• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas

tecoyah said:
~or~ perhaps we might look back into recent history, note the way things were, and gain some level of understanding rather than express ignorance by typing:

"
During 2010, the Los Angeles metropolitan area suffered through three "red alert" smog days and 69 other "smog days." That is three red alert and sixty-nine other smog days too many.

But let's look for a moment on the bright side. And we mean the bright side as depicted by Plein Air painters rather than the Next Nature-style, particle-aided sunsets that Angelinos hate to love.
Yes, let's look at today's relative bright side. After all, NRDC President Frances Beinecke writes of traveling to Los Angeles in the 1970s, "when the air hit unhealthy levels of pollution more than 200 days a year." And this New York Times infographic shows decreasing area pollution woes from 1984 to 2004.
That's good news, because for decades smog was so synonymous with the City of Angels that those same Angels couldn't fly without packing inhalers. Pollution one day in 1903 was so severe residents thought an eclipse was nigh. The San Gabriels used to be so regularly shrouded that Fuji-san seemed like a camera hog. The county as early as 1947 opened the nation's first "air pollution control program." One October day in 1955 was said to be L.A.'s smoggiest ever. Some smog-boggling photos have been collected on this page by KCET colleague Nathan Masters - including a Boy Scout wiping air pollution-produced tears from a girl's face; an underground backyard smog shelter; and Miss Smog Fighter 1951, with sash, recoiling from a just-opened jar full of the stuff.
Some of those Los Angeles air quality horrors have improved however, thanks to a range of legislative, regulative - and many other significant - reasons.
clean%20air%20act%20balloon%20630-thumb-600x468-23672.jpg
Man selling fresh clean desert air for 50 cents a balloonfull in front of Loew's State Theatre in Los Angeles, Oct. 22, 1954. Herald-Examiner Collection photo courtesy of The Los Angeles Public Library

Perhaps the key single factor is the 1970 federal Clean Air Act. "It was such a huge change in the law," Larry Pryor says, nominating the Act as a Law That Shaped L.A, "because local controls were erratic and sensitive to industry costs rather than health costs."
Pryor is an associate professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism** and a prize-winning former editor and environmental reporter for the Los Angeles Times.
During a recent interview, Pryor recounted the back story that led to the passage of the federal Clean Air Act, as well as the related creation of the California Air Resources Board to administer the Act at the state level.
Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 31, 1970, eight months after the first Earth Day, the Clean Air Act set comprehensive emissions limits and allowed the newly established EPA to regulate seven harmful chemicals. The Act and its federal bully pulpit led to the expanded influence - or in some cases the creation of - local agencies such as the California Air Resources Board to administer the Clean Air Act. The Act was updated in 1977 and dramatically in 1990."


How Los Angeles Began to Put its Smoggy Days Behind | Laws That Shaped LA | Land of Sunshine | KCET


Still....I'm sure you have something other than failure to comprehend to base your comment on. (please note sarcasm)
Click to expand...


:lamo Oh come on....The picture is laughable....hhahahahahaha! Man you greenies fall for anything don't you.....
 
j-mac said:
Oh please....Scare tactics? Is that all you got? I guess using your logic we should all go back to horse and buggy.
Click to expand...
Your logic makes no sense at all, I want to stop burning coal. You apparently want to keep burning coal like we have done since * the horse and buggy days.
 
j-mac said:
:lamo Oh come on....The picture is laughable....hhahahahahaha! Man you greenies fall for anything don't you.....
Click to expand...

You have managed to support my comments, define ignorance, and portray yourself as something less than an informed, rational, and logical thinking example of our species....I thank you.

The extremely well thought out and informative pile of regurgitated mindset you represent failed a few years ago...yet it seems you may have missed it. As it is, you represent a past most see as somewhat pathetic...though it is a bit too recent to call you something less pleasant.

Our Planet is not doing very well...and if you are unable to see it you no longer matter, as you are a part of the cause.

Get Out Of The Way....while you still can.
 
j-mac said:
:lamo Oh come on....The picture is laughable....hhahahahahaha! Man you greenies fall for anything don't you.....
Click to expand...

Smog issues in major cities are verifiable fact. One does not have to be a "greeny" to know that.
 
Redress said:
He is just trying to blame me for his inability to support his claim.
Click to expand...

I guess the answer to that question posed by OpportunityCost is, "No, Redress can't set the hatred of me aside and address the topic."
 
Grim17 said:
I guess the answer to that question posed by OpportunityCost is, "No, Redress can't set the hatred of me aside and address the topic."
Click to expand...

I don't see how discussing the events in the OP is anything but addressing the topic.
 
pbrauer said:
Your logic makes no sense at all, I want to stop burning coal.
Click to expand...

And replace it with what? Right now we don't have anything that can replace coal, and keep our current levels of domestic energy production v. consumption...
 
Redress said:
I don't see how discussing the events in the OP is anything but addressing the topic.
Click to expand...

From what I see Red, you are not "discussing" anything....What you are doing is employing a well worn progressive tactic, which is to single out a particular point, demand that the opponent do endless searches for evidence that you can just sit back and slap down as the opponent presents it. It is a highly dishonest tactic.
 
j-mac said:
And replace it with what? Right now we don't have anything that can replace coal, and keep our current levels of domestic energy production v. consumption...
Click to expand...
As long as coal is the lowest cost, you'll never have anything to replace it. Where is the incentive for development of alternatives when the low cost of coal is a factor?*
 
pbrauer said:
As long as coal is the lowest cost, you'll never have anything to replace it. Where is the incentive for development of alternatives when the low cost of coal is a factor?*
Click to expand...

The US government has been pumping money by the truck load into alternative energy research for decades in order to find a reliable and cost effective alternative for fossil fuels, and the results have been dismal. With the possible exception of nuclear power, every non-fossil fuel source of energy we know of is either unreliable, too expensive, or both.

I have no problem with the government investing money into research in this area, but I have a big problem with the government a) subsidizing alternative energy products that we know just aren't going to cut it, like Obama did with stimulus money, and b) mandating high cost alternative energy on the American people, by forcing power companies to either go out of business, or make expensive changes to their plants that they end up passing to consumers by way of higher rates. The same applies to car manufacturers also.
 
Grim17 said:
The US government has been pumping money by the truck load into alternative energy research for decades in order to find a reliable and cost effective alternative for fossil fuels, and the results have been dismal. With the possible exception of nuclear power, every non-fossil fuel source of energy we know of is either unreliable, too expensive, or both.

I have no problem with the government investing money into research in this area, but I have a big problem with the government a) subsidizing alternative energy products that we know just aren't going to cut it, like Obama did with stimulus money, and b) mandating high cost alternative energy on the American people, by forcing power companies to either go out of business, or make expensive changes to their plants that they end up passing to consumers by way of higher rates. The same applies to car manufacturers also.
Click to expand...

That is because the government has been pumping money into finding alternative energy sources that benefit big energy suppliers and not end users. Uncle Sam has a vested interest in not helping people live off the grid which would be the better route to take from an innovation standpoint.
 
j-mac said:
From what I see Red, you are not "discussing" anything....What you are doing is employing a well worn progressive tactic, which is to single out a particular point, demand that the opponent do endless searches for evidence that you can just sit back and slap down as the opponent presents it. It is a highly dishonest tactic.
Click to expand...

Huh? If regulations from the Obama administration did not cause the company to fail, and they did not, thenthen Grim's claim fails. Blaming me for his failure is hilarious.
 
Just to add to the fray - I've done a bit of research on Las Brisas Energy and Chase Power Development, LLC and found one item that I think calls into question a whole bunch of what is going on in this matter.

As of Dec 18, 2012, the Texas Sec of State does not show a David Freysinger as a company officer, much less as CEO

Chase Power Development, LLC has a location in Houston, TX. Active officers include William K. Robertson, Kathleen E. Smith, John D. Upchurch, Cimmarron Ventures LLC, Q Fund II Warehouse, LLC, John Curtis and Dolores Guajardo. Chase Power Development, LLC filed as a Domestic Limited Liability Company (LLC) on Tuesday, July 03, 2007 in the state of Texas and is currently active. The company's line of business includes Contractor.
Click to expand...


Looks like Texas has really accepted that whole "corporations are persons" thing, when two corps are shown as 'officers' of a company.
 
Redress said:
Huh? If regulations from the Obama administration did not cause the company to fail, and they did not, thenthen Grim's claim fails. Blaming me for his failure is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Well done! - 17 pages to beat home a point that should have been understood on page 1.

The OP had runnoft PDQ, but attempted a comeback - to no avail.

Points on accuracy and tenacity!
 
Grim17 said:
Now I understand why Obama didn't mention jobs in his speech the other day.




Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas | WashingtonExaminer.com
Click to expand...

Since I have time now, let's look at this in whole. First we can take the statement of the person making the claim that Obama and the EPA killed this plant:

“The (Las Brisas Energy Center) is a victim of EPA’s concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities in the U.S., including EPA’s carbon-permitting requirements and EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new power plants,” he said. “These costly rules exceeded the bounds of EPA authority, incur tremendous costs, and produce no real benefits related to climate change.”
Click to expand...

Those rules where implemented in 2005 and earlier.

Now let's look at what really happened. http://www.caller.com/news/2013/jan/23/las-brisas-project-halted/

Las Brisas applied for its air permit in May 2008 and received approval from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in January 2011. It also has a pending greenhouse gas permit application under review by the EPA.


The air quality issue culminated in July, when Travis County District Court Judge Stephen Yelenosky ordered the TCEQ to take a more in-depth look at the permit, particularly where it addressed the way the company planned to handle, store and transport petroleum coke onto the site, and the commission’s failure to review the plant according to the latest National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Click to expand...

Petroleum Coke is not terribly toxic, but in large quantities can release heavy metals into the soil. This is not some minor, environmental wacko concern, but a real problem that can result in high rates of birth defects, child mortality, and so on. THose rules are from Texas, and Obama and the EPA did not create them: NSR Guidance for Petroleum Coke Storage and Transfer

Lastly, the one big EPA regulation to come about recently is, as Bronson mentioned, MATS. Mercury emissions are a major health concern. Again, not environmental whacko type concerns, but serious, major concerns. From the EPA: Healthier Americans | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants | US EPA

Health Effect
Cases Avoided
Premature death4,200-11,000
Chronic bronchitis2,800
Heart attacks
4,700
Asthma attacks130,000
Hospital and emergency room visits5,700
Restricted activity days3,200,000

Estimated Annual Number of Adverse Health Effects Avoided Due to Implementing the MATS
Click to expand...

And last but not least, there are still Petcoke power plants being successfully built in Texas, for example in Port Comfort. Instead of trying fighting every step of the way, these plants are working with the Texas government and local groups, who in return are not challenging them in court.
 
pbrauer said:
As long as coal is the lowest cost, you'll never have anything to replace it. Where is the incentive for development of alternatives when the low cost of coal is a factor?*
Click to expand...

Might find this interesting:
"The Spin Cell provides a Levelized Cost of Energy of 8 cents/kWh with a Bill of Materials cost of 59 cents/Wp, including racking, tracking and inverter."
V3Solar | The Most Efficient Energy Under The Sun
 
Isn't Texas supposed to be doing well these days financially?

Can they not abide by EPA standards? Or is that the secret to their success? One of many, perhaps? China doesn't abide by EPA rules either.

Maybe they should just leave Texas alone and let them become our new China? Complete with immigrant wages, smog, facemasks, the whole nine yards. Imagine how much money we would save on shipping charges.
 
Captain America said:
Isn't Texas supposed to be doing well these days financially?

Can they not abide by EPA standards? Or is that the secret to their success? One of many, perhaps? China doesn't abide by EPA rules either.

Maybe they should just leave Texas alone and let them become our new China? Complete with immigrant wages, smog, facemasks, the whole nine yards. Imagine how much money we would save on shipping charges.
Click to expand...

This plant had problems not just with the EPA but with Texas as well. And there are petco plants being built successfully in Texas. This was a case of a guy blaming others for his incompetence.
 
Redress said:
This plant had problems not just with the EPA but with Texas as well. And there are petco plants being built successfully in Texas. This was a case of a guy blaming others for his incompetence.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. In other words, "Move along folks. Nothing to see here."

I shoulda known at "Obama kills Power Plant."
 
Captain America said:
Gotcha. In other words, "Move along folks. Nothing to see here."

I shoulda known at "Obama kills Power Plant."
Click to expand...


Well, Get ready and hold of to your wallet Cap....Obama, and Progressives have a surprise for you....

"Last week the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a shocking drop in power sector coal consumption in the first quarter of 2012. Coal-fired power plants are now generating just 36 percent of U.S. electricity, versus 44.6 percent just one year ago.
It’s the result of an unprecedented regulatory assault on coal that will leave us all much poorer.
Last week PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states (Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia) held its 2015 capacity auction. These are the first real, market prices that take Obama’s most recent anti-coal regulations into account, and they prove that he is keeping his 2008 campaign promise to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”
The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt.
Why the massive price increases? Andy Ott from PJM stated the obvious: “Capacity prices were higher than last year's because of retirements of existing coal-fired generation resulting largely from environmental regulations which go into effect in 2015.” Northern Ohio is suffering from more forced coal-plant retirements than the rest of the region, hence the even higher price.
These are not computer models or projections or estimates. These are the actual prices that electric distributors have agreed to pay for new capacity. The costs will be passed on to consumers at the retail level.


Read more: Obama
 
pbrauer said:
As long as coal is the lowest cost, you'll never have anything to replace it. Where is the incentive for development of alternatives when the low cost of coal is a factor?*
Click to expand...

If coal -driven energy producers had to pay close to the full costs of the pollution resulting from their use of coal, would coal still be among the lowest cost sources of energy? Under such a scenario, coal producers would be able to pass some share of those costs onto consumers, but would also wind up bearing some share of those costs as demand is not perfectly inelastic and the quantity of coal demanded declines to some degree. In the larger energy picture, would the long-term benefits (health, economic, long-term expansion of energy supply sources, etc.) of such a policy exceed the short-term costs of reduced energy supply flexibility and higher consumer costs (for coal and the alternatives to which some of the coal customers switch)?

Such arguments are not confined to coal, alone. They pervade all areas of economic activity in which significant externalities e.g., pollution, occur. As companies don't pay for the health, economic, environmental, etc., costs associated with their production, their overall cost of production is lower than it would otherwise be. Consequently, the supply of their product is higher than it would otherwise be and the quanity demanded (courtesy of the low price) is also higher than it would otherwise be.

In short, public policy is about trade-offs. So one can't expect "purist" policies that disregard a broad range of considerations. Consequently, coal is likely to remain an energy source for quite some time, even as its share of the energy sector slowly declines albeit in unsteady fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom