DanG 1
rushmc 18
DanGYou make it sound like it's one or the other: green energy 100%, or fossil fuels 100%. No one is suggesting we drop fossil fuels tomorrow, and go green on Friday. A gradual shift from non-renewables to renewables can be done with only moderate effects on the economy.
I disagree
Many would have us drop all fossil fuels
the carbon rules Obama it trying to put into place will most likely tripple electric costs across the whole midwest (if not more)
And there is no reason to do this
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,121
QuoteIt is a stimulus program that is designed and intended to move money from a large portion of the population and concentrate it in a smaller portion.
A fine definition of US capitalism. Not sure why you are objecting so vehemently.
I doubt you would want money distributed equally?
DanG 1
QuoteMany would have us drop all fossil fuels
...eventually...
Quotethe carbon rules Obama it trying to put into place will most likely tripple electric costs across the whole midwest (if not more)
Do you have a source (non-biased if possible) for this number? It seems unrealistic.
- Dan G
rushmc 18
This is what the EPA says
When have their numbers ever been correct?
This is much closer IMO
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/epa-admits-climate-rule-will-raise-electricity-prices/
Inside the industry expectations are closer to double if not more
In the end, this is all this climate bs is and has always been
When have their numbers ever been correct?
QuoteIn 2008, Barack Obama said his energy plan would cause electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” The Environmental Protection Agency’s latest power plant regulations seem designed to do just that.
The EPA’s own regulatory analysis of its rule to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants says it will hike retail electricity by as much as 6.5 percent by 2020 — all while forcing 19 percent of the U.S. coal-fired capacity to shutdown and decreasing coal production by up to 28 percent.
This is much closer IMO
QuoteBut the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reported that EPA’s power plant rule would increase peoples’ energy costs by $17 billion per year. In total, the EPA rule would cost the U.S. economy $50 billion annually and kill 224,000 jobs per year.
Previous EPA regulations have already set the stage for skyrocketing electricity prices. The Mercury Air Toxics Standard (MATS), which comes in full effect in 2016, has already been predicted to force many coal plants to shut down and help drive up electricity costs.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says “low natural gas prices and slower growth of electricity demand” have hurt coal’s competitiveness as a power source. But a major reason why coal plants are shutting down is because they “must comply with requirements of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and other environmental regulations.”
Closing coal plants will drive up natural gas prices by 150 percent over 2012 levels by 2040, this cost rise will cause electricity prices to jump seven percent by 2025 and 22 percent by 2040. EIA does not predict power prices declining after 2030 due to lower demand and increased energy efficiency.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/epa-admits-climate-rule-will-raise-electricity-prices/
Inside the industry expectations are closer to double if not more
In the end, this is all this climate bs is and has always been
QuoteEven with the ostensibly huge benefits of the rule, Republicans some Democrats have come out against it, saying it’s a backdoor energy tax on Americans.
“Make no mistake, the administration’s proposed rule is nothing more than a national energy tax that will be yet another sucker punch to middle-class families struggling to get by in the Obama economy,” said South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune.
“These regulations, which will increase electricity costs, will especially hurt low-income families and seniors who live on fixed incomes and already devote a large share of their income to electricity bills,” Thune said. “In addition to hurting families, the regulations will destroy jobs, while essentially doing nothing to improve our global environment. The president’s proposed regulations are lose-lose-lose.”
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanG 1
Dude, I thought your were a Six-Sigma Black Belt. You need some remedial training if you think a 22% increase is the same as tripling.
- Dan G
- Dan G
rushmc 18
As I posted above, industry projections are higher. I think the price will at least double. At the very leastDanGDude, I thought your were a Six-Sigma Black Belt. You need some remedial training if you think a 22% increase is the same as tripling.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DanG 1
QuoteAs I posted above, industry projections are higher. I think the price will at least double. At the very least
Well, we're making progress. We've gone from triple to double in a few posts.
Of course, what I asked you was some backing for your estimate, and the best you could do was a 22% increase. Care to try again?
- Dan G
billvon 2,396
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>When have their numbers ever been correct?
In the 1970's, when they stated their requirement for reduced automotive emissions would not destroy the car industry
In 1978, when they called dumps like Love Canal "ticking time bombs"
In the 1990's, when they said that reducing coal power plant emissions would save lives
Let me know if you'd like a few more examples.
In the 1970's, when they stated their requirement for reduced automotive emissions would not destroy the car industry
In 1978, when they called dumps like Love Canal "ticking time bombs"
In the 1990's, when they said that reducing coal power plant emissions would save lives
Let me know if you'd like a few more examples.
turtlespeed 212
billvon>When have their numbers ever been correct?
In the 1970's, when they stated their requirement for reduced automotive emissions would not destroy the car industry
In 1978, when they called dumps like Love Canal "ticking time bombs"
In the 1990's, when they said that reducing coal power plant emissions would save lives
Let me know if you'd like a few more examples.
15 more please.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
ibx 2
QuoteThat's kind of the problem with it. It is a stimulus program that is designed and intended to move money from a large portion of the population and concentrate it in a smaller portion. Yes, it creates jobs. It also destroys jobs. Thereby increasing the quality of life for many while destroying it for many more. "Better" is subjective,n although Southern US tree farmers are digging the renewable energy requirements in Europe. Germany gets a lot of poer production from cutting down forests because trees are "renewable" and considered to be carbon neutral.
Before I begin I think we must remember that we cannot compare the US and Germany directly. In large because Germany has to import the majority of it's energy.
It creates lots of jobs across a huge sector. Especially what we call "Handwerker" in Germany which is the traditional blue collar class. It destroys hardly any jobs in Germany since all energy intensive industries are exempt from the "Energiewende" tax. It creates more jobs than it destroys at least here. Yes Germany's forests are actually growing, 1/3 of German land is now covered with forest and it's huge industry with lots of jobs, only an American can think thats this is a bad thing.
QuoteI'm sure you are aware of the costs coming with the Energiewende. A trillion dollar gamble. Energy prices for businesses increased 60% over the last five years (consumer prices are highly subsidized so the price doesn't match the cost, but have STILL nearly doubled since 2000, mostly due to taxes and fees for green energy). And in Germany, the GDP is has been decreasing.
Yes I am, I pay for the "energiewende" with my Power bill. The main reason for this not the environment though, but Germany's irrational fear of nuclear energy as I'm sure you are aware.
The Energiewende only really started after Fukushima. The green aspect is seen as huge bonus, which it is if it means Germany is more energy independent.
Yeah, Germany's GDP has been decreasing for about 2 months now, for the first time in a long time. This has more to do with the geo political situation(Ukraine, southern europe) than the energiewende.
Quote
Only in the world's leading economies do people think like this. The first world problem of replacing an entire power production system that works with one that will hopefully work is a first-world problem. Depsite Germany keeping the EU afloat for the last several years it's not Germany being seen as dragging it down.
Are you implying that Germany is dragging the EU down? Germany is suffering from first world problems?I don't think I understand what that paragraph means. Third world countries are now starting to invest in renewable energy btw.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-12/renewable-energy-investments-shift-to-developing-nations.html
QuoteOr on a tight budget. By making energy a luxury good, there are lots and lots of big losers who aren't in big oil. It takes a special kind of misanthrope to say, "this is great" to people who can't afford it. Have you got the balls to tell the poor who had their power shut off how much of a winner they are? I know, they are now saving a bundle on their electric bills!
Fuck the poor, right?
Germans who are "poor" get their utilities paid for by the government. Nobody gets their power shut off if they follow the correct bureaucratic procedures. Only in a true Christian nation are the poor left to fend for themselves.
Once the energiewende is done, wende means as much a change which means it will end, energy will be cheaper and especially will make Germany more independent form energy imports. We don't have oil, coal is too expensive and we have to import our gas from Russia. It makes a lot of sense for Germany to try for more energy independence, this of course different if you have your own oil/gas like the US. In the long run renewable energy is much cheaper than fossil fuels which the US subsidizes like crazy btw.
billvon 2,396
Here are three more from a 2011 OMB report:
=========
(Cost/benefit) variability appears greater in benefit estimates than in cost estimates. Note that the three highest years for benefits (2004, 2005, and 2007) are mostly explained by three EPA regulations: the 2004 non-road diesel engine rule, the 2005 interstate air quality rule, and the clean air fine particle implementation rule.25 Note also that the benefits exceed the costs in every fiscal year; that the highest benefit year, in terms of point estimates, was 2007; that 2007 was also the highest cost year, in those terms; and that the four highest net benefit years, in those terms, were 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2010.
============
And here are a few hundred billion examples:
EPA office of air quality: Cost due to rulemaking - 19 to 25 billion Benefits - 77 to 535 billion
EPA office of water quality: Cost due to rulemaking - 1.1 to 1.2 billion Benefits - 1.3 to 3.9 billion
EPA office of chemical safety: Cost due to rulemaking - 3.4 billion Benefits - 3.2 to 11.4 billion
EPA office of solid waste and emergency response: Cost due to rulemaking - -0.2 billion Benefits - 0.3 billion
=========
(Cost/benefit) variability appears greater in benefit estimates than in cost estimates. Note that the three highest years for benefits (2004, 2005, and 2007) are mostly explained by three EPA regulations: the 2004 non-road diesel engine rule, the 2005 interstate air quality rule, and the clean air fine particle implementation rule.25 Note also that the benefits exceed the costs in every fiscal year; that the highest benefit year, in terms of point estimates, was 2007; that 2007 was also the highest cost year, in those terms; and that the four highest net benefit years, in those terms, were 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2010.
