What do you think about "Cap and Trade" and how will it effect Wyoming? (sales, felony)

[Froggie Legs]

Just wondering if anyone is worried with the recent increase of "Cap and Trade" talk, which basically sounds like Obama's administration wants to heavily tax corporations/people making "too many emissions. " Wouldn't this cause problems for Wyoming coal mining operations?

If it does effect the coal mining, would Wyoming take to solar and wind energy production on a larger scale? Wouldn't this sort of thing be bad for Wyoming's economy?

[WyoNewk]

It will almost certainly be hard on Wyoming's economy. It'll make electricity from coal-fired generating plants more expensive. The goal, as it pertains to Wyoming, is to make coal-powered generation as expensive as wind or solar, to discourage new coal burning plants OR make them as clean as possible.

Existing plants aren't likely to shut down because of it any time soon. Short term it's going to make electricity cost more to generate, which will be passed along to the consumer, and it will likely mean fewer plants will be built in Wyoming and across the country.

It's too early to know how it's going to shake out in the end. All I've heard so far is the philosophy of it.

Then again, it's possible that it'll create a side-industry for Wyoming -- the processing of coal to make it burn cleaner. That would best be done right at the mine site before it's shipped, so it could be a boon for Wyoming. But I wouldn't count on it. I don't think the environmental lobby will be satisfied until they've stopped all coal burning and are sitting in the dark freezing their bottoms off, waiting for a breeze to turn the blades of their noisy, ugly windmills.

Any wind generation in Wyoming will be a drop in the bucket compared to coal.

[ElkHunter]

That's one nice thing about our coal. Wyoming's biggest customer for coal, is Pennsylvania. The reason is because our coal is such low sulfer that it doesn't require the expensive scrubbers that high sulfer coal requires. Penn State produces a lot of coal and can't burn it cost effectively so they purchase our coal to run their power.

So, in answer to the OP's question, I don't think it would hurt us, as much as it would help us by raising the demand on Wyoming Coal.

[Clay Lady]

There is a coal-fired plant being built in SW Arkansas. A man from the electric company went into some detail talking to me about the coal process. I didn't fully understand most of what he was talking about but I did find it very interesting that they were going to mix Wyoming coal with Oklahoma coal to get the best burn. Several colleges are doing a variety of tests to learn better ways to make use of this natural resource. Wyoming colleges are very much involved in the research.

I think research - looking for the best way to do something - make improvements based on cleaner air goals - will benefit everyone. Look for something wonderful to come from it - not something to worry about.

[Froggie Legs]

As WyoNewk pointed out though, costs usually are passed onto the consumer..i.e. us

We've already noticed prices for things steadily raising in the last two months, gasoline included, so that hype about not being taxed is bologna. If Cap and Trade go through it's the cold upper half of the US who will suffer most as we need to heat our homes in the winter.

[sunsprit]

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.

[NVDave]

Originally Posted by Froggie Legs

Just wondering if anyone is worried with the recent increase of "Cap and Trade" talk, which basically sounds like Obama's administration wants to heavily tax corporations/people making "too many emissions. " Wouldn't this cause problems for Wyoming coal mining operations?

If it does effect the coal mining, would Wyoming take to solar and wind energy production on a larger scale? Wouldn't this sort of thing be bad for Wyoming's economy?

"Cap and trade" is a scheme whereby the henny-penny pecksniffs of the world want to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by making them expensive to the point of economic non-return. The way they seek to increase the costs of using said fossil fuels is with "cap and trade" taxes. We "cap" worldwide CO2 emissions, and then "trade" slack in carbon emissions through cash settlement markets. It is a way to transfer money from the US ratepayer's pocket to the treasuries of dung-heap third world countries that have a per-capita "carbon emission deficit" because they're still living in mud huts and plowing their fields with a chunk of wood in the ground being drug by an ox.

The coal and natural gas burning electrical utilities will try to lay off their increased expenses two ways: one, increased rates. But the "socially aware" will not like that, because it will be a highly regressive tax, so they'll try to force some of the cost back down onto the coal companies. You can almost paint this picture by numbers just by looking at how several other do-gooder schemes have played out to date.

Wyoming is especially vulnerable, because we have the largest coal reserves in the nation (37% of identified total), and coal pays the second largest component of our state taxes after retail sales taxes. If the coal industry were even hampered, (never mind put out of business, as the hard-core would like to see), our state tax revenues will be impacted. The one county with the PRB coal mines in it dwarfs most all other counties' tax receipts - in effect, Campbell County is paying a huge chunk of the entire state's taxes right now.

Mining, oil, gas and support services are directly responsible for over 25% of the state's domestic product right now, and a larger chunk of the economic growth of the state. If the growth stops, then there are usually big secondary effects, like construction slows down to a crawl, and many contractors and capital for construction leaves for better returns elsewhere.

There's no way that solar or wind power can pick up this slack in economic growth. Solar and wind projects have a construction phase and employs halfway well, then it is over. The operational phases of these projects are very minimal at job creation. They're even more dubious as power sources, but I'm not going to bore you with a litany of electrical engineering jargon as to why - let's just say that our electrical grid wants steady power, and neither solar nor wind sources are 'steady' (what we EE's call "base load") power sources.

Long story short: cap and trade is not good news for Wyoming.

Edit: For those who want to see details about how coal factors into WY's economy, here's the fountain of all data:

http://eadiv.state.wy.us/Almanac/ESA2008.pdf

[NVDave]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

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.

Over 50% of the power used in the US is for induction motors - many of which are driving HVAC units.

So my first targets for power consumption reductions?

Eliminate all air conditioning on all federal buildings. Especially those in Washington DC.

Presto! Instant HUGE power savings.

[SAI126]

Cap and trade is not good news for anyone. I find it hard to believe that world leaders are serious about ending this latest recession, while getting ready to ram this dubious policy down our throats. Cap and trade will have catastrophic affects. It's all about power and control and the world is entering a phase that will see Big Brother government permanently consolidating control.

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by NVDave

Over 50% of the power used in the US is for induction motors - many of which are driving HVAC units.

So my first targets for power consumption reductions?

Eliminate all air conditioning on all federal buildings. Especially those in Washington DC.

Presto! Instant HUGE power savings.

Wow! What a concept!

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.