Sunday, February 13, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Will The Lies Never Stop?
Now it's Derrick Jackson in the Boston Globe.
Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, was ready to combat the job-killing rhetoric. In her opening statement to a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, she quoted a UMass Amherst study that found that the construction and retrofitting investments in the eastern US under two new EPA air quality rules would produce nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years. The rules limit the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, lead, dioxin, arsenic, and other pollutants. She said the EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act, even in the last year of a Republican Bush administration loath to admit to the dangers of global warming, “contributed to dynamic growth in the US environmental technologies industry and its workforce.’’
Let's start with the author of this study: UMass-Amherst. If any study by "Big Business" is suspect, then I argue any study by "Big Education" and especially this one by "Big Leftist Education" is also suspect.
According to the study's author,
“You are talking about an intense infusion of new capital for construction and installation and direct jobs for [people making] boilers, pollution control technologies, scrubbers, and component parts,’’ he said. “The indirect jobs are the kind created that when you install a natural gas-fired generator’’ which includes components made at factories across the country.
Pollution control technologies for NOx and sulfur pollution control already exist. No new jobs from that. In fact, with the reduction in coal-fired power plants due to these rules, there will be a net job loss. In addition, natural gas-fired plants also emit CO2 in abundance. It is first, unlikely new plants will be built under the new CO2 rules and second, construction jobs and those for the making of boilers and other equipment will be short lived. Oh...we don't build large boilers so much in this country. Gemany, India, China and Japan, mostly although Babcock-Borsig and ABB have subsidiaries here. The EPA put many others out of business. In addition, these new EPA rules do not just apply to "Big Energy". They apply to all businesses. Look at the applicable NAICS codes in the rules and you will find few who are exempt. Interestingly enough, the threshold for Hazardous Air Pollutants is 10 tons per year, but CO2, which has been declared a HAP only applies to those industries emitting over 25,000 tons per year. (Humans exhale about 1 lb of CO2 per person per day, or close to 1/4 ton per year.)
Permanent jobs will be few compared to those which will be lost. A coal fire power plant requires several times the number of employees as a gas-fired plants. The coal handling equipment alone requires many to operate. More auxiliary systems are required as well. Dependent on the type of gas-fired plant, it can be run by as few as three operators for a 500 MW operation as opposed to 30 for coal (yes, I can prove that).
As someone who has EPA compliance experience, I can tell you for absolute certain that the Chamber is correct and UMass is not. As I stated above, look at the NAICS code sectors required to meet the regulations. It's very clear. I cannot imagine how "a strong stance and aggressive enforcement" by EPA will result in more jobs, unless they are jobs in EPA and those business has to hire to ensure compliance. Those jobs are "overhead" and do not contribute to the bottom line.
The article is full of flaws and the Administration is just plain lying about this. Defund EPA.
Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, was ready to combat the job-killing rhetoric. In her opening statement to a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, she quoted a UMass Amherst study that found that the construction and retrofitting investments in the eastern US under two new EPA air quality rules would produce nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years. The rules limit the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, lead, dioxin, arsenic, and other pollutants. She said the EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act, even in the last year of a Republican Bush administration loath to admit to the dangers of global warming, “contributed to dynamic growth in the US environmental technologies industry and its workforce.’’
Let's start with the author of this study: UMass-Amherst. If any study by "Big Business" is suspect, then I argue any study by "Big Education" and especially this one by "Big Leftist Education" is also suspect.
According to the study's author,
“You are talking about an intense infusion of new capital for construction and installation and direct jobs for [people making] boilers, pollution control technologies, scrubbers, and component parts,’’ he said. “The indirect jobs are the kind created that when you install a natural gas-fired generator’’ which includes components made at factories across the country.
Pollution control technologies for NOx and sulfur pollution control already exist. No new jobs from that. In fact, with the reduction in coal-fired power plants due to these rules, there will be a net job loss. In addition, natural gas-fired plants also emit CO2 in abundance. It is first, unlikely new plants will be built under the new CO2 rules and second, construction jobs and those for the making of boilers and other equipment will be short lived. Oh...we don't build large boilers so much in this country. Gemany, India, China and Japan, mostly although Babcock-Borsig and ABB have subsidiaries here. The EPA put many others out of business. In addition, these new EPA rules do not just apply to "Big Energy". They apply to all businesses. Look at the applicable NAICS codes in the rules and you will find few who are exempt. Interestingly enough, the threshold for Hazardous Air Pollutants is 10 tons per year, but CO2, which has been declared a HAP only applies to those industries emitting over 25,000 tons per year. (Humans exhale about 1 lb of CO2 per person per day, or close to 1/4 ton per year.)
