Shoutbox

Refresh History
  • littlebit: Makes sense.
    July 16, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Boards will stay open for a place people can find history information longer. I am not allowing anyone to sign up for now because of so many foreginers just wanting to promote their business..
    December 10, 2016, 05:10:27 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Not sure why didn't look, I may be shutting down these message boards..
    November 17, 2016, 12:42:43 AM
  • ~kathy~: rick why is the timestamp showing up a day in advance?
    September 13, 2016, 12:27:46 AM
  • Valor7: What I tried to say is that the actual money would not be there that quick. But a loan against that would work if they are willing to do that.
    August 08, 2016, 01:51:51 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Why so long before it comes online? 911 took out a loan or bond with the known guarantee payment and began building..
    August 08, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
  • Valor7: Actually no it is not, a dependable Revenue stream will not come on line until the 4th quarter of 2017 so 2018 budget will be up in the air, not quite sure what they will have. By 2019 budget all will be well.
    August 04, 2016, 09:27:17 PM
  • Valor7: You mean that tax that the Commissioners would not put on the ballot for so many years? Strange things happened when the citizens got a chance to vote on that issue.
    August 03, 2016, 06:43:06 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Back up is now available withe the new tax..
    August 03, 2016, 05:01:35 PM
  • Valor7: Thanks a lot Ladies!!
    July 29, 2016, 01:16:13 PM
  • littlebit: ((*(*&
    July 27, 2016, 03:47:52 PM
  • ~kathy~: lol
    July 15, 2016, 09:34:56 AM
  • Valor7: A guy could get killed around here while waiting for backup!
    July 13, 2016, 07:31:58 PM
  • Lepard LLC: You are not alone..
    July 13, 2016, 07:28:53 PM
  • Valor7: I just hate it when I talk to myself!!!!
    July 08, 2016, 12:54:09 PM
  • Valor7: I could have worded that better, we talked details, options, the pros and cons of each, in  order to arrive at the best ballot language to present to the voters. Hope that makes this clearer.
    April 15, 2016, 06:36:14 PM
  • Valor7: sorry about the typos still working with just one arm in action
    April 13, 2016, 01:10:42 PM
  • Valor7: Yes and no. We talked details and options until we were blue in the face but I never heardbring it over, it was always the time was not right for the issue to pass. Glad to see the time in now right and I for one shall vote yes on the ballot. I would urge all others to do the sameour county is busting at the seams crimewise and no matter how many bad guys we send off there always seems to someone to replace them. The Sheriff's Office needs the help.
    April 13, 2016, 01:08:35 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Is that true Valor? Did he ask you what you wanted?
    March 01, 2016, 04:55:37 AM
  • Lepard LLC: Gene Newkirk Rick I have waited for a Sheriff to bring it to me on what he wanted. I have pushed Mr long for a while to get it to me. He told me he was close to having or done. Now hopefully the people will get to decide on it. I spoke with Steve about this a few times.
    March 01, 2016, 04:54:54 AM
  • Kimberly: Wow- I have a new name..........
    February 23, 2016, 10:25:15 PM
  • Lepard LLC: Works on mine, improvements are being done here. I may kick back into her a lot and post but working on different technologies right now. Seeing how things interact.
    January 18, 2016, 09:01:20 AM
  • Valor7: Yes it is working. If you need a laugh the wife showed me how to correctly use the silly thing.
    January 04, 2016, 05:32:59 PM
  • Valor7: Think so, mine is trying to work but it is now user and password protected and I dont know mine
    December 17, 2015, 01:32:16 PM
  • "DJ": Is there still a working android app for the PCSD
    December 14, 2015, 08:14:53 PM

Author Topic: Barack will raise utility costs and bankrupt the coal industry, his words..  (Read 22807 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline okie the thread killer

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 4857
  • Karma: +2619917/-766
    • View Profile
Re: Barack will raise utility costs and bankrupt the coal industry, his words..
« Reply #60 on: December 30, 2010, 06:34:24 PM »

Share/Bookmark

Fort Wood Hotel

Boards

Devils Elbow

Attractions

Sports

St. Robert

Waynesville

PC Daily

Dixon

Menu Guide

Fun Links

Homework

Crocker

Fort Wood

Swedeborg

Big Piney

Laquey

Classifieds

Restaurants

Richland

Fort  Hotels

if you look at what Denmark has been able to do, the options are amazing...takes time to get them implemented, but what a difference it has made over there. Sure wish some forward-looking people had started here years ago.
I have it on good authority that the Hokey-Pokey really IS what it's all about.

Offline FordGuyu

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 251
  • Karma: +1749/-1538
    • View Profile
Re: Barack will raise utility costs and bankrupt the coal industry, his words..
« Reply #61 on: December 30, 2010, 07:17:44 PM »
well, Denmark has done some interesting things for sure, but when you factor in that the car tax is 105% the value of the car, and an average Danish company pays 43% more per megawatt hour of electricity than companies in the U.S, the changes haven't been without pain...

The major change is that the majority of homes in Denmark are heated by the surplus heat produced by power plants... sort of a "heat district".. This was accomplished by installing pipes (much like a sewer) to each home, from a network of smaller power plants (many hundreds). It's a great plan for a small country like Denmark and I admire the engineering and innovation involved.

Also, Denmark invests in exploration of oil and NG reserves within it's borders... Not to mention the national population is only about 5 million.  Unfortunately, the scale needed to produce an approximation of the same plan in the US would be astronomically expensive..


Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
nobama keeps this promise!

Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns
By Brad Plumer

(JOHN GILES/ASSOCIATED PRESS) Over the next 18 months, the Environmental Protection Agency will finalize a flurry of new rules to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants. Mercury, smog, ozone, greenhouse gases, water intake, coal ash—it’s all getting regulated. And, not surprisingly, some lawmakers are grumbling.

Industry groups such the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, and the American Legislative Exchange Council have dubbed the coming rules “EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck.” The regulations, they say, will cost utilities up to $129 billion and force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity. Given that coal provides 45 percent of the country’s power, that means higher electric bills, more blackouts and fewer jobs. The doomsday scenario has alarmed Republicans in the House, who have been scrambling to block the measures. Environmental groups retort that the rules will bring sizeable public health benefits, and that industry groups have been exaggerating the costs of environmental regulations since they were first created.

So, who’s right? This month, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which conducts policy research for members of Congress, has been circulating a paper that tries to calmly sort through the shouting match. Thanks to The Hill’s Andrew Restuccia, it’s now available (PDF) for all to read. And the upshot is that CRS is awfully skeptical of the “train wreck” predictions.

First, the report agrees that the new rules will likely force the closure of many coal plants between now and 2017, although it’s difficult to know precisely how many. For green groups, that’s a feature, not a bug: Many of these will be the oldest and dirtiest plants around. About 110 gigawatts, or one-third of all coal capacity in the United States, came online between 1940 and 1969. Many of these plants were grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act, and about two-thirds of them don’t have scrubbers:


CRS notes that many of the plants most affected by the new EPA rules were facing extinction anyway: “Many of these plants are inefficient and are being replaced by more efficient combined cycle natural gas plants, a development likely to be encouraged if the price of competing fuel—natural gas—continues to be low, almost regardless of EPA rules.”

Still, that’s a lot of plants. Won’t this wreak havoc on the grid? Not necessarily, the CRS report says, although the transition won’t be simple. For one, most of these plants don’t provide as much baseload power as it appears on first glance—pre-1970 coal plants operating without emissions controls are in use, on average, only about 41 percent of the time. Second, the report notes that “there is a substantial amount of excess generation capacity at present,” caused by the recession and the boom in natural gas plants. Many of those plants can pitch in to satisfy peak demand. Third, electric utilities can add capacity fairly quickly if needed — from 2000 to 2003, utilities added more than 200 gigawatts of new capacity, far, far more than the amount that will be lost between now and 2017.

Granted, those upgrades and changes won’t be free. The CRS report doesn’t try to independently evaluate the costs of the new rules, noting that they will depend on site-specific factors and will vary by utility and state. (Matthew Wald recently wrote a helpful piece in The New York Times looking at how utilities might cope.) But, the report says, industry group estimates are almost certainly overstated. For one, they were analyzing early EPA draft proposals, and in many cases, the agency has tweaked its rules to allay industry concerns. And many of the EPA’s rules are almost certain to get bogged down in court or delayed for years, which means that utilities will have more time to adapt than they fear.

The CRS report also agrees with green groups that the benefits of these new rules shouldn’t be downplayed. Those can be tricky to quantify, however. In one example, the EPA estimates that an air-transport rule to clamp down on smog-causing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide would help prevent 21,000 cases of bronchitis and 23,000 heart attacks, and save 36,000 lives. That’s, at the high end, $290 billion in health benefits, compared with $2.8 billion per year in costs (according to the EPA) by 2014. “In most cases,” CRS concludes, “the benefits are larger.”

Granted, few would expect this report to change many minds in Congress. Just 10 days ago, Michele Bachmann was on the campaign trail promising that if she becomes president, “I guarantee you the EPA will have doors locked and lights turned off, and they will only be about conservation.” That doesn’t sound like someone who’s waiting for a little more data before assessing the impact of the new regulations.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/getting-ready-for-a-wave-of-coal-plant-shutdowns/2011/08/19/gIQAzkZ0PJ_blog.html

Offline littlebit

  • Cunning Linguist
  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 12946
  • Karma: +2370369/-241
  • Gender: Male
  • Home is what you make it.
    • View Profile
I sure miss Okie.....
Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

I'd give my left arm to be ambidextrous...


“The truth is, everyone is going to end up hurting you. You just have to find the ones who are worth suffering for.”

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
you'll have plenty of time to reminisce when the power is off.

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
Shutting down the EPA what a stupid idea. Who needs clean air and clean water?

Offline Pete

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1505
  • Karma: +90258/-1279
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
if you look at what Denmark has been able to do, the options are amazing...takes time to get them implemented, but what a difference it has made over there. Sure wish some forward-looking people had started here years ago.

You are taking a socialist country that taxes the hell out of 5 million people and comparing it to a capitalist country with over 300 million? I will just stop there, it is plain stupid. All you need is a plane ticket, but don't relie on them to just let you in and pay your way like some think we should do. The door swings both ways but watch out!
If your going to be dumb, you better be tough!

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
 there is a plant in wv that met all the epa rules when construction started. while it was under construction the rules changed. when it was completed it was not allowed to operate. wasted a lot of investment, prevented an increase of the power supply. the epa operates with impunity. it is doing what nobama said he would do, bankrupt the coal industry. why haven't any major refineries been built to increase the refining capacity of the us? there is no oil shortage, but there is a limit to refining capacity.

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
There has not been a new refinery since 1976. But that is Obama fault.  It is not just the EPA fault which was started during Nixion Admin. American people in general have to take some the blame. People want them but NIMBY kills off a lot of stuff.

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
Did anyone even bother reading all the parts that says stuff like all the crap you are writing abour Obama and the EPA are, in fact, wrong?  It says it right in that article, right around the part whete it talks about the lives that will be saved after the already obsolete and already scheduled to be shut down plants are killing people who have to breathe the toxic crap they spew out.  Seriously did any of you even bother to read any of it?
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
so there are people dropping all over? LOL LOL chicken little, at it again. the coal that is mined is a cleaner burning type. the air has been cleaned to the point of 1970 era pollution in california. this"cleaner air" with less smog has been blamed with increasing global warming because the sun is not blocked by the smog and temps are higher! LOL LOL any excuse eh?

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
so there are people dropping all over? LOL LOL chicken little, at it again. the coal that is mined is a cleaner burning type. the air has been cleaned to the point of 1970 era pollution in california. this"cleaner air" with less smog has been blamed with increasing global warming because the sun is not blocked by the smog and temps are higher! LOL LOL any excuse eh?
The article YOU posted contradicts all your crybaby lies, yet you are doing your lol thing at what, me?  Have you actually achieved "Right Wingnut Nirvana?" Thats when your heads been so far up your own ass for so long you can't tell your own bullshit lies from the bullshit lies you copy and paste?
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline 2CardJohnE

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 839
  • Karma: +7580/-7512
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
The article YOU posted contradicts all your crybaby lies, yet you are doing your lol thing at what, me?  Have you actually achieved "Right Wingnut Nirvana?" Thats when your heads been so far up your own ass for so long you can't tell your own bullshit lies from the bullshit lies you copy and paste?
If i could give ya 100,000 karma right now i would !
John Wayne said it best, "I may not have voted for him, but he is MY President

Offline Chas

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1856
  • Karma: +11629/-2363
    • View Profile
Go  What_the. I haven't been on here for a while but it is good to see that Fish is still on here. I like to read his post when I need a good lollololololololololo

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
for those too lazy to read; LOL LOL

Why cleaner air could speed global warming
Opinion Aerosol pollution, which is now on the downswing, has helped keep the planet cool by blocking sunlight. Tackling another pollutant, soot, might buy Earth some time.
April 18, 2010|By Eli KintischYou're likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there's a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That's right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Cleaner air, one of the signature achievements of the U.S. environmental movement, is certainly worth celebrating. Scientists estimate that the U.S. Clean Air Act has cut a major air pollutant called sulfate aerosols, for example, by 30% to 50% since the 1980s, helping greatly reduce cases of asthma and other respiratory problems.
But even as industrialized and developing nations alike steadily reduce aerosol pollution -- caused primarily by burning coal -- climate scientists are beginning to understand just how much these tiny particles have helped keep the planet cool. A silent benefit of sulfates, in fact, is that they've been helpfully blocking sunlight from striking the Earth for many decades, by brightening clouds and expanding their coverage. Emerging science suggests that their underappreciated impact has been incredible.

Researchers believe greenhouse gases such as CO2 have committed the Earth to an eventual warming of roughly 4 degrees Fahrenheit, a quarter of which the planet has already experienced. Thanks to cooling by aerosols starting in the 1940s, however, the planet has only felt a portion of that greenhouse warming. In the 1980s, sulfate pollution dropped as Western nations enhanced pollution controls, and as a result, global warming accelerated.

There's hot debate over the size of what amounts to a cooling mask, but there's no question that it will diminish as industries continue to clean traditional pollutants from their smokestacks. Unlike CO2, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols last for a week at most in the air. So cutting them would probably accelerate global warming rapidly.

In a recent paper in the journal Climate Dynamics, modelers forecast what would happen if nations instituted all existing pollution controls on industrial sources and vehicles by 2030. They found the current rate of warming -- roughly 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade -- doubled worldwide, and nearly tripled in North America.

Despite intransigence on carbon emissions, even China is taking aggressive steps to cut sulfate pollution, and temperatures have risen as a result.

But surely the answer can't be to slow our drive to clean our air. One way to buy time might be to tackle another air pollutant that warms the planet: soot. In 2008, scientists estimated that so-called black carbon, soot's prime component, is responsible for 60% more global warming above that caused by greenhouse gases. Cleaner-burning diesel engines in the West and more efficient cookstoves in the developing world are the answer. But on both scores, "relatively little has been done to address the problem," says the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force.

In the face of severe climate risks, credible scientists are beginning to study geo-engineering -- tinkering with global systems to reduce warming directly. One scheme is to spew sulfates or other sun-blocking particles miles high in the stratosphere. If it worked, it would mimic the natural cooling effect of volcanoes, replacing the near-surface sulfate mask with a much higher one. But the possible side effects could be dire, including damage to the ozone layer. The potential geopolitical implications, like wars over the thermostat, could be devastating as well.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/18/opinion/la-oe-kintisch18-2010apr18


Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
 :th_thicon_super:

The Reagan White House conceived the first cap-and-trade program to reduce pollution. It was used in the 1980s to phase out lead in gasoline at a lower cost. An EPA analysis shows:

“¦estimated savings from the lead trading program of approximately 20 percent over alternative programs that did not provide for lead banking, a cost savings of about $250 million per year.

President Reagan also signed the Montreal Protocol in 1987 to slash the production and use of chemicals that deplete the upper ozone layer essential to screen out cancer-causing ultraviolet rays. His administration established a cap-and-trade system to implement the chemical reductions the protocol required. A 2006 scientific assessment concluded that “the Montreal Protocol is working” to reduce chemicals and protect the ozone layer.

President George H.W. Bush,Reagan’s successor, was the first president to propose the employment of a cap-and-trade system in an environmental law. The Clean Air Act of 1990 includes his proposed cap-and-trade system to reduce the sulfur pollution from power plants responsible for acid rain.

The Clean Air Act passed the Senate by a vote of 89-10 and the House by 401-25. Many staunch conservatives voted for it including Sens. Kit Bond (R-Mo), Trent Lott (R-MS), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Strom Thurmond (R-SC). Conservative House supporters included Reps. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Joe Barton (R-TX), Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Fred Upton (R-MI).

When President Bush signed the Clean Air Act into law he highlighted its innovative cap-and-trade mechanism:

The acid rain allowance trading program will be the first large-scale regulatory use of market incentives and is already being seen as a model for regulatory reform efforts here and abroad.

By employing a system that generates the most environmental protection for every dollar spent,the trading system lays the groundwork for a new era of smarter government regulation; one that is more compatible with economic growth than using only the command and control approaches of the past.

President Bush’s prediction came true. An EPA analysis a decade after the law was passed determined that the actual cost of cutting sulfur emissions by 40 percent was substantially lower than it had predicted: “$1 to $2 billion per year, just one quarter of original EPA estimates.” A CAP analysis determined that in 2006 utility rates were 5 percent lower (in real dollars) than before the act passed in 1990. And the U.S. economy added 16 million jobs during this time.

President George W. Bush also included a cap-and-trade mechanism in his “Clear Skies” bill that would have amended the Clean Air Act. Upon the bill’s introduction he noted the success of his father’s cap-and-trade program:

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments have significantly reduced air pollution, especially through the innovative “cap-and trade” acid rain control program. [It] has been a resounding success, cutting annual sulfur dioxide emissions in the first phase by 50 percent below allowed levels. Emissions were reduced faster than required, and at far less cost”¦The program only requires a handful of EPA employees to operate.
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
Oh yeah....

Lolololololololololololololololololololololololol ololololololololol
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 9, 2011 – American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) today announced the company's plan for complying with a series of regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would impact coal-fueled power plants. Based on the regulations as proposed, AEP's compliance plan would retire nearly 6,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fueled power generation; upgrade or install new advanced emissions reduction equipment on another 10,100 MW; refuel 1,070 MW of coal generation as 932 MW of natural gas capacity; and build 1,220 MW of natural gas-fueled generation. The cost of AEP's compliance plan could range from $6 billion to $8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade. High demand for labor and materials due to a constrained compliance time frame could drive actual costs higher than these estimates. The plan, including retirements, could change significantly depending on the final form of the EPA regulations and regulatory approvals from state commissions.
The retirements and retrofits in the plan are in addition to more than $7.2 billion that AEP has invested since 1990 to reduce emissions from its coal-fueled generation fleet. Annual emissions of nitrogen oxides from AEP plants are 80 percent lower today than in 1990. Sulfur dioxide emissions from AEP plants are 73 percent lower than in 1990. The company currently owns nearly 25,000 MW of coal-fueled generation, approximately 65 percent of its total generating capacity. Coal would fuel approximately 57 percent of AEP's total generating capacity by the end of the decade.

"We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA's current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies. We have worked for months to develop a compliance plan that will mitigate the impact of these rules for our customers and preserve jobs, but because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit and replace coal-fueled power plants. The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling," said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman and chief executive officer.

Although some jobs would be created from the installation of emissions reduction equipment, AEP expects a net loss of approximately 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million as a result of compliance with the proposed EPA rules.

"We are deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed regulations on our customers and local economies. Communities that have depended on these plants to provide good jobs and support local services will face significant reductions in payroll and property taxes in a very short period of time. The economic impact will extend far beyond direct employment at power plants as thousands of ancillary jobs are supported by every coal-fueled generating unit. Businesses that have benefited from reasonably priced coal-fueled power will face the impact of electricity price increases ranging from 10 percent to more than 35 percent just for compliance with these environmental rules at a time when they are still trying to recover from the economic downturn," Morris said.

"Although discounted by some, the potential impacts on the reliability of the transmission system, particularly in the Midwest, are significant. The proposed timelines for compliance aren't adequate for construction of significant retrofits or replacement generation, so many coal-fueled plants would be prematurely retired or idled in just a few years. AEP's compliance plan alone would abruptly cut generation capacity in the Midwest by more than 5,400 MW. Depending on the year, another 1,500 MW to 5,200 MW of AEP generation would be idled or curtailed for extended periods as pollution control equipment is installed," Morris said.

AEP has shared its compliance plan with PJM Interconnection, Southwest Power Pool and North American Electric Reliability Corp. for use in their evaluation of the impacts of EPA's proposed rules.

"We will continue to work through the EPA process with the hope that the agency will recognize the cumulative impact of the proposed rules and develop a more reasonable compliance schedule. We also will continue talking with lawmakers in Washington about a legislative approach that would achieve the same long-term environmental goals with less negative impact on jobs and the U.S. economy," Morris said. "With more time and flexibility, we will get to the same level of emission reductions, but it will cost our customers less and will prevent premature job losses, extend the construction job benefits, and ensure the ongoing reliability of the electric system."

AEP's current plan for compliance with the rules as proposed includes permanently retiring the following coal-fueled power plants:

Glen Lyn Plant, Glen Lyn, Va. – 335 MW (retired by Dec. 31, 2014); Kammer Plant, Moundsville, W.Va. – 630 MW (retired by Dec. 31, 2014); Kanawha River Plant, Glasgow, W.Va. – 400 MW (retired by Dec. 31, 2014); Phillip Sporn Plant, New Haven, W.Va. – 1,050 MW (450 MW expected to retire in 2011, 600 MW retired by Dec. 31, 2014); and Picway Plant, Lockbourne, Ohio – 100 MW (retired by Dec. 31, 2014).

AEP would retire generating units at the following locations but continue operating some generation at the sites:

Big Sandy Plant, Louisa, Ky. – Units 1 and 2 (1,078 MW) retired by Dec. 31, 2014; Big Sandy Unit 1 would be rebuilt as a 640-MW natural gas plant by Dec. 31, 2015; Clinch River Plant, Cleveland, Va. – Unit 3 (235 MW) retired by Dec. 31, 2014; Units 1 and 2 (470 MW total) would be refueled with natural gas with a capacity of 422 MW by Dec. 31, 2014; Conesville Plant, Conesville, Ohio – Unit 3 (165 MW) retired by Dec. 31, 2012; Units 5 and 6 (800 MW total) would continue operating with retrofits; Muskingum River Plant, Beverly, Ohio – Units 1-4 (840 MW) retired by Dec. 31, 2014; Muskingum River Unit 5 (600 MW) may be refueled with natural gas with a capacity of 510 MW by Dec. 31, 2014, depending on regulatory treatment in Ohio; Tanners Creek Plant, Lawrenceburg, Ind. – Units 1, 2 and 3 (495 MW) retired by Dec. 31, 2014; Unit 4 (500 MW) would continue to operate with retrofits; and Welsh Plant, Pittsburg, Texas – Unit 2 (528 MW) retired by Dec. 31, 2014; Units 1 and 3 (1,056 MW) would continue to operate with retrofits.

The two coal-fueled generating units at Northeastern Plant (935 MW) in Oolagah, Okla., would be idled for a year or more while emission reduction equipment is installed. Both units would be idled beginning Jan. 1, 2016. One unit would return to service by Dec. 31, 2016. The other unit would return to service by Dec. 31, 2017.

AEP will complete construction of the Dresden Plant (580 MW natural gas) in Dresden, Ohio, in 2012.

