Obama Unveils Major Climate Change Proposal 413
An anonymous reader writes: Two years in the making, President Obama formally unveiled his plan to cut power plant emissions today, calling it the "single most important step that America has ever made in the fight against global climate change." The "Clean Power Plan" includes the first ever EPA standards on carbon pollution from power plants. CNN reports: "Under the plan, the administration will require states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards, based on their individual energy consumption. The plan also includes an incentive program for states to get a head start on meeting standards on early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency."
Obama should do a fact check... (Score:3, Interesting)
""We're the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it," Obama said on Monday."
---
While that sounds nice when he is giving a speech, there are two problems with the above sentence.
First, we aren't feeling the impact of climate change. For all the fear mongering, the oceans haven't risen, the weather is fine, and life has been carrying on.
Second, we aren't the last generation who can do something about it. Depending on who you listen to, either we have already passed the point of no return, or we have a long time to worry about it.
If AGW supporters are correct, then the changes being proposed won't change the outcome by enough to matter. We had to do all this 30+ years ago and get the world on board as well. A few cuts here and there will be swamped by the growth in the global economy and the number of new power plants being built every year. China alone is building a new coal plant every month.
At this point, we're just moving the deck chairs around the Titanic, or perhaps put another way, we using a bucket brigade to try and get the water out of the ship. Nice idea, but pointless when the ship is still going to sink.
So if the AGW people are right (and they might be, I wouldn't discount smart people so easily), then we need to start adapting to the change that is coming regardless of what we do.
If the AGW people are wrong, then this is just a wealth transfer and overreaching power grab from big government.
Re:Obama should do a fact check... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been waiting for deniers to move from
1) Global warming doesnt exist
2) Global warming may exist but its not manmade
to
3) Global warming does exit but there is nothing we can do about it.
Too bad there werent some enlightened people who warned about this early enough to do something about it. oh wait...
As for wealth transfer, you are deluded if you dont think the current state, of wealthy "deniers" stoking denial, clamoring for tax cuts are not doing their own wealth transfer, only in the opposite direction. They probably correctly deduce that the wealthier they are the easier it will be for them to withstand the effects of climate change, while the poor saps they convince to deny science will be the ones that will be hurt the most.
Re:Obama should do a fact check... (Score:5, Informative)
For all the fear mongering, the oceans haven't risen,
Yes, they have [wikipedia.org].
the weather is fine,
Is that a joke? [sfgate.com]
and life has been carrying on.
Well, except for the mass extinction [wikipedia.org].
If AGW supporters are correct
AKA "PhD scientists studying this for the last few decades".
then the changes being proposed won't change the outcome by enough to matter.
There is no one grand solution to AGW. There are a lot of smaller steps that added together might make a difference. Failing to do any of them certainly will not help.
Re:Obama should do a fact check... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, your heroes are shit and I'm not sure why I should listen to them or anyone who claims I need to listen to them.
You've conveniently listed all examples of politicians instead of PhD scientists (3 of them, in fact, and 0 scientists). The GP said "PhD scientists". How exactly are the two anything alike?
The function of one is to lie through their teeth and the function of the other is to perform fundamental research. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader which one is which.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So if the AGW people are right (and they might be, I wouldn't discount smart people so easily), then we need to start adapting to the change that is coming regardless of what we do.
Eh, no biggie. In New York, Miami, and L.A., heh, and New Orleans, everybody can just move up one floor, get some gondolas, learn to sing in Italian... Jet Skis should become real popular
Re:Obama should do a fact check... (Score:5, Insightful)
"First, we aren't feeling the impact of climate change. For all the fear mongering, the oceans haven't risen, the weather is fine, and life has been carrying on."
Errrr, what? The oceans have definitely been measurably rising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Just because Manhattan isn't underwater doesn't mean we don't measure and observe it.
"Second, we aren't the last generation who can do something about it. Depending on who you listen to, either we have already passed the point of no return, or we have a long time to worry about it."
We've definitely already passed the point of return for no changes. The question from here on out is how much damage we want to do in addition to what's already been done. There isn't an upper limit to the damage due to global warming. That's like saying "Oh gosh, I'm in debt. Whelp, guess I'll just spend whatever I want because I'm already in debt!" It's nonsensical double talk from someone who's claiming that global warming is both not a thing, and it's too late to do anything about it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Manhattan isn't underwater doesn't mean we don't measure and observe it.
Manhattan will never be under water. Wall Street will always get yet another bailout.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sea levels have been rising over the 20th century. This, and a host of other evidence say we _are_ experiencing the effects of climate change.
You feel a rise of 0.12 inches a year? So in 10 years, oceans should be 1.2 inches higher?
I don't know about you, but that doesn't strike me as something that 99.9% of anyone would notice, unless told about.
You must have a different definition of "experiencing the effects" than everyone else does.
Sea levels have been rising over the 20th century.
Ok, so you're saying that global warming started 115 years ago? So that MUST make it all man-made, no chance that it could be anything else, right?
yes, life is carrying on. and it will continue to carry on even at such time as that carrying on becomes very, very difficult. so what the hell is your point ?
I'm sorry that your mind is so closed as to have missed the point
Re:Obama should do a fact check... (Score:5, Insightful)
You must have a different definition of "experiencing the effects" than everyone else does.
They do have a different definition. They feel problems. They feel solutions.
If they can't feel the problem (such as the problem that the solution they feel increases the poverty of people other than them) then its not a problem.
These are a shitbags that dont understand that the number one killer in the world is poverty, that more than twice the population of the United States is way below the international poverty line in India alone. They are selfish self-centered coastal living fucks that have no sense of scale. They are extremely concerned that some people (such as themselves) might eventually be displaced by the extremely slow rise of the ocean, but are amazingly not outraged at all that the policies that they have pushed for cause people to die now.
You've heard of 1st world problems? This worry about sea level rise is the extreme form of that. They already feel it, even though they havent been displaced and need to be told by someone else that its even happening. And its more important that what we do about it feels like a solution rather than is a solution.
Re:Obama should do a fact check... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, we aren't "feeling" it, we are merely able to detect it. And if things keep going at this rate, we really don't have anything to worry about for centuries to come.
Re: (Score:2)
Sea levels have been rising over the 20th century. This, and a host of other evidence say we _are_ experiencing the effects of climate change.
And people are still arguing as to whether or not we're out of the last ice age still, but don't worry the science is settled. Just like cerebral palsy don't have any genetic factors. Wait a second! A group just finished up a study and found it does have a genetic component in at least 10% of cases. And there was a lot of people in the medical community who were against the study.
Yeah, that's actually a brilliant example of science and scientists not wanting to go against the ingrained truth.
Never gonna happen... (Score:2)
As long as so many companies, towns and states earn so much money digging dirty polluting black rocks out of the ground and burning them to generate electricity, there is no chance that that the USA can move to a cleaner greener future.
Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
The US power industry puts out 5% of the worlds carbon and this plan will cut it by 1.5% over how many years? China on average is bringing on a new power plant every 10 days. Please explain how this insignificant but costly plan is going to affect climate change?
The same way that going to the gym once or twice helps a person lose weight -- not by a whole lot, but you have to start the ball rolling somehow.
Also, it's a lot easier to convince other nations to reduce their emissions when you've started reducing your emissions first. Otherwise they just accuse you of "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't TRY, we will have no credibility when asking other countries to improve their technology.
Also, by trying to improve our technology, we will learn some things we didn't know how to do.
China is very interested in improving efficiency and reducing pollution; they really can't go on with the smog they have. We could be exporting solutions and services to them.
Not doing anything will cost us more; in credibility, in scientific advancement, economically, and of course jobs. It's going to be the #1 sou
Re: (Score:3)
Direct google search yields:
USA energy consumption per capita = 6,793.96 kg of oil equivalent (2012)
China energy consumption per capita = 2,029.36 kg of oil equivalent (2011)
Note that Europe is in the 3-4k range while Canada is above 7k.
Re: (Score:3)
Direct google search yields: USA energy consumption per capita = 6,793.96 kg of oil equivalent (2012) China energy consumption per capita = 2,029.36 kg of oil equivalent (2011)
Note that Europe is in the 3-4k range while Canada is above 7k.
Except that a lot of that energy consumed by China is in the manufacture of the world's cheap goods. By importing from China, the rest of the world is exporting its carbon emissions.
Coal is dying (Score:2)
Thanks in large part to the low cost of natural gas. So Obama needs to get out in front of his and make it look like it was actually his doing.
Re: (Score:2)
....because you've already taken the problem into your hands and reduced your carbon output.
Re:Oh Great! More Central Planning! Just what we n (Score:5, Interesting)
....because you've already taken the problem into your hands and reduced your carbon output.
I have actually... and more people do every day...
I spent a few hundred dollars to replace all my incandescent bulbs in my home with LED bulbs. And I was ranting a few years ago against government over reach when they wanted to ban incandescent bulbs. I still am, it isn't their job to pick winners.
LED bulbs did get down to a price point where they make sense, now it comes down to education to make people aware of how much money they save. My payback period on those bulbs is just over a year, maybe 15 months. That is a no-brainer if there ever was one. People talk about solar systems having 7 to 10 year paybacks, yet ignore the one that has less than 2 years of payback.
I also recently purchased a car for the first time in almost 20 years. My primary vehicle is a 2015 Yukon XL Denali, a wonderful vehicle that burns crap loads of gas, but is very useful for moving my family, their friends, and stuff. However, if it is just me, or just me and my wife, it is overkill... So now I also own a 2014 Ford Taurus that gets 29 MPH on the highway. It is still comfortable and filled with nice stuff, but it burns almost half the fuel of my big truck and I make a point to drive it instead of the truck when I don't need the truck.
Now I'm thankfully in the position that I can afford to buy another vehicle, not everyone is. I figure that the gas savings pays for the insurance on it, so it isn't "free" or even "cheap", but it does reduce my carbon and pollution footprint.
And I'm a Republican! So not all of us want to just "drill, baby drill" until it is all gone. But the solutions should be reasonable and take into account everyone, not just top down central planning.
Re:Oh Great! More Central Planning! Just what we n (Score:5, Insightful)
The real waste is at the front end, where power is generated, and the only fix for that is "top down" legislation to force the providers to do something about the emissions and inefficiency. And that pretty much has to be dictated because industry has shown time and time and time again that it won't regulate itself if left to its own devices.
Some things simply cannot be solved by laissez faire capitalism. In fact it creates many problems, which is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes for two seconds. That does not mean that the solution is the opposite, a totally planned central economy, but a sensible mix of the two. The knee-jerk reactionary repugnance to anything with even the mildest whiff of small-s 'socialism' is seriously damaging. It damages the health and happiness of every person, and now it is seriously damaging the planet. Nothing is black or white, perhaps a little subtlety should be given its chance. People have been sold the right-wing view for so long now they've forgotten what the middle ground even is. Centre-right policies are seen as far left, which is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think capitalism could solve it, it's just that by the time AGW began kicking the living shit out of the economy and causing widespread ecological damage, much of it would be irreversible.
But guys like the Koch's want it that way. They'll walk away with vast amounts of money and insulate themselves from the woes being suffered by everyone else. We are literally allowing our economic and political systems be completely co-opted to serve a tiny fraction of the population. And worse, many of us actually thin
Re: (Score:2)
I think capitalism could solve it, it's just that by the time AGW began kicking the living shit out of the economy and causing widespread ecological damage, much of it would be irreversible.
But guys like the Koch's want it that way. They'll walk away with vast amounts of money and insulate themselves from the woes being suffered by everyone else.
Hell, the Kochs don't need to spend any money to insulate themselves. At their age, they'll be dead before the worst negative effects are felt.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you seriously believe that switching to LED bulbs and driving a car that gets only 29mpg (which is terrible gas mileage in reality, only relative to your other gas guzzler does it seem reasonable) will achieve anything? Even if every single person in the world did this, it would make no effective difference.
It would do more than completely eliminating coal burning plants. Transportation generates a similar amount of CO2 to coal burning power plants. And in addition, massive reduction in electricity demand would reduce the number of coal power plants.
Some things simply cannot be solved by laissez faire capitalism. In fact it creates many problems, which is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes for two seconds. That does not mean that the solution is the opposite, a totally planned central economy, but a sensible mix of the two. The knee-jerk reactionary repugnance to anything with even the mildest whiff of small-s 'socialism' is seriously damaging. It damages the health and happiness of every person, and now it is seriously damaging the planet. Nothing is black or white, perhaps a little subtlety should be given its chance. People have been sold the right-wing view for so long now they've forgotten what the middle ground even is. Centre-right policies are seen as far left, which is ridiculous.
It's not a mild whiff of "socialism". It's a massive restructuring of our society and economy on shaky grounds. What happens when the next imaginary ecothreat comes through? If we continue to use the same decision-making process as we're doing here, then it's going
Re:Oh Great! More Central Planning! Just what we n (Score:5, Insightful)
Some things simply cannot be solved by laissez faire capitalism. In fact it creates many problems, which is obvious to anyone willing to open their eyes for two seconds. That does not mean that the solution is the opposite, a totally planned central economy, but a sensible mix of the two. The knee-jerk reactionary repugnance to anything with even the mildest whiff of small-s 'socialism' is seriously damaging. It damages the health and happiness of every person, and now it is seriously damaging the planet. Nothing is black or white, perhaps a little subtlety should be given its chance. People have been sold the right-wing view for so long now they've forgotten what the middle ground even is. Centre-right policies are seen as far left, which is ridiculous.
