[Hoot Gibson]

Don't say that those of us who voted against Obama in 2008 did not warn you that this might happen. A new study estimates that this country will lose 10 percent of its electrical power production as a result of Obama EPA regulation changes. This number includes 7 power plants in Kentucky along, including the Big Sandy plant in Louisa.

Let me emphasize that the list of likely closures is only an estimate but this is the kind of impact that an Obama second term could have in the four years during which he would not be constrained by the pressure of another campaign.

I will also note up front that this study was prepared by a pro-energy group. I would not expect such a report advocating an intelligent energy policy to originate from the Obama administration, Media Matters, or other anti-capitalist organizations.

[INDENT]

Institute for Energy Research Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations

The United States has the world’s largest coal resources. In fact we have 50 percent more coal than Russia, the country with the next largest reserves. But coal use in the United States is under assault.

Before becoming President, Barack Obama promised to bankrupt coal companies. As President, he has tried various strategies to force Americans to use less coal. After failing to pass a national energy tax (cap-and-trade), the President vowed to continue his attack on coal stating, there is “more than one way to skin a cat.”

Currently, EPA is leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations. Two of the most important are the “transport rule” and the “toxics rule” (Utility MACT). Combined, these regulations will systematically reduce access to affordable and reliable energy. According to our report:

• EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW of Generating Capacity
  
  EPA modeling and power-plant operator announcements show that EPA regulations will close at least 28 gigawatts (GW) of American generating capacity, the equivalent of closing every power plant in the state of North Carolina or Indiana. Also, 28 GW is 8.9 percent of our total coal generating capacity.
  

• Current Retirements Almost Twice As High As EPA Predicted
  
  EPA’s power plant-level modeling projected that Agency regulations would close 14.5 GW of generating capacity. That number rises to 28 GW when including additional announced retirements related to EPA rules, almost twice the amount EPA projected. Moreover, this number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.
  

[Image: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.or...00x219.png]

[/INDENT]

[TheRealVille]

Don't say that those of us who voted against Obama in 2008 did not warn you that this might happen. A new study estimates that this country will lose 10 percent of its electrical power production as a result of Obama EPA regulation changes. This number includes 7 power plants in Kentucky along, including the Big Sandy plant in Louisa.

Let me emphasize that the list of likely closures is only an estimate but this is the kind of impact that an Obama second term could have in the four years during which he would not be constrained by the pressure of another campaign.

I will also note up front that this study was prepared by a pro-energy group. I would not expect such a report advocating an intelligent energy policy to originate from the Obama administration, Media Matters, or other anti-capitalist organizations.

[INDENT][/INDENT]

More misguided, wrong information, at least on the Big Sandy plant. They were going to shut down the big unit and turn unit 1 into a gas fired unit, but after more consideration, they will keep the big unit going, and turning the smaller unit into a gas fired unit. The coal scrubbers on the big unit(Unit 2) start next fall. I am in direct lines of talk with someone that is at the top of the chain at BSP, and know that my words are fact. to be honest, I went to school with one of the top guys on the chain. Research before you post false info Hoot. Phillip Sporn which is out of my locals jurisdiction will close, but what the report doesn't tell is that Mountaineer(1/4 mile down the road, with all updated equipment) is taking over for the dinosaur Sporn(built in the 40's) plant.

[TheRealVille]

Most of the plants that are closing are dinosaurs that were built in the early to late 40's and have ran their course as far as feasibility to run on a clean and economical to keep going basis. If you try to talk powerhouses Hoot, I can nail your ass to the wall over wrong or misinformed information. Just sayin.....

[Hoot Gibson]

More misguided, wrong information, at least on the Big Sandy plant. They were going to shut down the big unit and turn unit 1 into a gas fired unit, but after more consideration, they will keep the big unit going, and turning the smaller unit into a gas fired unit. The coal scrubbers on the big unit(Unit 2) start next fall. I am in direct lines of talk with someone that is at the top of the chain at BSP, and know that my words are fact. to be honest, I went to school with one of the top guys on the chain. Research before you post false info Hoot. Phillip Sporn which is out of my locals jurisdiction will close, but what the report doesn't tell is that Mountaineer(1/4 mile down the road, with all updated equipment) is taking over for the dinosaur Sporn(built in the 40's) plant.

You really have a serious reading comprehension problem, RV. Do you understand what an estimate is? All of the idiotic changes that Obama's EPA has proposed have not taken effect. Obama promised to crack down on coal-fired power plants and the EPA is working to make good on that promise.

You have no better idea what this crazy, left-wing president would do in a second term than anybody else. Whether the Big Sandy plant closes or not, Obama is working hard to force the adoption of more expensive and unproven methods of power generation such as wind turbines.

When plants begin closing, it will be because they cannot afford fines imposed by Obama's EPA. There will be no closure notice, just an effort to make coal-fired power more expensive than the alternatives through over regulation.

If it looks like Obama will not be reelected, then Obama will be sure to leave a mountain of ridiculously strict environmental regulations behind so that Democrats can accuse Republicans of plotting to destroy the environment when they relax the standards to achievable limits. That has been the history of liberal Democrats and that will be their future. They screw up the economy every time they get a taste of power.

[TheRealVille]

Another thing that report doesn't tell you is about all the brand new coal, gas, and nuke units being built as we speak. For every one that close, there is at least one, maybe two that are being built in their place.

[Hoot Gibson]

Most of the plants that are closing are dinosaurs that were built in the early to late 40's and have ran their course as far as feasibility to run on a clean and economical to keep going basis. If you try to talk powerhouses Hoot, I can nail your ass to the wall over wrong or misinformed information. Just sayin.....

Yes, you have been so right about what miracles the clown in the White House would perform. I am quite sure that you are handy with a hammer, so I will not challenge you to a nail driving contest. Nobody who voted for Obama and continues to excuse his every mistake is in any position to correct anybody's facts.

[TheRealVille]

You really have a serious reading comprehension problem, RV. Do you understand what an estimate is? All of the idiotic changes that Obama's EPA has proposed have not taken effect. Obama promised to crack down on coal-fired power plants and the EPA is working to make good on that promise.

You have no better idea what this crazy, left-wing president would do in a second term than anybody else. Whether the Big Sandy plant closes or not, Obama is working hard to force the adoption of more expensive and unproven methods of power generation such as wind turbines.

When plants begin closing, it will be because they cannot afford fines imposed by Obama's EPA. There will be no closure notice, just an effort to make coal-fired power more expensive than the alternatives through over regulation.

If it looks like Obama will not be reelected, then Obama will be sure to leave a mountain of ridiculously strict environmental regulations behind so that Democrats can accuse Republicans of plotting to destroy the environment when they relax the standards to achievable limits. That has been the history of liberal Democrats and that will be their future. They screw up the economy every time they get a taste of power.

The ones that won't be able to keep up with the fines are the dinosaurs that need to be closed anyway. There are new ones to take their place though. My reading comprehension is fine as long as you tell the whole truth. You say nothing about the brand new units that are being built. My line of work is booming nationwide right now, mainly because of new powerhouse units being built of all 3 types.

[TheRealVille]

Yes, you have been so right about what miracles the clown in the White House would perform. I am quite sure that you are handy with a hammer, so I will not challenge you to a nail driving contest.Nobody who voted for Obama and continues to excuse his every mistake is in any position to correct anybody's facts.

I don't use a hammer, I use much bigger equipment than that. You would be wise not to talk with me about power plants, you would lose. Feel free to post truthful statements about energy plants anytime you care to start. I damn well know what's going on in the power industry, and you can take that to the bank. Care to converse on this subject with right information? You go first, I'll answer with facts. I can go through just the states that border KY and a few southern states and come up with somewhere around 50 new units(coal, gas, nuke) being built as we speak.

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't use a hammer, I use much bigger equipment than that. Feel free to post truthful statements about energy plants anytime you care to start.

