Farewell Clean Power Plan

[peakbagger]

http://bangordailynews.com/2017/10/09/news/epa-chief-pruitt-to-roll-back-clean-power-plan/

Definitely a sign of the times. Effectively the states that were making attempts to reduce CO2 are penalized for having spent the money proactively and the states who ignored the rules and supported the current administration are rewarded. Pretty depressing that the administration has decided to act as a third world country when it comes to carbon emissions.

 

[begreen]

Oil & coal rule the roost for the time being. Money talks, nobody walks.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

That's too bad, I was kind of interested in watching the green energy revolution unfold. This is quite a setback for peoples health. Here's the part I don't get:

Pruitt said the agency should not use its authority “to say to you we are going to declare war on any sector of our economy.”

I thought that was the EPA's purpose, to declare war on harmful pollution. Kinda like the DEA declares war on the sector of our economy that provides illegal drugs. And the ATF declares war on the sector of our economy that produces illegal moonshine. And the Antitrust Division declares was on the parts of our economy determined to be anti-competitive. And so forth. Why have a department designed to protect clean air and water if they are not allowed to do their job if it affects part of the economy? I guess the almighty dollar rules this administration.

Meanwhile, at the Federal Office of Fossil Fuels (yes, the industry actually has their own federal department), you can see just how much of your tax money is being used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry:

https://energy.gov/fe/office-fossil-energy

 

[EatenByLimestone]

If solar, etc is as low cost as some articles state, it should have no problem pushing back coal. I took the quote to mean they will allow solar and such to prove it's worth.

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

I've decided that all this nonsense is going to motivate and unite those of us with a little foresight and consciousness to move forward in the near future. Any coal miner who wants the same life for his offspring, well, what can I say about that?

Let's just hope that we don't have to live through WW3, and that we don't kill off all the other life on the planet in the meantime.

 

[peakbagger]

New coal is effectively dead unless the government starts directly subsidizing it. The cost of new plants is just too high and unless its on someone else's dime, the economics don't work out. Issues with coal ash disposal is raising the costs to run plants as few insurance companies are willing to take a risk on long term liabilities associated with coal ash. The near term future is dispatchable power (easy to turn on and turn off) and coal plants sure aren't readily dispatchable. Its highly likely that the rest of the world is going to come up with some sort of carbon tax and I expect that its going to be indirectly applied to US products with high carbon footprints that are exported. Politicians know this but they realize that they can lie to the folks impacted by the transition and get into office in the short term. I think "Nero fiddles while Rome burns" is getting more and more applicable to the current administration's approach.

 

[EatenByLimestone]

So why worry about it? On a similar note, I don't think the govt should be subsidizing any energy source.

 

[peakbagger]

Far better off for country to be proactive than reactive. If the US stays on the leading edge we probably can sell technology and experience to help other countries get up to speed on carbon reduction and we have a seat at the table. If the US buries their head in the sand, we inevitably end up playing catch up to regulations written by others that don't necessarily apply to US issues.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

So why worry about it?

Lame comment! Who said anything about "worry"? Worrying is not productive. But that doesn't imply you can't take action and be pro-active about making things better.

Why worry about it?

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

Senior Interior Department whistleblower resigns:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...zinke-interior-dept-leadership-climate-change

Sad what's going on.

 

[begreen]

The Onion suggests dropping the E and P and just call them Agency from now on.

 

[WoodyIsGoody]

The Onion suggests dropping the E and P and just call them Agency from now on.

Or FEPA. Fossil fuel Protection Agency.

 

[woodgeek]

Meh. Dave Roberts isn't too worried unless they go after the Endangerment finding....which currently does not appear to be their plan.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/10/16443246/gop-climate-health-care

He actually makes the case that its like Health Care....they are promising a bunch of things that they can't do, as with Health Care, which will bolix them later. In that the EPA is legally mandated to do certain things....and the CPP repeal (and possible replacement) will fail to do those, and will lose in the courts....in a few years.

As for the CPP....it was never implemented, as it was stopped in the courts from day one. And yet, the US is on track to meet the CPP's CO2 emission targets for 2030....before 2020!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmc...ve-2030-emissions-goals-in-2016/#3567cdf318da

Tech is faster than policy.

In other words....CPP is dead! Long Live CPP!

 

[woodgeek]

So why worry about it? On a similar note, I don't think the govt should be subsidizing any energy source.

More Dave Roberts....uber energy wonk: Oil subsidies prop up frackers at $50 oil. Without subsidies, legacy coal is uneconomic today.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies

And these are honest to goodness tax $$ subsidies....not some nebulous 'health benefit' factor estimated by some liberal somewhere.

Call your congresscritter.

 

[mlappin]

Far better off for country to be proactive than reactive. If the US stays on the leading edge we probably can sell technology and experience to help other countries get up to speed on carbon reduction and we have a seat at the table. If the US buries their head in the sand, we inevitably end up playing catch up to regulations written by others that don't necessarily apply to US issues.

That only works until certain other countries who don’t honor patents or intellectual property rights steal the technology, reverse engineer it then sell it for pennies on the dollar.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

That only works until certain other countries who don’t honor patents or intellectual property rights steal the technology, reverse engineer it then sell it for pennies on the dollar.

Then to add insult to injury are allowed to import it back into this country and compete with the original inventors .

 

[Mainewoodchucker]

More Dave Roberts....uber energy wonk: Oil subsidies prop up frackers at $50 oil. Without subsidies, legacy coal is uneconomic today.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies

And these are honest to goodness tax $$ subsidies....not some nebulous 'health benefit' factor estimated by some liberal somewhere.

Call your congresscritter.

Always interesting to see people call out subsidies for oil/coal but forget to mention the ones for solar or wind . Maybe comparing subsidies/tax breaks etc between fossil and green would be a good experiment . You have to include the failed projects like Solyndra that drained our pockets for zero return . I think you will find that " green" energy costs we the people much more for return on investment . That also means BOTH ends . Gov money then cost to consumer.

I firmly believe NO ONE should get subsidies . Coal,oil, win, solar , etc . Gov should not be involved in any of it . Let each stand or fall on their own merits , affordabiliy , etc etc .

 

[Seasoned Oak]

I firmly believe NO ONE should get subsidies . Coal,oil, win, solar , etc . Gov should not be involved in any of it . Let each stand or fall on their own merits , affordabiliy , etc etc .

Govt money seems to corrupt everything it touches. Easy student loans=Sky high tuition. HC subsidies= exorbitant premium increases. Easy credit subprime money =housing collapse. Lots of examples where free market solutions do a much better job ,provide a better product.

 

[woodgeek]

Boy, boys. There is an answer: REGULATION.

On the Renewable Energy subsidy front, the US has had a very light touch....enough subsidies to slowly grow the industry, but they did not lead to a bunch of poorly performing projects done just for the govt butter, nor did they break the bank in any way shape or form. Even with the losses like Solyndra (necessary, go talk to some venture cap guys sometimes, I have), a huge net public good came from the program.

The EU and Chinese govts are much more generous, the programs are very expensive to both govts, and the projects have much lower average performance like capacity factor (even normalized to local resource) than US projects.

The US optimum for RE subsidies would likely have been a bit more generous, but coulda-shoula-woulda. We might be competing in manufacturing this tech, as ooposed to merely buying it. The stuff so cheep now its gonna shoot the moon despite whatever the govt does (subsidies are being slowly sunset-ed under a law signed by Obama).

Of course, I would have to concede that the US would not be the nation is it today without its having basically invented oil and been an oil-exporting superpower back when Saudi was an empty pile of sand. And even the hated coal can be largely credited with the end of slavery in the modern era. Did those technologies need govt sponsorship and subsidies back in the day and get them....I'm sure.

Do fossils need massive subsidies today, a century after mass adoption...no way. That's just straight up corruption...the fossil companies have bought a whole party and gotten them to vote them fat untouchable subsidies in perpetuity. Fossil money funding campaigns, super-PACs and think-tanks with cozy paid board positions for retired pols. If you follow this dirty fossil money....it goes right into the pocket of every global warming denier pol in the govt.

 

[Mainewoodchucker]

".the fossil companies have bought a whole party and gotten them to vote them fat untouchable subsidies "

Neither "party" has clean hands . They are pretty much ALL bought . Or , like Angus King of my state , they push for renewables using state/fed money while having the investment in the very company that will receive the money .
Fed money for R&D I might not have a problem with . But incentives only help those that can afford to purchase something that most others can't , while those that can't help foot the bill .

 

[peakbagger]

".the fossil companies have bought a whole party and gotten them to vote them fat untouchable subsidies "

Neither "party" has clean hands . They are pretty much ALL bought . Or , like Angus King of my state , they push for renewables using state/fed money while having the investment in the very company that will receive the money .
Fed money for R&D I might not have a problem with . But incentives only help those that can afford to purchase something that most others can't , while those that can't help foot the bill .

Angus did it twice, first time before he was governor he pushed a statewide energy savings program using his credibility from his TV show on MPBN and then started a business to get the contract to run it (which he then sold out for big bucks), then he used his contact to put in a wind farm in Roxbury Maine despite local objections. He got stopped when he tried it again on a proposed windfarm south of the AT in the Bigelow area as it raised the ire with the Appalachian Trail Conference, national conservation groups and it didnt help that Jonathan Carter lived in the neighborhood. He also was shilling a proposal for an off peak storage rate for windfarms tied to electrically heated storage units but that didnt fly.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Boy, boys. There is an answer: REGULATION.


The EU and Chinese govts are much more generous, the programs are very expensive to both govts, and the projects have much lower average performance like capacity factor (even normalized to local resource) than US projects.
.

Import duties ,tariffs or fees would solve this, no matter how much OTHER countries subsidize their own industries it can be matched. China does it already ,but for some reason we are so hesitant to do the same. Time to take off the gloves. Any trade war that may result is a win for US and a loss for China so i dont see that going anywhere. We should be doing this irregardless of whats happening in NK.

 

[P51mustang]

Rest easy, my brothers....Since many states are simply ignoring the bought and paid for Washington politicians (from both parties) and sidestepping the feds, the clean, renewable energy revolution within America will continue forward, only slightly slower.

If you consider that California, New York, Oregon, Washington State, etc. are on their own some of the largest economies in the world, and they're investing heavily in the energy revolution, anything Washington DC and the fossil fuel lobby does is ultimately a speed bump.

Mike Pence and his Koch brother controllers are merely stalling the inevitable. The only question now is whether the United States as a whole will be a top tier leader in building the equipment to make all this happen or will it be further back in the pack in 5, 10, 20 years.

 

[woodgeek]

".the fossil companies have bought a whole party and gotten them to vote them fat untouchable subsidies "

Neither "party" has clean hands . They are pretty much ALL bought . Or , like Angus King of my state , they push for renewables using state/fed money while having the investment in the very company that will receive the money .
Fed money for R&D I might not have a problem with . But incentives only help those that can afford to purchase something that most others can't , while those that can't help foot the bill .

Not equivalent....count the number of zeros on the payoff, and count how many people are being hurt or killed by the two policies.

And AFAIK, with deficit spending the folks footing the bill haven't been born yet....Hmmm, I wonder if they would pick the wind farm or the coal plant?

 

[Mainewoodchucker]

Not equivalent....count the number of zeros on the payoff, and count how many people are being hurt or killed by the two policies.

And AFAIK, with deficit spending the folks footing the bill haven't been born yet....Hmmm, I wonder if they would pick the wind farm or the coal plant?

Ok , I'll bite . How many are killed or hurt by both policies . Actual evidence . Not theories , not conjecture ... actual PROVEN numbers .

I will throw this in the mix . If you tax a people to provide more money for something that is not efficient , and unless you HAVE money , you cannot afford , does that harm? If someone making 40k a year that cannot afford 50k in solar panels pays MORE taxes so that the guy making 500k can buy his panels with an incentive , does that not hurt the 50k guy? Does it effect his food/housing/education etc budget?

My point is , subsidies , no matter WHO gets them is not right . Forcing people to pay by threat of violence for something they wish not to be involved in or would not benefit from is not something a free people do . Gov has no right to decide winners and losers of what the people want or decide .

Btw , " Gov butter " is the only reason most renewables even venture to break even . Not including when state or fed REQUIRE you to buy renewable energy . Perhaps you should delve a little more into the actual costs to taxpayers , failures, and limitations of renewables at this time . Perfect the product , then roll it out . Until then , you use what is proven and reliable .

Honestly I wish I had the money to drop 50-70k on solar . But I do not , so instead my taxes pay for those that can . Until ANY renewable can compete without a big helping hand we will have to rely on what we know works . I will keep burning wood because THAT is cheaper and renewable . My gasifier will keep running when I need it because IT is renewable and cheaper than gas for my gennie . And guess what , I didn't need any federal dollars for either . People , not gov, will find a new and better energy source . Fed R&D money is as far as I am willing to go .

Lol , and I am betting the people not born yet will ask why we spent their money on unproven and inefficient tech , racking up losses , just so we could say we tried . And deficit spending? Like shovel ready jobs? Seriously......... use what you have , give non partisan research facilties money to find new ways to provide energy through R&D , and let PEOPLE decide what they want . Unless your anti freedom , you let individuals decide their fate .