The assault on American business continues, unchecked by a representative republic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/dec/09/coal-company-cuts-500-jobs-blames-environmentalist/

Just more ............................. change we can believe in ................

Is this surprising? Wind/Solar/whatever energy is becoming more popular so there is less demand for coal. Solar panels and wind farms can't collapse on people and give them black lungs so that might have to do with it too.

^^^Bogus

Are you saying that wind, solar, and other non-coal energy options haven't gotten significantly more popular as well as less expensive?

Edit: "Solar panels and wind farms can't collapse on people and give them black lungs so that might have to do with it too.", what I meant by that was that when presented with other options for supplying energy I think most firms would probably not pick coal given all other factors were the same (price, availability, etc).

^^^While these "alternative" sources of energy are politically popular and makes leftists "green" with envy, they are hardly less expensive.

And spare me the "carbon-emissions" mantra before that even begins.

While we sit in the warmth and comfort of our homes on our electronic gadgets arguing politics, chances are the power used to generate that warmth and comfort is far more likely to come from coal powered plants than trendy wind mills and solar panels.

If solar panels and wind mills are less expensive, ask AEP why they aren't jumping on that like Barney Frank on a Fannie Mae mortgage loan-scheme bailout.

I didn't say they were less expensive than coal. I said they are getting less expensive. Which they are, just like any other technology. It's getting better and cheaper.

Unless there is some miraculous breakthrough, it will be DECADES before these alternatives are economically feasible UNLESS the eco-nazis (some of whom are now in power) make our abundant supplies of natural gas and coal much more expensive.

If we tapped into and used the natural gas supplies available in this country, alone, we could probably be darn near energy independent for a couple hundred years. Of course, that would take political will, which we don't have. Instead, we have people with an agenda that goes counter to the common sense of market economics.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Unless there is some miraculous breakthrough, it will be DECADES before these alternatives are economically feasible UNLESS the eco-nazis (some of whom are now in power) make our abundant supplies of natural gas and coal much more expensive.

Cap and Trade

Writerbuckeye wrote: Unless there is some miraculous breakthrough, it will be DECADES before these alternatives are economically feasible UNLESS the eco-nazis (some of whom are now in power) make our abundant supplies of natural gas and coal much more expensive.

Even without tax incentives, wind is rapidly nearing parity with marginal coal generators. Solar is further off, though most experts think it will be cost-competitive within a decade. The problem with wind/solar isn't so much the cost as the lack of capability to serve as base load resources (the wind doesn't always blow). That, more than anything else, is hindering adoption.

^^All of which still points to decades before either is truly viable in our economic system.

That said, I have said many times before I favor an all-inclusive, and full scale effort to get this country energy independent.

I would have liked to see us going all out to tap into existing oil, natural gas and shale oil reserves, along with starting an aggressive program to build nuclear plants and begin overhauling our grid to accommodate these changes.

Using a good portion of the fees/taxes these areas generate, I'd be investing heavily into research and development of alternatives at the same time, in hopes that we could speed up the process of switching away from gas/oil.

Of course, my ideas would require members of Congress and the administration to use common sense over ideology -- so it there is zero chance of it happening.

The economic impact on Ohio of the "war"...
http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf

HitsRus wrote: The economic impact on Ohio of the "war"...
http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf

In all fairness, I do have to wonder if this is possible or probable. At any rate, it sure doesn't look too good for Ohio, does it?

Impact on Jobs

The jobs impact of W/M is delayed by the free allocation of permits and generous carbon offsets. By 2030, as emission reduction targets tighten and other W/M provisions phase out, Ohio jobs decline by 79,700 under low cost case and by 108,600 under high cost case (Figure 2). The primary cause of job losses would be lower industrial output due to higher energy prices, the high cost of complying with required emissions cuts, and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs.

QuakerOats wrote: The assault on American business continues, unchecked by a representative republic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/dec/09/coal-company-cuts-500-jobs-blames-environmentalist/

Just more ............................. change we can believe in ................

I think you should read Anthem by Ayn Rand.

How dare you want to put the candlemakers out of work.

When the main character discovers a generator. That was a high crime.

New technology will surpass fossil fuels IF capatilism is allowed to flourish, but with mindsets that want to keep solar and wind out and fossil fuels in it is hurting capitalism.

BCSbunk wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: The assault on American business continues, unchecked by a representative republic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/dec/09/coal-company-cuts-500-jobs-blames-environmentalist/

Just more ............................. change we can believe in ................

I think you should read Anthem by Ayn Rand.

