Modded Mustang Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
EPA carbon plan will kill 38,000 Virginia jobs, report says

By Kenric Ward | Watchdog.org Virginia Bureau

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Plan will boost Virginia’s electric rates 25 percent and eliminate 38,000 jobs in the state, a new study predicts.

“These EPA rules are aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from producers of coal power plants by either shutting them down or making their cost uncompetitive in the marketplace,” stated the report released Tuesday by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy and the Beacon Hill Institute.

“If the electricity production from coal is eliminated, the diversity of the electricity supply sources will fall and become more dependent on natural gas and its price fluctuations. If the new expensive and untested carbon capture and sequestration technology is adopted electricity prices will increase.”

Researchers said higher electricity costs would “threaten the state’s industrial base.”

Randy Randol, a Virginia-based energy analyst, and David Botkins, spokesman for Dominion Power, said the report confirmed the State Corporation Commission’s warning of the negative economic impact of stricter EPA rules. Botkins said rate increases could run as high as 30 percent.

The 2015 General Assembly enacted some consumer protections. Senate Bill 1349, signed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, freezes base electric rates for five years and prohibits power plant closures without prior approval of the SCC.

EPA’s proposed rules for new plants would limit CO2 emissions to 1.1 pounds per kilowatt hour of electricity production — less than half the current average. The EPA’s target reduction for Virginia is 38 percent versus a national reduction of 30 percent.

Beacon Hill concluded the carbon emission rule on new power plants will cost Virginia $336 million in 2030, and rules for existing plants will run $592 million. Separate regulations on mercury emissions will cost an additional $817 million, the study said.

The state’s projected 38,000 job losses and price increases would combine to reduce real incomes as firms, households and governments spend more of their budgets on energy and less on other goods, the report predicted.

“As a result, real disposable income would fall by $4.451 billion by 2030, and annual investment in the state would fall by $515 million. The investment losses are mildly offset by increased investment in other electricity technologies,” researchers concluded.

U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Abingdon, called promises of offsetting economic gains “hogwash.”

“This (report) is exactly what we’ve been saying. (The air rules) will be a lot more expensive than the EPA is willing to admit,” Griffith told Watchdog.org in a phone interview.

Griffith, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the economy of his southwestern Virginia district has been battered for decades by Washington policies.

“From textiles to tobacco to furniture, it’s not what we had 25 years ago. All we see is empty promises from the federal government,” the congressman said.

Michael Thompson, president of the free-market oriented Jefferson Institute, said, “At a time when Virginia is clawing its way out of the recession, the (EPA) costs will have a devastating impact on Virginians.

“With a major legal challenge expected immediately after the final regulations are published — and a resultant two-year court battle — the prudent course of action would be for the General Assembly to refuse to implement a state plan under the new federal regulations,” Thompson said.

Last month, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledged her agency doesn’t have the legal authority to withhold federal highway funding from states that opt not to comply with its Clean Power Plan.

Nevertheless, state Delegate Israel O’Quinn said, “The catastrophic possibilities cannot be overstated.”

“Virginia still has an opportunity to avoid these rules, and I am hopeful we will do everything in our power to do so,” the Bristol Republican told Watchdog.

http://watchdog.org/209440/epa-va-jobs/?roi=echo3-25787162010-26818917-aff007352d46a15f30e61fcbf95bf0db


So how do you feel about 38,000 jobs lost for CO2 emissions they claim is a pollutant and harmful to the environment via the Global Warming hypothesis (No, the science is not settled Eric!).

Should we be killing so many jobs over a theory that is still not settled as the cause to warming?
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
money money money, money money money money money, $$$$$$, money money money money
Sorry, growing pains are going to exist if we are to advance technology. **** becomes obsolete and people lose their jobs. Same **** as dumping dollars into obsolete anything in order to simply hold on to obsolete jobs.

What's the old saying you boys like to toss out there? "Pull yourself up by your bootsraps" - move out of the state, go find another job, adapt to survive - same bullshit you spout in other cases; may as well apply it here.

And don't you dare tell me I don't understand - as stated, I work in oil - if green energy takes over, I'm out of my job as well. You know what I'll do when that happens? I'll move and find another ****ing job - adapt to survive.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Sorry, growing pains are going to exist if we are to advance technology. **** becomes obsolete and people lose their jobs. Same **** as dumping dollars into obsolete anything in order to simply hold on to obsolete jobs.

What's the old saying you boys like to toss out there? "Pull yourself up by your bootsraps" - move out of the state, go find another job, adapt to survive - same bullshit you spout in other cases; may as well apply it here.

And don't you dare tell me I don't understand - as stated, I work in oil - if green energy takes over, I'm out of my job as well. You know what I'll do when that happens? I'll move and find another ****ing job - adapt to survive.
Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares......

Problem is with your comment... Technology isn't there yet nor is affordability to replace coal power. :no
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares Global Warming hypothesis and EPA killing 38,000 American jobs and no one on the left cares......

Problem is with your comment... Technology isn't there yet nor is affordability to replace coal power. :no
Unfortunately, $$$ dictates that with no monetary incentive, there's no incentive at all to further technology. So someone has to dictate other incentives in order to get the technology rolling. At some point, the health of humanity becomes more important than 38,000 American jobs.

It's okay though, our social net will help those that lose their jobs during their time of need while they find employment elsewhere. Oh wait, no, **** those lazy bastards we need to strip them of assistance just in case a couple of them abuse it.

Don't worry, when I get laid off due to new mandated energy sources or oil prices being too low, I'll still be here stating the same thing. Why? Because I know I have to adapt to change - for some reason though, there's still so much ignorance and greed that a large (aging, luckily) portion of people can't deal with a changing world. Best to keep things in the dark ages as long as I get my money.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Unfortunately, $$$ dictates that with no monetary incentive, there's no incentive at all to further technology. So someone has to dictate other incentives in order to get the technology rolling. At some point, the health of humanity becomes more important than 38,000 American jobs.

It's okay though, our social net will help those that lose their jobs during their time of need while they find employment elsewhere. Oh wait, no, **** those lazy bastards we need to strip them of assistance just in case a couple of them abuse it.

Don't worry, when I get laid off due to new mandated energy sources or oil prices being too low, I'll still be here stating the same thing. Why? Because I know I have to adapt to change - for some reason though, there's still so much ignorance and greed that a large (aging, luckily) portion of people can't deal with a changing world. Best to keep things in the dark ages as long as I get my money.
It's a bit selfish to view this from your own narrow-minded "me" perspective. Not everyone can afford to lose everything they've built in life for years at a job to go on welfare for a Global Warming Hypothesis. :no

Unreal how quickly you're ready to put 38,000 Americans out of work and on welfare instead of them earning on their own and having freedom to live how they want, all for a Global Warming Hypothesis that the cause (CO2) is still not proven because all their models have failed to predict the pause in warming we've experienced, etc.

To clear up your ASSumptions, the adjudicated mentally ill, legitimately disabled who can't work, the old who can't care for themselves, and legitimately temporarily out of work and looking are not those we want excluded from the social safety nets. So in that regard, we are against growing the welfare state. When we say we're not for a welfare state, we mean we don't want able bodied folks who want to work, being placed on welfare, nor enabling the lazy who don't want to work to easily live off the system, etc.

That said, we on the right also are not for intentionally killing jobs for an unproven alarmist hypothesis, etc.
 

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
More hypothetical alarmism blamed on GW. :facepalm:
Wat

You know you can physically measure particulates in the air and pretty damn well determine what their source is? Or is this also a science that is funded by communism?

We're talking about coal here...are you going to go burn a bunch of coal, stick your face in the smoke and take a nice deep breath in because it's not a pollutant?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Sorry, growing pains are going to exist if we are to advance technology. **** becomes obsolete and people lose their jobs. Same **** as dumping dollars into obsolete anything in order to simply hold on to obsolete jobs.
I'm all for obsolete technology becoming obsolete and new advanced technology coming to market. I enjoy having competition and the best marketable technology coming out.

That said, that's NOT what's happening. What's happening is the government has chosen a technology in their best interest (wind and solar) and if forcing it upon the people. They're not trying to advance that technology either. They're not providing incentives for companies to provide green energy more efficient and cheaper. Doing that would drive technology. Instead, they are taking out the competition so that it's even possible to be on the market.

Do you know how much the coal power plants spend to make electricity in Indiana? $0.03 per kWhr. But the federal government mandates that they must buy a certain percentage of their power from the wind/solar farms in Northern Indiana. Do you know what that cost is? $0.30 per kWhr. Wind/solar is 10x as expensive as coal and the only reason it exists is because the government makes it exist. Then in the middle of the summer around 5PM when people are getting home and demanding electricity for their AC systems, guess what's happening to those wind and solar farms? It's too late in the day and we're not getting enough sun. Since it's the middle of the summer in Indiana, there's no wind to turn the wind turbines. Looks like "superior technology" will give me power in the middle of the day when I'm not home and don't need it or in the spring/fall when I don't need much. When I really need it in the middle of the summer when I get home from work, the "superior technology" leaves me high and dry and the inferior technology is what actually provides my power.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
I'm all for obsolete technology becoming obsolete and new advanced technology coming to market. I enjoy having competition and the best marketable technology coming out.

