ALERT: Financial Catastrophe if CURRENT Senate Global Warming Bill Passes
By patriotroom Posted in Energy — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Silly me. I thought this screw job wasn't coming until next year.
The Heritage Foundation has done a detailed analysis of a Bill Co-Sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner currently pending in the Senate.
Imagine this nightmare economic scenario playing out over the next two decades:
- $1.7 to $4.8 trillion-cumulative losses to economic output by 2030.
- $155 billion to $500 billion-potential single-year losses to economic output.
- 500,000 to 1,000,000-annual job losses before 2030.
- $100 billion-cost of new government permits mandated for energy users by 2020. This could exceed $300 billion by 2030.
- $467-average additional cost per household each year for natural gas and electricity. That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.
(All financial figures are in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars.)
But this is no fantasy. This is the impact on our economy of climate change legislation now before lawmakers, according to a careful and thorough new analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.
The legislation, principally sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), would impose emissions caps on six greenhouse gasses. Those who produce such gasses would have to purchase a government permit, or “allowance,” for the amount they emit. This will drive up energy costs and cause real problems for the economy.
“In addition to taking a bite out of consumers’ pocketbooks, the high energy prices throw a monkey wrench into the production side of the economy,” explain Heritage experts Bill Beach, David Kreutzer, Ben Lieberman and Nick Loris.
Economic growth, output and employment would all be reduced, despite liberal claims that such a program would result in economy-boosting “green investment” coupled with “green-collar” job creation.
What’s more, “the increase in energy costs creates correspondingly large transfers of income from private energy consumers to special interests.”
Oh yeah, and did we mention it is an absolute job killer?
Get used to this. As of next year, we will have to act quickly to find this kind of ludicrous legislation and kill it in the crib. Get your pitchforks and torches, we're headed for the Capitol.
Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room
or a cult? It is probably both!
http://samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/the-religion-cult-of-man-...
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
BILL
THIS IS DANGEROUS
BIGTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Tim Schieferecke
We the people cannot let the Church of Al Gore kill American jobs and rape taxpayers. Too bad our nominee doesn't have the stones to oppose this piece of trash legislation. So don't get to excited, Senator Go..McCain has already said how excited he is to sign this-now let's break him like we broke Bush with amnesty.Too bad I'm stuck with Levin and Stabenow-everyone with a Republican Senator needs to get behind this and swing into action immediately!!
End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.
have you ever thought about running yourself?
And my son is only 2, and I'm not sure what kind of things actually running would entail. But I'd be willing to look into it if you want to talk offline JSob.
End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.
Though not for Senate or Pres.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
does not require calling only the senators for your home state. Trust me on this. I did NOT stop at calling only my Senators (obahmah and dick turban).
I called all the usual suspects!
Do it--it's good for your mental health.
Us Fredheads could have a frosty adult beverage at some point, though I'm moving to Michigan full time Saturday.
End the NewTone. Punch the hippies.
The friendly confines of chez Hippie are only 25 miles west of Chicago.
The problem with the Heritage Foundation’s analysis is that they do not explain their assumptions about solar energy. It seems, however, that in their view the solar technology of 2030 will not have improved noticeably from today's standard. In fact, the only "Key Assumption" given for the entire renewable energy sector (includes solar and wind) concerns biofuels and ethanol targets.
Scale and innovation in the energy sector: a focus on photovoltaics and nuclear fission
J E Trancik, Environmental Research Letters, October–December 2006Energy technologies have a tendency to become locked in. Mature technologies are favoured due to their accumulated experience and low costs, preventing the entry of new competitors into the market. Public policies support technological evolution in the energy sector through research, development, demonstration and market transformation initiatives. These programmes can reduce CO2 emissions. Their scope, however, is limited by costs and therefore efficiency is critical. Based on a study of photovoltaics and nuclear fission, I show that the scale of an energy technology influences its responsiveness to policy interventions. Rapid innovation can be more effectively supported with limited funds for small scale technologies than for those restricted to the size of a large power plant. An energy infrastructure consisting of small scale technologies may more readily adapt to strict emissions regulations.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Scale and innovation in the energy sector: a focus on photovoltaics and nuclear fission
J E Trancik, Environmental Research Letters, October–December 2006Energy technologies have a tendency to become locked in. Mature technologies are favoured due to their accumulated experience and low costs, preventing the entry of new competitors into the market. Public policies support technological evolution in the energy sector through research, development, demonstration and market transformation initiatives. These programmes can reduce CO2 emissions. Their scope, however, is limited by costs and therefore efficiency is critical. Based on a study of photovoltaics and nuclear fission, I show that the scale of an energy technology influences its responsiveness to policy interventions. Rapid innovation can be more effectively supported with limited funds for small scale technologies than for those restricted to the size of a large power plant. An energy infrastructure consisting of small scale technologies may more readily adapt to strict emissions regulations.
