[StarvingLion]

Thirty five years ago, no one would have believed that humanity would squander 1.8 trillion dollars (US) in a single decade on “investments” in so called “renewable energy” while producing no meaningful result.

Its a great way of making electricity so expensive that the Nukes + EV's alternative bites the dust.

[ennui2]

Obama's precedent will not be reversed and the destruction of checks and balances is far more harmful than mythical CO2 decreases. All dictatorships end badly and we are moving fast in that direction by this President.

If you think any sort of benign goverment can exist in a world of 3+ degrees of warming, you are insane. Pick your poison. We're in Al Bartlett left and right hand list territory.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Obama's precedent will not be reversed and the destruction of checks and balances is far more harmful than mythical CO2 decreases. All dictatorships end badly and we are moving fast in that direction by this President.

We've been moving that way since Clinton. However, the left only objects when the GOP is at the helm. Especially the far left. Funny how that works.

[ROCKMAN]

outcast - Exactly the point I keep making: with respect to energy and the environment there's been no significant changes in the system regardless which party dominated the process. Big differences in rhetoric of course. But no meaningful actions. The entire D vs R discussion is often done to cover up the reality IMHO.

[sparky]

.
US Presidential powers have been growing at least since Abraham Lincoln
He broke the old constitution and remolded it with his "inherent war powers",
suspending habea corpus and creating fiat money
the next assumption of power was under Roosevelt ,
with his confiscation of gold , New Deal and centralized control of the war economy
this got better and bigger with the growth of the presidential ( federal) public service
Kennedy and Johnson trampled on the states using desegregation
while Nixon created drug and environmental administrations

The U.S.of A. has been drifting toward a strong executive for decades ,
it is needed since the congress was always a chattering club
and the real core of the Republic , the Senate , became a grandstanding theater for presidential hopeful

[ROCKMAN]

"...became a grandstanding theater for presidential hopeful" Not just "hopefuls" but eventual presidents. presidents who continue to carry on with the smoke and mirrors games they learned in Congress. And thus back to my comment: it doesn't make a great deal of difference which party controls the Congress OR the White House: little change occurs. Presidential powers? Yeah...lots of power...until overridden by the Congress or the Supreme Court (which just threw out the coal cap law created via presidential power)...or the next POTUS.

Again there's been a lot of lofty rhetoric. But where have there been any significant and, more important, effective changes?

[sparky]

.
interesting article , a bit further it state
" The news will leave Scotland heavily dependant on SSE's gas-fired power station at Peterhead and EDF's two ageing nuclear stations at Hunterston and Torness."

[ROCKMAN]

Cat fight!!!

Reuters - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Tuesday staked out her opposition to Arctic oil exploration, putting her at odds with the Obama administration one day after it approved drilling off Alaska. "The Arctic is a unique treasure," Clinton said in a Twitter post. "Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling." On Monday, the Obama administration gave Royal Dutch Shell PLC final approval to resume drilling into the oil zone off northern Alaska for the first time since 2012. The decision on Monday drew widespread condemnation from environmentalists, although some experts said President Barack Obama had little power to stop Shell from exploring because it had obtained leases during the administration of former Republican President George W. Bush.

{Not true: the POTUS could withdraw those leases and give Shell its money back. It was done years ago when Florida protested federal leases off its west coast in the Destin Dome area. A very well established precedent}

Clinton's comment marks one of her most significant breaks with fellow Democrat Obama on a major environmental issue, and appears to be part of a recent effort to appease greens within the party whose enthusiasm and support she will need to secure the nomination.

{That seems to imply that once she gets the nom the backtracking will begin. Maybe we could call it the “Barney effect. LOL}

Clinton said if she becomes president, she would seek to phase out fossil fuel extraction and increase fees on companies operating on public lands in a way that does not disrupt the economy. But she has been careful not to comment on whether she would approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada ahead of an expected ruling by the Obama administration.

{Phase out fossil fuel extraction in a manner that won’t disrupt the economy? Easy peazy. LOL}

[SeaGypsy]

In other words she is totally full of it on another topic, when will the grown ups show her the door?

[Cog]

it is her turn. haven't you heard that

[ROCKMAN]

"it is her turn." As it was for Romney. How that work for the R's? LOL.

[dohboi]

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/11/t ... /#comments

... >>41 US oil and gas companies have gone bankrupt,

>>powerful major oil companies like Exxon and BP are in the range of 20-40 percent losses in stock price year-on-year,

>>most gas companies have seen even more severe losses, and

>>most coal companies have been reduced to junk stock status...

>>Arch Coal, one of the largest coal companies in the US, filed for bankruptcy today...

...It’s like the curse of Solyndra has been revisited on the entire fossil fuel industry.

But while the renewable energy industry is undergoing its biggest boom ever, the fossil fuel industry’s own bad investments, bad performance, bad decisions, and overall bad impacts on pretty much everything from the increasingly wrecked global climate, to the Deepwater Horizon blowout, to Oklahoma fracking earthquakes, to the debacle that is the Porter Ranch gas leak, are sinking it even faster than its carbon emissions are melting the Arctic sea ice...

... wind energy, solar energy, and efficiencies have now become an increasingly competitive player in the energy sector. In many regions now, wind and solar are competitive with natural gas and coal as well as with diesel electric generation. In total, more than 106 gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity from wind and solar alone was likely installed globally over the course of 2015 (see wind capacity forecast here and solar capacity forecast here). Since over 3 million barrels of oil go to diesel electricity generation around the world, this new generation directly competes with that source...

from one of the comments:

Funny how everyone blames the Saudis:

in 2010 US oil production was 8.6 million barrels a day, Saudi production was 10.8.

In 2014 US production was 12.5, Saudi 11.6.

So the US increase production by 3.9 million barrels a day, the Saudis by 0.8 and yet the Saudis get the blame for the glut.

Anyone care to explain the reasoning behind that? http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/e ... producers/

Thoughts?

[onlooker]

Not much to say other then that the fossil fuel companies are in a world of hurt and by extension so will all economies be in a short time. A classic case of over investment. I imagine a foretaste of what is to come.

[dolanbaker]

I suppose all that QE money had to go somewhere, and much of it went into the energy industry.
You put your boot down in a powerful car and you'll soon be exceeding the speed limit, eventually you'll have to slow down or crash! They didn't slow down!

[Plantagenet]

The Saudis get the blame because for 30+ years they were the swing producer, or in the past they cut production to balance production

[dolanbaker]

The Saudi's have been on cruise control, relative to the US.

[onlooker]

The Saudi's have been on cruise control, relative to the US.

Yep Dolan is right from OP

in 2010 US oil production was 8.6 million barrels a day, Saudi production was 10.8.

In 2014 US production was 12.5, Saudi 11.6.

So the US increase production by 3.9 million barrels a day, the Saudis by 0.8 and yet the Saudis get the blame for the glut.