• 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!

Trump Administration Goes After States for Protecting the Environment

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
1,563
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Trump is attacking states that are taking action to combat climate change and pollution.

"California’s laws to reduce pollution from cars and trucks have long been a target of the Trump administration. Along the way various officials have given lip service to a commitment to negotiate with California and the desire to maintain a national program. Yet the administration ended the supposed negotiations despite Congress members from their own party telling them to go back to the negotiating table. There may be no surer sign that the administration negotiated with CA in bad faith than a deal that California and several automakers agreed to weeks ago. Fed up with an intransigent administration proposing actions that will undermine their businesses, BMW, Ford, Honda and VW agreed to a compromise agreement with California."

Trump Administration Goes After States for Protecting the Environment | Common Dreams Views

Trump also for example wants to spend billions of dollars on propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/06/donald-trump-hopes-to-save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Thereby ignoring his own agencies that warns about the devastating effects of climate change.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Trump is attacking states that are taking action to combat climate change and pollution.

"California’s laws to reduce pollution from cars and trucks have long been a target of the Trump administration. Along the way various officials have given lip service to a commitment to negotiate with California and the desire to maintain a national program. Yet the administration ended the supposed negotiations despite Congress members from their own party telling them to go back to the negotiating table. There may be no surer sign that the administration negotiated with CA in bad faith than a deal that California and several automakers agreed to weeks ago. Fed up with an intransigent administration proposing actions that will undermine their businesses, BMW, Ford, Honda and VW agreed to a compromise agreement with California."

Trump Administration Goes After States for Protecting the Environment | Common Dreams Views

Trump also for example wants to spend billions of dollars on propping up unprofitable coal plants.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/06/donald-trump-hopes-to-save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Thereby ignoring his own agencies that warns about the devastating effects of climate change.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment
Click to expand...

Please stop using the "attack" rhetoric, as it's getting really old at this point.
 
If the democrats ever get back in control god help us........
 
You have so many example from around the world that shows that the transition away from fossil fuels are possible and happening right now.

More and More Corporations are Turning Towards Renewable Energy - Intersect Energy, LLCIntersect Energy, LLC

As Wind Turned Down A Notch, Solar Soared -- 2018 Renewable Energy Report Denmark | CleanTechnica

Norway Sold More Electric Vehicles in First Half of Year

There even Republican politicians are starting to see the great benefits of renewable energy.

Why Republican Leaders Love Renewable Energy
 
Leading medical and public health organizations are calling climate change the greatest public health challenge of this century.

“More than 70 medical and public health organizations issued a call to action on climate change yesterday, calling it the "greatest public health challenge of the 21st century."

The climate agenda urges government officials and policymakers to take on a series of priorities, including shifting away from coal and natural gas to renewable energy, supporting greenhouse gas emission reductions, and ensuring residents have access to safe and affordable drinking water.

Groups backing the agenda include the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and American Heart Association. Deborah Brown, chief mission officer at the American Lung Association, said making the changes outlined in the agenda will result in immediate health improvements.”

Major Medical Groups Release Call to Action on Climate Change - Scientific American

There also a million lives could be saved every year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone if the goals of the Paris Accord would be meet.

Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.

Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals
 
Bergslagstroll said:
You have so many example from around the world that shows that the transition away from fossil fuels are possible and happening right now.

More and More Corporations are Turning Towards Renewable Energy - Intersect Energy, LLCIntersect Energy, LLC

As Wind Turned Down A Notch, Solar Soared -- 2018 Renewable Energy Report Denmark | CleanTechnica

Norway Sold More Electric Vehicles in First Half of Year

There even Republican politicians are starting to see the great benefits of renewable energy.

Why Republican Leaders Love Renewable Energy
Click to expand...

There is already an over-reliance on renewable energy in some countries that is increasing the cost of electricity and making the power supply unreliable.

Environmentalist activists refuse to support nuclear energy, which is the only emissions free source of safe, cheap and reliable power we have today.

Renewable energy is a blackout risk, warns National Grid after outage | This is Money

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06...-fleecing-of-american-taxpayers-energy-users/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07...n-the-way-to-renewables-crushing-natural-gas/
 
LowDown said:
There is already an over-reliance on renewable energy in some countries that is increasing the cost of electricity and making the power supply unreliable.

Environmentalist activists refuse to support nuclear energy, which is the only emissions free source of safe, cheap and reliable power we have today.

Renewable energy is a blackout risk, warns National Grid after outage | This is Money

The great hundred billion dollar+ renewable energy fleecing of American taxpayers & energy users | Watts Up With That?

A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to Renewables “Crushing” Natural Gas | Watts Up With That?
Click to expand...

Watts Up with That:lamo:lamo:lamo It's run by a High Schooler!!! How stupid are these idiots. Look at the cost of energy. Nuclear is the most expensive (a bureaucratic) on the planet. Wind is one of the most affordable.

Electricity_LevelizedCost_byType.jpg
 
Media_Truth said:
Watts Up with That:lamo:lamo:lamo It's run by a High Schooler!!! How stupid are these idiots. Look at the cost of energy. Nuclear is the most expensive (a bureaucratic) on the planet. Wind is one of the most affordable.

View attachment 67263392
Click to expand...
I am not sure who IER is since you did not provide a link, but the official Government site is the EIA.
SAS Output
In the total category Nuclear comes in at $24.38 per Mwh in 2017, how does that compare to wind?
 
longview said:
I am not sure who IER is since you did not provide a link, but the official Government site is the EIA.
SAS Output
In the total category Nuclear comes in at $24.38 per Mwh in 2017, how does that compare to wind?
Click to expand...

You need to understand LEVELIZED costs.

About - IER

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.
 
Last edited:
Media_Truth said:
You need to understand LEVELIZED costs.

About - IER

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.
Click to expand...
Levelized cost,do you want to include the actual cost of the power generated, or the cost after unique credits and subsidizes have been applied?
At some point the subsidizes will go away, and we will be left with what these things actually cost to generate electricity.
 
longview said:
Levelized cost,do you want to include the actual cost of the power generated, or the cost after unique credits and subsidizes have been applied?
At some point the subsidizes will go away, and we will be left with what these things actually cost to generate electricity.
Click to expand...

Levelized costs factor that in... Scientific American had a recent article about the competitive costs of wind energy, subsidies, etc.
Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest Sources of Electricity, and It's Getting Cheaper - Scientific American Blog Network

But it’s important to note that the price of wind energy offered through a PPA is an all-in price that includes the effect of subsidies such as the federal wind production tax credit, which provides a tax subsidy of 18 to 23 dollars per megawatt hour of energy produced. When you exclude the production tax credit and look at the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from interior wind, it still comes in at an extremely competitive cost of less than 50 dollars per megawatt-hour (5 cents per kilowatt-hour). For comparison, the Energy Information Administration estimates a best-in-class combined cycle natural gas power plant has an LCOE of about 54 dollars per megawatt-hour (5.4 cents per kilowatt-hour). So even when you account for the effect of the federal wind production tax credit, wind energy remains an extremely competitive generating resource.
 
Media_Truth said:
Levelized costs factor that in... Scientific American had a recent article about the competitive costs of wind energy, subsidies, etc.
Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest Sources of Electricity, and It's Getting Cheaper - Scientific American Blog Network

But it’s important to note that the price of wind energy offered through a PPA is an all-in price that includes the effect of subsidies such as the federal wind production tax credit, which provides a tax subsidy of 18 to 23 dollars per megawatt hour of energy produced. When you exclude the production tax credit and look at the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from interior wind, it still comes in at an extremely competitive cost of less than 50 dollars per megawatt-hour (5 cents per kilowatt-hour). For comparison, the Energy Information Administration estimates a best-in-class combined cycle natural gas power plant has an LCOE of about 54 dollars per megawatt-hour (5.4 cents per kilowatt-hour). So even when you account for the effect of the federal wind production tax credit, wind energy remains an extremely competitive generating resource.
Click to expand...
it still comes in at an extremely competitive cost of less than 50 dollars per megawatt-hour
Click to expand...
How does this compare to the EIA's stated cost of Nuclear power?
$24.38 per megawatt-hour.
and well ahead of many other forms of generation.
Saying 50 dollars per megawatt-hour is a competitive cost. is a joke, when published costs are much lower.
SAS Output
 
