Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[gwb-trading]

Yeah how dare those partisan surpemes make obama follow the law, he should be able to tax or regulate any business out of existence that he wants too, Screw all the ppl whose only employment relied on coal mines, screw all the people who depend on coal energy to live, Obama should just be able to change it all with the stroke of a pen cause hes doing all you idiots a favour, dont come bitching to us next year when west virginia is under a hundred feet of water!!!!?!?!?!??!?!!?!?!!! :MAD:

The majority of the power plants in our area of central North Carolina are powered by coal.

Obama's Clean Power Plan is expected to force to closure of all these power plants and leave the Research Triangle Park area in a power shortage situation.... as well as forcing our rates up by 5 cents per kilowatt hour (our current rate is 9.35 cents per kilowatt hour). This is over a 50% increase - which would devastate not only local home owners but manufacturing businesses.

For some reason futurecurrents is greatly unhappy that our Republican Governor and Democratic State Attorney General oppose allowing Obama to devastate the economy of our state.

 

[futurecurrents]

The majority of the power plants in our area of central North Carolina are powered by coal.

Obama's Clean Power Plan is expected to force to closure of all these power plants and leave the Research Triangle Park area in a power shortage situation.... as well as forcing our rates up by 5 cents per kilowatt hour (our current rate is 9.35 cents per kilowatt hour). This is over a 50% increase - which would devastate not only local home owners but manufacturing businesses.

For some reason futurecurrents is greatly unhappy that our Republican Governor and Democratic State Attorney General oppose allowing Obama to devastate the economy of our state.

Hyperbole much?

Also, I may be mistaken but I believe that the regulations do not specifically mention coal power plants. If they do I think that the plaintifs and courts may have a point. But the fact that it was party line vote for them makes me doubt it.

 

[gwb-trading]

Hyperbole much?

Also, I may be mistaken but I believe that the regulations do not specifically mention coal power plants. If they do I think that the plaintifs and courts may have a point. But the fact that it was party line vote for them makes me doubt it.

Can you explain why our Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper is taking legal action against the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan? Is it simply to pass the time and amuse himself? Does it have to do with him running for Governor against the incumbent Republican Pat McCrory in 2016 (that would be odd - they appear to have the exact same position on this particular issue)? Do you think it is because all the large companies that donate over 50% of the political money in our state screamed bloody murder over the increased electric rate issue? Do you have some other fanciful explanation?

Maybe it would be useful to recognize that it is the Attorney General of the state that takes action against federal policies. The Governors have very little to do with it.

P.S. - All the articles you (and others) posted stated the regulations were targeted at coal-fired power plants. Here is a map of all the plants in our state.

 

[futurecurrents]

There's this thing called Google. It often results in conservatives finding out that they are wrong. So apparently they don't use it.

************************************************


The rules don’t keep plants from burning coal.

The EPA proposal sets a different carbon reduction threshold for each state based on feasibility, cost and current pollution levels, to help achieve a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions nationally by 2030.

To reach their respective goals, each state can choose from a multitude of options, including regional cap and trade networks, investments in renewable energy and building smart grid technology.

And, yes, they could phase out some existing coal plants.

Experts noted, though, that the goals are phased in gradually and can be met without stopping many plants from burning coal,even in states heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

"We’re going to see a shakeout of older and smaller coal plants, the least efficient ones anyway," said Dallas Burtraw, associate director of the Resources for the Future Center for Climate and Electricity Policy, an energy think tank funded by government, nonprofits and energy companies. "The ones that remain will have a high level of environmental controls and will run relatively efficiently with a high utilization rate."

As for Capito’s claim that regulations will stop existing plants from burning coal, we rated the statement False.

Capito also took a shot at a separate EPA proposal released last year to regulate emissions from new coal plants, claiming the rule says, "No new coal-fired plants."

Under the proposed guidelines, coal-burning power plants would have to limit carbon emissions to 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour over a 12-operating month period. Natural gas plants, meanwhile, would have to stay below 1,000 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour.

Modern natural gas plants already meet that standard, but so far even the most efficient coal plants in operation are well above the EPA’s proposed threshold. To meet it will require carbon capture technology, which is not commercially available.

But it will be some day, experts said. Already there is one ongoing attempt to build a coal plant with carbon capture in Mississippi.

And in the meantime, it was very unlikely any new traditional coal plants were on the horizon anyway, because a natural gas boom in North America has steered power companies away from coal and toward natural gas, which is cheaper, cleaner and more efficient.

At some point, experts expected coal to rebound.

"Wind and solar have benefits, but they’re intermittent. Natural gas is subject to all sorts of price volatility, at least historically, and it’s subject to hurricanes that can cause disruption," said Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin. "So people will see coal is domestic, it has value, it’s not as volatile, it’s stable, but you just can’t burn it the way you did before."

We rated Capito’s statement that there will be no new coal plantsMostly False.