It's not a mild whiff of "socialism". It's a massive restructuring of our society and economy on shaky grounds. What happens when the next imaginary ecothreat comes through? If we continue to use the same decision-making process as we're doing here, then it's going to be a long stream of poor decisions and a descent either into regional dissolution or even a new dark age, if the whole world should buy in for the duration.
Imaginary threats don't harm us. Real threats do. We're facing the real threat of global warming. Instead of taking an honest look at the science and possible solutions, you look the potential bill and say any solution is impossible. Nevermind if the bill would include the price to get the world off fossil fuels and eliminate our gas payments forever. Nevermind if the bill would remove the motivation behind wars for oil and the trillions we've spent for those. Nevermind if the bill would clean up our air and eliminate smog and cut our medical payments for lung conditions. So, we live with your shortsightedness in a worse world where we constantly pay for gas with our money and lives.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that poor people are going to suffer more than the affluent from climate change effects, don't you? Barring some sort of intervention, they're screwed either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It would do more than completely eliminating coal burning plants. Transportation generates a similar amount of CO2 to coal burning power plants.
CO2 emissions in transportation are being reduced as well, via higher fuel economy standards, development of electric cars, etc.
This isn't a scenario where any one improvement will "solve" the problem. The problem has to be attacked on many fronts simultaneously, and all of the partial reductions will start to add up over time.
It's a massive restructuring of our society and economy on shaky grounds.
Hardly. The proposal merely sets targets and leaves it up to the individual states how to reach them. The states don't even have to submit a proposal until 2016, and don't have to
Re: (Score:2)
Consuming a gallon of fuel to transport one human being 30 miles is a ludicrous waste of resources. A personal vehicle that could achieve the equivalent of 200 miles per gallon is perfectly feasible right now with no new technological breakthroughs. The only thing that would have to shift is the perception that you need to be enclosed in 2 tons of steel.
Re: (Score:2)
id love to get 200 MPG (what car does that??) now, but i wont trade off size and comfort for MPGs
Re: (Score:2)
My Mercedes E250 CDI gets 36.5 mpg in everyday city driving and it is the epitome of safe and comfortable.
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to ask you where you were getting led's so cheaply.
But I checked the math first.
I can get one 65w equivalent led bulb for $7.84 or I can get four 65w bulbs for $7.88.
Assuming energy cost of $0.10/kwh and 4hr/day usage the 55w difference in power usage adds up to a savings of $8.01/year.
I'm replacing mine as they burn out even with their low cost it seems a waste to throw out a perfectly good lightbulb and the newer led bulbs are a near perfect match to the incandescent bulbs I have 6 recessed fi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I still am, it isn't their job to pick winners.
No but their job is to serve the greater good and legislating on energy efficiency in that regard is no different from mandating health and safety standards, or telling the local coal plant that they can't simply produce cheaper energy by dumping sludge into the river rather than disposing of it correctly.
Every single decision ever made by a government results in picking winners, whether specifically by technology as in this case, or by trade agreements, setting minimum standards, or in some cases even gran
Re: (Score:2)
....because you've already taken the problem into your hands and reduced your carbon output.
Yes, we have. We've reduced 'carbon output' in the West by shipping manufacturing to China, where it's less efficient and far more polluting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have: vegetarian, bike most places, solar energy.
And I still think Obama is batshit crazy.
At this point, I'd rather vote for a Christian conservative pushing free markets than another progressive Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's comments like this that really get my goat. There are options between doing nothing and becoming a third world country. The President's plan wouldn't make us a third world country and it will decrease our carbon emissions.
Oh, BTW, closing coal powered plans will actually reduce deaths in the US; and, you know what, it's already
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing will be changed, resolved, or decided.
When does anything on /. get changed, resolved or decided? We are fortunate that the world isn't run by the comments on forums like here.
Although now I write that, I'm not quite sure that this is true considering the inability for our leaders to solve these sorts of problems to date due to political backlash. What was supposed to be a funny quip just got depressing.
Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps when people come to grips with the fact the physical laws of nature don't give a flying fuck about anyone's favorite economic system or political ideology, we can move on to solving problems. But I suppose it's always easier to believe that whatever deity you worship, be it Yahweh or the Invisible Hand, will save you, and just go on as if nothing is happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Although now I write that, I'm not quite sure that this is true considering the inability for our leaders to solve these sorts of problems to date due to political backlash. What was supposed to be a funny quip just got depressing.
Yep, that is more or less how I feel. Our leaders seem more interesting in yelling about why the other side is wrong than in solving anything.
The Republicans and Democrats appear to have given up trying to work together. Government will remain a mess until that changes.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you mean, although at least this is a story about one side making a proposal to combat climate change. It's better than hearing more stories of yet another research organization having their funding cut in a bid to muzzle the scientific community and stifle the debate.
But if it all counts for nothing because neither side can agree then this proposal will just be one big waste of time.
Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans and Democrats appear to have given up trying to work together. Government will remain a mess until that changes.
It could be worse. They could be working together.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You forgot the people posting from podunk coal towns with no other industry who could give a crap if the world collapses as long as they get to keep their jobs and live in their tiny little racist enclaves until then.
Not at all, that is the second group of "drill baby drill" people.
Of course, don't forget the extreme libs in San Fran who are as equally deluded as the people in West Virginia are... just in the other direction... They think if everyone just drove a Prius and lived in a little 1,000 sqft eco home the world would be a happy place...
Both groups are wrong...
Re: (Score:3)
You know it's hilarious that people in SF act like they have a leg to stand on when it comes to telling other people how to live
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
$1000/month to live in a shipping container and that's Oakland.
Could not agree more (Score:5, Insightful)
Many ppl note the fact that the far right HATES science and pick and choose what they want to. And they are correct.
However few ppl have noticed the fact that the far left HATES science and pick and choose what they want to.
Take the case of AGW. A rational person says that the science is overwhelming in favor of AGW. Therefore the smart thing is to drop our CO2 and relatively soon.
BUT, if you run the numbers, you will see that we NEED nukes. In particular, we need gen IV nukes since they can not meltdown. In addition, these can make use of the nuke waste/ aboveground thorium, rather than mining for U.
Yet, the far left fights it. And the far right, really has not done SQUAT for the nuke industry.
Then you have the fact that the far left screams about America's emissions. Yet, current calculated numbers from 2013 show that China accounts for more than 30% of CO2, while the entire west accounts for less than 28%. In addition, China's emission far outweigh even America's emissions. Both in current, as well as total since 150 years ago, or even 1000 years ago.
And that does not include what OCO2 is showing. OCO2's numbers are showing that CHina's emission is well over 40%, and probably closer to 45%. That is HUGE. Absolutely fucking HUGE.
BUT, what does the far left do? They scream that America needs to buy wind/solar from China and continue to drop our emissions. At the same time, they claim that China's growing their Wind/solar faster than America, while ignoring the fact that China's % of electricity from Coal grows EVERY YEAR, and is now in the high 80s.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Many ppl note the fact that the far right HATES science and pick and choose what they want to. And they are correct.
Orly?
"After years of being lambasted by the left as uneducated rubes, a recent study by a Yale law professor proves members of the Tea Party are actually more likely to understand scientific issues than is the rest of the population."
http://www.westernjournalism.c... [westernjournalism.com]
"Yale Law professor Dan M. Kahan was conducting an analysis of the scientific comprehension of various political groups when he ran into a shocking discovery: tea party supporters are slightly more scientifically literate than the non-tea party
Re: (Score:3)
You've conflated too many groups, i.e. cherry picked data, in order to fit the evidence to your world view.
The non-teaparty population is composed of everyone... liberals, conservatives, and whatevers. Those websites are right-leaning and show that you are looking for evidence in places that fit your world view. It says that tea-partiers are more scientifically aware than conservatives as well.
Don't get me wrong - I'm glad that tea-partiers are slightly more scientifically aware, because I'm glad when anyon
Re: (Score:3)
BUT, if you run the numbers, you will see that we NEED nukes. In particular, we need gen IV nukes since they can not meltdown. In addition, these can make use of the nuke waste/ aboveground thorium, rather than mining for U. Yet, the far left fights it.
This is the issue in a nutshell. Logically, Gen4 Nuke is the least worst option, but the most people can't get past the emotional response. Chernobyl! Fukushima! Imagine if we gave up flight after the first couple of plane crashes? You fix bad engineering by better engineering, not giving up.
Re: (Score:3)
BUT, if you run the numbers, you will see that we NEED nukes.
Yep, and we need to build them in the US... We could create a wonderful nuclear revival industry and export them around the world, if only we could get over the irrational, "oh my god the nuclears!" fears of people.
Wind and solar can be part of the solution, that is wonderful. A combined nuclear, wind, solar, hydro power grid that maybe keeps 5-10% natural gas as backups strikes me as a reasonable plan.
But the far left doesn't want to hear it and the far right is so busy defending coal that they can't hea
Re: (Score:2)
Humbug. Europe has coal towns that historically were so run-down that anthracite was considered a gemstone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually the coal towns are the ones bearing the brunt of the coal industry's wrath. After all the coal is extracted, nothing is left but huge dumps with virtually no employment to speak of. Same with the fracking boom. It's just that they lack the vision to see this while the money is still flowing.
Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I've always wondered, if you hate Social Justice Warriors, does that make you a Social Injustice Warrior? I mean, that's a weird thing to stand proudly behind, social injustice.
Could just make you an Antisocial Justice Warrior
Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying that solar and wind are pie-in-the-sky.
Neither am I... I live in Texas and we're now one of the largest wind producers in the US, making some 9% of our power from wind last time I looked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Now... Wind DOES cost more than coal and natural gas, no matter what the AGW people want to say. I buy my power from a competitive marketplace, I can pick from dozens of different power suppliers, and wind costs more than coal does.
To be specific, I just signed a new contract for power for my business, I'm paying 6.2 cents per kWh for the first 2,000 kWh and 6.8 cents after that. That is the total delivered price and it is a fairly even mix of coal, natural gas, and nuclear, with about 6% of the total being "renewable".
If I wanted all wind power, then the price goes to 9.1 cents per kWh for the first 2,000 kWh and 9.6 cents after that.
Of course, a nice carbon tax could fix that in a hurry, if that is what we as a country wanted to do.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] we can expect the price of coal to rise and the price of wind to drop, so that they'll meet in the middle within 10 years.
"Grid parity also applies to wind power where it varies according to wind quality and existing distribution infrastructure. ExxonMobil predicts wind power real cost will approach parity with natural gas and coal without carbon sequestration and be cheaper than natural gas and coal with carbon sequestration by 2025.
Wind turbines reached grid parity in some areas of
Re: (Score:2)
That may well be true, there are various forces at work there...
But even if so, I have a hard time picturing a grid powered 24/7 by 100% wind power.
Maybe it is possible, but it strikes me as much more doable with coal than with wind.
For what it is worth, I don't OBJECT to wind, I just am curious as to how you'd provide 24/7 power with wind to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, a nice carbon tax could fix that in a hurry, if that is what we as a country wanted to do.
with the costs going up across the board as it is, we dont need any new taxes. especially here in NY
Re: (Score:2)
with the costs going up across the board as it is, we dont need any new taxes. especially here in NY
You misunderstand how a carbon tax would work.
It would be revenue-neutral, which is to say the money collected by the tax on carbon would be used to reduce the tax load of the population as a whole. All the money collected would be given back to the taxpayers.
As such, costs would actually go down for everyone except people/businesses who emit a lot of CO2.
Heavy CO2-emitters would pay more, of course, which would give them a clear economic incentive to find less CO2-intensive ways of doing business, which i
Re: (Score:3)
It would be revenue-neutral, which is to say the money collected by the tax on carbon would be used to reduce the tax load of the population as a whole. All the money collected would be given back to the taxpayers.
If it would ACTUALLY work like that, I'd be its biggest supporter.
But you and I both know that is never how it works.
If our government could balance the budget, I'd be 100% on board.
Re: (Score:3)
British Columbia implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in .. 2006, I think, or thereabouts. It's been a while. It's been used to reduce income tax. It's been super effective, our carbon emissions have gone down by quite a bit.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you are the one that misunderstand how a carbon tax would work; the heavy CO2-emitters would not only pass along the tax, but increase it by their profit margin, so a dollar increase in taxes would likely result in an price increase of $1.20 at each stage of the supply chain. Only naive Liberals think businesses pay taxes, rather than pass them along.
Re: Oh boy, here we go... (Score:2)
Does that 6.8 cents include the transmission line costs or no ? If it does where in Texas you living ? I would guess the Austin area where rates stay low to ensure the legislators don't have to pay too much for their electricity.
The lowest I have found near the coast is 9 cents / KwH.
Re: (Score:2)
That is so unbelievably cheap!!!! I knew the US was cheaper for power than Australia but.... WOW.
See here - https://www.dews.qld.gov.au/en... [qld.gov.au]
Fixed charge 106.72c / day tje 29.845c/kWh peak, 21.125c/kWh shoulder, 16.262c/kWh off-peak.....
Re: (Score:2)
Utilities through out the nation are adding wind to replace coal. In particular, they are doing it because the electricity is much cheaper than coal.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, but wind is cheaper than coal, and with the next iteration of wind generators, they should be cheaper than nat gas.
Maybe, maybe not... but if I can't buy it for less, then it isn't cheaper right now...
When power providers start selling wind for less than natural gas and coal power, then it will be true...
Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there will be the sliver of comments about developing additional sources of zero-carbon sources of energy. Traditional fission reactors have their own pollution problems. Fusion is still too experimental; no one has yet to demonstrate a scalable method of doing that. But there is another power metal: thorium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]...
True...
But at least with nuclear, you can burn the left overs in another reactor or you can at least put them in a box.
Yes, we haven't had the best record of that in the past, but that doesn't mean we can't change that, we just have to be willing to do so. You can't put the output of a coal or natural gas power plant in a box, no matter how hard you try.
Keep in mind that if the "waste" from nuclear is radioactive, then it also can be used to make power. The only time nuclear anything is really "spent" is when it is no longer radioactive.
We have VERY old reactor designs dating back 40 years, we have not been keeping up with technology. If we really wanted to, I imagine we could build some much better reactors, but the NIMBY and "oh my god the nuclears!" people won't have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are full of shit. Load following works fine [oecd-nea.org] in nuclear reactors of appropriate design. Modern plants make one or two large changes per day, and are required to be able to cycle daily between 50% and 100% of rated capacity with a rate of change of 3-5% per minute.
Many are rated for several percent change per second.
You are waaay out of touch with technology. Read that report. Look at how often they cycle the power. Load following works fine, and they're required to be able to make these swings for 90% of
Re: (Score:3)
But there is another power metal: thorium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I'm not aware that anyone has yet built a financially viable thorium reactor despite at least a couple of attempts. Once someone demonstrates that is possible it may find more acceptance.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason no one's talking about thorium is that, frankly, thorium sucks. Sorry to break it to you this way. Thorium solves none of the problems we have with current fission reactors. Nuclear reactors are clean but extremely expensive sources of energy. They are expensive because of containment, maintenance, waste disposal/processing, and decommissioning. Thorium solves none of these problems. The much-touted "less waste!" point that LFTR advocates so often talk about is a distortion of truth; LFTR merely
Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even solar has pollution problems when it comes to manufacturing.
While nuclear power plants grow organically without generating any pollution, and then run without generating any waste? A solar power plant easily offsets the pollution required to build it over its lifespan. I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.
And people aren't fixated only on one or two power sources, as opposed to the ones who trot out the line "there is one solution - nuclear".
It has always been about creating a workable mix. Even Hillary Clinton's recent proposal was to only generate 33% of America's electricity by 2027.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
howcome i read she wants all homes solar powered by 2027?
You didn't. You read that she wants to have 33% of all energy from renewables which is enough to power all the homes. This was not about the ludicrous notion of attempting to segregate domestic and industrial power and then wholly supplying one if those networks with renewable energy.
The headline was misleading, possibly in an attempt to turn the people who only read the headlines against the idea. I guess it is a good lesson of why you shouldn't just read the headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Few are saying "there is one solution: nuclear". Many are saying any workable solution must include it. Eg: electric cars with panels + nuclear powered grid/charging stations.
Re: (Score:2)
There are enough people who do say it though, which was why I brought it up. Generally they pop up when there is any mention of building a renewable power supply, as if they shouldn't build those and just go nuclear.
But I agree, it is all about having a mix.
Re: (Score:2)
And people aren't fixated only on one or two power sources, as opposed to the ones who trot out the line "there is one solution - nuclear".
To put that in context, that is the response to the question of baseload. I've never heard anyone not include renewables in the mix, but you need a base-load, and currently Coal and Nuclear are the only viable candidates.
Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear plants easily offset air pollution as well, even more-so that solar. That must be the part you don't get.
If you think that we can discount the pollution caused by nuclear plants, why did you mention the pollution caused by solar plants then? You say that I don't get it, but you were the one that brought up this piece of FUD in the first place. You were being completely disingenuous and deliberately misleading by bringing up non-problems with one technology while ignoring that exactly the same non-problem exists with another.
With the exception that you had to qualify your statement by saying air pollution rather than all pollution (like I said) because you know that nuclear power DOES actually produce a hazardous waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We seem to be having a very hard time managing the waste now. Nobody wants it anywhere near them. Just because it's technically and theoretically easy politically. Like it or not, that matters too.
Yes, it is more of a political problem than a technical one. But that changes with leadership, people educating themselves, and calling out the FUD mongers. In addition, most people don't know the difference between cold war nuclear waste and commercial spent fuel. The former has a host of nasty challenges, the latter is quite inert, stable solid material that is technologically easy to manage.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, Obama has already silently been trying to shut the door on nuclear, ...
If that's true how come at least 4 nuclear power plants have been approved by the Obama administration?
Vogtle Units 3 & 4 [wikipedia.org] got $8.3 billion in Federal loan guarantees.