longview said:
How does this compare to the EIA's stated cost of Nuclear power?
$24.38 per megawatt-hour.
and well ahead of many other forms of generation.
Saying 50 dollars per megawatt-hour is a competitive cost. is a joke, when published costs are much lower.
SAS Output
Click to expand...

You really need to understand the information to which you are linking. This is OPERATING COST. Do you understand that? In other words, once you build a nuclear power plant (and all of them have been coming way over budget, many times the original estimates), this is the cost to operate the plant. Your link even breaks this up to categories of Operation, Maintenance, and Fuel. If you actually read the Scientific American, you are comparing OPERATING COST to MARKET RATES. Market rates also factors in profit and all aspects of distribution.

It is also very questionable of whether or not your OPERATING COSTS factor in the disposal of radioactive wastes. Even if they do, it would be on-site storage, and the containment is only rated for only 200 years, despite the fact that these wastes must be maintained for hundreds of thousands of years. How will you factor in that expense?
 
Media_Truth said:
Watts Up with That:lamo:lamo:lamo It's run by a High Schooler!!! How stupid are these idiots. Look at the cost of energy. Nuclear is the most expensive (a bureaucratic) on the planet. Wind is one of the most affordable.

View attachment 67263392
Click to expand...

You also have new renewables as low as 3-4 cents per kWh.

Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever

While countries and regions already gets around 70 percent of their electricity from renewables.

As Wind Turned Down A Notch, Solar Soared -- 2018 Renewable Energy Report Denmark | CleanTechnica

Scotland renewable energy generation reaches record levels
 
LowDown said:
There is already an over-reliance on renewable energy in some countries that is increasing the cost of electricity and making the power supply unreliable.

Environmentalist activists refuse to support nuclear energy, which is the only emissions free source of safe, cheap and reliable power we have today.

Renewable energy is a blackout risk, warns National Grid after outage | This is Money

The great hundred billion dollar+ renewable energy fleecing of American taxpayers & energy users | Watts Up With That?

A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to Renewables “Crushing” Natural Gas | Watts Up With That?
Click to expand...

That's odd, because more progressive nations like Germany are actually creating so much surplus energy using wind that their citizens sometimes end up getting PAID to use energy.

Germany paid people to use electricity over the holidays because its grid is so clean | The Independent
 
Media_Truth said:
Levelized costs factor that in... Scientific American had a recent article about the competitive costs of wind energy, subsidies, etc.
Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest Sources of Electricity, and It's Getting Cheaper - Scientific American Blog Network

But it’s important to note that the price of wind energy offered through a PPA is an all-in price that includes the effect of subsidies such as the federal wind production tax credit, which provides a tax subsidy of 18 to 23 dollars per megawatt hour of energy produced. When you exclude the production tax credit and look at the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from interior wind, it still comes in at an extremely competitive cost of less than 50 dollars per megawatt-hour (5 cents per kilowatt-hour). For comparison, the Energy Information Administration estimates a best-in-class combined cycle natural gas power plant has an LCOE of about 54 dollars per megawatt-hour (5.4 cents per kilowatt-hour). So even when you account for the effect of the federal wind production tax credit, wind energy remains an extremely competitive generating resource.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but do you understand that 50 dollars per megawatt-hour is not competitive?
Look at the EIA wholesale price sheet, electricity current year 2019, it is a spreadsheet you have to open.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Ap
Scroll up and down the column Wtd avg price $/MWh, notice how few times the price exceeds $50/MWh,
All those other times the plant would be loosing money for each MWh generated, if the actual costs were $54/MWh.
Somehow, I think those power stations would not be in business if they lost money on over 90% of the units they generate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom