Obama’s new climate change regulations

[gladaki]

Interesting article talking about Obama’s new climate change regulations and its effect on Canada. Its not a new policy probably this is one of the major cause
of delay in keystone pipeline.

I heard transcanada has done some hiring for keystone pipeline project. Is it trye ?


http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...824/story.html

[Vulcan]

Number of fossil fuel power plants in the U.S.: 1,600
Total annual carbon dioxide emissions of these plants: about 2.5 billion tonnes
Percentage of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: 41
Percentage of power plant emissions from coal: more than 78
Percentage of power generated from coal: 48.6 per cent
Percentage of coal-fired plants to be retired: 18

It looks like they are going to target the coal fired thermal plants. I don't see how this will cost jobs as the opposition says. The ones retired will need to be replaced and others will need retro fitting to the new standards. It looks like a boom for the construction industry to me.

as said here

The chamber’s predictions are based on modelling by the energy information company HIS, whose clients are primarily utility and fossil fuel companies. The study assumes a 42 per cent reduction goal. But the model does not take into consideration the economic gains from plant refurbishment, replacement and renewable energy.

As usual, the Chamber of Commerce and the Republicans are full of hot air.

[PIMking]

there is a huge coal mine not too far from here that a lot of local Tuscaloosa folks work at. They're pissed because their union convinced them to vote Obama and now they're probably going to lose their job due to his climate change.

Personally I don't care about it, we need to clean up our air unless we want to look like China with all the smog

[Vulcan]

Well that would suck to have the mine shut down but this new mine (2012 article) probably won't be affected since it's metallurgical coal that is used to make steel.

The mine will produce 3 million to 4 million tons of metallurgical coal yearly when put into production and will be in production for 40 years. Metallurgical coal is a highly valued, low-sulfur coal that is used to make steel.

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/articl...news/120719745

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well that would suck to have the mine shut down but this new mine (2012 article) probably won't be affected since it's metallurgical coal that is used to make steel.



http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/articl...news/120719745

before we got our house we lived in an apartment complex with a lot of the walter guys.

I didn't know about the metallurgical part, the ones that come and stay at my hotel are freaking out about this though.

What are we going to do for energy? we haven't built a new nuclear plant in a while if I'm not mistaken. *too lazy to look*

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by PIMking

there is a huge coal mine not too far from here that a lot of local Tuscaloosa folks work at. They're pissed because their union convinced them to vote Obama and now they're probably going to lose their job due to his climate change.

Personally I don't care about it, we need to clean up our air unless we want to look like China with all the smog

The mindset of economy before climate has got to stop, it's so short sighted. Sure there will be pains in moving to cleaner energy, but if nothing changes then the children and grandchildren of those Tuscaloosa folk will have nothing to inherit

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

The mindset of economy before climate has got to stop, it's so short sighted. Sure there will be pains in moving to cleaner energy, but if nothing changes then the children and grandchildren of those Tuscaloosa folk will have nothing to inherit

Dude you're telling me, I've been arguing with people here about taxing groceries.

We have no lotto, we have SUPER low property taxes, the house I lived in Iowa was 1200sqft and 1/2 acre land and it was nearly three times of what it is here. These idiots are trying to fight with me and I keep telling them that when you have kids who cant count past ten with their shoes on that the education needs to be fixed and property taxes will go a long way in fixing that.

a better educated area will bring higher wages making things much better for future generations

[Azure]

Would be interesting to see the year to year breakdown of how coal power plants have been shut down in favor of natural gas plants.

It takes time, but I'm all for speeding up the process.

Would be nice if they added a few more nuclear plants as well. The technology for clean power is RIGHT there, and yet we're not using it.

[Daradon]

Nuclear is one of the most important options for clean energy. Greens in the know are trying to get the bandwagoners on it. It just has such a bad reputation. And really, you can't blame people for that. A nuclear disaster will always be bigger than a coal mine disaster. And the ties to the military..

Yes there are new advances and they are important. But the average person just sees Chernobyl and Fukashima. It needs to be brought to the forefront.

You cant blame regular green protesters for not understanding when the deal with oil and coal companies flat out lying about climate change.

[Daradon]

Note to self: Simpons 'what if' episode where Burns and his plant are the hero.

[karl262]

I would love to see Alberta become a world recognized leader in nuclear power generation and technology. It just makes so much sense.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

The mindset of economy before climate has got to stop, it's so short sighted. Sure there will be pains in moving to cleaner energy, but if nothing changes then the children and grandchildren of those Tuscaloosa folk will have nothing to inherit

The mindset of ignoring the economy is equally short-sighted.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

The market can't work its invisible hand unless a 'complete' cost of pollution is somehow included in the market price for energy...

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

The market can't work its invisible hand unless a 'complete' cost of pollution is somehow included in the market price for energy...

Yes, and the complete cost of pollution can't be included in the market price if polluters can just shift their business to other parts of the world - or worse, to other forms of pollution.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yes, and the complete cost of pollution can't be included in the market price if polluters can just shift their business to other parts of the world - or worse, to other forms of pollution.

That will only happen if the added cost as a result of compliance from power plants outweighs the cost required to move to another country, and considering that the US economy is 80% services that seems remote. In any case your still putting a cost from Carbon pollution so the US is increasing the markets efficiency.

[CETokyo]

I'm quite likely to be somewhat biased as a result of my living in Japan.
While nuclear power should be a viable alternative I find the the downsides are not easy to ignore.
Having for-profit companies managing nuclear power facilities to create profits can lead to conflicts of interest.
The lack of a compelling solution for handling the waste.
The damage caused by an unexpected accident/natural event.
The vulnerability of the large volume of rods kept in vulnerable storage pools.
The inability of current technology to repair the damage caused by an error/mistake/accident.
I personally would prefer that the massive amounts of money needed for nuclear be applied to less efficient but also less troublesome sources of energy that have less negative risks/waste/by-products.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yes, and the complete cost of pollution can't be included in the market price if polluters can just shift their business to other parts of the world - or worse, to other forms of pollution.

blammo

took a whole two posts from you to display the nihilism of action argument

congratulations

[troutman]

President Obama’s Mandate on Global Warming

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

The Environmental Protection Agency will have new regulations to aggressively cut carbon pollution from the nation’s coal-burning power plants.

This is huge. While there have been some relatively minor pushes for alternative energy production and reduction in pollution from other sources (such as cars and other vehicles), there has been no action on coal plant pollution for decades. This is despite the fact that coal burning accounts for a whopping one-third of the carbon dioxide emitted in the US.

What is just as inevitable as the rise of our sea levels: Republican obstructionism of the new EPA rules.

[burn_this_city]

Coal was always the logical target for any GHG regulation. Harper has painted himself in a corner now by originally putting the onus on the Americans to draft some legislation before he would follow suit with similar regulations. Alberta should start winding down the coal power plants here, cogeneration in the oil sands should help make up some of the lost power output.

[troutman]

Obama’s plan to fix climate change

… and how it puts the heat on Canada

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/ob...nowhere-close/