Summer Units 2 & 3. [wikipedia.org]
Nuclear renaissance in the United States. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
If that's true how come at least 4 nuclear power plants have been approved by the Obama administration?
If you'll check your history books, the loan guarantees that made those possible were forged before Obama. And, more directly to your point, Obama and Ried appoint Jaczko to chair the NRC. There, he specifically tried to stop the licensing of those plants, but his arguments were proven to have no basis.
Jaczo was incompetent, and eventually it was so bad that he was run out. Appointing such an incompetent person to a post as important as the NRC chair is won of the most reckless things Obama has done, IMH
good grief. So many lies from the far right (Score:2)
The problem was that the dems were opposed to it, and the GOP is opposed to ANYTHING that O tries to do.
Right now, is the PERFECT time for the GOP to get off their fucking ass and put forward a bill to really fund nukes. O would back it.
BUT, you nut jobs will not do it.
Re: (Score:2)
If that doesn't make a difference, then those other countries will be committing ecological suicide.
Economic suicide doesn't work that way especially if the US's reduction turns out to be useless no matter the reason. It's the countries that make the pointless sacrifice that will be suiciding not the ones that don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Electrification is a major requirement in order to have a significant impact on green house gas emissions. That means electrification of transportation for example. However, if your means of producing electricity is dirty that doesn't help. Reducing emissions from generating electricity is a logical step in solving the larger problem. It is not the only step.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will cost us billions and is expected to have an effect that is within the statistical measuring error.
Look at it this way......cost us billions? No, we're going to borrow the money to pay for it, just like the high-speed rail in California.
Isn't that a bad thing? In California, we're never going to pay off the debt, so might as well build cool stuff while people are still willing to loan us money. It might not help much with CO2 output, but hey, we'll have cool new solar power plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely you mean Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, right? I mean, after all, it was the CIA during their administrations that overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran that is more responsible for the situation in the Middle East then anything else. See CIA-assisted coup overthrows government of Iran [history.com].
Or perhaps you mean the European leaders who, after WWI, created countries that never existed in the Middle East [npr.org]?
I think putting blame on President Carter is a bit misplaced. While President
Re: (Score:2)
Labeling it democratic and it actually being democratic are two entirely different things. The previous regime in Egypt was a pretty good demonstration of that. So is the current regime in Iraq that's driving the rest of the country into the arms of ISIS.
Not having centuries of experience in this area probably doesn't help. Their understanding of democracy is much like the average tea bagger's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt your math, but it doesn't really matter. For every megawatt of power generated by a coal plant, on average, 2,249 lbs carbon dioxide are generated. In 2013, there were 1,581,115 megawatt hours of electricity generated by coal. That's 3,555,927,635 pounds.
Even so, you're saying, he's a hypocrite, right? Wrong.
The President isn't saying "Shut down everything that emits carbon dioxide". He's saying that it's time to decrease our carbon dioxide emissions. No hypocrisy, and even with your numbers,
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt your math, but it doesn't really matter. For every megawatt of power generated by a coal plant, on average, 2,249 lbs carbon dioxide are generated. In 2013, there were 1,581,115 megawatt hours of electricity generated by coal. That's 3,555,927,635 pounds.
Even so, you're saying, he's a hypocrite, right? Wrong.
The President isn't saying "Shut down everything that emits carbon dioxide". He's saying that it's time to decrease our carbon dioxide emissions. No hypocrisy, and even with your numbers, a drop in the bucket for emissions.
But how again is that not hypocrisy? "We need to emit less carbon", then flies everywhere in a fuel guzzling modified 747, even for quick vacations.
And when "deniers" say small steps wouldn't be enough to combat AGW anyway, they get lambasted for being too fatalistic, because every little bit helps.. but now this is a just a "drop in the bucket". Maybe those who wish to lead should do so by example, especially those who call for dramatic reductions. I know he can't go everywhere without AF1, but he and
Re: (Score:2)
"White House Resolution 455"
I found "White House Resolution 451" more interesting . . . this proposed burning all the books in the Library of Congress to generate electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
He rules by executive order!
Donald Rumsfeld: You go to war with the army you have...
Re: (Score:2)
Legislature? Obama doesn't need any stinking legislature. He's Emperor Lameduck! He rules by executive order!
Interesting fact: In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled [washingtonpost.com] that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA not only the authority to regulate CO2 emissions, but the responsibility to do so.
So you're right, Obama doesn't need the legislature to do this, because the legislature already gave him (or more precisely, gave the EPA) the power to do this back in 1970.
If the legislature doesn't like what the EPA is doing, they can of course pass new legislation limiting what the EPA can do. Assuming the legislature is still capable o