emissions.
Whoopsie. The environmentalists don't want that, either. Nuclear, if permitted, would be the ideal way out of this, but the anti-nuke environmentalists are still living in the 60's. The nuclear power industry in Japan, France and South Africa are working on their third new generation of power reactors since the 60's. We're still trapped in the 1970's on nuclear power. This, BTW, is why the French are A-OK with the Kyoto treaty and limiting CO2 emissions. They get a huge component of their electrical capacity from nukes. The French get over 70% of their power from nukes. Japan is working hard and fast to increase their nuke power component, because they're even more dependent upon imported energy than we are.
Nuclear would also be good for the Wyoming economy, since we have considerable uranium deposits that are commercially viable. I don't know whether it could economically replace coal in terms of total employment, but it is conceivable that the state would be able to maintain our tax structure with increased uranium mining.
OK, so what are the options for wind and solar to take over the coal generation part of the US energy portfolio, ie 50% of all power we generate? Well, slim to none. First, there are not that many viable sites for economic, large-scale wind power. Solar/wind sources are not dependable, ie, you can't say "Well, we have 5,000 megawatts of firm capacity" -- all you can say is "Oh, we can back off on this other power generation for a little while as long as the wind is blowing..." We have no viable large-scale power storage options just now other than pumping water uphill behind a hydro dam, and large-scale hydro is not well dispersed throughout the power grid.
What about solar? Well, Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-CA, just intervened in a large-scale solar project in the Mojave Desert to put a stop to it.
Seems that some bug or turtle might have had to live in some shade if the project went through. So, in reality, the environmentalists claim they want solar and wind... until someone with the money to make it happen decides to actually, you know, take them at their word. Then, oh, well, we didn't mean there. We meant over there... (waving hands in some other direction). We didn't mean wind power off the coast of Massachussetts -- we meant somewhere else. We didn't mean wind power in Nevada - we meant somewhere else. We didn't mean solar power in the Mojave - we meant somewhere else.
And when you come down to it, really, the only people who think that solar and wind power are viable power sources for replacing coal-fired base load plants are not EE's. Since I am a retired EE, I happen to be burdened with facts, not wishful thinking. I don't see how solar & wind, even if allowed to be put in where they're most economically viable, can amount to more than perhaps 10 to 15% of our entire generation capacity - and then we'll need some huge and ugly transmission lines to make use of that power. For example, while the wind power in the US is concentrated in places like WY, ND, SD, MN -- the power usage is out at the coasts.
But the wishful utopians for this sort of stuff are not EE's - they're Harvard lawyers, liberal arts majors, dreamers of unicorns and rainbows.... and ugly facts and laws of the universe don't impede them much. So we're quite likely to end up with some very silly policy decisions that make them look good in the press, and end up being paid for by lots of people and states that won't and don't matter to them. Wyoming, in particular, is easily written off by presidents and presdential candidates. We have only three electoral votes -- so who cares whether they crater our economy?
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.
I don't think you understand what 'cap and trade' is about
