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.
The answer to that is quite simple, it's risky investment because of the volatile oil market. If the price of oil drops below the profitable threshold even a for a few weeks or months you're going to be in serious trouble.
Now if the government were going to guarantee a value of $50 or $60 a barrel you'd see an explosion of this tech since the risk is associated with the conventional market is no longer there. This is still far below the current costs and makes economic sense. Even if they do end up collecting on it you've pretty much accomplished your goal anyway which is to drive the cost of oil down. In any event as the cost of oil goes up this tech becomes far less of risk, at some point in time it will be used.
I thought conservatives were against government meddling in the free market? Or, that only counts when we're talking about solar and wind?
I hope your not expecting any "peak" times this summer or your new smart meter will be shutting off your AC or your heat come winter. Gotta get the windmills going and mirrors all over so Obama's cronies can make millions and sit back in their mansions.
The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy's total generation. In recent years, the plants served as "peaking facilities" and generated power during times of peak demand for power.
The plants operated under subsidiary Monongahela Power. Mon Power recently finished a study of unscrubbed coal fired plants in the system to determine the potential impact of the most recent environmental regulations from EPA. Company officials determined the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) made it unfeasible to retrofit or continue operating the three plants.
“The high cost to implement MATS and other environmental rules is the reason these Mon Power plants are being retired,” said James R. Haney, regional president of Mon Power and president of West Virginia Operations for FirstEnergy.
The announcement follows an announcement from First Energy last month that six coal fired plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland would also be retired. All of those plans are due to be off line and shut down by September 1, 2012.
Three Coal Power Plants Closing - West Virginia Headline News and Talk Radio (http://www.wvmetronews.com/index.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=50837&type - broken link)
The crazed EPA lunatics seem to be purposely trying to destroy the nation's coal-fired power plants.
The cost of AEP’s compliance plan could range from $6 billion to $8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade. High demand for labor and materials due to a constrained compliance time frame could drive actual costs higher than these estimates. The plan, including retirements, could change significantly depending on the final form of the EPA regulations and regulatory approvals from state commissions.
Although some jobs would be created from the installation of emissions reduction equipment, AEP expects a net loss of approximately 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million as a result of compliance with the proposed EPA rules.
AEP: EPA rules could cost billions; 6,000 MW of coal-fired generation retirements - POWER-GEN WorldWide (http://www.pennenergy.com/index/power/display/4022144834/articles/powergenworldwide/coal-generation/retrofits-and-upgrades/2011/06/AEP-says-major-job-and-generation-loss-from-EPA-regulations.html?cmpid=EnlWeeklyPowerJune172011 - broken link)
I agree. For a country or business to export stuff to the US, they should have to certify that they've matched US environmental and labor laws, or pay a tariff to offset the difference.
That would level the playing field.
Tariffs can be harmful thing if not thought out very well. I remember in the past the government slapped a tariff on all imported steel, in a vain attempt to prop up the US steel industry. We ended up artificially raising the cost of steel for US manufacturing companies. The small business owners that had trouble competing with foreign companies got hammered. For example, a domestic belt buckle or paper clip company would be crushed by foreign competition, because the competition were paying a lot less for raw materials. Foreign imports of steel products were not slapped with a tariff, so US consumers bought the cheaper belt buckles, paper clips, etc... We saved a few hundred steel worker jobs but lots tens of thousands of US manufacturing jobs.
I would love to see a tariff on any products where the importer stole US intellectual property or copyrights.
Why do so many conservatives hate the environment? We shouldn't have been emitting mercury into public waters in the first place.
I hear a lot of pissing and moaning about energy prices, but ZERO responses regarding environmental concerns.
We are in very bad times ATM, so now is not the time for creating new and expensive EPA regs. There is a time and place for it, but common sense says it is not good to jack up costs right now.
We are in very bad times ATM, so now is not the time for creating new and expensive EPA regs. There is a time and place for it, but common sense says it is not good to jack up costs right now.
That excuse would only work if the GOP "elites" had been pro-environment during periods of economic growth.
Sounds like you energy boys should hop to it and get those upgrades going while costs are cheap. Build those wet scrubbers, convert to nat gas, etc.
It is clear that this, childish "I'm taking MY ball and going home" nonsense is just a ploy to get concessions.
FYI, it is way too soon after seeing the tactics Enron used. We still recall the recordings of the power brokers laughing at the results of their market manipulates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
The crazed EPA lunatics seem to be purposely trying to destroy the nation's coal-fired power plants.
The cost of AEP’s compliance plan could range from $6 billion to $8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade. High demand for labor and materials due to a constrained compliance time frame could drive actual costs higher than these estimates. The plan, including retirements, could change significantly depending on the final form of the EPA regulations and regulatory approvals from state commissions.
Although some jobs would be created from the installation of emissions reduction equipment, AEP expects a net loss of approximately 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million as a result of compliance with the proposed EPA rules.
AEP: EPA rules could cost billions; 6,000 MW of coal-fired generation retirements - POWER-GEN WorldWide (http://www.pennenergy.com/index/power/display/4022144834/articles/powergenworldwide/coal-generation/retrofits-and-upgrades/2011/06/AEP-says-major-job-and-generation-loss-from-EPA-regulations.html?cmpid=EnlWeeklyPowerJune172011 - broken link)
I thought conservatives were against government meddling in the free market? Or, that only counts when we're talking about solar and wind?
I'm on the fence about supporting it, the bottom line is it makes economic sense. You'll drive the cost of conventional oil down, it's a resource that we have a huge supply of domestically and you'll jump start an industry that is going to emerge with or without government support.
If it were a renewable energy that had these benefits you'd have unanimous support for it, yes?
Tariffs can be harmful thing if not thought out very well. I remember in the past the government slapped a tariff on all imported steel, in a vain attempt to prop up the US steel industry. We ended up artificially raising the cost of steel for US manufacturing companies. The small business owners that had trouble competing with foreign companies got hammered. For example, a domestic belt buckle or paper clip company would be crushed by foreign competition, because the competition were paying a lot less for raw materials. Foreign imports of steel products were not slapped with a tariff, so US consumers bought the cheaper belt buckles, paper clips, etc... We saved a few hundred steel worker jobs but lots tens of thousands of US manufacturing jobs.
I would love to see a tariff on any products where the importer stole US intellectual property or copyrights.
Under my idea, a tariff would not be imposed to protect American business from foreign competition, but to protect it from global corporations which will inevitably shift production to the lowest cost places. And, my tariff could be avoided entirely by simply meeting the requirements.
The point is that the tariffs you mentioned are punitive in nature, while mine would positively impact American competitiveness and environmental responsibility.
Since no one else has cared to stick there neck out when presented with the numbers perhaps you might be interested?
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.
