Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Don't miss out on all the fun! Register on our forums to post and have added features! Membership levels include a FREE membership tier.

Linking Obama directly to high fuel costs?

The EPA Triples Down On 'None of the Above' Energy Policy

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ples-down-on-none-of-the-above-energy-policy/

By James Taylor
Anti-energy crusaders are in a celebratory mood this week as the EPA effectively banned the construction of coal-fired power plants, and thus completed the federal government’s trifecta beat-down on affordable energy.
First, new obstacles to energy production resulted in oil production on federal lands dropping 11% in Fiscal Year 2011 vs. 2010. Second, President Obama announced earlier this year that his administration was blocking construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would deliver large quantities of valuable oil from neighboring Canada. Third, the EPA announced this week its severe global warming restrictions on power plants.
For all the talk of an “all of the above” federal energy policy, this administration is imposing “none of the above,” unless we choose to celebrate our imminent burning of dung for fuel, like they do in the utopian economic powerhouse of Bangladesh.
Coal is our nation’s leading source of electricity for a reason; it is less expensive than all other sources except large-scale hydropower, which environmental activists had already taken off the table. By definition you cannot ban the least expensive power sources without creating a jump in electricity prices. If you have been a fan of our rapidly rising gasoline prices, you are going to love what is about to happen to our electricity prices, too.
There is at least one theoretical scenario whereby banning the construction of coal-fired power plants will only cause a modest rise in electricity prices. That scenario would occur if natural gas filled most of the void for future power plant construction and government refrained from punishing natural gas production. However, the same environmental extremists who successfully pushed for the end of new coal-fired power plants are just as adamant about shutting down natural gas production.
The EPA is already targeting natural gas production from lucrative shale formations, and is likely to soon impose unprecedented restrictions that will raise costs and throttle natural gas production. Tripling down on “none of the above” appears poised to become quadrupling down on “none of the above.”
Oh, and I forgot to mention this administration’s pulling the plug on the Yucca Mountain repository for spent nuclear fuel. Make that quintupling down on “none of the above.”
Those who claim humans are causing a global warming crisis argue that expensive energy is necessary to stop the growth in our global warming emissions. The facts, however, tell a different story.
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have fallen since the beginning of the century, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration does not anticipate any appreciable rise in emissions for at least the next several decades. True, global emissions have risen by approximately one-third this century, but the United States has had no part in that global increase.
The reason why global carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise is nations such as China and India continue to ramp up their industrialization. China, for example, emits more carbon dioxide than the entire Western Hemisphere and is increasing its carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 10 percent per year. Even if the United States theoretically eliminated all of its emissions today, such action would be rendered moot in less than a decade merely by the corresponding increase from China.
What we are left with, even if we assume for the sake of argument that humans are causing a global warming crisis, is tremendous self-induced economic pain for absolutely no real-world environmental impact.
 
wtf is up with people posting op/ed, blogs, opinions as journalism / facts?

Do we use our brains anymore or do we just let the media tell us how to interpret the world?
 
What part of the above BLOG is wrong? Hard to dispute the facts of the pipeline being blocked or the new EPA guidelines. The global warming can be debated both ways. Face it Obama has a different idea about energy then some of us.

Trust me with what has been passed recently, the price of electricity is going to go up very fast. Was it going to go up anyway yes, will this make it go up faster? YES... I hope that I am wrong.

If anyone thinks solar is the answer I have news for you. I have several large solar arrays on buildings and it is pretty disapointing the power they generate let alone the panels degrade and the inverters going out etc. We need a break through of some sort. We need a Manhattan project for energy.
 
Last edited:
Geothermal is an amazing piece of technology. I am better in 30 years every new house built will have it.
 
I have a alot of water source heat pumps that use field wells. The problem with them is that they are all electric and cost alot to run.

Geo is good but you have to live in a location that has activivity. It wont work everywere.

Solar water heating is something that actually makes some sence.
 
oops, thats what I get for posting late while studying.
What I meant was the technology that heats and cools your house by regulating your house temp with that of the earth about 100feet beneath your house b/c once you go far enough into the ground the temperature does not fluctuate much. I can't remember what its called but its similar to geothermal. and That actually can be done in most places I believe
 
What part of the above BLOG is wrong?
pretty much all of it. they are also guilty by omission with some of their numbers...

Hard to dispute the facts of the pipeline being blocked or the new EPA guidelines. The global warming can be debated both ways. Face it Obama has a different idea about energy then some of us.
The pipe line isn't blocked yet, and its impacts are way over stated anyways. What are the new EPA guidelines? Do you know? They aren't stated, just what the blogger thinks will be the repercussion of it. As to energy and Obama, yep he has a different idea.. Seems to think that it needs to be more than about oil..

Trust me with what has been passed recently, the price of electricity is going to go up very fast. Was it going to go up anyway yes, will this make it go up faster? YES... I hope that I am wrong.
What was passed? Do you even know?

If anyone thinks solar is the answer I have news for you. I have several large solar arrays on buildings and it is pretty disapointing the power they generate let alone the panels degrade and the inverters going out etc. We need a break through of some sort.
how old are your panels? Efficiency has increased quite a bit in the last 5 years, and is still increasing at a large rate.

We need a Manhattan project for energy.
sounds similar to Obama's thoughts about having a NASA type organizatino but focusing on energy..
 
Last edited:
We have several buildings with the deep wells in the ground for heating and cooling. It still costs alot of money because you use a heat pump that is pure electric and the pump energy of the wells. The demand costs are very high. The wells are around 100 feet deep. You can do it in most places as long as the ground is not rocky. Also different soil conditions can effect the transfer of energy.
 
We have several buildings with the deep wells in the ground for heating and cooling. It still costs alot of money because you use a heat pump that is pure electric and the pump energy of the wells. The demand costs are very high. The wells are around 100 feet deep. You can do it in most places as long as the ground is not rocky. Also different soil conditions can effect the transfer of energy.

Have you compared the electricity costs of the heat pump and the water pumps vs. the cost to heat and cool the building without it?
 
The solar panels are less then a year old on the largest one we have.

Yes I have compared the cost of heat pump VS traditional vav boiler/chiller. The MBTU's of the heat pumps look great but the KWH cost associated with the KW cost can be very large. I am programming in some demand control on the compressors to try and offset the KW charge and rotate the load in the building. I have about 10 million SQFT of buildings that I manage the energy use on. We have almost every type of system you can imagine. We just installed some VRV systems and are testing them. One of the best systems that we have to date is a thermal displacement with 2 stage evap and high efficiency boilers. It works very well.

The only problem with solar heating is the cost and having a redundant system. If you use it in your house you will need away of storing it as your highest usage would be towards the night. In commercial it is more suited as your high usage is during the day when the sun is out. Fun stuff.
 
This is an interesting read on what was passed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/column-epa-coal-fired-power-idUSL6E8ES90R20120328

But then again it may be some ones opinion and we know how you hate that.

It is interesting how cheap natrual gas is at the moment. I wonder with some power plants switching over if that will have an effect on the price and for how long it will stay cheap? I guess all it will take is a cold winter or two for demand to rise and the cost to do the same.
 
The solar panels are less then a year old on the largest one we have.

Yes I have compared the cost of heat pump VS traditional vav boiler/chiller. The MBTU's of the heat pumps look great but the KWH cost associated with the KW cost can be very large. I am programming in some demand control on the compressors to try and offset the KW charge and rotate the load in the building. I have about 10 million SQFT of buildings that I manage the energy use on. We have almost every type of system you can imagine. We just installed some VRV systems and are testing them. One of the best systems that we have to date is a thermal displacement with 2 stage evap and high efficiency boilers. It works very well.

The only problem with solar heating is the cost and having a redundant system. If you use it in your house you will need away of storing it as your highest usage would be towards the night. In commercial it is more suited as your high usage is during the day when the sun is out. Fun stuff.

Awesome stuff. That is very interesting!!!
 
The solar panels are less then a year old on the largest one we have.

Yes I have compared the cost of heat pump VS traditional vav boiler/chiller. The MBTU's of the heat pumps look great but the KWH cost associated with the KW cost can be very large. I am programming in some demand control on the compressors to try and offset the KW charge and rotate the load in the building. I have about 10 million SQFT of buildings that I manage the energy use on. We have almost every type of system you can imagine. We just installed some VRV systems and are testing them. One of the best systems that we have to date is a thermal displacement with 2 stage evap and high efficiency boilers. It works very well.

The only problem with solar heating is the cost and having a redundant system. If you use it in your house you will need away of storing it as your highest usage would be towards the night. In commercial it is more suited as your high usage is during the day when the sun is out. Fun stuff.

Ha I was going to argue, but it appears you actually have factual knowledge about what your talking about. I was told that using the geothermal stuff and using heat pumps was very cost effective and that usually the only expensive part was the upfront cost.
 
If you are trying to be green a heat pump job can look good MBTU wise. Also you shift the polution from your region to another, site vs source energy production. The cost of installation is pretty steep also depending on how many wells you must put in. The newest heat pump job we have done is doing fairly well. Once natrual gas begans to rise again that will change the outcome.
 
Premium Features



Back
Top