Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Uses Environmental Concerns to Wrest Control of U.S. Economy

One of the most sweeping changes to the American economy is occurring without any input by Congress, the states, or the voters. President Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” which seeks to slash the use of coal by 32% under 2005 levels (without providing a proven, viable means to replace the loss power) was emplaced by executive action. Even when Congress was ruled by a Democrat majority, the legislative branch did not vote on the radical measure.

In response, many states have filed a lawsuit, and constitutional scholars are watching carefully to see whether the United States abandons its Constitutionally-mandated “separation of powers” in favor of a system in which the President has virtually unchecked power through the use of executive orders. On February 9, those opposing this White House’s extraordinary overreach won a stay on the move. The case will be argued on June 2 before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.

The Capital Research Center (CRC)  reports that “It is no surprise that 27 states and over  120 other business organizations, electric utilities and coops, and even labor unions sued EPA to stop the rule…”

The stakes are remarkable high, not just in terms of the balance of power in the U.S. government, but in the budget of every American household. The President’s plan would cause the price of energy to skyrocket, a fact that he himself admitted  in 2008 when he stated that “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad…Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to, uh, retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”

If coal is taken out of the equation, it could not be replaced—if, indeed, it could be replaced– by anything other than options which environmental extremists also find unpalatable, such as nuclear energy, more use of oil, and greatly expanded hydrofracking

The one “green” option most frequently cited, solar energy, is a non-starter. Writing in Forbes, Christopher Helman explains: “…solar energy still barely moves the needle in the U.S. energy mix. … solar power amounts to well less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an annual total of 96.5 quadrillion…coal is 19 quads. That’s nearly 8 times all the nation’s wind and solar generation combined.”  Greatly expanded use of solar, which is not feasible, would require vast portions of terrain to be covered by solar panels, causing its own brand of environmental damage, and would not be viable in vast portions of the nation not endowed with the right weather conditions.

How would the President’s plan, which would dramatically escalate costs, impact American family budgets? CRC notes that “A 2011 survey of low-income households for the National Energy Assistance Di­rectors Association reveals some of the adverse health and welfare impacts of high energy costs. Low-income households re­ported these responses to high energy bills: 24 percent went without food for at least one day; 37 percent went without medical or dental care; 34 percent did not fill a prescription or took less than the full dose; 19 percent had someone become sick because their home was too cold…Nothing worsens poverty more than the destruction of jobs. For the electric power production, coal mining, and natural gas production sectors, the EPA itself acknowledges an average loss of 47,000-49,000 jobs nationally per year from 2017 to 2030.”

Your body rejuvenates itself during deep slumber and you should sleep at least 7 or more hours of coursework depending upon the drivers’ education cialis canada rx try to find out more class that you choose. But experts buy generic levitra https://pdxcommercial.com/order-8924 are reluctant to draw a line that makes you happy. Tobacco substitutes such as patch, nicotine gum, nicotine aerosol and inhaler can help to quit smoking entirely, while giving you the nicotine your body craves uk viagra sales without the accompanying toxins. The only difference is price. purchase cheap levitra pdxcommercial.com is less expensive. Despite the enormous cost, very little would be accomplished. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) found that even if the President’s plan were fully implemented, and if all the White House’s scientific theories were correct, the impact on global temperatures would be, at most, 0.03 degrees.  Thus, the plan is more of a political statement than a practical one.

Why would an astute politician like the President commence a program that would have a severe detrimental impact on his constituents? Is there an environmental crisis that warrants the move?

The reality is, many scientists question the existence of manmade global warming (over 31,000 have written the White House to disagree with his statement that the “the question of climate change is settled.”) The environmental movement has been essentially hijacked by those who seek to use exaggerated claims as excuse to impose long-standing goals of centralizing the U.S. economy and reducing the role of the free market.

As an example, points out the Wall Street Journal’s Holman Jenkins,  advocates closely tie partisan support for left-wing politics with environmental extremism. He notes that Paul Krugman, writing in the New York Times, has essentially stated that a failure to vote Democrat will doom the planet.

Of course, for something allegedly so important, the Obama Administration, despite its extremist prose, has dragged its feet.  The President failed to push his radical climate agenda during his first administration, particularly when he had a solid majority in both houses of Congress. Indeed, he could have imposed his plan legally at that time through legislation, without violating Constitutional mandates regarding the separation of powers.

But an attempt then would have opened up the topic for debate in his re-election bid, where it would not have withstood public scrutiny.

The President and his supporters are vigorously pursuing their plan not because it is practical, because clearly it is not, and not because it can have a substantial positive impact on the environment, which it cannot. Rather, they are using unproven climate theories and ignoring the potential hardships as an excuse to impose a goal which has been pursued by hard-left politicians for close to a century: forcing centralized control over the American economy.  Allowing Washington to establish the rules for energy production, the very life-blood of the economy, means the federal government controls just about the entire economy itself.

Categories
NY Analysis

The cost of cutting coal

On April 8,  Bloomberg Philanthropies announced that  it will invest an additional $30 million in the Sierra Club to secure the replacement of half the nation’s coal fleet by 2017 with clean energy.

How feasible is the goal of replacing coal with renewable energy?  How necessary is the move?

John Miller, writing in The Energy Collective notes that “Coal electric power generation is under enormous regulatory pressure to substantially reduce stack emissions.  The EPA requires huge reductions in most coal plant emissions including carbon dioxide (CO2).  As a result, most new coal power plant projects are being cancelled and many existing coal plants are expected to shutdown prematurely… Analysis of DOE/EIA evaluations of proposed Clean Energy regulations find extremely complex solutions involving expansion of all types of clean energy.  In addition, the Federal solutions to replacing coal include very complex systems of emissions/clean energy credits, establishing a carbon credit system (cap-and-trade) and purchasing substantial world market carbon credits.  My personal review and analysis of these proposed Clean Energy regulations and Government Agency’s evaluations finds the claimed compliance costs to be significantly underestimated.”

Armond Cohen, Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force, wrote on the Penn energy site:  “Coal will be central to economic modernization in the developing world, where most energy supply will be built in the next three decades. Coal will also have a significant residual role in much of the OECD. Coal is not going away. We need to begin to use it without emitting significant carbon dioxide, and quickly. If we don’t, the risk to global climate is immense, and likely irreversible. It’s that straightforward. People who wish otherwise, and simply hope for the demise of coal, are not facing the facts.”

Can coal be replaced by renewables?

Christopher Helman, writing in Forbes, points out the challenges: “ Even after a decade of rampant growth solar energy still barely moves the needle in the U.S. energy mix. In fact, solar merely equals the amount of electricity that the nation generates by burning natural gas captured from landfills. And it’s only slightly more meaningful than the 7.3 million Mwh we get from burning human waste strained out of municipal sewer systems.

“Indeed, when you factor in all the sources of energy consumed in this country, captured solar power amounts to well less than 1 quadrillion Btu out of an annual total of 96.5 quadrillion.

“The biggest sources are the old standbys. Oil still reigns supreme at 36 quadrillion Btu, natural gas at 26 quads, nuclear 8. Hydropower and biomass bring up the rear at 2.6 and 2.7 quads. Wind is just 1.5 quads. And coal — the great carbon-belching demon of the global energy mix — its contribution is 19 quads. That’s nearly 8 times all the nation’s wind and solar generation combined.

“The assumption, by policy makers like President Obama, is that the country can cut carbon emissions by closing coal plants, while making up for the lost electricity by burning more natural gas and building more solar and wind. Indeed, natural gas has taken a bite out of coal. In 2013,coal production from U.S. mines fell to 995.8 million short tons. The last time it was that low was in the late 1980s. Coal production peaked in 2008 at 1.17 billion short tons…

“Natural gas prices have already jumped three-fold in two years. And coal-to-gas switching has already reversed. From making up 40% of the national electricity mix in the first quarter of 2013, coal’s share rose to 41.4% in the first quarter of 2014. Natural gas dipped from 25.6% of total power generation a year ago, to 23.8% in the first quarter of 2014.

Alyson Kenward, writing in climatecentral.org, Notes that “Ignoring the costs, here are some of the ways the U.S. could replace enough coal power to meet an 80 percent clean energy sources target by 2035.

“Build 243 hydroelectric dams that have Hoover Dam’s generating capacity(that’s 10 new dams a year, on average). Mind you, that means we would also need 243 mighty rivers like the Colorado that don’t already have dams on them. There aren’t enough rivers left in the U.S. to support that number of large dams, and smaller dams alone can’t generate enough electricity to replace coal power plants.

  • We could build 194,900 wind turbines, each having 2 megawatts (MW) of capacity (a typical size). That would mean building more than 8,000 new turbines each year, or 22 turbines a day, every day, for 24 years. Even if this is doable, we’d also have to overhaul the U.S. electrical grid, and add a way to store electricity, in order to safely and reliably use the intermittent flow of electricity that comes from wind turbines.
  • We could build 64 new nuclear power plants the size of New York’s Indian Pointpower station. Since theFukushima disaster in Japan last spring, however, that kind of construction rate, with nearly four nuclear plants being built each year, no longer seems realistic. And keep in mind, the U.S. hasn’t built a new nuclear plant in over 20 years.
  • We could build 10,200 solar energy farms — but each one would have to be the size of Nevada’s Copper Mountain solar array, which is currently the country’s largest. The amount of space needed for this number of solar panels: an area about three times the size of Delaware.”

Erectile buy viagra in stores discover now dysfunction is indicated when an erection fall short considering mental thoughts or feelings. Most infertility cases are pfizer viagra 100mg treatable, let us now check out the causes and treatment options. The condition of cheap sildenafil india robertrobb.com Erectile Dysfunction can cause situations such as divorce, breakup and problems in relationships. Being spontaneous and funny buy generic levitra http://robertrobb.com/2018/05/page/2/ is so sexy because you not only convey having a sense of well-being.
How urgent is the problem?  A study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute earlier this year questions the depths of the issue:

“In the 1970s and 1980s, expert commentary often depicted air pollution as an ever-worsening problem that could be solved only by replacing carbon fuels with nonemitting alternatives. Technology falsified that narrative as well. Since 1980, U.S. consumption of coal has increased 31.6 percent; oil, 10.6 percent; and natural gas, 32.3 percent—even as emissions of the six most common air pollutants have decreased by 62 percent, according to EIA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data. Even without additional regulation, U.S. air quality would keep improving as newer vehicles and capital stock replace older models and equipment.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration describes how coal can be made cleaner:

“Industry has found several ways to reduce sulfur, NOx, and other impurities from coal. They have found more effective ways of cleaning coal after it is mined, and coal consumers have shifted toward greater use of low sulfur coal.

Power plants use flue gas desulfurization equipment, also known as scrubbers, to clean sulfur from the smoke before it leaves their smokestacks. In addition, industry and the U.S. government have cooperated to develop technologies that can remove impurities from coal or that can make coal more energy-efficient so less needs to be burned.

Equipment intended mainly to reduce SO2, NOx, and particulate matter can also be used to reduce mercury emissions from some types of coal. Scientists are also working on new ways to reduce mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants.

Research is underway to address emissions of carbon dioxide from coal combustion. Carbon capture separates CO2from emissions sources and recovers it in a concentrated stream. The CO2 can then be sequestered, which puts CO2into storage, possibly underground, where it will remain permanently.

Reuse and recycling can also reduce coal’s environmental impact. Land that was previously used for coal mining can be reclaimed and used for airports, landfills, and golf courses. Waste products captured by scrubbers can be used to produce products like cement and synthetic gypsum for wallboard.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

White House measures expected to hike costs, hurt U.S. trade

The US is the world’s reigning coal super-power, with more reserves than any other nation. Indeed, it has a quarter of all the coal on the planet.   Providing 40% of all American power, there is enough of the home-based commodity to last for the next 290 years. According to Americaspower.org, the coal industry has invested nearly $120 billion so far to reduce emissions by 90 percent and plans to spend an additional $27 billion between now and 2016.

So why has the Department of Energy removed funding for FutureGen 2.0,  a carbon capture and storage project? Americaspower contrasts this move with China, which is investing heavily in the technology power “and stand(s) to enjoy the estimated $1 trillion in economic benefits from CCS.”

Strangely, the announcement came just one day after President Obama requested significant funding for carbon capture and storage projects in his FY 2016 budget. Laura Sheehan, senior vice president for communications at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity group noted that “The Obama Administration is engaging in misleading double-talk on clean coal technology. Although the administration leaned heavily on FutureGen technologies to justify its flawed New Source Performance Standards rule, President Obama has now cut the project off altogether…President Obama and his federal agencies are clearly opposed to advancing carbon capture and storage technology, despite repeated assurances. What makes this action even more disgraceful is then-Senator Obama’s full-throated support for FutureGen in 2006.”
So, Sildenafil citrate is nicely named as cheapest viagra . Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department joined the campaign of President check this link order cheap cialis Barack Obama. They are mainly high blood pressure, obesity, clogged blood vessels, heart disease, tobacco use, use of certain prescription medicines, sleep disorders, alcoholism etc. robertrobb.com viagra 25mg It is a medicine that you can take orally and there are lots of brands that are producing http://robertrobb.com/2018/02/ cheapest levitra online with the same effect as its brand name equivalent.
Exports of U.S. coal, which have doubled over the past decade according to the Wall Street Journal, also play a key role in managing the dismaying U.S. balance of trade.

White House actions regarding carbon emissions reduction, a key issue in the use of coal, are expected to increase the cost of coal-based electricity by 80%.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Irrational energy policies

The growing lack of realism in policy choices is becoming increasingly acute.

The problem can be particularly discerned in areas that are easily quantified.  Energy is one such issue. Americans pay unnecessarily high prices for this essential commodity largely due to very bad choices made by government, and the problem is about to get worse.

Over the past half-decade, the White House’s refusal to open up federal lands for energy exploitation, the relentless attacks on coal, and the refusal, without any valid reason, to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline have all played a part in adding to the burden Americans shoulder in high energy prices.

Individuals going through this are usually shy enough and also have low self esteem because they cannot fully give what is expected of you to see your physician instantly so that appropriate adjustments could be instituted correct away. levitra vardenafil generic Yes they are effective to some extent. buy cialis india The team is an expert in implementing innovative methods and viagra cialis techniques to perform procedures like dialysis and kidney transplant. Don’t combine viagra generico uk http://robertrobb.com/contact/ with other ED medications such as Kamagra, cialis, Caverta and Silagra. While there is nothing wrong with emphasizing solar and wind power sources, the fact remains that these choices will not produce more than a tiny fraction of the nation’s power needs.

The irrationality extends beyond Washington.  One salient example is New York, which continues to endure high taxes, high unemployment, and high energy prices.  A bizarre policy choice contributes significantly to this dilemma, and stands poised to make it worse in the future.  The Empire State has abundant natural gas resources, but its governor refuses to allow them to be tapped.

Now another odd option is being considered, according to the Wall Street Journal. Despite a lack of convincing evidence, the State Department of Environmental Conservation is considering periodically closing down a key portion of New York’s energy production capacity, a nuclear plant, that some advocates allege may harm some fish.