It truly is a shame that technologies that actually work hold the upper hand. I mean if potentials and promises could power an economy imagine the resource we would have in washington DC. If only we could harness the imaginition of our political class.
Also replacing our electrical generation infrastructure over the course of 20 years is not a small scale endeavor.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That's why they call it R&D investment. Without it, there would be no future.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
A couple of fellows I recall that were fond of it were a Mr. Edison and Westinghouse. They did a lot of R & D don't recall the government paying them to do it. Of course there was something of an incident where the government did play a role in picking who should win. Google "Old Sparky"
I also recall some done by a Mr. Philo T Farnsworth.
I also recall work by a fellows named Atanasof and Ted Hoff.
Mr. Farnsworth is my favorite of these.(in this context). His work shows just how little help the government can be and exactly how well you can do without them.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I also remember something called the internet. I think Al Gore invented it, so he must have paid for it, right? Or maybe that was DARPA...
For someone so dead set against government subsidies and tax breaks for alternative energy, you sure do whistle a different tune when it comes to oil. If you want to claim the high ground on government supported R&D, that means calling for an end to the billions we spend on non-renewables. Care to do that?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
You have used the internet before. It still makes my point much more than yours. Seeing as after inventing it, the government nearly killed it still born. AOL and Compuserve were larger than the internet for large portions of their existence. Heck for a while teletext was bigger.
But seeing as you so generously propose the terms of a level playing field it would be foul and churlish of me to decline.
A flat subsidy per Megajoule of energy produced domestically to meet our national energy needs no matter what the source and sold to an end consumer. Must be produced domestically and only counts as the amount used.
Somehow I don't think the technologies you love would do so well in a fair is fair world
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Why subsidize oil/gasoline when there is so little room for improvement? The whole point to subsidizing solar is to help the costs drop even faster then they have been. You're an electrical engineer, right? Surely you understand that electricity is a far more efficient source of energy than oil. Do you really believe we will still be driving gas-powered cars in 50 years?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
and solar is virtually useless in the context of transportation.
For buildings we can go nuclear.
For transportation, we need some type of liquid fuel. Hydrogen cells would be ok, especially if we have a lot of nuke plants.
Solar is the answer to nothing. It is a red herring.
On a level playing field of equal government help and hindrance Solar/wind/Biofuel lose. Nobody does them except in small niche applications.
Solar gets used for inaccessible locations, water heating and passive space heating.
Wind just doesn't.
Otec gets used for refrigeration and irrigation in only a few places.
Geothermal does well in many parts of the world.
But COAL becomes KING !!! It makes your hydrogen, becomes your liquid fuel and powers your electric plants along with its friend mr Atom.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
policies and the dire straits we find ourselves in even if we do what any sane nation would do NOW and drill everywhere, build refineries and build nuke plants
I think the ONLY short term possible solution to alleviate the REAL DECLINE IN STANDARD OF LIVING THE LIB DEM POLICIES HAVE WROUGHT
IS A FED GOVT MANHATTAN PROJECT ON ENERGY!!!
NOW
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Batteries are the key. The computer industry has been aggressively funding research for a couple of decades, and today we have Li-on. But that is not the ending point. The future of energy (3-5 decades) isn't massive plants, but millions, if not billions, of small (1-10mW) interconnected (homes and businesses) energy generation sources.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Millions if not Billions of small 1 - 10 Mw connected energy sources! Based on what energy source; solar. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the solar irradiance on earth only averages about 31.8 w/ft2. To generate 1MW, you'd need approx. 7.2 acres of solar cells (at 10% efficiency). (Note, this doesn't account for cloudy days, just the day/ night average) You aren't going to get that by roofing your house with solar cells. In fact, most homeowners don't own 1 acre, let alone 7 acres. Where are you going to get millions if not billions of power sources. Also. who's going to maintain all of these photovoltaics? Internet dreams only look good until you compute the numbers.
And how do you know that government mandates and subsidies are the best way to get to this future?
--------------------
Small is beautiful.
But I'll say it again here, just for you, moderich:
Sure, cut the corporate welfare we're giving "Big Oil".
Cut their taxes at the same time. "Big Oil" has a net gain.
Get out of the way and let them expand US drilling and refining capacity. The USA has a net gain.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
got a little exposure to this subject.
Got all the thermo and engineering courses. Made solar panels in the lab. Lots of limitations. Some can be countered, some will require repealing some laws (of physics)
In this lifetime, you can have nuclear or you can drill, drill, drill. The wonderful wind/solar/etc solutions never seem to get around to the details about how much area has to be set aside to get a usable amount of energy.
The Chinese are drilling near Florida as we speak. Right now our oil dollars support countries sponsoring terrorism. Open up ANWR and tell the saudis to go away. Don't wait for Algore to fix it. He hasn't a clue. Nor does he care, he's lining his pockets with sucker money.
Regards
Whether it was intentional or not, I appreciate that you didn't capitalize saudis. Drill, drill, drill. Fission, fission, fission. Gasify, gasify, gasify. Insulate, insulate, insulate.
Tim Schieferecke
I am joining with my inaugural post. Down here in Oz, the locals are hook, line and sinker in to AGW. But back to the issue, an Aussie company Sliver http://www.originenergy.com.au/1233/SLIVER-technology (funded by DARPA) has made some great strides in solar tech. Solar power plants, in my opinion, are not realistic. However, individuals will be able to provide power to the grid much like a distributed computing solution.
I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. — Mohandas Gandhi
not to necessarily beat up on you but since you mentioned something moderich also mentioned, the "distributed computing" analogy doesn't quite work. Distributed computing relies on the fact that each processor has more to contribute to the overall system than it needs for itself. If a processor required more time to process what it is it needed to do to work with the whole than it took to just do the work, then it would be a less than optimal model. It would make more sense to just feed that single processor the whole (larger) task rather than a (smaller) portion.
Having said that, if buildings on this solar "internet" require more than they produce, why would they make any of their power available to others? Why not just store up their own power? If some buildings do produce more (see power plant), then sure they could get "online"... but then again, they already do that, they feed power to your house now.
With the full understanding of the model of something like the internet, the vast majority of users produce next to nothing. They spend the majority of their time downloading. There is little to no need for them to upload anything, so for us to rely on a concept of "eveybody will produce", you should probably get another analogy and also look at the logic of your model. It wreaks of the same naivete that socialism does.
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
... on the roofs of every house will generate more electricity than doing nothing. But is it cost effective? Is the best way to find out by using tax dollars?
--------------------
Small is beautiful.
There are a number of solar panel retailers on the Internet with calculators to tell you how long it would take to pay off phtotvoltaics based on your location and energy useage. In my case (Southeast PA) the pay back period was 30 years (not cost effective).
By being complacent, the Japanese will own the thin-film solar market before we even know it.
Sanyo to move up thin-film solar cell output by 2 years to 2010
Nikkei, April 23, 2008Amid a shortage of silicon supplies, Sanyo Electric Co. intends to begin mass-producing thin-film solar cells by 2010, two years earlier than initially planned.
Compared with polysilicon cells, thin-film offerings use around one-100th the amount of silicon. And although they cost roughly half as much to make, thin-film solar cells are less efficient at converting sunlight into electricity. Using new technology, the products to be mass-produced will have their power generation efficiency boosted from the current norm of 10% to as much as 14% the highest level yet.
Sharp Announces New Thin-Film Solar Cell Plant in Sakai
JCN Newswire, Mar 27, 2008Sharp Corporation has made a total capital investment of approximately 72 billion yen to build a thin-film solar cell plant in Sakai, Osaka Prefecture that is capable of boosting annual production up to a scale of 1 GW per year. Production will begin by March 2010 with a 480 MW initial production capacity for solar cells. Combined with the 160 MW capacity of the Katsuragi Plant (Nara Prefecture), this will expand Sharp's global total production capacity for thin-film solar cells to 1 GW in April 2010.
Through horizontal deployment of TFT LCD thin-film technology, a cutting-edge LCD panel plant and a thin-film solar cell plant will be established next to each other, allowing infrastructure facilities and materials manufacturing plants, etc., to all be concentrated within the same manufacturing complex.
Record Makes Thin-Film Solar Cell Competitive with Silicon Efficiency
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), March 24, 2008Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory have moved closer to creating a thin-film solar cell that can compete with the efficiency of the more common silicon-based solar cell. The copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) thin-film solar cell recently reached 19.9% efficiency, setting a new world record for this type of cell. Multicrystalline silicon-based solar cells [old-school solar] have shown efficiencies as high as 20.3%.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Could you send a copy to me?
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
We'd better get on the stick with fusion and conventional nuclear or we're going to be in enormous pain in 2030.
the game has officially become "move the goal posts". There is no other objective to the game. If we go conventional nuculer, then we get to hear whining about "I don't want to be in the same hemisphere* as nuculer waste!" And next thing you know, we have to reduce radioactive output to pre-1990 levels... The easiest way to win by their rules is to die before they can take all your stuff. Or (and this is a long shot of course) we can choose to stop playing by their rules, plant the goal post firmly back into the ground through their sternum and actually do something productive with whatever fuel comes cheapest.
*assuming they know big words
"Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm a whale biologist."
A friend of mine from Germany was all hot for Distributed Solar recently. He got the idea when he noticed all of the ugly solar panels spreading like mushrooms on houses in Germany. When he found solar tiles that resemble conventional residential roofing, he concocted a complicated scheme involving: homeowner buying expensive solar roof from the solar company, leasing thr roof space, dividends from power generated, complicated and expensive metering and power transmission arrangements with utilities,etc. He was even trying to patent what he hoped was a new business model.
I told him that it sounded like a maintenance nightmare for his company, and he would meet with resistance from utilities, who would balk at expensive changes to their metering system and the technology required to channel distributed solar power into the grid. His reply was,"In some places, the utilities are required by law to accept distribution-generated power on their grid."
I then suggested that he check in California to see if anyone was already doing something similar to his idea. It turns out that there is at least one company already operating on a model which looks exactly like his, and it was founded to take advantage of government subsidies and coercion of the utilities. Needless to say, he was disappointed.
When I said that he might be able to find another profitable niche in the solar energy industry, and that Germany might be a more favorable environment for this business model, he replied," No,I just wanted to patent the business model and sell it to someone. I've had enough of socialism."
Where is the scathing comeuppance for mislinking a thread?
M Penny
I have a bad habit of doing that when I reply the last comment in a thread. Like a moth to a flame, my eyes are drawn to the big, fat "Post a Comment" box right below. I immediately try to redirect by pulling a Kowalski. It seems to keep The Man from hassling me.
It wasn't directed at or intended for you. Last Friday, Moe riped me a new one in a very heavy handed manner when I goofed and clicked the wrong reply to this. I was castigated for attempting to hijack a thread and threatened with being banned for being so "stupid". I was also reminded that my right to post is only due to the expansive benevolence and unending tolerance of the powers behind the curtain. I was admonished to avoid expression of anything called attitude at risk of no longer being allowed such gracious and undeserved condescension.
M Penny
"retread". I personally hope you stick around a while this time. I think you can add to the value of this site and I think Moe does too or he wouldn't have given you special dispensation. And it IS special. I've never seen a retread allowed back on the site.
But just quit poking the moderators, OK?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
There are a few of us retreads around...
But, yes, M Penny, we've already burned our God-given chance. Now we're operating purely on Moe's benevolence. Sometimes he's not very benevolent.
"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me
I saw the whole thing, which was why I wanted to reply to you personally, before Moe had to bestir himself. Brian H summed it up nicely. I have been here for three years, and you got the biggest "bygones" I have ever seen.
One other thing, and this is not in reference to any of your comments or anyone else's: I can't count how many times in the past that I have typed a comment or reply, then said "nevermind" and deleted the whole mess. And I never regretted aborting any of them. Wish I could say the same for some of my comments that did get out of the box.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
“Global warming” is an abject canard. I consider the environmental extremists to be watermelons - green on the outside but red on the inside. These alarmists use cute polar bears to frighten innocent naïve children.
The world socialist movement is using “global warming” as a ruse to impose their anti-capitalist agenda on the United States. These extremists would have us live a Unabomber-type lifestyle. Obviously, Americans would never voluntarily accept this way of life.
The leaders of the “global warming” movement (not necessarily their gullible acolytes) care little about the environment. They have seized upon the issue as a ruse to frighten Americans into accepting their radical extremist views. Americans need to be frightened in order to voluntarily accept a reduced quality of life. “Global warming” is merely a backdoor scam to convince America to accept socialism.
Our spirit and our industry are what make America great. The liberals are assaulting religion because they believe in moral relativism and do not want us to believe our inherent right to freedom comes from God. Environmental fraud will cause America to lose its global advantage in industry. The radical extremists on the Left need to eradicate our spirit and industry in order to impose big government socialism on America.
The fact that McAmnesty is too thick to realize this causes sever reservations about his judgement.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
This is as idiotic as some of the protectionist tariff bills that led to the Great Depression. The link suggests how there is no comparison between the regulations imposed in 1990 to reduce the sulfur in smokestack emissions and this CO2 monstrosity. There already was commercially available control technology that had been around for years for reducing sulfur. The carbon capture sequestration is not developed. This is nutzo.
The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple