BaltACD JPS1 BaltACD JPS1 The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation. http://bbc.in/2wn2b60
JPS1 BaltACD JPS1 The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation.
BaltACD JPS1 The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation.
JPS1 The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation.
http://bbc.in/2wn2b60
This is a one-off in Huntington County, which is next to the county where I grew up, of people protesting a pipeline.
From time to time people protest plans to lay pipelines in Texas, which has thousands upon thousands of miles of pipelines. But most people don't have a problem with them. Once they are in place people don't even know that they exist. They get built. Most of the times the protesters cave; sometimes the pipeline is routed around their property. If the country needs additional pipelines to provide gas for additional gas fired power plants, which is not crystal clear, they will be built.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1 BaltACD JPS1 BaltACD JPS1 The decline in coal fired generation will continue for a variety of reasons, but coal will still be a major fuel source for electric generation for several decades to come, which means there will be plenty of time to build new gas pipelines for any new gas fired generation. http://bbc.in/2wn2b60 This is a one-off in Huntington County, which is next to the county where I grew up, of people protesting a pipeline. From time to time people protest plans to lay pipelines in Texas, which has thousands upon thousands of miles of pipelines. But most people don't have a problem with them. Once they are in place people don't even know that they exist. They get built. Most of the times the protesters cave; sometimes the pipeline is routed around their property. If the country needs additional pipelines to provide gas for additional gas fired power plants, which is not crystal clear, they will be built.
Most of the pipelines that exist - were constructed in the era before there was much 'public scrutiny' on the plans and before Social Media as we know it today existed. 30-40 years ago it was difficult to raise much opposition to pipeline plans and/or construction. Today - concerns can be communicated cross country in a matter of seconds and acted upon in a matter of hours.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid Why would we need the Sierra Club to point out the economics of the cheapest source of power? The market is perfectly capable of finding the lowest cost. The Sierra Club uses certain cost arguments in the public interest for the purose of stopping coal plants. But they are not bargaining for the lowest possible cost as their ultimate goal. Their goal is to kill coal plants. Why would producers want to run coal plants if there were a less costly alternative? After the new coal plant gets shot down by the Sierra Club on the pretext of protecting the ratepayers' interest, the replacement is likely to cost the ratepayers more. If that is not true, why would the producers and consumers both want the lowest possible cost and know exactly what it would take to achieve that?
Why would we need the Sierra Club to point out the economics of the cheapest source of power? The market is perfectly capable of finding the lowest cost. The Sierra Club uses certain cost arguments in the public interest for the purose of stopping coal plants. But they are not bargaining for the lowest possible cost as their ultimate goal. Their goal is to kill coal plants. Why would producers want to run coal plants if there were a less costly alternative?
After the new coal plant gets shot down by the Sierra Club on the pretext of protecting the ratepayers' interest, the replacement is likely to cost the ratepayers more.
If that is not true, why would the producers and consumers both want the lowest possible cost and know exactly what it would take to achieve that?
The hearings are run by the Public Service agencies in the various states. Sierra Club is just one of the intersted parties. Sierra Club does not dictate the outcome. The power companies make their own arguements. (Another poster pointed out why the power company might not chose the lost cost option. The Public Service agencies make their decisions base on the evidence presented. Obviously the Sierra club had the better data to show the public agency that the power companies plans would cost the ratepayers more. It does not matter what the Sierra Clubs agenda is. The public agency decides what is best for the ratepayers, who are also the citizens of their state.
You say the alternative power replacements will cost more, but you still have not referenced a reputable study to show that.
BaltACD Most of the pipelines that exist - were constructed in the era before there was much 'public scrutiny' on the plans and before Social Media as we know it today existed. 30-40 years ago it was difficult to raise much opposition to pipeline plans and/or construction. Today - concerns can be communicated cross country in a matter of seconds and acted upon in a matter of hours.
And yet pipelines are still getting built all the time. Remember the protest of the new Bakken pipeline construction across the Missouri River in ND last year. It was started by the local tribes, joined by many environmental groups, and even a large group of vets. While that news event fades away, the line has already been built.
MidlandMike BaltACD Most of the pipelines that exist - were constructed in the era before there was much 'public scrutiny' on the plans and before Social Media as we know it today existed. 30-40 years ago it was difficult to raise much opposition to pipeline plans and/or construction. Today - concerns can be communicated cross country in a matter of seconds and acted upon in a matter of hours. And yet pipelines are still getting built all the time. Remember the protest of the new Bakken pipeline construction across the Missouri River in ND last year. It was started by the local tribes, joined by many environmental groups, and even a large group of vets. While that news event fades away, the line has already been built.
Texas has 439,771 miles of pipelines. And more are being constructed. The latest major project is the Midland to Sealy pipeline. Sealy is about 50 miles from Houston. At Sealy the pipeline will connect with another line to move product to Houston and beyond.
In most instances the pipeline companies negotiate an easement for their pipe. Most of the line miles run through rural areas; the property owners are usually glad to get the easement check, which can range from $26,400 per mile to as high as $264,000 per mile.
The amount paid to the property owner for an easement is usually somewhere between the low, which would be across scrub land, to the high, which would be in a high density urban area.
Once the property owners see the check amount, most of them sign the easement. But if they don't think they are being compensated fairly, they can take the issue to court. A jury in Fort Worth recently awarded a property owner $1.6 million for a one mile easement across his property. The pipeline company had offered $80,000 for the easement; the company is appealing the award, and it probably will be knocked down.
In Texas land owners can slow pipeline construction by attempting to get more money for their easement. But they cannot stop it. Pipelines will continue to be built where they are needed.
MidlandMikeThe hearings are run by the Public Service agencies in the various states. Sierra Club is just one of the intersted parties. Sierra Club does not dictate the outcome. The power companies make their own arguements. (Another poster pointed out why the power company might not chose the lost cost option. The Public Service agencies make their decisions base on the evidence presented. Obviously the Sierra club had the better data to show the public agency that the power companies plans would cost the ratepayers more. It does not matter what the Sierra Clubs agenda is. The public agency decides what is best for the ratepayers, who are also the citizens of their state.
Midland Mike,
I am not quite sure what your point is. You seem to be dismissing the role of the Sierra Club as though it is only neutral and that the whole process is in exclusively in the hands of the regulators. In a way, I think that is true. But I do not agree that the Sierra Club has no effect on the outcome, if that is what you are suggesting. I conclude that the Sierra Club most definitely influences the regulatory process to further their anti-coal objective.
I never said or suggested that the Sierra Club “dictates” their intended outcome, as you say. Of course they cannot and do not do that. They just make their case to the regulators as public comments in a way intended to influence the regulatory process. So rather than dictate a new plant is stopped, they merely help influence that it be stopped.
My point about the Sierra Club’s initiative called “Beyond Coal” are based on the information contained in the article posted by Bruce Kelly on page 9, called, Inside the War on Coal.
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/05/inside-war-on-coal-000002
The article explains that Beyond Coal is a well-funded activist group using every tactic they can to prevent the construction of new coal-fired power plants. One of those tactics is to present issues of power producer’s pricing that regulators may consider whether it poses a regulatory violation that will help stop the construction of a new plant.
I believe my points about the Sierra Club taking positions on the pricing of power have been taken off track in this thread. They certainly do use pricing as an issue wherever they can, but their main objective in presenting pricing issues is to prevent a new coal plant from being rebuilt or upgraded.
Therefore it is not clear to me whether their pricing objections are necessarily in the favor of ratepayers over time. Some might be. In any case, a poster brought this up to indicate that the Sierra Club’s mission is fighting to lower rates on behalf of the ratepayer. In my opinion, that distorts what the Sierra Club is really about. In fact, I believe that their main mission will increase costs to the consumer, even though they may get some costs lowered in pursuit of their ultimate cause.