Not every politician is running to coal’s rescue. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who delivers a weekly floor speech about the dangers of climate change, wrote in May that there "are already more American jobs in the solar industry than in coal mining."

Whithouse was correct:The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted about 78,500 coal-mining jobs in the United States while the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration cited 123,227 jobs in its own report.

It’s a large gap, but both figures are still lower than the total number of solar jobs. According to the Solar Foundation, a pro-solar nonprofit that nonetheless is considered the "most authoritative" source by the Congressional Research Service, there were 142,698 Americans working in the solar industry as of November 2013.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-checks-obama-coal-rules-carbon-politics/

 

[gwb-trading]

There's this thing called Google. It often results in conservatives finding out that they are wrong. So apparently they don't use it.

************************************************


The rules don’t keep plants from burning coal.

The EPA proposal sets a different carbon reduction threshold for each state based on feasibility, cost and current pollution levels, to help achieve a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions nationally by 2030.

To reach their respective goals, each state can choose from a multitude of options, including regional cap and trade networks, investments in renewable energy and building smart grid technology.

And, yes, they could phase out some existing coal plants.

Experts noted, though, that the goals are phased in gradually and can be met without stopping many plants from burning coal,even in states heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

"We’re going to see a shakeout of older and smaller coal plants, the least efficient ones anyway," said Dallas Burtraw, associate director of the Resources for the Future Center for Climate and Electricity Policy, an energy think tank funded by government, nonprofits and energy companies. "The ones that remain will have a high level of environmental controls and will run relatively efficiently with a high utilization rate."

As for Capito’s claim that regulations will stop existing plants from burning coal, we rated the statement False.

Capito also took a shot at a separate EPA proposal released last year to regulate emissions from new coal plants, claiming the rule says, "No new coal-fired plants."

Under the proposed guidelines, coal-burning power plants would have to limit carbon emissions to 1,100 pounds per megawatt hour over a 12-operating month period. Natural gas plants, meanwhile, would have to stay below 1,000 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour.

Modern natural gas plants already meet that standard, but so far even the most efficient coal plants in operation are well above the EPA’s proposed threshold. To meet it will require carbon capture technology, which is not commercially available.

But it will be some day, experts said. Already there is one ongoing attempt to build a coal plant with carbon capture in Mississippi.

And in the meantime, it was very unlikely any new traditional coal plants were on the horizon anyway, because a natural gas boom in North America has steered power companies away from coal and toward natural gas, which is cheaper, cleaner and more efficient.

At some point, experts expected coal to rebound.

"Wind and solar have benefits, but they’re intermittent. Natural gas is subject to all sorts of price volatility, at least historically, and it’s subject to hurricanes that can cause disruption," said Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin. "So people will see coal is domestic, it has value, it’s not as volatile, it’s stable, but you just can’t burn it the way you did before."

We rated Capito’s statement that there will be no new coal plantsMostly False.

Not every politician is running to coal’s rescue. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who delivers a weekly floor speech about the dangers of climate change, wrote in May that there "are already more American jobs in the solar industry than in coal mining."

Whithouse was correct:The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted about 78,500 coal-mining jobs in the United States while the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration cited 123,227 jobs in its own report.

It’s a large gap, but both figures are still lower than the total number of solar jobs. According to the Solar Foundation, a pro-solar nonprofit that nonetheless is considered the "most authoritative" source by the Congressional Research Service, there were 142,698 Americans working in the solar industry as of November 2013.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-checks-obama-coal-rules-carbon-politics/

So your entire article is about the regulations shaking out older and smaller coal plants (read the statement from Dallas Burtraw). This is what powers most of the state of North Carolina.

The power company wants to replace them with nuclear plants - something the federal government won't let them do.

So instead they want to replace them with natural gas plants which will simply lead to more fracking which is more damaging to the environment than our current coal plants using hard-particle scrubbers.

Coal - which is readily available in our mountains and the neighboring state of West Virginia - is the cheapest way to generate electricity in the region. Generating the equivalent amount of electricity via natural gas will require long pipelines to the laid down crossing many states. The electric rates in N.C. will go up significantly when the coal plants are forced to close.

You are so set on driving your political agenda at all costs, you appear to have lost sight of the actual facts involving power generation and the monetary costs to the economy.

 

[futurecurrents]

So your entire article is about the regulations shaking out older and smaller coal plants (read the statement from Dallas Burtraw). This is what powers most of the state of North Carolina.

The power company wants to replace them with nuclear plants - something the federal government won't let them do.

So instead they want to replace them with natural gas plants which will simply lead to more fracking which is more damaging to the environment than our current coal plants using hard-particle scrubbers.

Coal - which is readily available in our mountains and the neighboring state of West Virginia - is the cheapest way to generate electricity in the region. Generating the equivalent amount of electricity via natural gas will require long pipelines to the laid down crossing many states. The electric rates in N.C. will go up significantly when the coal plants are forced to close.

You are so set on driving your political agenda at all costs, you appear to have lost sight of the actual facts involving power generation and the monetary costs to the economy.

Not reading past the first sentence which is wrong. Back up and try again. Not targeting coal plants.

And the feds are not in the way the way of nuke plants. Unless you mean to make sure they are safe.

The whole idea is to include the cost of CO2 emissions and then let capitalism find they best way - within a safe, mutually beneficial framework established by the government/us.

 

[gwb-trading]

And the feds are not in the way the way of nuke plants. Unless you mean to make sure they are safe.

Obama plan has no role for nuclear power
The most shameful aspect of President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan is that it essentially calls for the extinction of nuclear power.
https://www.aei.org/publication/obama-plan-has-no-role-for-nuclear-power/

 

[nitro]

150,000 penguins perish after giant iceberg traps colony

"...Long-term environmental changes are projected for the Southern Ocean, which will likely affect marine predators, according to a 2015 report published the peer-reviewed journal BMC Evolutionary Biology. Environmental shifts because of climate change could also affect the breeding habitats of land creatures, finding food in a marine environment and the availability of prey for larger predators..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/world/penguins-die-giant-iceberg-irpt/index.html

 

[gwb-trading]

Not reading past the first sentence which is wrong. Back up and try again. Not targeting coal plants.

And the feds are not in the way the way of nuke plants. Unless you mean to make sure they are safe.

The whole idea is to include the cost of CO2 emissions and then let capitalism find they best way - within a safe, mutually beneficial framework established by the government/us.

This is an interesting in-depth article about the impact of the Clean Power Plan on the coal mining operations across the U.S. It includes information on the number of coal fired power plants at Duke Power and AEP. As well as figures on the reduction of coal usage in electrical generation. Some extracts below...

Reality tempers optimism in coal country after court ruling
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article60223811.html

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a commodity that is hard to come by in coal country: hope.

Hope that by blocking a new federal rule cutting power-plant emissions, the court has turned the tide after years of regulations and declining production. Hope that the jobs that once brought good wages to people who desperately needed them will come back.

However, these hopes have been tempered by another, grimmer thought — that this development might be too little, too late. That it's false hope.

For the long-suffering communities that depend on coal, last week's Supreme Court ruling was seen as a rare victory. The justices ruled 5-4 Tuesday to freeze the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to reduce the nation's carbon-dioxide emissions 32 percent by 2030 while legal challenges against the regulations are pending.

...

U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, whose district comprises most of coal-producing eastern Kentucky, acknowledged the Supreme Court's action may not be enough, even if the courts overturn the EPA regulations.

"Certainly the decision is favorable. But much of the damage has already been done," said Rogers, the longtime chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. "Many of these coal-fired power plants have already switched away from coal. And it would be very expensive to switch back."

...

Meanwhile, output from coal mines across the U.S. continues to drop. Production is projected to total 834 million tons this year. That would be the smallest amount mined since 1983, and a 17 percent drop from just two years ago, according to data released this week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

American Electric Power, which has 5.4 million customers in the South and Midwest, generated 74 percent of its power using coal a decade ago. That's down to 51 percent, spokeswoman Melissa McHenry said.

"The company was based in coal country. The fuel was there," McHenry said. "Now things have changed and we're looking to diversify our fuel mix."

AEP will retire 11 coal plants by the end of 2016 in a process that started last year. The utility wanted to avoid the cost of retrofitting the aging facilities and is putting its money instead into alternatives such as electricity from natural gas and wind turbines.

Duke Energy Corp. the largest electric company in the U.S. serving 7.3 million customers across the Southeast and the Midwest, has spent $9 billion over the past decade to scrap a quarter of its coal-burning capacity and build eight new natural gas plants in North Carolina, Florida and Indiana, along with two more efficient coal plants.

...

If implemented, the federal rule would drive down mining production from the largest coal state, Wyoming, between 20 to 45 percent by 2030, according to a 2015 report by the Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy at the University of Wyoming.

"Anybody who tells you that the Clean Power Plan wasn't all that important anyway either doesn't understand the industry or is being a little disingenuous," said Jeff Holmstead a former EPA official turned coal industry lobbyist. "There still may be retirements in coming years, but it will be nothing like what would have happened."

 

[futurecurrents]

150,000 penguins perish after giant iceberg traps colony

"...Long-term environmental changes are projected for the Southern Ocean, which will likely affect marine predators, according to a 2015 report published the peer-reviewed journal BMC Evolutionary Biology. Environmental shifts because of climate change could also affect the breeding habitats of land creatures, finding food in a marine environment and the availability of prey for larger predators..."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/13/world/penguins-die-giant-iceberg-irpt/index.html

Penguin in a coal mine.