It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama didn't kill Coal, Economics did.

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine


There is technology available to capture CO2 from any source but there is no good place to sequester it and the costs are high, ensuring that coal plants would not be economical.


The source I was using (Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy V12.0) does not include clean coal at the low-end of its estimates, but did include it in the high-end. The marginal cost for coal in this study was for existing coal generators, which do not utilize clean coal technology.

The low-end for coal was still more expensive than the high-end for solar and the high-end for wind.


It is easy to change numbers and make anything look uneconomical. For example, it has been estimated that anywhere from 5 to 10% of methane is leaked during pipeline transfer. Methane has 25 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO2, so penalizing the gas industry could readily show that coal was far less expensive than gas.


I agree.


Including rare earth mining and processing environmental effects would show that making the rare earth magnets used in wind generators would make them more environmentally damaging than most people think they are.


I agree.

However note that at least one major wind turbine manufacturer does not use rare-earth magnets in the design of their generator.

The overall GHG life-cycle emissions from wind and solar are still low, even including manufacturing using fossil fuels.
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Warren Buffet bought a complete coal mine, with train and tracks, about 3 years ago.
Sometimes, even the best investors get hosed.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools


People like you make me ill. You really do.


DESTROYING you SNOWFLAKES with FACTS and LOGIC is what I live for.

P.S Do you know what actually makes people ill?

COAL

Do Coal Plants Really Kill People?

An Epidemic Is Killing Thousands Of Coal Miners. Regulators Could Have Stopped It



Currently I get a pretty good divedend from all the coal stock I bought during the Obama years.


I'm very happy for you, being able to privatise the profits and socialise the negative consequences of coal.

That's if it's true. Because is what happened around that time:




Merry Christmas libtard!


You too!

P.S. Liberalism is too far right for my taste. I am a Socialist and god damn proud of it.
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


No subsidies no wind farms.


Wind without subsidies is still cheaper than Coal without carbon capture.

Solar without subsidies is still cheaper than Coal without carbon capture.

Natural Gas has low capital cost and moderate fuel cost, but is overall cheaper than Coal.

Coal has high capital cost and low fuel cost. That means coal plants tend to run at full power all the time to be economic.

What will happen and what has happened is that wind and solar, being variable, will eat into the utilization (capacity factor) of any proposed coal power stations, since wind and solar have zero fuel cost, thus making coal uneconomic. Therefore, it's highly likely that no new coal power stations will ever be built in the United States. EIA projections reflect this. The existing coal power stations will be gradually retired as they reach the end of their lives.

Wind and Solar are still getting cheaper. In Australia by 2050 it's predicted that solar will be around 1/3 th to 1/5th the cost of coal (without carbon capture, a carbon price, or risk premium on cost of capital), these advantages remain even after including enough storage to get renewables up to 90% of the electricity supply.


“At a global level, the investment costs of a wide range of low emission generation technologies are projected to continue to fall, and we found new-build renewable generation to be least cost, including when we add the cost of two or six hours of energy storage to wind and solar.

“This also holds when the cost of fossil generation technology is adjusted for climate policy risk or not."

www.csiro.au...


There's also no requirement for baseload electricity, it just used to be the case that large, expensive to build, inflexible, power stations with low fuel cost (coal) were the overall cheapest way to generate electricity. Now variable renewables are, along with flexible natural gas. So the grid will be restructured around that.

Coal is dead. My preference is to kill it faster, so we don't destroy the environment or lives.

I haven't even talked about the health effects of coal and how many people Coal kills due to air pollution. Here are some additional resources:

An Epidemic Is Killing Thousands Of Coal Miners. Regulators Could Have Stopped It


But while politicians have been busy obscuring their views on coal, public health researchers have been accumulating ever clearer data. Emissions from coal-fired power plants and other coal-burning sources have been linked to neurological and developmental deficits in children, a worsening of asthma, and cardiovascular disease and other health woes. Coal-burning is bad, bad, bad for your health—and looking ahead, the best we can hope for is that it will get marginally better.

slate.com...


