Federal government approves second SolarReserve solar power plant

[MannyIsGod]

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

Thats funny.

[RandomGuy]

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

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 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 ing failed talking points, Cosmored.

[MannyIsGod]

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

This administration's energy policy is just plain idiotic.

http://www.ins uteforenergyresearc...lants-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

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; 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 the energy companies, but 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 ing 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 ing 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

[Wild Cobra]

You tireless defender of the poor, you

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

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.



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?



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.

, 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 the energy companies, but the consumer by dramatically increasing energy costs.

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

[RandomGuy]

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]

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 ing 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 ing 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.