Trump signs executive order rolling back Obama-era energy regs

[Jim Bob]

Thought I'd mention my home and office run on renewables.

So yes i have led by example.

which one's? To many libs cry about fossil fuels but won't give up their gas guzzler, and don't even know coal powers their home. I have nothing against renewables. It is just not economical to implement it on mass scale.

 

[Strychnine]

Diggin that MAGA doe.

 

[no fat chicks]

lots of good Canada's policies are doing for their economy and oil industry.....

I love it when people act like the US is Brazil or China in terms of pollution. where the hell do yall live?

Canada's in the shits because oil is below $80 a barrel

 

[7437]

which one's? To many libs cry about fossil fuels but won't give up their gas guzzler, and don't even know coal powers their home. I have nothing against renewables. It is just not economical to implement it on mass scale.

Local power here in florida is solar and gas. Im on a bike getting 60mph. So i dont feel too bad for coal.

 

[Prutfis]

I thought we were taking about coal and some were nervous that more plants would open. But it fact there are natural coal fires burning more then coal plants can

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Canada's in the shits because oil is below $80 a barrel

Partly, but inflation was 2.1% in january alone due to the new carbon tax

Some provinces have seen hydro increases, gas increases, etc...

Thays not bc oil is cheaper....

 

[HIMBOB]

3

which one's? To many libs cry about fossil fuels but won't give up their gas guzzler, and don't even know coal powers their home. I have nothing against renewables. It is just not economical to implement it on mass scale.

Mix of green renewables. Solar wind hydro. Tick a box on application with certain suppliers and its easily doable.

I say it is economical. Only thing you need is to be able to invest with long term certainty of policy. Trump taking a massive step back in time will not foster investment in fossils or renewables. With the stroke of a penn he basically stopped further development of the US energy system.

 

[Bloodworth]

So i looked it up.

Coal accounts for 44% of global co2 emissions.
Coal seam fires account for 3%.

Its a nice distraction but its merely a distraction.

Are these the same polls that had hillary winning.

How many coal plants in the u.s. have been operating for over 50 years 27\7.

 

[HIMBOB]

Are these the same polls that had hillary winning.

How many coal plants in the u.s. have been operating for over 50 years 27\7.

I am lost for words.

 

[FIMN]

I am lost for words.

Astonishing isn't it?

 

[Jim Bob]

3

Mix of green renewables. Solar wind hydro. Tick a box on application with certain suppliers and its easily doable.

I say it is economical. Only thing you need is to be able to invest with long term certainty of policy. Trump taking a massive step back in time will not foster investment in fossils or renewables. With the stroke of a penn he basically stopped further development of the US energy system.

If it was economical, it would have happened by now. There would be more private sector implementation. The problem is that it requires government subsidy. You are counting on the gov't though to step in for mass scale implementation, when they don't have the money that is required. Good for you on doing your part though.

 

[Fanu]

Are these the same polls that had hillary winning.

How many coal plants in the u.s. have been operating for over 50 years 27\7.

you seem really dense

whats the greenhouse gas emissions output of those natural coal fires compared to the output of whole country using electricity from coal plants?

+ you do realize you have to mine coal, transport it to plant and then process it - shit doesnt magically materialize in coal plants..

 

[lecter]

Isn't the coal industry struggling not because Obama but because there are better, cleaner, and more efficient ways to create energy?

If that was true, shouldn't you/we be fine with rolling back regulations, though?
Seems like you -like quite a few people in this thread- are actually making the argument against government intervention.
If there were more efficient and "better" ways to create energy anyway, the market would take care of the situation, so why add additional bureaucracy, regulations, man power, paperwork and ultimately costs?

 

[Prutfis]

If it was economical, it would have happened by now. There would be more private sector implementation. The problem is that it requires government subsidy. You are counting on the gov't though to step in for mass scale implementation, when they don't have the money that is required. Good for you on doing your part though.

Actually it just requires favorable legislation and strong leadership that has a vision of renewable energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Denmark

 

[HIMBOB]

Astonishing isn't it?

What is the response to something that stupid?

 

[Prutfis]

What is the response to something that stupid?

Just quietly accept that he doesn´t know what the fuck he is talking about.

 

[Undying Poster]

If that was true, shouldn't you/we be fine with rolling back regulations, though?
Seems like you -like quite a few people in this thread- are actually making the argument against government intervention.
If there were more efficient and "better" ways to create energy anyway, the market would take care of the situation, so why add additional bureaucracy, regulations, man power, paperwork and ultimately costs?

I was addressing that in response to Republicans trying to "Thanks, Obama" the situation

You have a legitimate question and I don't think I have the answer to but my guess is that coal is still profitable, even if it is inferior, and so governments are stepping in because of the pollution/environmental aspect (which the free market generally doesn't care about)

It's not declining hard enough to not warrant government intervention (apparently)

China is worth looking at because for years they did not give a fuck whatsoever and they want to move away from it. But even over there the government has to make a conscious effort to roll back on it. The other options are good but not good enough to make people abandon coal.

Just the 2 cents from someone who has very superficial knowledge on the subject

 

[Jim Bob]

Actually it just requires favorable legislation and strong leadership that has a vision of renewable energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Denmark

That's fairy tale world unless you want masses without power!

 

[Prutfis]

That's fairy tale world unless you want masses without power!

huh? Seems to be working just fine.

 

[HIMBOB]

If it was economical, it would have happened by now. There would be more private sector implementation. The problem is that it requires government subsidy. You are counting on the gov't though to step in for mass scale implementation, when they don't have the money that is required. Good for you on doing your part though.

It is happening right now renewables and batteries get substantially cheaper on a yearly basis because of the amount of generation capacity coming online.

Please note that i am not mocking this terrible policy for its environmental impacts but for its ability to hobble investment in generation assets.

Coal will be burnt for a long time i dont question that. What i question is how can energy suppliers invest when they know carbon legislation will be enacted before the life of their plants expires.

You have renewables which are more expensive per watt now but have no/little unknown carbon cost on the long term and fossils which are cheaper per watt now but have a massive unknown in long term carbon cost.

This is where long term energy policy is vital.