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..
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.
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.
Norm
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.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
MidlandMikeI think doing energy research would be much more productive than arguing about whether climate change is real.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Norm, the other factor is that vast numbers of these modern conveniences—computers, tablets, phones, TVs, LED lights—run in fact on VERY low voltages and wattages of DC power (and this is wastefully transformed from 110 AC in those darn power bricks attached to everything.)
If we had the will, and if we cared (and an increasing number do), an average home's electric usage could be reconfigured to run on tiny wind/solar units on the roof or in the backyard.
By the way, this is happening a lot in rural Africa, where they didn't have power from the grid to begin with.
We're NOT going to say "screw it, back to coal, let's extract every last ounce of the stuff."
The world has changed at least that much.
JPS1The 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.
Like pipeline building is so easy to pull off!
rdamon ...............I also worry about the natural gas pipeline capacity not keeping up with the new demand from plant conversions.
http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/bring-heat-says-coal-industry
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/upshot/the-all-conquering-air-conditioner.html
blue streak 1 Now Georgia power has announced another cost increase for its 2 new Nuclear power reactors. This is due to Westinghouse's bankruptcy and pull out from the construction contract. If work continues another rate increase for all of us even if we are on non profit EMCs.
Now Georgia power has announced another cost increase for its 2 new Nuclear power reactors. This is due to Westinghouse's bankruptcy and pull out from the construction contract. If work continues another rate increase for all of us even if we are on non profit EMCs.
Euclid I do expect that the anti-fossil fuel movement will prevail. That is, unless there is some big surprise ahead that will suddenly reverse the trend. There is one emerging signal in this debate that is somewhat curious. Demand for electricity in the U.S. is falling. There are a lot of experts trying to explain why this is happening. The prevailing explanation is that it is because consumers are becoming more energy efficient. That includes changing to more efficient electric devices, but also a conscientious effort to use less. Electricity may be a necessity, but a lot of us could do with much less of it. Another explanation is that the energy producers are being forced by regulation and laws to provide a portion of their production by more costly renewable energy. http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/the-escalating-cost-of-electricity/ So we have rising prices causing falling demand as promised in classic Economics 101. As much as the advocacy of the Sierra Club likes renewable energy, conservation and less consumption is their greatest preference of all. I expect a tsunami of falling demand as consumers do everything possible to fight the rising cost of electricity. I expect this falling demand will close more power plants than the anti-coal activists ever could. Interestingly, it may also cause further upward pressure on price as the producing infrastructure cannot scale back its cost of production to match the falling demand.
I do expect that the anti-fossil fuel movement will prevail. That is, unless there is some big surprise ahead that will suddenly reverse the trend.
There is one emerging signal in this debate that is somewhat curious. Demand for electricity in the U.S. is falling.
There are a lot of experts trying to explain why this is happening. The prevailing explanation is that it is because consumers are becoming more energy efficient. That includes changing to more efficient electric devices, but also a conscientious effort to use less. Electricity may be a necessity, but a lot of us could do with much less of it.
Another explanation is that the energy producers are being forced by regulation and laws to provide a portion of their production by more costly renewable energy.
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/the-escalating-cost-of-electricity/
So we have rising prices causing falling demand as promised in classic Economics 101. As much as the advocacy of the Sierra Club likes renewable energy, conservation and less consumption is their greatest preference of all. I expect a tsunami of falling demand as consumers do everything possible to fight the rising cost of electricity. I expect this falling demand will close more power plants than the anti-coal activists ever could. Interestingly, it may also cause further upward pressure on price as the producing infrastructure cannot scale back its cost of production to match the falling demand.
EuclidI do expect that the anti-fossil fuel movement will prevail.
I have my doubts. Could today's society survive long without electric energy? What happens when theit iPhones go dark and they can't talk with friends? Relegated to the "dark ages" would not set well with those used to the conveniences of life we have today.
EuclidWell wouldn't the upgrades be necessary to keep the cost as low as possible? Why would they spend money on upgrades that were not needed? What other need could there be except to lower hold down costs that rise as equipment becomes obsolete. Upgrades may cause higher rates, but not as high as they would rise without the upgrade. The incentive to save costs is either to avoid upgrading that is not necessary or to upgrade to a more cost-efficient production.
1) You haven't answered my questions
2) The discussed upgrades would be necessary to comply with clean air regulations to comply emission standards. And the Sierra Club shows the approving authorities that there are more economic alternatives to upgrading a coal power plant.
3)Exchange of worn out equipment might fall in the second category if you have to rebuild the complete plant, otherwise exchange of single machinery we call maintenance not upgrade. But that might be different in the USA.Regards, Volker
EuclidWhy 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.
While I agree that there is a war on coal, which is justified to a point, the providers are only interested in the lowest cost to them. They will charge the consumer as much as the market will bear.
The lowest cost power is provided by the small producers that don't have an investor base looking for huge paybacks. Several villages around here have their own power source (hydro). Their power is cheap.
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...
VOLKER LANDWEHRIs it a free market? As I understood the producers can refinance their investment cost for upgrades through higher rates. Where is the incentive then to save cost
Well wouldn't the upgrades be necessary to keep the cost as low as possible? Why would they spend money on upgrades that were not needed? What other need could there be except to lower hold down costs that rise as equipment becomes obsolete. Upgrades may cause higher rates, but not as high as they would rise without the upgrade.
The incentive to save costs is either to avoid upgrading that is not necessary or to upgrade to a more cost-efficient production.
EuclidWhy 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?
Is it a free market? As I understood the producers can refinance their investment cost for upgrades through higher rates. Where is the incentive then to save cost?
How easy is it to change the power provider?That would the market the consumer has.
Here in Germany it is quite easy but we still don't have functioning market.Regards, Volker
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.