Obama's Energy Plan [Archive] - SpursTalk.com Forums

Mr. Peabody

08-04-2008, 08:08 PM

Obama rolled out his energy plan today in Michigan. Basically, he is calling for us to transform our economy in order to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It may be a tough plan to put into practice, but I can't imagine that any plan that's attempting to effect real change will be easy.

* Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per each year while protecting the financial future of domestic automakers....

* Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015: As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in advanced vehicles, including combined plug‐in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas... [more details below]

* Partner with Domestic Automakers: Obama will also provide $4 billion retooling tax credits and
loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that the new fuel‐efficient
cars can be built in the U.S. by American workers rather than overseas.

* Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles

* Develop the Next Generation of Sustainable Biofuels and Infrastructure

* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: ... The standard requires fuels suppliers in 2010 to begin to reduce the carbon of their fuel by 5 percent within 5 years and 10 percent within 10 years.

* Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source--Energy Efficiency: Barack Obama will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal--to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from DOE's projected levels by 2020. Implementing this program will save consumers a total of $130 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 billion tons through 2030, and create jobs. A portion of this goal would be met by setting annual demand reduction targets that utilities would need to meet.

* Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.

* Overhaul Federal Efficiency Standards: The current Department of Energy has missed 34 deadlines for setting updated appliance efficiency standards....

* Reduce Federal Energy Consumption: ... He will make the federal government a leader in the green building market, achieving a 40 percent increase in efficiency in all new federal buildings within five years and ensuring that all new federal buildings are zero‐emissions by 2025. He will invest in cost‐effective retrofits to achieve a 25 percent increase in efficiency of existing federal buildings within 5 years.

* Invest in a Smart Grid: ... Obama will pursue a major investment in our national utility grid using smart metering, distributed storage and other advanced technologies to accommodate 21st century energy requirements: greatly improved electric grid reliability and security, a tremendous increase in renewable generation and greater customer choice and energy affordability.

* Weatherize One Million Homes Annually....

* Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities....

* Flip Incentives to Energy Utilities: An Obama administration will "flip" incentives to utility companies by: requiring states to conduct proceedings to implement incentive changes; and offering them targeted technical assistance. These measures will benefit utilities for improving energy efficiency, rather than just from supporting higher energy consumption. This "regulatory equity" starts with the decoupling of profits from increased energy usage, which will incentivize utilities to partner with consumers and the federal and state governments to reduce monthly energy bills for families and businesses. The federal government under an Obama administration will play an important and positive role in flipping the profit model for the utility sector so that shareholder profit is based on reliability and performance as opposed to total production.

* Require 10 Percent of Electricity to Come from Renewable Sources by 2012 [and 25 percent by 2025]. Barack Obama will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012. Many states are already well on their way to achieving statewide goals and it's time for the federal government to provide leadership for the entire country to support these new industries. This national requirement will spur significant private sector investment in renewable sources of energy and create thousands of new American jobs, especially in rural areas. And Obama will also extend the federal Production Tax Credit (PTC) for 5 years to encourage the production of renewable energy.

* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology....

* Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: ... It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.... As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.

He also repeats his climate pledge and his jobs pledge:

* Implement an economy‐wide cap‐and‐trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

* Invest In A Clean Energy Economy and Help Create 5 Million New Green Jobs. Obama will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years...

As president, Obama will continue this leadership by investing in advanced vehicle technology with a specific focus on R&D in advanced battery technology. The increased federal funding will leverage private sector funds and support our domestic automakers to bring plug‐in hybrids and other advanced vehicles to American consumers. Obama will also provide a $7,000 tax credit for the purchase of advanced technology vehicles as well as conversion tax credits. And to help create a market and show government leadership in purchasing highly efficient cars, an Obama administration will commit to:

* Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug‐ins as security permits; and

* Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug‐in hybrids or all‐electric by 2012.

clambake

08-05-2008, 09:54 AM

since we'll open drilling offshore, (merely to sell to other countries that will have nothing to do with american oil independence) we could make a deal with china regarding all the rickshaws they have just sitting idle.

hater

08-05-2008, 10:02 AM

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2097/2488161485_346197d239.jpg

RandomGuy

08-05-2008, 01:33 PM

Ignignokt

08-05-2008, 02:27 PM

Mr. Peabody

08-05-2008, 03:19 PM

dumb plan. Let me guess this, the govt spends huge reserves on investing in alternative energy grids, auto technology, and the like, which will probably yeild no profit in the shorterm.

Then if OPEC really wanted to fuck with us, they could boost supply for 3 years, have americans stop the purchase of overpriced fuel cars, and be back in square one.

:lol
So your argument is that we shouldn't make any changes to our economy because if OPEC increases supply we will have plenty of oil but be stuck with useless alternative fuel technology? :lol

Ignignokt

08-05-2008, 03:33 PM

:lol
So your argument is that we shouldn't make any changes to our economy because if OPEC increases supply we will have plenty of oil but be stuck with useless alternative fuel technology? :lol

IF changes didn't cost much, then i could care less. What the govt is doing is investing in endeavours of which the private sector hasn't seen much potential yet.

Hybrid cars being the exception, but that's been done with private money.

The government shouldn't only be worried about a risky longterm solution. It should worry about covering all it's bases in case things do not form the way planned.

In the early 80's oil cost took a nosedive after riding high throughout the latter part of the 70's.

Companies that invested in drilling on american soil lost their money, investment and cutback jobs.

We just can't say here's the solution, new technology!

We need to have everything done conservatively. Drilling for our supply, new technology and conservation. Those are McCain's plans of which he has spoken.

McCain is more reliable to follow through those plans. Obama's ideology does not permit it, we would have to trust that he will rise above partisan ideology to do such thing, if you look at his voting record, it gives no hope.

Viva Las Espuelas

08-05-2008, 04:08 PM

i know i'm ready for it
http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50312201/Tire_Gauge.jpg

:lmao

Mr. Peabody

08-05-2008, 04:31 PM

McCain is more reliable to follow through those plans. Obama's ideology does not permit it, we would have to trust that he will rise above partisan ideology to do such thing, if you look at his voting record, it gives no hope.

Recent events belie your assertion. Obama is the candidate supporting the bipartisan energy bill that currently being held up in Congress, even though he doesn't agree with everything in it. McCain opposes it because he says he doesn't agree with repealing the tax breaks the oil companies have received in the past. So which candidate is letting ideology stand in the way of progress?

Mr. Peabody

08-05-2008, 04:36 PM

i know i'm ready for it

:lmao

There are none so blind....

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes
The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke
By Michael Grunwald

How out of touch is Barack Obama? He's so out of touch that he suggested that if all Americans inflated their tires properly and took their cars for regular tune-ups, they could save as much oil as new offshore drilling would produce. Gleeful Republicans have made this their daily talking point; Rush Limbaugh is having a field day; and the Republican National Committee is sending tire gauges labeled "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" to Washington reporters.

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge. But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

PixelPusher

08-05-2008, 04:43 PM

Why do the board conservatives make fun of checking tire pressure? Isn't energy conservation "conservative"?

shelshor

08-05-2008, 05:31 PM

IIRC improper tire pressure was blamed as a leading cause of SUV tires separating, which caused a lot of the roll over acccidents

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-05-2008, 05:51 PM

This is the best proposal for a sound energy policy that I have seen from any of the major candidates.

The best and fastest way to reduce our dependence on foreign energy is to encourage efficiency gains, and this plan has that as a priority. A lot of "bang for the buck" here, with some solid investments that offer the potential for creation of US-based jobs.

:lol

Except for the fact that 1) he's short on details and 2) some of them are impossible, unless he's going to throw a trillion dollars at the problem just to get it done.

Weatherize One Million Homes Annually....

Who pays the bill and who decides which million homes get weatherized? Fuck that. People should be responsible for weatherizing their own homes, not sit on their asses and wait for government to do it.

More of the liberal 'the government needs to do everything for the people because they're too fucking stupid to do it for themselves' stuff...

* Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities....

How? Are you saying that our communities aren't livable or sustainable?

xrayzebra

08-05-2008, 06:42 PM

Why do the board conservatives make fun of checking tire pressure? Isn't energy conservation "conservative"?

Why do dumb Liberals, like Barry, think we don't have enough sense to check our tires on our own. Well, maybe you do.:lol

PixelPusher

08-05-2008, 07:06 PM

Why do dumb Liberals, like Barry, think we don't have enough sense to check our tires on our own. Well, maybe you do.:lol

Obama brought it up to illustrate how tire pressure/tune ups saves more oil than the proposed offshore drilling would produce. So if you guys think checking tire pressure is laughable and stupid, what does that make offshore drilling?

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-05-2008, 07:34 PM

Obama brought it up to illustrate how tire pressure/tune ups saves more oil than the proposed offshore drilling would produce. So if you guys think checking tire pressure is laughable and stupid, what does that make offshore drilling?

Typical lib. Do both. Comprehensive energy plan shouldn't just mean do what Obama wants to do or else.

PixelPusher

08-05-2008, 07:59 PM

Typical lib. Do both. Comprehensive energy plan shouldn't just mean do what Obama wants to do or else.

Energy conservation has real cost savings that are felt immediately. Offshore drilling's effects won't be felt for 15+ years. (yeah, I know - drilling will produce a "psychological effect" that will reduce prices, right? :lol)

Tires/tune-ups don't put shorelines at risk either.

NASCARdad

08-05-2008, 08:56 PM

Nuclear is the way to go. The risk is worth it.

Ignignokt

08-05-2008, 09:05 PM

PixelPusher

08-05-2008, 09:59 PM

I'm sorry you don't have a clue about speculation.
I'm sorry you think speculation trumps supply and demand.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-05-2008, 10:12 PM

Energy conservation has real cost savings that are felt immediately. Offshore drilling's effects won't be felt for 15+ years. (yeah, I know - drilling will produce a "psychological effect" that will reduce prices, right? :lol)

Tires/tune-ups don't put shorelines at risk either.

This is such bullshit. If they gave oil cos the go ahead continental shelf oil would be at the pumps in less than three years.

Put shorelines at risk? When's the last time oil fucked up the shores of Texas and Louisiana. Damn, one of the strongest hurricanes of all time (Katrina) plowed through the Gulf oil rig patch on its way to New Orleans and there wasn't a drop leaked.

But go ahead, keep talking out your ass, it's what you libs do best here.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-05-2008, 10:13 PM

PixelPusher

08-05-2008, 10:24 PM

This is such bullshit. If they gave oil cos the go ahead continental shelf oil would be at the pumps in less than three years.

Put shorelines at risk? When's the last time oil fucked up the shores of Texas and Louisiana. Damn, one of the strongest hurricanes of all time (Katrina) plowed through the Gulf oil rig patch on its way to New Orleans and there wasn't a drop leaked.

But go ahead, keep talking out your ass, it's what you libs do best here.
Talking out of your ass? You mean parroting right wing noise?

“Not One Drop Of Oil Spilled”? Not Quite
Analysis: Advocates Repeat False Claim About Environmental Safety Of Offshore Drilling (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/19/opinion/main4275167.shtml)

July 19, 2008
(CBS) By CBSNews.com producer David Morgan.

It has been a common talking point among advocates of increasing offshore oil drilling that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused no environmental damage when they decimated the oil infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005.

This is aimed at assuaging the fears of many who believe opening up additional tracts of offshore areas to oil exploration will pose hazards to the environment and to tourism.

Ever since President Bush and Sen. John McCain announced last month that they would support expanding drilling beyond currently-allowed offshore leases (and Mr. Bush even signed an executive order allowing it), officials and pundits have continually put forth a dramatic talking point in the media about the safety of offshore drilling, even in the midst of a natural disaster.

As former Sen. Trent Lott told MSNBC on Tuesday, "We didn't have one drop of oil spilt when we had the biggest hurricane in, you know, recent history, Hurricane Katrina."

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., also told Fox News on June 27, "When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico. So we know that the technology to drill offshore is extraordinarily safe and environmentally friendly. And it's not something that we have to be as worried about as we do a refinery on shore or some other type of issue."

Newspaper columnists and editorial boards also jumped on the "not one drop" bandwagon. The Wall Street Journal published an editorial on June 12 saying, "Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn't cause a single oil spill."

Meanwhile, on Monday Nancy Pfotenhauer, an energy lobbyist and senior energy adviser to McCain, said on MSNBC, "We withstood Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and we didn't spill a drop."

And the Washington Post on Monday quoted Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as saying, "I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita. Those rigs in the Gulf, there was not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported."

Others have used slightly hedged terms, such as Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., who told Fox News on June 26, "That’s one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, these awful storms - no major spills." And Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne told the Fox Business Channel, "When Katrina and Rita hit the Gulf Coast where we have about 4,000 oil and gas platforms … we had no significant oil spill." (July 15)

Gee, if so many people believe it, it must be true - except it isn’t.

In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) issued a report stating that as a result of both Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the number of pipelines damaged was 457, and the number of offshore platforms destroyed was 113, with a total of 146 oil spills recorded.

A study of environmental impacts written for MMS by Det Norske Veritas and Company and published March 22, 2007 told an even more detailed story.

As a result of both storms, a total volume of 17,652 barrels (or roughly three-quarters of a million gallons) of total petroleum products, of which 13,137 barrels were crude oil and condensate, was spilled from platforms, rigs and pipelines. 4,514 barrels were refined products from platforms and rigs.

There were 542 reports related to offshore pipelines that were damaged or displaced, of which 72 resulted in spills that had a volume of one barrel or more of crude oil or condensate. These pipelines were reported to be dented, kinked, pulled up, twisted or bent, pinhole or valve leaks or other damages.

The 72 pipeline spills were accountable for about 7,300 barrels of crude oil and condensate spilled into the Gulf.

The report noted that response and recovery efforts kept the environmental impacts to a minimum, with no onshore impacts from these specific spill events.

However, MMS also noted that an estimated 8 million gallons (or 191,000 barrels) of oil was spilled from nine onshore facilities in the Louisiana Delta, where large holding tanks were breached by Katrina.

The graphic below shows all 542 pipeline damages reported for both Hurricanes Katrina (299 reports) and Rita (243). Damaged pipelines are in red; undamaged active pipelines are shown in gray. Pipeline breaks accounted for approximately half of the more than 17,000 barrels of oil leaked into the Gulf. (Source: MMS)

PixelPusher

08-05-2008, 10:29 PM

By the way, McCain has called for over 40 new nuclear power plants to be built by the year 2030. Meanwhile, Obama's pussy footing around the nuclear issue saying 'we need to talk about it some more.'

Fuck that. Start building.

Can we store the radioactive waste in your backyard?

I don't have any kneejerk objection to nuclear energy, but I'm not cavalier enough to say "Fuck it, just build em" either.

When it comes to figuring out how to store and manage materials that remain radioactive for thousands of years, maybe we should "talk about it some more" before we "just start fuckin' building them".

PixelPusher

08-05-2008, 10:31 PM

Nope. Not one drop. No sir...

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/photography/2005/katrina_video/oil_spill.html

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050916/050916_oilspill_hmed_6a.hmedium.jpg

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/usa/photosvideos/photos/thousands-of-oil-platforms-ri.jpg

click to enlarge
http://bp0.blogger.com/_edvxM1dkFlo/R2AWq1Lzj9I/AAAAAAAAAAs/6qK-nIfCscE/s320/skytruth_katrina_rsat_sep02_montage_th.jpg (http://skytruth.mediatools.org/sites/default/files/skytruth_katrina_rsat_sep02_montage.jpg)

boutons_

08-05-2008, 10:53 PM

"McCain has called for over 40 new nuclear power plants to be built by the year 2030."

currently $12B each, probably $15B+ with overruns.

Jerkoff McLame has NO IDEA who is going to finance the very long construction period.

dubya's $800B in estate cuts for the super-wealthy might have helped, but those people and their private equity fund managers won't finance McJerk's nukes.

spursfor5

08-05-2008, 11:23 PM

Viva Las Espuelas

08-05-2008, 11:47 PM

Oh good, 40 more terrorist targets.
qR0f8n10DR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR0f8n10DR4

Viva Las Espuelas

08-05-2008, 11:58 PM

There are none so blind....i saw this before i even did my initial post. it seems the writer of that piece is embellishing on what obamessiah said. how is a tire gauge going to ween us of foreign oil. this tire gauge thing is just laughable, man. isn't that already a known thing about cars. to me, obama is just stating the obvious. and as usually the crowd is amazed. enjoy your freedom now

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-06-2008, 12:07 AM

spursfor5

08-06-2008, 12:08 AM

qR0f8n10DR4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR0f8n10DR4

Just because a nuclear plant is safe from a plane's impact doesn't mean terrorists won't put it on their target list. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

And sure some people know that filling your tires to the right amount of air increases gas mileage, but the question now becomes, do people do it. My guess is that the many Americans have never worked on their cars and don't keep up with them.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-06-2008, 12:09 AM

Oh good, 40 more terrorist targets.

