Federal government approves second SolarReserve solar power plant

[Agloco]

Soylindra II?

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/12/21/federal-government-approves-second-solarreserve-solar-power-plant/


The federal government has signed off on another big solar power plant, approving a land lease Monday for SolarReserve’s 110-megawatt Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in Nevada that will store energy for up to eight hours after the sun sets.

Inoming Yoni rant in 3........2........1.......


EDIT: This link gives an actual dollar figure. Sorry for the confusion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwood...r-power-plant/

Says it's 737 million.

[Wild Cobra]

Soylindra II?

http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/12/21/federal-government-approves-second-solarreserve-solar-power-plant/



Inoming Yoni rant in 3........2........1.......
No rant...

I didn't see that it has a large loan or anything. If that exists, then where is such a link. What I see it that the have approval for the project on leased federal land.

I am skeptical of the cost of the energy resulting from such systems, but at least the technology is sound.

[Agloco]

No rant...

I didn't see that it has a large loan or anything. If that exists, then where is such a link. What I see it that the have approval for the project on leased federal land.

I am skeptical of the cost of the energy resulting from such systems, but at least the technology is sound.

Hmmmm.....maybe my fault. I saw on CNN that the government gave another 700 million.

At any rate, I need to look at this again.

[Yonivore]

If there was a demand for this company's product, it wouldn't need taxpayer money.

The government has no business loaning business money.

[Agloco]

Sorry for the confusion. Maybe this is a better one?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/

Says it's 737 million.

[boutons_deux]

Better for govt to loan money to infrastructure projects than to the financial sector.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry for the confusion. Maybe this is a better one?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/

Says it's 737 million.
OK, Now I'm pissed.

We can't be throwing that type of money around when when the potential for return is uncertain. At what rate is this companies claim they can sell power for? I doubt it's competitive.

If the project has sound numbers, there are plenty of capital adventurists who will supply the money.

Maybe they should ask Buffett for the money. Since he doesn't think he pays enough in taxes, maybe he should just grant them the money.

[RandomGuy]

If there was a demand for this company's product, it wouldn't need taxpayer money.

The government has no business loaning business money.

Um, you do know the company is selling electricity, right?

Last I checked, there is a good demand for that particular product.

Secondly, there weren't any loans given to the company, dipshit. RTFA

[Yonivore]

Um, you do know the company is selling electricity, right?

Last I checked, there is a good demand for that particular product.
Then private investors should be lined up to underwrite the effort.


Secondly, there weren't any loans given to the company, dipshit. RTFA
Obama administration grants $737 million for a 24/7 solar power plant (http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/)


The Obama administration on Thursday offered Santa Monica solar startup SolarReserve a $737 million loan guarantee to build a 110-megawatt solar thermal power plant in Nevada that can generate electricity 24 hours a day.
Looks like a duck to me.

[Wild Cobra]

Then private investors should be lined up to underwrite the effort.


Obama administration grants $737 million for a 24/7 solar power plant (http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/)


Looks like a duck to me.
You mean you think they will drown?

[Yonivore]

You mean you think they will drown?
I have no idea, I just wish it were being done with people's money who had a choice in their investment.

[Wild Cobra]

I have no idea, I just wish it were being done with people's money who had a choice in their investment.
LOL...

Just mixing it up with the sedated duck drownings.

[Yonivore]

LOL...

Just mixing it up with the sedated duck drownings.
That was fucking hilarious. Except for the ducks, of course.

[Yonivore]

...the SolarReserve loan guarantee is a sign that the United States Department of Energy is willing to gamble on a technology untested on a commercial scale.
A word that should never appear in conjunction with government expenditures.

[RandomGuy]

Soylindra II?

Not really. This is more of a larger scale up of a R & D project that has been ongoing for the better part of a decade or so.

Worst case scenario is that this produces electricity at a higher than market rate. Hardly a prescription for disaster.

Note that is the worst case scenario. I would imagine, given the involvement of the large investors underwriting this, that the chances of it losing money is fairly remote. The chances of it doing tits up, ala Soylindra practically zero.

SolarReserve has good relations with some deep pockets, and has been around since the late 1990's.

[Agloco]

If there was a demand for this company's product,

Energy. It's in demand last I checked.

[Yonivore]

Energy. It's in demand last I checked.
And, currently, there is a cheaper way to get it.

If this project were worth having, the private sector would pay for it.

[RandomGuy]

Then private investors should be lined up to underwrite the effort.


Obama administration grants $737 million for a 24/7 solar power plant (http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2011/05/19/obama-administration-grants-737-million-for-a-247-solar-power-plant/)


Looks like a duck to me.


The Obama administration on Thursday offered Santa Monica solar startup SolarReserve a $737 million loan guarantee to build a 110-megawatt solar thermal power plant in Nevada that can generate electricity 24 hours a day.

200 page plan of development, that you are probably going to be too lazy to read as well:
http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/Tonopah_Crescent_Dunes_POD_2009_11_23.pdf


3. APPLICANT FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY
SolarReserve, doing business as “Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC”, is a Santa Monica, California based energy company formed by US Renewables Group, a private equity firm focused exclusively on renewable energy. SolarReserve now holds the exclusive worldwide license to build solar plants that use
equipment manufactured by United Technology Corporation’s subsidiary, Hamilton Sundstrand, through its Rocketdyne division. More than $100 million has been invested to date by Rocketdyne, the US Department of Energy and others in the design and manufacture of these components. Hamilton Sundstrand brings a broad base of experience in building the most reliable power systems in the world and supports a multitude of other programs to support the further development and implementation of the technology.
US Renewables Group (USRG) is one of the largest private equity firms focused exclusively on investing in renewable power, biofuels and clean technology infrastructure. USRG was founded in 2003 and has mobilized $575 million of capital commitments and has made 17 diversified investments across two funds. USRG has offices in Los Angeles and New York.

The SolarReserve team, both solely and in cooperation with other energy firms, is developing a portfolio of opportunities to deploy solar energy plants in the United States, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Australia. The SolarReserve management team has successfully developed more than $7 billion in electricity generation projects at previous companies. This includes solar and wind energy projects as well as natural gas, cogeneration, and biomass-fired electricity generating facilities located in
the United States and more than a dozen countries around the world.
SolarReserve recently closed a second round of funding totaling $140 million. The additional funds will enable the company to advance its development of utility scale power plants in locations across the globe.

