Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Trump Climate Policy

Re: Trump = Climate Terrorist

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 22 Jan 2017, 19:57:41

kiwichick wrote:New Zealand and Australia ...and other countries .....are big exporters of food .....and we can ...and other countries can get everything they need without trading with the US...Japanese and Korean cars are as good as anything coming out of the US, for example

anything electrical can be purchased from Asian countries.....and if we can't get it from our Asian neighbours it's probably available from Europe or the UK

please let me know if you can think of anything that the US produces exclusively


Of course, you have a plan to grow and export food without burning Fossil Fuels?

I suspect that all of the 1st World nations will be closing their borders to refugees once the power-down occurs, and they are struggling to feed their own citizens. The most remarkable thing about Trump is not his comb-over, it's the fact that even when he was a Liberal Dummycrat living in NYC, he was smart enough to recognize that the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable and financially secure. If Hillary Clinton had just gone back to Arkansas with Bill, and listened to people, she'd have figured that out. But she made the mistake of thinking that the people that matter live in cities.

In a few decades, those in rural areas will be producing just about all the remaining food, and big cities cannot exist because there will not be any transport fuels for that food. Nobody will be importing, exporting, or eating much that was grown or made too far away.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump = Climate Terrorist

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 27 Jan 2017, 07:38:39

In all fairness, in it not just Trump. We seem determined to destroy ourselves and most of life on this Earth. What else can you say. This is from Desdemona Despair. "For a long time, Desdemona has feared that when the effects of global warming become obvious to everyone, governments will shut down our Earth observation science, so that collectively, the human species can bury its head in the sand.

The year 2016 saw huge strides toward this goal of dismantling science and blinding us all. The May government in the UK and the Turnbull government in Australia defunded their climate science research programs. In the U.S., the Trump team declared that they are seeking quick ways of withdrawing from the Paris agreement on climate change, and that NASA Earth science will be defunded. Scientists undertook a desperate effort to copy public climate data from government servers, in the event that Trump’s climate denialists order its destruction.

The most ominous threat to science rose in the advanced economies, as ultra-nationalist populism captured the governments of the U.S. and the Philippines, and threatened the social democracies of Europe. Surely, the doomiest story of 2016 was the ascension of Donald Trump’s antiscience forces. Trump leads the vanguard of reactionary politics that rejects the expertise of thousands of scientists globally, substituting random opinions from blogs and “alt-right” propaganda mills.

With murderous force, reactionary parties oppose efforts to reduce carbon emissions and to preserve indigenous lands: 2016 saw the assassination of numerous defenders of the natural world, including Honduran activists Berta Cáceres and Nelson García. The government of Cambodia banned a film about murdered rainforest activist, Chut Wutty, and the UN declared that governments globally are undertaking an extraordinary war on freedom of expression."
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10959
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Trump Climate Policy

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 09 Aug 2017, 11:15:16

Not only is the USA not serious about re-engaging in the Paris accord, but the State Department is actively promoting the use of fossil fuels:

Title: "Exclusive: U.S. envoys told to be coy on re-engaging in Paris climate deal - cable"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-c ... SKBN1AO276

Extract: "U.S. diplomats should sidestep questions from foreign governments on what it would take for the Trump administration to re-engage in the global Paris climate agreement, according to a diplomatic cable seen by Reuters.

The cable, sent by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to embassies on Friday, also said diplomats should make clear the United States wants to help other countries use fossil fuels. "
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19693
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 10 Oct 2017, 19:50:28

It has been announced that Trump's EPA Admin Scott Pruitt is drafting a repeal of the EPA regulations called the Clean Power Plan.

To summarize the CPP, the EPA declared carbon dioxide to be an air pollutant, which it had not been before. Then they set in place goals for power generation, which required that by 2030 each power plant reduce carbon emissions by 1/3rd of the 2005 levels. As a result, power plants across the US paid for gas main construction and added natural gas fuel capability to what had before been strictly coal fuelled plants. Virtually all such plants retained the coal pulverizers and coal dust blowers that enable coal vortex combustion, and furthermore remain surrounded with heaps of coal, a built-in on-site fuel buffer in case natural gas deliveries get disrupted.

Note that 24 states and the DC sued the Federal government over the CPP, and one of the complainants was Scott Pruitt.

The CPP benefits have been reduced amounts of carbon emissions, reduced amounts of combustion by-products including mercury and other heavy toxics, plus reduced radioactive emissions from coal containing radon and uranium and other radioactives. (Coal plants are the biggest single source of radioactives released into our environment since we ceased testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.)