You don't even read or understand what you post on this site, so why should I believe that you read what others post? The study that I posted is a listing of units that are estimated to close because of stricter EPA regulations. The fact that they are what you consider "dinosaurs" are being closed means nothing. They are being closed at the behest of the Obama administration through unreasonable revisions to emission limits and higher energy prices due to the new construction or fuel-switching will be passed on to consumers.

[TheRealVille]

You don't even read or understand what you post on this site, so why should I believe that you read what others post? The study that I posted is a listing of units that are estimated to close because of stricter EPA regulations. The fact that they are what you consider "dinosaurs" are being closed means nothing. They are being closed at the behest of the Obama administration through unreasonable revisions to emission limits and higher energy prices due to the new construction or fuel-switching will be passed on to consumers.

It means everything when they are getting so old that they can't keep the air clean like the newer ones. What don't you understand about new plants to take their place, that can run clean? All new plants have coal scrubbers on them that make the air coming out of the stacks extremely clean. Go to bed Hoot, you stepped in shit in this thread, you know zero.

[Hoot Gibson]

RV, feel free to point out any and all mistakes in AEP's press release that addresses the costs of the Obama EPA regulatory program. Explain to us the economic impact of forcing utilities to retire units prematurely to meet burdensome regulations instead of modernizing them as they reach the end of their productive life. Explain why pursuing this policy will not impact the customers of every affected utility shown on the map above.

Go ahead and set me straight on this topic. I know that you are a highly skilled union laborer and I am but a mere engineer and computer programmer but I will do my best to keep up.

Where does AEP have it wrong?

[INDENT]

AEP Shares Plan For Compliance With Proposed EPA Regulations
Company advocates for more time and flexibility to reduce the negative impact of the proposed EPA rules on customers, jobs and the economy

COLUMBUS, Ohio, June 9, 2011 – American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) today announced the company’s plan for complying with a series of regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would impact coal-fueled power plants. Based on the regulations as proposed, AEP’s compliance plan would retire nearly 6,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fueled power generation; upgrade or install new advanced emissions reduction equipment on another 10,100 MW; refuel 1,070 MW of coal generation as 932 MW of natural gas capacity; and build 1,220 MW of natural gas-fueled generation. The cost of AEP’s compliance plan could range from $6 billion to $8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade. High demand for labor and materials due to a constrained compliance time frame could drive actual costs higher than these estimates. The plan, including retirements, could change significantly depending on the final form of the EPA regulations and regulatory approvals from state commissions.

The retirements and retrofits in the plan are in addition to more than $7.2 billion that AEP has invested since 1990 to reduce emissions from its coal-fueled generation fleet. Annual emissions of nitrogen oxides from AEP plants are 80 percent lower today than in 1990. Sulfur dioxide emissions from AEP plants are 73 percent lower than in 1990. The company currently owns nearly 25,000 MW of coal-fueled generation, approximately 65 percent of its total generating capacity. Coal would fuel approximately 57 percent of AEP’s total generating capacity by the end of the decade.

“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies. We have worked for months to develop a compliance plan that will mitigate the impact of these rules for our customers and preserve jobs, but because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit and replace coal-fueled power plants. The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling,” said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman and chief executive officer.

Although some jobs would be created from the installation of emissions reduction equipment, AEP expects a net loss of approximately 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million as a result of compliance with the proposed EPA rules.

[/INDENT]

[TheRealVille]

RV, feel free to point out any and all mistakes in AEP's press release that addresses the costs of the Obama EPA regulatory program. Explain to us the economic impact of forcing utilities to retire units prematurely to meet burdensome regulations instead of modernizing them as they reach the end of their productive life. Explain why pursuing this policy will not impact the customers of every affected utility shown on the map above.

Go ahead and set me straight on this topic. I know that you are a highly skilled union laborer and I am but a mere engineer and computer programmer but I will do my best to keep up.

Where does AEP have it wrong?

