Hemi Truck Club banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Board of Directors (Jay)
Joined
·
43,454 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If voters knew how America's economy would look after two terms of President Barack Obama's administration, Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.

In the 2008 campaign, President Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that the “notion of no coal...is an illusion.” He noted that he favors a cap-and-trade system “o if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

While Obama did not get to implement cap-and-trade, he found other ways to shut down coal burning power plants.

In the name of a rigidly anti-prosperity ideology, Obama's administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, is continuing its war on jobs and reliable sources of energy. And like most onerous regulations, the true costs are not immediately visible.

As announced by Lisa Jackson, the chief EPA Administrator, three new regulations for air emission standards have been announced, which will cost American consumers more than $13 billion per year. Also, according to estimates by the Senate Republican Policy Committee, other rules dealing with coal ash and air could cost an additional $90 billion annually.

Obama's claim to have an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy is a ruse. Instead, his administration seems determined to extend our economic recession, while government bureaucrats find creative ways to make energy more expensive.

More than 2,000 employees of the coal industry were laid off this year, and that industry expects 10,000 more layoffs in direct and related jobs. In addition, as reported by Human Events, leaked documents from the Obama administration estimates that one rule on water quality requirements will be responsible for an additional 7,000 fired workers.

The new regulations are so extreme that, in effect, they require all new power plants must be powered by natural gas, an imperfect fuel.

This may make the natural gas lobbyists who work with the Obama administration happy, but the incredible amounts of methane expanded natural gas would not please environmentalists.

In five months, natural gas prices have increased by 52%, with the Obama administration's rules largely to blame. According to Reuters data, as demand is expanding globally, natural gas is quickly approaching a price which is $2 more than the same per unit, which results in higher energy prices for cash-strapped consumers who already heat their homes with natural gas.
 

·
Board of Directors (Jay)
Joined
·
43,454 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
If voters knew how America's economy would look after two terms of President Barack Obama's administration, Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.

In the 2008 campaign, President Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that the “notion of no coal...is an illusion.” He noted that he favors a cap-and-trade system “o if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

While Obama did not get to implement cap-and-trade, he found other ways to shut down coal burning power plants.

In the name of a rigidly anti-prosperity ideology, Obama's administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, is continuing its war on jobs and reliable sources of energy. And like most onerous regulations, the true costs are not immediately visible.

As announced by Lisa Jackson, the chief EPA Administrator, three new regulations for air emission standards have been announced, which will cost American consumers more than $13 billion per year. Also, according to estimates by the Senate Republican Policy Committee, other rules dealing with coal ash and air could cost an additional $90 billion annually.

Obama's claim to have an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy is a ruse. Instead, his administration seems determined to extend our economic recession, while government bureaucrats find creative ways to make energy more expensive.

More than 2,000 employees of the coal industry were laid off this year, and that industry expects 10,000 more layoffs in direct and related jobs. In addition, as reported by Human Events, leaked documents from the Obama administration estimates that one rule on water quality requirements will be responsible for an additional 7,000 fired workers.

The new regulations are so extreme that, in effect, they require all new power plants must be powered by natural gas, an imperfect fuel.

This may make the natural gas lobbyists who work with the Obama administration happy, but the incredible amounts of methane expanded natural gas would not please environmentalists.

In five months, natural gas prices have increased by 52%, with the Obama administration's rules largely to blame. According to Reuters data, as demand is expanding globally, natural gas is quickly approaching a price which is $2 more than the same per unit, which results in higher energy prices for cash-strapped consumers who already heat their homes with natural gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,308 Posts
This is part and partial why oil (gasoline) prices are so high. We have an CIC beholden to the "green energy" movement, and thus very hostile to oil and coal. The more people blame "greedy oil companies" and "speculators" as the problem just makes me want to wretch!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,375 Posts
 

·
Retired BOD - Doug
Joined
·
39,640 Posts
Ah hell guys...if the Mayan's were right the world will end in December anyway. Guess the Democrats will blame that on Bush too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
If you actually know anything about power generation and the industries that create them you'd be cheering about coal plants being made to adhere to stricter environmental regulations and and an increase in natural gas power generation.

Why natural gas over coal? Because average cost of coal was $68/ton in 2011 and fell to $62/ton in 2012. Natural gas runs $3.72/1,000cuft for power generation and industrial, and $11/1,000cuft for residential.

Coal is almost entirely allocated to power generation and industrial usage with a minute amount going to residential, limiting the market. Coal is an unstable energy commodity in that it's energy output is dependent on the quality of the product, averaging between 10MBtu and 30MBtu per ton of coal. This variation is caused by impurities in the coal as well as the density and content of carbon stryates. Average price per Btu is 161290Btu/$ based on $62/ton,

Natural gas is distributed to all levels or industry, commercial, and residential assets. Natural gas is a more uniform energy content as all of the gasses in the mixture are combustible by nature with an average of 1028Btu/cuft. So the price per Btu is 297971Btu/$.

Natural Gas is 1.8 times more energy per dollar than coal.

With both transport infrastructures in place, natural gas is also easier and less costly to transport in large volumes through pipelines, where coal must be transported by rail, which required diesel fuel to power the locomotive, adding higher shipping costs as the price for fuel increases.


From the environmental side, natural gas releases a more stable exhaust plume over coal allowing for more opportunities to institute catalyst degradation and carbon capture/reinjection systems. Old coal plants have very high emission outputs, and 'clean coal' plants still have to deal with the variation of impurities in coal but have instituted better capture and reduction in fly ash over older plants.

I used US data if you really want to have a look at the numbers.
http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=6
http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/monthly/pdf/ngm_all.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/to...-energy-accelerates/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,308 Posts
And of course you know it's not free for the average joe energy user who is the victim of coal plants being re-tooled to use natural gas.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top