Perhaps I should create a thread and call it "Coal Is Death". Anyway, apparently pointing out these economics, health consequences, and environmental consequences makes people sick. But do you really want to know what makes people sick? Coal does.

The only arguement in favour of coal is that it provides jobs. Maybe instead of advocating for an old and outdated technology, you guys should be advocating for supporting former coal workers, retraining them to be productive in other areas, and advocating a social safety net for them. Coal workers after coal deserve full lives too, they should be socially and economically mobile enough so that they can move into other areas. They should not be locked into an industry that will and should eventually disappear - that is the real crux of the issue here. Or are you going to oppose this because of ideological reasons?
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: shooterbrody


No subsidies no wind farms.


Wind without subsidies is still cheaper than Coal without carbon capture.



That's manifestly untrue.

There are subsidies at every level of wind farming, from direct "grants" to the manufacturers, checks from the govt to the energy companies (which are all subsidiaries of big oil). And even checks written to the middleman companies that deliver the electricity that's "from" wind turbines.

you can see blank cement pads all over the southern plans, where turbines reached their 5 year development write-off, and were taken down the next day. The rancher is left with big 50 x 50 cement pads all over his land. And no more government checks.

If you look at it that way, useless 50 x 50 pads and giant earth anchors are just as polluting as any other abandoned building left behind by the energy sector.


176 Billion in wind subsidies

.
edit on 22-12-2018 by Graysen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
It's not too much of a stretch to bring up the subsidized killing of bald eagles at wind farms.

Obama allows wind farms to legally kill bald eagles

4,200 eagles per year, with no penalty if a farm goes over its limit.


Meanwhile, the Feds seized eagle-feather tribal artifacts (some of which predate the Indian Wars of the 1870s) in a raid during a native religious ceremony, designated Operation PowWow. (the Feds lost the case. But I think that they gave some of the eagle artifacts to the Smithsonian institution, who is declining to return them.)

So if you are a person of brownish hue, your religious artifacts, passed down through centuries, will be seized by the government because one of your ancestors was free and harvested an eagle as an act of reverence. You lose.

But wind farms can kill extra eagles, if the eagles get in the way of subsidies for big oil. I mean big wind. same thing.
edit on 22-12-2018 by Graysen because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Graysen

In the OP I provided one resources showing this:

LAZARD LCOE V12.0. This was for the United States.

I'll provide some more. Note these are Levelized Cost Of Electricity, the purpose is to compare all different sources on an equal footing before any subsidies and without considering external costs.

India specifically:

(snip)

Taking India as an example, BNEF is now showing benchmark LCOEs for onshore wind of just $39 per MWh, down 46% on a year ago, and for solar PV at $41, down 45%. By comparison, coal comes in at $68 per MWh, and combined-cycle gas at $93. Wind-plus-battery and solar-plus-battery systems in India have wide cost ranges, of $34-208 per MWh and $47-308 per MWh respectively, depending on project characteristics, but the center of those ranges is falling fast.

(snip)

about.bnef.com...

Note: Cheap Natural Gas is something that is largely specific to the United States, which is why Natural Gas is more expensive than Coal in India.

Worldwide:



(snip)

This investment will produce a 17-fold increase in solar photovoltaic capacity worldwide, and a sixfold increase in wind power capacity. The levelized cost of electricity, or LCOE[1], from new PV plants is forecast to fall a further 71% by 2050, while that for onshore wind drops by a further 58%. These two technologies have already seen LCOE reductions of 77% and 41% respectively between 2009 and 2018.

(snip)

Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF, said: “Coal emerges as the biggest loser in the long run. Beaten on cost by wind and PV for bulk electricity generation, and batteries and gas for flexibility, the future electricity system will reorganize around cheap renewables – coal gets squeezed out.”

about.bnef.com...


Australia specific:

GenCost 2018 - CSIRO

United States Specific:

Here's a summary of all EIA studies into Levelized Cost of Electricity. They don't include Conventional Coal anymore since nobody wants to build them. It was still too expensive when they did.



Wikipedia

Your link is dead, however we have figures such as:

Wind Turbines reducing in cost by 68% in 8 years. Solar Photovoltaic reducing in cost by 85% in 8 years.
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   
better link to the article:

176 billion in subsidies

I haven't had time to look at all your sources--working while sneaking a peak at this thread.


I wonder why so many subsidies are needed, if it's so incredibly cheap to produce electricity from the wind.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Graysen


It's not too much of a stretch to bring up the subsidized killing of bald eagles at wind farms.


I certainly agree that it is a shame if wind turbines kill bird and especially so if those wind turbines were subsidized. I do not like subsidizing killing birds with my tax dollars.

However for electricity generation, my primary concern is overall economics including any external costs such as damage to human health. My secondary concern is damage to the environment. In other words, I care more about the prosperity and health of my fellow people the most. The caveat to this approach, is if for example, killing enough birds leads to ecological collapse, it would then impact human prosperity and health. This is my concern with CO2 emissions. Everything is linked. However, I am not convinced that killing birds will do this.
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Graysen

Thanks for the link.

Note that some subsidies were for loan guarantees, which is where the loan is underwritten by the government. If the project is successful, then it should be payed back. When they fail, you have Solyndra.

Also note the cost has come down significantly. So if the goal of the subsidies were to encourage growth in an immature industry, then they could be ended.
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: shooterbrody


No subsidies no wind farms.


Wind without subsidies is still cheaper than Coal without carbon capture.

Solar without subsidies is still cheaper than Coal without carbon capture.

Natural Gas has low capital cost and moderate fuel cost, but is overall cheaper than Coal.

Coal has high capital cost and low fuel cost. That means coal plants tend to run at full power all the time to be economic.

What will happen and what has happened is that wind and solar, being variable, will eat into the utilization (capacity factor) of any proposed coal power stations, since wind and solar have zero fuel cost, thus making coal uneconomic. Therefore, it's highly likely that no new coal power stations will ever be built in the United States. EIA projections reflect this. The existing coal power stations will be gradually retired as they reach the end of their lives.

Wind and Solar are still getting cheaper. In Australia by 2050 it's predicted that solar will be around 1/3 th to 1/5th the cost of coal (without carbon capture, a carbon price, or risk premium on cost of capital), these advantages remain even after including enough storage to get renewables up to 90% of the electricity supply.


“At a global level, the investment costs of a wide range of low emission generation technologies are projected to continue to fall, and we found new-build renewable generation to be least cost, including when we add the cost of two or six hours of energy storage to wind and solar.

“This also holds when the cost of fossil generation technology is adjusted for climate policy risk or not."

www.csiro.au...


There's also no requirement for baseload electricity, it just used to be the case that large, expensive to build, inflexible, power stations with low fuel cost (coal) were the overall cheapest way to generate electricity. Now variable renewables are, along with flexible natural gas. So the grid will be restructured around that.

Coal is dead. My preference is to kill it faster, so we don't destroy the environmen or lives.

I haven't even talked about the health effects of coal and how many people Coal kills due to air pollution. Here are some additional resources:

An Epidemic Is Killing Thousands Of Coal Miners. Regulators Could Have Stopped It


But while politicians have been busy obscuring their views on coal, public health researchers have been accumulating ever clearer data. Emissions from coal-fired power plants and other coal-burning sources have been linked to neurological and developmental deficits in children, a worsening of asthma, and cardiovascular disease and other health woes. Coal-burning is bad, bad, bad for your health—and looking ahead, the best we can hope for is that it will get marginally better.

slate.com...


Perhaps I should create a thread and call it "Coal Is Death". Anyway, apparently pointing out these economics, health consequences, and environmental consequences makes people sick. But do you really want to know what makes people sick? Coal does.

The only arguement in favour of coal is that it provides jobs. Maybe instead of advocating for an old and outdated technology, you guys should be advocating for supporting former coal workers, retraining them to be productive in other areas, and advocating a social safety net for them. Coal workers after coal deserve full lives too, they should be socially and economically mobile enough so that they can move into other areas. They should not be locked into an industry that will and should eventually disappear - that is the real crux of the issue here. Or are you going to oppose this because of ideological reasons?

Wind without subsidies would not be economically viable here.
We have a load based grid.
No wind no power.
You simply do not understand our system.
You also do not understand the tactics used by the former administration to take money from the coal and oil industries and give it to the gas and renewables industrys.
Today without subsidies wind farms would be bankrupt.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


You simply do not understand our system.


As an Electrical Engineer, I can say with certainty that I do understand the system.

I hated renewable energy before I became an Engineer actually, because I didn't understand how this stuff works. You can go through my post history and verify that. Everything the Greenies said would happen with regard to renewable energy came true and the technology continues to exceed my expectations.

a reply to: Fools


This would have meant brown outs on a constant basis as well as doubling the average americans electricity bill.


Fear-mongering with no basis in fact.
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
This is a quote from the article I linked:



Recall that the production tax credit is $23 per megawatt-hour. A megawatt-hour of electricity contains 3.4 million Btu. That means wind-energy producers are getting a subsidy of $6.76 per million Btu. The current spot price of natural gas is about $2.40 per million Btu. Thus, on an energy-equivalent basis, wind energy’s subsidy is nearly three times the current market price of natural gas.


And then there's this:



MidAmerican Energy Company, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, has a seat on AWEA’s board. Berkshire’s subsidy total: $1.5 billion – and it’s primed to collect lots more. In April, the company announced plans to spend $3.6 billion on wind projects in Iowa. Two years ago, Berkshire’s CEO, Warren Buffett, explained why his companies are in the wind business. “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them,” he said. “They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”


Do you think Warren Buffet is mistaken about the economics of the business he's jumped into?



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Graysen
better link to the article:

176 billion in subsidies

I haven't had time to look at all your sources--working while sneaking a peak at this thread.


I wonder why so many subsidies are needed, if it's so incredibly cheap to produce electricity from the wind.



It isn't incredibly cheap but it is less expensive than it used to be. Wind farms [and solar panels] have low energy densities, i.e., they have relatively much larger footprints for the power they generate. Look at the relative areas between a 600 MWe coal plant and 600 MW of wind turbines.

Subsidies are a way of developing technology that isn't economic, at first.

Consistent with the philosophy of the day, everyone has a gripe about every power generation source. Hydro, a great way to generate power, prevents fish from fornicating. Solar shades the ground surface over a wide area and changes the environment under the panels while the reflected light from the panels heats the air and causes updrafts that affect aircraft. Wind towers are ugly and if enough are in anyone place, they will affect airflow. They also have significant amounts of fiberglass in their construction which is derived from evil petroleum. Nuclear is bad because it is nuclear and uses non-standardized PWR's. The US never saw fit to produce a standard design that was approved by definition. Maybe the HGTR's will solve that problem. Coal is evil even though it is vintage biomass with solar origins. Gas may be ok but storage is always a problem. Coal can be stacked up next to a power plant; gas just won't stay there and needs pressurized underground caverns.

Nothing is any good because no matter what is used, someone will gripe about it...but the whiners still want to use all the electric power they want. This is like Al "Carbon Tax" Gore who wants to tell everyone all about anthropogenic global warming while flying around in a private jet.

Worry about CO2? Nukes are for you. Fracking causing earthquakes? Coal. Got GE stock? Gas turbines are the way to go. Live in the desert? Solar for you. Pacific Northwest or Tennessee Valley? Hydro. California? Wind using Condormatics [and coal power from 4 corners.]



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Graysen


Recall that the production tax credit is $23 per megawatt-hour. A megawatt-hour of electricity contains 3.4 million Btu. That means wind-energy producers are getting a subsidy of $6.76 per million Btu. The current spot price of natural gas is about $2.40 per million Btu. Thus, on an energy-equivalent basis, wind energy’s subsidy is nearly three times the current market price of natural gas.


This comparison doesn't make sense, considering that electrical energy is secondary energy, generated by a power station (added value) whereas natural gas is primary energy. It would only make sense if you were comparing a wind turbine powered resistive heater with a natural gas heater, and then not even bothering to consider the capital cost of each.

In EIA 2018 LCOE, the Variable O&M (operations and maintenance) cost (this is basically fuel) is 30.3 $/MWh for an Advanced Combined Cycle Natural Gas plant. The wind tax credit of $23 per megawatt-hour is therefore equivalent to 75% of the fuel cost of the most efficient natural gas power stations available (not 3x). Note that the overall LCOE for an Advanced Combined Cycle Natural Gas plant is 48.1 $/MWh.

The tax credit of 23 $/MWh is about 48% the LCOE of the Natural Gas Plant and 62% the LCOE of wind turbines itself (since un-subsidized wind is still cheaper than gas). If you want to get rid of a 62% subsidy then no arguments from me, however I suggest we remove other subsidies, and take measures to include all external costs of generation (example: sulphur dioxide, particulates, carbon dioxide emissions, methane emissions, killing birds...).

So removing it will change the rate at which wind power is deployed. It's not going to change the fact that both natural gas, solar, and wind beat the pants off coal, economically.


Do you think Warren Buffet is mistaken about the economics of the business he's jumped into?


It looks like he said that in 2014. At that time wind energy was 67% more expensive than it is today (EIA 2018 for a plant opening in 2022 versus EIA 2014 for a plant opening in 2019).

Electricity demand in the United States isn't growing, which makes it difficult to invest in new power stations unless it is clearly cheaper to finance, build and operate a new power station over operating an existing one.

Yes subsidies have driven the wind industry largely, but by now the economics are rather good. Natural Gas is primarily what killed Coal. Wind is going to keep it dead since it's now so cheap.

edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Note that EIA 2015 (the last time EIA included Conventional Coal in their report) included a 3% increase in the cost of capital for new coal power stations, due to the risk of a carbon tax being added sometime in the future. They claim this was equivalent to a carbon price of 15 $/metric ton. In cost of electricity terms, assuming 1 kg CO2/kWh, this is 15 $/MWh, so removing it would only reduce the LCOE of a new Conventional Coal power station to 80 $/MWh. Which is still uncompetitive with wind, solar, or gas.

Note the figures I have been using are before subsidies. However, here is some more information about them:


Production Tax Credit (PTC): New wind, geothermal, and biomass plants receive 24 dollars per megawatthour ($/MWh); technologies other than wind, geothermal, and closed-loop biomass receive $12/MWh. The PTC values are adjusted for inflation and given over the plant’s first 10 years of service if the plants are under construction before the end of 2016. After 2016, wind continues to be eligible for the PTC but at a dollar-per-megawatthour rate that declines by 20% in 2017, 40% in 2018, 60% in 2019, and expires completely in 2020. Based on documentation released by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS, see www.irs.gov...), EIA assumes that wind plants have four years after beginning construction to bring the plants online and claim the PTC. As a result, wind plants entering service in 2020 will receive the full credit, and those entering service in 2022 will receive $14/MWh (inflation-adjusted).

Investment Tax Credit (ITC): New solar photovoltaic (PV) and thermal plants are eligible to receive a 30% ITC on capital expenditures if the plants are under construction before the end of 2019, after which the ITC tapers off for new starts to 26% in 2020 and to 22% in 2021. ITC expires for residential-owned systems and declines to 10% for business and utility-scale systems in 2022 and each year thereafter. All commercial and utility-scale plants placed in service after December 31, 2023 receive a 10% ITC regardless of the date construction started. Results in this levelized cost report only include utility-scale solar facilities and do not include small-scale solar facilities. In NEMS, EIA assumes a two-year construction lead time for new utility-scale solar PV plants and a three-year construction lead time for new solar thermal plants. EIA assumes that all utility-scale solar plants entering service in 2019 receive the full 30% tax credit. PV plants entering service in 2022 receive 26%, whereas solar thermal plants entering service in 2022, having begun construction a year earlier, receive 30%. Both onshore and offshore wind projects are eligible to claim the ITC in lieu of the PTC. While it is expected that onshore wind projects would choose the PTC, EIA assumes offshore wind projects will claim the ITC in lieu of the PTC because of the high capital costs for those projects.

www.eia.gov...

edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

Hi C0bzz,

I work in the power industry, in Australia.

Yes, renewable energy is now cheaper than coal in Australia, the amount of renewable permits for solar farms and wind farms will swamp the market from now on. In some cases in South Australia lately there is so much wind and solar that the base load coal stations are paying to get rid of it on the perfect day.

We are looking at a completely different demand curve for coal, what used to ramp up from morning when everyone get up in till night after everyone has dinner and goes to bed, we are now seeing a peak in the morning and a peak in the evening (when solar isn’t powerful) and an almost negative during the daytime.

Now Australia could take this ‘free electricity’ during the day and revamp its heavy industry, but that isn’t planned, we are currently looking at turning down our coal assets and increasing the biggest batteries that currently exist (pumped storage). Alas Australia isn’t known for its massive expanses of rain, lakes and mountains but it also doesn’t have as many people as the U.K.

The Hunter valley has very good coal (high calorific value to waste) for which there is massive demand from China and India and I am talking 30+ years planned offtake.

Having recently met some of the top guys at Hitachi the Japs are looking heavily into Hydrogen (Is not yet economic) and gases from coal (for which Australia has the good stuff).

The mines here are starting to recruit permanent workers again and have full order books. At least in this part of the globe, Coal will be king for at least another 30 years.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

Translation of C0bzz:
I am socialist hear me appropriate language! ROAR! Look at my links! ROAR! They are always from socialist sources who have almost no reasoning staff or readership! ROAR! You are a SNOWFLAKE! ROAR!

Actually, you did plop a pretty good new one in there, " being able to privatise the profits and socialise the negative consequences of coal. "

Ah, so the giving of gifts on Christmas is now socialist too?

HAHAHA! thanks for the laugh.

So your username, what is it supposed to mean. I am curious.



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Fools


I am socialist hear me appropriate language! ROAR! Look at my links! ROAR! They are always from socialist sources who have almost no reasoning staff or readership!


My sources are as follows:

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF)

Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial, software, data, and media company headquartered in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. It was founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981, with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, Charles Zegar,[7] and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...


Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is an independent Australian federal government agency responsible for scientific research. Its chief role is to improve the economic and social performance of industry for the benefit of the community.

en.wikipedia.org...

These are the guys that invented Wifi and some kinds of insect repellent. Ever used those before?

Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO)

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) performs an array of gas and electricity market, operational, development and planning functions. It manages the National Electricity Market (NEM) and the Victorian gas transmission network. AEMO also facilitates electricity and gas full retail contestability, overseeing these retail markets in eastern and southern Australia. It is additionally responsible for national transmission planning for electricity and the establishment of a Short Term Trading Market (STTM) for gas.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...


Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC)

The 'Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) was set up by the Council of Australian Governments through the Ministerial Council on Energy in 2005. The AEMC was established by the Australian Energy Market Commission Establishment Act 2004 (SA),[1] and commenced in July 2005. The Commission consists of one full-time and two part-time Commissioners. Two Commissioners are appointed by the participating State and Territory jurisdictions and one Commissioner is appointed by the Commonwealth.

en.wikipedia.org...



U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a principal agency of the U.S. Federal Statistical System responsible for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating energy information to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets, and public understanding of energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. EIA programs cover data on coal, petroleum, natural gas, electric, renewable and nuclear energy. EIA is part of the U.S. Department of Energy.

en.wikipedia.org...



Lazard


Lazard (formerly known as Lazard Frères & Co.) is a financial advisory and asset management firm that engages in investment banking, asset management, and other financial services primarily with institutional clients. It is the world's largest independent investment bank, with principal executive offices in New York City, Paris and London.

en.wikipedia.org...


BNEF is Capitalist
Lazard is Capitalist
CSIRO is government
EIA is government
AEMO is 60% government, 40% industry
AEMC is government

I always make sure you provide you with the highest quality sources. These are all well-known sources too that are highly respected. I don't pick the most well-read sources, because that would mean going to the mainstream media who provide information based largely on view count. Also DBCowboy used an article which referenced the EIA, so I tend to use the same sources you guys are using, just I link them directly rather than with a layer of political nonsense on top, and ensure that I always provide the latest information, rather than from 5 years ago.

I also have the intelligence, training, and real-world experience to interpret all this data, which comes from being a successful Electrical Engineer.

Lastly, I am a socialist because that's what my life experience and some of the data above is telling me. Here, the conservative party is trying to build new coal power stations with taxpayer money, whilst defunding the CSIRO because their research doesn't line up with their political agenda. What the hell! They will lose the next election and I honestly hope to god their entire political party is torn apart, for this and other reasons. That is my goal and dream.

You seem to think that any source that disagrees with you a socialist. In other words your logic is:

1. This source disagrees with me.
2. Therefore the source is socialist.

Which is a backwards decision making process and is a clear sign that you're being ideological. My suggested approach is:

1. This source disagrees with me.
2. Is this a good source?
3. If yes, maybe I should reconsider my belief systems.


Ah, so the giving of gifts on Christmas is now socialist too?

Considering others pay for the negative consequences of Coal, apparently your Christmas presents are. I don't believe you should be able to get that for free. Are you considering this already?

If not, then it's a failure to take personal responsibility for your actions (probably because you are so far removed from them). If others keep failing to take personal responsibility for their actions, then my goal will be to make them, because then I will have no other choice and will have been compelled to.


I am socialist hear me appropriate language!

I thought I was the one who was supposed to complain about cultural appropriation? I actually can't believe I managed to get you to complain about cultural appropriation.

And oh don't you worry, I will be making a thread on cultural appropriation soon.



You can count on that.


So your username, what is it supposed to mean. I am curious.

Thanks for asking. It's an early nickname that I no longer use, the 0 is supposed to be the letter o (lower case), but it was already taken. What's yours supposed to mean?

Take care now,
edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 23/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

This is false. It was Obama and his administration who closed coal mines and yes the excuse given was because of "environmentalism."

I live in a state that suffered the wrath of the "environmentalist policies implemented by the Obama administration." Also, out of over 4,000 oil rigs in the U.S., Obama closed all but around 300-400 oil rigs. Under the Trump administration most of those jobs are back.

Coal Company Closes Eight Mines; Cites Obama’s “Regulatory Regime”

USA: Alabama Coal Mine Reopens, Names Excavator After the President (Trump)

The Obama administration wanted to implement even more stringent "environmental policies" which would have closed even more jobs, and if they had been implemented would have been detrimental to everyone living in the U.S.



What you are trying to do here is "revisionism."

This sort of thread is similar to the claims made by Obama fans, and Obama himself that "the economy got better because of Obama." This is "fake news."


Job growth occurred because of POTUS Trump's policies, and not because of Obama...


edit on 23-12-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



new topics




 
13
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join