I think it is obvious to both of us that Sierra Club has a big effect on the outcome of those Public Service hearings. What I was trying to say is that the regulators can only consider the evidence presented, such as construction cost data. It is immaterial to their deliberations whether Sierra Club is trying to eliminate coal, or actually looking out for ratepayers. They just have to consider what decision best serves the ratepayers and citizens.
The Politico article also points out that sometmes large power users like corperations join Sierra Club in the hearings. Does their agenda matter? I agree that Sierra's primary mission is environmental. I fully expect natural gas prices to go up (as would coal). I look to gas as only a bridge to what's next, whether that's renewables, a breakthru in fusion, or some other totally new source. I think doing energy research would be much more productive than arguing about whether climate change is real.
MidlandMikeI think doing energy research would be much more productive than arguing about whether climate change is real.
Energy research is fine, but there is a lot at stake with the question of whether climate change is real. So I think it deserves a lot of thought and debate. If we suddenly stop debating the question, it leaves either the assumption that climate change is real or that it is not real. Which assumption should we settle on going forward after we stop debating it?
Euclid MidlandMike I think doing energy research would be much more productive than arguing about whether climate change is real. Energy research is fine, but there is a lot at stake with the question of whether climate change is real. So I think it deserves a lot of thought and debate. If we suddenly stop debating the question, it leaves either the assumption that climate change is real or that it is not real. Which assumption should we settle on going forward after we stop debating it?
MidlandMike I think doing energy research would be much more productive than arguing about whether climate change is real.
http://www.newsweek.com/fire-greenland-climate-change-global-warming-648818
And it's just a coincidence that there are huge holes opening in Siberia.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2708345/Mystery-Siberian-crater-deepens-Scientists-left-baffled-two-NEW-holes-appear-Russias-icy-wilderness.html
or
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/siberia-russia-craters-climate-change
Sure, the planet has had many wild temperature swings during it's multi-billion year history. It's just that back then there were not nearly eight billion bodies to kept fed. Our civilization is actually very fragile, and for so many people to be forced to make drastic changes to their lifestyle, their location, and what they eat and drink, there are bound to be many international crises. http://www.population-security.org/swom-98-06b.htm
One thing I am sure of is that when (ok, IF) the world's temperature pass the tipping point, all sorts of interesting atmospheric events will happen, with an increasing level of severity.
I rather hope that I'm not alive when all this happens; I'm fairly certain that it will not be a fun time. Interesting--but not fun.
I have no problem with healthy skepticism of scientific findings, such as degree of climate change. However, to call it a hoax is just cynicism meant to end debate. I'll go with the already ample scientific evidence that indicates there is a real possibility that increasing CO2 will cause climate problems. The prudent thing to do is to prepare for the possibility. A good start is energy research. There are ample replacements for the wind down of coal for the forseeable future. There have been more multiple renewable energy jobs created for every coal job lost. There is more at stake from doing nothing.
MidlandMikeI have no problem with healthy skepticism of scientific findings, such as degree of climate change. However, to call it a hoax is just cynicism meant to end debate. I'll go with the already ample scientific evidence that indicates there is a real possibility that increasing CO2 will cause climate problems. The prudent thing to do is to prepare for the possibility. A good start is energy research. There are ample replacements for the wind down of coal for the forseeable future. There have been more multiple renewable energy jobs created for every coal job lost. There is more at stake from doing nothing.
I would not call it a hoax because I think that downplays the issue. Hoax is like conspiracy in terms of smallness. This MMGW demand for action is gigantic. Trump called it a hoax, and I think that was a very poor way to characterize it. Also, I am not convinced that doing nothing is a greater risk than taking the action that is being demanded. Let's conduct research for another ten years before taking drastic action that is being called for now. Patience is a virtue.
I'm just saying this year with the summer my area has been having I have serious doubts about any MMGW why this morning my area broke a record for the coldest morning temp recorded. The forcase for around here has the low temps into the low 50's for the rest of the week highs in the low to mid 70's we are in August here hello normally in July around here we have 90+ temps with 90% humidity. My kids are upset the pool is to cold to go swimming in already. Yet we here we are still heading for a man made climate change. Sorry I am just not seeing it in the real world and the models are not backing up what is actually happening in my eyes. Since according to their models this should be the Warmest year on record yet around here it is going to be the coldest since 1977.
EuclidI would not call it a hoax because I think that downplays the issue. Hoax is like conspiracy in terms of smallness. This MMGW demand for action is gigantic. Trump called it a hoax, and I think that was a very poor way to characterize it. Also, I am not convinced that doing nothing is a greater risk than taking the action that is being demanded. Let's conduct research for another ten years before taking drastic action that is being called for now. Patience is a virtue.
While it is an oinion piece I believe it was written by an economist who is in the know.
http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-economics-global-warming-policy
Norm
The Heartland Foundation' conferences were a major source of the writer's information. Members should know that the Heartland Foundation was the major source of efforts to discredit the connection between cigarette smoking and cancers. It also was the recipient of continued funding by the Koch Bros. to discredit climate change research. His graduate degree is law. He is neither a scientist nor an economist.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
MidlandMike I have no problem with healthy skepticism of scientific findings, such as degree of climate change. However, to call it a hoax is just cynicism meant to end debate. I'll go with the already ample scientific evidence that indicates there is a real possibility that increasing CO2 will cause climate problems. The prudent thing to do is to prepare for the possibility. A good start is energy research. There are ample replacements for the wind down of coal for the forseeable future. There have been more multiple renewable energy jobs created for every coal job lost. There is more at stake from doing nothing.
You got it.
According to two studies that I remember, although I am not going to look them up, cars and trucks in the U.S. generate roughly 5 to 10 percent of the pollution that they put out in 1980. Equally important many if not most of the country's businesses, especially manufacturing, have reduced significantly their carbon footprint. In both instances government regulations played a part, but many of them did it because it was good business.
My company did not wait for the government to tell us to use more energy efficient lighting. Reducing the monthly electric bills meant lower expenses, which translated into a greater return for the shareholders. It was no brainer.
Many if not most of the world's key decisions makers appear to have concluded that climate change is a threat, and they are taking steps to reduce their environmental footprint irrespective of what others think.
schlimm The Heartland Foundation' conferences were a major source of the writer's information. Members should know that the Heartland Foundation was the major source of efforts to discredit the connection between cigarette smoking and cancers. It also was the recipient of continued funding by the Koch Bros. to discredit climate change research. His graduate degree is law. He is neither a scientist nor an economist.
Can you find anyone other than the Koch Brothers to blame for all your problems? They, and anyone else whose thinking differs from yours is fair game for you to pan.
Forget science and economics.. sometimes commonsense will do. Let's say I start dumping my trash in the living room every week instead of taking it out to the curb. In a few weeks my entire home will become uninhabitable. And you know what's amazing? I didn't need Steven Hawking to tell me that... figured it out with my own brainlet. And so it is with the entire planet.. multiply my living room a few million times and the trash that goes in it doesn't magically disappear..
Norm48327 Euclid I would not call it a hoax because I think that downplays the issue. Hoax is like conspiracy in terms of smallness. This MMGW demand for action is gigantic. Trump called it a hoax, and I think that was a very poor way to characterize it. Also, I am not convinced that doing nothing is a greater risk than taking the action that is being demanded. Let's conduct research for another ten years before taking drastic action that is being called for now. Patience is a virtue. While it is an oinion piece I believe it was written by an economist who is in the know. http://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-economics-global-warming-policy
Euclid I would not call it a hoax because I think that downplays the issue. Hoax is like conspiracy in terms of smallness. This MMGW demand for action is gigantic. Trump called it a hoax, and I think that was a very poor way to characterize it. Also, I am not convinced that doing nothing is a greater risk than taking the action that is being demanded. Let's conduct research for another ten years before taking drastic action that is being called for now. Patience is a virtue.
That is an excellent article. There is something that I have always felt is not so apparent to most people. While it is apparent that the green movement wants renewable energy, what they ultimately want is less energy used. In the broadest sense, they want less consumption. Too much consumption is their ultimate complaint about western civilization. That is why they hold up the underdeveloped nations as being the most virtuous in living a more “authentic” lifestyle. The green movement wants “sustainability” which means consuming less so the natural replenishment can keep up. So all extractive industry such as mining are in the bullseye because they imply extraction until the supply is used up.
Some people wonder whether renewable energy will keep up with demand. Renewable energy won’t have to keep up because the higher price caused by its limited supply will reduce demand. That is how it will keep up with demand. It will keep up with demand by reducing demand. And right along those same lines is this from the article:
“Cap and trade has to raise energy prices high enough so that we are forced to use less in order to meet the emissions reduction targets. Inflicting economic pain is not some unintended consequence: It is how any system works that is designed to reduce carbon emissions. President Obama said it best in 2008, before he latched onto the postage stamp rhetoric as a sales pitch, when he declared that under his plan energy prices would necessarily skyrocket. Cap and trade is just a convoluted energy tax, and, again, it has to be a painfully high tax in order to reduce emissions.”
Ulrichmultiply my living room a few million times and the trash that goes in it doesn't magically disappear..
Wait - It doesn't?!?!?
I mean, I put it in the container and put the container at the curb each week, and voila! it's gone!
The same can be said about food - people have no idea where most of their food comes from. Apparently the food fairy stocks the shelves at their local supermarket...
As for that trash, I can't count the number of trash trains I've seen go by when I've been trackside in Utica...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
We truck our garbage to Michigan! Thereby compounding the pollution problem while also contributing to highway congestion.. and the folks at the border don't like those stinky trucks either.Our neighbors in Michigan are also less than thrilled about being the recipients of our garbage (can't say I blame them). I wonder what failed economics major came up with that idea.
Ulrich We truck our garbage to Michigan! Thereby compounding the pollution problem while also contributing to highway congestion.. and the folks at the border don't like those stinky trucks either.Our neighbors in Michigan are also less than thrilled about being the recipients of our garbage (can't say I blame them). I wonder what failed economics major came up with that idea.
Which begs the question of why,Ontario having so much more [unoccupied] land area tha Michigan, why aren't you building landfills in the boonies and taking care of your own garbage? We sure as hell don't need it.
UlrichWe truck our garbage to Michigan! Thereby compounding the pollution problem while also contributing to highway congestion.. and the folks at the border don't like those stinky trucks either.Our neighbors in Michigan are also less than thrilled about being the recipients of our garbage (can't say I blame them). I wonder what failed economics major came up with that idea.
Who in Guelph has a suitable location and finances to handle the local garbage situation. The transport of 'local garbage' to distant locations has been created by the lack of suitable solutions closer to home.
BaltACD Ulrich We truck our garbage to Michigan! Thereby compounding the pollution problem while also contributing to highway congestion.. and the folks at the border don't like those stinky trucks either.Our neighbors in Michigan are also less than thrilled about being the recipients of our garbage (can't say I blame them). I wonder what failed economics major came up with that idea. Who in Guelph has a suitable location and finances to handle the local garbage situation. The transport of 'local garbage' to distant locations has been created by the lack of suitable solutions closer to home.
Still.. trucking it to Michigan doesn't sound like the best possible solution. I was asked to bid on that about 10 years ago.. but I will not haul garbage or livestock.. two things I won't do. Funny they wouldn't at least put it on the rail. Oh well, I'm doing my part by sorting my garbage.. every bit helps!
Ulrich Forget science and economics.. sometimes commonsense will do. Let's say I start dumping my trash in the living room every week instead of taking it out to the curb. In a few weeks my entire home will become uninhabitable. And you know what's amazing? I didn't need Steven Hawking to tell me that... figured it out with my own brainlet. And so it is with the entire planet.. multiply my living room a few million times and the trash that goes in it doesn't magically disappear..
Amen, Brother Ulrich!
All this argument about exact numbers and absolute proof gives some of us something to entertain ourselves with, but with earth's population continuing to bloom, we destroy more greenery for places to live, we use more water to irrigate crops (hugh aquafers in the west are nearing depletion), and we introduce more toxic by-products onto the planet. Extrapolate! Being a bit long in the tooth, it won't be a problem for me, but it will for somebody.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Norm48327 schlimm The Heartland Foundation' conferences were a major source of the writer's information. Members should know that the Heartland Foundation was the major source of efforts to discredit the connection between cigarette smoking and cancers. It also was the recipient of continued funding by the Koch Bros. to discredit climate change research. His graduate degree is law. He is neither a scientist nor an economist. Can you find anyone other than the Koch Brothers to blame for all your problems? They, and anyone else whose thinking differs from yours is fair game for you to pan.
There you go again. Just stating facts about the background of the Heartland Foundation and the credentials of Lieberman, the author of the article. He is not an economist as the word is defined. But you seem compelled to make it personal.
I've shared the road with those monsters more than a few times enroute through Ontario to Michigan.
The creation of a regional landfill in our county raised all sorts of opposition, especially in the township in which it's now located.
On the plus side, they've harnessed that methane to generate electricity (which involved opposition/footdragging by the local utility). Another landfill which has done the same thing has also harnessed the waste heat from the generators to heat and cool greenhouses. Supposedly a fifth of the tomatoes used in NYS come from that very hothouse.
Norm48327 Ulrich We truck our garbage to Michigan! Thereby compounding the pollution problem while also contributing to highway congestion.. and the folks at the border don't like those stinky trucks either.Our neighbors in Michigan are also less than thrilled about being the recipients of our garbage (can't say I blame them). I wonder what failed economics major came up with that idea. Which begs the question of why,Ontario having so much more [unoccupied] land area tha Michigan, why aren't you building landfills in the boonies and taking care of your own garbage? We sure as hell don't need it.
We're trying to keep our province clean..
schlimmThere you go again. Just stating facts about the background of the Heartland Foundation and the credentials of Lieberman, the author of the article. He is not an economist as the word is defined. But you seem compelled to make it personal.
I stated no facts about the article. I simply posted a link to it so others could read it.
It is well known on this forum that the opinion of others, no matter their qualifications, are never in alignment with your far left leanings hence in your mind the only opinion you agree with is your own. And, of course those uf us without a PHD are deemed of far lesser native intelligence than you.
You used to advocate 'civil discourse' but you seem to have forsaken that option in favor of demeaning anyone who disagrees with you.
Norm48327 schlimm There you go again. Just stating facts about the background of the Heartland Foundation and the credentials of Lieberman, the author of the article. He is not an economist as the word is defined. But you seem compelled to make it personal. I stated no facts about the article. I simply posted a link to it so others could read it. It is well known on this forum that the opinion of others, no matter their qualifications, are never in alignment with your far left leanings hence in your mind the only opinion you agree with is your own. And, of course those uf us without a PHD are deemed of far lesser native intelligence than you. You used to advocate 'civil discourse' but you seem to have forsaken that option in favor of demeaning anyone who disagrees with you.
schlimm There you go again. Just stating facts about the background of the Heartland Foundation and the credentials of Lieberman, the author of the article. He is not an economist as the word is defined. But you seem compelled to make it personal.
I stated facts. Care to dispute them?
You stated: "While it is an oinion piece I believe it was written by an economist who is in the know."
As usual, you are compelled to resort to irrelevant personal attacks for reasons that are not germane here. And no remarks I have made 'demean' you.
The Ontario Northland Railway had a magnificient plan in place to haul the garbage to Kirkland Lake at the old Adams Mine open pit site.
It was all worked out and ready to go with everyone on board with the plan except of course the few loud anti everything folks who got it kiboshed. Stupid.
By the way the ONR is now on it's deathbed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.