This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
What Is The Real Price Of Obama's CO2 Plans?
Submitted by Euan Mearns via OilPrice.com,
On August 3rd President Obama made a speech* detailing his plans to decarbonize the US electrical power generation sector. While the legality of this move has been challenged in certain quarters, in this post I want to focus on the technical details and competence of the President and his advisors at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Let me begin by focusing on what the main target is:
to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030
*Note that the quotes throughout are lifted from the White House narrative to the speech rather than the speech itself.
So what does a 32% reduction in CO2 emissions mean in practical terms for US power generation and CO2 emissions? A good starting point is to look at the electricity generation mix and how it has changed since 2005 (Figure 1).

Figure 1 US electrical power generation 2005 to 2014 as published by DOE-EIA.
The key observations are as follows:
1) Electricity generation (i.e. electricity consumption) has been flat since 2005.
2) Fossil fuel based generation, coal + natural gas, has been flat to falling slowly
3) Coal fired generation has declined to be replaced by natural gas
4) Hydro and nuclear combined make up 26% and have been flat since 2005
5) Other renewables (wind, solar, biomass etc) have increased from 2 to 7% since 2005
Figures 2 and 3 show how the generation mix has evolved from 2005 to 2014:

Figure 2 Pie chart showing the percentage distribution of electricity generating sources in the USA in 2005. Data from DOE-EIA.

Figure 3 Pie chart showing the percentage distribution of electricity generating sources in the USA in 2014. Data from DOE-EIA.
Put simply, the key trend is substitution of coal by natural gas and other renewables. The CO2 intensity of coal is 2.13 pounds of CO2 per KWh and natural gas 1.21 pounds of CO2 per KWh (data from DOE-EIA). Hence the substitution of coal by natural gas reduces CO2 emissions quite significantly. DOE-EIA has already documented this achievement, which is founded on the fracking revolution and the ‘drill baby drill’ mantra (Figure 4).

Figure 4 The chart is from an EIA report titled Lower electricity-related CO2 emissions reflect lower carbon intensity and electricity use. Note that while the Y-axis has a zero on it, it is not zero scaled.
The DOE-EIA report (Figure 4) reiterates my key observations above but puts some hard numbers on them:
2005 electric power emissions = 2417 million tons (Mt)
2005-2013 lower demand = 402 Mt reduction (16.6% reduction)
2005-2013 substitution of coal with gas = 212 Mt reduction (8.8% reduction)
2005-2013 addition of low carbon sources i.e. other renewables = 150 Mt reduction (6.2% reduction)
Thus the reductions already achieved = 31.6%. Job already done?!
So what’s going on here? Have the EPA and President Obama set out to deliberately dupe the US and global populations with this deception? I don’t know, but this gaffe will come back to haunt them. Let me be charitable and assume that the savings from reduced demand growth are not included in the calculation to date. Then the CO2 reductions so far, amount to 15% over 8 years leaving 17% to be achieved over the remaining 15 year period to 2030. For one supposedly deeply concerned about the effect of CO2 on climate change this represents a totally underwhelming level of ambition.
But I’m not sure that the EPA and The President should be let off the hook so easily. The President’s plan includes future energy efficiency gains and one must surmise that past energy efficiency gains should also count. Note that nuclear power is also in the Green arsenal of what is effectively an anti-coal policy.
All low-carbon electricity generation technologies, including renewables, energy efficiency, natural gas, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, can play a role in state plans.
Impact on Total US Emissions
Figure 5 shows that in 2012, 81% of total US primary energy came from fossil fuels and that 40% of total energy was used in electric power generation. 67% of power generation is from FF (Figures 3 and 5), hence we are talking about 67% of 40% which = 27% of total US energy consumption that is targeted by this part of Obama’s energy plan.
Hence Obama wants to reduce 27% by a third (32%) and that equals an 8.6% reduction in emissions grossed up to the whole energy economy and all or half of that has already been achieved depending on how the numbers are sliced and diced. At best this plan reduces US total emissions by 4.3% by 2030, at worst by nothing at all. It’s not exactly the same as making a commitment to send a Man to the Moon, is it?

Figure 5 From the EIA Annual Energy Review (in this link click on “graph”).
Impact on US Economy and Population
From Obama’s speech*:
Due to these improvements, the Clean Power Plan will save the average American nearly $85 on their energy bill in 2030, and save consumers a total of $155 billion through 2020-2030, reducing (typo?) enough energy to power 30 million homes.
Paul Homewood recently published this chart (Figure 6) that shows the relationship between electricity prices and renewables penetration in Europe.
(Click to enlarge)
Figure 6 Chart from Paul Homewood Electricity Cost v Renewable Capacity. I have not yet had time to check the data that underlies this chart but have no reason to doubt them. It is further understood that renewables capacity excludes hydro.
[Note that the x-axis on this chart should read “Installed Renewables Capacity KW / capita” or some such and that the original version may have been produced by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT. HT Joe Public.]
It is plain to see that adding intermittent renewables to a grid increases the cost of electricity. Does the EPA not know this? In Europe this is in part down to consumer paid renewables subsidies. But it also reflects the substantial costs of maintaining grid integrity that include:
1. Maintaining, and paying for when not in use, 100% fossil fuel backup
2. Building power lines and inter-connectors everywhere
3. Expanding energy storage
4. Buying expensive balancing services from neighboring countries like Norway
Coal powered electricity is currently by far the cheapest and one of the most reliable forms of electricity generation known to Man. To suggest that replacing this with intermittent wind and solar or carbon capture generation will somehow reduce American’s electricity bills is either delusional or plain stupid. Or is the intention to deliberately deceive?
- 23354 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -



the effect of CO2 on climate change...
lol
100-200 years from now, the humans living will be laughing at my generation for being so irrationally afraid of nuclear power such that new methods of harnessing it safely were not researched.
One would think solar a slam dunk..., but not as of yet for some reason.
Of course Obama's plan is a lie. It is nothing more than an aspect of Agenda 21, getting rid of useless eaters so that the .0000001% have more to steal.
How can less useless eaters result in more to steal?
Environmentalism is a religious movement. The belief in anthropogenic global warming - now called climate change because the warming inconveniently stopped 18 years ago - is just the latest orthodoxy of the religion of environmentalism. These new EPA regulations give the force of law to this belief. Facts don't matter, and the cost doesn't matter because it is all about adhering to a religious orthodoxy.
Another way to look at this is that Obama lies about everything, and this is no different.
Forward (over the cliff)!
The time for this debate has long since passed, cold fusion and consequences bitches!
Rejected, for those who think in terms of zero sum games, fewer useless eaters means more resources for those who are not eliminated. If you think of the earth as a closed system, then getting rid of people who produce nothing and consume valuable resources is an imperative. FYI, this is not my view.
Rejected, for those who think in terms of zero sum games, fewer useless eaters means more resources for those who are not eliminated.
Hard to keep up with over-achievers like your average zh'er, but what happens in 30 years when 95% of the human population are 'useless eaters'?
As far as the article goes, these coal lobbyists need to start looking for new jobs. Coal is heading toward the exit, doesn't matter what dat eviiiiiil / marxist / kenyan / antichrist / environmentalextremist president in the US&A does, the world is abandoning coal. When a developing nation like china has moved on, you know the shit is over.
US can either keep pace with the 1st world, or backslide to india. Coal is the past, renewables are the current and future. Sorry bitchez, get new jobs.
Why do you think they are being fattened up?
Fat is very combustable.
Back to whale oil.
You don't sound like the Jimmy we used to know.
"Or is the intention to deliberately deceive?"
You mean a little like Obamacare? Surely the "Most transparent Administration in the history of mankind" (Unquote and Sic) wouldn't lie to We the People? /Sarc
" Coal is the past, ... "
I don't know whether coal is the past or not. I do know, however, that coal doesn't grow on trees. Generating electricity with coal relies heavily on mechanization/oil and on efficient logistics, to extract it, as well as transport it to power plants.
When taking everything into account, and depending on circumstances, .... generating electricity with coal may not be that cheap and reliable, after all.
To say it's religion is missing the really interesting point about it. Contemporary "climatology" is not simply a religion but a new mode of human belief, action, and spirituality that combines empiricism and religion. Maybe it needs a new name, like religience or sciligion.
The basis of religience is empirical observations and mathematical models or computer simulations rather than revealed truth (like burning bushes or stone tablets that mysteriously appear from the sky, or gold tablets buried in the ground or prophets who look like everyday egomaniacs but claim to be speaking for god). But beyond that difference, religience has all the certitude and emotional features old-time religion:
-- an "evil one" always trying to infiltrate your life, against whom you must constanty battle (carbon in the role of Satan). Probably you could take a lot of 19th-century back-country preaching, and do a global search-replace of Satan with carbon and the result would fit right in contemporary discourse.
-- inquisitorial zeal to purge and destroy heretics.
-- a well-developed eschatology.
-- a demand that people turn away from the material world and embrace the new spirituality before it's too late and they end up burning in a hot fire as punishment.
-- the constant refrain that all problems in the world are just punishment for the sinful ways of man, and probably it's too late anyway, and obvious shadenfreude about the fact that sinful man will finally get his just deserts.
One can't help but notice how zealous tone and personality of a global warming activist preacher is so much like every American protestant morality crusade that came before. And how the preachers themselves often live like princes while telling the people to live like St. Augustine. Human nature doesn't change, but the rise of empirical science has led to interesting new permutations.
The basis of religience is empirical observations and mathematical models or computer simulations rather than revealed truth
So... the difference is theory based on fact VS. made up bullshit?
And how the preachers themselves often live like princes while telling the people to live like St. Augustine. Human nature doesn't change, but the rise of empirical science has led to interesting new permutations.
Lowering carbon emissions a smidge is forcing people to live like st. augustine? Boo hiss whine moan, my car has better fuel mileage. boohoo the air outside my apartment doesn't taste like battery acid. It's a brutal world!!
Europeans in gawdawful renewable countries like germany and denmark aren't living worse than your avg 'merican based on anecdotal evidence.
You write differently now.
Have you had a stroke?
You write differently now.
More likely you are hallucinating - not uncommon among the zh commentariat - check with your nurse to ensure you are currently being subscribed the proper meds.
Speaking of meds, which ones are you on?
Wish I could help you out BOP but there is no shortcut to knowledge.
The computer model is about as accessible to the average person as the burning bush. In both cases, the average person just has to accept what the preacher says was revealed. And if you dare to light your own bush on fire or create your own model, you are a heretic.
What you consider a droll and telling comment to me seems to reinforce remarkably well what I said. Your lowering carbon emissions by a smidge will actually make only an infinitesimal difference to the climate. Just as revealed religion never can rid the world of evil and doesn't really even try, climatology can't really rid the world of carbon and doesn't really even try. Both are about binding followers to the movement more than achieving any real effect.
Danes and Germans have a lovely lifestyle, to be sure, but unsustainable, dependent on the perpetual expansion of credit among their export customers, and availability of cheap fossil fuels in their export markets (even if not their own). The monestary can sell jam to the heathen public.
The computer model is about as accessible to the average person as the burning bush. In both cases, the average person just has to accept what the preacher says was revealed. And if you dare to light your own bush on fire or create your own model, you are a heretic.
If you were really motivated you could do it, would have to get a good degree and then somehow get into a school like stanford for research but possible. But basic understanding of chemistry and physics would help, if more people understood the basics there would be less doubt about the general scientific consensus. I’ve had absurd arguments on ocean PH with other zh’ers, shit that everyone should know as a base.
Your lowering carbon emissions by a smidge will actually make only an infinitesimal difference to the climate.
A lot of people doing a smidge makes a big difference.
Danes and Germans have a lovely lifestyle, to be sure, but unsustainable, dependent on the perpetual expansion of credit among their export customers
As opposed to the american lifestyle which is totally sustainable. Funny idea for 2015 americans to lecture 2015 germans on sustainable livestyles. If germanys export markets all closed tomorrow the country would continue on fine, a little bump.
Your argument Jim, it's dead. The models are only too easily accessible, but the same accessibility does not apply to the phenomena.
Geology, for example, can see for My. In case you're curious, 1 My ~ 7352.94 times the now (apparently) fashionable 136 year statistical ensemble of anthropogenically induced "climate change". The prior graph summarizes atmospheric CO2 concentrations for over 3,676,471 (500 My) of these arbitrarily sized historic intervals. You see what's worse for this scientistic view, is that the geologic series no doubt papers over alot of high frequency, i.e. human historical time scale, but natural, excursions that would send today's climeshysters over their final edge.
In short, Shorts is correct, in terms of what genuine science is capable of, and insofar as what we are asking it to do, that is to justify altering the energy consumption of a developing global civilization. In so doing, we are using a science that is equipped with nothing more than stone knives and bearskins, and as a result with a faith no less than that of appalachian snake handlers.
Both of your links are actually quite interesting.The first paper by jackson (which i ended up reading through) is pretty well an inside baseball review of physics. However, the author gets to the heart of what seems to be your subtext toward the end:
p.39
What we do in each case is to constrain considerations to an ensemble of situations which are relevant to our interests (e.g., a homogeneous distribution of wolves and rabbits, or electrons and atoms), and then proceed to obtain equations for certain statistical properties of that ensemble (e.g., the equation
of interacting populations).
The essential point is that, not only do we not need to use microscopic information, we SHOULD NOT use this information—it actually “looses” (does not contain) the phenomenon we want to understand. The
phenomenon is not a property of any general microscopically-described situation—it is a property that is only captured in a suitable average characterization of a (very) select ensemble of these microscopic situations (e.g., an ensemble defined by constraints on initial conditions, environments, etc.—we do not get a solid from a collections of atoms until we constrain the energy, volume, and spatial distribution of the atoms within all members of the ensemble). The selection of the ensemble bypasses the impossible task of describing how the system (e.g., the solid) arrived at that state through some dynamic process involving other particles, radiation, etc., all hopelessly impossible, but happily also totally irrelevant.
i.e. partial differential equations.
In other words you don't need quantum mechanics to design a efficient car, and neither do you need a theory of everything (something he goes to pains to point out is a philosophical absurdity only available on faith) to predict climate.
i.e. human historical time scale, but natural, excursions that would send today's climeshysters over their final edge.
Yes, for most of that chart humans did not exist. There are lots of unknowns about the climate record (as demonstrated by that study - both interesting and inconclusive) but there are also things which are known (shorter time schedule):
http://web.mit.edu/lorenzcenter/images/plot.jpg
If you need to design any car, you do still need something. That's the point, that the math required here can never be made impartial, that it inevitably falls to human choice to decide what, constraint, ensemble, whatever, is "relevant" in this context. What constrains these choices here is key, because they will unavoidably involve politics, and not pure science. I'm glad you brought up quantum mechanics, because in a similar way that atoms are disturbed by observation so too to model the climate will be to change it from what we observe. In other words, the model will always deviate from the observation, and in ways that are "relevant". The mathematical complexity involved here and the weight of the consequences for error simply does not warrant the confidence of "settled" science.
Thank you for the graph, because it demonstrates my point about the geologic data: isotope analysis reveals that concentrations were once orders of magnitude higher in the presence of both cooler and warmer temperatures. All the while this variable was perhaps oscillating with both (according to your link) higher frequencies and amplitudes to deposit the mean isotope residuals present in my graph. You're right, there's too much unknown both in terms of the actual global climate record, and the numerically unstable and chaotic math to be going off fully cocked and legislating command and control energy consumption rules. That is, as Shorts indicated, religion, not science.
If you need to design any car, you do still need something. That's the point, that the math required here can never be made impartial, that it inevitably falls to human choice to decide what, constraint, ensemble, whatever, is "relevant" in this context.
Up until recently classical mechanics could be used to engineer any vehicle, the fact that it breaks down at different scales is irrelevant. i.e. the point of the quote I highlighted.
Mathematical logic itself fails completely as we understand it, yet again still works for observable physical phenomenon pretty well.
In other words, the model will always deviate from the observation, and in ways that are "relevant".
Not really, if you throw a baseball pretty easy to predict with high accuracy its trajectory based on a few simple knowns and only basic physics / calculus.
The mathematical complexity involved here and the weight of the consequences for error simply does not warrant the confidence of "settled" science.
Sure it's complex, but the underlying physical pinnings are understood, predictable and observable. The complexity of the system makes accurate prediction extremely difficult, but the general theory remains sound.
As far as error, that's a double edged sword.
Thank you for the graph, because it demonstrates my point about the geologic data: isotope analysis reveals that concentrations were once orders of magnitude higher in the presence of both cooler and warmer temperatures.
The question is: why? There could be many possible explanations, volcanic activity being the most obvious. The authors actually did another study looking at that specifically vs. other possibilities. The study you linked is actually investigating ways to get a more complete / accurate picture of climate from geological record.
Again, interesting stuff, but it's not suggesting what you seem to think it is suggesting.
That is, as Shorts indicated, religion, not science.
No, it's not. If your doctor explained that your blood pressure indicated necessary life changes or risk of early death would you call them a religious fanatic? Your doctor can't know for certain the outcome, so I guess medical science is all a bunch of bullshit and any insights from their profession is equivalent of burning bush. Drs. have been wrong before you know!
Up until recently classical mechanics could be used to engineer any vehicle, the fact that it breaks down at different scales is irrelevant. i.e. the point of the quote I highlighted.
Mathematical logic itself fails completely as we understand it, yet again still works for observable physical phenomenon pretty well.
So what? The point is about numerical chaos and the simplifying steps required to stabilize it. The science to master this is insufficient for legislation. To wit:
Not really, if you throw a baseball pretty easy to predict with high accuracy its trajectory based on a few simple knowns and only basic physics / calculus.
This is just the sort of analogy that Jackson alluded to that inspires overconfidence. The path of a baseball is barely a 3 x 3 system (the pitcher keeps his foot fixed) of linear, ordinary differential equations that contains time-invariant parameters to boot. Moreover, we'll find it hard to disagree about what the values of those parameters (mass of the ball, gravtitational field strength) should be.
This is not so for climate models, even when the goals are modest for example, to establish population means and variances for say, CO2 concentration. They consist of non-linear partial differential equations, time varying parameters, and interactions and feedback loops that are not well understood. Plus size does matter as the models necessarily contain large point sets in space, and represent large spans in time. Not baseball. They will inevitably involve chaos and arbitrary choices to stabilize it. Who watches the choosers Mikey Mann? Again, insufficient science/math does not warrant command and control legislation.
Sure it's complex, but the underlying physical pinnings are understood, predictable and observable. The complexity of the system makes accurate prediction extremely difficult, but the general theory remains sound.
This is a classical problem, so yes the underlying principles are understood in terms of closed, controlled experimental systems. The atmopshere isn't any of those. It's faith to think that it is.
As far as error, that's a double edged sword.
The question is: why? There could be many possible explanations, volcanic activity being the most obvious. The authors actually did another study looking at that specifically vs. other possibilities. The study you linked is actually investigating ways to get a more complete / accurate picture of climate from geological record.
Again, interesting stuff, but it's not suggesting what you seem to think it is suggesting.
The question isn't why, I couldn't care less, and that's not the reason it was presented. It was presented to demonstrate how obviously little we know. The geologic record provides a sort of middle bound to concentration, to provide some reference point for where we are now. Climate agitators are pushing for legislation. Based on the right hand side of the graph, their agitation is based on nothing more than faith.
No, it's not. If your doctor explained that your blood pressure indicated necessary life changes or risk of early death would you call them a religious fanatic? Your doctor can't know for certain the outcome, so I guess medical science is all a bunch of bullshit and any insights from their profession is equivalent of burning bush. Drs. have been wrong before you know!
You can be damn sure I wouldn't take his advice if he were measuring my pressure using stone knives and bearskins. To heed his advice would be religious. Besides, from the graph that science itself provided, the patient doesn't have a blood pressure problem.
What a stupid, short-sighted, tunnel-vision assumption that a "green" energy policy in the Western countries reduces CO2 and pollution in the world! Where do these idiots think that windmills and solar panels come from? They don't grow on trees! The raw materials have to be mined and the products manufactured. And it requires a hell of a lot of "fossil fuel" to do so! Everytime the U.S. or Europe shuts down a coal mining operation the cost of energy goes up so more of that mining and manufacturing moves to China and other 3rd world countries with significantly lower ennvironmental standards where it is cheaper to produce. And China and other 3Rd world countries are consequently increasing coal mining at a much faster pace than we can shut it down. So those same materials formerly mined and manufactured in the U.S. now generate even more pollution than when they were mined/made here. So this "green" policy is effectively increasing worldwide pollution, not reducing it. The Administration is exporting and multiplying our former pollution by leaps and bounds, not reducing pollution. In addition, as a bigger and bigger proportion of income goes to pay for this, it leaves less and less for consumers to spend on discretionary items and cripples small businesses. My cousins in Germany have repeatedly complained about the damage the doubling and tripling of electrical power prices has done to their manufacturing businesses since Merkel shut down the nuclear power, not to mention the cost of heating their homes during the winter.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2011.10.04/CoalProductionNations...
You are posting ignorant talking points, get straight:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more...
http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/per_capita_emissions.png
http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/images/figure_5-...
Nirvana will be everybody freezing in the dark while starving to death and the "special people" will discover that they are vunerable too. the great unwashed masses will take the easiest path and return to the philosophy of rape, pillage and burn with nobody left to stop them.....
Actally "useless eater voters" are the desired outcome, they'll vote to strip mine all their neighbors, a friend in need is a voter indeed!
I never figure that out about Agenda 21: How does the recommending that communities reduce the number of required parking spots in front of buildings and put in bus stops translate into some sort of UN takeover?
Clouds.
From "scientists" hacked emails, Nov. 2009, Climategate:
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
That dog is hunting in doggie-heaven now...
Only morons at WTFUWT swallow that nonsense now...
For the record:
Yay! /s. The flakmeister returns so I can tear him from limb to limb. Ready to rumble?
Don't make me laugh...
I didn't down vote you did I? Game on.
I see someone else did so I will give you a courtesy upvote...
http://dailybail.com/home/links-chinas-wanxiang-wins-us-taxpayer-funded-...
Just in...
Buffett's Berkshire nears deal for Precision Castparts: WSJ
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QD0LD20150808?irpc=932
More here:
http://dailybail.com/home/why-wind-power-wont-work.html?currentPage=3
http://dailybail.com/home/warren-buffetts-600-million-interest-free-taxp...
A good link that talks about the amount of CO2 that is released just from the construction of the base of a windmill.
Link
For most installations, building, installing, and operating solar power uses more energy than it can ever save throughout its entire lifetime of operation, when you consider the cost of the raw materials, fabrication of the equipment, transport of the equipment, etc.
Solar power is useful for remote installations where electric service is not available or too expensive, or other special-purpose applications, but not as a substitute for conventional power generation.
You don't live in Southern California where electricity is $0.40/KWH.
I'm looking forward to my electric bill going up 300% so I can breath clean air 80 years from now ....
... wait a sec ....
How much of this electricity cost is taxes? What would be the cost trade-off if electricity rates and solar energy were taxed equally?
Solar is only economical based on government rebates, subsidies, and tax adjustments. Take away the subsidies and a different picture results.
Roof-top solar is the Obamaphone for middle-class homeowners. "There are no conservatives when the government subsidies are being handed out."
Caluculating costs is very difficult when the government has subsidies and limitations, business regulations favoring certain industries or individual companies, and special tax rules, in every market.
There are no real people in Southern California. They are all plastic animatronics.
I see solar as a "battery for coal" , because it is.
A very expensive inefficient imported CO2 battery.
Actually somebody did do the math, solar energy creates more carbon pollution than coal in addition to other negative environmental consequences.
One would think solar a slam dunk..., but not as of yet for some reason.
I guess you've never spent 2 minutes googling a photovoltaic solar potential map of the USSA.
If you had, you'd realize the majority of folks dont get enough kWh/m^2/day to allow for a ROI before the panels need to be replaced.
Fuckin' kids and their pie in the shy ideals.
Now get off the internet. You're wasting electricity.
I would like to think as myself as a common sense kinda person and actually don't subscribe to the Global Warming hoax, (do climates cycle? of course they do and actually a better case can be made that we are in a coooling phase) but Solar could be a slam dunk if so many Power Company lobbyist had not thrown up road blocks to protect their monopoly on providing energy to the consumer and the fucking government would stop subsidizing top donor phantom companies that take the government gravy and haul ass.
I plan on installing a passive solar electrical system on the home I am currently permitting but it is expensive and does not need to be. If the government was sincere they would encourage it and the best way to do this is by getting out of the fucking way.
I guess if one had to see the good in this it would be that the very people (20 to 30 year olds) who overwhelmingly voted for Dear Leader Obama will have hard lives in the near future because of Obama. They will get what they voted for. Self-hatred much? Punishing yourselves with your votes.
Gosh , much like the melting pot of the self hating sons of Abraham, (Including Mohammedans).
They will be better having walked through the fire.
(snikker)
Serial DV not me.
Actually in 10,000 years IF humans are still around and make it thru the current 6th Mass Extinction they caused humans will probably say What a Bunch of JERKOFFS to make us take care of the used fuel cores for 100,000 years so they could watch Internet Porn.
And Fukushima will probably spike cancer rates and kill. A large part of the Pacific Ocean - and that's just ONE Nuclear Plant. Which they will NEVER be able to recapture the fuel that is now in a China Syndrome.
Nuke power is cheap ONLY when you don't count taking care of the used fuel for the next 100,000 years..... Add that Ongoing cost in on the cost of nuke power and it's By FAR the most expensive and dangerous energy ever.
Fukushima isn't a huge accident, there is widespread radiation, but it's very low level. And there CERAINLY isn't much radiation in the Pacific from it. Most of the radiation from Fukushima has a short half life under 4 years.
Thank you for your comment, Anopheles. I get tired of reading the comments from the know-nothings about Fukushima. I like ZH but they have perpetuated the myths about Fukushima to no end.
that si ABSOLUTE BS - p-239 has a half life of 26,000 years.....strontium 90 has a 28 year half life-
ther are over 100 different radioactive isoltopes flowing out of fukushima.. the ground has subsided by more than 2 1/2 feet and the buildings are beginning to list -
the building is too fucking radioactive for even a specially designed robot to enter it and the robot couldn't even make it 40 feet...
animal pops in fuku dying off, sealife near fuku dying off...thyroid cancer rates shooting up
I stand by it in 10,000 years when we ARE STILL taking care of the used fuel rods the people will be saying what a bunch of jerkoffs to dump this shit on us....
but hey when youre a nuclear shill FACTS DON'T MATTER
and of course nuke shills NEVER count the cost of caring for the used fuel rods for the next 10,000 years in their energy cost calculations.....
besides if the FREE MARFKET decided on nuke power it would have never happened as no plant would be built without guv guarantees to limitliability....
You're just another nuclear FUD spreader. You have no idea what you're talking about. Fukushima only happened because the methods of nuclear generation that came out of the manhattan project stopped at pressurized water reactors, which is just about the most absurd method ever and it was only picked because the fuel used to run such a reactor was a fuel we were already familiar with when making nuclear bombs.
In short, the reactors that the world uses were picked by bombmakers, not engineers looking for a good source of electricity.
You're a fool.
when a sizeable chunk of the population cannot afford electricity (except on an intermittent basis), the nation will have made considerable progress in meeting the objectives that have been set
That's what's beginning to happen in Germany right now. Their electcity prices on the order of 35 to 40 cents per kWh. More than double the highest/peak cost of conventional power in the US and about 3 to 5 times the average cost.
We pay that in California, under a regime of progressive pricing based on fuzzy Marxist feelings and utopian do gooderism.
No technically speaking, wood is the cheapest form of heat energy for the average man.
Now, you would not want to live in a croweded city where everyone burns wood for heat.
London, 1820
Peiping, 2015
Rahm Emmanuel used to cream his shorts over Bill Clinton's power vua executive order--
" stroke of the pen, law of the land" was his his observation
with the 'Bamster it's become a magical wand waving contest to reorder the entire natural laws of physics and the universe with a synaptic fart
In short, he hasn't a fucking clue how his whims will impact. But some of his bullshit sounds good enough to get votes.
I think that he does. Just like they knew the pain that Obamacare would inflict. Obama et al want more people poorer and dependent on them. They want more voters and more power.
With the ears, are you thinkin' LBJ incarnate?
Somewhat. Same plan with flooding the country with uneducated illegal aliens. They will be democrat voters (illegally voting or not - motor voter laws) for life.
" stroke of the pen, law of the land" was his his observation"
Paul Bagalia said that not Rahm...
Okay, I had to Google Paul Begalia. Got Begala. What a slug. I ditched my TV in '66 and never looked back - so am somewhat ignorant (intentionally) on who's who at this level.
and then this: Begala was a consultant in the service of mortgage lender Freddie Mac, an arrangement that ended in September 2008.
"Insert George Carlin quote here"
Unless gigglesworth is converting all the coal-using plants to natural gas (at MASSIVE EXPENSE TO ENERGY CONSUMERS, ie us), this is another pure fertilzer plan of rainbow farting unicorns.
"Or is the intention to deliberately deceive?"
"Son, you got a panty on your head." -- Raising Arizona
Dammit! Your post was much better than what I came up with for this statement!
Say, that reminds me. You hear about the person of Polish persuasion? He walks into a bar with this big pile of shit in his hand and says ''Look what l almost stepped in!'' [/Glen, Raising Arizona]
I remember how they sold nuclear power to the public way back when. "electricity generated by nuclear power would become too cheap to even meter". How's that one working out for you.
There's always work for the carnival barkers.
And it funny that a well run nuclear plant is REALLY cheap compared to renewables.
Unfortunately, taxes are not too cheap to Meter.
FORWARD SOVIET!
In the future there will be no more grid. Just autonomous home nodes of power production from solar, etc.
Let us know how well your windmills run your AC in the meantime.
It's more like fossil derived AC is needed to run the windmills. I'm sure that doesn't sound right to these tambourine shakers, but it is.
Geeze, cost of manufacture, installation and deferred maintenance is never mentioned.
Must be the the 100% subsidies.
How's the wind blowing for ya? Only when the sun shines?
(solyndra)
AC is air conditioning.
A/C is a method of power delivery.
Theres been some sort of strange powdery shit falling from the sky every night this Summer here in West Michigan straight on for several months now...its nothing I've ever seen before in all my 56 yrs as an observer on this Planet, its not from the soon to be closed coal plant or anything like that either...its some sort of gummy powder, not sap or anything normal, ...I dont know what it is...and I am not a tin hatty, but I have noticed...
Manna from heaven
If I remember correctly, I think your supposed to scoop it up and bake bread with it.
Geo-engineering
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/
Fire ash from the left coast or you've got some light weight Central Valley Cali invading you.
Well to be honest Obama's plan may be a bit of sand in your eyes making his statement sound bigger than what it really is but let's not forget this is a global game and if the US does not show commitment you won't get China to do anything either when they meet later this year in Paris to the all important climate summit. It will be hard as it is with China's economic troubles to get them to commit to anything.
As for the price you also have to aknowledge that the US is much better suited for renewables than northern Europe. Look how well solar power panels work in Denmark where the climate is similar to the Uk and compare that to Arizona or New Mexico. Denmark is king with levies and that country will use any pretext to tax their citizens a little more even if it isn't really needed. The US should rather use the experiences these countries made and learn from their mistakes so that costs won't rise as much...
I sure hope they discuss killing to harvest body parts with China.
FORWARD SOVIET!
A monumental example of their deception by omission:
http://showrealhist.com/yTRIAL.html
Or is the intention to deliberately deceive?
Nah I agree with the tinfoil hatters on this one, the point is to destroy what's left of a functioning free market, or that component currently operating that has the greatest degree of freedom from direct government control.
There is no question that solar, wind and thermal dynamics are more than ready to replace old dirty energy. This has been proven not with rigged charts and "modeling" (Alan Greenspan anyone) but on the ground reality.
This has been proven time and again to the point of embarrassment if you only had a clue. If you don't know this its because you don't want to know.
Those who don't want more advanced energy sources are not interested in saving the planet or even the economy (solar and wind are much, much more efficient). These are interested in the archaic infrastructures and businesses they are invested in and married to.
And if you are libertarian: solar and wind liberates you from dependence on centralized energy providers and the big businesses that control them. If you reject this, then you are not for real.
Pretty simple.
Can we see some facts since there is "no question" ?
Affordable (~$0.03/kW-h power production price), renewable utility plant system, capable of 100% continuous capacity output; includes back-up; 9-12-month build time, depending on size.
Third party-tested (German TUV), patented (PCT), 100% guaranteed.
Entertaining regional licenses; selling plants from 5 MW up.
Source:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/store/Rosch/KPP/
Affordable (~$0.03/kW-h power production price), renewable utility plant system, capable of 100% continuous capacity output; includes back-up; 9-12-month build time, depending on size.
Third party-tested (German TUV), patented (PCT), 100% guaranteed.
Entertaining regional licenses; selling plants from 5 MW up.
Source:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/store/Rosch/KPP/
I have a $1,200 solar system that works pretty well at charging my cell phone.
You have to wonder why they call solar 'renewable'. Does that mean you get to renew them and their associated equipment every 10-20 years.
And nuclear energy is soooo clean and wonderful,,,, tell that to the Japanese and the creatures in the Pacific ocean.
It appears that if it doesn't have a smokestack then its clean.
We deserve this for letting the PhD's (pathetic human dumbshits) dictate to us whether it be energy, finance, or government.
I hear thorium reactors don't leave all that nuke waste, but then there's nothing left over for the production of nukes over at the DOD.
What do I do at night or when the wind doesn't blow?
Listen to the cicadas, without that damned windmill noise and collect the birds from below it.
Go rogue by making a four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie, when it is really a Golden Eagle.
Thermal dynamics? You working for Gore? Ive worked in the renewable industry for almost two decades and call you out. If you have lots of money as did my clients, and wanted a large off grid wilderness hideaway, I was your man and included expensive maint after the fact and large fossil fuel generators as primary. I did telecom sites and took a ski resort off grid.
The O plan will not work and cause more problems than it feebly attempts to solve, the only benefit are to his cronies who have recieved billions in stimulus. Ask Larry Summers or David Shaw.
UPC Executive's eco-mansion
An ‘eco-industrialist’ banker shows off his Victorian house in London full of environment-friendly gadgetry
Visitors to Frederik W. Mowinckel’s Victorian house in the London neighbourhood of Chelsea are treated to an exotic winter sight: a 15ft-high banana plant flourishing on an outdoor terrace. And perhaps more exotic than the plant itself is the coating on the wall behind it: a white paint that has been created to mimic perfectly the self-cleaning surface layer of the lotus leaf, and to reflect maximum daylight. The banana plant isn’t the only beneficiary, says Mowinckel. The paint never loses shine, reflecting light back into the house and cutting down on the need for artificial lighting.
Although the building dates from 1850, Norwegian-born Mowinckel has redesigned it as a model of how to eco-proof a traditional family home in the middle of a major city. And yet inside, except for a touch-screen panel on a front wall, the building bears no obvious traces of its conversion.
“My wife Louise didn’t want something that looked like an eco-house – she wanted a beautiful house,” says Mowinckel, director of Turquoise International, a specialist merchant bank that supports clean energy companies in the early stages of their development. He ushers me into a series of elegant interiors where off-white walls provide backdrops for 19th-century Norwegian paintings and objects made by local designers on the nearby King’s Road. “Louise did the aesthetics,” he says. “I did the technical bits, behind the walls.”
More on Fredrik Mowinckl
http://dailybail.com/home/the-mafia-is-moving-into-green-energy.html
The 5 Circles of Carbon Tax Hell
http://dailybail.com/home/green-corruption-the-five-circles-of-carbon-ta...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/nyregion/billionaires-sprawling-com...
Btw, another multi millionaire (former CEO of two verly well known companies) contacted me out of the blue two days ago to come fix his remote hideaway's renewable system... I declined.
Hey didn't Larry Summers make $100MM from the repeal of Glass Steagal? That was a good investment for a few people ... like Robert Rubin and Sandy Weill.
Yes, alternatives are "ready" to replace conventional power.
The real question, is are YOU ready to PAY 5 to 10 TIMES as much for electricity?
And double to triple the cost of ALL your goods and services? Remember that EVERYTHING you buy, do, and eat has a SUBSTANTIAL energy content. That means the price of EVERYTHING will increase.
Guess who pays?
See my post about Germany. They are at 25% renewable energy and their already pay 35 to 40 cents per kWh. They are building a $1.4 TRILLION dollar energy corridor to bring wind power down from the North Sea, and that doesn't include the cost of thousands of offshore wind turbines. Then that's done, they will be around 40% renewable energy. The population of Germany is 80 million and they are geographically a small country compared to the US.
What do you think the cost would be in the US?
Zion has China and as Netendafuckinyahoo said "America can turn to dust and blow away once we finish with it".
Relax and have some Schmuckers jelly on a bagel.
What is the real cost?
Our Destruction both economically and Freedoms. He told US he was going to "Fundamentally Change America". The only reason you change something is because you hate what it is. Obama Hates Free and Prosperous people. That means he needs to enslave US and turn US into a 3rd world hell hole and he's well on the way to accomplishing that goal.
Energy costs will necessarily skyrocket. quoteth some genius
Not a genius but a buffoon.
Funny how a guy who has done so little in his life seems to know everything about everything
How much energy does the US Military use?
They'd use less coal .... if we let them use nukes !
Just another facet of Cloward-Piven that either ends with mass genocide of the 99% or public executions of the 1%.
I don't think you understand the concept of genocide.
What a joke. China has smogged it's people to death (just raise the danger thresholds) with coal. Germany wants to shutdown its nucs and natural gas (too expensive) in favor of coal. Poland hosted the world environmental conference last year and demanded a waiver in order to burn the dirty coal from it's mines (which are uneconomical).
Hey POTUS. Crush America while the world screw up the environment.
Coal is cleaner than Tofu ! Take that and go shit in your rice paddy !
I am waiting for them to start dismantling coal power generation plants on a stupid scale. It would take forever to rebuild that infrastructure and by the time anyone realized that we needed them again we would be screwed. Would be nice if the general population would take a look at "clean" fracked NG decline rates and put two and two together but you know that isn't going to happen.
This scam is going to be epic both in the profits made and the damage it will do to the average American's pocket book.
And you'd have to do it with millennial helpers.
This generator uses no carbon based fuel:
Rosch's KPP free energy technology:
http://pesn.com/2015/06/20/9602633_Why-Im-100-percent-sure_Roschs-KPP-Free-Energy-Technology_Works/
Hahahahahhahaha HAHAHAHHAHAHA hahahhahahaha
Currently shipping, Rosch carbon free fuel-less generators for sale:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/store/Rosch/KPP/
Tell us, how many 5MW plants have they sold? That's their MINIMUM size.
Hide and watch. Also keep an eye on the AuroraTek generator.
Many others will be comming.
Open Source Free Energy QEGs are being built in parallel in 27 countries:
Countries building QEGs:Australia
Bangladesh Belize Brazil Canada China England France Greece Guadeloupe Hungary Iceland India Italy Japan Mexico Morocco Poland Slovenia South Africa Spain Sweden Taiwan Uganda Ukraine United States UruguayI'll file that one with the "generator" that runs on a trickle of water. Yep, they are actually selling that one.
There are gullible people in every country of the world. I've been watching these types of scams for decades. They are hilarious. Lots of hype, but never a truly working product.
You missed big time. No trickle of water involved.
https://hopegirl2012.wordpress.com/2015/06/06/new-free-qeg-build-manual-3rd-edition-includes-tuning-instructions/
There has NEVER been an "over unity" generator that's worked. They are ALL frauds.
But, feel free to invest your live savings into it. I'm sure the promoters will thank you. (and come up with excuses that it doesn't work becasue you did something wrong.)
I agree the term "over unity" is a poor description of how these generators work.
The universe is full of energy. It is in motion.
Ask yourself, what powers this:
http://tinyurl.com/USAF-ARV
Learn more about the Disclosure Project.
Rosch has licensed Gaia to produce home size 4kw systems.
https://www.facebook.com/aukwgaiarosch
http://pesn.com/2015/04/22/9602609_Gaia-Energy_demonstrating_5-kW-home-power_Rosch-KPP-prototype_Germany,_taking-orders/
Buried in this story is another emereging fuel-less energy techlology you may want to keep an eye on. The USG certainly is:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/08/10/disclosure-why-sabotaging-the-iran-agreement-takes-down-america/
You should learn more about the Disclosure Project:
The power source for these ET Vehicles do not use fossil fuels and they are very real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03SIe2qUDDs
Perpetual motion machine.
What's the real cost? Ask Germany.
They are about 25% renewable energy right now. Their use of coal has INCREASED the past 5 years from 43% to 48% of electrictiy generated. They are building NEW coal fired generating plants. They committed to shutting down nuclear, but have only closed 8 of their 17 reactors.
The cost of electricty in Germany? About 35 to 40 cents per kWh !!!
Industy was moving out becasue of the high cost of power. So, industry electricty rates are being subsidized. How? the subsidies are added to CONSUMER power bills.
They are building a new transmission corridor to bring wind energy from the North Sea to the rest of Germany. The cost of that corridor? $1.4 TRILLION dollars, and that doesn't include the cost of the thousands of offshore wind turbines. Do you think they can add that cost to the cost of their exported products? And still be competitive worldwide? Who do you think will PAY that trillion dollars in the end?
Yep, Germans better learn to bend over and take it without lube.
Your forgetting about the profits generated by a newfound seagull puree' industry.
"Seagulls...It's better than Spam".
Fortunately, cheaper energy solutions are now available, and even cheaper solutions are on the way.
Affordable (~$0.03/kW-h power production price), renewable utility plant system, capable
of 100% continuous capacity output; includes back-up; 9-12-month build time, depending on size.
Third party-tested (German TUV), patented (PCT), 100% guaranteed.
Entertaining regional licenses; selling plants from 5 MW up.
Source:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/store/Rosch/KPP/
http://pesn.com/2015/07/21/9602638_GAIA-plans-continuous-delivery_of_5-kW-power-plants/
You're right.
MOAR OBAMA.
And what about coal ash? A very toxic substance. It has already polluted hundreds of square miles marking them as inhabitable. And then there is acid rain. Silly article COAL IS BAD NEWS. The faster it is removed as a power source the better. The long term gain to PEOPLE is tremendous.
What you say is true, 20 years ago. NOT TODAY.
Coal plants all have filters and/or scrubbers. The newest coal plants are very clean.
You are just a few decades out of date. Tell us, how long does your tube TV take to warm up?
Even modern coal plants are extremely harmful environmentally, and economically, compared to new alternatives which do not burn carbon based fuels.
Affordable (~$0.03/kW-h power production price), renewable utility plant system, capable
of 100% continuous capacity output; includes back-up; 9-12-month build time, depending on size.
Third party-tested (German TUV), patented (PCT), 100% guaranteed.
Entertaining regional licenses; selling plants from 5 MW up.
Source:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/store/Rosch/KPP/
http://pesn.com/2015/07/21/9602638_GAIA-plans-continuous-delivery_of_5-kW-power-plants/
Also,
http://intalek.com/AuroraTekInfo/PUP3000UC_SpecSheet.pdf
Tell me John,
What are these toxins in coal ash and how do the generators escape EPA mandates for disposal of toxic substances?
I guess you've never heard of a TCLP or RCRA.
Rosch carbon free fuel-less generators for sale:
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/store/Rosch/KPP/
* Maxwell's Demon not included
I'm sure Americans would love to walk around in masks like the Chinese.
Didn't live in Pittsburgh in th e 40's, 50's or 60's did ja?
If you like your electricity, you can keep your electricity.
Of course it is to deceive. The British Crown created Green Fascism. It's been their scam since the beginning. They are the ones sullying everything. It's been their plan to dumb everyone down so they wish to destroy themselves. The British Crown pushed the switch from arithmetic to MATHEMATICS.
Within mathematics you have all the bullshit that we use to deceive ourselves with probability, confidence, and a whole slew of other faulty 'math'.
They use their propaganda arms with the WWF and others which lie through their teeth and guilt others into submission... and they get YOU to fund it!
They put their 'math' into colleges and fund them for the purpose of utilizing their math and spreading it. Finding avenues to deceive, like on Wall Street... what a surprise. Screwing everyone over with faulty guesses that the 'math' says are secure and safe. Whoops.
But since the British Empire created Wall Street, and it is their ideological son, they try to put it all together to scam the people into wanting their own oblivion, and Wall Street and other rigged markets like it, will be their mechanism.
They've been manipulating the markets to kill people using the 'markets' for a long time, and the next fuckjob is cap and trade, a complete and utter scheme.
Those that own the credits, and are in charge of it's market, will profit off of it and it's transactions, but everyone else is screwed.
They want people to beg for their own throat to be slit, and they have succeeded in turning a bunch of otherwise smart people into complete fools, useful idiots. These idiots try to shame others into believing their witchcraft, they think altering their data is not a crime.
They are so caught up in the propaganda, they can't even look around and figure out what is right in front of them. The CURE is WORSE then the DISEASE.
These scientists, who actually AREN'T scientists, but pseudoscientists, don't realize that the trend has been sea level rise for thousands of years and HUNDREDS of feet. They don't realize or even care to look at the Sun, or galactic processes at work warming and cooling planets. Their report uses faulty computer models and it's conclusion is based in and on....CONFIDENCE. These scientists think they prove something by saying 99.999999% confidence of something....our 'math' tells us that. Whoops. Except of course they haven't reach any 99.99999%, and even if they did, it's 0 or 1, and 99.999999% can easily be a ZERO. Just compare Wall Street's many confidence and probability errors regarding 2008.
They want to implement schemes that will through the markets, and then the strife THE MARKETS FORCE onto countries the inevitable civil wars and interstate conflicts, the deaths of 6 billion humans.
After all, that is the progenitors and their torch carriers stated goal, on record. That the human race must be reduced to 500 million or 1 billion. Queen Elizabeth II and her Nazi consort Prince Phillip are on record, multiple times, that this is their plan. This is just ONE of the avenues they seek to achieve it. They have others as well, but this, is the most promising one since many morons have bought into it.
Of course the terrorism they created with Al-Qeada/ISIS, or the wars they pushed on us like Iraq/Afghan, the QE to save their bankrupt Wall Street and global entities, their mother's milk of clandestine dark arts activities are continuing to fuck us anyways.
They even have the Pope convinced of their bullshit. The Pope has now put the 'Earth' over God's children, and he is actively contributing to the plans that are attempting to kill 6 billion humans. Whoops.
Obama gets told from his British masters what to do. Tony Blair runs over and whispers in Obama's ear, and Obama leaps into action.
If you look around, the ideology and desires of the British Empire, have their fingers into everything fucking over the world today. End the British Empire, before it ends YOU.
The British Crown and the Bank of England are definitely hugely involved in all of this. It would be nice to know who these dangerous and malignant people really are. You have the Sax-Coberg and Gotha story but being that they have a history of changing their name to suit their political agenda there could easily be more to it than that.
It's disappointing how the US fought that evil empire off just to end up their clone. As luck would have it they couldn't beat us so they just infected us instead and it worked beautifully.
Recapitalization of DNC and others stealing establishment thieves from the Social Security trust fund which becomes insolvent in 2016.
Go back to when Al Gore was running for US President. He stated that the key would remain in the lock box. Pure bullshit.
Yes, yes, the charts are wonderful I'm sure, but we know already.
Obama's scientific illiteracy is about the only thing greater than his economic illiteracy.
We could probably build out a solar/wind infrastructure, with huge batteries, that would supply all needed electricity at maybe five times current rates, .... 97% of the time. But what about that other 3%? How about food stamp recipients on pedal-powered generators? No? Well then, we're going to need a few carbon-burning plants to bridge the gap. Or nukes. Do we hear anything about more nukes in this initiative, no? Do we hear that we want everyone's electric bill to go up 5x? Oh, btw, chasing huge industries offshore?
Obama's proposal is just a political dumb show, it has virtually no effect before Obama's term runs out, it has no force of law at all - it violates so many laws it would take a week just to list them all.
We're just going to get more of this crap from Obama until he leaves office, he's been waiting for now and he's going to let it all out.
I know of several paper plants and automobile manufacturing facilities in Ohio (thousands of good paying jobs) which have shut down in the past 5 years because it was cheaper to offshore the work then to retrofit their coal fired boiler houses to meet MACT standards.
Oh bullshit. Jobs leave because labor is cheaper overseas and taxes can be easily avoided. 50,000 manufacturing facilities have closed in this country, and very, very few of them burned coal.
Coal-burning automobile plant, say what?