Permanent jobs will be few compared to those which will be lost. A coal fire power plant requires several times the number of employees as a gas-fired plants. The coal handling equipment alone requires many to operate. More auxiliary systems are required as well. Dependent on the type of gas-fired plant, it can be run by as few as three operators for a 500 MW operation as opposed to 30 for coal (yes, I can prove that).
One letter was from the US Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s top lobbyist and the group President Obama sought to mollify in a speech this week. Citing the new air pollution rules as an example, the letter said EPA rules “ensnare multiple industry sectors and have economy-wide costs usually measuring in billions or even trillions of dollars . . . the cumulative impact can be overwhelming. The result: industries are effectively regulated out of business.’’
Studies such as the one from UMass state the opposite. Heintz said his job estimates were based on “a strong stance and aggressive enforcement’’ by the EPA and “serious compliance’’ by industry. A strong stance means Obama and Jackson cannot back down on regulations during this Republican fury. We would be regulating ourselves not just to a healthier environment but a brighter economic future.
The article is full of flaws and the Administration is just plain lying about this. Defund EPA.
Oscar Prefers Rule By Bureaucrats
Apparently, Oscar doesn't think much of the Rule of Law, Legislation by Congress or The Constitution of the United States. He prefers to be ruled over by bureaucrats.
The decision by EPA (and other bureaucracies in DC) to make regulations with the force of law is, arguably unconstitutional. The Constitution vests lawmaking with Congress and makes no provision for delegating that responsibility. Anyone who has dealt with the consequences of a regulatory violation recognizes that they carry the force of law.
As to Oscar's arguments, he makes more than one error.
First: Congressional opponents of EPA action don’t appear to have an alternative plan to cut emissions.
The alternative plan is to not cut emissions of carbon dioxide, so yes, there is a plan.
Second: The notion that to stop the EPA from the regulation Congress will have to overturn the EPA’s 2009 finding that such gases are “a threat to American health and welfare.” and,
The decision by EPA (and other bureaucracies in DC) to make regulations with the force of law is, arguably unconstitutional. The Constitution vests lawmaking with Congress and makes no provision for delegating that responsibility. Anyone who has dealt with the consequences of a regulatory violation recognizes that they carry the force of law.
As to Oscar's arguments, he makes more than one error.
First: Congressional opponents of EPA action don’t appear to have an alternative plan to cut emissions.
The alternative plan is to not cut emissions of carbon dioxide, so yes, there is a plan.
Second: The notion that to stop the EPA from the regulation Congress will have to overturn the EPA’s 2009 finding that such gases are “a threat to American health and welfare.” and,
The meaning of the second: What climate change? Scientists? The National Academy of Sciences? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Phooey. We’re members of Congress; cost for those who feed our campaign coffers is more important than whatever costs to the environment that greenhouse gases exact. Members of the panel hearing the EPA director’s testimony scoffed at the science in any case.
Oscar's error in the second is that (alleged) AGW research is tainted and is proven so. Data before about 1960 is incomplete at best. Data after that time suffers from siting issues and potential data manipulation. Many of those involved in this research and it's advocacy have enriched themselves at taxpayer expense through said research and advocacy. Further, if "carbon footprint" is so terribly important, why do these same people fly around in private jets and travel in limos to high end resorts for their conferences and speeches? Why does AlGore have a carbon footprint the size of Rhode Island? Do I need to add more "doesn't pass the smell test" evidence? The science is at best uncertain, at worst fraudulent.
In one breath, Oscar says this:
And this opposition isn’t about that balancing test always talked about – you know, the concept that we should recognize and take into consideration what such regulation could mean in terms of costs to businesses and what that means to jobs and the economy. I’m fine with that.
And in the next, contradicts himself:
But what I’m hearing here – this lack of an alternative – is that there is no balancing on the other end – the cost to health and welfare of future generations. It’s only the immediate cost that should be factored in.
So, according to Oscar, while he's ok with looking at cost to business, jobs and the overall economy, please ignore it and immediately impoverish and kill the current generation so future generations can be spared a "maybe". I say kill because a lack of cheap, abundant energy is what makes life something other than "nasty, brutish and short".
Another Big Steamin' Pile from Oscar.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Cold and Dark
But Steven Chu, Jeff Immelt and the anointed of Washington DC will not be.
If 60 of the 1100 gigawatts available in the US are shut down, the results will be devastating. That is 5.4% of total capacity.
There is only enough energy out there in the power lines to feed all the loads plus the losses. The system is self-regulating to maintain voltage and frequency with the variable being current. Since Power (watts) is the product of voltage and current, if voltage is held constant, varying power can be maintained by varying current. There is more to the regulation of power than this, but in oe of this is the ability to meet versimplified terms, this is it.
Generation of electricity consists of base load, rolling reserve, hot standby and cold iron. Base load runs at full capacity all the time and is the lowest cost generator. Right now, coal and nuclear plants run base load. There is some natural gas in that mix, but not much. Rolling reserve consists of plants running at less than full capacity, but have the ability to ramp up almost instantaneously. Hot standby is not connected to the grid, but can be connected in a matter of minutes to supply power. Cold iron is the most expensive and only operates during excessive peak times.
If 60 gigawatts of coal is retired by 2020, more expensive units will have to take their place; new nuclear capacity to replace 60 gigawatts is 20-50 years (or more) away at current construction rates.
The other side of this is the ability (or lack thereof) to meet peak load. There is little enough reserve to meet peak in many places now and this will make a very thin system anorexic.
If this is not adequate evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against this president for intentionally undermining the security and economy of the United States, I don't know what is.
If 60 of the 1100 gigawatts available in the US are shut down, the results will be devastating. That is 5.4% of total capacity.
There is only enough energy out there in the power lines to feed all the loads plus the losses. The system is self-regulating to maintain voltage and frequency with the variable being current. Since Power (watts) is the product of voltage and current, if voltage is held constant, varying power can be maintained by varying current. There is more to the regulation of power than this, but in oe of this is the ability to meet versimplified terms, this is it.
Generation of electricity consists of base load, rolling reserve, hot standby and cold iron. Base load runs at full capacity all the time and is the lowest cost generator. Right now, coal and nuclear plants run base load. There is some natural gas in that mix, but not much. Rolling reserve consists of plants running at less than full capacity, but have the ability to ramp up almost instantaneously. Hot standby is not connected to the grid, but can be connected in a matter of minutes to supply power. Cold iron is the most expensive and only operates during excessive peak times.
If 60 gigawatts of coal is retired by 2020, more expensive units will have to take their place; new nuclear capacity to replace 60 gigawatts is 20-50 years (or more) away at current construction rates.
The other side of this is the ability (or lack thereof) to meet peak load. There is little enough reserve to meet peak in many places now and this will make a very thin system anorexic.
If this is not adequate evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against this president for intentionally undermining the security and economy of the United States, I don't know what is.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Clueless On Egypt?
The Beer: Bad Santa, American Wheat and Belgian Tripel are all bottled and ready. I even had some Duvel bottles for the Tripel.
The Bicycle: It's zero degrees F this morning. I'm not even thinking bicycle.
The VRWC: The lack of experience in the Administration is looming large. The response to the crisis in Egypt has been lackluster at best. But what is more troubling is the appearance of not connecting (or even trying to connect) the dots.
I am not at all convinced that this is just a popular uprising in support of democratic rule. The rise of a (somewhat) democratic order in Iraq may be influencing other countries as intended, but I see the potential for another scenario - Iran.
Iran has made no secret of their desire to establish a 21st Century Caliphate. This is similar to the desire of the old Soviet Union to establish a worldwide sphere of influence by fomenting revolution in third world countries, thereby giving the Soviets a foothold from which to export Marxism to the west (though gone, the Soviet influence lingers - but that's a topic for later). The Soviets used "5th column" tactics that is, they would send outside agitators to these countries to orchestrate protests and riots against the existing government. In many cases, guerrillas were trained and equipped for warfare. I see similar tactics at work in the Middle East and North Africa. Orchestrate popular protests. If they don't topple the government, the next step becomes a guerrilla terror war.
I have zero evidence for this, only a gut feeling. We will see how this unfolds, but I believe in the end we may well see a Caliphate extending from Turkey, through the Levant, encompassing the Saudi peninsula and North Africa to Morocco. Of which I am certain, the Administration is not even considering this possibility. That is a blunder from which we may not recover.
The Bicycle: It's zero degrees F this morning. I'm not even thinking bicycle.
The VRWC: The lack of experience in the Administration is looming large. The response to the crisis in Egypt has been lackluster at best. But what is more troubling is the appearance of not connecting (or even trying to connect) the dots.
I am not at all convinced that this is just a popular uprising in support of democratic rule. The rise of a (somewhat) democratic order in Iraq may be influencing other countries as intended, but I see the potential for another scenario - Iran.
Iran has made no secret of their desire to establish a 21st Century Caliphate. This is similar to the desire of the old Soviet Union to establish a worldwide sphere of influence by fomenting revolution in third world countries, thereby giving the Soviets a foothold from which to export Marxism to the west (though gone, the Soviet influence lingers - but that's a topic for later). The Soviets used "5th column" tactics that is, they would send outside agitators to these countries to orchestrate protests and riots against the existing government. In many cases, guerrillas were trained and equipped for warfare. I see similar tactics at work in the Middle East and North Africa. Orchestrate popular protests. If they don't topple the government, the next step becomes a guerrilla terror war.
I have zero evidence for this, only a gut feeling. We will see how this unfolds, but I believe in the end we may well see a Caliphate extending from Turkey, through the Levant, encompassing the Saudi peninsula and North Africa to Morocco. Of which I am certain, the Administration is not even considering this possibility. That is a blunder from which we may not recover.
Monday, February 7, 2011
For All You Ted Thompson Haters
Ummm...the Packers won the Superbowl.
I'll bet it sucks to be Brett Favre now. He apparently has nothing to say. Hmmmmm.
I'll bet it sucks to be Brett Favre now. He apparently has nothing to say. Hmmmmm.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Saw This One Coming From Far Away
H/T Dad 29
It was bound to happen.
I can buy this:
Four main factors are seen as driving prices higher: weather, higher demand, smaller yields and crops diverted to biofuels.
The 40% of the US corn crop diverted to make an inferior fuel that helps no one except the people who are subsidized to produce it. Ethanol operates at a net energy loss. that is, it takes much more energy to produce than it provides. So in addition to starving people, ethanol production is using up fossil fuels that could power other things directly. It is not possible to produce ethanol at a net energy gain. Physics: It's not just a good idea, it's the law. But I digress.
Weather is always an issue. Farmers live and die at the pleasure of the weather. Smaller yields? I suspect the love-affair with organic farming and the idea that fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides as well as GM crops are all evil is contributing to the smaller yields.
This, I'm not buying.
Volatile weather patterns often attributed to climate change are wreaking havoc with some harvests.
Weather has always been volatile. It follows patterns more closely related to ocean cycles and sun cycles than (alleged) AGW.
Food shortages have always been the result of government policies, whether the intentional starvation of peasants under Stalin or the "save the fish" policies of the United States. The most productive farmland on Earth has been decimate to pay homage to an "endangered" fish.
This was a no-brainer a long time ago.
It was bound to happen.
I can buy this:
Four main factors are seen as driving prices higher: weather, higher demand, smaller yields and crops diverted to biofuels.
The 40% of the US corn crop diverted to make an inferior fuel that helps no one except the people who are subsidized to produce it. Ethanol operates at a net energy loss. that is, it takes much more energy to produce than it provides. So in addition to starving people, ethanol production is using up fossil fuels that could power other things directly. It is not possible to produce ethanol at a net energy gain. Physics: It's not just a good idea, it's the law. But I digress.
Weather is always an issue. Farmers live and die at the pleasure of the weather. Smaller yields? I suspect the love-affair with organic farming and the idea that fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides as well as GM crops are all evil is contributing to the smaller yields.
This, I'm not buying.
Volatile weather patterns often attributed to climate change are wreaking havoc with some harvests.
Weather has always been volatile. It follows patterns more closely related to ocean cycles and sun cycles than (alleged) AGW.
Food shortages have always been the result of government policies, whether the intentional starvation of peasants under Stalin or the "save the fish" policies of the United States. The most productive farmland on Earth has been decimate to pay homage to an "endangered" fish.
This was a no-brainer a long time ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)