That said, that's NOT what's happening. What's happening is the government has chosen a technology in their best interest (wind and solar) and if forcing it upon the people. They're not trying to advance that technology either. They're not providing incentives for companies to provide green energy more efficient and cheaper. Doing that would drive technology. Instead, they are taking out the competition so that it's even possible to be on the market.

Do you know how much the coal power plants spend to make electricity in Indiana? $0.03 per kWhr. But the federal government mandates that they must buy a certain percentage of their power from the wind/solar farms in Northern Indiana. Do you know what that cost is? $0.30 per kWhr. Wind/solar is 10x as expensive as coal and the only reason it exists is because the government makes it exist. Then in the middle of the summer around 5PM when people are getting home and demanding electricity for their AC systems, guess what's happening to those wind and solar farms? It's too late in the day and we're not getting enough sun. Since it's the middle of the summer in Indiana, there's no wind to turn the wind turbines. Looks like "superior technology" will give me power in the middle of the day when I'm not home and don't need it or in the spring/fall when I don't need much. When I really need it in the middle of the summer when I get home from work, the "superior technology" leaves me high and dry and the inferior technology is what actually provides my power.
Well you've got me beat there.

So how does the government incentivize companies to drive more efficient/lower cost "green" technology? They can't create funding towards research because then "we're wasting tax payer money when oil is just dandy". (Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here)

And no, it doesn't make sense to have wind power where wind is not a huge resource - West Texas is great for it because they're actually generating a good amount of energy.

What needs to happen is people need to become more comfortable with the idea of nuclear power and the slow transition over needs to happen. I would bet at least some of those coal fired plant jobs would have some sort of application within a nuclear plant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,592 Posts
Well you've got me beat there.

So how does the government incentivize companies to drive more efficient/lower cost "green" technology? They can't create funding towards research because then "we're wasting tax payer money when oil is just dandy". (Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here)

And no, it doesn't make sense to have wind power where wind is not a huge resource - West Texas is great for it because they're actually generating a good amount of energy.

What needs to happen is people need to become more comfortable with the idea of nuclear power and the slow transition over needs to happen. I would bet at least some of those coal fired plant jobs would have some sort of application within a nuclear plant.
I don't know how you incentivize cheaper stuff by the government. Honestly, if the government knew how to do that they would do it on themselves to stop wasting so much money. Example, the county I live in used to have a landfill and it cost $75/ton for waste. It got shut down because it wasn't meeting codes and now they hire a private company to take the waste and truck it 1/2 state away.......for $25/ton. If we followed the same philosophy as the government does for green energy the answer would be to keep the landfill open, but penalize everyone else until it cost them about $75/ton to operate. Then the government option is competitive AND the government is bringing in a bunch of extra money from the taxes/penalties created to bring the industry to that rate. It's a win/win for the government.

The bottom line is I don't know how the government can provide incentive. But I can tell you that I don't view a technology that only exists due to government a superior technology.

Towards the end I think you hit the nail on the head, at least for my thoughts. You need to match the power source to the resources of the location. West Texas is good for wind because you have it there. My guess is it's probably also good for solar because there's likely a decent amount of open land and sun. Indiana doesn't have a bunch of solar or wind, but we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, it's everywhere.

Awhile ago I actually had someone come to my door trying to get me to sign a petition for more solar/wind power. We discussed coal vs solar/wind for awhile. Then I actually mentioned what you stated, what about nuclear power since it's clean and can provide the power needs. The way he looked at me, I thought I grew a dick out of my forehead. The issue is that unless it's solar/wind, it's not considered green to a lot of people. I'm all for nuclear power and think it's a great option. If you ask me, I would actually say that is the superior technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,562 Posts
Well you've got me beat there.

So how does the government incentivize companies to drive more efficient/lower cost "green" technology? They can't create funding towards research because then "we're wasting tax payer money when oil is just dandy". (Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here)

And no, it doesn't make sense to have wind power where wind is not a huge resource - West Texas is great for it because they're actually generating a good amount of energy.

What needs to happen is people need to become more comfortable with the idea of nuclear power and the slow transition over needs to happen. I would bet at least some of those coal fired plant jobs would have some sort of application within a nuclear plant.
I agree, Nuclear is the way to go. The problem is that we have lazy people handling the waste, we have no where to actually PUT the waste long term, the government refuses to regulate it out to a third party, and everyone has that NIMBY issue where they think 3 mile island actually was a full meltdown vs. being stopped BEFORE it actually melted down. Then you have the recent issue in Japan souring the appeal of it too.

Accidents happen, natural disasters happen, we cannot think of every solution until we get more experience, but people don't want to risk it, including and especially politicians.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top