The economics of coal are compelling. Even after scrubbing it is cheap power. Wholesale power production costs for different power plants are as follows (cost figures are 2011 dollars, source is Institute for Energy Research)(deaths are from the Forbes magazine article):

Coal : $0.032/kWh and 10,000 deaths/Trillion kWh (US figure, global average is 10X)

Gas: $0.045/kWh and 4,000 deaths/Trillion kWh

Solar PV: $0.160/kWh and 440 deaths/Trillion kWh
(rooftop)
Wind: $0.100/kWh and 150 deaths/Trillion kWh

Nuclear: $0.022/kWh and 0.1 deaths/Trillion kWh

The ranking order is mine, from most dangerous to safest.

I have made no secret of the fact that I hate coal power, because of the deaths it causes in mining and combustion by-products. I also hate an abuse of executive power, for example declaring carbon dioxide to be a pollutant versus a vital plant nutrient. I also favor renewable energy sources, but the argument against the CPP is an economic one. Low income families spend an average of 21% of their income on energy, the third highest expense after rent and food.

I'd rather see us retain the CPP and phase out coal. But we need to do so without impacting low income households.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 11:47:39

KaiserJeep wrote:I'd rather see us retain the CPP and phase out coal. But we need to do so without impacting low income households.

I believe this is an unfortunate bump in the road. The scientific consensus for AGW and the growing public concern about it and the real world effects like glacial melt and polar cap melt and rising oceans and their effects, not to mention all the environmental concerns, aren't going away.

So once the obstructionist administration is out of office, hopefully we go back to a trend of far too little progress, but progress nevertheless.

The silly thing is that coal production now is so automated that there is very little labor involved (traditional mining jobs), so the main political "jobs" meme is a side-show for coal.

...

To the extent that we shouldn't be economically destroying low income households with clean energy policy, I'll agree. I'll respectfully disagree about not "affecting" them, however. We ALL need to be affected re strong incentives to burn less FF's. Tax credits could be used to net reward low income households who make the effort to do simple things to burn less carbon. I'd be happy to pay such folks to ride a bike, take public transport, heat and cool their home more efficiently, etc. -- via energy tax credits that pay them MORE than the cost of doing such things. Hopefully the truly "low income" people would be happy to be paid to do the right thing.

...

Of course, that would require some forward thinking energy and AGW policy that looks beyond the next election and considers real world costs. And we can't have THAT if it might impact someone getting elected. :roll:
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 8752
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby Cog » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 11:53:25

I'm fine with letting the market decide the most efficient way to produce power.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13417
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby GHung » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 13:16:29

Cog wrote:I'm fine with letting the market decide the most efficient way to produce power....


.... because, like me, the market has no soul, no compassion, and no concern for a long-term future.


Finished that for you, Cog.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 11 Oct 2017, 13:22:29

I'm no AGW fanboy, but I do believe in the peak and decline of FF's including eventually coal. But coal is the dirtiest, most dangerous, and least desirable form of power production. Anybody who has ever driven through the coal producing mountains of the Appalachians, particularly West Virginia, understands the devastating adverse impacts of coal mining on people and the environment.

There is some merit in allowing a limited amount of coal production for the transition to cleaner forms of power. Thereafter, very limited production - mostly automated, for the hydrocarbon materials and chemicals that can be used for plastics and fabrics and the like. But (as with oil) the stuff is simply too precious to burn. From the World Coal Association:

Other important users of coal include alumina refineries, paper manufacturers, and the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Several chemical products can be produced from the by-products of coal. Refined coal tar is used in the manufacture of chemicals, such as creosote oil, naphthalene, phenol, and benzene. Ammonia gas recovered from coke ovens is used to manufacture ammonia salts, nitric acid and agricultural fertilisers. Thousands of different products have coal or coal by-products as components: soap, aspirins, solvents, dyes, plastics and fibres, such as rayon and nylon.


At the reduced mining rates that will support such uses, the known coal reserves will last hundreds of years. I'm not suggesting we end coal production for such products, only that we cease buring the stuff for power. The production of steel and aluminum is a conversation that needs to occur, and an investigation that I have not yet conducted.

Image

Meanwhile, five more states have joined the lawsuit against the CPP, making a total of 29 states and the DC opposed to the plan. That's a sizeable majority of Americans and an indication that most do not accept the Doomerish claims of Climate Change.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 01:44:14

GHung wrote:
Cog wrote:I'm fine with letting the market decide the most efficient way to produce power....


.... because, like me, the market has no soul, no compassion, and no concern for a long-term future.


Finished that for you, Cog.

Im ok with the market deciding but first there needs to be a real fair cost on polluting, it shouldn't be free.
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 08:30:55

baha wrote:This is the last gasp of a dying industry. The market will no longer support them so they want the govt to do it. But like it or not the govt is the people.

Controversy over solar incentives has been fierce. The same people who love coal have been fighting solar, and their losing. Public support for solar and wind has been strong enough to keep the incentives in place. There are so many good things about alternative energy and only one bad thing...cost.

There are so many bad things about coal that you don't even have to bring up CO2. Coal is destructive and deadly from the moment you dig it up until the moment you inhale the supposedly scrubbed stack gases. China is the shining example of what happens if you burn too much coal. If our air gets like that, I'm moving to Panama.

But it won't. The public won't put up with corporations killing people willy-nilly. And the fact is TPTB are so set in their ways and unable to see the future, they can't defend against it. They don't understand the issues. They think it's about money and stability and it's really about quality of life and change. People who resist change usually lose.

People who get out in front of it win. And have the opportunity to influence the changes.


That is an irrational statement. First off you are making a gross assumption that American public sentiments are World public sentiments. Second you are making the assumption that Public Sentiments matter to all governments everywhere. Third you are citing that only cost is a concern with wind and solar power when there is a list of issues because this is complex reality, not some made up model by some economist somewhere who only understands cash flow.

1) Most of the world doesn't share American sentimentality when it comes to the environment and the world outside of North America and Europe is a far greater proportion of the planet population than vice versa. People want ENERGY and they honestly don't give to rips where it comes from or what it does to people down wind so long as it works for them and they can afford to access it.

2) While democratically voting countries like to pretend the public sentiment counts by paying lip service too it actually getting a government even in a democracy to change course is NOT an easy task. In the vast bulk of humanity outside of North America and Europe the governments on average could not care less what the public sentiment is so long as it does not reach revolutionary levels of anger. People here have been focusing on Assad of Syria and Kim of North Korea, but they are fundamentally no different than the King of Saudi Arabia or the leadership in Argentina or just about any other country you can randomly pick on the world map. The premier of China doesn't give a rip about public sentiment and only mildly cares about pollution in cities where western businesses and reporters visit and make statements about. That has a great deal to do with pride and nothing much at all to do with the environment. If the pollution is far away from prying eyes it is ignored so long as the industry functions.

3) Yes cost is a concern, as is EROEI over the full life cycle of whatever system you are citing. In addition there is the aesthetic factor, in Germany they have been clearing forests to make pads for wind turbines for example, and then naturally they have to cut a path for the power lines leading too and from those same turbines. Renewable energy is diffuse in nearly all of its forms whether you are talking about a large reservoir lake with a hydroelectric dam, square miles of solar pv or mirrors in the southwest focusing on solar thermal towers, a large wind turbine every square kilometer to not have interference issues between units, Then there are the environmental impacts so eagerly ignored by the advocates like the massive numbers of birds and bats killed by wind turbines, the vast energy input needed to construct and maintain these diffuse systems, the vast quantities of rare earth materials and regular materials that have to be mined to make solar and wind systems functional.... That is the tip of the iceberg, the list is as long as you can make it if you put some effort into it. Then in addition to the financial, energy input, and environmental costs there are the human costs as well. KJ recently posted a message about the lives lost per kWh of different energy system and you can find all sorts of the same data with an easy peasy Google search so ignoring the human impact is also a poor choice of discussion style.

I like renewable energy and I believe it can be a useful adjunct to other energy systems. I also strive to be a rational human being and look at the whole picture instead of a postage stamp section of a wall size mural. Every energy system, or the choice to do without, come with a large array of costs, benefits and issues. Pretending otherwise is a disservice to your argument and to the community as a whole.

