Obama's Energy Plan

[Tully365]

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.

Tell me one thing I've written that would indicate to you that I'm not a fiscal conservative. Try debating facts rather than resorting to the most obvious name calling.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

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 you're worrying about, what difference is it going to make if a few more tons get put down there?

[Tully365]

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 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 sop ric 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 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 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 in deal, who gives a , not my in 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 .

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Whenever the debate starts to get serious and more complex, you immediately resort to sop ric 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 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 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 in deal, who gives a , not my in 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 .

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 up nature and our future. I shouldn't fart because the gas is polluting our atmosphere.

What the 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 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]

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]

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]

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



http://www.nmcco.com/education/facts.../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]

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 announced by Sen. S ey Moore Capito (R-WV), Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), andRep. 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/201...an-power-plan/

[boutons_deux]

slave states and red states, no surprise

[boutons_deux]

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

Votes in Congress Move to Undercut Climate Pledge

Hours after President Obama pledged Tuesday in Paris that the United States would be in the vanguard of nations seeking a global response toclimate change, 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 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 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...ules.html?_r=0

purely symbolic bull to insult the President in Paris, and tell the world America is ed by Repugs and un able.

[boutons_deux]

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


In a major setback for President Obama’s climate change agenda, the Supreme Court 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 after an appeals court considers an expedited challenge from 29 states 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...ushpmg00000003

Thanks, Repugs.

Y'all BigCarbon/BigCorp s ing up everything.

[boutons_deux]

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...l-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]

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. on Thursday refused to block anEnvironmental Protection Agency 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 in June, when the high court ruled 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 by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis to show the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.”


“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 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...er=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]

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/201...ary-new-plants

But Repugs sue Obama.

[boutons_deux]

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 by reinforcing current trends that are making 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-gi...ama-power.html

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

[Wild Cobra]

Shazbot.

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

[boutons_deux]

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_campa ign=Feed%3A+GreentechMedia+%28Greentech+Media%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 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