The EPA Myth of “Clean Power”

[Stephanie]

Well Obama "promised" he would raise our electric bills for "HIS own personal visions" and just walk all over you while doing it. and you still voted for him...

SNIP:

By Alan Caruba -- Bio and Archives May 18, 2015
8 Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

There are many things I do not like about the Environmental Protection Agency, but what angers me most are the lies that stream forth from it to justify programs that have no basis in fact or science, and which threaten the economy.

Currently, its “Clean Power” plan is generating its latest and most duplicitous Administer, Gina McCarthy, to go around saying that it will not be costly, nor cost jobs. “Clean Power” is the name given to the EPA policy to reduce overall U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is requiring each state to cut its emissions by varying amounts using a baseline established by the EPA.

Simply said, there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not “a pollutant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxygen for all living creatures, vital to the growth of all vegetation. The more CO2 the better crops yields will occur, healthier forests, and greener lawns. From a purely scientific point of view, it is absurd to reduce emissions.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal on April 22, Kenneth C. Hill, Director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, said “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) set off a firestorm when he advised states not to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. Yet that advice isn’t as radical as his detractors make it sound. As a state public utilities commissioner who deals with the effects of federal regulations on a regular basis, I also recommend that states not comply.”

ALL of it here:
The EPA Myth of Clean Power

but but but, it's for your own good, the hell if you CAN'T AFFORD it

 

[rightwinger]

Simply said, there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not “a pollutant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxygen for all living creatures, vital to the growth of all vegetation. The more CO2 the better crops yields will occur, healthier forests, and greener lawns. From a purely scientific point of view, it is absurd to reduce emissions.

OK Stephanie....If you think Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant lets try an experiment

Put a plastic bag over your head and seal it around your neck. Then see if Carbon Dioxide is a polutant

 

[Old Rocks]

Why the Death of Coal in America Is Saving You Money - DailyFinance

As coal plants and coal mines are shut down around the country, the cost of electricity hasn't been as impacted as you might think. In fact, energy costs are now growing more slowly than they were when coal was the leading source of energy in the U.S. To understand why, you have to look at how quickly competing sources of energy are lowering their own costs.

The Decline of Coal

There's a lot of debate about what's actually driving the decline of coal in the electricity industry, but there's no denying that coal's best days are in the past. Over 150 coal power plants have been closed this century, and the trend shows no sign of slowing.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the use of coal in electricity generation is down more than 20 percent just since the beginning of 2008.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
While coal generation has declined, you might think that energy costs would have spiked as a result. But the impact of plant closures has actually been to slow electricity cost growth.

What is really happening, while the 'Conservatives' are busy telling lies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simply said, there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not “a pollutant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxygen for all living creatures, vital to the growth of all vegetation. The more CO2 the better crops yields will occur, healthier forests, and greener lawns. From a purely scientific point of view, it is absurd to reduce emissions.

OK Stephanie....If you think Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant lets try an experiment

Put a plastic bag over your head and seal it around your neck. Then see if Carbon Dioxide is a polutant

OMG! The atmosphere is nearly 80% nitrogen.
Where is Obama's trillion dollar plan to reduce this suffocating gas?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why the Death of Coal in America Is Saving You Money - DailyFinance

As coal plants and coal mines are shut down around the country, the cost of electricity hasn't been as impacted as you might think. In fact, energy costs are now growing more slowly than they were when coal was the leading source of energy in the U.S. To understand why, you have to look at how quickly competing sources of energy are lowering their own costs.

The Decline of Coal

There's a lot of debate about what's actually driving the decline of coal in the electricity industry, but there's no denying that coal's best days are in the past. Over 150 coal power plants have been closed this century, and the trend shows no sign of slowing.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the use of coal in electricity generation is down more than 20 percent just since the beginning of 2008.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
While coal generation has declined, you might think that energy costs would have spiked as a result. But the impact of plant closures has actually been to slow electricity cost growth.

What is really happening, while the 'Conservatives' are busy telling lies.

As coal plants and coal mines are shut down around the country, the cost of electricity hasn't been as impacted as you might think.

Fracking works.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0


In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

There you have it. Even without subsidies, renewables beat dirty coal on economics. And that spells the end of coal.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

Utility-scale batteries have been a holy grail within the energy sector for years. With enough storage space, surplus electricity can be generated at night, when plants usually sit idle, to be used the next day, when demand is highest. Power outages would become less frequent. Wind and solar power, susceptible to weather conditions, could be built on a larger scale. The only problem has been that the price of batteries has been too high to make economic sense. But if they’re purchased on a large enough scale, that won’t be the case for long, said Oncor CEO Bob Shapard.

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

This makes wind and solar 24/7. Damn those hyper liberal Texans!

 

[Old Rocks]

Why the Death of Coal in America Is Saving You Money - DailyFinance

As coal plants and coal mines are shut down around the country, the cost of electricity hasn't been as impacted as you might think. In fact, energy costs are now growing more slowly than they were when coal was the leading source of energy in the U.S. To understand why, you have to look at how quickly competing sources of energy are lowering their own costs.

The Decline of Coal

There's a lot of debate about what's actually driving the decline of coal in the electricity industry, but there's no denying that coal's best days are in the past. Over 150 coal power plants have been closed this century, and the trend shows no sign of slowing.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the use of coal in electricity generation is down more than 20 percent just since the beginning of 2008.

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
While coal generation has declined, you might think that energy costs would have spiked as a result. But the impact of plant closures has actually been to slow electricity cost growth.

What is really happening, while the 'Conservatives' are busy telling lies.

As coal plants and coal mines are shut down around the country, the cost of electricity hasn't been as impacted as you might think.

Fracking works.

For a while. Wind cheaper than gas, ans solar soon will be. Give gas another 10 or 15 years, then it is done for generating electricity.

 

[JoeMoma]

Simply said, there is no need whatever to reduce CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is not “a pollutant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxygen for all living creatures, vital to the growth of all vegetation. The more CO2 the better crops yields will occur, healthier forests, and greener lawns. From a purely scientific point of view, it is absurd to reduce emissions.

OK Stephanie....If you think Carbon Dioxide is not a polutant lets try an experiment

Put a plastic bag over your head and seal it around your neck. Then see if Carbon Dioxide is a polutant

By that test, water is also a pollutant. Everything except oxygen is a pollutant.

 

[Old Rocks]

Remember the fire in the capsule where we lost 3 good men at NASA? Oxygen, pure and under pressure can have very disastrous results. As can an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[JoeMoma]

Remember the fire in the capsule where we lost 3 good men at NASA? Oxygen, pure and under pressure can have very disastrous results. As can an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Okay, that makes it easy. Everything is a pollutant!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Remember the fire in the capsule where we lost 3 good men at NASA? Oxygen, pure and under pressure can have very disastrous results. As can an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere.

As can an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere

A couple of thousand more PPM could be an issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

The extra 120 ppm is already an issue. The present GOP position of ignoring reality will bite them in the ass before 2020, maybe by the end of this year. Certainly going to remind the people here of their statements on the lack of damage from the GHG's as the year plays out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The extra 120 ppm is already an issue. The present GOP position of ignoring reality will bite them in the ass before 2020, maybe by the end of this year. Certainly going to remind the people here of their statements on the lack of damage from the GHG's as the year plays out.

Certainly going to remind the people here of their statements on the lack of damage from the GHG's as the year plays out.

Can't wait to see your proof of "damage from GHGs".