Obama’s emissions deal with China wasn’t about China at all. It’s an enema for the US.

Loading

obamao

While in China, President Mao Tse Bama agreed to a climate change deal that is supposed to help secure Obama’s legacy.

Top administration officials had worked secretly for months to nail down a major climate change deal with China that could be the centerpiece of his first visit to the country in five years, and perhaps a key part of his presidential legacy.

With Obama, style always trumps substance and this is no different. China gives away nothing and the US bends over and takes it in the rear.

China and the United States agreed on Wednesday to new limits on carbon emissions starting in 2025, but the pledge by the world’s two biggest polluters appears to be more politically significant than substantive.

As China’s President Xi Jinping agreed to a date for peak CO2 emissions for the first time and also promised to raise the share of zero-carbon energy to 20 percent of the country’s total, President Barack Obama said the United States would cut its own emissions by more than a quarter by 2025.

At its best, the announcement threw the political weight of the world’s two biggest economies behind a new global climate pact to be negotiated in Paris next year.

But the United States has already pledged to cut its carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and it’s not clear if the new proposals will pass a Republican-dominated Congress.

The agreement in essence allows China to continue to do as it is doing right now.

“It won’t be too difficult to achieve the 2030 goal, given that the government is already aggressively promoting renewable energy,” said Miao Tian, energy analyst with investment bank North Square Blue Oak. “These are not targets plucked from nowhere.”

Emissions were expected to peak by 2030 in China anyway:

BEIJING, April 29 (Reuters) – China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, could peak in emissions by 2030 or earlier, says a study from U.S. researchers who foresee Chinese demand for appliances, buildings and much industry reaching “saturation” around then.

The study by energy and emissions experts at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California adds to a growing body of studies that say China could reach its maximum output of carbon dioxide (CO2) within two decades.

So China gets to proceed along its current trajectory and Obama’s proposed actions will cost the US $479 billion. What was the point of this?

This is a back door assault on the US. Obama made a deal with the Chinese to basically cripple the US economy to allow him to appear to be the Abraham Lincoln of the environment. He’s promising that the US would curtail its “carbon pollution” by 25% when he’d already promised 17% by 2020. It’s another one of those dubious Executive Actions taken by Obama in lieu of proceeding down the Constitutional route. Given how stupid Obama supporters are they’ll probably laud this action. They also believe electricity comes out of hole in the wall and that quadrupling the price of electricity will be advantageous for the poor and the elderly.

Obama never looks as happy as when he is in the company of dictators and wearing dictator garb.

Bonus:

If you want to have a fun moment, ask an Obama voter to define “carbon pollution.” Then sit back and enjoy deer in the headlights appearance as well as the silence.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
56 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“While in China, President Mao Tse Bama agreed to a climate change deal that is supposed to help secure Obama’s legacy.”

Obama’s legacy is already secure.

Just not in the way he thinks.

China has a growing wealthy class as well as a huge number of government mid-and top-level workers who are sick of the very poor air quality in Peking (Bejing).
Pressure to at least not pollute so close to where the rich live is already growing in China.
Obama sold the bull for a handful of sterile beans.

That Obama; what a tough negotiator. He nailed China down to addressing their CO2 (which is not the problem; thick air is their problem) emissions “when we get good and ready”. And not a minute later.

Atta boy, Obama!

Obama is currently in the process of doing two things which will be very good for the nation, while helping his political party.

The USA produces 17.5 tons of carbon per person per year. China produces 6.2 tons per person per year. That’s why it’s unacceptable to the Chinese to freeze their levels on the same timetable as the USA, which would leave the USA able to continue to burn 3 times as much carbon per person as China. We wouldn’t ever make a deal like that, were we China, and neither will China.

In order to meet the goal of freezing their emissions by 2030, they will have to spend extra money to the equivalent of building one nuclear power plant per week, every week until 2030. Conservative critics are trying to make it out to be that the Chinese won’t have to do anything until 2030. That’s not true. The Chinese have to start today to spend that enormous amount of money so that emissions will finally stop increasing by 2030. The fact that this also helps with their air pollution and what not is beside the point. What’s important is that the two biggest polluters in the world (totaling 40% of the world’s carbon pollution) have mutually agreed to limits which will not only reduce their own pollution, but which will serve as a model and put pressure on the rest of the world to do the same, going forward. This will most immediately affect the EU, which will surely adopt similar measures. This is now 60% of the world’s pollution.

