Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
"Administrationâs Power Plan: Independent analysts continue to provide details of the Obama Administrationâs politically named âClean Power Planâ (CPP). These studies make clear that the only forms of new electrical power generation the administration considers âcleanâ are solar and wind. Electric power generation from fossil fuels are condemned by the administration. Hydroelectric generation is out of favor, as explained by ex-EPA official Alan Carlin. There are no plans for federally supported new dam construction in the US. In fact, the thrust has been to tear down existing dams in the name of the environment.
Nuclear energy, which produces no carbon dioxide (CO2) is not an option. The administration mothballed the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain and has not offered solutions for an alternative. Indeed, in 2009 the EPA published in the Federal Register a rule limiting radiation doses from Yucca Mountain for up to 1,000,000 years after it closes, demonstrating the absurd durations the administration considers its edicts are enforceable. Biomass burning on a large scale would require clearing the forests, as was done in the eastern US in the 18th and 19th centuries, which would be politically unacceptable.
This leaves only solar and wind as the major sources of electrical power generation. Both are unreliable, erratic, and expensive. The Administrationâs concept would be more appropriately termed the unreliable power plan.
Even with its plans to prevent new, reliable electrical-power generation, a report by the Institute for 21st Century Energy of U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds the plan falls far short of the goals set by Mr. Obama.
âEven with these fairly generous estimates, these measures, which include some programs that havenât even been announced yet, would fall about 800 MMTCO2 [Million Metric Tons of CO2], or 45%, short of the presidentâs goal. How does administration intend to plug the remaining gap? It hasnât said. When asked by the Financial Times about the holes in the administrationâs INDC [Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged for the UN-Conference of Parties (COP 21) in Paris in December], White House official Rick Duke chose to deny existence of a problem and instead change the subject: âOur numbers are quite clear. Itâs other countries where we see more opportunities to clarify what the plans are.ââ Boldface added.
We need other countries to define what our plans are? What will the administration do to fill the 45% shortfall is anyoneâs guess? The report indicates that major industries should be on the alert. âStill, seeing as the entire industrial sector emitted a little over 800 MMTCO2 in 2013, even very steep cuts by industry wonât deliver nearly whatâs neededâ, according to the US Chamber.
Terry Jarrett, a former commissioner of the Missouri Public Service Commission, observed: âAnd if youâre skeptical of the threat posed by man-made CO2 in an ever-changing climate, then youâll likely balk at the stunning price tag for this new set of rules, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates at an annual cost of $51 billion in lost GDP and 224,000 jobs lost.â
One can quibble about the numbers, but the direction is clear, the Administration is willing to damage an already weak economy (real growth rate of about 2% during the Administration), in order to fight global warming/climate change â an enemy so ill-defined that the Administration has failed to grasp the natural causes of climate change. See links under The Administrationâs Plan â Independent Analysis, and The Administrationâs Plan â Push-Back."
What can i say Liberalism is a disease that must be eradicated from the earth.. The stupidity is so blatant by the Obama clan that all I can do is shake my head at the shear idiocy of these left wing radical fools..
Source
"Administrationâs Power Plan: Independent analysts continue to provide details of the Obama Administrationâs politically named âClean Power Planâ (CPP). These studies make clear that the only forms of new electrical power generation the administration considers âcleanâ are solar and wind. Electric power generation from fossil fuels are condemned by the administration. Hydroelectric generation is out of favor, as explained by ex-EPA official Alan Carlin. There are no plans for federally supported new dam construction in the US. In fact, the thrust has been to tear down existing dams in the name of the environment.
Nuclear energy, which produces no carbon dioxide (CO2) is not an option. The administration mothballed the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain and has not offered solutions for an alternative. Indeed, in 2009 the EPA published in the Federal Register a rule limiting radiation doses from Yucca Mountain for up to 1,000,000 years after it closes, demonstrating the absurd durations the administration considers its edicts are enforceable. Biomass burning on a large scale would require clearing the forests, as was done in the eastern US in the 18th and 19th centuries, which would be politically unacceptable.
This leaves only solar and wind as the major sources of electrical power generation. Both are unreliable, erratic, and expensive. The Administrationâs concept would be more appropriately termed the unreliable power plan.
Even with its plans to prevent new, reliable electrical-power generation, a report by the Institute for 21st Century Energy of U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds the plan falls far short of the goals set by Mr. Obama.
âEven with these fairly generous estimates, these measures, which include some programs that havenât even been announced yet, would fall about 800 MMTCO2 [Million Metric Tons of CO2], or 45%, short of the presidentâs goal. How does administration intend to plug the remaining gap? It hasnât said. When asked by the Financial Times about the holes in the administrationâs INDC [Intended Nationally Determined Contributions pledged for the UN-Conference of Parties (COP 21) in Paris in December], White House official Rick Duke chose to deny existence of a problem and instead change the subject: âOur numbers are quite clear. Itâs other countries where we see more opportunities to clarify what the plans are.ââ Boldface added.
We need other countries to define what our plans are? What will the administration do to fill the 45% shortfall is anyoneâs guess? The report indicates that major industries should be on the alert. âStill, seeing as the entire industrial sector emitted a little over 800 MMTCO2 in 2013, even very steep cuts by industry wonât deliver nearly whatâs neededâ, according to the US Chamber.
Terry Jarrett, a former commissioner of the Missouri Public Service Commission, observed: âAnd if youâre skeptical of the threat posed by man-made CO2 in an ever-changing climate, then youâll likely balk at the stunning price tag for this new set of rules, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates at an annual cost of $51 billion in lost GDP and 224,000 jobs lost.â
One can quibble about the numbers, but the direction is clear, the Administration is willing to damage an already weak economy (real growth rate of about 2% during the Administration), in order to fight global warming/climate change â an enemy so ill-defined that the Administration has failed to grasp the natural causes of climate change. See links under The Administrationâs Plan â Independent Analysis, and The Administrationâs Plan â Push-Back."
What can i say Liberalism is a disease that must be eradicated from the earth.. The stupidity is so blatant by the Obama clan that all I can do is shake my head at the shear idiocy of these left wing radical fools..
Source