Ugh, way to be uninformed. They're built to withstand a 767 crashing into them. And I haven't seen Osama or his boys hit any of the ones already out there yet, have you?

Nbadan

08-06-2008, 12:14 AM

Just because a nuclear plant is safe from a plane's impact doesn't mean terrorists won't put it on their target list. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Instead of being dependent on foreign oil, McCain wants us to be dependent on Foreign uranium - brilliant plan..

:rolleyes

PixelPusher

08-06-2008, 12:53 AM

Well, uh...er, what we meant to say was there has not been a single drop of oil spilled since hurricanes Katrina and Rita...yeah, that's it...
New Orleans oil spill coats the Mississippi (http://www.startribune.com/nation/25880194.html?location_refer=Nation:highlightModul es:4)
Last update: July 24, 2008 - 8:45 PM (2 weeks ago)

NEW ORLEANS - A sheen of oil coated the Mississippi River for nearly 100 miles from the center of New Orleans to the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday after a fuel-laden barge collided with a tanker the day before.

The thick industrial fuel pouring from the barge could be smelled for miles in neighborhoods up and down the river as hundreds of workers struggled to contain the hundreds of thousands of gallons. Some environmentalists worried about reports of fish and bird kills in sensitive marsh areas downstream, though officials said they had so far heard of only a handful of oil-covered birds.

The Mississippi remained closed to all boat traffic, stranding about 65 vessels. The effect on the area's economy was thought to be significant, with the city's port estimating a loss of at least $100,000 a day.

Dammit! :bang

PixelPusher

08-06-2008, 01:03 AM

This is such bullshit. If they gave oil cos the go ahead continental shelf oil would be at the pumps in less than three years.

Put shorelines at risk? When's the last time oil fucked up the shores of Texas and Louisiana. Damn, one of the strongest hurricanes of all time (Katrina) plowed through the Gulf oil rig patch on its way to New Orleans and there wasn't a drop leaked.

But go ahead, keep talking out your ass, it's what you libs do best here.
Since I'm not through beating a dead horse...

Oil spill becoming costly for Valero neighbors
(http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5008539)
Updated: July 9, 2007 12:36 PM
CORPUS CHRISTI - Last week's oil spill in the ship channel is proving to be a costly mess for more than just Valero. Last Thursday's incredible rainfall, caused a storage tank to overflow at Valero spilling thousands of barrels of waste oil into the water. One neighboring business said it's lost thousands of dollars, because of the mess that's yet to be cleaned up.

The Coast Guard said ships can come and go as they please. But not every ship wants to come in because there's still a lot of oil floating around in the water and if a ship comes in contact with the oil, it not only has to report it, but pay to have it cleaned up before leaving. So a lot of ships are just going elsewhere instead.

Almost a full week after the initial spill, it still takes only minutes for the oil to pool in many parts of the channel. At Dan Murphy's property near the Tule Lake, (map) the rip rap was stained, the oil collected on the shore and a thick layer of sludge was caked on the bottom of their dock, which scared off ships and needed business.

"We cannot bring in a ship. As proven, we have ships scheduled to come in that have chosen to go elsewhere because of the contamination. They would have to get cleaned before they discharged, or left the port," said Dan Murphy, from Texas Docks & Rail. Murphy said he told Valero of the problems last week, but has gotten little response.

"We have not had any contact. We don't know what's going on. We don't have any cleanup. Now, we've allowed the cleanup crews to come and go, but we don't have any schedules or idea what they're trying to do." It wasn't until he flagged down a boat full of Valero employees that help began to arrive.

"We're the small guy on the block. They're not concerned about us," he said.

Valero disagrees and said they didn't hear from Murphy until now.

Bob Grimes, Director of Public Affairs for Valero said, "I would think they would know who to call if they had some concerns, and we'd be welcome to hear those concerns?" He added that before Thursday, he hadn't hear from Murphy.

Workers are now digging out the contaminated dirt and hauling it away to be cleaned up. Crews are also sandblasting the docks and retrieving oil soaked absorber pads, placing them in plastic bags and throwing out clean ones. Valero said it's working around the clock to get the job done.

"We're doing the best that we can, and I think we're doing a fantastic job," Grimes said.

Valero also told 6 News that it looks like about 3,000 barrels of oil spilled into the water. That's about 130,000 gallons.

Murphy said there is a possibility of a lawsuit. He said there's obviously been financial damages incurred and they plan to hold Valero responsible for those losses in court if they have to.

Spills from hurricanes staining the coast (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3457319.html)
Industry says there was no way to prepare for spills
By DINA CAPPIELLO Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
Nov. 13, 2005, 10:59AM

CHALMETTE, LA. - When Walter Estrade returned to his home in this refinery town 10 miles southeast of New Orleans, he expected the typical hurricane damage — toppled trees, tossed cars, a waterlogged house.

What he hadn't counted on was the oil.

Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters unleashed 1 million gallons of oil from one of the massive storage tanks at Murphy Oil's nearby refinery. The spill spread over 1 square mile and stained 1,700 homes, making it one of the largest environmental spills to occur in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

But it was far from the only one.

A Houston Chronicle review of data from the National Response Center shows that the two storms caused at least 595 spills, incidents that released untold amounts of oil, natural gas and other chemicals into the air, onto land and into the water.

The quantity and cumulative magnitude of the 595 spills, which were spread across four states and struck offshore and inland, rank these two hurricanes among the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. Some have even compared the total amount of oil released — estimated at 9 million gallons — to the tragedy of Exxon Valdez.

(-long article continues on-)

boutons_

08-06-2008, 08:15 AM

McNimbyPander caught, yet again, in his senility

http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/08/05/mccains-nuclear-razzle-dazzle-fizzles-with-inconsistencies/

MannyIsGod

08-06-2008, 09:51 AM

MannyIsGod

08-06-2008, 09:52 AM

So far Paris Hilton has the best energy plan.

Spurminator

08-06-2008, 11:02 AM

this tire gauge thing is just laughable, man. isn't that already a known thing about cars. to me, obama is just stating the obvious.

You greatly overestimate the average American driver.

2centsworth

08-06-2008, 11:07 AM

2centsworth

08-06-2008, 11:21 AM

Here's McCain:

Our nation's future security and prosperity depends on the next President making the hard choices that will break our nation's strategic dependence on foreign sources of energy and will ensure our economic prosperity by meeting tomorrow's demands for a clean portfolio. John McCain has made the necessary choices - producing more power, pushing technology to help free our transportation sector from its use of foreign oil, cleaning up our air and addressing climate change, and ensuring that Americans have dependable energy sources. John McCain will lead the effort to develop advanced transportation technologies and alternative fuels to promote energy independence and cut off the flow of oil wealth to repressive dictatorships like Iran.

"In recent days I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project -- named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."

John McCain, June 25, 2008
Read the entire speech... (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/1b708e23-5496-42a3-8771-aec271bf823e.htm)

Expanding Domestic Oil And Natural Gas Exploration And Production

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use. There is no easier or more direct way to prove to the world that we will no longer be subject to the whims of others than to expand our production capabilities. We have trillions of dollars worth of oil and gas reserves in the U.S. at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy. This is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources.

John McCain Believes In Promoting And Expanding The Use Of Our Domestic Supplies Of Natural Gas. When people are hurting, and struggling to afford gasoline, food, and other necessities, common sense requires that we draw upon America's own vast reserves of oil and natural gas. Within the United States we have tremendous reserves of natural gas. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. It is time that we capitalize on these significant resources and build the infrastructure needed to transport this important component of electricity generation and transportation fuel around the country.

Back to top (http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm#top)

Taking Action Now To Break Our Dependency On Foreign Oil By Reforming Our Transportation Sector

The Nation Cannot Reduce Its Dependency On Oil Unless We Change How We Power Our Transportation Sector.

John McCain's Clean Car Challenge. John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission t car, encouraging automakers to be first on the market with these cars in order to capitalize on the consumer incentives. For other vehicles, a graduated tax credit will apply so that the lower the carbon emissions, the higher the tax credit.

John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles. A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country - and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil.

John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector. In just three years, Brazil went from new cars sales that were about 5 percent FFVs to over 70 percent of new vehicles that were FFVs. American automakers have committed to make 50 percent of their cars FFVs by 2012. John McCain calls on automakers to make a more rapid and complete switch to FFVs.

John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential.

Today, Isolationist Tariffs And Wasteful Special Interest Subsidies Are Not Moving Us Toward An Energy Solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.

John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards. John McCain has long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. John McCain believes that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.

Back to top (http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm#top)

Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy

John McCain Believes That The U.S. Must Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy. Green jobs and green technology will be vital to our economic future. There is no reason that the U.S. should not be a leader in developing and deploying these new technologies.

John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

John McCain Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D. This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.

John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.

Back to top (http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm#top)

Protecting Our Environment And Addressing Climate Change: A Sound Energy Strategy Must Include A Solid Environmental Foundation

John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options. A climate cap-and-trade mechanism would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allow entities to buy and sell rights to emit, similar to the successful acid rain trading program of the early 1990s. The key feature of this mechanism is that it allows the market to decide and encourage the lowest-cost compliance options.

How Does A Cap-And-Trade System Work? A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets And Timetables:

2012: Return Emissions To 2005 Levels (18 Percent Above 1990 Levels)
2020: Return Emissions To 1990 Levels (15 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2030: 22 Percent Below 1990 Levels (34 Percent Below 2005 Levels)
2050: 60 Percent Below 1990 Levels (66 Percent Below 2005 Levels)

The Cap-And-Trade System Would Allow For The Gradual Reduction Of Emissions. The cap-and-trade system would encompass electric power, transportation fuels, commercial business, and industrial business - sectors responsible for just under 90 percent of all emissions. Small businesses would be exempt. Initially, participants would be allowed to either make their own GHG reductions or purchase "offsets" - financial instruments representing a reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions practiced by other activities, such as agriculture - to cover 100 percent of their required reductions. Offsets would only be available through a program dedicated to ensure that all offset GHG emission reductions are real, measured and verifiable. The fraction of GHG emission reductions permitted via offsets would decline over time.

Back to top (http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm#top)

Promoting Energy Efficiency

John McCain Will Make Greening The Federal Government A Priority Of His Administration. The federal government is the largest electricity consumer on earth and occupies 3.3 billion square feet of space worldwide. It provides an enormous opportunity to lead by example. By applying a higher efficiency standard to new buildings leased or purchased or retrofitting existing buildings, we can save taxpayers substantial money in energy costs, and move the construction market in the direction of green technology.

John McCain Will Move The United States Toward Electricity Grid And Metering Improvements To Save Energy. John McCain will work to reduce red tape to allow a serious investment to upgrade our national grid to meet the demands of the 21st century - which will include a capacity to charge the electric cars that will one day fill the roads and highways of America. And to save both money and electrical power for our people and businesses, we will also need to deploy SmartMeter technologies. These new meters give customers a more precise picture of their overall energy consumption, and over time will encourage a more cost-efficient use of power.

Back to top (http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm#top)

Addressing Speculative Pricing Of Oil

John McCain Believes We Must Understand The Role Speculation Is Playing In Our Soaring Energy Prices. Congress already has investigations underway to examine this kind of wagering in our energy markets, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. John McCain believes that where we find abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.

John McCain Does Not Support A Windfall Profits Tax. A windfall profits tax on the oil companies will ultimately result in increasing our dependence on foreign oil and hinder investment in domestic exploration. Jimmy Carter put a windfall profits tax in to place with little to no useful results.

2centsworth

08-06-2008, 11:23 AM

xrayzebra

08-06-2008, 11:36 AM

xrayzebra

08-06-2008, 11:38 AM

Instead of being dependent on foreign oil, McCain wants us to be dependent on Foreign uranium - brilliant plan..

:rolleyes

Uhhh, dan, aren't you from San Antonio. Know what goes on just south of here?

shelshor

08-06-2008, 11:54 AM

Oh good, 40 more terrorist targets.

I thought Obamessiah was gonna talk to them so they won't do that stuff anymore

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-06-2008, 12:23 PM

Just because a nuclear plant is safe from a plane's impact doesn't mean terrorists won't put it on their target list. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

.

Unless they are going to storm a nuke plant with like 500 AQ, it probably isn't going to work out so well for them.

Or are you under the mistaken impression that they can just want up to a nuke plant, knock on the door, and take over? :lol

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-06-2008, 12:24 PM

Sorry AHF, but I literaly laughed out loud when I read that shit about "when was the last time". McCain had a trip to the NO he canceled last week because he was going down there to talk about his plans for offshore drilling and there happend to be a spill on that day. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPS.

Yeah, I missed that. Strange, as I would think the good liberal folks at CNN, ABC, etc. would be screaming about evil oil co. spills from the tops of every hill...

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-06-2008, 12:26 PM

I didn't have to go further than the first point. Please someone explain to me the following:

* Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per each year while protecting the financial future of domestic automakers....

How does he plan to protect the financial future of domestic automakers? Ford lost $3 billion last year and GM lost $38 billion. Does he want to impose those fuel economy standards on foreign autos too. Wouldn't that just make foreign automakers more competitive?

Plus, tell me how much is this going to cost the people who make over $250k since those people already are going to bail out social security, universal healthcare, medicare, and global poverty.

You must have missed the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie.... he'll just write a check, the Fed's good for it... bwhahahahahha...

Again, lots of pretty hyperbole without much substance or grounds in reality.

That, or he's going to put a gun to the head of every American to *force* them to buy American automobiles. But he hates guns, so I don't see that happening either.

Of course, knowing him he'll just give every American a car from one of the American auto dealers for free (well, the government will pick up the tab), it's a logical progression from all the handouts he's proposing.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-06-2008, 12:29 PM

A very smart, intelligent thing to do.:toast

Even if it's not true?

xrayzebra

08-06-2008, 12:33 PM

Even if it's not true?

So why is drilling off-shore not a smart, intelligent thing to do. We need the oil and will need it for a long time.

boutons_

08-06-2008, 12:40 PM

2centsworth

08-06-2008, 12:46 PM

"How does he plan to protect the financial future of domestic automakers"

Why should they need protecting? They've flat out mismanaged and fucked themselves up, failed to protect market share vs imports, and even against non-American mfrs building cars in USA, all of that long before $4 gas.

They know how to build efficient cars, doing it Europe.

Let them die. Why more corporate socialism to save failed corps?

I'm asking the question of how Obama proposes to save them since it's part of his plan.

As far as letting them die, it's debateable that they will die, but I agree with you about keeping the government out of private industry.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-06-2008, 06:19 PM

"How does he plan to protect the financial future of domestic automakers"

Why should they need protecting? They've flat out mismanaged and fucked themselves up, failed to protect market share vs imports, and even against non-American mfrs building cars in USA, all of that long before $4 gas.

They know how to build efficient cars, doing it Europe.

Let them die. Why more corporate socialism to save failed corps?

boutons just owned himself. He's defended Obama as not being a socialist, yet admits that Obama's plan to 'save' big auto is corporate socialism.

:lol

T Park

08-07-2008, 01:27 AM

I agree that the automakers should work this out themselves.

The same with the housing crisies.

I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's fuck up because they wanted a 5 bedroom house instead of a 4, and KNEW they couldn't afford it.

I also shouldn't have to pay the fucking lenders who are so damn stupid to lend money or give home loans to people with horrible or no credit.

MannyIsGod

08-07-2008, 07:10 AM

boutons just owned himself. He's defended Obama as not being a socialist, yet admits that Obama's plan to 'save' big auto is corporate socialism.

:lol

Jesus Christ if this is your defenition of socialism then we're a socialist nation. This is fucking retarded. You guys are tossing around this stupid Marxist and Socialist labeling like its the new game and its ridiculous.

MannyIsGod

08-07-2008, 07:23 AM

Yeah, I missed that. Strange, as I would think the good liberal folks at CNN, ABC, etc. would be screaming about evil oil co. spills from the tops of every hill...

:lmao

I'm sorry did you just say you counted on CNN and ABC for your information?

:lmao

2centsworth

08-07-2008, 07:28 AM

Jesus Christ if this is your defenition of socialism then we're a socialist nation. This is fucking retarded. You guys are tossing around this stupid Marxist and Socialist labeling like its the new game and its ridiculous.

take it up with boutons, he defined it as corporate socialism. My question was how Obama was going to protect domestic Auto, because seems to me that's like Ms. America wanting world peace? Again, I just stopped at his first point. I'm sure his plan is riddled with these head in the clouds ideas.

MannyIsGod

08-07-2008, 07:37 AM

take it up with boutons, he defined it as corporate socialism. My question was how Obama was going to protect domestic Auto, because seems to me that's like Ms. America wanting world peace? Again, I just stopped at his first point. I'm sure his plan is riddled with these head in the clouds ideas.

Ok fine, but thats not an Obama issue thats an American politics issue. The fact is that while you may realize the president isn't capable of doing many of these things thats not what the American people realize and thats not what they demand. Obama may make claims that he can't back up but so will almost every person running for a federal office regardless of the party.

To sit here and act shocked at this is either disingenuous or naive about the nature of presidential campaigns. I don't believe Obama has a chance in hell of pushing anything like this plan through Congress to begin with but I expect him to tell people what they want to hear. I don't like everything I hear from his camp but I understand that I'm not going to.

scott

08-07-2008, 07:48 AM

The hot air in this thread alone could power millions of American homes.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-07-2008, 09:20 AM

Ok fine, but thats not an Obama issue thats an American politics issue. The fact is that while you may realize the president isn't capable of doing many of these things thats not what the American people realize and thats not what they demand. Obama may make claims that he can't back up but so will almost every person running for a federal office regardless of the party.

To sit here and act shocked at this is either disingenuous or naive about the nature of presidential campaigns. I don't believe Obama has a chance in hell of pushing anything like this plan through Congress to begin with but I expect him to tell people what they want to hear. I don't like everything I hear from his camp but I understand that I'm not going to.

The difference is Obama would have a Democratic Congress to his bidding, and much of their views falls in line with his (profit, industry bad, save the earth, tax big oil, etc.).

Our system is broken, but the only hope of anything resembling balance in D.C. is to have either a Republican president and Demo Congress or a Demo pres and Republican Congress.

MannyIsGod

08-07-2008, 09:52 AM

The difference is Obama would have a Democratic Congress to his bidding, and much of their views falls in line with his (profit, industry bad, save the earth, tax big oil, etc.).

Our system is broken, but the only hope of anything resembling balance in D.C. is to have either a Republican president and Demo Congress or a Demo pres and Republican Congress.

None of what Obama can do domestically worries me nearly as much as what McCain would do as far as foreign policy. There is no way in hell I'm voting for another Republican in hopes of keeping government small. We saw how well that worked out over the past 8 years. Government got bigger by a shit ton and we also managed to fuck up everything foreign policy wise.

jochhejaam

08-10-2008, 08:55 PM

Another stellar editorial by J. Kelly

Obama's energy plan nonsense
Saturday, August 9th
By Jack Kelly
SEN. Barack Obama's efforts to explain his energy policy indicate why his campaign has emphasized celebrity over issues. The liberal San Francisco Chronicle says he is offering "more flip-flops than a Lake Tahoe souvenir stand."

Speaking in Florida Aug. 2, Mr. Obama said he'd be willing to support drilling off the coast of Florida if it were part of a "comprehensive" energy strategy. Just two days before in Springfield, Mo., Mr. Obama had denounced offshore drilling as a "scheme," and said that Americans would be better served by more often checking their tire pressure.

What could have changed Mr. Obama's mind? The day he was dismissing offshore drilling in Missouri, a Quinnipiac poll of 1,248 likely voters was released that indicated 60 percent of Floridians favor offshore drilling.

In a speech in Lansing on Monday, Mr. Obama called for the release of 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. As the Associated Press' Tom Raum noted, this was a reversal of a position he had taken less than a month before.

"The strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency," Mr. Obama said in a press availability in St. Louis July 7. "You have a situation, let's say, where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts, and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken out of the world market, we wouldn't just be seeing $4 a gallon oil. We could see a situation where entire sectors of the country had no oil to function at all. And that's what the strategic oil reserve has to be for."

Now, apparently, a drop in the opinion polls is reason enough to tap the strategic petroleum reserve.

The 1973 Arab oil embargo plunged our economy into a deep recession, from which we didn't fully emerge until 10 years later. We're more than twice as dependent on imported oil now as we were then. Iran has said it will cut off oil supplies from the Persian Gulf if Israel or the United States attacks its nuclear plants. Given Iran's saber rattling, to deplete the reserve now could be an act of supreme folly.

"Remember how he hooted at suspending federal gas taxes as a primary-season stunt"? the San Francisco Chronicle's editors asked. "Now he wants $1,000 rebate checks mailed out to families, paid by a windfall profits tax on the oil industry that was tried and dumped in the 1980s."

Punitive taxation of oil producers seems a peculiar way to encourage them to produce more oil. Oil and natural gas companies earned, on average, 7.4 cents on each dollar of sales in the first quarter of this year, compared to 7.6 cents for all U.S. manufacturers; 13.7 cents for computer companies such as Apple and Microsoft, and 17.8 cents for manufacturers of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.

Oil companies are making "record" profits because 7.4 percent of $4 a gallon is twice as much as 7.4 percent of $2 a gallon, but they are making "excess" profits only in the heated rhetoric of Democratic demagogues. And although oil companies have benefited mightily from high gas prices, they aren't responsible for them. It's OPEC that restricts foreign production and Congress that prevents drilling here.

The other main components of Mr. Obama's "plan" are:

•To get 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles that average 150 miles a gallon on U.S. roads within six years.

•To require that 10 percent of U.S. energy come from renewable sources by the end of his first term.

•To reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.

He was light on details of how this would be accomplished, for good reason. These goals would require magic to be achieved.

No current plug-in hybrid gets better than 69 mpg. It will take more than the wagging of Mr. Obama's tongue to more than double that within six years. And if we could get 1 million plug-in hybrids on the road, we'd be using a lot more electricity than we use now, not 15 percent less. Currently we get just 3 percent of the electricity we use from the renewables Mr. Obama favors. More than tripling that percentage in four years is not physically possible, no matter how much money is thrown at it.

Mr. Obama has a deep, rich voice. Coming from his mouth, nonsense sounds good. But it's still nonsense.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080809/COLUMNIST14/808090308

boutons_

08-10-2008, 09:50 PM

"Does the government need to pay for everything?"

no, but the corps will buy enough politicians to get tax breaks, subsidies, corporate welfare, without which they would not move at all, or very far. corporate welfare.

Remember the "clean coal" plant in OH? As soon as dubya pulled out, the corps did, too.

The coal-fired dirty-coal electricity plants won't get cleaned up by the corps without heavy $$ from the govt.

"Why wouldn't private industry invest as they always have?"

beause they know they can buy enough $$$ to get the pork, subsidies, tax breaks, tax cuts.

anothe example: Mainly BigPharma had overseas profits parked offshore, wouldn't bring them in until dubya reduced the rate on those profits from 35% to 5% on the govt motivation that the money would create jobs, saving the megacorps about $300B. The corps got their profits taxed at 5% then stareted laying people off.

any middle class people get to have "one time' tax break of 5%?

RandomGuy

08-11-2008, 02:30 PM

Ugh, way to be uninformed. They're built to withstand a 767 crashing into them. And I haven't seen Osama or his boys hit any of the ones already out there yet, have you?

One or two large rental trucks filled with explosives.

One waste fuel/shipment to a nuclear reactor containing a few pounds of nuclear fuel/waste.

4-10 guys who are willing to die to detonate the trucks next to the vehicle/train delivering the fuel shipment, as the shipment passes upwind of a major city.

As long as you are OK with being downwind of the routes these shipments make, build away.

Then tell me what percentage of nuclear power plants have EVER been built for less than 300% of their original estimated cost.

Nuclear is not a realistic option for energy independence. It costs to freaking much, and has a rather nasty set of added security risks, even if the reactors themselves are built to withstand the impacts of jetliners. Add the cost of security to the costs of operating the plants, and you have a form of energy that is soooo not cost competitive in any free market.

There are better solutions out there.

RandomGuy

08-11-2008, 02:41 PM

The other main components of Mr. Obama's "plan" are:

•To get 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles that average 150 miles a gallon on U.S. roads within six years.

•To require that 10 percent of U.S. energy come from renewable sources by the end of his first term.

•To reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.

He was light on details of how this would be accomplished, for good reason. These goals would require magic to be achieved.

10% of our nations energy supply from renewables is not that big of a stretch, and doesn't quite require "magic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png

It depends on whether or not one includes hydro as a "renewable".

Assuming not, then a solid infrastructure investment would make such an investment fairly possible. The goal is aggressive but not impossible.

RandomGuy

08-11-2008, 02:51 PM

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants.
http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

Recent construction cost estimates
In 2006, Business Week magazine stated, "...,the [US] industry is aiming to build new plants for $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity,...". However, they also added, "Trouble is, the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per kilowatt."[11] 2007 estimates have considerable uncertainty in overnight cost, and vary widely from $2,950/kWe to a Moody's Investors Service conservative estimate of between $5,000 and $6,000/kWe.[12]

In June 2008, Moody's estimated the cost of installing new nuclear capacity in the US to potentially exceed $7,000/kWe. In comparison, Moody's estimated wind and solar to cost $2,000 and $3,000/kWe. However, these estimates did not take into account the capacity factor for power generation which stands at 25-35% for wind, 25% for solar and 90% for nuclear. [13] [14] [15] The capacity factor means that three to four times as many wind or solar plants need to be built to achieve any given nameplate capacity rating that a single nuclear plant could achieve. It also fails to note that the peak cost incurred in the real world for nuclear generation, was an inflation-adjusted $4000/Kwe in the 1970s.[16]

Provisional contracts for two AP1000 power stations at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station have estimated costs of approximately $4.9 billion per power station, which is in line with an overnight cost of about $4,400/kWe. The operators are filing an application to increase customers bills by $1.2 billion (2.5%) during the construction period to partially finance capital costs.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

Interesting bit that.

It is VERY hard to estimate exactly how much nukes really end up costing after all is said and done.

boutons_

08-11-2008, 05:19 PM

that's only construction costs, a total pig in a poke.

the COST of uranium discovery, extraction, refining are of course very high, energy and pollution intensive, and not factored into the cost of building nukes, to say nothing of Yucca mountain nuclear waste projects.

I really wish nukes would be the answer to electrical, domistic energy, but it's VERY hard to see how, when ALL factors are considered

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-11-2008, 06:14 PM

One waste fuel/shipment to a nuclear reactor containing a few pounds of nuclear fuel/waste.

4-10 guys who are willing to die to detonate the trucks next to the vehicle/train delivering the fuel shipment, as the shipment passes upwind of a major city.

The containers they use to transport nuclear waste have been tested by, among other things:

These test conditions are:
n a 30-foot free fall onto an unyielding surface, which would be equivalent to a head-on crash at 120 miles per hour into a concrete bridge abutment
n a puncture test allowing the container to fall 40 inches onto a steel rod 6 inches in diameter
n a 30-minute exposure to fire at 1,475 degrees F. that engulfs the entire container
n submergence of the same container under 3 feet of water for eight hours; containers also are subject to separate testing under 50 feet of water for eight hours.

In addition to the tests required for NRC certification, engineers and scientists at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico conducted a wide range of tests on used nuclear fuel transportation containers in the 1970s and 1980s. These tests, which verified computer models used to design the containers, included:
n running a flatbed tractor-trailer carrying a container into a concrete wall at 60 miles per hour
n placing a container on a rail car that was driven into a concrete wall at 80 miles per hour
n placing a container on a tractor-trailer that was broadsided by a train locomotive traveling at 80 miles per hour

http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/safety/transport.htm

They also tested the containers against high explosives, but the results of those tests have been classified to keep terrorists from getting information as to how big an explosion is required to puncture the containers.

And this is all in addition to the shipments being guarded by military personnel along the way.

Tully365

08-11-2008, 11:31 PM

Nuclear is the way to go. The risk is worth it.

Let me guess: your house and your kids' school aren't currently very close to a nuclear power plant, right?

Tully365

08-11-2008, 11:48 PM

One of the most annoying things about this debate is that many of these things were in place and ready to go in the late 70s-- automobile fuel efficiency standards, tax rebates for solar and wind devices, etc., and they were all derailed in the 1980s. The US, with its wealth, ingenuity, and technological sophistication, should not be risking its national security by being beholden to Middle Eastern oil. Any honest assessment of this situation has to conclude that corporate profits have benefitted more than the health, safety, and security of the American people regarding energy in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-12-2008, 12:28 AM

Let me guess: your house and your kids' school aren't currently very close to a nuclear power plant, right?

Let me guess, you don't understand that we already have nuclear reactors near (within 20-25 miles) the following major metropolitan centers:

New York City
Green Bay
Philadephia
Charlotte
Omaha
Chicago
Phoenix
Miami

and Osama hasn't managed to blow one of them up yet.

Next time you might want to check some facts before you talk out of your ass just because you like advancing the candy ass liberal agenda.

Damn, if you're that worried about it, fine. There's plenty of room in west Texas, the desert southwest, eastern California, and on the eastern side of the Applachians that are not near any population centers.

Tully365

08-12-2008, 04:16 AM

Let me guess, you don't understand that we already have nuclear reactors near (within 20-25 miles) the following major metropolitan centers:

New York City
Green Bay
Philadephia
Charlotte
Omaha
Chicago
Phoenix
Miami

and Osama hasn't managed to blow one of them up yet.

Next time you might want to check some facts before you talk out of your ass just because you like advancing the candy ass liberal agenda.

Damn, if you're that worried about it, fine. There's plenty of room in west Texas, the desert southwest, eastern California, and on the eastern side of the Applachians that are not near any population centers.

Congratulations on automatically throwing out cliched political titles. For starters, I'm a fiscal conservative.

Sorry if I think it's irresponsible to subject American citizens to the dangers of radioactive waste for the next five hundred plus years, but I guess your own convenience and comfort are more important than the safety of potentially over a few billion future Americans. The extremely short-sighted posts about radioactive waste being contained by cannisters that can withstand being hit by a truck or train are incredibly stupid at best. Can they withstand a powerful bunker busting bomb one hundred years from now? Two hundred years from now? Or is that not important to you, since you won't be around?

shelshor

08-12-2008, 11:18 AM

10% of our nations energy supply from renewables is not that big of a stretch, and doesn't quite require "magic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png

It depends on whether or not one includes hydro as a "renewable".

Assuming not, then a solid infrastructure investment would make such an investment fairly possible. The goal is aggressive but not impossible.

Except for the envirowhackos in the Pacific Northwest who have, for the last 12-14 years, been conducting a campaign to TEAR DOWN exixting dams because they're bad for salmon; not to mention protesting any plans to build new ones
Not sure if they're the same ones who have started whining about wind farms mangling birds

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-12-2008, 12:47 PM

Congratulations on automatically throwing out cliched political titles. For starters, I'm a fiscal conservative.

Sorry if I think it's irresponsible to subject American citizens to the dangers of radioactive waste for the next five hundred plus years, but I guess your own convenience and comfort are more important than the safety of potentially over a few billion future Americans. The extremely short-sighted posts about radioactive waste being contained by cannisters that can withstand being hit by a truck or train are incredibly stupid at best. Can they withstand a powerful bunker busting bomb one hundred years from now? Two hundred years from now? Or is that not important to you, since you won't be around?

You don't post like one...

It's not about my convenience and comfort. You seem to think we'd go pick up some local school crossing guards and have them protect the reactors and the nuke waste shipments, when that simply isn't the case.

And like I said, you really don't know much about what's going on. A bunker buster that would go deep enough into Yucca Mountain to get at any of that waste would have to be a nuke, and if that's the case then our country has got some bigger problems to worry about.

Tully365

08-12-2008, 04:47 PM

You don't post like one...

It's not about my convenience and comfort. You seem to think we'd go pick up some local school crossing guards and have them protect the reactors and the nuke waste shipments, when that simply isn't the case.

And like I said, you really don't know much about what's going on. A bunker buster that would go deep enough into Yucca Mountain to get at any of that waste would have to be a nuke, and if that's the case then our country has got some bigger problems to worry about.

Again, you are the one who doesn't look into the future, because it won't matter to you. You have no idea what kind of firepower will be available 100, 200, or 500 years from now. Compare the arsenals of today's modern armies to those of just one hundred years ago, and then think about what those arsenals will look like one hundred years from now. The most brilliant military minds of the 19th century could not conceive of something as powerful as nuclear weapons... and you have no idea whatsoever what sort of tools will be available both to national armies and terrorists alike in the future.

Tully365

08-12-2008, 04:54 PM

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-12-2008, 05:42 PM

Again, you are the one who doesn't look into the future, because it won't matter to you. You have no idea what kind of firepower will be available 100, 200, or 500 years from now. Compare the arsenals of today's modern armies to those of just one hundred years ago, and then think about what those arsenals will look like one hundred years from now. The most brilliant military minds of the 19th century could not conceive of something as powerful as nuclear weapons... and you have no idea whatsoever what sort of tools will be available both to national armies and terrorists alike in the future.

Well golly gee... if you're going to run around like that, what happens the day we make teleporters like Star Trek a reality? We could just blow up a nuke in our own desert and transport it to our enemies, end of enemies!

If you're going to run around afraid of the future like that, why even bother?

I do care about the future, it's why I'm completely fed up with the idiots in D.C. these days, because none of them seem to give a damn about the future of our country.

Yeah, someone will probably invent some superduper weapon in the future. And you know what? When that time comes, someone will figure out a way to cope with it and safeguard things like Yucca Mountain in spite of it.

And I'm sure whatever ray gun gets built, Osama Junior won't be able to run down to the local 7-11 and buy one.

The fact is, we already have waste there that is vulnerable to all the same shit you're worrying about, what difference is it going to make if a few more tons get put down there?

Tully365

08-12-2008, 07:18 PM

Well golly gee... if you're going to run around like that, what happens the day we make teleporters like Star Trek a reality? We could just blow up a nuke in our own desert and transport it to our enemies, end of enemies!

If you're going to run around afraid of the future like that, why even bother?

I do care about the future, it's why I'm completely fed up with the idiots in D.C. these days, because none of them seem to give a damn about the future of our country.

Yeah, someone will probably invent some superduper weapon in the future. And you know what? When that time comes, someone will figure out a way to cope with it and safeguard things like Yucca Mountain in spite of it.

And I'm sure whatever ray gun gets built, Osama Junior won't be able to run down to the local 7-11 and buy one.

The fact is, we already have waste there that is vulnerable to all the same shit you're worrying about, what difference is it going to make if a few more tons get put down there?

Whenever the debate starts to get serious and more complex, you immediately resort to sophomoric mockery, making it impossible to have an intelligent discussion. I'll try to answer your childish taunts.

1. A Star Trek joke, ha ha. My point was relevant, so you don't address it. The "safety" standards that you posted are irrelevant right now, so they will only be more obsolete in 500 years.

2. Being interested in the quality of the future for future Americans is not being "afraid of the future." Again you cavalierly say when that time comes, someone will figure out a way to cope with it, which is synonymous with your more standard who gives a shit response.

3. Ray gun joke. Cute. I bet you outdebate 12 year olds on a regular basis.

4. The fact is, we already have waste that is vulnurable to all the same shit you're worrying about, what difference is it going to make if a few more tons gets put down there? Again a variation on your standard big fuckin deal, who gives a shit, not my fuckin problem, deal with it ya lame ass pussies response. Everything's of momumental importance until you disagree with it, and then your entire worldview is who gives a shit.

Aggie Hoopsfan

08-12-2008, 10:14 PM

Whenever the debate starts to get serious and more complex, you immediately resort to sophomoric mockery, making it impossible to have an intelligent discussion. I'll try to answer your childish taunts.

1. A Star Trek joke, ha ha. My point was relevant, so you don't address it. The "safety" standards that you posted are irrelevant right now, so they will only be more obsolete in 500 years.

2. Being interested in the quality of the future for future Americans is not being "afraid of the future." Again you cavalierly say when that time comes, someone will figure out a way to cope with it, which is synonymous with your more standard who gives a shit response.

3. Ray gun joke. Cute. I bet you outdebate 12 year olds on a regular basis.

4. The fact is, we already have waste that is vulnurable to all the same shit you're worrying about, what difference is it going to make if a few more tons gets put down there? Again a variation on your standard big fuckin deal, who gives a shit, not my fuckin problem, deal with it ya lame ass pussies response. Everything's of momumental importance until you disagree with it, and then your entire worldview is who gives a shit.

1. Your point isn't valid. Technology is going to advance, that doesn't mean we shut stick our heads in a hole in the ground and mumble about it and do nothing.

2. Nice straw man. I care about this country and its future. Using your argument, I shouldn't consume electricity, because it comes from environmentally dirty sources. I shouldn't consume anything that comes in plastic, because that plastic is going to fuck up nature and our future. I shouldn't fart because the gas is polluting our atmosphere.

What the hell can we do here and now that isn't impacting our future?

3. Hey, I'm calling a spade a spade. As we now know it, there's nothing that can get to the storage facility short of a nuke. Should I bitch and moan at you and everyone else because a nuclear blast set off near my home will level it and kill me because 125 years ago the walls on my place could stop a musket ball? Same stupid logic you're using...

4. Another redux of the same strawman in #2. Hey, I have an idea, we should all just go live off the land and live in a cave somewhere. That way our lives won't impact future generations at all. You're so smart!

Tully365

08-12-2008, 10:28 PM

I'm not sure who you are debating, but I know it's not me. I never said a word about not consuming electricity, plastic, caves, or most of the other things that you are attributing to me. You've obviously spent a lot of time angrily arguing with people that you generically label "liberals" and assume that I must be exactly like them. I'm not.

RandomGuy

08-13-2008, 02:00 PM

Except for the envirowhackos in the Pacific Northwest who have, for the last 12-14 years, been conducting a campaign to TEAR DOWN exixting dams because they're bad for salmon; not to mention protesting any plans to build new ones
Not sure if they're the same ones who have started whining about wind farms mangling birds

Hydro dams have their environmental impacts, but this is generally outweighed by the cheap, clean power they represent.

There are of course limits to how many dams you can build though.

RandomGuy

08-13-2008, 02:08 PM

The containers they use to transport nuclear waste have been tested by, among other things:

http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts/safety/transport.htm

They also tested the containers against high explosives, but the results of those tests have been classified to keep terrorists from getting information as to how big an explosion is required to puncture the containers.

And this is all in addition to the shipments being guarded by military personnel along the way.

I am sure the containers are pretty solid and well gaurded.

BUT

They are still vulnerable to attack.

We can mitigate this by those armed gaurds, yes, but that simply adds expense that must be considered when studying the true costs of alternatives.

All this aside, why bother?

NIMBY and endless lawsuits will make any construction drag on, and spiral costs.

Nukes are simply more trouble than they are worth on any scale worth doing.

With advances in technology AND benefits from economies of scale wind and solar offer a much easier, scalable, and less vulnerable alternative.

It is all about cost to benefit.

boutons_deux

10-28-2015, 12:47 PM

Congress Introduces Resolutions To Kill The Clean Power Plan

Republicans in Congress are trying every means available to stop the Clean Power Plan, and they might go as far as putting a government shutdown on the line, experts say.
A resolution (http://www.heitkamp.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=917a0bb2-cf3b-4e0d-a59c-5e0067d9fa16) announced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), and (http://epnewswire.com/stories/510645153-whitfield-introduces-congressional-review-act-resolutions-on-epa-clean-power-plan)Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) this week will seek to use the Congressional Review Act to essentially strike the Clean Power Plan from the books. If the resolutions disapproving of the Clean Power Plan pass — and the president signs them into law — the rule would be prohibited from going into effect.

Granted, there is no way that President Obama is going to sign a resolution killing what is widely considered to be his most important legacy on climate, and possibly his most important legacy as president, overall.

The Clean Power Plan, authorized under the Clean Air Act, will limit the amount of carbon pollution from power plants, fundamentally reducing U.S. emissions. Under the rule, states have broad flexibility to develop plans that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining reliability. The rule is a critical component of U.S. climate action.

But the mostly Republican move to invoke the Congressional Review Act (Heitkamp is joined on the Senate resolution by 47 Republicans and fellow Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia;

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/28/3716900/lawmakers-officially-disapprove-of-clean-power-plan/

boutons_deux

10-30-2015, 04:19 PM

http://info.aee.net/hs-fs/hubfs/blog/AEE_-_CPP_state_lawsuit_map_10-28-15.jpg?t=1446228988146&width=732&height=549

slave states and red states, no surprise

boutons_deux

12-02-2015, 12:48 PM

Repug smash-mouth treasonous insulting news (rather than actually governing)

Votes in Congress Move to Undercut Climate Pledge

Hours after President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) pledged Tuesday in Paris that the United States would be in the vanguard of nations seeking a global response toclimate change (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html), Congress approved two measures aimed at undercutting him.

In a provocative message to more than 100 leaders that the American president does not have the full support of his government on climate policy, the House passed resolutions, already approved by the Senate, to scuttle Environmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) rules that would significantly cut heat-trapping carbon emissions from existing and future coal-fired power plants.

The House votes — by 242 to 180 and 235 to 188, mostly along party lines — expanded to a global level the already profound gulf between Mr. Obama and the Republican-controlled Congress on domestic issues, demonstrating that the United States was hardly unified on the issue of climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) even as the president and other leaders sought to project solidarity.

The measures will be sent to the White House, where Mr. Obama has said he will veto them.

The Senate approved each measure by an identical margin, 52 to 46, signaling that Republican congressional leaders would not be able to muster the two-thirds majority needed for an override.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/us/politics/as-obama-pushes-climate-deal-republicans-move-to-block-emissions-rules.html?_r=0

purely symbolic bullshit to insult the President in Paris, and tell the world America is fucked by Repugs and unfuckable.

boutons_deux

02-10-2016, 08:23 AM

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Efforts to Regulate Coal Emissions

In a major setback for President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s climate change (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) agenda, the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) on Tuesday temporarily blocked the administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The brief order was not the last word on the case, which is most likely to return to the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states (https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2016.01.26_wv_et_al._scotus_stay_application.pdf) and dozens of corporations and industry groups.

But the Supreme Court’s willingness to issue a stay while the case proceeds was an early hint that the program could face a skeptical reception from the justices.

The 5-to-4 vote, with the court’s four liberal members dissenting, was unprecedented —

the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court.

“It’s a stunning development,” Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former environmental legal counsel to the Obama administration, said in an email.

She added that “the order certainly indicates a high degree of initial judicial skepticism from five justices on the court,” and that the ruling would raise serious questions from nations that signed on to the landmark Paris climate change pact in December.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

Thanks, Repugs.

Y'all BigCarbon/BigCorp whores fucking up everything.

boutons_deux

02-10-2016, 08:47 AM

Clean Power Plan Will Prevail on Legal Merits

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court today blocked implementation of President Obama's Clean Power Plan, pending litigation in the lower courts over a challenge by the coal industry.

The following is a statement by David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

We are confident the courts will ultimately uphold the Clean Power Plan on its merits. The electricity sector has embarked on an unstoppable shift from its high-pollution, dirty-fueled past to a safer, cleaner-powered future, and the stay cannot reverse that trend.

Nor can it dampen the overwhelming public support for action on climate change and clean energy.

“Smart industry, financial, and governmental leaders will not count the Clean Power Plan out, and will keep moving to incorporate strategies and public policies leading toward a clean energy economy.”

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/02/10/clean-power-plan-will-prevail-legal-merits

"overwhelming public support for action on climate change and clean energy" is totally outweighed by BigCarbon/BigCorp corruption of legislators and judges.

boutons_deux

03-03-2016, 12:52 PM

holy crap, Johnny, are you taking your Pope's environmentalism to heart?

Chief Justice Rejects Effort to Block E.P.A. Limit on Power Plants

In a significant victory for the Obama administration, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/john_g_jr_roberts/index.html?inline=nyt-per) on Thursday refused to block anEnvironmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) regulation limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

Chief Justice Roberts rejected an application from 20 states that said a federal appeals court in Washington had effectively thwarted their victory in the Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in June, when the high court ruled (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html) that the E.P.A. had failed to take into account the punishing costs its mercury regulation would impose. In that 5-to-4 decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had run afoul of the Clean Air Act (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/clean_air_act/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis to show the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-epa-coal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss#story-continues-2)
“It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits,” Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last month, wrote in June. “Statutory context supports this reading.”

The decision did not strike down the regulation, but it did require the E.P.A. to take costs into consideration. The question before the Supreme Court now was what should happen in the meantime.

In their Supreme Court brief, the states noted that the justices recently blocked a different regulation, and the administration’s effort to combatglobal warming (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) by regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, before any court had ruled on its legality. They said a stay in the mercury regulation “is even more warranted” since the Supreme Court has already decided that the agency had exceeded its authority.

The mercury regulation, the states said, “has imposed literally billions of dollars of compliance costs on utilities (and by extension on all members of the public who use electricity), and even if a similar rule is lawfully imposed at some time in the future, the quite substantial time-value of that money has already been lost and is irrecoverable.”

The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 on the climate change stay, issued Feb. 9. Justice Scalia was in the majority, and his vote in that case was one of the last he cast before he died.

The action by Chief Justice Roberts is an indication that Justice Scalia’s death has altered the balance of power on the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-epa-coal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

So if costs are too high, then it's OK by the Repugs to keep sickening, killing people and environment with pollution.

boutons_deux

03-30-2016, 08:32 PM

As Coal Use Drops, Investors Blow Nearly $1 Trillion Globally on Unnecessary New Plants

$1 trillion could provide electricity powered by renewable energy to 1.2 billion people—but it was funneled into extraneous coal projects instead

Boom and Bust 2016: Tracking The Global Coal Plant Pipeline, explores the perplexing trend:

The world has too many coal-fired power plants, yet the power industry continues to build more. While the amount of electricity generated from coal has declined for two years in a row, the industry has ignored this trend and continues to build new coal-fired generating plants at a rapid pace, creating an increasingly severe capacity bubble.

The problem of over-capacity is especially pronounced in China, where the average coal plant is now run at a 49.4 percent rate, less than half its full capacity.

Meanwhile, 338 GW of new coal capacity is in construction worldwide, and 1,086GW is in various stages of planning—the equivalent of 1,500 coal plants.

The amount of overspending on these potentially unneeded plants amounts to US$981 billion, or close to one trillion dollars.

"Coal use keeps falling off a cliff and plants are sitting idle, yet more money is being wasted on misguided attempts at locking in this dirty, dangerous fuel," said Nicole Ghio, senior campaigner for the Sierra Club’s International Climate and Energy campaign.

"The hundreds of billions being thrown at coal could instead go toward the booming clean energy sector, helping more than a billion people get access to the clean, reliable electricity that fossil fuels have failed to deliver."

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/30/coal-use-drops-investors-blow-nearly-1-trillion-globally-unnecessary-new-plants

But Repugs sue Obama.

boutons_deux

04-01-2016, 08:41 PM

US tech giants file brief in favor of Obama 'clean power' plan

US tech giants Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon expressed support Friday for President Barack Obama's program to fight climate change, which was put on hold in February by the US Supreme Court.

The Environmental Protection Agency's "Clean Power Plan" calls for a 32 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by electric power plants by 2030 from 2005 levels.

A group of 25 US states, most of them led by Republican governors, challenged the program before the Supreme Court which by a 5-4 vote put it on hold until an appeals court can rule on the arguments.
On Friday, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon filed a brief with the DC Circuit court in support of the program, noting that collectively they are among the biggest US consumers of electricity.

The administration's plan "will help address climate change (http://phys.org/tags/climate+change/) by reinforcing current trends that are making renewable energy (http://phys.org/tags/renewable+energy/) supplies more robust, more reliable and more affordable," the brief said.

The tech giants noted their own efforts to limit the impact of their activities on the environment, in particular by turning toward renewable energy sources for their power needs.

They said the program would help them "power their operations in ways consistent with their environmental commitments and business needs."

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-tech-giants-favor-obama-power.html

Fucking Repugs strictly OBSTRUCTING the knitter in every way possible, no matter who or what gets hurt.

Wild Cobra

04-01-2016, 09:03 PM

Shazbot.

I have to admit, it's funny watching you bounce off walls.

boutons_deux

04-06-2016, 10:18 AM

America’s Biggest Corporations and Utilities Line Up in Support of Obama’s Carbon Regulations

A swarm of new Clean Power Plan backers arrived on the legal scene last week, with filings rolling in from big technology companies, government officials and a couple of oddballs.

Dominion Resources Inc. was perhaps the most unexpected party to side with U.S. EPA in the massive litigation over the agency's plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.

While utilities across the country have helped lead the fight against the climate rule, Dominion -- which owns several coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants -- says the plan's focus on power from gas and renewables is consistent with industry trends.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/americas-biggest-corporations-and-utilities-line-up-in-support-of-obamas-ca?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreentechMedia+%28Greentech+M edia%29

CLEAN POWER PLAN:

From Madeleine Albright to candymaker, rule sees broad support

Dominion Resources Inc. was perhaps the most unexpected party to side with U.S. EPA in the massive litigation over the agency's plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.

While utilities across the country have helped lead the fight against the climate rule, Dominion -- which owns several coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants -- says the plan's focus on power from gas and renewables is consistent with industry trends.

"The Rule provides a flexible, accommodating compliance framework that means the Rule can be implemented by states and EPA in a way that is challenging but ultimately manageable for regulated power plants," the Virginia-based utility, which also operates nuclear plants, said in its "friend of the court" filing (http://www.eenews.net/assets/2016/04/04/document_ew_03.pdf) Friday.

Arguments against the rule's market-based measures could result in costlier regulations down the road, the company added.

A handful of other utilities, including Southern California Edison Co. and Pacific Gas and Electric Corp., have intervened in the case on EPA's side, but most in the power sector are seeking to block the rule.

Dominion's move was part of a flurry of briefs filed Friday to meet the deadline for friends of the court supporting the rule at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060034994