The financing was led by the renewable energy private equity group within Citi Alternative Investments, Sustainable Development Investments (SDI), and Good Energies, one of the largest private investors in the solar industry. Other investors include US Renewables Group, the founding investor in SolarReserve, along with PCG Clean Energy & Technology Fund (CETF), Nimes Capital, LLC and Credit
Suisse.

The estimated cost of the project, including the transmission line and substation upgrades, is between
$700 million and $800 million dollars and is generally broken down into the following cost areas:
 30% Receiver, Tower, Salt Tanks & Heliostats
 18% Steam Turbine Generator and Steam Generation
 6% Cooling System and Water Treatment
 7% Miscellaneous Process Equipment
 9% Electrical and Instrumentation
TONOPAH SOLAR ENERGY, LLC REV 2; 11/21/09
N-86292
CRESCENT DUNES SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT PAGE 11
 2% Civil and Site Work
 10% Structural
 2% Buildings
 11% Piping & Instrumentation
 5% Mechanical Utilities.
Tonopah Solar Energy has already invested substantial resources for this project, including filing of an interconnection request and engaging qualified engineering and environmental consultants to support development efforts.
The project will be financed through a combination of private equity and debt financing. SolarReserve will also seek to be eligible for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and government Loan Guarantee programs. Project financing arrangements will be formalized upon receipt of final permits and
a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.

Additional contributors to this POD are as follows:
• WorleyParsons —WorleyParsons has provided engineering support to a broad portfolio of clients in the
utility-scale solar energy field, including utilities, major IPPs, and recently formed ventures.
WorleyParsons’ staff has extensive experience with all four types of concentrating solar technologies.
Solar power staff has been involved in the design, construction, and operation of nineteen concentrating
solar power facilities including the nine SEGS plants in Southern California, six dish/Stirling solar power systems, Solar I and II power tower systems and two compact linear reflecting Fresnel systems. Worley Parsons is currently completing solar plant engineering for FPL Energy and other project developers.
Their world-class conventional power engineers have the capability to design and build the power block of solar power facilities rapidly and at a minimum cost. They also have experience with flat-plate and concentrating photovoltaic systems. Worley Parsons capabilities include solar resource assessment and site selection, plant design point and annual performance simulation, plant design and cost estimating, construction management, acceptance testing, and plant O&M. WorleyParsons will provide engineering
services throughout the project's life from concept selection, plant configuration tailored to match utility load, preliminary engineering and detailed design. WorleyParsons commenced operations over 25 years
ago and now employs 32,200 personnel in 118 office locations in over 38 countries and has an established track record of successfully executing major projects for its customers.

[Yonivore]

200 page plan of development, that you are probably going to be too lazy to read as well:
http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/Tonopah_Crescent_Dunes_POD_2009_11_23.pdf
I don't want the government guaranteeing loans either. Particularly after Solyndra...that was a loan guarantee, right?

If it's a viable project, it doesn't need government support.

[RandomGuy]

Essentially what you have here is the US government is backstopping the loans, making the cost of capital a bit cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

Exactly the kinds of technology the government should be in the business of supporting.

[Yonivore]

Essentially what you have here is the US government is backstopping the loans, making the cost of capital a bit cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

Exactly the kinds of technology the government should be in the business of supporting.
Bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

I don't want the government guaranteeing loans either. Particularly after Solyndra...that was a loan guarantee, right?

If it's a viable project, it doesn't need government support.

Long term R & D projects are not something that finance CEO's worried about next quarter's profits and their own stock options like to underwrite.

Your vision of what should and shouldn't be financed leads to ceding technological and economic advantages to countries with the long-term vision to do so.

Why do you hate America?

[Yonivore]

Long term R & D projects are not something that finance CEO's worried about next quarter's profits and their own stock options like to underwrite.

Your vision of what should and shouldn't be financed leads to ceding technological and economic advantages to countries with the long-term vision to do so.

Why do you hate America?
If it were worth doing, the private sector would do it.

[RandomGuy]

Bullshit.

You have me in the crushing grip of reason, sir. Well played. :toast

[RandomGuy]

If it were worth doing, the private sector would do it.

The private sector is doing it, as I pointed out. I have no problem with the US Government underwriting and supporting long term R & D in energy technologies, as the benefits are pretty clear from an economic standpoint.

Don't you get tired of repeating the same tired, debunked ideas over and over, Cosmored?

[Yonivore]

The private sector is doing it, as I pointed out. I have no problem with the US Government underwriting and supporting long term R & D in energy technologies, as the benefits are pretty clear from an economic standpoint.

Don't you get tired of repeating the same tired, debunked ideas over and over, Cosmored?
I just don't believe government has any business risking tax dollars on business.

[Yonivore]

You have me in the crushing grip of reason, sir. Well played. :toast
Well, it is bullshit. The government shouldn't be in the business of supporting any business.

[RandomGuy]

The long term economics of this play very well if the price of coal goes up, as it is very likely to do.

Given that China is building something on the order of two coal powered power plants per week, and that looks to continue for the next decade. Further, that rate is fairly likely to increase, as China is STILL experiencing brown-outs, indicating that supply is falling behind demand.

The ultimate impact of the additional Chinese demand on coal can be seen in the fact that even with slowdowns in the west, we haven't seen much slide in prices since 2008, quite the opposite.

I dunno. Oddly enough the ultimate profitability of the plant depends on how badly the real estate bubble that I think is forming in China hits that country, if at all. If it knocks their economy on its ass, you would see the price of coal, and therefor the price of electricity in the US fall, eroding or erasing entirely the benefits of a plant that does not rely on this fuel. Electricity is a bit more complex than this, with the current gas boom, but still, this can be used as a rough tool for thinking about the economic viability of the project over the longer term.

[RandomGuy]

I just don't believe government has any business risking tax dollars on business.

Fair enough. I believe it does.

Every other country on the planet subsidizes R & D. Even if they didn't, I would still be in favor of the largest financial entity in the US shouldering the burden when it comes to grand projects that ultimately benefit us all.

I am willing to take in on the chin on occasion, as the innovation that we are so good at will inevitably produce game-changing revolutionary technologies.

Personally I don't fully trust that CEO's, who admit that they are forced by their boards to think woefully short-term, would have the appetite to really fund something truly worthwhile on a large scale.

This is why the saw "if it were worthwhile, the private sector would do it" doesn't work. The people running the companies you are saying would underwrite, fully admit this is one of the limitations of our free-market system.

