No, businesses and gov are the ones that make the REAL choices.
Where does a society get their electricity from? Did YOU decide it? Nope. Businesses/gov did.
What kind of car do you drive? ICE or EV? Prior to Tesla there really was no choice EXCEPT for ICE. Tesla, A BUSINESS, has been selling great BEVs, and this is forcing other car makers to compete and offer EVs. In General, regular car makers EVs still sux, but finally, some have seen that they are losing market share to tesla.
Then there is China and Europe, BOTH OF WHOM, their govs are PUSHING EVs.
Businesses and Gov are the real deciders.
I know that my family pollutes less than the average swede does (who is one of the lowest). Im far less than nearly all Chinese (who are at 8-9 and growing fast ).
BUT, this was due to investments that we made in solar, that gov (fed/colorado) and business (xcel) subsidies made possible.
Likewise, the used tesla that we bought was made possible by gov subsidies (fed/colorado) for the original owner (not us).
There is little doubt that without those subsidies, we would NOT have done the solar. And had the Tesla been another 10-15K, we would not have bought it. We would have an ICE.
Again, because of gov/businesses helping on this.
No,you can NOT power America 100% from yellowstone. That has been shown through multiple studies.
BOTH MIT and NASA say that if develop ALL of the geo-thermal available by 2050, we could power about 1/3 to 1/2 of America. And that would be the destruction
of yellowstone as well. Here is a forbes article that you likely read, but read wrong. The problem with this is that it speaks of powering the earth twice over, but for only a short time.
And here And here is MIT
One item missing out of BOTH NASA and MIT report, is that with magma that close, combined with heated water, it will be carrying LOTS of minerals. That is lots of minerals that can be mined. In fact, by adding various additives to the injected water, it should be possible to grab different types of minerals and then later pull them out.
Like nuclear SMRs, this is such a missed opportunity for America.
LOL.
America is switching to EVs at a rather quick pace. Right now, we have been behind Europe, but that is changing quickly due to Model 3. Then add to that, the coming electric semi-tractors which will make a HUGE impact on America's emissions.
Political uncertainty in the Middle East has returned to the fore in recent days. As we write, uncertainty about the next steps in Syria and Yemen have helped propel the price of Brent crude oil back above $70/bbl. It remains to be seen if recently elevated prices are sustained and if so what are the implications for the market demand and supply dynamics.
In the meantime, our overall view of global demand and supply growth in 2018 is unchanged from last month. For demand, early in 2018 stronger growth in the US was partially offset by weaker growth in China. India has seen a strong start to the year. Globally, we expect oil demand to grow by 1.5 mb/d in 2018. However, there is an element of risk to this outlook from the current tension on trade tariffs between China and the US, and we look at this issue in the demand section of this Report.
For supply, our outlook for non-OPEC growth remains unchanged at 1.8 mb/d. Data for US production show that in January output fell by a modest 24 kb/d, much in line with our forecast with adverse weather playing a part. We retain our view that US crude production in 2018 will increase by 1.3 mb/d versus last year. However, there is concern about bottlenecks in takeaway capacity that have seen recent discounts for WTI Midland versus Houston widen to a record at nearly $9/bbl. This issue applies in Canada as well as in the US.
There is little doubt that China has moved in a HUGE way to electric buses. And to be fair, it will hopefully make a difference down the road. BUT, the fact is, that China's Coal consumption and CO2 emissions went up last year. Why? Because China replaced burning diesel with burning coal. Keep in mind that China's AE was in use. Where did China get lots of new electricity? From coal.
However, China's reason for moving to electric has been to quit importing oil. These buses have made a difference. Way to go for CHina.
Now, with that said, the west needs to move to Electric buses. The reason is that other than Australia and Eastern Europe, the west has less than 40% on coal. For places like Sweden, Canada, UK, etc, it will make a noticeable difference in their CO2.
It will be interesting to see what happens when Tesla and other truck makers introduce semi-tractors. Over the next couple of years, transportation all around the globe, except for china, is going to see CO2 drop.
Gads, you continue to push lie after lie after lie.
There is absolutely NO coal plant on this planet that is able to burn coal EFFICIENTLY. It can be MORE EFFICIENT the previous coal plants, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to burn coal CLEANLY. The best coal plant is dirtier than the WORST nat gas plant. So, yes, adding more fucking coal plants makes things worse not better. That esp true when these plants are burning more coal than the old ones did, which IS the case.
You need to get out of your communist poly sci background and pick up a degree in REAL SCIENCE.
Renewables didn't quite break 50% utility scale capacity, and remember capacity doesn't equal production especially for wind and solar.
And 80% are wind/solar, seems strange since CO2 from electricity generation is expected to rise [electrek.co] in the US in 2018. (Transport is also going up by the way) Maybe you need to show your work instead of just pulling numbers from your ass again [slashdot.org].
Many times cleaner than China's best? Care to show some evidence? Maybe try less obvious lies
What a moron and a liar combined.
You post GUESSES from EIA who has a LONG history of not getting a SINGLE PREDICTION CORRECT. If they were CORRECT, then right now, America's electricity would be near 100% coal as would CHina.
Now, as to emissions, since you obviously do not have a chemistry or any science background, and I am not going to take forever to explain to you why this is, let me show you where OTHER scientists tell you the situation.
Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant
A new nat gas plant will emit less than 50% of new coal plants. The simply fact is, that methane, CH4, is cleaner than coal, which is variations of (CH[12])x(CH[123])2, combined with missing H2 (i.e. CH2-Ch2-CH2 in oil will cross-link in coal and become CH2-CH1-(CH2) and the middle CH1 will then double bond with another chain from elsewhere ) This means that the amount of hydrogen in coal is but a fraction of the H in nat gas which is almost pure methane.
IOW, it is physically impossible for coal to even come close to the cleanness of methane.
With that said, nat gas is even being looked at for being able to separate the CO2 DIRECTLY and use the PURE CO2 for plants, chemical processing (such as Concrete, Steel or sugar manufacturing), or simply burying it in the ground (personally, I oppose this one; far too easy for mass escape).
And again, only an idiot would use EIA for ESTIMATES which is what you did on the future transportation. America is moving in a big way todays hybrids and shortly EVs. At this time, China moving towards EVs will actually pollute the air WORSE, not make it better. Why? Because even the new coal plants do not have enough pollution controls so they are putting out large particles.
Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.
You must be sick of people constantly pointing out to you that China is replacing inefficient coal with more efficient coal and using less coal to produce more electricity than before. Though still not enough times to get inside your bubble of ignorance yet.
I watch, listen and read a great deal.
Sadly, far too many of you far left ACs that make wild claims about CHina and believe their lies are just as dangerous as those on the far right.
Drinky,
I think that it is fair to say that we BOTH differ on this. The fact is, that you have experience with 1 geo-thermal set-up which had environmental isues, yet, ignore the fact that most others, esp in Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Costa Rica, etc do not have these issues. The reason is that they clean up.
BUT, let me point this out in a different fashion. These waters coming up, are 'polluted'. What do they contain? Arsenic. Lead. Mercury, etc. BUT, they also contain Thorium, Uranium, Iron, Gold, Silver, Li, Cobalt. etc. Many of these elements are one that we do not need NOW. Others are hard to separate, but are used today.
There is a simple solution to this. Pull up these minerals and separate economically what you can, and then store the rest. We have large number of retired mines in our nation that can be lined and then these minerals stored in them. Seriously. By putting these CONCENTRATED elements back in the ground and then doing R&D on how to get them out economically, we can later on use these. Ideally, we would be able to pull out Li and return the other elements totally separated so that when needed, we can use them cheaply.
We need to start being smart about this.
America has not built a new coal plant in over 5 years, and it is doubtful that we will do ANY new ones. Now, our new nat gas plants, are so many times cleaner than the best that China has to offer. However, more than 80% of our new plants are wind/solar, not nat gas.
Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.
Hopefully, once you folks have your nuke reactors going, you will build those instead.
ROFL.
What jobs will Americans NOT do? We do them all, just not at below minimum wage.
And the illegals are actually bankrupting companies. The reason is that most are paid less than minimum, but more than their own nations pay (hence why they are here). It is the same issue for Europe and even China now.
BUT, the fact is, that illegals have taken many high paying jobs. For example, construction used to pay good money. Back in early 80s, I was paid $8-12 / hr for doing labor and $13-20/hr for carpenter work. Now, illegals are making the same amount of money, but not paying taxes.
BUT, if they go home, then our military vets can get paid decently, and we can automate a lot. Same as what is seen in other nations all over the world.
shhhh.
If you live there, you really do not want to tell ppl like brett. He is the kind of person that Europe will NOT want.
Oddly, I have heard so many of our fascists proclaim that they were going to move to sweden/etc if America should collapse due to our increasing debt that the far righties continue to run UP. When I point out that china, and Somalia would be far more to their liking, they get all upset.
Each area has different living wages. Wages to live in SF are quite a bit higher than living in say Oklahoma or Texas, where nobody with intelligence wants to live. I would guess $15 / hr in SF is likely close, while $8-10 / hr is good for some of the farming communities on Colorado's eastern plains.
But getting a guaranteed hourly pay, does not mean that you are guaranteed hours. Where would you come up with such a thing? That is up to the employer. The minimum wage is needed to make sure that we tax payers are not supporting those businesses. It is getting old having them on the public dole.
Bill, minor mistake; 1 gigajoule = 277 kwh.
Otherwise, yeah, you are spot on. These new 8-10 MW wind generators are taller and in much better wind. Those are working at typically 50-60% of the time.
good posting. Most ppl miss the fact that the lowest emissions are coming from nations large amounts of base-load power and not with intermittent like wind and solar. Nukes, Geo-thermal, and Hydro are the main sources of REAL clean.
In fact, if America wants to really clean up, we simply need to tap yellowstone. That alone can provide 25-33% of America's electricity and that is without harming the park. Add nukes, more geo-thermal in America and we would be cleaner than all but Sweden/Iceland/Costa Rica/Indonesia.
almost spot-on. We actually were at 60% coal at one time. Yeah, we are below 30% now, and dropping. However, I will have to say that Trump did NOT worry me because it would take massive amounts of subsidies beyond the subsidies that we have to keep coal growing again. I just KNEW that was not possible. Yet, it appears that they have found something that MIGHT make a difference. This is one item I will be watching carefully. This is about the only place that the idiot could actually set America back on our CO2.
BTW, pay attention to Navajo power plant. That is one of our largest and by far, the dirtiest (it is on the reservation and therefore they pollute like they are in China). Assuming that Trump does not win this item, then Navajo will close down in 2 years. BUT, trump can get massive subsidies than the tribe will continue to run it.
This plant is well known in the Air pollution community. The Rockies are monitored for pollution and about 50% of Colorado's Rockies pollution (particles, mercury, etc) come from the navajo plant. Interestingly, since the late 80s-early 90s, the group has detected that about 5% of the pollution there was coming from China and increasing every year. But, it still does not compare to Navajo. If we shut it down, that will radically change the pollution in my state.
GOP are bigger on it, but if anybody thinks that is the only way, they are kidding themselves.
Dems support of Hollywood and Silicon Valley comes quickly to mind.
Clinton publicly promised to kill off H1B, and the privately promised to increase it from 50K yearly to 500K yearly.
Not much difference between her and Trump/top GOP.
And yet, we continue to see more and more of this BECAUSE we do not have a decent minimum wage.
OTOH, if we had a decent minimum wage AND would solve the illegal issue, then we would likely see all of this public spending go away. Sadly, you fascists want to keep supporting companies in this fashion.
However, I suspect that he will use it for coal as well, which is stupid and foolish.
First, we already subsidize coal WAY TOO MUCH.
Secondly, we are on the right path in that our coal plants have been being shut down. We need to continue this.
Artificially changing the economics for coal is just plain stupid.
With nukes, it makes sense, since they are clean and more importantly, if we push SMR tech, it is 100% safe.
Likewise, we can burn up most of our nuke waste while converting to energy and ideally, desalinating water for free.
Apparently, there have been studies and the numbers are known.
Having snap for part-time or seasonal might make sense, but if somebody is working 2 part-time jobs or is working full-yime, they should be able to live on the wage for at least 1.5 ppl. Obviously, if you are minimum wage and have 6 kids, you have other issues to deal with.
BUT, it is time to raise minimum wage to the point that it supports 1.5 person for that area. For some, that is simply $8 / hr. For others, it is $12-$15/hr.
Better to pay them that, and then cut taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
No, businesses and gov are the ones that make the REAL choices.
Where does a society get their electricity from? Did YOU decide it? Nope. Businesses/gov did.
What kind of car do you drive? ICE or EV? Prior to Tesla there really was no choice EXCEPT for ICE. Tesla, A BUSINESS, has been selling great BEVs, and this is forcing other car makers to compete and offer EVs. In General, regular car makers EVs still sux, but finally, some have seen that they are losing market share to tesla.
Then there is China and Europe, BOTH OF WHOM, their govs are PUSHING EVs.
Businesses and Gov are the real deciders.
I know that my family pollutes less than the average swede does (who is one of the lowest). Im far less than nearly all Chinese (who are at 8-9 and growing fast ).
BUT, this was due to investments that we made in solar, that gov (fed/colorado) and business (xcel) subsidies made possible. Likewise, the used tesla that we bought was made possible by gov subsidies (fed/colorado) for the original owner (not us). There is little doubt that without those subsidies, we would NOT have done the solar. And had the Tesla been another 10-15K, we would not have bought it. We would have an ICE.
Again, because of gov/businesses helping on this.
No,you can NOT power America 100% from yellowstone. That has been shown through multiple studies.
BOTH MIT and NASA say that if develop ALL of the geo-thermal available by 2050, we could power about 1/3 to 1/2 of America. And that would be the destruction of yellowstone as well.
Here is a forbes article that you likely read, but read wrong. The problem with this is that it speaks of powering the earth twice over, but for only a short time.
And here
And here is MIT
One item missing out of BOTH NASA and MIT report, is that with magma that close, combined with heated water, it will be carrying LOTS of minerals. That is lots of minerals that can be mined. In fact, by adding various additives to the injected water, it should be possible to grab different types of minerals and then later pull them out.
Like nuclear SMRs, this is such a missed opportunity for America.
LOL.
America is switching to EVs at a rather quick pace. Right now, we have been behind Europe, but that is changing quickly due to Model 3. Then add to that, the coming electric semi-tractors which will make a HUGE impact on America's emissions.
Finally, CHina is NOT only the most aggressive investor in renewable energy, but also the most aggressive investor in coal plants. In fact, they are building over 700 over the next couple of years.
This lead to China having a 5% CO2 emission rise for 2017. China's coal consumption is jumping to deal with the extra electricity demands by these buses and China trying to force GDP increases.
Sadly, this article points out the real facts and skips the BS from so many.
In short, for all of Europe’s posturing and moralizing about the Paris climate accord, Europe continues to do relatively little to address carbon dioxide emissions, other than to neither increase nor decrease its own emissions. That leaves it up to the United States and China to sufficiently reduce emissions to compensate for growing emissions in developing nations. And China, despite modest reductions from 2015 through 2017, has increased emissions this decade – and this century – more than any other nation in the world. Even the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) acknowledges that America’s emissions comprise only a small portion of global emissions. According to UCS, the United States accounted for only 15% of global emissions in 2015, and that percentage continues to fall. Declining U.S. emissions simply cannot keep pace with rising global emissions unless there are substantial reductions in the pace of global emissions growth. Chastising America for declining to join an agreement of nations, by nations, and for nations that continue to do little if anything to reduce emissions may satisfy anti-Trump anger, but is ineffectual and meaningless in the effort to reduce global emissions.
Political uncertainty in the Middle East has returned to the fore in recent days. As we write, uncertainty about the next steps in Syria and Yemen have helped propel the price of Brent crude oil back above $70/bbl. It remains to be seen if recently elevated prices are sustained and if so what are the implications for the market demand and supply dynamics. In the meantime, our overall view of global demand and supply growth in 2018 is unchanged from last month. For demand, early in 2018 stronger growth in the US was partially offset by weaker growth in China. India has seen a strong start to the year. Globally, we expect oil demand to grow by 1.5 mb/d in 2018. However, there is an element of risk to this outlook from the current tension on trade tariffs between China and the US, and we look at this issue in the demand section of this Report. For supply, our outlook for non-OPEC growth remains unchanged at 1.8 mb/d. Data for US production show that in January output fell by a modest 24 kb/d, much in line with our forecast with adverse weather playing a part. We retain our view that US crude production in 2018 will increase by 1.3 mb/d versus last year. However, there is concern about bottlenecks in takeaway capacity that have seen recent discounts for WTI Midland versus Houston widen to a record at nearly $9/bbl. This issue applies in Canada as well as in the US.
There is little doubt that China has moved in a HUGE way to electric buses. And to be fair, it will hopefully make a difference down the road. BUT, the fact is, that China's Coal consumption and CO2 emissions went up last year. Why? Because China replaced burning diesel with burning coal. Keep in mind that China's AE was in use. Where did China get lots of new electricity? From coal.
However, China's reason for moving to electric has been to quit importing oil. These buses have made a difference. Way to go for CHina.
Now, with that said, the west needs to move to Electric buses. The reason is that other than Australia and Eastern Europe, the west has less than 40% on coal. For places like Sweden, Canada, UK, etc, it will make a noticeable difference in their CO2.
It will be interesting to see what happens when Tesla and other truck makers introduce semi-tractors. Over the next couple of years, transportation all around the globe, except for china, is going to see CO2 drop.
There is absolutely NO coal plant on this planet that is able to burn coal EFFICIENTLY. It can be MORE EFFICIENT the previous coal plants, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to burn coal CLEANLY. The best coal plant is dirtier than the WORST nat gas plant. So, yes, adding more fucking coal plants makes things worse not better. That esp true when these plants are burning more coal than the old ones did, which IS the case.
You need to get out of your communist poly sci background and pick up a degree in REAL SCIENCE.
Renewables didn't quite break 50% utility scale capacity, and remember capacity doesn't equal production especially for wind and solar. And 80% are wind/solar, seems strange since CO2 from electricity generation is expected to rise [electrek.co] in the US in 2018. (Transport is also going up by the way) Maybe you need to show your work instead of just pulling numbers from your ass again [slashdot.org]. Many times cleaner than China's best? Care to show some evidence? Maybe try less obvious lies
What a moron and a liar combined.
You post GUESSES from EIA who has a LONG history of not getting a SINGLE PREDICTION CORRECT. If they were CORRECT, then right now, America's electricity would be near 100% coal as would CHina.
Now, as to emissions, since you obviously do not have a chemistry or any science background, and I am not going to take forever to explain to you why this is, let me show you where OTHER scientists tell you the situation.
Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant A new nat gas plant will emit less than 50% of new coal plants. The simply fact is, that methane, CH4, is cleaner than coal, which is variations of (CH[12])x(CH[123])2, combined with missing H2 (i.e. CH2-Ch2-CH2 in oil will cross-link in coal and become CH2-CH1-(CH2) and the middle CH1 will then double bond with another chain from elsewhere ) This means that the amount of hydrogen in coal is but a fraction of the H in nat gas which is almost pure methane.
IOW, it is physically impossible for coal to even come close to the cleanness of methane.
With that said, nat gas is even being looked at for being able to separate the CO2 DIRECTLY and use the PURE CO2 for plants, chemical processing (such as Concrete, Steel or sugar manufacturing), or simply burying it in the ground (personally, I oppose this one; far too easy for mass escape).
And again, only an idiot would use EIA for ESTIMATES which is what you did on the future transportation. America is moving in a big way todays hybrids and shortly EVs. At this time, China moving towards EVs will actually pollute the air WORSE, not make it better. Why? Because even the new coal plants do not have enough pollution controls so they are putting out large particles.
Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.
You must be sick of people constantly pointing out to you that China is replacing inefficient coal with more efficient coal and using less coal to produce more electricity than before. Though still not enough times to get inside your bubble of ignorance yet.
Again, you continue your lies and to ignore facts. ...
But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China
When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change.
Red Tide,
You obviously did not read the article. Please take up an english class and learn to READ prior to commenting.
I watch, listen and read a great deal.
Sadly, far too many of you far left ACs that make wild claims about CHina and believe their lies are just as dangerous as those on the far right.
I am guessing that trump admin will stop it if there is any proof at all, that Kaspersky has helped Putin.
Drinky,
I think that it is fair to say that we BOTH differ on this. The fact is, that you have experience with 1 geo-thermal set-up which had environmental isues, yet, ignore the fact that most others, esp in Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Costa Rica, etc do not have these issues. The reason is that they clean up.
BUT, let me point this out in a different fashion. These waters coming up, are 'polluted'. What do they contain? Arsenic. Lead. Mercury, etc. BUT, they also contain Thorium, Uranium, Iron, Gold, Silver, Li, Cobalt. etc. Many of these elements are one that we do not need NOW. Others are hard to separate, but are used today.
There is a simple solution to this. Pull up these minerals and separate economically what you can, and then store the rest. We have large number of retired mines in our nation that can be lined and then these minerals stored in them. Seriously. By putting these CONCENTRATED elements back in the ground and then doing R&D on how to get them out economically, we can later on use these. Ideally, we would be able to pull out Li and return the other elements totally separated so that when needed, we can use them cheaply.
We need to start being smart about this.
America has not built a new coal plant in over 5 years, and it is doubtful that we will do ANY new ones. Now, our new nat gas plants, are so many times cleaner than the best that China has to offer. However, more than 80% of our new plants are wind/solar, not nat gas.
Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.
Hopefully, once you folks have your nuke reactors going, you will build those instead.
EiA, who has never had a correct prediction, agrees with you. BTW, they have ALWAYS predicted that Fossil fuels will continue to grow except recently.
However, experts in the coal field of montana
Other Americans continue to point to coal rapid closing.
Here is the massive navajo plant that will most certainly close down. Note that this is America's single dirtiest plant going.
Nice article about the continuing closings of coal plants (assuming that Trump is not allowed to subsidize coal anymore than we currently do)
Finally, here is a partial list of coming US coal plants closures.
ROFL.
What jobs will Americans NOT do? We do them all, just not at below minimum wage.
And the illegals are actually bankrupting companies. The reason is that most are paid less than minimum, but more than their own nations pay (hence why they are here). It is the same issue for Europe and even China now.
BUT, the fact is, that illegals have taken many high paying jobs. For example, construction used to pay good money. Back in early 80s, I was paid $8-12 / hr for doing labor and $13-20/hr for carpenter work. Now, illegals are making the same amount of money, but not paying taxes.
BUT, if they go home, then our military vets can get paid decently, and we can automate a lot. Same as what is seen in other nations all over the world.
shhhh.
If you live there, you really do not want to tell ppl like brett. He is the kind of person that Europe will NOT want.
Oddly, I have heard so many of our fascists proclaim that they were going to move to sweden/etc if America should collapse due to our increasing debt that the far righties continue to run UP. When I point out that china, and Somalia would be far more to their liking, they get all upset.
Each area has different living wages. Wages to live in SF are quite a bit higher than living in say Oklahoma or Texas, where nobody with intelligence wants to live. I would guess $15 / hr in SF is likely close, while $8-10 / hr is good for some of the farming communities on Colorado's eastern plains.
But getting a guaranteed hourly pay, does not mean that you are guaranteed hours. Where would you come up with such a thing? That is up to the employer. The minimum wage is needed to make sure that we tax payers are not supporting those businesses. It is getting old having them on the public dole.
and likely no KY for him.
Bill, minor mistake; 1 gigajoule = 277 kwh.
Otherwise, yeah, you are spot on. These new 8-10 MW wind generators are taller and in much better wind. Those are working at typically 50-60% of the time.
good posting. Most ppl miss the fact that the lowest emissions are coming from nations large amounts of base-load power and not with intermittent like wind and solar. Nukes, Geo-thermal, and Hydro are the main sources of REAL clean.
In fact, if America wants to really clean up, we simply need to tap yellowstone. That alone can provide 25-33% of America's electricity and that is without harming the park. Add nukes, more geo-thermal in America and we would be cleaner than all but Sweden/Iceland/Costa Rica/Indonesia.
almost spot-on. We actually were at 60% coal at one time. Yeah, we are below 30% now, and dropping. However, I will have to say that Trump did NOT worry me because it would take massive amounts of subsidies beyond the subsidies that we have to keep coal growing again. I just KNEW that was not possible. Yet, it appears that they have found something that MIGHT make a difference. This is one item I will be watching carefully. This is about the only place that the idiot could actually set America back on our CO2.
BTW, pay attention to Navajo power plant. That is one of our largest and by far, the dirtiest (it is on the reservation and therefore they pollute like they are in China). Assuming that Trump does not win this item, then Navajo will close down in 2 years. BUT, trump can get massive subsidies than the tribe will continue to run it.
This plant is well known in the Air pollution community. The Rockies are monitored for pollution and about 50% of Colorado's Rockies pollution (particles, mercury, etc) come from the navajo plant. Interestingly, since the late 80s-early 90s, the group has detected that about 5% of the pollution there was coming from China and increasing every year. But, it still does not compare to Navajo. If we shut it down, that will radically change the pollution in my state.
Don't forget to add geo-thermal in that mix, but you have to 100% otherwise.
GOP are bigger on it, but if anybody thinks that is the only way, they are kidding themselves.
Dems support of Hollywood and Silicon Valley comes quickly to mind.
Clinton publicly promised to kill off H1B, and the privately promised to increase it from 50K yearly to 500K yearly.
Not much difference between her and Trump/top GOP.
And yet, we continue to see more and more of this BECAUSE we do not have a decent minimum wage.
OTOH, if we had a decent minimum wage AND would solve the illegal issue, then we would likely see all of this public spending go away. Sadly, you fascists want to keep supporting companies in this fashion.
However, I suspect that he will use it for coal as well, which is stupid and foolish.
First, we already subsidize coal WAY TOO MUCH.
Secondly, we are on the right path in that our coal plants have been being shut down. We need to continue this.
Artificially changing the economics for coal is just plain stupid.
With nukes, it makes sense, since they are clean and more importantly, if we push SMR tech, it is 100% safe.
Likewise, we can burn up most of our nuke waste while converting to energy and ideally, desalinating water for free.
Apparently, there have been studies and the numbers are known.
Having snap for part-time or seasonal might make sense, but if somebody is working 2 part-time jobs or is working full-yime, they should be able to live on the wage for at least 1.5 ppl. Obviously, if you are minimum wage and have 6 kids, you have other issues to deal with.
BUT, it is time to raise minimum wage to the point that it supports 1.5 person for that area. For some, that is simply $8 / hr. For others, it is $12-$15/hr.
Better to pay them that, and then cut taxes.
while trump is fascists, he is NOT supporting Amazon or Bezo.