China and India are not going to just stop consuming coal because the American green movement says they should, and neither is Europe, Australia or any other democratic system. If you want to eliminate dirty coal energy you have to be able to compete on MULTIPLE levels. From aesthetics (Cape wind is ugly and ruins the view of the Kennedy-Shriver clan), financial costs (even with subsidies Wind and Solar are still more expensive than any fossil alternative), EROEI (there is a lot of embedded energy in a wind or solar system and it is hotly debated whether that investment is fully returned, let alone exceeded enough to make the whole system analysis positive), Environmental cost (a lot of nasty chemistry is involved along with mining, processing and delivering the final energy system, plus the direct damage to the environment from alterations to landscape and habitat), Human costs (eminent domain seizures, public land alteration, economic impact, deaths) and the big one, geopolitics.

Ignore any one of that short list and you might be in for a nasty blow-back surprise, ignore all of them and you are doomed before you start.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15965
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 09:25:39

Inevitably, as energy costs increase over time, the low income households will suffer. Among those low income households are most of the Baby Boomer generation, now collecting Social Security. Allow me to disclose that I just applied for SS benefits and expect my first check in December. Note also that I have never missed an election in 40+ years (the few I missed were while I was in the military near the Arctic Circle).

The over-65 years of age SS crowd are the biggest single voting block in the USA. Many labored their entire lives and suffered years-long unemployment periods in their work history, resulting in lower-than-planned SS pay-outs. Many live in sub-standard housing when viewed from an energy-efficiency perspective. Few have the means to implement renewable energy systems or super-insulation in these existing homes.

Consider for a minute whether your own residence will be habitable if natural gas does a 10X increase in cost. Since much of our electric grid is natural gas fuelled today, electricity would also do a 10X cost escalation. Certainly under this scenario, the US government and the various State government pensions would not keep pace with escalating energy costs. The grim choices available to you: shiver under an electric shawl with no HVAC in use, or starve.

At the consumption rates of a few years back, we have perhaps 60+ years of exploitable coal left. Exploiting it today requires large expendatures of petroleum fuels, and dire consequences for both human health and the environment. There are a variety of easily imaginable scenarios where we suffer extreme energy shortages today.

Image

One of the scenarios I can imagine and mention is taxing renewable energy. Decades ago I laughed at a Saturday Night Live comedy skit where the owner of a new solar power plant demanded a "solar depletion allowance". Today I can easily see the shivering and suffering majority of older voters enacting energy taxes on solar panels and wind turbines, even if they are off-grid - because the world at large suffers the effects of all the coal burned to make silicon wafers, and all the petroleum pumped to make wire insulation and plastic films and fiberglass turbine blades.

Image

Why ever should the fortunate few such as baha, myself, GHung, and other more fortunate Forum members be allowed to exploit the wind and sun while the rest of the citizens suffer? Tax every square inch of PV surface and every swept inch of turbine area, and give it to the government so that they can care for the other citizens in drafty leaky homes! Tax the well-insulated! Tax Tax Tax until the suffering is equal!
Image
Last edited by Tanada on Thu 12 Oct 2017, 10:41:36, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed image links
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby kublikhan » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 16:59:28

If Trump & Pruitt think this move is going to bring back coal's heyday in the US they are in for disappointment. Utilities are not planning on bring coal back to anywhere near where it was a decade ago. This might slow coal retirements a bit but I'm afraid all those coal miners Trump was pandering too are going to be disappointed when they finally realize those coal jobs are not coming back.

Executives at the nation’s largest electric utilities say Mr. Trump’s announcement and the eventual fate of the regulations known as the Clean Power Plan make little difference to them. They still plan to retire coal plants — although perhaps at a slightly slower pace — and, more significant, they have no plans to build new ones.

“For us, it really doesn’t change anything,” said Jeff Burleson, vice president of system planning at Southern Company, an Atlanta-based utility that provides electricity to 44 million people across the Southeast, of the prospective rollback of the Clean Power Plan. “Whatever happens in the near term in the current administration doesn’t affect our long-term planning for future generation.” As do most electric utilities, Southern Company plans its investment on a 50-year horizon, the expected life span of a new power plant. Its planners do not see coal as economically viable in that time frame.

With or without the Clean Power Plan, power companies say, coal is simply no longer the fuel of choice for keeping the lights on in America — and they do not expect it to make a comeback. Cheaper natural gas and renewable sources like wind and solar power have replaced it. “We’ll continue to grow the renewables portion of our business and meanwhile rely on natural gas, but we don’t see investing in new coal.”

“This is not an environmentally driven trend we are seeing,” said Jairo Chung, an associate vice president at Moody’s Investors Service. “What we are seeing now is in the interior of the U.S., where wind is very rich, states and utilities are pushing ahead in investing in it — not because of regulation or environmental concerns, but because it’s economically driven.”

Natural gas produces just half as much planet-warming carbon dioxide pollution as coal — an additional benefit, electricity generators say, as they invest in the new power generators that will provide electricity to America for the next half-century. This decision is also driven by economics. Electric company executives are including in their long-term profit-and-loss calculations an expectation that the federal government will eventually tax or regulate carbon dioxide pollution.

Several electric utilities, including Southern Company of Atlanta, have already incorporated an anticipated carbon tax into their business models, plugging in estimated fees of $10 to $40 per ton of carbon dioxide pollution. “We don’t know exactly what the future holds, but we hold a presumption that there will be a price on carbon on the horizon, either from legislation or regulation.”

While Mr. Trump tries to roll back the rules today, executives of electric power generators assume that his successors will eventually reinstate them in some form. Essentially, they say, Mr. Trump’s moves are a bump on the road to a future in which the government constrains climate-warming pollution and consumers increasingly demand cleaner power. “This is our long-term view — unless the entire issue of climate change goes away,” he said. “And we don’t expect that to happen.”
Coal Is on the Way Out at Electric Utilities, No Matter What Trump Says
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4643
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 17:08:26

Australia has the most expensive electricity in the world, domestic is around 40 cents per kwh. (Despite being the Saudi Arabia of coal). Because of the price, availability of modern efficient devices, mains gas for cooking & heating, consumption has become insufficient to support production- so over the last 20 years or so the 'connection fee' has gone up & up to balance the books of producers & resellers. It now costs about $1000 a year to use zero electricity, for the privelege of being connected to the grid. This of course means those who can least afford it are heavily subsidising the rest of consumers. Meanwhile Australia has some of the greatest high quality Uranium, but due to the propoganda about the evils of nuclear, we use none of it for electric production. The vast majority believe coal is nasty because of CO2 emissions only, there is zero general awareness of other pollutants from coal, or of advances in nuclear power generation. As of now there is no political will to switch from coal for baseload power.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9278
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 23:35:48

Replacing coal with gas turns out not to be so clean or much safer. Gas still kills during the drilling, fracking, etc. Then it still causes respiratory illness at about 40% the rate of coal when burned.

Nor does powering down your lifestyle help any. The Amish live 19th century lifestyles without electricity or modern medicine, yet they still die at the same average ages as other Americans, and from the same causes - heart disease, etc., even though they are more active. Of course, they are breathing the same air and the same air pollution as all of us.

There is a money crunch coming as energy costs rise. The poor are vulnerable, and I'm very much afraid that anybody who will depend upon the Federal or State governments for help had best take a look at Puerto Rico or California. Today we passed a mortality milestone, the number of deaths from the CA wildfires exceeded those from the hurricanes in PR.

The Donald hardly cares. Moonbeam claims to care but is equally ineffective. Damn, it turns out that the government is not your Nanny.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 12 Oct 2017, 23:47:40

...because, like me, the market has no soul, no compassion, and no concern for a long-term future. And the market is driven by the demands of the consumers.

There you go, finished it of for you Ghung. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11273
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 13 Oct 2017, 00:22:15

The global coal industry is on death's door??? Less then two years ago the world burned more coal then ever before in history. And while consumption has slipped a bit since then the world is still consuming more coal then at anytime prior to 2011. The world is currently burning about 50% more coal then it was in 2000. Coal consumption is no longer increasing rapidly: true. Coal industry "dead": hardly true.

And President Obama did his part to help foreign coal burners set that record: more US coal was exported in one year then under him then under any other POTUS in history. And much of those exports came from leases administered by him.

Some like to tout that global coal consumption had its biggest decline in history during 2016. Not really much to brag about since global coal consumption has essential NEVER DECLINED y-o-y in many decades.

http://e360.yale.edu/digest/world-coal- ... op-in-2016
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11273
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Trump Repeals Obama's Clean Power Plan

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 13 Oct 2017, 08:49:32

baha - Nothing wrong with being optimistic about coal consumption declining to a very minimal level...many decades down the road. But not next year or even next decade. And that decline will be delayed if the price of NG/LNG increases 3X to levels seen not that many years ago. Consumers, especially those in developing economies, will demand the lowest cost energy. Likewise renewables could SLOWLY reduce coal consumption.

As long as the world is consuming near record levels of coal TODAY such optimism seems borderline delusional. Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings but as you imply the numbers can't be ignored.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11273
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tuike and 14 guests