EPA to shut down 20% of coal burning electric plants in 2012

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=641245

EPA to shut down 20% of coal burning electric plants in 2012

There is an actual news article; you just have to drill down through a lot of blog stuff first.

cleantechnica.com/2011/09/17/obamas-epa-cues-130-billion-race-to-cut-pollution-by-2015/

Here is the original story:

power-eng.com/articles/2011/07/epa-finalizes-cross-state-air-pollution-rule.html

The problem is that the “nuances” and details are being hidden and NOT reported by the main stream media … for that you need the blogs …

While the EPA regulates industry without representation, The move will be a costly blunder for America and especially for Pres. Obama.

While the motives are touted as being “green”, it will show red in the jobs market as there will be thousands laid off as a direct result of his foolishness.

washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/2011/09/zero-jobs-prompts-obama-retreat-epa-regs

One down and more to go. When the electricity stops flowing and the cause points directly to Obama’s edict for the EPA to shut down the power, it will cost the Democrats dearly in Nov. 2012.
In obama’s own words regarding over regulation, an area where he has too much experience:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396604576088272112103698.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
yes, it is an OPINION, it is Pres. Barack Obama’s own opinion stated in the above mentioned link and is therefore pertinent to the discussion even though it is an opinion. (not all op-ed or blog sources are discreditable)

I will bet you that once Obama is out of office after 2012, and there is a Republican majority in both houses, there will be a huge shake up in the EPA, if it still exists and the coal fired energy plants will be back on line.
The voters of the United States are fed up with the radical greenies who have invaded our government…and have done in-estimatable damage to our economy during a recession.

The net jobs affected by this will be on the plus side, as the demand for generation is not going away. I work in the energy industry, and ironically what the regulations do is end up creating more jobs, because equipment has to be upgraded and technology has to be innovated to further optimize the generation pipeline (to be more efficient and comply with all regulations).

The problem of course is cost, but on the employment side of things it means increases.

Regulation will not offset a 20 percent shutdown in coal burning electric plants. I’ve seen the jobs created by regulation, I’ve seen guys forced to wear safety clothing that ended up getting them killed. Creating jobs by creating regulations is a joke.

The demand will still be there, so to comply means … _________ (fill in the blank)?

Note that this type of regulation has nothing to do with wearing safety equipment

The demand remaining the same while the supply decreases means an increase in cost of energy. Dunno about you, but my bill is high enough for my little house.

No, but it’s one in the same, government creating regulation for the sake of creating a job is:banghead:

You would have noticed then we agree, if you read the last sentence of my post (The problem of course is cost)

There is an opportunity to actually decrease cost in the long run (for example, have you ever had a bill were the utility company owes YOU money, it has happened), but that is very unlikely in the short term.

No, but it’s one in the same, government creating regulation for the sake of creating a job is:banghead:

I was answering a post saying this will cause a net loss in jobs, that’s not accurate. I can’t go into details for my particular area, but this actually opens a lot of business opportunities in all areas of the energy generation, transmission and distribution pipelines.

Obama himself has said that his actions would cause our energy bills to go up. Undoubtedly, as they do, the costs of everything we buy will also go up because there are significant energy inputs to every single one of them.

And, of course, as life gets more expensive, there will be calls for new subsidies to people who find it difficult to pay those costs, and calls for more taxes to pay for those subsidies.

Relatively inexpensive energy of all kinds was one of the real blessings of living in the U.S. For his own reasons, Obama wants to remove this from our lives. One can wonder why he would want such a grim, gray future for us, other than, I suppose, the fact that leftists always seem to want life for most of us to be that way.

Oh, it would probably be a good idea to dump railroad stock. Some 40% of their revenue comes from transporting coal. If our energy bills increase significantly, carrying those cargo containers from China sure won’t be increasing to make up for the loss of coal-transporting revenue. Since China uses coal for energy generation and buys a lot of it from the U.S. now, their products will become even cheaper relative to ours. But at a point, one still has to have disposable income even to buy Chinese manufactures.

:clapping:

Let’s pray it will be so.

I know we can find the exact quote, but seems to me he said the cost “would necessarily skyrocket”.

In addition, a friend who is an electrician measures line voltage and says that sometimes it drops to as low as 80 volts versus the normal 110 volts. So, you may also expect some equipment damage from low voltage/brownout conditions as well as some other losses.

Hear Obama himself say those words:
nation.foxnews.com/coal-industry/2011/06/12/team-obama-making-electricity-rates-neccessarily-skyrocket-60

The EPA seems firmly committed to raising our electric bills. That, of course, will raise all of our other bills. Here in Kansas, an attempt to build first two, then one, new coal fired electric generating plant has been tied up by EPA rules, lawsuits, courts, and regulations for years. Years–before construction can even be begun, if indeed it ever will be started. It will cost us all dearly in higher rates and higher prices.

Here in New York City, our electric company is ConEd. A number of years ago our State Legislature, in its infinite wisdom, de-regulated all of the power companies in NY State. ConEd promptly divested itself of all its power producing plants, which were then organized under a different corporate structure and supposed ownership. (However, if you look at who is on the Board of Directors of these new companies, it is mostly the same people on ConEd’s board. They now say that they are not to blame for their increased rates, they can only pass on the charges of the power producers…Guess what, NYC gets about 30% + of its electricity from Niagara Falls (NY State owned), and they do not pay that much for it!
The end result is that when I retired in 2001 my ConEd bill averaged $35.00 a month for both electricity and gas. Since January, 2011, My ConEd bills have averaged $165.00 per month and I had my AC unit on for only about 1 week this summer, and heat is provided by my landlord.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.