Green energy is NOT money down a rat hole. Remember Solyndra? This was a program by the Obama administration to make loans to jump start green energy programs. Solydra was a bad loan. Investment banks make bad loans all the time. But the entire portfolio of loans has done extremely well. Even including Solyndra, the US government is now in the black — having collected more than enough interest to cover the Solyndra loss and make the entire portfolio profitable. What’s equally important is the fact that the loans did exactly what they were supposed to do. Open up new technologies and industries that are being entirely self-supported through private sector loans, going forward. And important new technologies are being developed — including groundbreaking technologies to STORE energy produced during peak periods by solar, wind, and the like.

NPR tried to get a single conservative/GOP spokes person (politician, think tank wonk, etc.) who was previously critical of this Obama Federal loan for green energy (“Solyndra”) program to make a follow up, updated comment and there is not a single past critic who was willing to be quoted. Because the program is now viewed as a huge success.

California has, for years, been introducing and enforcing much stricter carbon controls than will be required by the present US/China treaty, and California’s economy has continued to grow, unabated, in a direct, linear fashion over the past 40 years. California is proving to the nation and the world that you can have your cake and eat it too. Less pollution; strong economic growth; much better quality of life (much cleaner air, etc.); and environmental protection.

Conservatives are on the wrong side of history in the climate change debate. They’ve crawled out onto a limb and they are trading minor and very temporary political gains (e.g. with coal miners) for being stuck — long term — with the label “the Party of Pollution.”

And then there’s immigration — topic for another day.

ADDENDUM: I was curious … so I looked it up. The per capital carbon pollution is three times higher in Texas than it is in California. In general, if the red states did as well as the blue states in restricting carbon pollution per capita, then the USA as a whole would pretty much already be meeting the treaty goals. This explains the squeals coming from the Right on this issue.

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/state/analysis/

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@Larry Weisenthal, #4:

That Obama’s renewable energy loan program is showing a profit for taxpayers in spite of the Solyndra loss should be welcomed news to everyone. Better still, the program has moved important energy-related technological innovations off the drawing board and into reality. The eventual pay-off for the U.S. economy will likely be much greater than the small profits the taxpayers have realized from Obama’s loan program.

Let’s compare the good things obama has done for the USA to the bad things he has done, starting with the good:

GOOD THINGS OBAMA HAS DONE FOR THE USA
(1)

####Obama never looks as happy as when he is in the company of dictators and wearing dictator garb.####

I also noticed that. Remember when he had black African dictators at the white house? I’m guess he asked each of them how they became dictators, and is trying to incorporate their stuff to his stuff. I also noticed that when he walks with other national leaders, he ALWAYS seems to be in front of them. Whenever there is a group picture of leaders, he ALWAYS does something just before the picture that draws attention to himself. This guy just can’t get enough of himself.

@Larry Weisenthal: You are delusional. Kommiefornias economy is tanking which is part of the reason our non-serious CO2 emissions are dropping. But no worries our illegals will be taking care of that little detail, not with increased taxable income but with more carbon producing illegal offspring. Hope you don’t get too dizzy from the spinning or from the higher taxes that are coming in January.

The california stats are misleading, but you probably know this and omit it from your argument because it’s inconenient. Cali has driven energy intensive industries out of the state with high taxes, land costs, and energy prices. But we still consume the products of those industries. Twisting these stats against those states is shameful. Somewhere people still need to make what we consume – we can’t all be programmers and Hollywood stars. So no, we can’t roll out the Cali model world-wide, sorry.

BTW here’s betting that the lion’s share of China’s low carbon energy comes from the nuke plants they’re willing to build. As someone who thinks climate change really is a problem, it worries me that for political reasons we’re betting the ranch on expensive intermittent sources with no realistic solution to power storage.

Like Putin after the “reset”, the Chinese are probably laughing their asses off at our weak leaders and at us for continuing to empower them.

Obama in his Mao-Mao will make a great statue someday with a plaque that says, “When good men fail to act, evil will flourish.” The only question I have is will they be out in public or hidden in cellars and caves with the rest of us.

Most, if not all reductions in U.S. emissions will be outpaced by immigration. This is just one reason why many of the so-called “climate change” believers have zero credibility.

Those that support U.S. emissions reduction programs, while doing nothing to reduce immigration, are using the so-called “climate change” issue as means of furthering multiple agendas that have little or nothing to do with emissions.

@Larry Weisenthal: We have to be careful not to inadvertently accept the redefinition of terms the left routinely rolls out.

CO2 is not “pollution”.

We may have recouped the losses from Solyndra (what about all the others? A123, for example?) but this does not explain how Obama’s cronies and campaign supporters get rich even though their taxpayer-propped up businesses fail.

Green energy cronyism scandal
http://energymakesamericagreat.org/green-energy-crony-corruption-scandal

@Larry Weisenthal: #4

The USA produces 17.5 tons of carbon per person per year. China produces 6.2 tons per person per year.

I need to see some RELIABLE links to those numbers before I will take them as true. China makes 1/2 of the world’s products, and is building one coal fired power plant about every week. Look at NASA’s satellite images of the Earth, and you will see that China has many times more pollution coming from it than the USA does.

If China doesn’t have to start reducing their pollution level until the 2030s, and if they average one coal fired power plant per week, that means they will have over 800 more of them by then.

According to Fox News, the agreement doesn’t even make it mandatory that the Chinese start cutting pollution by then. It just promises that the Chines will try.

Remember Solyndra? This was a program by the Obama administration to make loans to jump start green energy programs. Solydra was a bad loan. Investment banks make bad loans all the time.

Please name just ONE of those loans to, “…jump start green energy programs” that are still in business. I haven’t heard of any.

@Smorgasbord: The population of the US is about 325,000,000. The population of China is about 1,340,000,000. Do the math. Smoke and mirrors. LOTS of smoke and dirty mirrors.

@Bill: #13

Do the math.

Math doesn’t matter when China doesn’t have to agree to reduce their emissions. They only agreed to try.

@Smorgasbord: And we all know how reputable and trustworthy the Chinese are.

The math is 17.5 tons times 3.25 million vs. 6.2 tons times 1.5 billion. I think the point of that was to show the US as the greater polluter while it is China that pollutes exponentially more than the US.

@Rob+in+Katy, #9:

It can be a statue commemorating PhotoShop.

@Smorgasbord, #12:

Beacon Power received a $43 million DOE loan in 2009 to build a flywheel-based energy storage facility in Stephenton, NY. They did, and it worked. The company went bankrupt. They had to sell their new facililty to pay back their DOE loan. They were bought out by a private investment company (Rockland Capital) that hired back their former staff, reopened their Stephenton plant, and built a second successful flywheel storage facility in Pennsylvania. (The one that appears in the photograph.)

Would we count that as a success or failure? The original company went bust, but the new flywheel technology it developed is proving useful and profitable. It effectively addresses the problem of short-term high volume energy storage, providing a means to smooth out the fluctuating imbalance between production and demand. The result is improved efficiency and lowered costs.

“Doing the math:”

5687 USA

8450 China

Comments: “Exponentially” means power of ten. A given number doesn’t qualify as “exponentially” greater than another number unless it is a minimum of 10 times greater. So it’s not “exponentially” greater.

Secondly, the only useful metric is per capita. That goes for everything, from gun fatalities to number of cancer cases to number of heart disease cases to gross domestic product comparisons and on and on. According to the logic that it’s fair to impose the same restrictions on China as on the USA, then not a single other country in Europe or anywhere else in the world should be required to curb carbon pollution, because they all contribute only a fraction of pollution as contributed by the USA and China. The only fair and internationally acceptable method of allocating carbon pollution limits is on a per capita basis.

If the positions of the USA and China were reversed, the USA would never agree to imposing the same absolute limits, if the per capita pollution of China was three times greater, while China had (in this thought experiment) only 1/4th the population.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

China’s 400,000 deaths per year from air pollution is NOT from CO2.
It is primarily from what we used to call ”coke dust” when we had it in the USA.
Coke dust is actually exported in huge amounts from the USA to China every year.
I used to live near enough the Port of LB/LA to see the trains from coal country coming in filled with fine black powder for export to China.
Coke dust is very fine, “Particulate Matter” also known as the “PM”.
Beijing suffers from PM2.5, which is a particulate matter with diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less.
According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, such fine particular matters induce asthma, bronchitis, and acute and chronic respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath and painful breathing, and premature deaths.
We fought to cover train cars as they traveled across the country to the Ports.
We also fought to have open mountains of coke dust put inside covered silos.
The entire system that puts this dust on the ships is also covered now.
IF we in America lost 300,000 to 400,000 people a year due to one pollutant, we would (and DID with far fewer deaths) do things to cut this pollutant out of our air.
The Chinese should do more to clean their air.
But it was only in 2012 that China even started reporting on PM2.5 levels in their own air!
As soon as they did so, the learned that PM2.5 levels were higher than their measuring devices could go!
Here is our US Embassy in Beijing’s own measurement for air in real time:

“Very Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, Very Unhealthy, …….”

Great comment, Nan (#18). Coal related air pollution involves particulates, for sure, and you are certainly right about the fallout in the port of Long Beach. I used to have a boat in a slip at the downtown marina, across from the Queen Mary, and it was typically covered in grime topsides, when every weekend I went out to use it. It’s much better now, thankfully. But coal also produces sulfur dioxide, ozone, etc. It’s just a bad dirty fuel. We would be kinder to our coal miners if we invested in green industries in the coal regions, rather than continuing to send them down into those mines, to the ultimate disadvantage of practically everyone, miners included.

– Larry W/HB

@Larry Weisenthal:

Green energy is NOT money down a rat hole. Remember Solyndra? This was a program by the Obama administration to make loans to jump start green energy programs. Solydra was a bad loan. Investment banks make bad loans all the time

One major difference that you seem to want to ignore; the U.S. Federal government is NOT an investment bank. Solyndra lost millions of tax payer dollars that was just flushed down the commode. No return. And Solyndra is not the only “green” initiative that the Obama administration has lost millions on.

Here’s the deal: when “green” energy becomes economically feasible, private industry will jump on it like a june bug. But the technology is not there yet. But being the left winger you are, I’m sure you are perfectly willing to let our government waste our money on pie-in-the-sky scams that are all going to go bust.

@Larry+Weisenthal:

Clean coal technology is rapidly getting better. But there will always be NIMBY greenweenies like you who will dispute that. A bunch of greenweenies drove their green cars to a coal fired power plant in a neighboring county. The held up their protest signs while they blocked the road leading to the power plant and screams about the dirt that was coming out of the stacks. They were too damn stupid to know that what was coming out of the stacks was nothing but STEAM.

Hi Retire: If only NPR had tried to interview you, as opposed to trying to interview the previous Solyndra critics, for a follow up assessment on the success/failure of Obama’s green energy loan program. As noted, overall, the entire program is in the black, having returned to the taxpayers every nickel loaned out, but even making a growing profit, as well as doing what it was supposed to do, which is leading to the development of new technologies which will be entirely self supporting, going forward.

Solyndra crashed and burned in 2011. There have been several crashes and burnings of F22 raptor fighter jets (at $350 million per F22). Some missiles hit their target; some miss. Some investments pay off; some don’t. Some loans get re-paid; some don’t. In all of these cases, the overall success of the program is gauged by the overall success of the program, not by each and every individual deal. Which is why all the previous critics of the Obama green energy loan initiative are now lying low, refusing to go on record with their assessments of the program, save apparently only for Retire05.

With regard to “clean coal.” Glad that Retire likes it; development of clean coal technologies is also a part of the DOE’s green energy loan program.

People have been mistaking steam for smoke since the invention of steam heating, steam engines, steam driven generator turbines. Happens all the time. Usually not green weanies…just people who live nearby and don’t like what they think are smokestacks. It’s no big deal, once it’s explained to them.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@retire05, #21:

Steam, along with 10 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. That’s a lot of fossil carbon.

@Larry+Weisenthal: So, the answer to reducing our carbon foot print is to open the borders and bring in people who will not use any energy!? That would reduce our per capita CO2 emissions. We also can send all of our manufacturing and jobs to other countries and have people go on welfare. That is what this AGW issue is about. Kyoto protocol and subsequent protocols do that. The warmists even admitted that in the Venezuela meeting.

@Larry+Weisenthal: Name an alternative energy site/system/program that is operating without government assistance! We, the tax payers are subsidizing everyone of these because they can not make it on their own. The Air Force Academy bull dozed 10s of acres of tees to install a solar field The system costs nearly $40Million. They have been bragging that they are saving $350,000 per year in electric power. That means the system will pay for itself in 114 years. The issue is that the life of the system is 20 years. Great investment!! We are paying for this every day and idiots believe that alternative energy is working. Only hydroelectric power is paying for itself. The Navy is paying $4/gallon of biofuel instead of the $1/gal they can pay for petroleum fuel. That means our defense dollars are paying for Obama’s alternative energy program at the expense of our national security.

Hi Randy, Conservatives accuse “warmists” of hysterical exaggeration. But conservatives just as hysterically exaggerate the alleged economic consequences of pollution controls. Conservatives were dead set against a cap and trade market for sulfur emissions; but it worked brilliantly in practice, with the result that Eastern forests and lakes — downwind of the coal plants — are now in full recovery mode, and, as a bonus, sulfur cap and trade was a net economic benefit, from the standpoint of earlier replacement of inefficient and dirtier technologies with innovative new technologies. It was entirely predictable, and it happened.

For decades, California has had much more stringent air pollution controls than the rest of the USA. This has forced all sorts of industries to innovate, to meet the standards. The result has been steady economic growth and steady improvement in air quality, despite the massive population growth occurring at the same time. As noted, California now has 1/3 the per capita carbon emissions as does Texas. Our economy has done just fine and continues to do so.

Where is the example of the economic calamity wrought by regulations to curb pollution and improve efficiency?

It’s just hysterical economic fear mongering. No different, really, than hysterical environmental fear mongering, to the extent that the latter does occur at times.

I really advise you guys to get off the limb you’ve climbed onto. Being a staunch defender of the right to pollute won’t buy you votes down the line. You are going against a growing strong tide of history, driven by a growing strong body of science.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@Larry+Weisenthal:

You said:

Even including Solyndra, the US government is now in the black — having collected more than enough interest to cover the Solyndra loss and make the entire portfolio profitable.

How you get that the government is now in the black on $34.2 billion in loans and grants, funded by the taxpayers, is beyond me. NPR said:

“Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.”

Perhaps that is the kind of spin you liberals eat up, but the numbers don’t jive. We spent $34.2 billion, so how is the program $30 billion in the black with losses of over $3 billion (not the $780 million claimed by NPR)? The NPR article applies the interest to only the Solyndra loss, not the dozens of other companies that have gone belly up.

And to add insult to injury, we taxpayer fund NPR, which should be shut down or required to go private and survive on its own.

It’s just hysterical economic fear mongering. No different, really, than hysterical environmental fear mongering, to the extent that the latter does occur at times.

I’ll tell you what is fear mongering; continuing to push the meme that we actually are globally warming. And the jpriests of the global warming scam, that earn millions like Al Gore on phone carbon credit sales, when the earth has actually been warmer, and has been cooling for over a decade.

@Larry+Weisenthal: Larry, it is impossible to discuss AGW with someone who puts on blinders to issues happening around them. Your industry is moving to other states. Your population growth is illegals.

Every week, there is another research paper peer reviewed that shows that CO2 is not a significant contributer to climate change or global warming depending on how you leftists are spinning no statistical change in global temperatures.

The hysteria on acid rain in the East acidifying streams and lakes being caused by power plants was largely put to bed when studies showed that a major portion of the streams feeding lakes were acidified by decaying leaves and other natural organic matter.

Keep your blinders on and continue to see only what you want to see. Continue to think in the same threads and you can be fat, dumb and happy. Continue to believe the faulty climate models, the doctored temperature and the ocean ate the heat theories as fact. Don’t bother to try to determine the difference between hypothesis, theories and facts. You may become confused and be not able to feel confident in what you know and see. That can cause you to doubt your expert sources and that can cause mental illness. So, keep you blinders on, keep your fingers in your ears and pretend that every day is warmer than yesterday. Then you can be happy and feel smart!

@Larry+Weisenthal:

You said:

Even including Solyndra, the US government is now in the black — having collected more than enough interest to cover the Solyndra loss and make the entire portfolio profitable.

But wait; NPR said:

“Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.”

NPR is wrong about the companies that have defaulted. That amount is over $3 billion. Not the $780 million claimed by NPR. And how does $180 million collected in interest on government backed loans equate to putting a $34.2 billion program in the black, as you claimed?

It’s just hysterical economic fear mongering. No different, really, than hysterical environmental fear mongering, to the extent that the latter does occur at times.

You know what is fear mongering? All you green weenies who scream the sky is falling when in reality, the earth has been warmer than it is now and has also been cooling for over a decade.

And to add insult to injury, the taxpayers are forced to fund NPR which should be allowed to sink or fail on its own.

@Larry+Weisenthal:

A list of the companies receiving Stimulus money for “green” energy that had gone bankrupt by October, 2012.

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($10 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

@retire05, #29:

NPR is wrong about the companies that have defaulted. That amount is over $3 billion. Not the $780 million claimed by NPR.

$3 billion? Says who? Reuters also reports that the energy loan program is now running in the black. So does Business Insider. I’m not seeing you posting any credible sources for your own claim.

A list of companies that have gone bankrupt proves nothing. Start ups often do. They don’t necessarily represent the majority of companies that received energy development loans. Nor does bankruptcy necessarily mean that the entire amount of the loan loan in question will remain unpaid.

@Larry+Weisenthal: 325 million times 17.5 tons per person is 5,687,500,000 tons. 1500 million times 6.2 tons 9,300,000,000 tons. If not technically exponential, the Chinese produce a substantially greater amount of pollution than the US.

Sure, the per capita quantity is important, but more important is the total output of the citizens. So, looking at the per capita amount the US citizen is responsible for, one must also consider what the US and the world gets for that. Then consider how many Chinese citizens actually work in industry as opposed to living in the rural areas. Then figure the productivity of THEIR pollution. It isn’t even close; China produces much more pollution per any measure of output than the US does.

@Greg:

$3 billion? Says who? Reuters also reports that the energy loan program is now running in the black. So does Business Insider.

For one, Business Insider simply parroted what Reuters wrote. Nothing new in their article. But it said:

Now, it has reported a profit of $30 million, after collecting interest payments of $810 million on total loans of $34.2 billion, Reuters reports.

A list of companies that have gone bankrupt proves nothing. Start ups often do.

But they shouldn’t be on the backs of the taxpayer.

They don’t necessarily represent the majority of companies that received energy development loans. Nor does bankruptcy necessarily mean that the entire amount of the loan loan in question will remain unpaid.

Damn, you’re dumb. A federally guaranteed loan means that if the company goes belly up, the federal government is on the hook for the debt.

Jeeze, man, stop making yourself look so foolish.

Read that carefully, Greggie. Reuters and Business Insider are claiming that a $810 million pay back on a $32.2 billion outlay is a profit. No, Greggie, a profit would be $810 million collected on top of the $32.2 billion.

Now I assume that your computer has a calculator on it. I suggest you add up the money on the failed green companies I listed. Each and every one of them, and their failures, can be found on the internet. Perhaps you are just too clueless to know how to use your search engine for that purpose since the only thing you seem capable of is parroting your far left websites.

@Greg: #16
The article you linked to doesn’t say how much the flywheel station cost, how much it costs to operate, if any state, county, or federal subsidies are involved, or how long it will be before it reaches the break even point. Most of the green energy companies can’t survive without subsidies.

The article also didn’t mention that the bearings in the flywheels will have to be replaced on a regular basis, nor did it give a figure on how much power is required to get the flywheels up to full speed, compared to how much they get out of them.

Things like this are great for helping power companies when they hit their peak usage. California uses huge water pipes to pump water at night into a reservoir at a higher level. They then let the water flow back to the pumps, which run backwards now, and become generators for peak use.

Programs like these use more electricity than they create. Using them, the utility companies keep from building more power plants that come online ONLY during the peak demand, and then are shut off. If they built the power plants, they would use less electricity, because they wouldn’t have to get the flywheels up to speed, or pump the water uphill, or whatever type of peak demand system is used. I’m guessing that the pollution level would be about the same overall, but the extra power plants that wouldn’t be needed because the standby systems are being used at peak times means that the pollution to power the standby power is being produced at night, instead of having all of the power plants on at the same time during the day. It could be that they are even producing more pollution, since as I mentioned before, they take more energy to pump or spin than they get back out of them.

@Larry+Weisenthal: #17
China figures people like Russia does. They are expendable, and can be easily replaced. China has too many people now, so they probably figure they get the best of both worlds: Cheaper coal energy, and keeping the population from increasing, or at least slowing the growth down.

@Randy: #25

That means the system will pay for itself in 114 years.

You forgot to figure in the operating costs when you gave the 114 years figure. Those things don’t operate for free. So far, ALL of the green programs I have heard of are costing more to operate than they are taking in.

@Greg:

Steam, along with 10 billion metric tons of CO2 per year. That’s a lot of fossil carbon.

CO2 is not pollution; it is the air.

@retire05: #30
That’s info worth saving, so I did.

@Smorgasbord:

Only liberal math would figure that $180 million paid in interest would put a $32 billion program in the black.

Now Obama wants to spend $2 billion bringing the children of [legal?] immigrants to the U.S.

Cloward and Piven, baby.

@Bill, #37:

The fact that carbon dioxide isn’t a noxious gas like sulfur dioxide doesn’t mean that altering its concentration in the global atmosphere won’t have consequences.

@Smorgasbord, #34:

The article also didn’t mention that the bearings in the flywheels will have to be replaced on a regular basis, nor did it give a figure on how much power is required to get the flywheels up to full speed, compared to how much they get out of them.

Getting them up to speed is itself the process of storing excess electrical power in the form of kinetic energy. Slowing them back down by using the spin to turn a generator is the process of taking the energy back out. Normally every watt electrical output created by power stations that exceeds the demand of the moment is wasted. You have to continuously overproduce to avoid brownouts or blackouts when demand suddenly cycles up. This technology allows you to balance out the continuous up and down demand changes, wasting a lot less energy overall. It seems like a clever solution to a big load balancing problem that has existed for decades.

Even conventional bearings can go a long time before failure. I think these devices use magnetic bearings, which last a lot longer and minimize friction. The flywheels operate in a vacuum, eliminating atmospheric friction. The danger is structural failure. These things spin so insanely fast the centrifugal and gyroscopic effects are enormous. Flywheels can discharge 100 kilowatts in 15 seconds and recharge just as quickly.

@retire05, #33:

Damn, you’re dumb. A federally guaranteed loan means that if the company goes belly up, the federal government is on the hook for the debt.

You’re an unending fount of gratuitous insults, aren’t you? Even when what you’re saying is inaccurate.

If a company that’s had a federally guaranteed loan goes bankrupt, it generally means that the taxpayers are unlikely to get all of their money back. It doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a total loss, provided there are assets to be liquidated. Bankruptcy doesn’t mean a company has become worthless. Only insolvent. They simply can’t come up with the cash to meet the costs of continuing the operation. They can still be worth millions, or even billions. If their holdings are sold as a result of bankruptcy, their creditors might get back some, most, or even all of what they are owed.

You still haven’t come up with a reference for your claim that the energy program lost $3 billion of the taxpayers’ money. Against that, reports from credible sources state that the program is actually a few million ahead—to make no mention of the positive stimulus effect during a deep recession, and a number of important technological advances that will likely have big payoffs for the entire economy as time goes by.

Basically, you don’t want good things to have happened for the nation as a result of anything the Obama administration has done. That seems to pretty much reflect the attitude of the GOP at present. People should stop and think about that.

China has more men than women by the population of Canada!
It has recently relaxed its one child policy in order to get more girl babies born.
But what about its polluted land and water?
Chinese warships were seen patrolling the Persian Gulf this week.
This makes sense when we realize China has bought farm land in Africa equal to the size of France in total.
It exports the food, paying the laborers slave-level wages.
It has to keep soldiers handy for this rape and pillage of Africa to succeed.
IF it were cheaper to clean up its own land,water and air than to enslave Africans in places like Tanzania, Ethiopia, Sudan, etc., don’t you think China would do it already?
The forced relocations of native families for these Chinese farms have caused higher starvation rates than even before when natural disasters caused mass starve-offs. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/16/ethiopia-forced-relocations-bring-hunger-hardship

Meanwhile, Obama goes to Burma and tells their dictator to allow Muslim illegal immigrants to live free.
Obama is so inept.
Has he seen the Muslim internment camps in Burma?
In Burma illegal alien Muslims get two choices:
Go back to Bangladesh or be locked up.

Sam Cooke’s “Wonderful World,” lyrics spring to mind with regards Obama’s ignorance:
Don’t know much about history
Don’t know much biology
Don’t know much about a science book
Don’t know much about the French I took

@retire05: #39
We now have bugs that look like the stink bug coming into the USA, thanks to obama’s illegals, and the bugs are bringing deadly disease with them.

http://conservativeread.com/alert-silentkiller-bug-is-now-in-america-thanks-to-illegals-photos/

@Greg: #41
A long time ago, there was an idea to use flywheels in cars, but it was decided it wouldn’t work.

Getting them up to speed is itself the process of storing excess electrical power in the form of kinetic energy. Slowing them back down by using the spin to turn a generator is the process of taking the energy back out.

Getting them up to speed takes a massive amount of energy. They NEVER generate an equal amount of energy when they are generating electricity.

Normally every watt electrical output created by power stations that exceeds the demand of the moment is wasted.

I agree. That’s why, I myself don’t use much energy, and I have more energy stored up than I ever have. LOL

It seems like a clever solution to a big load balancing problem that has existed for decades

.

Like I mentioned earlier, the flywheel system uses more electricity than it generates, and MIGHT work if they only power them at night when electrical use is down, then use them for peak demand times during the day.

I think these devices use magnetic bearings….

That sounds reasonable, but there is no such thing as a “vacuum” on Earth. It only exists in space. The proper term is, “partial vacuum”. In a true vacuum, you can press two suction cups together, then pull them apart without any resistance, since there is no air pressure around them. In a partial vacuum, there would still be air resistance. The lower the pressure, the less resistance, but the resistance is still there.

Flywheels can discharge 100 kilowatts in 15 seconds and recharge just as quickly.

If there are enough flywheels, and they are big enough, this is possible, but flywheels do not “recharge”. They can only be made to spin faster, and to get enough speed to equal 100 kilowatts of electricity in 15 seconds would take giant motors, and much more than 100 kilowatts. Keep in mind that a flywheel can’t generate as much electricity as it takes to get it up to speed. There is ALWAYS loss. There is loss just from the electricity going through the wires. The loss is called heat.

@Greg:

The fact that carbon dioxide isn’t a noxious gas like sulfur dioxide doesn’t mean that altering its concentration in the global atmosphere won’t have consequences.

But, since there is no definitive proof (in fact, evidence to the contrary) that CO2 causes warming, then why consider it a pollutant? Since all of the climate models based on increasing CO2 causing warming have failed, time after time, to make accurate predictions and the climate has stopped cooling, why consider CO2 a pollutant and press to punish businesses billions of dollars for CO2 emissions?

Claiming the tons of CO2 is part of the tons of actual harmful pollution generated is supremely disingenuous.

The reason, Greg, the warmist alarmist is losing credibility by the metric ton is that they get caught being dishonest so often.

@Greg:

You’re an unending fount of gratuitous insults, aren’t you?

You need to understand one thing; I have zero tolerance for dishonest, deceitful spin meisters like you, Greggie. You are the Jonathan Gruber of Flopping Aces.

Now let me give you a little crash course in Economics 101: if a company goes bankrupt, it’s assets are less valuable because they lose their productive value. A building used to build solar panels has to be totally retooled to build widgets. The cost of remodeling to make that building capable of new company off sets any previous value.

Basically, you don’t want good things to have happened for the nation as a result of anything the Obama administration has done.

And just exactly what is it that you think Obama has done that is so good for the nation? Do you think lying is a positive trait? Do you think that forcing retirees to purchase health insurance, after they negotiated for those benefits for 30 years, is a good thing? Do you think allowing hundreds of thousands of illegals to flow across our southern border, in unprecedented numbers, was a good thing? Do you think denying our FSO officers the security they needed was a good thing? How about EPA rules, set by unelected bureaucrats, that has caused our utility bills to go up, is a good thing?

I went to get new lenses in a pair of sun glasses Thursday. My prescription is less than two years old, so I wanted to get them now. Of course, thanks to Obama, I have lost my vision insurance. I was informed that in order to get new lenses, with the new Obamacare rules, I have to have an eye exam every year, not every two years. So how is paying $285.00 for an unnecessary eye exam helping me when I don’t need it and only wanted to replace my lenses because they are so scratched up?

I understand that you think this country should turn into some Socialist utopia because you have swallowed the Kool-Aid. But I don’t. I don’t need Obama, and his Socialist sycophants, telling me what I can eat, how big my Big Gulp can be, if I can own a fire arm to protect myself, what I can drive and what kind of gas I can buy, how much water my toilet can have, the list is endless. Unlike you, I am an adult and can make my own decisions. The only choices people like you approve of is when I choose to kill my unborn child or turn queer. Anything else, you think you have the right to limit my rights.

So you tell me exactly what it is that you think the Light Bringer has done that has been so great for this nation when I lost my health insurance that was covered by the company, when my taxes have gone up, when my utility bills have gone up, when my gasoline has gone up, when college graduates can’t find a job after massive debt spending for college. You tell me, Greggie.

Frankly, you’re full of caca.

@Greg: 42

You still haven’t come up with a reference for your claim that the energy program lost $3 billion of the taxpayers’ money. Against that, reports from credible sources state that the program is actually a few million ahead—

Sounds as if the solution to the worlds problems is to have more companies go belly up on government guaranteed loans. Who ever knew that bankruptcy is the solution to the country’s financial problems.

@Greg:40

The fact that carbon dioxide isn’t a noxious gas like sulfur dioxide doesn’t mean that altering its concentration in the global atmosphere won’t have consequences.

Carbon Dioxide is a fertilizer for green growing plants. The more CO2, the more green plants grow. And guess what, the green plants produce Oxygen. I learned all that in elementary school.

@Smorgasbord, #45:

If there are enough flywheels, and they are big enough, this is possible, but flywheels do not “recharge”. They can only be made to spin faster, and to get enough speed to equal 100 kilowatts of electricity in 15 seconds would take giant motors, and much more than 100 kilowatts.

Fly-wheels are kinetic batteries. Mass in motion represents kinetic energy. The heavier the flywheels are and the faster they’re spinning, the more kinetic energy they hold. It’s basic physics. A rolling cannonball contains a lot more kinetic energy than a rolling golf ball because it has more mass. The faster it’s made to roll, the more damage it can do when that load of kinetic energy is suddenly transferred or discharged into a target. For any given weight, increased speed equals increased stored energy.

Spinning faster is exactly how flywheels “charge up.” Rather than simply being wasted, excess electricity produced at power plants is diverted to electric motors that rev up the flywheels. They “discharge” when the energy stored in the spin is mechanically diverted to turn a generator. The “braking” results from the drag of the generator, which is turning the stored kinetic energy back into usable electricity the instant it’s needed. The flywheels are speeding up and slowing down constantly—constantly charging and discharging, as the power demand on the electrical grid fluctuates. They don’t actually produce any extra power; they just reduce the electricity that was formerly wasted because power plants always have to generate more than is needed to avoid brownouts or blackouts if the load on the grid suddenly increases.

A thousand-pound flywheel turning at a few thousand RPM stores a heck of a lot of kinetic energy. It can charge and discharge far more quickly and efficiently than a chemical battery. They can make the production and use of electricity much more efficient, no matter what fuel you’re using at generating stations to power the grid. If you’re burning coal, you can burn less. If you’re feeding solar and wind power into the grid, it can help balance fluctuations. It works whatever your primary energy source is.

It certainly isn’t a new idea. Flywheels were part of the set up on old-time steam tractors and early stationary steam and gasoline engines. They stored the energy produced as spin. As it was drawn off with gears or a drive belt, the flywheel slowed. The slowing triggered more steam or gasoline to be fed to a combustion chamber or piston cylinder, causing the speed to again increase.