New Presidential Permit for Keystone XL Pipeline

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by edyvw
. However, Drake power plant is literally few blocks away from training center, and it became issue.


Most of the power stations that I'm familiar with are relatively slow moving, tending to move at speeds approximating continental drift.

I'm surprised that Drake managed to sneak up on a training centre and "become" and issue.

 

[4WD]

There is an 8 unit GTG station that snuck up on us not long ago. And they built it right off the highway …
and every time I drive past it I'm offended that it enhances our grid stability and provides good paying jobs … the money spent right here …

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw
. However, Drake power plant is literally few blocks away from training center, and it became issue.


Most of the power stations that I'm familiar with are relatively slow moving, tending to move at speeds approximating continental drift.

I'm surprised that Drake managed to sneak up on a training centre and "become" and issue.

Yeah, well they are shutting it down, and Drake will not sneak up anymore.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw

But, for CO problem with coal is not only pollution per se, it is tourism which brings MUCH more money than coal industry. This winter US ski resorts sold 59 million beds, of those 59 million, 34 million were sold in CO. Pollution in general is big issue in CO bcs. huge chunk of economy is relying on tourism that is relying on clean environment.



So where do you propose to get the energy to support this tourism ?

Or are you proposing 1800's farmstead tourism ?

Or are you proposing Someone Else's back yard ?

Or are tourists going to flock to see the visual amenity of thousands of acres of wind farms ?

Originally Posted by edyvw

No one gives a s... about birds.



Originally Posted by edyvw

Just because I said that windmills and birds are not an issue


LOL apparently so...

CO is converting bunch of those stations to natural gas+wind+solar. No one here is arguing that somehow wind is only solution, solar etc.
It is not a problem at all. As for solar, CO is perfect spot for solar energy.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw
Nah, it is easy to find that air does not meet latest EPA standards, by large margin.


That's an interesting argument, and I work in an industry where the EPA (under pressure from lobbyists) is mandating retrospectivity of standards and millions of dollars in upgrades...that's the business.

But would you as a property and vehicle owner accept being forced to upgrade your property, house, vehicle etc. upgrade at every change of legislation ?

Would you be happy paying to get your house to the new building standards, and have inspections every year or too to check that you've done it ?

Mandate that your older vehicle be upgraded to meet current CAFE and emissions standards ?

If not, why not ?



EPA is lobbied both ways, as current administration is obvious example.
How businesses are regulated is up to electorate, but please do not try to make victim of coal business. As last tax year shows, all energy companies are far better than average individual in the US. All those mandates are deducted, and deducted heavily from tax bill.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Nah, it is easy to find that air does not meet latest EPA standards, by large margin.

Okay, I understand. I have no idea how "clean" our coal plants are here, but we have ridiculously low population density and the coal plants are nowhere near the cities. I suppose the alternative would them to not want to do athletic training on the grounds of a coal plant, or see what can be done to clean things up, as Shannow hinted.

Of course, they ban coal power in this province (and the feds want to), I'm going to have to dig out my old coal oil lamps.

 

[ofelas]

Coal oil lamps, I have a couple of those too

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by edyvw
CO is converting bunch of those stations to natural gas+wind+solar. No one here is arguing that somehow wind is only solution, solar etc.
It is not a problem at all. As for solar, CO is perfect spot for solar energy.


So you only train olympians for 8 hours a day ?

Tourists go to bed and get up late so that they only use power when the sun's shining ?

You DO realise that to replace every 100MW of thermal (coal nuke, gas), you need 400MW of solar or wind and somewhere to store the balance tha's unused ?

Opps, we just added storage that loses 20% on the round trip, so there's 500MW of solar to replace 100MW of thermal.

Using Google Maps, and the footprint of Drake, it's 160,000 square metres....cover that site with solar panels, and it's got the ability to produce 44MW peak versus 185MW for the coaler)...

And over the year it can produce 185GWh of electricity versus 1,300GWh for the coaler.

So to harvest the same energy over a 12 month period as drake, in a place ideally suited for solar, as you've stated Colorado is....you need to find 9 more drake sites to cover in solar panels, and install sufficient storage for the 16 hours per(average) day that the sun's not shining.

(all in someone else's back yard of course)

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by edyvw

EPA is lobbied both ways, as current administration is obvious example.
How businesses are regulated is up to electorate, but please do not try to make victim of coal business. As last tax year shows, all energy companies are far better than average individual in the US. All those mandates are deducted, and deducted heavily from tax bill.



No, the question was whether YOU would acept having to upgrade your personal equipment every year or two to the latests standards in safety or equipment.

If not, why not ?

You're falling behind in addressing specifics...
Need to get back to the lack of birds, sulfur, and the evidence thereof
Need to get back to the NIMBY element, and whether Drake as there before (for example) your visual amentiy was disturbed, or the olympic training facility became impacted).

I'm quite sure that you didn't buy, and they weren't training Olympians there in 1965...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by edyvw
Nah, it is easy to find that air does not meet latest EPA standards, by large margin.

Okay, I understand. I have no idea how "clean" our coal plants are here, but we have ridiculously low population density and the coal plants are nowhere near the cities. I suppose the alternative would them to not want to do athletic training on the grounds of a coal plant, or see what can be done to clean things up, as Shannow hinted.

Of course, they ban coal power in this province (and the feds want to), I'm going to have to dig out my old coal oil lamps.

Unlike with nukes

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw

EPA is lobbied both ways, as current administration is obvious example.
How businesses are regulated is up to electorate, but please do not try to make victim of coal business. As last tax year shows, all energy companies are far better than average individual in the US. All those mandates are deducted, and deducted heavily from tax bill.



No, the question was whether YOU would acept having to upgrade your personal equipment every year or two to the latests standards in safety or equipment.

If not, why not ?

You're falling behind in addressing specifics...
Need to get back to the lack of birds, sulfur, and the evidence thereof
Need to get back to the NIMBY element, and whether Drake as there before (for example) your visual amentiy was disturbed, or the olympic training facility became impacted).

I'm quite sure that you didn't buy, and they weren't training Olympians there in 1965...



Sure I would. If my vehicle was making profit, meaning I was using vehicle as a business, and I am able to deduct that completely from taxes, why not?
You are comparing PERSONAL vehicle with business. There is huge difference between two. As of last year for example, small businesses cannot deduct such thing as travel anymore, while businesses like utilities etc. got deductions expanded.
So, if my Sienna and Tiguan was racking up profit, like these utilities are (and there is nothing wrong with that) and I needed to upgrade emission equipment which I will than deduct from taxes (and very often those upgrades are done even they are sometimes unnecessary due to tax credits), yes, show me where to do it.
Your argument here is that companies are forced to upgrade and not getting any kind of deductions for that. Not only that they are getting expanded deductions, but they use sometimes upgrades (and other mechanisms) to show loss, which than allows them to not pay income tax for certain period of time.
So, please...

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw
Nah, it is easy to find that air does not meet latest EPA standards, by large margin.


That's an interesting argument, and I work in an industry where the EPA (under pressure from lobbyists) is mandating retrospectivity of standards and millions of dollars in upgrades...that's the business.

But would you as a property and vehicle owner accept being forced to upgrade your property, house, vehicle etc. upgrade at every change of legislation ?

Would you be happy paying to get your house to the new building standards, and have inspections every year or too to check that you've done it ?

Mandate that your older vehicle be upgraded to meet current CAFE and emissions standards ?

If not, why not ?



EPA is lobbied both ways, as current administration is obvious example.
How businesses are regulated is up to electorate, but please do not try to make victim of coal business. As last tax year shows, all energy companies are far better than average individual in the US. All those mandates are deducted, and deducted heavily from tax bill.




How about GM or Amazon... Not paying hardly any Federal taxes?!?? They are doing better too... Corporate welfare.... Needs to stop.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw
Nah, it is easy to find that air does not meet latest EPA standards, by large margin.


That's an interesting argument, and I work in an industry where the EPA (under pressure from lobbyists) is mandating retrospectivity of standards and millions of dollars in upgrades...that's the business.

But would you as a property and vehicle owner accept being forced to upgrade your property, house, vehicle etc. upgrade at every change of legislation ?

Would you be happy paying to get your house to the new building standards, and have inspections every year or too to check that you've done it ?

Mandate that your older vehicle be upgraded to meet current CAFE and emissions standards ?

If not, why not ?



EPA is lobbied both ways, as current administration is obvious example.
How businesses are regulated is up to electorate, but please do not try to make victim of coal business. As last tax year shows, all energy companies are far better than average individual in the US. All those mandates are deducted, and deducted heavily from tax bill.




How about GM or Amazon... Not paying hardly any Federal taxes?!?? They are doing better too... Corporate welfare.... Needs to stop.

Topic is energy, so that is why I mentioned that, but yeah. While I was rear ended this year, Amazon&Co did much better than rest of us.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Your argument here is that companies are forced to upgrade and not getting any kind of deductions for that. Not only that they are getting expanded deductions, but they use sometimes upgrades (and other mechanisms) to show loss, which than allows them to not pay income tax for certain period of time.
So, please...


No, it's not MY argument, so please stop with the obfuscations and diversions...

You still haven't provided evidence to support your prior statement that there are no birds around coal power stations - due to the sulfur...you can come back to that any time you want.

My experience is that there's plenty of birds, and orther species, which you tried to strawman my into claiming that there was increased biodiversity around coal plants..."look over there a bunny"....

Oh and BTW...
Windfarms - birds - and changes in biodiversity

You then went on to the fact that they reduce your visual amenity (we you there before 1965 ??? - why did you move there) - It's a fairly common thing for people to move to a low priced area because there's a factory, power station, tannery, speedway etc. then lobby to have it closed...you ignored that aspect...when did you buy ?

Then went on to the olympic training and the impacts of Drake...were you training Olympians there in 1965 ?
Thus my comment on sneaky slow moving power stations...build around them then NIMBY them out.

Later you sooked about them not meeting CURRENT environmental legislation....

So (to quote you), please...

I'm countering YOUR position, which you have failed to defend at every point by pointing at yet another subject that you won't back nor defend....

So, please...no birds around power stations and sulfur...let's forget a couple pages of diversion, and get back to you supporting your statement of fact

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by edyvw
[Sure I would. If my vehicle was making profit, meaning I was using vehicle as a business, and I am able to deduct that completely from taxes, why not?



I'm assuming that you need at least one of these vehicles to earn an income, if not for the commute, but to keep yourself fir and healthy enough to earn an income...profit is the part that's left over after you take expenses away from income.

But you are operating these vehicles, in and around other people, 300 million of them...so why should you NOT be required to maintain the currency of the emissions standards ?

Some other countries they limit the road lifetime of vehicles to keep the fleet current...I take it that you are an advocate of pertpetual replenishment at your cost for the good of the other 300M Americans.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw
[Sure I would. If my vehicle was making profit, meaning I was using vehicle as a business, and I am able to deduct that completely from taxes, why not?



I'm assuming that you need at least one of these vehicles to earn an income, if not for the commute, but to keep yourself fir and healthy enough to earn an income...profit is the part that's left over after you take expenses away from income.

But you are operating these vehicles, in and around other people, 300 million of them...so why should you NOT be required to maintain the currency of the emissions standards ?

Some other countries they limit the road lifetime of vehicles to keep the fleet current...I take it that you are an advocate of pertpetual replenishment at your cost for the good of the other 300M Americans.

Energy companies (coal, oil, utilities, solar etc.) have a seat at the table when these decisions are made. Not only that, any investment in equipment that is necessary for companies to meet any new standard is deducted from tax bill. Actually a lot of companies in the US do not pay income tax at all (unlike individuals) and if they report loss (which is complex scheme purposely done by a lot of companies in order to lower future tax bills), they can offset a lot of taxes in the future. GM for example still does not pay income tax due to the losses that stem decade+ ago.
Yes, vehicle is used to generate income (profit if you want). But, one is already paying taxes on that profit or income without being able to deduct any amortization+gas+tires+brakes+etc. from their PERSONAL vehicle. At the same time, any mandatory requirement to meet new standards by energy companies are also involving generous deductibles in ANY country that has sensible economic policy.
EPA does not have to require retrofitting vehicles (except VW dieselgate) with updated emission equipment bcs. average age of vehicle is not as average age of coal power plant or something else. Average age of personal vehicles or commercial trucks in the US are not 30-40years or more.
As you said some countries limit average age, in the US that is not necessary bcs. for most people it does not make sense to keep their DD for such long period of time, plus the US constitution is of semi-rigid nature and very hard to change, hence I can guarantee you that mandating people to ditch their vehicles at certain age will end up at the Supreme court.
But, to go back. Yes, I will retrofit my vehicle to new standards as soon as I get same tax incentives as energy companies, plus equal subsidies:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...ICv4qcRBrF8UIgkuGYRy6z_IlUJ48Ngn4FIwjVx4

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by edyvw
Your argument here is that companies are forced to upgrade and not getting any kind of deductions for that. Not only that they are getting expanded deductions, but they use sometimes upgrades (and other mechanisms) to show loss, which than allows them to not pay income tax for certain period of time.
So, please...


No, it's not MY argument, so please stop with the obfuscations and diversions...

You still haven't provided evidence to support your prior statement that there are no birds around coal power stations - due to the sulfur...you can come back to that any time you want.

My experience is that there's plenty of birds, and orther species, which you tried to strawman my into claiming that there was increased biodiversity around coal plants..."look over there a bunny"....

Oh and BTW...
Windfarms - birds - and changes in biodiversity

You then went on to the fact that they reduce your visual amenity (we you there before 1965 ??? - why did you move there) - It's a fairly common thing for people to move to a low priced area because there's a factory, power station, tannery, speedway etc. then lobby to have it closed...you ignored that aspect...when did you buy ?

Then went on to the olympic training and the impacts of Drake...were you training Olympians there in 1965 ?
Thus my comment on sneaky slow moving power stations...build around them then NIMBY them out.

Later you sooked about them not meeting CURRENT environmental legislation....

So (to quote you), please...

I'm countering YOUR position, which you have failed to defend at every point by pointing at yet another subject that you won't back nor defend....

So, please...no birds around power stations and sulfur...let's forget a couple pages of diversion, and get back to you supporting your statement of fact

You are absolutely right. My bird claim was just shooting from hip, although not that egregious as your attempt to show how you understand policy making.

 

[Shannow]

See, that's why the"green" movement are impossible to reason with...they make stuff up and present it as fact.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Unlike with nukes

Absolutely. We've been through that before, and this province could use that.

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted by addyguy
Originally Posted by Donald
The US seems to be flush with crude oil. Do we really need to get oil from the Canadian tar sands? I think we should leave it in the ground. Renewable energy and storage are coming on stronger every day.

So, the US gets to benefit financially from their natural resources, and Canada doesn't?
Typically self-centered 'Merican attitude!

It's going through the US to Texas to be refined and exported. It could actually make US and Canadian gasoline more expensive, so the US should have some say-so.