============
And here are a few hundred billion examples:
EPA office of air quality: Cost due to rulemaking - 19 to 25 billion Benefits - 77 to 535 billion
EPA office of water quality: Cost due to rulemaking - 1.1 to 1.2 billion Benefits - 1.3 to 3.9 billion
EPA office of chemical safety: Cost due to rulemaking - 3.4 billion Benefits - 3.2 to 11.4 billion
EPA office of solid waste and emergency response: Cost due to rulemaking - -0.2 billion Benefits - 0.3 billion
turtlespeed 212
billvonHere are three more from a 2011 OMB report:
=========
(Cost/benefit) variability appears greater in benefit estimates than in cost estimates. Note that the three highest years for benefits (2004, 2005, and 2007) are mostly explained by three EPA regulations: the 2004 non-road diesel engine rule, the 2005 interstate air quality rule, and the clean air fine particle implementation rule.25 Note also that the benefits exceed the costs in every fiscal year; that the highest benefit year, in terms of point estimates, was 2007; that 2007 was also the highest cost year, in those terms; and that the four highest net benefit years, in those terms, were 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2010.
============
And here are a few hundred billion examples:
EPA office of air quality: Cost due to rulemaking - 19 to 25 billion Benefits - 77 to 535 billion
EPA office of water quality: Cost due to rulemaking - 1.1 to 1.2 billion Benefits - 1.3 to 3.9 billion
EPA office of chemical safety: Cost due to rulemaking - 3.4 billion Benefits - 3.2 to 11.4 billion
EPA office of solid waste and emergency response: Cost due to rulemaking - -0.2 billion Benefits - 0.3 billion
AH - so you found a group that can justify it's existence in a rport designed to justify it's existence.
Good.
Now, can we have a report from a non government, or government subsidized group, one that is completely independent?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
SkyDekker 1,121
lol, you are funny.
billvon 2,396
>Now, can we have a report from a non government, or government subsidized
>group, one that is completely independent?
Sure. Here are two studies on deaths from air pollution by Abt Associates. One in 2004, one in 2010. The one in 2010 occurred after Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and enforcement of the New Source Review. They show that particulate pollution, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides are all down, and thus the death toll is down as well. (24,000 a year down to 13,000 a year.)
So there's 11,000 reasons for you.
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pdf
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf
>group, one that is completely independent?
Sure. Here are two studies on deaths from air pollution by Abt Associates. One in 2004, one in 2010. The one in 2010 occurred after Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and enforcement of the New Source Review. They show that particulate pollution, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides are all down, and thus the death toll is down as well. (24,000 a year down to 13,000 a year.)
So there's 11,000 reasons for you.
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pdf
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf
turtlespeed 212
billvon>Now, can we have a report from a non government, or government subsidized
>group, one that is completely independent?
Sure. Here are two studies on deaths from air pollution by Abt Associates. One in 2004, one in 2010. The one in 2010 occurred after Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and enforcement of the New Source Review. They show that particulate pollution, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides are all down, and thus the death toll is down as well. (24,000 a year down to 13,000 a year.)
So there's 11,000 reasons for you.
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/Dirty_Air_Dirty_Power.pdf
http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf
Awesome - what about financial?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 2,396
>Awesome - what about financial?
Sure. Tell me what you think a human life is worth and I'll give you the financial benefits of that.
Sure. Tell me what you think a human life is worth and I'll give you the financial benefits of that.
turtlespeed 212
billvon>Awesome - what about financial?
Sure. Tell me what you think a human life is worth and I'll give you the financial benefits of that.
Unfortunately here in the US, you guys value them at somewhere in the $400 - $500 range
, but I value them MUCH, MUCH higher. . . . but what is my opinion in this?
You stated:
QuoteAnd here are a few hundred billion examples:
EPA office of air quality: Cost due to rulemaking - 19 to 25 billion Benefits - 77 to 535 billion
EPA office of water quality: Cost due to rulemaking - 1.1 to 1.2 billion Benefits - 1.3 to 3.9 billion
EPA office of chemical safety: Cost due to rulemaking - 3.4 billion Benefits - 3.2 to 11.4 billion
EPA office of solid waste and emergency response: Cost due to rulemaking - -0.2 billion Benefits - 0.3 billion
I think the data is monumentally skewed by those that want to justify their position.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
- Dan G
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites