America First Energy Policy

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

You guys seem to think that Trump is going to sign an executive order authorizing fracking waste water to be dumped into our lakes and rivers. That special kind of stupid makes me sad.

He's said he wants to eliminate the EPA's Clean Power Plan. Do you know what that is and does concern about eliminating it equate to a "special kind of stupid"?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[normiss 622]

His efforts so far make it look like he would prefer to simply eliminate the EPA.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

normiss

His efforts so far make it look like he would prefer to simply eliminate the EPA.

He did say during the campaign that he would eliminate the EPA entirely. Then he walked that back a bit and said maybe they would keep a little tiny bit, but anything that is at all "burdensome" to industry has got to go.

I think we should have all the power plants just pipe their waste into the various Trump hotels and other buildings. After all, Trump himself says they are so airtight nothing can get out to harm the environment.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[brenthutch 388]

DJL

***You guys seem to think that Trump is going to sign an executive order authorizing fracking waste water to be dumped into our lakes and rivers. That special kind of stupid makes me sad.

He's said he wants to eliminate the EPA's Clean Power Plan. Do you know what that is and does concern about eliminating it equate to a "special kind of stupid"?

There is nothing to eliminate, the courts did that, the CPP was illegal.

[billvon 2,426]

>There is nothing to eliminate, the courts did that, the CPP was illegal.

Incorrect again, as usual.

[brenthutch 388]

The Supreme Court's action casts doubt on the long-term future of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule because it increases the chances that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would take the case after a lower court issues a decision on the legality of the regulations and ultimately would strike it down.

I may have jumped the gun a bit but....end result.

[DJL 232]

brenthutch

The Supreme Court's action casts doubt on the long-term future of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule because it increases the chances that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would take the case after a lower court issues a decision on the legality of the regulations and ultimately would strike it down.

I may have jumped the gun a bit but....end result.

As an aside, i don't think the Supreme Court will be any more conservatively politicized than it was considering the new appointment will be a replacement to Scalia. The issue Trump will have is trying to appoint someone who will somehow be under his thumb. That can be a bit more tricky with a SC nominee since the moment the act is done that nominee is out from under his thumb.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,426]

>How much to set up a system to capture the power from the sun?? (Not being
>negative just curious.)

Right now solar is running about $3.20 a watt for residential installations before tax breaks/incentives. So if you drive 30 miles a day (about 8kwhr of energy) you'd need a 1kW array ($3200) in Phoenix or a 1.5kW array ($4800) in New York City. Most people install larger arrays to also offset their home's usage.

[jakee 1,257]

brenthutch

I said roll back the billions of dollars of Obama's regulations.

That was one thing you said. But you also said exactly what I just said you said - with absolutely no limit stated or implied about how far Trump and the Republicans could or would go.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Phil1111 913]

.66 a watt by the pallet without controllers, wiring, installation, mounts,etc.

http://www.wholesalesolar.com/bulk-solar-panels-by-the-pallet

[billvon 2,426]

>.66 a watt by the pallet without controllers, wiring, installation, mounts,etc.

I've seen them at 49 cents a pallet, although 80 cents is more common. Inverters add another 30 cents, racking another 12 cents, and balance-of-system (breakers, wiring etc) add about 20 cents. The remainder is labor, taxes, permitting costs, transportation costs etc.

[brenthutch 388]

The Dems will block ANY Trump pick, forcing the Rs to employ the nuclear option for SC nominees. The actuarial tables tell us there might be some more liberal losses on the court, replacing 80 year old liberals with 50 year old conservatives.

[billvon 2,426]

>Tight oil has almost as high a cost as shale oil. And the US dollar is so high that
>we can keep on sending heavy crude to Louisiana for refining at a profit.
>Especially when Keystone is finished.

Top two stories on Reuters right now:

Trump signs order to move controversial pipelines forward
Canada oil pipeline spills 200,000 liters on aboriginal land

I am sure that's a total fluke. Will never happen again.

[gowlerk 1,923]

billvon

>Tight oil has almost as high a cost as shale oil. And the US dollar is so high that
>we can keep on sending heavy crude to Louisiana for refining at a profit.
>Especially when Keystone is finished.

Top two stories on Reuters right now:

Trump signs order to move controversial pipelines forward
Canada oil pipeline spills 200,000 liters on aboriginal land

I am sure that's a total fluke. Will never happen again.

That's less than 2 tank cars worth. Only a small fraction of the amount of North Dakota oil that incinerated the small town in Quebec. Oil will move somehow. Pipelines are the safest way.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

quade

***Net net, renewables are a drain and oil and gas give back more than they receive. But of course that is math, not your strong suit.

Oh? Please show us your work.

LET'S GET MATHY, PEOPLE!

Still waiting for you to get mathy. Let me help you get started. Elon Musk and co. Took more than four billion from the government in 2015 while Exon/Mobile gave the government more than thirty billion. Better sharpen those pencils. LET'S GET MATHY!

[billvon 2,426]

> Elon Musk and co. Took more than four billion from the government in 2015

I took a look at that report, and noted that it counted the EV tax credit.

I bought an EV in 2012. I got an EV credit. I did not have to send it back to Nissan; I kept it. So I took the tax break. Not Nissan, me. And when Musk's customers get tax breaks, it goes to his customers, not him.

This may be a tough concept for you to understand, but there is actually a difference between people and corporations. They are not the same.

Try again!

[brenthutch 388]

billvon

> Elon Musk and co. Took more than four billion from the government in 2015

I took a look at that report, and noted that it counted the EV tax credit.

I bought an EV in 2012. I got an EV credit. I did not have to send it back to Nissan; I kept it. So I took the tax break. Not Nissan, me. And when Musk's customers get tax breaks, it goes to his customers, not him.

This may be a tough concept for you to understand, but there is actually a difference between people and corporations. They are not the same.

Try again!

Sound just like a "big oil" subsidy. Any tax break going to fossil fuel companies goes right back to the people in the form of cheaper energy prices, dividends, and salaries, the corporation gets nothing. I realize this is a tough concept for you to grasp. BTW still waiting for you guys to get all mathy on me.

[billvon 2,426]

Quote

Any tax break going to fossil fuel companies goes right back to the people in the form of cheaper energy prices, dividends, and salaries, the corporation gets nothing.

And any tax break going to a renewables company (or to Tesla, or SpaceX, or Solar City) goes right back to the people in the form of cheaper energy prices, dividends, salaries, new jobs, lower electric bills, US presence in space, new technology we can export, state and local taxes - the corporation gets nothing.

You sold me.

[brenthutch 388]

The difference being, net net, big oil adds 100 billion+ to federal and state coffers, while solar is a drain. Still waiting for my math lesson.

[billvon 2,426]

>The difference being, net net, big oil adds 100 billion+ to federal and state
>coffers, while solar is a drain.

Keep backpedaling! Eventually you may find yourself on firm ground.

Meanwhile:

=========
Clean-Energy Jobs Surpass Oil Drilling for First Time in U.S.
by Anna Hirtenstein
May 25, 2016, 7:00 AM PDT

The number of U.S. jobs in solar energy overtook those in oil and natural gas extraction for the first time last year, helping drive a global surge in employment in the clean-energy business as fossil-fuel companies faltered.

Employment in the U.S. solar business grew 12 times faster than overall job creation, the International Renewable Energy Agency said in a report on Wednesday. About 8.1 million people worldwide had jobs in the clean energy in 2015, up from 7.7 million in 2014, according to the industry group based in Abu Dhabi.
=========
Jan 24, 2017
Forbes

As Trump Signals Rollback On Environmental Regulations, New Jobs Report Indicates That's A Bad Idea

Liz Delaney

President Trump’s regulatory freeze that halted four rules designed to promote greater energy efficiency appears to be just the first salvo in an ongoing plan to roll back environmental protections and slash environmental budgets. While that is obviously foolish from an environmental perspective, it is also problematic from an economic/job creation standpoint.

. . . .

Sustainability jobs represent a large and growing portion of the U.S. workforce across multiple sectors.

This isn’t a small, niche workforce. In fact, it’s outpacing the rest of the U.S. economy in growth and job creation. Solar employment opportunities alone are currently growing at a rate 12 times faster than the rest of the U.S. economy. And, they are generating more jobs per dollar invested–more than double the jobs created from investing in fossil fuels. Sustainability now collectively represents an estimated 4-4.5 million jobs in the U.S., spanning energy efficiency and renewable energy, to waste reduction and environmental education.

Due to the on-site nature of many renewable and energy efficiency jobs, these jobs cannot be outsourced, and can pay above average wages.

These aren’t just any jobs; they are well-paying, local opportunities that bolster our domestic economy. Most renewable and energy efficiency jobs can be found in small businesses, requiring on-site installation, maintenance and construction, making them local by nature. And, many pay higher than average wages. For example, energy efficiency jobs pay almost $5,000 above the national median, providing rewarding employment options to all Americans–even those without college or advanced degrees.

Clean energy and sustainability jobs are present in every state in America.

The entire country has benefitted from the boom in clean energy and sustainability jobs, which has employed workers in every state. Energy efficiency alone provides 2.2 million jobs, spreading out across the nation.
======

[gowlerk 1,923]

Quote

Due to the on-site nature of many renewable and energy efficiency jobs, these jobs cannot be outsourced, and can pay above average wages.

This is key. Not only is the energy source renewable. So are the jobs maintaining the systems. This is hands on work that requires training, but not years of study. A trade for the new millennium. And likely to become unionized as well! A win for the blue collar workers.

And not boom and bust in nature like petroleum. The Saudi's are never going to be able to ship their electricity over. The price will be stable and so will the industry.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 388]

You accuse me of back pedaling, I don't think you know what it means. I said that fossil fuels contributed more to the country than renewables you took the opposite position, I proved it, you have not. I will give you an "A" for obfuscation and goal poll movement though. By all means continue to flail away.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

brenthutch

You accuse me of back pedaling, I don't think you know what it means. I said that fossil fuels contributed more to the country than renewables you took the opposite position, I proved it, you have not. I will give you an "A" for obfuscation and goal poll movement though. By all means continue to flail away.

Where did you prove it?

Give a post number.

You rarely cite sources or post links to the crap you assert. Even Marc posts links to his sources. They're total garbage, but he does cite sources.

OTOH, Bill quoted news articles and cited sources. Not as "quick and easy" as a link, but

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,426]

>You accuse me of back pedaling, I don't think you know what it means.

It means:

First you say " Elon Musk and co. Took more than four billion from the government in 2015 while Exon/Mobile gave the government more than thirty billion." Then you think "oh shit, a lot of those tax cuts were to consumers, not to Musk's companies directly!"

So you backpedal. You give up on that angle and try another, slightly different one: they pay a lot of taxes!

>I proved it, you have not.

Perhaps if you post that often enough you'll start to believe it?

[brenthutch 388]

I think you have it backwards, Exxon paid taxes, Musk got subsidies.