Sorry you are unable to see that.

[RandomGuy]

Levelised energy cost (LEC, also commonly abbreviated as LCOE) is the price at which electricity must be generated from a specific source to break even. It is an economic assessment of the cost of the energy-generating system including all the costs over its lifetime: initial investment, operations and maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital, and is very useful in calculating the costs of generation from different sources.[citation needed]

It can be defined in a single formula as:[10]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/3/2/c32aed86b147b8a42e50d0f45fa8f7cd.png



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

The entry does have some graphs as well showing the costs of various.

FWIW solar thermal is the most expensive. It is unknown whether this project is included in that, I doubt it though, as the graph notes 2016 as the target date, and this project will be up and running in 2013 or so. Most other solar thermal technologies suffer from some marked inefficiencies.

I will do some poking around the financials to see if I can get an equivalent figure for the project. I have been mulling over putting in a resume to the company anyways, so it will be interesting to see under the hood.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting, that is essentially an NPV calculation. Putting together a spreadsheet now to get the levelized cost.

[Wild Cobra]

Essentially what you have here is the US government is backstopping the loans, making the cost of capital a bit cheaper than it would have been otherwise.[/URL]
I wonder what we find if we see who donated to who...
[QUOTE=RandomGuy;5432781]Exactly the kinds of technology the government should be in the business of supporting.
None... at least when we are in such a financial bind, then we can consider it. Again, if this is a worthwhile endeavor, capital venturists will finance it without loan guarantees.

How about we balance the budget first.

[Wild Cobra]

The long term economics of this play very well if the price of coal goes up, as it is very likely to do.
If you like gambling, then do it with your money.

[RandomGuy]

Essentially what you have here is the US government is backstopping the loans, making the cost of capital a bit cheaper than it would have been otherwise.
I wonder what we find if we see who donated to who...

None... at least when we are in such a financial bind, then we can consider it. Again, if this is a worthwhile endeavor, capital venturists will finance it without loan guarantees.

How about we balance the budget first.

Math fail.

Loan gaurantees cost exactly zero dollars on any budget, unless it goes belly up. The entire cost of construction is private sector, if you were to read the project description.

[Yonivore]

...unless it goes belly up.
Of course, that never happens.

[Wild Cobra]

[QUOTE=Wild Cobra;5432847]

Math fail.

Loan gaurantees cost exactly zero dollars on any budget, unless it goes belly up. The entire cost of construction is private sector, if you were to read the project description.
So you seriously see this turning a profit?

It is gambling, and a poor bet.

[RandomGuy]

LEC of project:

Assuming a 30 year life span:
$125/Mwh
40 year life span (most probable)
$116/Mwh
50 year life span (a good possibility, given the simplicity of systems involved)
$111

LEC of current conventional, dirty coal
$94
LEC of advanced clean coal:
$109
LEC of advanced nuclear:
$111
LEC wind:
$94
LEC gas:
Kinda hard to tell from chart. $66-$134

Overall cost of this plant at about $800M, seems to be pretty competitive.

(note assumes that the estimated cost $700-$800M comes out closer to $800M, and a cost of capital of 6%)

(edit)
LEC of project, assuming 10% cost of capital, 40 year life span:
$164/Mwh

This is probably more realistic than 6% after looking it over. My best guess.

[RandomGuy]

So you seriously see this turning a profit?

It is gambling, and a poor bet.

Sorry, you seriously lack the background to be able to evaluate that to any degree that I would be comfortable with.

This is the internet, and you are entitled to your opinion though.

We will get to see, won't we?

[boutons_deux]

If Eternally Dirty Coal were forced to pay for all of its externalities (instead of taxpayers), renewable sources would be very competitive.

[Yonivore]

Sorry, you seriously lack the background to be able to evaluate that to any degree that I would be comfortable with.

This is the internet, and you are entitled to your opinion though.

We will get to see, won't we?
And, you lack the skills to fix broken code in a post.

It doesn't matter if we're able to evaluate the risk; given the record of the administration passing out the money, it's a bad risk today. They told us Solyndra was the company of the future.

[RandomGuy]

If Eternally Dirty Coal were forced to pay for all of its externalities (instead of taxpayers), renewable sources would be very competitive.

They currently are fairly competitive now.

Given what is likely to happen with coal/gas, they will be very competitive.


Here is the chart that I was drawing data from, BTW:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.g if

[RandomGuy]

And, you lack the skills to fix broken code in a post.

It doesn't matter if we're able to evaluate the risk; given the record of the administration passing out the money, it's a bad risk today. They told us Solyndra was the company of the future.

LOL Code smack. That's what you are going with? Seriously?

Gawd your shit is weak.

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't matter if we're able to evaluate the risk; given the record of the administration passing out the money, it's a bad risk today. They told us Solyndra was the company of the future.

I might buy that if Solyndra represented 100% of the governments investments in energy.

Since it doesn't, and you are too lazy or dishonest to give me a success rate or ROI, pardon me for not buying your bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

And, you lack the skills to fix broken code in a post.

You do realize the "broken code" came from WC's posts right?

You gonna take that from this joker, WC?

[Yonivore]

LOL Code smack. That's what you are going with? Seriously?
It is the internet.


Gawd your shit is weak.
No weaker than yours.

I didn't overlook this comment either.


Given what is likely to happen with coal/gas, they will be very competitive.
The Obama administration has engaged in a deliberate attempt to kill the coal and petroleum industries for just that reason; to make alternative, highly speculative, fuel sources more attractive.

Not a very smart move, IMO; what with 9.1% unemployment and an economy in shambles. He's trying to shove the whole pie in our mouths. It's not going to fit.

[Wild Cobra]

You do realize the "broken code" came from WC's posts right?

You gonna take that from this joker, WC?
I think you're broken.

You show a chart with Solar thermal being the most expensive, and claim it's competitive... What gives?

[RandomGuy]

I think you're broken.

You show a chart with Solar thermal being the most expensive, and claim it's competitive... What gives?

(sighs)

Not really. Go back and re-read, I'm not going to explain it again.

[MannyIsGod]

Good shit!

The government absolutely should push solar considering Yoni has no problems with our military protecting the oil resources for our nation in the middle east.

[Yonivore]

Good shit!

The government absolutely should push solar considering Yoni has no problems with our military protecting the oil resources for our nation in the middle east.
There'd be no need for that if we hadn't retarded our own oil industry over the past few decades.

[RandomGuy]

One would expect experimental tech and test bed projects to be more expensive than proven, older technologies.

Just as one can expect that as the newer technologies develop and mature, their costs will come down, as has been the case with every single thing that human beings have ever produced, and has been the case with wind, as we have gotten into efficiencies of scale, and the people involved have moved down the learning curve.

This project's LEC at roughly $164 is about what one would expect from such a technology.

The next plant will be cheaper, and the next after that, cheaper still. The US southwest is a very big place, so I don't imagine there will be a derth of sites.

Coal will get more expensive, and this technology will get cheaper. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where that ends up.

[MannyIsGod]

There'd be no need for that if we hadn't retarded our own oil industry over the past few decades.

:lmao

Thats funny.

[RandomGuy]

There'd be no need for that if we hadn't retarded our own oil industry over the past few decades.

:lmao

Let me know when you read any of the big companies 10-k's to back that assertion up.

The US has 2% of the worlds oil reserves, yet produces 10% of the world's oil production.

You keep deluding yourself that we are doing shit to limit oil production to any significant degree in the US. The cheap stuff is gone, and what is left takes billions of dollars to get at.

The limitations aren't the big bad government, it is the fact that what we have left is VERY capital intensive to get at. The companies themselves outline this rather clearly in their annual reports.

More useless fucking failed talking points, Cosmored.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

The US has had a military presence in the Middle East to protect those reserves since the end of WWII. Its because of how important energy is.

You're really a terrible partisan hack, Yoni.

[Yonivore]

How many of your 110MW Sunshine Plants will be in place to make up for the 28GW the EPA is getting ready to dump?

EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW of Generating Capacity (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/10/07/ier-identifies-coal-fired-power-plants-likely-to-close-as-result-of-epa-regulations/)

This administration's energy policy is just plain idiotic.


http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Summary-Map-of-Power-Plants-EPA1.png

[Wild Cobra]

I'll bet Enron wishes they were still around for this.

Which of Obama's energy buddies will profit from this?

[admiralsnackbar]

Posting graphics developed by PR contractors for global companies with vested interests can only lead to thoughtful, unbiased discussion.

[Wild Cobra]

How many of your 110MW Sunshine Plants will be in place to make up for the 28GW the EPA is getting ready to dump?

EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW of Generating Capacity (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/10/07/ier-identifies-coal-fired-power-plants-likely-to-close-as-result-of-epa-regulations/)

This administration's energy policy is just plain idiotic.

Yes it is.

I see the article is recent, but the attached PFD is not dated, old, and incorrect for the Boardman facility in Oregon. This material has it listed at 601 MW, but everything local calls it a 585 MW plant. On top of that, isn't this interfering with States Rights, so any rule changes should be grandfathered, at least until renewal time.

Since the Boardman plant has been a sore spot for the greenies in Oregon, good pressure has come down on them. they have already invested millions to make it compliant and operational until 2020. Should the feds effectively scrap this upgrade in progress, then I would consider it criminal action by the government.

Boardman 2020 plan approved by regulators (http://www.sustainablebusinessoregon.com/articles/2010/12/its-official-boardman-2020-plan.html); December 9, 2010

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm curious what people will say about the EPA's "short-sightedness" when Germany's GDP remains essentially constant (regardless of potential Greek/Spanish/Irish/Portuguese meltdowns) due to increased reliance on renewable energy?

Cheap petrochemical energy was a strategic advantage for our country once upon a time, but as the rest of the world has started demanding a bigger and bigger piece of the global energy pie, countries shifting from that model will gain the upper hand because -- despite lower output -- these countries will be able to have higher returns due to lower production costs.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm curious what people will say about the EPA's "short-sightedness" when Germany's GDP remains essentially constant (regardless of potential Greek/Spanish/Irish/Portuguese meltdowns) due to increased reliance on renewable energy?

Cheap petrochemical energy was a strategic advantage for our country once upon a time, but as the rest of the world has started demanding a bigger and bigger piece of the global energy pie, countries shifting from that model will gain the upper hand because -- despite lower output -- these countries will be able to have higher returns due to lower production costs.
Germany has had such plans in place for years. For the EPA to say by year XXXX, this is the law...

Business needs proper timelines. What the EPA is doing will not only fuck the energy companies, but fuck the consumer by dramatically increasing energy costs.

[admiralsnackbar]

Don't doubt it. As much as I think the EPA will create renewable energy companies by fucking consumers (to out ultimate benefit) I also believe that all you're seeing in the US is one petrochem energy lobby successfully demonizing another for an election cycle via a puppet EPA.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't doubt it. As much as I think the EPA will create renewable energy companies by fucking consumers (to out ultimate benefit) I also believe that all you're seeing in the US is one petrochem energy lobby successfully demonizing another for an election cycle via a puppet EPA.
Believe as you wish. What i see is an attempt to raise energy carbon based energy prices so the expensive sources can compete.

It is still raising energy prices to consumers. I'll bet the working poor will love this!

[admiralsnackbar]

You tireless defender of the poor, you :lol

[Wild Cobra]

You tireless defender of the poor, you :lol
Don't you think this will raise energy rates?

[admiralsnackbar]

Don't you think this will raise energy rates?
I do.

[RandomGuy]

How many of your 110MW Sunshine Plants will be in place to make up for the 28GW the EPA is getting ready to dump?

EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW of Generating Capacity (http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/10/07/ier-identifies-coal-fired-power-plants-likely-to-close-as-result-of-epa-regulations/)

This administration's energy policy is just plain idiotic.


LOL, Yoni spiffing data from a coal industry website complaining about EPA regulations.

Total electrical generating capacity of the USA: 750MW

Affected US generating capacity: 3.7%

Most of these plants were old to begin with, and had been grandfathered in with a ton of exceptions that allowed them to continue to operate past their designed lives, with various kluges to keep them hobbling along.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2011.06.16/vintage_cap_overview_p1.png

The vast majority of them were built and in operation by 1980.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1990

Ain't nothin' stopping them from re-building newer plants with pollution controls, but market forces.

Why are you against the free market?

[RandomGuy]

Don't you think this will raise energy rates?

It will by a small degree. Basically, we are taking 3.7% of our generating capacity and replacing with with various other, cleaner sources of energy, such as wind, that has a cost per installed MW of $97. The coal it is replacing is what, $94?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.g if

We are making 3.7% of our power 3% more expensive? .037 * .03= 0.1%

That is assuming that all of that gets replaced with wind at the price. Even so, moving to something even at $115 still leaves us with .22 * .037= 0.8%

What we get in return is generating capacity with less sulfur emissions, fewer toxic waste byproducts as new wind comes online, and a reduced depedency on fuels that we have to compete in a bidding war with 3 billion Asians. Seems like a pretty decent cost-to-benefit ratio.

Fuck, if we move over to even more renewables, we could end up being a net exporter of coal to Asia, and it would improve our balance of trade.

Why is this a bad thing again?

[RandomGuy]

Germany has had such plans in place for years. For the EPA to say by year XXXX, this is the law...

Business needs proper timelines. What the EPA is doing will not only fuck the energy companies, but fuck the consumer by dramatically increasing energy costs.

:lmao

Don't bother researching for that opinion. You won't like the results.

[RandomGuy]

http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20110830/0014222d98500fc67af501.jpg

China doesn't have any big bad EPA forcing *their* power plants to have any of these silly scrubbers.

Yoni, perhaps this is what you want? Really cheap coal power like the Chinese have?

http://twitter.com/#!/BeijingAir

A constant stream of "Unhealthy" and "Hazardous"?

Do tell.

[Wild Cobra]

There you go again being RandomPropagandaGuy.

The EPA has served us well until it fell prey to extreme political pressures. It's not an all or nothing dilemma, and nobody is advocating China like pollution controls.

As for the dramatic cost increase...

I don't have to research it, I have seen enough examples of how dramatic prices increase when demand surpasses supply. I will let the future prove me right or wrong.

[Yonivore]

http://images.china.cn/attachement/jpg/site1007/20110830/0014222d98500fc67af501.jpg

China doesn't have any big bad EPA forcing *their* power plants to have any of these silly scrubbers.

Yoni, perhaps this is what you want? Really cheap coal power like the Chinese have?

http://twitter.com/#!/BeijingAir

A constant stream of "Unhealthy" and "Hazardous"?

Do tell.
Our plants are already in compliance for particulate matter. It's the non-toxic, EPA dictated toxin CO2 the EPA is now willing to shut down an industry (more than one, to be honest) over.

Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. But, I'm glad you brought up China.

When Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, it was to reverse the damage done, to that point, by uncontrolled releases of real toxins.

Those objectives were achieved sometime in the late 70's or early 80's. Once flammable rivers were teeming with fish again. You could swim, once more, in the previously toxic lakes and eat what you caught. The air cleared up in all but the most congested cities.

Unfortunately, bureaucracies being what they are, the EPA had to create even more onerous standards for mobile and point source emissions, lest their job be done. So, we tightened car emissions standards to a point where most vehicles operate in a stoichiometric state, where toxic emissions are so low, they're difficult to measure with any accuracy.

That didn't stop the EPA. No sirree, Bob. What is the chief product of a stoichiometric internal combustion engine, burning gasoline? Carbon Dioxide. Well, what do you know, it's a fucking greenhouse gas!

It's just gotten really silly.

You could go back to the 1985 standards and we'd never have a chance to ever approach the poor air quality found in China.

Stupid comparison, really.

[Winehole23]

I don't have to research it, I have seen enough examples of how dramatic prices increase when demand surpasses supply. I will let the future prove me right or wrong.Presumption is a wonderful thing, maestro. Everyone else has to show their work while you just wait for your train to arrive, ignoring everything else.

[RandomGuy]

"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".

Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:

■ if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
■ and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned"."

Here is another definition of that level of stupidity.

Dunning Kruger

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes."

I have yet to see Yonivore ever own up to the flaws in any of his arguments.

[RandomGuy]

Our plants are already in compliance for particulate matter. It's the non-toxic, EPA dictated toxin CO2 the EPA is now willing to shut down an industry (more than one, to be honest) over.

Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. But, I'm glad you brought up China.

When Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, it was to reverse the damage done, to that point, by uncontrolled releases of real toxins.

Those objectives were achieved sometime in the late 70's or early 80's. Once flammable rivers were teeming with fish again. You could swim, once more, in the previously toxic lakes and eat what you caught. The air cleared up in all but the most congested cities.

Unfortunately, bureaucracies being what they are, the EPA had to create even more onerous standards for mobile and point source emissions, lest their job be done. So, we tightened car emissions standards to a point where most vehicles operate in a stoichiometric state, where toxic emissions are so low, they're difficult to measure with any accuracy.

That didn't stop the EPA. No sirree, Bob. What is the chief product of a stoichiometric internal combustion engine, burning gasoline? Carbon Dioxide. Well, what do you know, it's a fucking greenhouse gas!

It's just gotten really silly.

You could go back to the 1985 standards and we'd never have a chance to ever approach the poor air quality found in China.

Stupid comparison, really.

So you are in favor of *some* regulations. There is at least that much.

Getting rid of all regulation would be stupid, so that's why I asked, to see just where you draw the line.

Fair enough.

I still don't see why we need to lock ourselves into a bidding war with three billion asians for a fuel source.

Can you tell me why you feel we need to do that?

[Winehole23]

(coffee)

[Yonivore]

I have yet to see Yonivore ever own up to the flaws in any of his arguments.
Could be you're describing yourself in that this is how you respond to the proposition that we could -- and did -- achieve better air quality than China with regulations, in place 25 years ago.

Cognitive dissonance is continuing to think the United States is anywhere but head and shoulders above the rest of the world in air quality standards and emissions mitigation.

[RandomGuy]

There you go again being RandomPropagandaGuy.

This would sting so much more if you called Yonivore on his extremly obvious propaganda.

As it is, :sleep

[RandomGuy]

Cognitive dissonance is continuing to think the United States is anywhere but head and shoulders above the rest of the world in air quality standards and emissions mitigation.

Seems to be a pretty solid assertion.

Link?

[Yonivore]

So you are in favor of *some* regulations. There is at least that much.

Getting rid of all regulation would be stupid, so that's why I asked, to see just where you draw the line.

Fair enough.

I still don't see why we need to lock ourselves into a bidding war with three billion asians for a fuel source.

Can you tell me why you feel we need to do that?
Well, first of all, there is nothing -- in the immediate -- that replaces oil for fuel.

Second, the technologies that promise to, are inefficient, costly, and immature.

Third, in deference to these costly, inefficient, and immature -- future -- technologies, our government has retarded our exploration capability, or recovery capability, and our refining capability.

As our own capability to capture and produce our own fuel diminishes, we're forced to find it elsewhere while liberals play with "alternative fuels," that may or may not ever be able to fill the need.

I would be in total agreement with the environmentalists if, while they were playing with their green toys, they'd allow industry to explore, drill, capture, and refine oil, build nuclear power plants and continue to operate clean burning, coal fired power plants.

But, that's not good enough for them. They'd rather hobble the country, throw billions -- trillions if you let them -- at unproven and inadequate replacements.

[Yonivore]

Seems to be a pretty solid assertion.

Link?
I think your link is standing outside any coal burning power plant in the United States, right now.

This isn't China.

[RandomGuy]

Well, first of all, there is nothing -- in the immediate -- that replaces oil for fuel.

Second, the technologies that promise to, are inefficient, costly, and immature.

Third, in deference to these costly, inefficient, and immature -- future -- technologies, our government has retarded our exploration capability, or recovery capability, and our refining capability.

As our own capability to capture and produce our own fuel diminishes, we're forced to find it elsewhere while liberals play with "alternative fuels," that may or may not ever be able to fill the need.

I would be in total agreement with the environmentalists if, while they were playing with their green toys, they'd allow industry to explore, drill, capture, and refine oil, build nuclear power plants and continue to operate clean burning, coal fired power plants.

But, that's not good enough for them. They'd rather hobble the country, throw billions -- trillions if you let them -- at unproven and inadequate replacements.

"immature and unproven"?

The LEC as near as I can calculate for the plant in the OP is actually fairly close to that of an advanced coal plant now.

The land-based wind is within 3% of the cost for the plants coming in line within the next 5 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1%2C_2011_DOE_report.g if

Wind technology is not new, I hate to break it to you.

http://www.pondaeration.com/photos/100_5271.JPG
(from a neat company website that I would recommend visiting, Made in the USA):
http://www.pondaeration.com/

http://www.ronsaari.com/stockImages/holland/KatwoudeWindmill.jpg

The only thing that is missing is the economy of scale, and that is coming along.

That kind of argument might have cut it 20 years ago.

I don't mind having coal plants, as long as they are reasonably clean. I don't mind the drilling.

Resource depletion will mean that both will continue, but get more expensive.

I don't see waiting until we have a screaming need for alternatives as really a wise decision, especially when the need is pretty clear to anybody who isn't getting all his news from coal industry websites.

[RandomGuy]

Cognitive dissonance is continuing to think the United States is anywhere but head and shoulders above the rest of the world in air quality standards and emissions mitigation.

Seems to be a pretty solid assertion.

Link?


I think your link is standing outside any coal burning power plant in the United States, right now.

This isn't China.

I didn't say it was.

You also made a stupid blanket statement that alluded that the USA is "head and shoulders" above "the world", including the big bad socialists in Europe.

Are you trying to say that our air quality standards are stricter than Europes'?

Now, before you get your panties in a wad,I know what you meant here, the "world" probably referred to Asia (China/India). Right?

Are you ready to cede that step or two ahead in production and innovation in renewables to the Europeans? I am sure the Germans wouldn't mind at all.

Why do you hate America, but love the Europeans?

[Yonivore]

I don't see waiting until we have a screaming need for alternatives as really a wise decision, especially when the need is pretty clear to anybody who isn't getting all his news from coal industry websites.
I never said to wait. I suggested we need to quit artificially retarding oil and gas production and refining capability in lieu of alternative sources.

I'm all for allowing private interest to continue exploring alternative energies. However, necessity being the mother of invention, I would suggest the alternatives would be available much sooner if government would stand out of the way and let free enterprise fill the need that would be created by any depleting in current fuel sources.

[Yonivore]

Seems to be a pretty solid assertion.

Link?

I didn't say it was.

You also made a stupid blanket statement that alluded that the USA is "head and shoulders" above "the world", including the big bad socialists in Europe.

Are you trying to say that our air quality standards are stricter than Europes'?

Now, before you get your panties in a wad,I know what you meant here, the "world" probably referred to Asia (China/India). Right?
Thanks for not engaging in a pedantic rabbit chase.


Are you ready to cede that step or two ahead in production and innovation in renewables to the Europeans? I am sure the Germans wouldn't mind at all.

Why do you hate America, but love the Europeans?
I don't and, if Europe is lucky enough to survive their current economic crisis I would bet it will be at the sacrifice of their self-righteous, expensive, and economy-killing draconian environmental policies. Why are we so intent in following them down that black hole?

[boutons_deux]

Solar and Wind Could Power the West Right Now, All of America in 2026

The Germans have installed over 10,000 megawatts of solar panels in the past two years, enough to power 2 million American homes (or most of Los Angeles, CA). If Americans installed local solar at the same torrid pace, we could already power most of the Mountain West, could have a 100 percent solar nation by 2026, while enriching thousands of local communities with new development and jobs.

The following map shows what could have happened had the U.S. kept pace with Germany on solar power in the past two years (installed the same megawatts on a per capita basis). Sunshine could power 10 states!

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/11/340358/solar-and-wind-could-power-west-america/

At the same, Feds should make DirtyBigCoal and PollutingFrackers pay for ALL of the cost externalities, rather than leaving the taxpayers with the costs of destroyed surface water, ground water, levelled mountains, defaced landscapes. Ain't gonna happen, the Repugs will block any such legislation to protect and enrich UCA.

[MannyIsGod]

Could be you're describing yourself in that this is how you respond to the proposition that we could -- and did -- achieve better air quality than China with regulations, in place 25 years ago.

Cognitive dissonance is continuing to think the United States is anywhere but head and shoulders above the rest of the world in air quality standards and emissions mitigation.

lol wait, WHAT? The rest of the world does the best thing to avoid air pollution : They use less energy.

And even if you're talking about regulations and technology put in place to try to clean things up we're not above Europe or Japan.

Your assertion is flat out poor.

[Yonivore]

lol wait, WHAT? The rest of the world does the best thing to avoid air pollution : They use less energy.
Well, goody for them.


And even if you're talking about regulations and technology put in place to try to clean things up we're not above Europe or Japan.
And they both have the economies to prove it.


Your assertion is flat out poor.
Well, at least RandomGuy understood what I meant. He was the one that suggested I'd be happy with China's atmosphere and put up the picture.

We've been head and shoulders above China since passage of the Clean Air Act in the 70's. We'd have to completely abandon the Clean Air Act and go to standards - pre-Nixon - to even come close to having a pollution problem like China.

[Drachen]

Thanks for not engaging in a pedantic rabbit chase.


I don't and, if Europe is lucky enough to survive their current economic crisis I would bet it will be at the sacrifice of their self-righteous, expensive, and economy-killing draconian environmental policies. Why are we so intent in following them down that black hole?

Funny that you say that considering the country that best represents those draconian environmental policies and the country that has the strongest economy just happens to be one in the same.

[Yonivore]

Funny that you say that considering the country that best represents those draconian environmental policies and the country that has the strongest economy just happens to be one in the same.
How many people and how many square miles are they?

[Drachen]

How many people and how many square miles are they?

What does that have to do with the assertion that you made above that the environmental policies of Europe are killing their economies?

[MannyIsGod]

Well, goody for them.


And they both have the economies to prove it.


Well, at least RandomGuy understood what I meant. He was the one that suggested I'd be happy with China's atmosphere and put up the picture.

We've been head and shoulders above China since passage of the Clean Air Act in the 70's. We'd have to completely abandon the Clean Air Act and go to standards - pre-Nixon - to even come close to having a pollution problem like China.

Well at least RandomGuy knows how to properly use English and doesn't say "the rest of the world" as some kind synonym for "China".

[Yonivore]

What does that have to do with the assertion that you made above that the environmental policies of Europe are killing their economies?
You're right, it was a bit simplistic. Their social programs are doing are doing their share of the damage.

But, to be sure, the costs to employ European-style environmental controls, in this country, would be exponential considering geography and the level of industrialization.

Look, this country is clean. If it weren't, environmentalists wouldn't be trying to eek out the last part per billion of NOx, CO, and HC out of vehicle tailpipes and they sure as hell wouldn't be calling our exhalation a toxin.

You can continue to quibble over my comments -- my faux paux, I already regret -- but, this country is clean enough. And, it certainly doesn't need to be burdened, during these economic times, with draconian environmental regulations which benefits are dubious, at best.

That's my opinion. It means about as much as yours.

[Yonivore]

Well at least RandomGuy knows how to properly use English and doesn't say "the rest of the world" as some kind synonym for "China".
You're right. My bad. And, he has a better grasp of what was being inferred than you.

I take reason over construct, every time.

[boutons_deux]

"Their social programs are doing are doing their share of the damage."

Totla bullshit (after all, it's Yoni).

No citizen in the other industrialized countries would swap their national health systems for the US screw-you sick-care system.

[MannyIsGod]

You're right. My bad. And, he has a better grasp of what was being inferred than you.

I take reason over construct, every time.

:lol I love how you being unable to prevent your stupidity from blocking communication to be MY issue.

[Yonivore]

:lol I love how you being unable to prevent your stupidity from blocking communication to be MY issue.
It didn't prevent communication with RG; you seem to be the odd man out.

[MannyIsGod]

RG definitely has more patience and ability to deal with stupidity than I do. No debate about that from me. In the end, at least we agree you're a moron. :toast

[Yonivore]

RG definitely has more patience and ability to deal with stupidity than I do. No debate about that from me. In the end, at least we agree you're a moron. :toast
High praise, coming from you.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree, RG should feel honored that I hold his patience so highly.

[RandomGuy]

How many people and how many square miles are they?

Collectively the EU has more people than the US, btw, and are moving towards their renewables goals at a much faster pace than the US.

Germany, since you asked, has about 80M people, and is roughly the size of wyoming + half of nebraska, if memory serves.

The US, given its sheer geographic size/position, has far more solar potential, as noted in the OP. The desert southwest has some good chances for the kinds of power plants that Solar One is building.

Europe has very good coastline wind capacity, and they are making full use of that.

[RandomGuy]

You're right, it was a bit simplistic. Their social programs are doing are doing their share of the damage.

But, to be sure, the costs to employ European-style environmental controls, in this country, would be exponential considering geography and the level of industrialization.

Look, this country is clean. If it weren't, environmentalists wouldn't be trying to eek out the last part per billion of NOx, CO, and HC out of vehicle tailpipes and they sure as hell wouldn't be calling our exhalation a toxin.

No environmentalist is claiming CO2 is a "toxin".

The more you talk about these topics the more you sound like Cosmored repeating debunked statements over and over.

Doesn't that bother you?

[RandomGuy]

I agree, RG should feel honored that I hold his patience so highly.

Even that has it's limits. Talking to Yonivore about wider politics takes on the near-fruitlessness of talking to conspiracy theorists about their pet theories. :bang

To Yoni's credit, he is both more erudite, and very occasionally, will own up to some of this turds.

I do give him some marginal credit for being more sane than Cosmored and company. He is still a slave to his confirmation biases, but at least he isn't batshit insane. :lol

[RandomGuy]

You're right, it was a bit simplistic. Their social programs are doing are doing their share of the damage.

Bullshit.

If the US had the demographics of Europe, we would be just as fucked.

All those illegal aliens and their kids are the only thing seperating us from economic stagnation of an rapidly aging population, ala Japan.

The fact that our safety net is so thin will be laid pretty bare in the parade of elder-care horror stories we are going to be witness to in the coming years.

You extreme rightists are getting your wish about gutting social safetey nets and public spending on things like public education.

I will be right there to rub your nose in that pile of dog turd policies.

Unless you have a free-market solution for tens of millions of impoverished elderly?

Speak up, I would love to hear it.

[Wild Cobra]

Presumption is a wonderful thing, maestro. Everyone else has to show their work while you just wait for your train to arrive, ignoring everything else.
I will rely on my life experience for this. Like I said, just wait and see. If these policies do actually take effect, reducing that much clean capacity, prices will take a notable jump.

[Wild Cobra]

Solar and Wind Could Power the West Right Now, All of America in 2026

The Germans have installed over 10,000 megawatts of solar panels in the past two years, enough to power 2 million American homes (or most of Los Angeles, CA). If Americans installed local solar at the same torrid pace, we could already power most of the Mountain West, could have a 100 percent solar nation by 2026, while enriching thousands of local communities with new development and jobs.

The following map shows what could have happened had the U.S. kept pace with Germany on solar power in the past two years (installed the same megawatts on a per capita basis). Sunshine could power 10 states!

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/11/340358/solar-and-wind-could-power-west-america/

At the same, Feds should make DirtyBigCoal and PollutingFrackers pay for ALL of the cost externalities, rather than leaving the taxpayers with the costs of destroyed surface water, ground water, levelled mountains, defaced landscapes. Ain't gonna happen, the Repugs will block any such legislation to protect and enrich UCA.
Do you know how much more electricity already costs in Germany? It isn't a price leap for them, like it would be for us. It's 0.2671 Euros/kWh. Now convert Euros to dollars and you get over $0.36/kWh.

link (http://www.energy.eu/#domestic)

[boutons_deux]

"prices will take a notable jump"

yes, USA was built on cheap energy, from oil and from coal. So America has never grown up, been responsible, and paid its way while sucking down and mostly wasting 25% of the world's oil.

Europeans bit the bullet on imported oil and taxed it high enough to force down consumption, thereby keeping their more of their wealth at home, rather than in oil countries.

Becasue BigOil and BigCoal write the national energy policy to maximize their profits, Human-Americans get fucked and sucked dry of their wealth, while getting stuck with all the external costs of oil and coal, a huge failure of "market" solutions.

[Wild Cobra]

"prices will take a notable jump"

yes, USA was built on cheap energy, from oil and from coal. So America has never grown up, been responsible, and paid its way while sucking down and mostly wasting 25% of the world's oil.

Europeans bit the bullet on imported oil and taxed it high enough to force down consumption, thereby keeping their more of their wealth at home, rather than in oil countries.

Becasue BigOil and BigCoal write the national energy policy to maximize their profits, Human-Americans get fucked and sucked dry of their wealth, while getting stuck with all the external costs of oil and coal, a huge failure of "market" solutions.
I see...

You are an advocate of paying $0.40 per kWh. OK...

[boutons_deux]

I see, you are an advocate of shipping $500B/year to overseas oil producers.

I see, you are an advocate of mountain top removal, the pollution of land and water with methyl mercury, cadium, lead from unscrubbed coal-fired plants, and of coal ash polluting land and water.

[Wild Cobra]

I see, you are an advocate of shipping $500B/year to overseas oil producers.

I see, you are an advocate of mountain top removal, the pollution of land and water with methyl mercury, cadium, lead from unscrubbed coal-fired plants, and of coal ash polluting land and water.
To completely live clean, we would have to turn into Amish. If you are one not to tolerate any side effects, then why do you use electricity?

[admiralsnackbar]

To completely live clean, we would have to turn into Amish. If you are one not to tolerate any side effects, then why do you use electricity?

That's like saying I should pick a lane : abstinence or alcoholism. There's a fairly wide territory that unfolds between those options, wouldn't you say?

[boutons_deux]

WC's America is the America of No-Can-Do, Sir! We (99%) Are Broke, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

That's like saying I should pick a lane : abstinence or alcoholism. There's a fairly wide territory that unfolds between those options, wouldn't you say?
But that's effectively what he is saying. I am only using another example to bring that to light.

[Wild Cobra]

WC's America is the America of No-Can-Do, Sir! We (99%) Are Broke, etc.
Quite the contrary. I know we can do, and unlike the Flea Party, I want less government interference.

[boutons_deux]

"we can do"

Wall St won't finance the conversion of coal plants to cleanliness because the govt regs don't force it. Big Coal buys the absence of the coal regs, externalizing the costs pollution to everybody else. A perfect example of market failure and why gov intervention is needed. UCA/capitalists will pollute, destroy any air, land, water, employees if there's enough money in it.

[Wild Cobra]

"we can do"

Wall St won't finance the conversion of coal plants to cleanliness because the govt regs don't force it. Big Coal buys the absence of the coal regs, externalizing the costs pollution to everybody else. A perfect example of market failure and why gov intervention is needed. UCA/capitalists will pollute, destroy any air, land, water, employees if there's enough money in it.
I'm sure you have dozens of links showing internal memos that prove such allegations, right?

[boutons_deux]

"Do Your Own Research" -- WC

[Wild Cobra]

"Do Your Own Research" -- WC
I have. I came up empty.

[MannyIsGod]

Solar, baby.

In comparison, the U.S. spends roughly $1 billion a day importing oil (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arun-majumdar-interview-on-inventing-future-of-energy). Diverting 10 percent of that money to supporting the solar industry would instantly put the U.S. ahead of China in terms of industrial support. "To walk away from what is one of the most promising areas of the future is insane," van Mierlo argues. "We have to compete. It would be profoundly un-American not to compete."


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-solyndras-failure-helps-future-of-solar-power&page=1

Great article

[DarrinS]

In comparison, the U.S. spends roughly $1 billion a day importing oil ...


Isn't this quite different from "Every day the U.S. imports $1 billion worth of oil"?

[Agloco]

I have. I came up empty.

Status quo tbh.

[boutons_deux]

US actually sends up to $500B overseas to import oil

[boutons_deux]

BigCoal's nasty externalities, ignored by corporate media:

Media Ignore Study On Real Price Of Coal-Fired Power

A study published in the prestigious journal American Economic Review estimates that the costs imposed on society by air pollution from coal-fired power plants are greater than the value added to the economy by the industry. The study concluded that coal may be "underregulated" since the price we pay for coal-fired power doesn't account for its costs.

According to a Nexis search, not a single major newspaper or television network has covered the study. By contrast, an industry-funded report on the cost of EPA regulations of these air pollutants has received considerable media attention.

The authors of the American Economic Review paper -- Nicholas Muller of Middlebury College and Yale's William Nordhaus and Robert Mendelsohn -- are considered centrists. Mendelsohn opposed the Kyoto climate treaty and spoke this year at the right-wing Heartland Institute's conference on climate change.

Economist Paul Krugman wrote that the study should "be a major factor in how we discuss economic ideology," adding "It won't, of course." From Krutman's post:

It's important to be clear about what this means. It does not necessarily say that we should end the use of coal-generated electricity. What it says, instead, is that consumers are paying much too low a price for coal-generated electricity, because the price they pay does not take account of the very large external costs associated with generation. If consumers did have to pay the full cost, they would use much less electricity from coal -- maybe none, but that would depend on the alternatives.

At one level, this is all textbook economics. Externalities like pollution are one of the classic forms of market failure, and Econ 101 says that this failure should be remedied through pollution taxes or tradable emissions permits that get the price right. What Muller et al are doing is putting numbers to this basic proposition -- and the numbers turn out to be big. So if you really believed in the logic of free markets, you'd be all in favor of pollution taxes, right?


http://mediamatters.org/blog/201110120006?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+County+Fair%29