Obama’s War on Domestic Energy Production

[duckheads]

Today, the Senate will vote on the fate of one of the most expensive regulations of all time–a regulation that threatens to create an America with no new coal-fired power plants, where existing energy producers might have to close their doors, snuffing out jobs and making electricity dramatically more expensive.

Citing mercury pollution and air pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered businesses to install the “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” (MACT) to control emissions from their plants. Known as Utility MACT, this is no ordinary regulation. So stringent are the standards that potentially dozens of coal-fired power plants will close rather than incur the unsustainable costs of compliance.

For complete article: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/20/...gy-production/

Can't wait to seem how Buzz or Sambo will try to spin this one!

[menmon]

Well...let me take a shot. Got to have electricity so building new gas fired power plants puts lots of people to work...drilling gas wells instead of digging coal makes jobs that actually pay more. Not polluting my land and wate makes a lot of sence...I'm sure at $2 gas...can't cost that much more. Sounds like a win win for everybody...except the coal producer and I'm sure their lobbist put spin on it you used. I have a lot trouble believing those folks...and so should you.

[Buzz]

In general, I think neurotoxins and childhood asthma are good for the economy.

[Gerry Clinchy]

But they don't want to use fracking to get at the natural gas ... and if they also don't want to use coal ... and the policies aren't real friendly to nuclear energy either. We're back to windmills, solar panels (from China), wood stoves and candles. The cost of running those electric cars will also go up?

[Socks]

Well...let me take a shot. Got to have electricity so building new gas fired power plants puts lots of people to work...drilling gas wells instead of digging coal makes jobs that actually pay more. Not polluting my land and wate makes a lot of sence...I'm sure at $2 gas...can't cost that much more. Sounds like a win win for everybody...except the coal producer and I'm sure their lobbist put spin on it you used. I have a lot trouble believing those folks...and so should you.

As someone who has worked in the power industry it amazes me sometimes what people accept and don't accept. I've found that usually the people that are against coal are also against nuclear power. Then when a company wants to come along and build a new cleaner and more efficient coal plant to replace the old one those same people scream murder and take the plants to court and raise a ruckus. Then to try to placate those same people the plant will try to install better environmental controls. Now they're bad, mean, and evil because the bad ol' power plant wants to keep running a polluting coal plant. Meanwhile the "environmentalist" feel guilt free driving home in the prius becuase it runs off electricity and someday we'll get it all from the sun and wind.

Well the wind doesn't blow fast enough often enough and the sun doesn't shine all the time.

In general, I think neurotoxins and childhood asthma are good for the economy.

See above. Nuke is vastly superior, but try getting one built on a new site let alone on a existing site. Heck, try getting a coal plant built. I'm also not to sure about using nat gas for power because it can be used for other things than powere like heating and cooking while cooking and heating with coal can be done, but it's hard.

[menmon]

What happened in Japan...is why I will not advocate nuke. See even with all the safety measures an eathquake or something unseen can screw us up big time. So nuke is the last resort in my opinion.

You spoke a lot of truth...because of the enviornement interference...they are offering cleaner plants....but see it took that to get them to offer these solutions....because...profit is the end game, even if it is not good for us as a whole.

We have to have it...but lets make them do it in a way that is best for us. The profit is there, so they will come around to a cleaner way...don't advocate taking the pressure off....because they will leave us with their mess.

[Gerry Clinchy]

Who DO they hire at the EPA? This sounds crazy.
http://nation.foxnews.com/epa/2012/0...crous-new-rule
This would have occurred under GW's watch, and it appears that nobody ever paid any attention to the regulation. Maybe this regulation could use am "executive order?"

June 21, 2012

Federal regulations can be maddening, but none more so than a current one that demands oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist.
"As ludicrous as that sounds, it's fact," says Charles Drevna, who represents refiners. "If it weren't so frustrating and infuriating, it would be comical."
And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, "the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild."
Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005, assuming that someone would make it. Seven years later, no one has.
"None, not one drop of cellulosic ethanol has been produced commercially. It's a phantom fuel," says Pyle. "It doesn't exist in the market place."
And Charles Drevna adds, "forcing us to use a product that doesn't exist, they might as well tell us to use unicorns."
And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines:
"Why would they ask them to blend any at all if it doesn't exist?" Pyle said. "Because they know that they can squeeze some extra dollars out of them."

[Gerry Clinchy]

Who DO they hire at the EPA? This sounds crazy.
http://nation.foxnews.com/epa/2012/0...crous-new-rule
This would have occurred under GW's watch, and it appears that nobody ever paid any attention to the regulation. Maybe this regulation could use am "executive order?"

June 21, 2012

Federal regulations can be maddening, but none more so than a current one that demands oil refiners use millions of gallons of a substance, cellulosic ethanol, that does not exist.
"As ludicrous as that sounds, it's fact," says Charles Drevna, who represents refiners. "If it weren't so frustrating and infuriating, it would be comical."
And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, "the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild."
Refiners are at their wit's end because the government set out requirements to blend cellulosic ethanol back in 2005, assuming that someone would make it. Seven years later, no one has.
"None, not one drop of cellulosic ethanol has been produced commercially. It's a phantom fuel," says Pyle. "It doesn't exist in the market place."
And Charles Drevna adds, "forcing us to use a product that doesn't exist, they might as well tell us to use unicorns."
And yet, they still have to pay what amounts to fines:
"Why would they ask them to blend any at all if it doesn't exist?" Pyle said. "Because they know that they can squeeze some extra dollars out of them."

Found this as well:

But the RFS2 has not been without its problems. Earlier this year, the EPA had to revise down its quota for cellulosic ethanol from 500 million gallons to 10.5 million gallons as advanced biofuels are still at zero commercial production. But refiners were still fined $6.8 million by the EPA - part of what Drevna said was a "hidden tax" for the consumer as costs were transferred to the consumer.

US ethanol producers last year reached saturation point of production for its domestic market as a 10% blendstock in gasoline. EPA's decision to raise the maximum percentage blend to 15% is potentially dangerous, said Drevna.

A recent Coordinating Research Council (CRC) study found that there are at least 5 million vehicles on American roads which are at risk of failure with 15% ethanol blended fuel.

Wonder if EPA would then reimburse all those people whose cars get ruined by their requirements?

[Socks]

What happened in Japan...is why I will not advocate nuke. See even with all the safety measures an eathquake or something unseen can screw us up big time. So nuke is the last resort in my opinion.

You spoke a lot of truth...because of the enviornement interference...they are offering cleaner plants....but see it took that to get them to offer these solutions....because...profit is the end game, even if it is not good for us as a whole.

We have to have it...but lets make them do it in a way that is best for us. The profit is there, so they will come around to a cleaner way...don't advocate taking the pressure off....because they will leave us with their mess.

Sorry took me so long to post, been busy.

I'd like you to understand how much an "act of God" this was. We design plants here in the US to withstand huge environmental loads, but they're based on past experience and data that is extrapulated upon. We take into account weights, wind load, seismic loads, thermal loads, etc. A huge tidal wave is a basically a freak occurance. Yes, we've had two within recent memory. One of the problems at Fukishima(sp?) was that the emergency diesel generator that was supposed to kickin to cool the reactor when there was loss of power couldn't because the above ground fuel tank was washed away. Here in the US we bury them for this reason. I'm not saying they messed up and they might have had them above ground due to the high siesmic activity in Japan. Also, I'm not sure anyone has died due to radiation poisioning and I think all the death and destruction resulted from the tidal wave. The area that is blocked off is actually a very small area considering the size of Japan compared to the US. Using your logic we shouldn't ever build near the coast, or tornado alley. There's only so much we can do.

I agree that we should do it smarter and that some industries have terrible records. It seems there is a segment of our society that just seems to be against everything as long as they have theirs.

Have a good one.

[menmon]

I live in oil country and oil indirectly has benefited me my entire life. That is not to say that I don't think we should be seeking better ways. I'm an avid sportsmen and the BP disaster made me sick. The full damage of that has not been determined and at first blush it does not appear to be as bad as many thought, including me. Having said this, I don't want to see it happen again, and if we could power ourselves another way and perserve the planet, I'm for it. Nuclear plants are good for local economies because of the specifications. That's a good thing...I still would rather a different alternative, but I agree much thought has been placed on them to make them safe.