[INDENT][/INDENT]

Big Sandy Plant, Louisa, Ky. – Units 1 and 2 (1,078 MW) retired by Dec. 31, 2014;
Big Sandy Unit 1 would be rebuilt as a 640-MW natural gas plant by Dec. 31, 2015;

What you don't know is that AEP changed the plans, from closing both units(as attested to in your June article, to turning one to gas(Unit 1) and put scrubbers on the other(Unit 2). All these changes with Unit 2 happened somtime in September, months after your June article. Unless you are a mechanical engineer you would know zilch about the workings of a powerplant. If you were a mechanical engineer you wouldn't be behind a desk playing with computers, because those guys demand very high bucks in my trade, to the tune of about 200k or more a year. Civil engineers are a dime a dozen, BTW. I have about 2-3 civil engineer acquaintances that couldn't stick their finger in their ass on a construction job, and are working at a little more than minimum wage type jobs at present.

[Hoot Gibson]

It means everything when they are getting so old that they can't keep the air clean like the newer ones. What don't you understand about new plants to take their place, that can run clean? All new plants have coal scrubbers on them that make the air coming out of the stacks extremely clean. Go to bed Hoot, you stepped in shit in this thread, you know zero.

Gee, RV, I am only a mining engineer who was calculating SO2 content of coal bound for coal-fired utility plants before you landed a real job. What I understand is that units that met EPA emission limits before Obama assumed office no longer meet them and they are being torn down years ahead of schedule because of Obama's war on the coal industry. He is keeping his promise to make burning coal to generate electricity uneconomical and all you care about is that your tiny part of the economy is booming. This is just one more way that Obama is paying the unions back for their support using taxpayer dollars. And when utility rates soar because of these changes, left wingers like yourself will blame Republicans running greedy utilities.

[Hoot Gibson]

What you don't know is that AEP changed the plans, from closing both units(as attested to in your June article, to turning one to gas(Unit 1) and put scrubbers on the other(Unit 2). All these changes happened somtime in September, months after your June article.

Well thank you for that bit of information. So, the change in EPA emissions requirements resulted in an expensive switch to gas. You are deliberately dodging the issue, which is Obama's EPA is forcing expensive changes to coal-fired power plants that will be extremely costly to utilities, which will pass the additional costs to consumers through higher utility bills.

Actually, had you read it, the AEP news release in June contains the following:

Big Sandy Plant, Louisa, Ky. – Units 1 and 2 (1,078 MW) retired by Dec. 31, 2014;
Big Sandy Unit 1 would be rebuilt as a 640-MW natural gas plant by Dec. 31, 2015;

I guess that decision was not made in September after all.

Is there any Obama policy that you are not willing to defend?

[TheRealVille]

Well thank you for that bit of information. So, the change in EPA emissions requirements resulted in an expensive switch to gas. You are deliberately dodging the issue, which is Obama's EPA is forcing expensive changes to coal-fired power plants that will be extremely costly to utilities, which will pass the additional costs to consumers through higher utility bills.

Actually, had you read it, the AEP news release in June contains the following:


I guess that decision was not made in September after all.

Is there any Obama policy that you are not willing to defend?

I mistated that the plans for Unit 1 changed in September. AEP's plan has always been(since the June newsletter) and now, to shut down Unit 1 and rebuild it as a gas. The change in September was to scratch the closing of Unit 2, and put scrubbers on it.

[Hoot Gibson]

I mistated that the plans for Unit 1 changed in September. AEP's plan has always been(since the June newsletter) and now, to shut down Unit 1 and rebuild it as a gas. The change in September was to scratch the closing of Unit 2, and put scrubbers on it.

The AEP press release was cited in the article to which I linked. I made no attempt to update the entire study. The authors of the study cannot be blamed for a recent change of plans. Anyway, the impact is the same. Higher costs for AEP and its customers than they would have been facing without Obama's war on coal.

[TheRealVille]

Speaking of civil engineers though(about the same caliber degree that your mining engineer degree is), I do know one that got a job at one power company driving a dozer, pushing coal around, for about 15 bucks an hour.

[Hoot Gibson]

Speaking of civil engineers though(about the same caliber degree that your mining engineer degree is), I do know one that got a job at one power company driving a dozer, pushing coal around, for about 15 bucks an hour.

:thatsfunn I don't think that you know what an engineer is, RV. I can guarantee that no licensed professional engineer is operating heavy equipment for $15/hr. If things are that bad in eastern Kentucky, it just shows to what extent Obama has already destroyed our economy. It would not surprise me that a recent graduate with an engineering degree has been forced to take any job that he can find. This economy is brutal on recent college graduates, regardless of what their major is, thanks to Obamanomics.

[TheRealVille]

:thatsfunn I don't think that you know what an engineer is, RV. I can guarantee that no licensed professional engineer is operating heavy equipment for $15/hr. If things are that bad in eastern Kentucky, it just shows to what extent Obama has already destroyed our economy. It would not surprise me that a recent graduate with an engineering degree has been forced to take any job that he can find. This economy is brutal on recent college graduates, regardless of what their major is, thanks to Obamanomics.

I can guarantee that one is, at least he was the last time I talked to him about summer/fall 2008, way before Obama took office. I know two more, that graduated with the former kid, that have been doing my line of work since they graduated.

[Hoot Gibson]

I can guarantee that one is, at least he was the last time I talked to him about summer/fall 2008, way before Obama took office. I know two more, that graduated with the former kid, that have been doing my line of work since they graduated.

From what school did these individuals earn their degrees and when did they become licensed? Many engineering students never become practicing professional engineers and graduates with anything short of an engineering degree (engineering technology and similar degrees do not cut it) cannot become licensed in Kentucky. Those who do graduate with engineering degrees must pass an 8-hour Engineer-in-Training test and then accumulate 4 years of experience under the direct supervision of a registered engineer. Finally, engineers must pass another 8-hour test to earn their license to practice in Kentucky.

Now, had those fellows become registered, licensed professional civil engineers and then lost their jobs to become low paid dozer operators? It is possible but not very likely - even in the Obama economy. A professional civil engineer with more than 4 years of experience would normally make much more money and have no trouble finding work in their own field. I doubt that you have your facts straight.

[TheRealVille]

From what school did these individuals earn their degrees and when did they become licensed? Many engineering students never become practicing professional engineers and graduates with anything short of an engineering degree (engineering technology and similar degrees do not cut it) cannot become licensed in Kentucky. Those who do graduate with engineering degrees must pass an 8-hour Engineer-in-Training test and then accumulate 4 years of experience under the direct supervision of a registered engineer. Finally, engineers must pass another 8-hour test to earn their license to practice in Kentucky.

Now, had those fellows become registered, licensed professional civil engineers and then lost their jobs to become low paid dozer operators? It is possible but not very likely - even in the Obama economy. A professional civil engineer with more than 4 years of experience would normally make much more money and have no trouble finding work in their own field. I doubt that you have your facts straight.

All I know is that they have a 5 year Civil Engineering degree, at least that's what they told me. I can't account for if they were lying or not.

[Hoot Gibson]

All I know is that they have a 5 year Civil Engineering degree, at least that's what they told me. I can't account for if they were lying or not.

I am not saying that they are lying. Unless things have changed in recent years (and they probably have), UK, Louisville, and Western KY are the only schools that have accredited engineering programs. And even if a person earns a degree, it is not a given that they will ever become a registered professional engineer. Many people are never able to pass the tests. Others are hired into first line management positions (such as a section foreman) by companies who plan to promote them through the ranks of production. In my case, I worked in more than a half dozen supervisory and engineering positions before I became registered after four years.

I decided to pursue an engineering path instead of going into production, so I needed to become registered. Many engineering graduates who want to pursue management careers never bother to become registered. Technically, they can never become "engineers" without getting their licenses and they are prohibited by law from claiming to be engineers. That is why I doubt that the two guys that you mentioned were ever licensed engineers. If they earned engineering degrees, the company may be grooming them for management positions by having them work in various departments to learn the business from the ground up. Or they may have been washouts as engineers who took the only jobs that they could find - but registered engineers with more than 4 years experience would not likely be operating a dozer for $15/hr.

