About Social Media Today
Comments by A Siegel Subscribe 
On “We can’t wait” … The President Stands Up to Fossil Interests
Hmmm ...
1. These are rules that have been on delay for 20 years. How much longer should those rule delays continue?
2. As you note, these are old facilities -- grandfathered in under CAA -- should pollution controls and resulting health benefits ever be part of the program?
3. The capacity discussions are far more robust and complex than you suggest -- and not severely . Why not look to, for example, EEI:
- There will be far fewer shutdowns than industry shills are predicting -- around 321 plants, or 48,000 megwatts' worth (roughly 14 percent of current coal capacity, or 5 percent of total generation capacity).
- The shutdowns will take place over a much longer period of time than public industry reporting is predicting -- over a decade rather than in the next two or three years.
- Most of the closures are happening for other reasons, unrelated to EPA rules -- the plants are old, they're uneconomic to run, they're getting beat by cheap gas.
See the discussion here: http://www.grist.org/coal/2011-12-01-evidence-shutting-down-coal-plants-will-not-threaten-reliability
4. RE Keystone XL: "The unions" are actually split over Keystone and, well, the only independent analysis to date has shown that this has a good shot of being a net negative on the jobs front. Re the consumers, the refined oil product will likely be exported and developing the pipeline will lead to increased gas costs in the Midwest (and, even more so, reduced refinery profits in the Midwest).
On Durban: Putting the Dust into the Dustbin of History?
Yes,
July 2012 will, on average, be hotter than December 2012 in North America. No, nothing factual there since this is soley a "projection of potential future occurrences" based on billions of years of geologic record, thousands of years of human experience, hundreds of years of science, and decades of personal experience
A rock dropped from an airplane will fall toward the earth. Nothing factual there since this is based solely on millenia of human experience, hundreds of years of science, personal experience, and not factual because 'gravity' is solely a Scientific Theory.
We are already seeing increased 'extreme weather events', with global rainfall coming increasing in severe rainfall events, exactly as Global Warming Theory and climate change modeling predicted. That that same body of work projects increasingly severe weather events is to be ignored since "no projection of potential future occurrences is "factual"."
On Durban: Putting the Dust into the Dustbin of History?
1. You are, of course, reacting to a guest post on my site that was put here in my name.
2. Quoting Pielke, Jr. Sigh ... How about, as simple as possible, the recent IPCC report on extreme weather and climate change. http://ipcc-wg2.gov/srex/ (for basic story, see http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111123/primer-united-nations-ipcc-extreme-weather-greenhouse-gases-co2-climate-change-global-warming-skeptics) which, in a very conservative manner, concludes that the effects of climate change will intensify extreme heat, heavy precipitation, and maximum wind speeds of tropical storms. Of course, that is not "factual", I gather.
3.
On “We can’t wait …” President Obama’s $4 Billion Energy Efficiency Announcement
Ed,
Yes. The Federal Government is living off borrowing.
We agree, don't we, that energy efficiency investments have high ROI? Ones done through EPSCs often have ROIs, if we count the profits to the contractor along with government savings, in the 10s of %.
The taxpayer is currently borrowing money at 2% for a 10 year bond and 3.125% for a 30-year bond. If we (the taxpayers via the Federal Govenrment) can program on a 7 year straight payback period, that 10% per year ROI would represent mean that (a) the taxpayer would see a greater savings and (b) the Federal goverment could be far more aggressive in energy efficiency (with some clean energy, especially CHP) investments which (c) would spark more jobs / employment / economic activity with (d) more federal tax revenue.
On What's The True Cost Of A Gallon Of Gas?
Agreed. From the original article:
And, how many $1s, 10s, or $100s of billions each year of U.S. military costs results from America’s oil addiction and the need to maintain ’stability’ in oil producing regions?
On Changing the Military's Energy Culture
Your question focused on "costs" that seemingly don't have a payoff.
Clearly, the solar panels in deployed areas that enable recharging batteries in a patrol or which offset oil that needs to be shipped via Pakistan deep into Afghanistan have a very different payoff than solar panels on military bases in the domestic United States. Investing in the first actually doesn't come 'at the expense' of other things but enables them due to reduced costs (such as significantly reduced logistics chains). The second, however, creates another serious value chain: resiliency of the power system at the bases. (Buying wind off the grid doesn't have the same claim ...) The 2008 DSB Study on energy focused on two arenas: liquid fuel reliance/vulnerabilities and the risk to the military due to vulnerabilities in the civilian energy system (notably electricity). Those solar panels on bases supporting 'net zero' bases fosters resiliency in the face of natural or man-made disruption of the electrical grid. That has a value stream.
As for renewable aviation fuels, isn't the question about how much investment can the military afford in R&D to enable more capable and sustainable forces in the future? DOD invests in developing better radars. DOD invest in materials research. Etc ... Why shouldn't the military invest in fuels that -- while extremely expensive today -- have a viable prospect of being cost competitive and could help reduce other challenges. And, by the way, that the DOD investment today has the prospect of hastening the time when these fuels are cost competitive and available in quantity for military application.
Your question is, imo, part of a much broader question: how much investment in tomorrow can the DOD maintain in the face of budget constraints?
Even on the second, however, the Defense Science Board identified (during the Bush Administration
If the Department of Defense invests in solar power and renewable aviation fuels, to what extent does that come at the expense of troop deployment or vehicle and aircraft replacement, particularly with significant budget cuts in prospect?
This of course differs by arena.
On Why Do Democrats Want Inexpensive Oil?
Amelia
Barack Obama, in the 2008 primaries, set himself aside from Hillary Clinton by not pandering to the gas tax holiday. Talking about inflating tires, for example, as a better response to gas prices (efficiency) was better leadership than arguing for a gas tax holiday and fostering an idea of lower priced oil.
[Sorry if comment duplicated ... don't know if it made it through ...] I have long advocated for a gradual (1 cent / month / indefinite) increase in the price of fuel. This would significantly change the nation's planning and investment (from the household, to businesses, to government) from where to build buildings, to what type of vehicles to build, the value of electrified rail, etc ... While it would only represent $1.20 over a decade, this would take us (imo) a long way toward shifting society toward a saner energy system.
Now, personally, I would support a larger and faster implementation -- 2.5 or 5 cents / month for a few years and then dropping to perhaps 1.5 cents month for five years, then 2 cents / month for five years, then 2.5 cents .... The 1 cent/month would, however, achieve a good share of the necessary mind shift while providing a resource base for investing in clean energy options (and contributing some resources to debt reduction).
On Why Do Democrats Want Inexpensive Oil?
Sometimes, perhaps, it is the audiences and environments in which we discuss and encounter.
Yes, there are people (too many) who don't understand the difference between electricity and oil in the American (and global economy) and will gleefully talk of solar as replacing oil (in the US) without discussing how this only occurs if there is serious transportation shifting from liquid fuel to electricity (whether PHEVs, EVs, electrified rail, ...). And, well, those people tend (perhaps strongly) to be primarily from the Democratic Party.
And, there are people who believe that the answer to all our challenges is simply drilling more wells and who discount (ignore) the entire concept of externalities in terms of energy system costs. And, well, those people tend to be Republicans.
And ... there are fallacies that can be put into ideological structures.
If I am writing on liberal web sites, then disabusing tends to be "D" -- on the other hand, in the daily life, the "misconception" correcting is almost entirely dealing with "R" and misconceptions about how 'green jobs don't exist', renewable energy is impossible, drilling is all we need to do, etc ... Direct misinformation (such as Bryce) and purposeful misdirection does not, imo and my experience, tend to come from the D side of the political dialogue. Check who brings who to Congressional hearings, for example, the questions they ask, and how they interact with witnesses. This is quite revealing.
On Why Do Democrats Want Inexpensive Oil?
Rather than punishing, how about accurately pricing? Gasoline taxes don't even pay, for example, for the cost of roads let alone the health impacts and security costs without even getting into environmental impacts (including, but not limited to, global warming).
On Merkley Introduces Meaningful Energy Legislation
Nathan
The post you complain about dissects and shows the inadequacies and misdirections of the Center for American Progress report. Anyone going to that CAP study would be well advised to read and consider this alongside it: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2010/04/27/cap-natural-gas/
On Why Do Democrats Want Inexpensive Oil?
Enegy Illiteracy pervades U.S. society.
It is not, however, something to be pegged solely or primarily on the Democratic Party.
Do you, truly, believe that "Drill, Baby, Drill" is the sum totality of the answer to America's energy challenges? This is an accurate summation of the core energy beliefs of a good share of that other major political party.
Which political party discusses and pushes for paths to reduce America's dependence on petroleum fuels? Viable paths, by the way, like energy efficiency to cut home heating oil demand, electrification of ground transport (rail and vehicles), etc ... And, which seeks to defund efforts to improve the nation's resiliency via diversification of our energy system?
Now, the schizophrenia of calling for actions to address climate change and deal with America's oil addiction while also advocating for measures to reduce oil prices -- without using those moments for a teaching moment about 'Peak Oil', the demand/supply curves for energy, and options to address our energy challenges -- is sad, at best.
While the law doesn't enable it, if the SPR release had been coupled with using the funds to (a) reduce the deficit and (b) fund measures to reduce oil demands then the disconnects would have been covered.
On “We can’t wait” … The President Stands Up to Fossil Interests
Re Keystone jobs.
1. For amusement, start with the Post's "Fact Checker' item: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-jobs-claims-a-bipartisan-fumble/2011/12/13/gIQAwxFisO_blog.html
2. Cornell study with analysis that pipeline might lead to net negative job creation (e.g., job losses): http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/Keystonexl.html
3. Re standards ... how about, for example, the proposals from EPA going back 8 years: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/boiler/boilerpg.html The Boiler MACT wasn't some sudden surprise that emerged on 16 March 2011.