Obama killing coal

[okie52]

Obama Fails as Energy Investment Officer- in-Chief
Tom Borelli

Jun 15, 2012


According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the amount of electricity generated from coal has dropped from 44.6 percent to 36 percent just in the last year. With the regulatory burden facing coal, utilities are rapidly switching to natural gas whose price has been extremely low.

While Obama has punished the coal industry his aggressive promotion and support of renewable energy has failed to reward shareholders of renewable energy stocks.

Unlike coal, a free-market demand for renewable power such as solar and wind power does not exist. The use of renewable energy is artificially driven by government through state mandates and financially supported by state and federal subsidies.

Accordingly, investors in renewable energy are subjected to an enormous amount of political risk. Even without coal, its high price energy faces competition from low natural gas prices.

The spectacular failure of the share price of First Solar – a solar panel maker – highlights the risk for investors betting on Obama’s clean energy policy.

Before the stock market crash, First Solar hit its high around $300 a share and since then it’s been all downhill. In May 2009, when the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill which included a national renewable energy mandate passed the House of Representatives, First Solar was trading at about $190 a share and at $120 in July 2010 when the Senate Democrats officially declared the end of the legislation.

This week First Solar is selling at around $13 a share. In addition to the absence of a federal mandate for renewable energy, the company was hurt by falling government subsidies in Europe and competition from China.

In April, First Solar announced it was reducing 30 percent of its employees and closing two production facilities in Germany. Reduction in European subsides was the major reason for its business problems.

The dependency of the company’s business on government support was made clear when a company official stated its business in Europe “is not viable without significant subsidies.”

Similarly, wind energy has also been a loser for investors. A wind energy exchange trade fund FAN, whose investments are concentrated in wind power companies, has dropped from about $11 a share to about $6 during the last year.

A major concern for investors is the Production Tax Credit for wind power. The income tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for wind energy producers is scheduled to expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts to extend the tax incentive.

President Obama’s effort to direct the power sources for electricity production has resulted in enormous losses for investors and jeopardizes thousands of jobs. Through his executive powers, Obama showed he can destroy an industry but he is helpless to override the inherent limitations of renewable energy to create a market.

As many investors and employees in the energy sector will testify, President Obama fails as energy Investment Officer- in-Chief.

One of the few campaign promises Hussein has kept.

[cleller]

Eh, he can thank Aubrey McClendon and his fellow drillers and frackers for that.

[Breadburner]

He's killing everything even campaign workers....!!!

[KantoSooner]

Is it really any policy that's killing coal? Or is it more the extraordinary low price of gas?

[Skysooner]

Is it really any policy that's killing coal? Or is it more the extraordinary low price of gas?

Both. There were plans to mothball many of the coal plants due to incoming regulations. I'm not exactly sure when those regulations were enacted, but it was my understanding that they had been coming for years. The low gas price just accelerated the plans for certain utilities.

[okie52]

Coal is still by far the cheapest energy source available. However, as skysooner stated, regulations, low NG prices & low cost NG plants have made it an easier transition.

[yermom]

and the downside for switching from coal to gas is?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

None, unless we don't have any new energy source when the gas runs out... We will still have lots of coal, though maybe no place to burn it...

[okie52]

and the downside for switching from coal to gas is?


Cost would be one. Coal is the cheapest energy source....by far. NG would usually be 2nd. Also, NG prices are a lot more volatile than coal so what is great right now could be considerably higher in the next decade. Coal will not likely change much in the next few decades.

While I support NG (and it is considerably cleaner than coal) in addition to all other energy sources including coal, this doesn't move us towards energy independence because it doesn't address the transportation sector and that is where virtually all of our imported oil goes. The key for the Obama and/or any administration should have been moving large segments of our transportation to NG from oil...now that would be something worthwhile.

[okie52]

and the downside for switching from coal to gas is?


Cost would be one. Coal is the cheapest energy source....by far. NG would usually be 2nd. Also, NG prices are a lot more volatile than coal so what is great right now could be considerably higher in the next decade. Coal will not likely change much in the next few decades.

While I support NG (and it is considerably cleaner than coal) in addition to all other energy sources including coal, this doesn't move us towards energy independence because it doesn't address the transportation sector and that is where virtually all of our imported oil goes. The key for the Obama and/or any administration should have been moving large segments of our transportation to NG from oil...now that would be something worthwhile.

[Skysooner]

Coal is still by far the cheapest energy source available. However, as skysooner stated, regulations, low NG prices & low cost NG plants have made it an easier transition.

Right now you see coal = natural gas at a gas cost of $3.50/mmbtu based on our analyses. NG prices are going to be more bullish in the coming years. Switching transportation infrastructure over (particularly long-haul transports) would really help energy independence.

[soonercruiser]

Is it really any policy that's killing coal? Or is it more the extraordinary low price of gas?

The EPA's mandate on clean air and scrubbing coal byproducts from the air!
Noone can afford to modify the coal fired plants.

[soonercruiser]

Cost would be one. Coal is the cheapest energy source....by far. NG would usually be 2nd. Also, NG prices are a lot more volatile than coal so what is great right now could be considerably higher in the next decade. Coal will not likely change much in the next few decades.

While I support NG (and it is considerably cleaner than coal) in addition to all other energy sources including coal, this doesn't move us towards energy independence because it doesn't address the transportation sector and that is where virtually all of our imported oil goes. The key for the Obama and/or any administration should have been moving large segments of our transportation to NG from oil...now that would be something worthwhile.

Okie!
You are stuttering!
Back on you meds!
:shame:

[yermom]

The EPA's mandate on clean air and scrubbing coal byproducts from the air!
Noone can afford to modify the coal fired plants.

clean air is overrated

[Midtowner]

Coal going downhill is great for Oklahoma and great for the economy.

That said, considering the way things have changed, can anyone point to things specifically undertaken by the Obama administration which haven't been coming down the pike for eons now which have affected the industry to that extent?

[olevetonahill]

Coal going downhill is great for Oklahoma and great for the economy.

That said, considering the way things have changed, can anyone point to things specifically undertaken by the Obama administration which haven't been coming down the pike for eons now which have affected the industry to that extent?

Maybe in yer neck of the woods, But here Coal is one Major employer

[Midtowner]

Maybe in yer neck of the woods, But here Coal is one Major employer

'round here, NG is kind of big.

[olevetonahill]

'round here, NG is kind of big.
So then it would be "Good" for yer area Not the entire state .

[diverdog]

Coal is still by far the cheapest energy source available. However, as skysooner stated, regulations, low NG prices & low cost NG plants have made it an easier transition.

Not really. They get a free ride polluting the sh*t out of our air. Which is an externalized subsidy.

[Midtowner]

So then it would be "Good" for yer area Not the entire state .

My part of the state actually contributes to the tax base...so...

[OU_Sooners75]

Obama is antienergy...period end of discussion.

[okie52]

Not really. They get a free ride polluting the sh*t out of our air. Which is an externalized subsidy.

What a crock. Sounds like something the nitwits in the sierra club might say. Coal is definitely dirtier than any energy source but there are no subsidies involved...dirtier air is just a byproduct and the the developing world will use it to death.

Of course Obama is all for clean coal so maybe he will invest billions in that.

[diverdog]

What a crock. Sounds like something the nitwits in the sierra club might say. Coal is definitely dirtier than any energy source but there are no subsidies involved...dirtier air is just a byproduct and the the developing world will use it to death.

Of course Obama is all for clean coal so maybe he will invest billions in that.

Okie it is not a crock. Try living down wind from a lot of coal fired plants. We have so many issues with pollution from the Ohio valley that it eats the paint off our cars from acid rain to making us adjust our fuel so we can try to meet clean air standards. Coal power would be a lot more expensive if we made them clean up their act.

Also a lot of coal plants are built with tax exempt bonds.

Why are you defending coal anyway? I thought you were an NG man.

[okie52]

Okie it is not a crock. Try living down wind from a lot of coal fired plants. We have so many issues with pollution from the Ohio valley that it eats the paint off our cars from acid rain to making us adjust our fuel so we can try to meet clean air standards. Coal power would be a lot more expensive if we made them clean up their act.

Also a lot of coal plants are built with tax exempt bonds.

Why are you defending coal anyway? I thought you were an NG man.

As long as the world uses coal it is the cheapest energy source available...bar none. The developing nations like china and india and others will use coal where they can to achieve an economic advantage over other nations that use more expensive energy sources. The pollution by coal will be an acceptable trade off for them.

I'm not touting coal. It is definitely the dirtiest of all energy sources but, ironically, it is also the cheapest. My point about the article I posted was that coal was being replaced by NG
because of investor uncertainty about coal,regulations by obama and the low price of ng. I am not for coal at this time being reduced as an energy source even though it helps the ng industry.

I'm all about energy independence and presently we need all energy sources to achieve that goal. Obama isn't even close to an "all of the above" president with regards to energy. We should be replacing imported oil in our cars with ng rather than replacing coal that powers our factories. While there is a glut of ng now we haven't really touched our transportation sector where it is needed most desperately.

Tell me that nukes economically replaced coal while ng replaces imported oil and I would be a happy camper and the US would be a hell of a lot cleaner for it. But no new nuclear plants in the last 35 years isn't going to get us there so I'll stick with coal and ng for factories and ng, oil and electrics for transportation...and hopefully all of the benefits of energy independence.

[diverdog]

As long as the world uses coal it is the cheapest energy source available...bar none. The developing nations like china and india and others will use coal where they can to achieve an economic advantage over other nations that use more expensive energy sources. The pollution by coal will be an acceptable trade off for them.

I'm not touting coal. It is definitely the dirtiest of all energy sources but, ironically, it is also the cheapest. My point about the article I posted was that coal was being replaced by NG
because of investor uncertainty about coal,regulations by obama and the low price of ng. I am not for coal at this time being reduced as an energy source even though it helps the ng industry.

I'm all about energy independence and presently we need all energy sources to achieve that goal. Obama isn't even close to an "all of the above" president with regards to energy. We should be replacing imported oil in our cars with ng rather than replacing coal that powers our factories. While there is a glut of ng now we haven't really touched our transportation sector where it is needed most desperately.

Tell me that nukes economically replaced coal while ng replaces imported oil and I would be a happy camper and the US would be a hell of a lot cleaner for it. But no new nuclear plants in the last 35 years isn't going to get us there so I'll stick with coal and ng for factories and ng, oil and electrics for transportation...and hopefully all of the benefits of energy independence.

Now that is the okie I know. Good post.

China is starting to pay a price from the use of coal. They are going to have to start cleaning it up.

[pphilfran]

Now that is the okie I know. Good post.

China is starting to pay a price from the use of coal. They are going to have to start cleaning it up.

I will believe it when I see it...

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=8

This is CO2 emissions from coal usage...million metric tons

US - 2006 at 2147, 2010 at 1985

China - 2006 at 4778, 2010 at 6946

So...China in four years added more CO2 emissions from coal usage than the US emits in a year...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Cost would be one. Coal is the cheapest energy source....by far. NG would usually be 2nd. Also, NG prices are a lot more volatile than coal so what is great right now could be considerably higher in the next decade. Coal will not likely change much in the next few decades.

While I support NG (and it is considerably cleaner than coal) in addition to all other energy sources including coal, this doesn't move us towards energy independence because it doesn't address the transportation sector and that is where virtually all of our imported oil goes. The key for the Obama and/or any administration should have been moving large segments of our transportation to NG from oil...now that would be something worthwhile.

Totally agree. What people do not understand and miss, is that without a major delivery system and distribution network, any new fuel type will be unsuccessful without it. The Dims are STUPID to hop other ideas without this in place.

[okie52]

I will believe it when I see it...

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=8

This is CO2 emissions from coal usage...million metric tons

US - 2006 at 2147, 2010 at 1985

China - 2006 at 4778, 2010 at 6946

So...China in four years added more CO2 emissions from coal usage than the US emits in a year...

Ahh, the genius of a unilateral cap and trade.

[diverdog]

Totally agree. What people do not understand and miss, is that without a major delivery system and distribution network, any new fuel type will be unsuccessful without it. The Dims are STUPID to hop other ideas without this in place.

Everyone forgets that it took decades to replace the horse. None of this happens over night.

[jkjsooner]

I will believe it when I see it...

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=1&aid=8

This is CO2 emissions from coal usage...million metric tons

US - 2006 at 2147, 2010 at 1985

China - 2006 at 4778, 2010 at 6946

So...China in four years added more CO2 emissions from coal usage than the US emits in a year...

To change the topic slightly, Americans get a bad reputation for our excessive per capita energy use. If we're going to criticize, what is the best criteria? Is it energy use per capita? Energy use per land area? Do we get some credit for not overpopulating our country? (I recognize China has been around a lot longer but immigration aside we're not too far from zero population growth.)

The higher the population density the more cost effective and efficient mass transportation becomes. Would it be ethical to increase our population, use more energy but less per capita than we do now?

I recognize we are wasteful but we should get some credit for our lower population density...

[okie52]

To change the topic slightly, Americans get a bad reputation for our excessive per capita energy use. If we're going to criticize, what is the best criteria? Is it energy use per capita? Energy use per land area? Do we get some credit for not overpopulating our country? (I recognize China has been around a lot longer but immigration aside we're not too far from zero population growth.)

The higher the population density the more cost effective and efficient mass transportation becomes. Would it be ethical to increase our population, use more energy but less per capita than we do now?

I recognize we are wasteful but we should get some credit for our lower population density...

That's really my argument. China and India should be punished for their population densities. Ridiculous to have 1.4 billion people living in a country the size of the US and 1.1 billion living in a country 1/4 our size. Yet these countries want to be rewarded under global cap and trade agreements by having developed countries pay them for reducing their use of hydrocarbons.

[Sooner Eclipse]

Everyone forgets that it took decades to replace the horse. None of this happens over night.

Yes, but they weren't stupid enough to start shooting all the horses before the cars were built.

[Curly Bill]

Yes, but they weren't stupid enough to start shooting all the horses before the cars were built.

Well said.

[okie52]

Yes, but they weren't stupid enough to start shooting all the horses before the cars were built.

Indeed!

[Sooner5030]

Yes, but they weren't stupid enough to start shooting all the horses before the cars were built.

good jorb!

[soonercruiser]

My part of the state actually contributes to the tax base...so...

And contributes to a lot of hot air....more lawyers here per capita!

[Mazeppa]

To stop the war on American jobs we must end Obama's war on coal

By Phil Kerpen

Published September 19, 2012


At this point, you’d have to be blind not to see President Obama’s war on coal, and the devastating impact it is already having on coal mining communities and will, sooner rather than later, have on everyone who pays an electric bill. Does this administration care at all about saving American jobs? The latest announcement came from Alpha Natural Resources, which is laying off 1,200 coal miners, citing “a regulatory environment that’s aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal.”

We shouldn’t be surprised by what’s happening. Obama told us his disastrous plan for the coal industry and affordable electricity on the campaign trail in 2008. “If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them,” candidate Obama said then. “Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” he added.

First he tried a massive cap-and-trade plan. It failed. The day after the 2010 landslide election, he said: “Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat.” Now he's abusing regulatory power to accomplish the same deeply destructive goal of bankrupting coal.

We’ve already seen mercury rules from the EPA that will impose tens of billions of dollars in retrofit costs for coal plants, heavy-handed denials of clean water permits to block mining operations, and even an illegal attempt to veto an already approved permit to block a West Virginia mine – that one was overturned by a judge who accused the EPA of “magical thinking.” A cross-state air pollution rule designed to cripple coal was also at least temporarily blocked by the courts, but with dozens of draconian rules there is plenty of redundancy.

Worst of all is the power plant greenhouse gas rule, designed to transform Obama’s failed cap-and-trade scheme into the law of the land by distorted and contorted the 1970 Clean Air Act. As EPA regional administrator Curt Spalding let slip, the rule says that “basically gas plants are the performance standard, which means if you want to build a coal plant, you got a big problem.”

Spalding went on to praise his boss Lisa Jackson, the national EPA administrator for the decision to destroy coal, saying: “You can’t imagine how tough that was. Because you’ve got to remember if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal.”

The strongest words of anger against this regulatory destruction of the coal industry came not from an industry voice but from organized labor. Cecil Roberts, the president of the United Mine Workers, said: “The Navy SEALs shot Usama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington. This rule is an all-out, in my opinion, decision by the EPA that we’re never going to have another coal-fired facility in the United States that’s constructed.”

Worse than that, the rule will create a legal predicate under which the Sierra Club can sue to shut down all existing coal plants, which you can be certain they will do. That will make good on Obama’s campaign promise to make electricity rates “necessarily skyrocket.”

The House is expected to vote Friday on stopping Obama’s War on Coal. I’ve got a form set up at www.WarOnCoal.com where you can urge them to do so. But the future of coal and affordable electricity will most likely depend on defeating Barack Obama at the ballot box.

[okie52]

Clean coal....

[Midtowner]

Clean coal....

Is a myth.

[soonercruiser]

"Quote" from who????


"Under my policies, energy prices will necessarily SKYROCKET"!

:uncomfortableness:

[okie52]

Is a myth.

Obama doesn't know that.

[diverdog]

Obama doesn't know that.

Okie:

I thought one of the oilees on this board said that NG was displacing coal for cost reasons.

[okie52]

Okie:

I thought one of the oilees on this board said that NG was displacing coal for cost reasons.

It is. But I don't mind Obama taking it in the shorts for it....LOL

[diverdog]

It is. But I don't mind Obama taking it in the shorts for it....LOL

I am cool with that. :)

[SCOUT]

Is a myth.

Clean coal is a myth at the moment, but there is some interesting work being done in the area of CO2 consuming algae being used as a fuel source for transportation.

[diverdog]

Clean coal is a myth at the moment, but there is some interesting work being done in the area of CO2 consuming algae being used as a fuel source for transportation.

Roger that. If the bio fuel works it will be a game changer for coal.

[soonercruiser]

If algae powers my future car, will the car actually be green?
Will I have to wear green?
Will Ireland become the nation with all the really little green cars?
:playful:

Seriously, we probably don't have a clue about the renewable fuels of the future.
Until then, we must be energy independent!
We simply cannot waste time, money or energy in the current world economic environment.
We think that we can force the issue......like electric cars.....but, nature must take it's course.....using the free market is the only long-term economic solution.

[Skysooner]

If algae powers my future car, will the car actually be green?
Will I have to wear green?
Will Ireland become the nation with all the really little green cars?
:playful:

Seriously, we probably don't have a clue about the renewable fuels of the future.
Until then, we must be energy independent!
We simply cannot waste time, money or energy in the current world economic environment.
We think that we can force the issue......like electric cars.....but, nature must take it's course.....using the free market is the only long-term economic solution.

Agreed on energy independence. To achieve that though we are going to need to modify the Jones Act of 1920. Otherwise prices are going to sink in this country, and we can't afford to drill for more crude oil.