DW, to the extent you may be correct, that is one of three strong lagal grounds for challenge. By no contorted stretch of the imagination does the CCA confer on the EPA authority to mandate state level electricity savings measures. Just shows the incredible degree of unconstitutional overreach Obama is attempting.
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by ristvan
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Jim D
Just some thoughts.
– Remember that solar costs are decreasing, so numbers today do not disprove what is possible in 2030. Even the increase mentioned is about $1 per day. If the poorest are the most affected, just for some context, an increase of the minimum wage by just $1 per hour gives them $2000 per year.
– I can see how the “skeptics” are very concerned by possible reductions in energy costs from renewables because it takes their whole pro-fossil economical argument away, and they may as well give up on opposing the CPP on price grounds. Their argument ends up being about keeping coal as a jobs program regardless of its added cost to consumers.
– Investment in a new energy infrastructure has a parallel with the interstate highway investment of past administrations. The cost benefit is hard to quantify, but it was generally regarded as a good investment for the sake of modernization. Old road systems were not adequate or efficient enough for future needs.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by ristvan
Don’t need teraforming. In California, just dam Yosemite like was done to HetchHetchy to serve San Fransisco. Convert Yellowstone to a massive geothermal plant. Dam the Grand Canyon for hydro. Ditto Potomac River Falls in DC. Wind turbines all along the Blue Ridge Parkway and all over the mountain peaks of Great Smokies national park. After all, what are a few parks compared to leading the world by example to save itself from CAGW?
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by ristvan
Re solar, please look up the economics of the underlying PV experience (aka learning) curve. It is logarithmic based on cumulative experience. Past price declines DO NOT project the way you appear to think. And Yhen factor in BOS costs. See discussion and illustrations in guest post Grid Solar. Believing something does not make it true, nor reverse Rutledge’s calculations from European experience.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by jacobress
The Obama plan doesn’t call for “converting to renewables by 2030″. It’s targets are to reduce emissions from electricity by 4.6% from current levels, and to use coal for 27% of electricity production (down from 34% today).
It’s very difficult to get to the substance amid all the hype, and to discern any substance at all. When all is considered, this plan is just empty, nonsense slogans.
see http://euanmearns.com/obamas-co2-deception/
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Science or Fiction
“Supply theories are based on the neo-Keynesian cost-push model and attribute stagflation to significant disruptions to the supply side of the supply-demand market equation, for example, when there is a sudden real or relative scarcity of key commodities, natural resources, or natural capital needed to produce goods and services. Other factors may also cause supply problems, for example, social and political conditions such as policy changes, acts of war, extremely restrictive government control of production. In this view, stagflation is thought to occur when there is an adverse supply shock (for example, a sudden increase in the price of oil or a new tax) that causes a subsequent jump in the “cost” of goods and services (often at the wholesale level). In technical terms, this results in contraction or negative shift in an economy’s aggregate supply curve.” Wikipedia.
How can the Presidents Clean Power Plan possibly not severely influence the living standard of many americans – in particular, but not limited to, the 1/3 of United States families which can be regarded as low-income families?
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Tucci78
<blockquote><i>"Remember that solar costs are decreasing, so numbers today do not disprove what is possible in 2030. Even the increase mentioned is about $1 per day. If the poorest are the most affected, just for some context, an increase of the minimum wage by just $1 per hour gives them $2000 per year."</i></blockquote>
Remarkable economic illiteracy, even for a "climate catastrophe" klutz. As if any arbitrary uptick in the state or national <a href="http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Effects_of_the_minimum_wage" rel="nofollow"><b>minimum wage</b></a> standard were beneficial to <b><i>anyone</i></b> among the population segment capable of performing nothing but the sorts of unskilled labor for which minimum wage is paid.
<blockquote><blockquote><i>If a minimum wage is set high enough to have any effect, that effect must be a closing of the market to those persons least capable of earning a living. For the minimum wage denies such persons the right to offer their services for what they are worth. The law says in effect, "If you are not worth the legal minimum wage, you are not worth anything."
This, of course, is arbitrariness of the very worst kind. It is difficult to visualize a greater injustice than this among supposedly civilized human beings — the strong ganging up to deprive the weak of their limited means of helping themselves.
Setting a minimum wage, below which no man may sell his services, is like setting a floor price for potatoes. The higher the floor price, the less demand there will be for potatoes. Those growers of potatoes who are least skilled in the arts of production will have been forced out of the market arbitrarily. And so will those buyers who can least afford to pay the price for potatoes.
If government intervenes to support the market at the floor price, then these two groups — the poorest producers and the poorest consumers — become the wards of the government, each dependent on a subsidy for survival. The government assumes the obligation, by means of unemployment compensation, to support those who were either directly or indirectly forced out of productive employment. The higher the minimum wage level, the more unemployment there must be.
Denying a man the right to offer his services, by fixing the minimum wage at more than his services are worth, is to deprive him of a market for the only thing in the world he could have justified as his own. But that is not the end of the evil of the minimum wage. Those unused productive powers are lost, and society is poorer because of it.
And if there is this kind of restraint upon the available supply of goods and services in the world, who suffers first and most? Why, the victims are those least able to pay the price for even the barest essentials of life!</i>
<blockquote>-- Paul Poirot (<a href="https://mises.org/library/inhumanity-minimum-wage-0" rel="nofollow"><b>April 1955</b></a>)</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
As for the dollar-denominated construction, operating, and repair costs of photovoltaic (<i>"solar"</i>) power generation, there is an absolutely frabjous dead-from-the-neck-up dollop of decerebrate wishful burbling about any prediction of costs in Federal Reserve fiat extending to 2030 that proves with diagnostic precision that you've got no friggin' idea whatsoever about the nature of currency in an era of central banking "quantitative easing."
The curse of willful ignorance is upon you, and I could condemn you to no fate more appropriate than the suffering you're proving so eloquently to deserve.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by climatereason
Get over here immediately. You are batting at no3 at the Oval and Beth is opening the Bowling.
Mods, this is entirely on topic and is cleverly disguised climate stuff..
tonyb
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by climatereason
jimd
I do not understand why you think sceptics are automatically wedded to fossil fuel as if it is some ideological totem. We go by what is most reliable and cheapest, as energy produced in those terms has fuelled the industrial revolution.
Renewables are not yet ready to step up to the plate.
tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Yancey David Ward
Look, the claim itself is just basically a lie- a flat out lie.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by timg56
Jim D,
You maybe be correct, though some facts would be nice in supprt.
Meanwhile it is a fact that the EPA’s Clean Power Plan was drafted by the Natural Resources Defense Fund. How’s that for bias and undue influence. You don’t need to buy Congressmen when the Administrators are in bed with you.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by ossqss
He is going to save me $85 in 15 years? I am still looking for my $2,500 in healthcare savings he said I would see instead of the $4,000 increase I have experienced…..
Where is the BS button!
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Jim D
You only have to look at Congressional Republicans here in the US to see that weddedness. They don’t hide it.
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by climatereason
JImD
But you said ‘sceptics’, that is to say the great mass of people and not specifically the very few people within Congress.
tonyb
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Jim D
The US Congress has the largest concentration of “skeptics” anywhere on the planet, and they have a set of people buzzing around them trying to keep them that way, it looks like.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by hockeyschtick
Don Montfort doesn’t understand that slowing of cooling is not warming. GHGs only delay transit of IR from surface to space by a few milliseconds, and any such “trapping of heat” is lost each night for no net diurnal warming.
And no, two balls at 79 degrees next to each other WILL NOT make other any warmer than 79 degrees. How many patents do you have on perpetual motion machines?
AK, here’s one of the questions you refused to answer:
I point a parabolic mirror at the clear sky to concentrate some portion of the diffuse 333W/m2 backradiation at a wide focal point. Does the temperature of the focal point:
A) increase
B) decrease
C) no change
What’s the answer?
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Jim D
Maybe you are in one of those Republican states that didn’t do it properly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uninsured-rate-states-obamacare_55c7e3f9e4b0f1cbf1e561f7?utm_hp_ref=politics&kvcommref=mostpopular
↧
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Ragnaar
Efficiency efforts questioned:
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/08/energy_efficiency_rebates_in_p.html
There are mixed reports, some in favor of it and some against. The price of energy drives the payback calculation. The higher it is the better efficiency looks.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by Curious George
We are witnessing a community organizer’s approach. We need a strong Iran as our friend; we need their assurances that they won’t build nukes until we tell them to. Our friends in Moscow do agree with our plans. Meanwhile, let’s channel more money to our friends in Solyndra’s followers.
↧
Comment on Will the President’s Clean Power Plan save consumers money? by justinwonder
You have those dem talking points down!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