How dare you want to put the candlemakers out of work.

When the main character discovers a generator. That was a high crime.

New technology will surpass fossil fuels IF capatilism is allowed to flourish, but with mindsets that want to keep solar and wind out and fossil fuels in it is hurting capitalism.

If it is capitalism and the "free" market then yes I agree with you. But if as Obama said during the campaign, he would use government intervention to make energy consumption from coal economically unfeasible, then your argurment has no merit.

these alternative energies are not ready and will be pushed with higher taxes on co2. this gov't becomes more tyrannical by the day.

BCSbunk wrote:New technology will surpass fossil fuels IF capitalism is allowed to flourish, but with mindsets that want to keep solar and wind out and fossil fuels in it is hurting capitalism.

Are you serious? No one I know who is pro-free market capitalism rejects wind and solar energy as PART of our solution towards energy independence.

What the allegedly free market abhors is an extreme environmentalist mindset that refuses to acknowledge that we MUST responsibly tap into domestic oil, natural gas, nuclear, and - YES - coal reserves in the meantime as we unite to become energy independent while searching for cleaner, renewal sources of that energy.

bman618 wrote: these alternative energies are not ready and will be pushed with higher taxes on co2. this gov't becomes more tyrannical by the day.

All economists agree that there are certain situations in which the market doesn't work properly--market failures like the collective action problem or "tragedy of the commons" or natural monopolies. Every major economist of which I'm aware has noted that in these certain situations, it's preferrable to have some form of government intervention.

IF CO2 poses a cost that isn't currently included in the cost of electricity generation, it's important for a government to step in and force industry to internalize those costs. Now, it's still an open question whether CO2 presents such an externality, and it's unclear how much that externality should be valued. That's why Obama has proposed a cap-and-trade mechanism, to enable the market itself to sort out the value of GHG emissions. Forcing industry to internalize their externalities is exactly the sort of thing we want a government to do.

Simply noting that the gov't has become involved with the sort of things that gov't do well isn't all that noteworthy, nor does it strike me as the sort of thing to get conservatives up in arms. In other "tragedy of the commons" situations throughout history (riparian rights, over-fishing, pastureland battles in the west), gov't intervention has generally been a positive and has broken some significant logjams for the benefit of all.

believer wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:New technology will surpass fossil fuels IF capitalism is allowed to flourish, but with mindsets that want to keep solar and wind out and fossil fuels in it is hurting capitalism.

Are you serious? No one I know who is pro-free market capitalism rejects wind and solar energy as PART of our solution towards energy independence.

What the allegedly free market abhors is an extreme environmentalist mindset that refuses to acknowledge that we MUST responsibly tap into domestic oil, natural gas, nuclear, and - YES - coal reserves in the meantime as we unite to become energy independent while searching for cleaner, renewal sources of that energy.

Very serious. Just because you do not know anyone does not make it true.

There are corporate lobbyists fighting to keep competition out. That is anti-capitalist behavior.

Nuclear energy is the way to go. Almost unlimited amounts of energy and they are safe (despite what the fear-mongering media will tell you). I could be wrong, but I think nuclear energy is pretty cheap, too.

BCSbunk' wrote: Very serious. Just because you do not know anyone does not make it true.

There are corporate lobbyists fighting to keep competition out. That is anti-capitalist behavior.

Like whom? I'm not familiar with this. What entities are you accusing of this?

[quote='bigmanbt]
Nuclear energy is the way to go. Almost unlimited amounts of energy and they are safe (despite what the fear-mongering media will tell you). I could be wrong, but I think nuclear energy is pretty cheap, too.
[/quote]

Nuclear is fairly safe. It's not necessarily cheap, though. The fuel costs are very low (to the point of being almost non-existent), but the capital costs are high and the lead-time is very high, which significantly increases the cost through regulatory risk. Once a nuclear plant is built, it pays to keep it open for as long as possible and drive up the capacity factor as high as possible, but acutally building/permitting them is a nightmare. There are almost always major cost overruns, and ratepayers don't like paying in advance for projects that may end up being canceled. There's a lot of pushback from state commissions because of the cost.

The DOE attempted to address this with the loan guarantee program, but a big chunk of that money was diverted to the 'Cash-for-Clunkers' program. In other words, Americans got to get sweet new cars, but they now miss out on nuclear energy.

BCSbunk wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: The assault on American business continues, unchecked by a representative republic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/dec/09/coal-company-cuts-500-jobs-blames-environmentalist/

Just more ............................. change we can believe in ................

I think you should read Anthem by Ayn Rand.

How dare you want to put the candlemakers out of work.

When the main character discovers a generator. That was a high crime.

New technology will surpass fossil fuels IF capatilism is allowed to flourish, but with mindsets that want to keep solar and wind out and fossil fuels in it is hurting capitalism.

Awesome book! And great point. I'm almost done with the Fountainhead but that's neither here nor there.

I support the Pickens Plan http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/.

I know there is a lot of criticism of this, but it was created by a man who is a long-time oil and gas executive, so I think he knows a thing or two about energy.

He also called out the past seven presidents for not delivering on their promises for energy efficiency.

http://static.ning.com/pickensplan/pdf/Promises_Without_a_Plan.pdf

Wind, solar and other alternatives to coal and oil may be more expensive right now, but IMO that has a lot to do with demand. Do I think certain industries should be punished with higher taxes? No, but I do think that if the country wants to move toward cleaner fuel options consumers need to show they want that by choosing to use them in their day to day lives.

Carbon Dioxide doesn't cost us anything beyond the current cost. What human beings contribute of CO2 into the atmosphere is an extremely small fraction. The seas and natural events such as volcano eruptions truly dictate how much CO2 we have in the atmosphere and what it means to us. Are the authoritarians going to try and tax a volcano?

The only thing that one can say about human emissions is sulfur dioxide and how that pollution hurts us. As we have been, we should be trying to continue and clean up our energy as it makes sense economically.

The climategate scandal proves what I've always thought...this isn't about climate, it is about control by governments over the people and taxing the people more.

bman618 wrote: Carbon Dioxide doesn't cost us anything beyond the current cost.

You're flatly stating that as though it were absolutely true. There's plenty of debate over the true 'cost' of carbon emissions. The debate isn't so much over whether carbon emissions have a cost--it's how much and whether it's potentially catastrophic. We are going to see GHG emission regulation in the US. Businesses are calling for it. They are far less concerned with the cost of GHG emission regulation than they are with the regulatory uncertainty they're facing. The best thing for American businesses would be to do this legislatively and transparently, rather than letting the EPA regulate it through a command-and-control mechanism. Either way, we're going to see GHG regulation; the only question is the shape it's going to take.

The only thing that one can say about human emissions is sulfur dioxide and how that pollution hurts us. As we have been, we should be trying to continue and clean up our energy as it makes sense economically.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying. Are you saying that SO2 is the only human emission that causes problems? What about the other six CAA criteria air pollutants?

Websurfinbird wrote: I know there is a lot of criticism of this, but it was created by a man who is a long-time oil and gas executive, so I think he knows a thing or two about energy.

He also called out the past seven presidents for not delivering on their promises for energy efficiency.

Interesting observations, but a couple of things about 'ol T Bone...

1) He is as capitalist as they come, so much so that you should be very hesitant to take anything he says or does at face value. Famous business case with him illustrating perfectly the concept of "greenmail", where he effectively leveraged a failed buyout attempt into a huge windfall.

2) While he was talking out one side of his mouth about efficiency and oil being overvalued and running its course, his hedge fund was earning tens of millions making the same bets he was criticizing.

3) A classic opportunist is espousing energy efficiency and the future of alternatives while he has a $2B+ windmill project along with related lobbyist efforts. Also some very interesting stuff out there (mostly negative) on his pursuit of water rights.

Is he an expert and willing to put his money where his mouth is? Absolutely. Do I also question the sincerity of his motives? Absolutely.

gut wrote:

Websurfinbird wrote: I know there is a lot of criticism of this, but it was created by a man who is a long-time oil and gas executive, so I think he knows a thing or two about energy.

He also called out the past seven presidents for not delivering on their promises for energy efficiency.

Interesting observations, but a couple of things about 'ol T Bone...

1) He is as capitalist as they come, so much so that you should be very hesitant to take anything he says or does at face value. Famous business case with him illustrating perfectly the concept of "greenmail", where he effectively leveraged a failed buyout attempt into a huge windfall.

2) While he was talking out one side of his mouth about efficiency and oil being overvalued and running its course, his hedge fund was earning tens of millions making the same bets he was criticizing.

3) A classic opportunist is espousing energy efficiency and the future of alternatives while he has a $2B+ windmill project along with related lobbyist efforts.

Is he an expert and willing to put his money where his mouth is? Absolutely. Do I also question the sincerity of his motives? Absolutely.

Completely understand your point. While the sincerity may be in question, if the end result is more economical, cleaner, efficient energy then I am all for it.