[TheRealVille]

I am not saying that they are lying. Unless things have changed in recent years (and they probably have), UK, Louisville, and Western KY are the only schools that have accredited engineering programs. And even if a person earns a degree, it is not a given that they will ever become registered professional engineers. Many people are never able to pass the tests. Others are hired into first line management positions (such as a section foreman) by companies who plan to promote them through the ranks of production. In my case, I worked in more than a half dozen supervisory and engineering positions before I became registered after four years.

I decided to pursue an engineering path instead of going into production, so I needed to become registered. Many engineering graduates who want to pursue management careers never bother to become registered. Technically, they can never become "engineers" without getting their licenses and they are prohibited by law from claiming to be engineers. That is why I doubt that the two guys that you mentioned were ever licensed engineers. If they earned engineering degrees, the company may be grooming them for management positions by having them work in various departments to learn the business from the ground up. Or they may have been washouts as engineers who took the only jobs that they could find - but registered engineers with more than 4 years experience would not likely be operating a dozer for $15/hr.

I can agree with all of this. All I can go by is what they tell me.

[Hoot Gibson]

I can agree with all of this. All I can go by is what they tell me.

:Thumbs: I am not being argumentative, I just wanted to explain my skepticism. It's much easier to claim to be an engineer than to become one.

[VHSL-helper]

..."Before becoming President, Barack Obama promised to bankrupt coal companies. As President, he has tried various strategies to force Americans to use less coal...

I've seen this "bankrupt" line used before, but always with a "he siad" disclaimer. Anyone seen an actual article or video clip that ties this to him?

What's wrong with using less coal? The cheap-to-get stuff is basically gone around here, and the environuts won't let MTR continue without a fight. Oh, yeah, now I remember... wind turbine energy is unproven.

Anyone got a problem with "his" EPA "forcing" car companies to improve MPG to force us to use less gas?

[vector]

realville your wasting your time with hoot he's right and everybody

else is wrong but i would like to know what coal company he works

for and did he pay for his college or did big bad goverment

helped him

[nky]

Obama's Quote on Coal Industry


"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."CNN: (November 2, 2008)

[Bob Seger]

I've seen this "bankrupt" line used before, but always with a "he siad" disclaimer. Anyone seen an actual article or video clip that ties this to him?
What's wrong with using less coal? The cheap-to-get stuff is basically gone around here, and the environuts won't let MTR continue without a fight. Oh, yeah, now I remember... wind turbine energy is unproven.

Anyone got a problem with "his" EPA "forcing" car companies to improve MPG to force us to use less gas?

Yes it is on youtube. He was campaigning in the weirdo capital of the world at the time. San Francisco.

[VHSL-helper]

Obama's Quote on Coal Industry

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them ...

So, no new coal burning plants in the US will kill the coal industry???????
That's as crazy as saying no new airports will kill the travel industry.
Just another Republican effort to get the uninformed (which happens to be the vast majority of the population) to vote for them.

I saw a TV spot this week that has him saying the part I left. It attacks the incum. Dem., doesn't say who the Reb. opponent is, and doesn't have a verbal "paid for" disclaimer after it. Just more typical dirty politics.

[Hoot Gibson]

So, no new coal burning plants in the US will kill the coal industry???????
That's as crazy as saying no new airports will kill the travel industry.
Just another Republican effort to get the uninformed (which happens to be the vast majority of the population) to vote for them.

I saw a TV spot this week that has him saying the part I left. It attacks the incum. Dem., doesn't say who the Reb. opponent is, and doesn't have a verbal "paid for" disclaimer after it. Just more typical dirty politics.

Yeah, quoting Barack Obama is dirty politics and telling an industry that they cannot have any new customers will do no harm. Get ready for a dirty campaign because you are going to see plenty of campaign ads highlighting Obama's record of failure. There is no need for dirty tricks or dishonest ads in 2012. The truth will be brutal when it confronts Obama.