Jump to content
Another Colorado county's approach to trailer parks and affordable housing:
Right. It’s perfectly clear that in order to limit global warming by 0.018 C° (0.032 F°) by the year 2100, we have to emit less carbon dioxide. And President Obama's Clean Power Plan will boldly lead us there. Unfortunately it may mean putting some people out of work. Too bad for them but that’s just the way it is. Of course that’s assuming all the EPA predictions about future warming are spot on. And why would we doubt them given the uncanny accuracy of their crystal ball so far. Except for the 18+ year pause in warming they’ve been perfect – and anybody could have missed that. For an estimated cost of only $8.4 billion per year (and there’s another thing you can have a high degree of confidence in – government cost estimates), what’s not to like?
Speaking of sound de-bunking, I received my copy of Mark Steyn’s new book, “A Disgrace to the Profession” this week. It’s an deliciously entertaining takedown of Dr. Michael Mann and his wholly discredited hockey stick research as described not only by skeptics or "deniers", but by fellow scientists on both sides of the issue. It’s a very humorous (not to mention informative) read. As an added bonus, sales proceeds from the book go to help pay for Steyn’s defense in the ongoing defamation lawsuit brought against him by Dr. Mann! Nothing like a good chuckle before bedtime to make me sleep like a baby. Volume 1 is chock full of lol funny stuff and Steyn is promising another volume to come. I’ll pre-order that one as soon as it’s ready and I encourage all interested parties to do the same. As for the pause or hiatus being debunked, it's data. Temperature data collected by satellite to be specific. Being data, it is what it is and it shows temperatures as measured by these devices have indeed remained flat when described by a best fit linear trend line calculated for the data set.
For the record, Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, is on record as agreeing with Mr. Erickson.
Not to mention all the dioxide that's tied to it. Oh wait, are you talking soot? Or plant food?
Are you saying the rebates available are $6,500 plus 30% tax credit (another $6.539.10) for a total of over $13,000? That's amazing. Where does this money come from? Who's paying for it? Do you suppose these sorts of credits might inflate the cost of solar equipment? Kind of like higher ed tuition? Would solar power systems be even more economical without government interference?
Not quite as persuasive as the Shakhova twins but close. Gotta admit, the guy seems credible to me...
Unlike this guy:
The SI talks at the Pavilion are free and always informative. I'm not sure which one George went to but I've always found them to be attended by a pretty friendly and interested crowd.
So I’m not sure I’m following this. $60,000,000 worth of energy efficiency improvements were installed saving 6,360,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity? If my math is right that comes to a mere $9.43 per kilowatt-hour saved. At roughly $0.08 per kilowatt-hour (the current YVEA residential rate), that equates to a total savings of around $509,000. On what planet does it make sense to spend $60,000,000 to save $509,000? Renupiter?
Well not quite real. Does the Craig Station burn natural gas? The simple economics Sam refers to are anything but simple. Pipelines and gas infrastructures are not cheap either. The fact is in some situations coal does compete quite nicely with gas and that's why it's still in demand. If it was just about fuel supply costs, there'd be no further discussion at all about renewables, right? So there are obviously other factors involved. As for the basic laws of economics, take a look at LNG prices overseas. Do you suppose they're interested in $2.5/MMBtu product over there? Do you think folks producing $2.5 product would like to sell it overseas? (http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-gas/overview/ngas-ovr-lng-wld-pr-est.pdf) And do you think they'll sell it for $2.5? Would you? Le'ts say they decide to be nice and sell it for $5. What effect will that have on energy market prices here and on coal's ability to compete in the future? Why do you suppose they're building coal fired power plants in Germany? And in Japan? There's no denying coal is facing a tougher market but the increasingly restrictive regulatory environment being erected domestically and groups like WEG are in fact responsible for pushing coal miners and coal fired power producers to the brink in particular circumstances. If it weren't for the WildlyExaggerating Guardians, coal miners in our neck of the woods would be doing do just fine. As for beer, my taste runs to union brews.
Last login: Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |