Economy Can Get Worst!

[soonercruiser]

So the Obama Administration is cranking up their PR machine to remind us how really much worst the economy was when they took office. (Blame booosh III) But, the truth be known...

Failing to admit and recognize that Obama economic and energy policies are designed to make everything cost more - except lies. Like Obama said in 2008, his policies will necessarily increase energy costs! And, he further said, let them go ahead and build new plants - "they will go bankrupt"!
Yup! That will help the economy for sure!


AEP Announces Plan for EPA Compliance; Plant Closures Possible
Posted Thursday, June 9, 2011 ; 11:54 AM | View Comments | Post Comment
Updated Thursday, June 9, 2011; 12:45 PM
http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=101172



EPA regulations for coal-fired power plants could force shut downs
KINGSPORT, Tenn. --
New regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency mean a lot of coal-fired power plants will shut down soon, said James Wood, deputy assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Energy.
“Number one, electric rates are going to go up,” he said. “Number two, whether or not construction jobs in the green industry are created, I think there’s virtually no manufacturing jobs that are likely to be created from the replacement of coal. Three … transmission grid stability is likely to emerge as a major issue, both because of the shutdowns and because of the intermittency of renewables.”
http://www2.tricities.com/business/2011/may/25/wood-gives-dire-warning-due-epa-regulations-coal-f-ar-1062322/



AEP Says Complying With New EPA Regulations Will Cost Up to $8 Billion (AEP)
http://www.fnno.com/story/news-corner/331-aep-says-complying-new-epa-regulations-will-cost-8-billion-aep-news-corner


Obama’s EPA Regulations Will Cost Coal Industry $180 Billion & Cause Electricity Rates to Skyrocket
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, June 8, 2011, 8:03 PM

And, on Wednesday it was reported that Obama’s energy plans will cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket…
Just as he promised.
Via US News and World Reports:

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

For the record… For every green job created by the Obama EPA, four jobs are lost in the economy.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/06/obamas-epa-regulations-will-cost-coal-industry-200-billion-cause-electricity-rates-to-skyrocket/

[MelloYello]

Can it get worse, though?

[delhalew]

Please take more care to avoid making the rest of us Oklahomans look foolish.

[pphilfran]

I don't think there is any CO2 regulation in this EPA package...

Wait till they have to install CO2 scrubbers....

[Position Limit]

smoke more crack

[soonercruiser]

On the jobs side....

Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills
By PAUL BEDARD
Posted: June 8, 2011
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/08/coal-regs-would-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills



Unions Take Issue With EPA Regulations, Warn of Potential for Lost Jobs
Published March 14, 2011
| The Wall Street Journal
The Obama administration's environmental agenda, long a target of American business, is beginning to take fire from some of the Democratic Party's most reliable supporters: Labor unions.
Several unions with strong influence in key states are demanding that the Environmental Protection Agency soften new regulations aimed at pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Their contention: Roughly half a dozen rules expected to roll out within the next two years could put thousands of jobs in jeopardy and damage the party's 2012 election prospects.
"If the EPA issues regulations that cost jobs in Pennsylvania and Ohio, the Republicans will blast the President with it over and over," says Stewart Acuff, chief of staff to the president of the Utility Workers Union of America. "Not just the President. Every Democratic [lawmaker] from those states."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/14/unions-issue-epa-regulations-warn-job-loss/

New EPA Rules Will Cost 800,000 Jobs
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 9:51 AM
http://reddogreport.com/2010/09/new-epa-rules-will-cost-800000-jobs/


New Analysis Finds EPA’s Power Plant Regulations Would Increase Electricity Costs; Lose Jobs

June 08, 2011 02:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
ALEXANDRIA, Va.--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--Two of the EPA’s proposed regulations would be among the most expensive ever imposed by the agency on coal-fueled power plants, dramatically increasing electricity rates and natural gas prices and leading to substantial job losses, according to a new analysis by National Economic Research Associates (NERA).
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110608006514/en/Coal/Energy/EPA


It simply just doesn't look good for working Americans!
:(

[soonerchk]

Can it get worse, though?

As long as it doesn't get worstest.

[delhalew]

Your point is valid, if not well executed.

[saucysoonergal]

Please take more care to avoid making the rest of us Oklahomans look foolish.

I think he is from West Virginia or something.

[Boarder]

But, who can make it bester?

[soonercruiser]

Please take more care to avoid making the rest of us Oklahomans look foolish.

:P
Can't hide the truth!

[pphilfran]

Your point is valid, if not well executed.

He got excited..

[Midtowner]

So is it better to kill a few people with contaminated air and water or to make electricity cost a little more?

[pphilfran]

So is it better to kill a few people with contaminated air and water or to make electricity cost a little more?

I think the biggest concern is the time frame...

[Position Limit]

So is it better to kill a few people with contaminated air and water or to make electricity cost a little more?

JOBS!!!! JOBS!!!! JOBS!!! create fuc*ing JOBS!!!! JOBS!!!

[delhalew]

So is it better to kill a few people with contaminated air and water or to make electricity cost a little more?

<Raises hand>

I vote for not collapsing a nation, for the sake of tilting at windmills.

If we were really interested I'm our environment, we wouldn't subsidize pollution in other nations while castrating ourselves.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So is it better to kill a few people with contaminated air and water or to make electricity cost a little more?

Who's dying from coal fired power plants? This has nothing to do with clean air and water. It has everything to do with the climate change agenda.

I really don't have a big problem with increasing the cost of energy to spur conservation. Just be up front about it. Obama hasn't been able to sell the need for cap and trade or a carbon tax to Congress or the American people, so he is using the EPA to implement his agenda. Then, when rates go up, he'll blame the evil electric cos. or the evil oil cos.

[bigfatjerk]

<Raises hand>

I vote for not collapsing a nation, for the sake of tilting at windmills.

If we were really interested I'm our environment, we wouldn't subsidize pollution in other nations while castrating ourselves.

Exactly and we have to work on the technology we can use to make it better. If these so called cleaner energies are more affordable or technologically better the market will prove that. We've only had fossil fuels as a main source of energy for maybe 150-200 years. And in mass production for 100 years.

Take out all subsidies for all energies. Let the best ones win. The only role the government should play is to make sure these sources aren't just polluting for the sake of polluting. Or that companies aren't polluting neighborhoods with gas. Those can be taken care of through following laws for the most part and people suing these companies to bankruptcy.

[delhalew]

Exactly and we have to work on the technology we can use to make it better. If these so called cleaner energies are more affordable or technologically better the market will prove that. We've only had fossil fuels as a main source of energy for maybe 150-200 years. And in mass production for 100 years.

Take out all subsidies for all energies. Let the best ones win. The only role the government should play is to make sure these sources aren't just polluting for the sake of polluting. Or that companies aren't polluting neighborhoods with gas. Those can be taken care of through following laws for the most part and people suing these companies to bankruptcy.

Yeah! Quit dropping a deuce in hot tub.

[3rdgensooner]

Cool. I look forward to collecting unemployment and suckling at the teat of big government.

[Chuck Bao]

I think that technology is there to burn coal more efficiently and with far less pollution. I am guessing that the problem is that many of our coal-fired plants are aging and it will take billions of dollars of new investment to update them and that is going to cost electricity consumers.

The vast majority of electricity production in the US is by state or regional power producers. They may need a nudge to start new investment. Anyway, that is the way that I am reading those articles about the EPA standards.

Didn't Texas Power and Light build a string of coal-fired plants in East Texas with the intent to use coal produced in Eastern Oklahoma some 30-40 years ago? Obviously, TP&L is no longer TP&L and I don't know what happened since I have been out of the country. I did notice, though, on my last two trips home the very long coal-laden trains heading south into Texas.

I have wanted to build a natural gas-fired plant in southern Oklahoma. There is natural gas aplenty and no pipeline to market it. I think burning it and generating electricity then selling it on the electricity grid especially to the power hungry Dallas market makes some business sense.

And Cruiser, please don't start in on the current President Obama administration, yet again. It is their job to do that. Every government in the history of the world does that. They need to reassure investors and consumers and try to turn confidence around. I am not optimistic on the US economic prospects but do you really think that they will ever say that? As an economist, I call it "cheerleading" instead of lying. It is pretty easy to tell the difference.

[soonercruiser]

So is it better to kill a few people with contaminated air and water or to make electricity cost a little more?

Nice move Midtown!
That's the exact argument the other elitist environmentalists are making in saying "tought sh**" to energy company workers.

Here's how Obama said it in his own words!
"Under his cap & trade plan (considering coal) energy costs would necessarily skyrocket"!
(paraphrase - but watch it for yourself!)

BqHL404zhcU

So, when his cap & trade bill did not pass, he said that he would accomplish the same thing through the EPA!

[soonercruiser]

<Raises hand>

I vote for not collapsing a nation, for the sake of tilting at windmills.

If we were really interested I'm our environment, we wouldn't subsidize pollution in other nations while castrating ourselves.

BINGO!
This gives one pause about, what is the underlying goal?
Could it be collapse of our economy and the resulting chaos/opportunity?

[soonercruiser]

I think that technology is there to burn coal more efficiently and with far less pollution. I am guessing that the problem is that many of our coal-fired plants are aging and it will take billions of dollars of new investment to update them and that is going to cost electricity consumers.

The vast majority of electricity production in the US is by state or regional power producers. They may need a nudge to start new investment. Anyway, that is the way that I am reading those articles about the EPA standards.

Didn't Texas Power and Light build a string of coal-fired plants in East Texas with the intent to use coal produced in Eastern Oklahoma some 30-40 years ago? Obviously, TP&L is no longer TP&L and I don't know what happened since I have been out of the country. I did notice, though, on my last two trips home the very long coal-laden trains heading south into Texas.

I have wanted to build a natural gas-fired plant in southern Oklahoma. There is natural gas aplenty and no pipeline to market it. I think burning it and generating electricity then selling it on the electricity grid especially to the power hungry Dallas market makes some business sense.

And Cruiser, please don't start in on the current President Obama administration, yet again. It is their job to do that. Every government in the history of the world does that. They need to reassure investors and consumers and try to turn confidence around. I am not optimistic on the US economic prospects but do you really think that they will ever say that? As an economist, I call it "cheerleading" instead of lying. It is pretty easy to tell the difference.

I agree with the first part of your post.
Come on Chuck! Passing legislation on the enmvironment is Congress' job.
Obama is going around Congress and the will of the people with the EPA.

And......you apparently can't tell the difference between cheerleading and lying!

[mgsooner]

need lest 'cruiser threads

[soonercruiser]

Whats a matta mg?

Truth about the boy King hurt too much!
:rolleyes: