THE EPA JUST SENT OUT NEW CO2 REGULATIONS EFFECTIVELY BANNING COAL PLANTS.  We MUST call our congressman and Senators today.  We are doomed if we do not act soon.  This from the following article...(( effectively ban new coal power plants ...—designed to reduce coal’s contribution to the nation’s energy supply—))

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/27/epa-co2-regulation-effectively-...

I have already provided some links here on the site with a forum for all to access titled "CO2 in not Pollution."

http://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/forum/topics/why-carbon-dioxide-co...

We must call and make calls during the next weeks and months.  This is an end run around Congress to outlaw coal power and thus dilute our economic capacity.  I know that this executive branch is pushing so much so fast that it is hard to combat or continue to fight but we are reaching our last hope.

Call Congress, write, visit the offices, make yourself heard.

To the officers of this organization, we need to get a game plan together and get hundreds more involved.  Failure to respond must not be an option.  GET BACK ON TASK and MISSION ORIENT BACK TO THE SAVING OF THIS COUNTY.

Views: 95

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Proof that they are doing it and will do more to come.

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cps/settlement.html

I am pretty sure that this has been the method of operation for most of this Presidents administration...if you cannot get it through Congress then use rules and regulations though the governmental bureaucracies.  I am certain there is more to come. 

The fool of a Congressman refreshes his ignorance of the issue with anecdotal observations of the weather to justify the EPA’s rules.  THIS LEADING TO THE CLOSING OF EXISTING COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS!!!

http://www.dailyamericannews.com/news/x1221871542/New-rules-challen...

This is the

"((

Targeting so-called "dangerous carbon pollution" Durbin called for reductions in emissions caused by coal-fired power plants.

"We ought to face the reality of greenhouse gas emissions and create energy and environmental policies to reduce their destructive impact," said Durbin in a statement prepared for the event. "We need to invest in renewable energy and pollution controls to help slow the effects of climate change and protect our public health. It is critical that we leave our children and grandchildren with a sustainable planet and a promising, bright future."

When asked about the comments Tuesday in Harrisburg, the heart of Southern Illinois' re-emerging coal belt, Durbin didn't back down.

"Things are changing in the weather," he stated referencing this winter's warm weather, last year's flooding, and the Groundhog Day blizzard in Chicago a few months earlier.

"Ask the insurance industry," he said.))"

 

 

The cost of electricity will sky rocket if Coal is banned for superstitious reasons.  Of the most cost effective methods to produce energy on a KWH basis is nuclear and hydroeclectic, see the below link.  Of these methods hydroelectic has little to no room for growth due to the unique circumstances that must play in order to have a productive dam.  Nuclear has so many regulatory hurdles that this is also unlikely, although I still hold the caveat for THORIUM ENERGY PRODUCTION to be released in the future.

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-n...

 

Chart with the break down.

http://nuclearfissionary.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/total-cost-...

 

This figure shows energy production per field of energy.  Note that this study was taken in 2010, long before coal was threatened as a power source due to superstitious reasons.

Somehow buried in this Congression Research Study was a first look at what the EPA had planned as far back as 2011. 

 

Flip to page 21 of the PDF, or page 17 of the report text to read this...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41914.pdf

 

"((EEI’s $25/ton assumption would result in a cost of CO2 regulation of $43.7 billion in

2017, with 5% increases each year thereafter. This cost, which appears to have been based on its

analysis of legislation not enacted in the 111th Congress, dwarfs every other projected regulatory

cost in the regulatory impact analyses that CRS examined. Inclusion of this requirement leads, in

EEI’s analysis, to an additional 23 GW of retired capacity in 2015 and 40 GW of incremental

retirements in 2020, accounting for more than half of all retirements in the latter year.))"

 

NOTE GW means GIGA-WATTS, in 2009 the US produced 338 GW of energy from coal.  So using the combined retirements by 2020 that will be lost and not replaced compared to 2009 outputs, we will lose 18.6% of our energy by 2020.  Be prepared to stop charging your cell phone, or using AC, or watching TV on a plasma.  These are the things the EPA has in store for the economy.

 

On a related note, here is the latest release from the U.S. Geological Survey of estimates for oil, natural gas, and more.

 

http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/worlds-oil-and-ga...

 

Thanks Wilma, while I believe in Conservation of energy and diversity of energy to provide for sources in the future, basing an economy on CO2 as a pollutant is unwarranted.  Although the numbers provided in the link are appear to be vast, they are limited.  By these numbers we will have depleted all oil reserves in less than 20 years, natural gas will be gone in less than 70.  Transitions to other energy sources will be motivated by economic forces long before then.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by Chairman's Committee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service