In addition to the retrofits above, AEP would install or upgrade emissions reduction equipment at seven other coal-fueled power plants in Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio and Texas.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2732266/posts

texas is gearing up for rolling blackouts. fewer plants, less coal needed, fewer workers, fewer support jobs. unemployment going up. get used to keeping your head in that dark
 place. that way you won't know if it the power is out or your head is up your ass! LOL LOL

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
and your source is??? smell that sulfur when cars pass? wasn't there before. acid rain is in the same category as global warming, bs. why didn't the fish kills suddenly stop? there should have been widespread lakes and river fish kills from acid rain.

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
and your source is??? smell that sulfur when cars pass? wasn't there before. acid rain is in the same category as global warming, bs. why didn't the fish kills suddenly stop? there should have been widespread lakes and river fish kills from acid rain.

My source is reality, come join the raional world in it.  You seem to have outgrown your childish fear of google, so try googling it. 

Damn, reality is a bitch, ain't it? 

Turns out all of those horrible motivations you ascribed to Obama were not only programs STARTED by the holy triumverate, but they were staunchly supported by conservatives, praised as wildly successful by Dubya himself, and roundly praised for being amazingly cost effective.

This is basically the moment of truth for you: do you continue down the path of being lied to by corporate propagandists and continue to spread their chicken little lies, or do you take that long overdue look at yourself and the hate you spew.
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline fish

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 8885
  • Karma: +349278/-349867
    • View Profile
nobama is the one that said he would bankrupt the coal industry.

Offline Pete

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 1505
  • Karma: +90258/-1279
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
You_know, allot of programs help us and everyone else. It takes smart people to run them and limit them. If you go too far one way or the other, what was smart turns into a big problem. If you put a bunch of folks in charge because they helped you suck money while community organizing, working for ACORN, just plain talking money from some to give to others, you are bound to have problems. Look at the folks running the agency's now and what they have credit for in the past. Now look who was there before and what they had done. See if even you can see a difference. Maybe you won't?  Look at some of the early posts on this tread.
If your going to be dumb, you better be tough!

Offline What_The?

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 2787
  • Karma: +916590/-9868
    • View Profile
nobama is the one that said he would bankrupt the coal industry.

Still gonna ride that lie, even after its been refuted by the coal industry as blatant lies and dedperate 11th hour campaign efforts by the then bewildered and battered McCain/Palin team of disinformation peddlers? 
"There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God almighty Himself hates with you, too. Where's evil? It's that large part of every man that wants to hate without limit, that wants to hate with God on its side." - Kurt Vonnegut

Offline casca197

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +7/-1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Here is the transcript of Obama's statement about bankrupting the coal industry (emphasis mine):
 
  Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
>So 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.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.It's just that it will bankrupt them.


Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
So, without Congressional approval, how is EPA getting the funding to bankrupt the industry?  For that is what they intend.  Rules are NOT laws.

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Did you not read the post above yours?  Carbon credits is your answer.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Noninterference by a booming goverment is the answer.  And breaking the law and circumventing congress is not acceptable.  Not to me anyway.  And we are not bound to follow illegal laws or "rules" set forth by an administration routinely breaking the law.  Examples: Operatin Fast and Furious", Violating the immigration laws of the country and then shoving it down the throats of the citizens. Selective law enforcement at its worst.  The scumbags in DC try to make things look rosy.  How about the tax in obamacare that will not be considered a tax?  Theft and no accountability for the extored funds.  And obama wants to further extort money form businesses so they can go under and get us an even larger unemployment rate.  More people on the dole.

Offline Hi

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 903
  • Karma: +13281/-13254
  • Go to your profile and put something here.
    • View Profile
Fast and the Furious had nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Vin Diesel.

Offline matrsnot

  • Registered User
  • ******************
  • Posts: 7612
  • Karma: +489606/-6227
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Fast and the Furious had nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Vin Diesel.
He is involved in the gunrunning operation backed by the government and the stimulous dollars to do this illegal operation.  He is "incharge" and the buck is supposed to stop with him  THAT makes him as responsible as Melson and Holder.  So sucking money out of a company who chooses not to follow these "rules" is ok?  Where does that money go?  Which of his minions gets to pocket the kickback?