An objection to ‘’The Status Quo’ers’’…Some elected officials, especially those in the Republican Party will continue to support ‘The Status Quo’. The coal interests will support no action as will other fossil fuel interests. The same type of ‘Status Quo’ folks would also have supported the interests of the ‘horse & buggy’ interests. The United States would never have progressed to develop its technology and invest in its capital assets to become the most important country in the world. The Obama Administration proposal limits carbon pollution at the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants and allows them to meet those limits in a variety of ways; for example, by becoming more efficient, operating less often or investing in cleaner energy sources. There is also help to coal miners who might be dislocated & coal interests via the progressive policies that have been included in the Obama Administration proposal. Why the Republican leaders and it minions are not supportive is an indication that ‘The Status Quo’ is THE WAY TO GO. As a taxpayer and as a person who is concerned about our environment and the future, I condemn those who insist that our country should maintain a ‘’Status Quo’’ relative to how we generate electric power - much needed electric power as well as invest & build power generation capacity to the benefit of the future of our country.
1
If businesses can pass on the trillions of new expenses and capital costs to customers, the poor will be desperately hurt not businesses. Foreign countries and companies will undercut the mandatory price increases and undermine the competitive ability of the U. S. It will everely reduce the prosperity of the United States and of all you reading this. For what? Democrats pandering to billionaire "environmentalist" activists who will give billions to a retired friend and crony Barack Obama. With no empirical evidence of human caused weather change. None.
Http://www.periodictablet.com
Http://www.periodictablet.com
1
RELIEF It's a great relief to read that behind the scenes, and sometimes openly, big business is starting to see that sustainable energy is profitable, where the profits from fossil fuels will decrease over time. What I find curious is that the chorus of naysayers among politicians are not on the same page with big business. That's proof that the places in the country where kids are not taught science, but creationism, wil never be able to compete in current and future markets where a mastery of scientific understanding of at least the basic facts is not much more, will determine who succeeds and who fails. If I were given to gallows humor, I'd say that watching the Republicans shooting themselves in their collective foot was funny. But it's tragic. Tragic that they are so tangled up in their own ideology that they can't see how it's failed them miserably. Pathetic is what it is. The ultimate result will be, in the worst case scenario, the extinction of the party brought about by it own self-destructive beliefs and actions.
2
What seems to be missing from announcements such as this one is an explicit partnership with big energy companies. Something is getting in the way of a public-private model that would really make sense.
Oil companies and other big energy entities have resources and techniques that could make them leaders in new energy technologies. Their old methods have a scientifically proven usefulness horizon. You can be sure that the leadership of big energy companies has the intellectual horsepower to understand that this science is not to be messed with.
Plus these companies would earn huge, durable, public relations points with a shift to atmospherically healthy energy sources.
Why are they not leading the charge? There has to be some hang-up, whether economic or technological, that is acting as a barrier to this progress. From a political standpoint, the goal has to be to identify these barriers and address them systematically.
Oil companies and other big energy entities have resources and techniques that could make them leaders in new energy technologies. Their old methods have a scientifically proven usefulness horizon. You can be sure that the leadership of big energy companies has the intellectual horsepower to understand that this science is not to be messed with.
Plus these companies would earn huge, durable, public relations points with a shift to atmospherically healthy energy sources.
Why are they not leading the charge? There has to be some hang-up, whether economic or technological, that is acting as a barrier to this progress. From a political standpoint, the goal has to be to identify these barriers and address them systematically.
Big energy companies believe that the Republicans, who say they aren't scientists when asked about climate change, will slow any progress on renewable energy so they keep investing in oil.. Republicans are largely funded by big oil and big coal, and if they can take the White House to go with Congress, they will do just what their energy contributors want.
2
Companies will line up in support of the President's initiative for the same reason they backed him on the ACA. They will make money thereby.
But that's also irrelevant because, while the power generation industry will profit, it will do so by passing on higher costs to the consumer. That you and I will pay substantially higher energy costs will not hurt their bottom line at all, so why should they care?
The point being that despite generation costs coming down on renewables, they are not yet cost competitive sans incentives with fossil fuels such as natural gas. But if everybody is being forced to go that route, no one has any cost advantage, therefore they all profit while consumers pick up the tab.
Just because business profits does not mean such benefits consumers.
But that's also irrelevant because, while the power generation industry will profit, it will do so by passing on higher costs to the consumer. That you and I will pay substantially higher energy costs will not hurt their bottom line at all, so why should they care?
The point being that despite generation costs coming down on renewables, they are not yet cost competitive sans incentives with fossil fuels such as natural gas. But if everybody is being forced to go that route, no one has any cost advantage, therefore they all profit while consumers pick up the tab.
Just because business profits does not mean such benefits consumers.
3
As long as you're willing to discount all externalities.
There's no thing as a free lunch. Pre-regulation energy generation would be cheaper ...
... if you don't count the medical bills for your kid's asthma ...
There's no thing as a free lunch. Pre-regulation energy generation would be cheaper ...
... if you don't count the medical bills for your kid's asthma ...
7
The false assumption is that government cares more about your kids' health than industry does.
The primary reason government wants to keep your kids alive is its ongoing need for troops (cannon fodder) for its never-ending wars. The kids can't be involuntarily drafted if they are dead. The second reason is like the first. Government needs your kids alive so it can mulct them with FORCIBLE taxes to pay for its wars.
Industry's motives at least are more honorable. It wants your kids alive in hopes they VOLUNTARILY become customers in the future. Government plans are enFORCED. Industry must rely on persuasion.
The primary reason government wants to keep your kids alive is its ongoing need for troops (cannon fodder) for its never-ending wars. The kids can't be involuntarily drafted if they are dead. The second reason is like the first. Government needs your kids alive so it can mulct them with FORCIBLE taxes to pay for its wars.
Industry's motives at least are more honorable. It wants your kids alive in hopes they VOLUNTARILY become customers in the future. Government plans are enFORCED. Industry must rely on persuasion.
The rule projects that consumer costs will actually be lowered as a result of this rule. This is because much of the rule is based on making more progress on efficiency measures. Electric power will be generated, transmitted, and used more efficiently, which is expected to drive cost down. Also, it's safe to assume that the cost of wind and solar installations will continue to go down over the next 15 years. Overall, although electric bills might go up at first in some areas of the country, in the long run consumers are projected to save nearly $100/year on their electric bills on average. We'll just have to see how these projections play out over the next few decades. . . .
1
There are technological advancements and new business models that may make renewables cost effective. Tesla Energy is introducing home power packs that can store sufficient energy to make solar generated power continually available. Furthermore, there are business models where one doesn’t buy solar panels (avoiding high initial costs) but rather pays for electricity generated from panels mounted on the roof owned by the installer. The business model works since the cost of electricity is cheaper for the consumer than that provided by traditional utilities. Furthermore, the model creates lots of jobs in solar installation. It may require government incentives and tax breaks, but there is a tradition of such incentives to stimulate worthwhile developments (mortgage interest tax deductions as an example).
2
Should be interesting one day when everyone who lives underground - if there is still a place to dig that isn't covered by water - looks back at all of the climate change controversy and sees just what utter fools there forebears were. It will be the Age of Slowly Shaking Heads Back and Forth.
Tell the people living in MA, they would love to hear how their costs are going down due to their mandates for wind and solar energy. Except, they pay 2X or more than any other state. Hmmm....
2
Untrue. MA costs are right around the average for the New England region. The northeast has high population density (which means, we really need to control air pollution to have breathable air), lousy weather, and few native energy sources-- all of which contribute to high energy prices. New England is clearly the most energy-expensive region (outside Alaska and Hawaii), but MA costs are twice those of only two other states, not "any other state". And MA has had high costs for decades-- well before recent renewable energy policies. Source: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a
10
Now now, you're not going to confuse Mary in Atlanta with facts, are you? That's not what she heard on Faux News!
7
Oil and gas companies are also interested in blocking this sensible solution to coal fired power. They are responsible for a huge portion of the pollution. In today's Times there is a story about fracking operations releasing methane into the air, another greenhouse gas bad actor. Unfortunately how we live our daily lives from driving our cars to turning on the A/C and a host of everyday functions does damage to our environment. But that is no reason to do nothing facing the future. This will be unfortunate for the coal miners who will loose jobs, but we could do something to improve their situations by helping the states replace the jobs with "cleaner" employment such as recreational activities in these very beautiful hills. Kentucky is the "Bluegrass" state for good reason. It has world class stables and racetracks and could be a leader in re-educating mining families in its own population as well as that of West Virginia. This is no time for congress to run around shouting that the sky is falling when solutions can always be found if only we cooperate with one another. Mitch McConnell should try cooperation this time for the sake of his own constituents and set an example for all to see. Then he would prove to be the leader he thinks he is.
1
I wish the authors of this piece would have justified on what basis they see this CPP as having net benefit to the United States. The issue isn't whether some industrial sectors are better off by trying to exploit the incentives provided. The real issue is the implicit avoided cost of climate change greater than the cost being imposed on the US economy by compliance with the CPP?
I can ask this question in even simpler terms - does the CPP allow a state to impose on itself a carbon tax related to that state's emissions at a value equal to the Obama administration's current estimate of the social cost of carbon? Say roughly $40/tonne. Assume as well that such state is prepared to invest some of this tax collection in carbon mitigation and adaptation investment. Is paying such a tax a legitimate compliance option or not?
If it is not even provide as an option, then one begins to question if this entire exercise is again not about dealing with the potential risk of climate change in a rational economic manner or simply imposing regulations to ensure specific emission reductions regardless of any cost/benefit consideration?
I can ask this question in even simpler terms - does the CPP allow a state to impose on itself a carbon tax related to that state's emissions at a value equal to the Obama administration's current estimate of the social cost of carbon? Say roughly $40/tonne. Assume as well that such state is prepared to invest some of this tax collection in carbon mitigation and adaptation investment. Is paying such a tax a legitimate compliance option or not?
If it is not even provide as an option, then one begins to question if this entire exercise is again not about dealing with the potential risk of climate change in a rational economic manner or simply imposing regulations to ensure specific emission reductions regardless of any cost/benefit consideration?
3
Unfortunately, the Southern Company has gone all in on a "clean coal" plant in Kemper County, MS that has exceeded cost projections by four times (at least). Moreover, they have persuaded Mississippi's utility regulators to make the ratepayers of Mississippi Power (including me) pay for the cost overruns, rather than Southern Company stockholders. Not sure about the other companies mentioned in this article, but the picture of Southern Company is inaccurately positive.
1
The purported benefit from Obama's plan is to avoid an imperceptible 0.02 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures by the year 2100. That’s the official EPA estimate of the benefits of this Clean Air Plan.
But the cost of such an inconsequential benefit will be massive increases in costs of energy for Americans, harming those that have the least the most.
Have Americans lost their marbles?
But the cost of such an inconsequential benefit will be massive increases in costs of energy for Americans, harming those that have the least the most.
Have Americans lost their marbles?
3
Yes. And you are a prime example. We are picking apart and shooting down every alternative to get on track with lowering emissions. We can't even get started...like the family trying to get the car out of the driveway to start vacation, they can't even turn the key because of the tantrum-throwing kids in the back seat. (But since we're past the tipping point, thanks to such ongoing obstructionism, it really doesn't matter...)
4
The so-called Affordable Health Care Act is already driving insurance companies bust and destroying the healthcare of millions. This is documented in another article which appears today in the NY Times.
This new "initiative" may very well destroy the energy sector. It has already started to drive the stocks of oil companies down further. And, you bureaucrats should keep in mind that a lot of your pension money is in the stocks of oil companies.
This new "initiative" may very well destroy the energy sector. It has already started to drive the stocks of oil companies down further. And, you bureaucrats should keep in mind that a lot of your pension money is in the stocks of oil companies.
3
Correct-- single-payer healthcare (with the parasitic and bureaucratically bloated health insurance industry liquidated entirely, instead of just being pressured) would be much preferable to the ACA. But the ACA is an improvement over the previous situation.
Likewise, the Clean Power Plan doesn't mothball the fossil fuel industry as quickly as would be ideal, but it's progress in the meantime.
Responsible investors have long been aware that fossil fuel companies are at high risk for becoming stranded assets, so there's nothing to be concerned about there.
Likewise, the Clean Power Plan doesn't mothball the fossil fuel industry as quickly as would be ideal, but it's progress in the meantime.
Responsible investors have long been aware that fossil fuel companies are at high risk for becoming stranded assets, so there's nothing to be concerned about there.
4
So we're celebrating big business buying the president, who's implementing laws through imperial fiat.
The authors begin to capture the economic upside to the new regulations. It's much more complicated than a short op-ed piece can explain, never mind talking points from both sides. A few observations from a keen observer:
Most of the coal plants that will have to shut down are well past their design lifetimes. If markets hadn't changed since they were built, they'd be long gone. Depreciated capital equipment doesn't generate economic activity, other than operations and maintenance. Which are highly inefficient.
New generating capacity creates lots of economic activity. In addition to the more forward looking utilities, the winners are going to be GE and Siemens, and infrastructure construction contractors like Bechtel. Plus all the smaller firms who will do the demolition, remediation, and construction subcontracts. And the communities that will host all of that activity.
A bit of reality: much of the new capacity is going to have to be natural gas. Solar and wind are intermittent, non-dispatchable, and low inertia. Modern combined cycle gas plants can fill in when needed, yet operate at minimum load when solar and wind energy is plentiful.
Electricity markets need to be reformed to reward this kind of investment. That will be the next regulatory heavy lift.
We have an objective. Now is the time to let the engineers and economists do their jobs.
Most of the coal plants that will have to shut down are well past their design lifetimes. If markets hadn't changed since they were built, they'd be long gone. Depreciated capital equipment doesn't generate economic activity, other than operations and maintenance. Which are highly inefficient.
New generating capacity creates lots of economic activity. In addition to the more forward looking utilities, the winners are going to be GE and Siemens, and infrastructure construction contractors like Bechtel. Plus all the smaller firms who will do the demolition, remediation, and construction subcontracts. And the communities that will host all of that activity.
A bit of reality: much of the new capacity is going to have to be natural gas. Solar and wind are intermittent, non-dispatchable, and low inertia. Modern combined cycle gas plants can fill in when needed, yet operate at minimum load when solar and wind energy is plentiful.
Electricity markets need to be reformed to reward this kind of investment. That will be the next regulatory heavy lift.
We have an objective. Now is the time to let the engineers and economists do their jobs.
4
The so-called "climate plan" would further devastate the middle classes, by increasing their energy bills and outsourcing their jobs. When spending goes down, businesses will not "like" the plan.
5
Again, the president is clever to provide such inducements to persuade business to jump on the bandwagon. The only people railing against this, really, are the politicians from coal and other dirty-energy producing states.
I think their claim that "limiting carbon emissions is unconstitutional" is pretty much of a stretch. The federal government has lots of power to design and force rules to increase consumer safety: car seats, seatbelts, aviation standards, and the like.
Given the accelerating pace of climate change, isn't it plausible to maintain that reducing greenhouse gases is a huge safety issue for every American, to lower their chances of having to move to higher ground or getting their house flooded?
Only the stupidest justices--or those most beholden to the donor class, including the Kochs who run the dirtiest set of companies in the US--could deny oral arguments that carbon emission reductions are not only needed, but a legitimate use of federal power in the most business-friendly way: providing incentives, tax credits, and an array of options to help the nation achieve its goals.
If industry is not against it, the people aren't against it, then the only ones standing against it are the donor class, selfish politicians like McConnell, and the actual makeup of the bench, based on the percentage of democrat to republican.
Alas politics, more than common sense and good science, will likely decide the outcome of the President's plan.
I think their claim that "limiting carbon emissions is unconstitutional" is pretty much of a stretch. The federal government has lots of power to design and force rules to increase consumer safety: car seats, seatbelts, aviation standards, and the like.
Given the accelerating pace of climate change, isn't it plausible to maintain that reducing greenhouse gases is a huge safety issue for every American, to lower their chances of having to move to higher ground or getting their house flooded?
Only the stupidest justices--or those most beholden to the donor class, including the Kochs who run the dirtiest set of companies in the US--could deny oral arguments that carbon emission reductions are not only needed, but a legitimate use of federal power in the most business-friendly way: providing incentives, tax credits, and an array of options to help the nation achieve its goals.
If industry is not against it, the people aren't against it, then the only ones standing against it are the donor class, selfish politicians like McConnell, and the actual makeup of the bench, based on the percentage of democrat to republican.
Alas politics, more than common sense and good science, will likely decide the outcome of the President's plan.
28
Accelerating rate of climate change?! What nonsense have you been reading?
2
Mary, I'm sure you can readily cite that single metric that provides the temperature rise for a ten year period that uses an El Niño year as the baseline; you know, the one that shows the highest temperature in the old baseline year, but ignores the long-term trends. Unfortunately, for both your argument and the Earth, that ten year period expired three years ago. We've been setting new average global temp records since. You really need to get an updated chart, but the right-wing sites you frequent conveniently forget to provide them.
5
@Mary: you need to do some research other than FOX or Americans for Prosperity. 97% of the world's scientists have concluded global warming is real, and just a few months ago, many warned that we may have reached the point of no return. Climate change is like a ball rolling downhill, gaining speed as it increases momentum. We just clocked the warmest temperature year in global history. The polar ice caps are almost depleted, entire species of fish have been affected by warming waters that have changed the acid/alkaine balance of the seas. Without swift action like that proposed by the President, we will suffer dire consequences, particularly those living on coastlines.
This is not a joke, it's been documented, and it's very very real. And, the "nonsense" I've been reading is National Geographic and the New York Times.
This is not a joke, it's been documented, and it's very very real. And, the "nonsense" I've been reading is National Geographic and the New York Times.
1
Once again, Texas shows its head-in-the sand leadership in politics - despite its being blessed with an abundance of alternatives to coal-fired power plants. TX currently has a greater amount of generated wind-power than any other state, and ERCOT, the TX power grid manager, has been instrumental in running power lines from West TX where the wind blows incessantly, to the larger towns and cities who can use this power. Similarly, TX and the other southwestern states have abundant open spaces, abundant sunshine and the ability to create / promote massive solar farms to provide peak energy demand support when out summer temps run high and everyone blasts their AC. It makes absolutely no logical sense for TX utilities to burn the low grade coal when so much renewable energy is readily available. And of course, TX is also blessed with an abundance of natural gas which should be used to generate electricity via quick-start, gas-fired power plants when needed.
30
When they concocted ObamaCare, they bought-off the business community by foregoing a strong employer mandate, and giving business a low-cost path toward eliminating employee health benefits altogether. Businesses were told that any objection to the plan would result in a stronger employer mandate. I have no doubt that this plan uses rate-payer money to buy-off utilities willing to invest in high-cost generation modalities. With that dissent silenced, Obama can move forward with his plan to raise US energy prices and to turn us into a Europe-like progressive Utopia, complete with tiny cars, tiny houses and tiny futures. Maybe he can get another Nobel Prize for helping to diminish our country.
The US already has the world's most efficient power generation system, and is making significant strides toward integrating lower carbon sources. Why wreck it?
The US already has the world's most efficient power generation system, and is making significant strides toward integrating lower carbon sources. Why wreck it?
7
The U.S., with its big houses and big cars that you seem to thing are so important to maintaining American superiority, also emits the most CO2 and other carbon based pullutants per capita IN THE WORLD!
Even if you are among the very who do not believe that climate chance is real, despite the consensus of almost all the world's scientists, it's a known fact that carbon based pollution causes billions of dollars of preventable medical problems and subsequent human misery.
Even if you are among the very who do not believe that climate chance is real, despite the consensus of almost all the world's scientists, it's a known fact that carbon based pollution causes billions of dollars of preventable medical problems and subsequent human misery.
24
Bravo, Concerned, you have the party line mantra down pat. Who can argue with 97% of scientists, the Obama bureaucracy, Al Gore and all the 0.1% who are going to rake in the trillions of dollars at play? Well, the poor folks who will be paying out their nose for electricity in a few years might whine a little, but too bad for them. They can eat cake while you alarmists guzzle your champagne.
2
There is no dispute that climates change over time.
But that change is driven by the sun.
But that change is driven by the sun.
2
Temperature data sources and temperature algorithms demonstrated that from 1979 thru 1999 global average temperatures were rising. During that period, the level of CO2 rose 10%.
Better temperature data sources and better temperature algorithms demonstrated that from 1999 thru 2015 global average temperatures were flat or decreasing. During that period, the level of CO2 rose 8%.
Climate Change advocates claim that increasing CO2 increases global average temperatures. Reality shows this to be untrue. So either reality is denying that CO2 causes climate change, or climate change advocates are denying that reality is real.
POTUS is attempting to phase in his plan (2008) to make electricity prices skyrocket. Only fools think this is a good thing.
Better temperature data sources and better temperature algorithms demonstrated that from 1999 thru 2015 global average temperatures were flat or decreasing. During that period, the level of CO2 rose 8%.
Climate Change advocates claim that increasing CO2 increases global average temperatures. Reality shows this to be untrue. So either reality is denying that CO2 causes climate change, or climate change advocates are denying that reality is real.
POTUS is attempting to phase in his plan (2008) to make electricity prices skyrocket. Only fools think this is a good thing.
6
KarlosTJ - My guess is that you get your "data" from the Heartland Institute, not NASA, NOAA, NCDC or any other peer-reviewed source. Global atmospheric temperature increases have not stopped but only slowed as a lot of heat has been absorbed by the oceans over the last decade. If average temperatures are flat or decreasing, why are global temperatures in the first half of 2015 already breaking records?
Regardless, one can look at the temperature records of the last 150 years and see periods when global temperatures decreased for a decade or two before continuing their inexorable climb. You can do the simple math of subtracting the beginning and end temperatures for any 16 year period over the last century and what you will find is that during some periods, the value is negative, and for others it is positive, but there are far more positives than negatives, meaning that long term trend is up.
Your logic is the same as determining the average speed of a car during a trip by looking only at the speed between the end of the driveway and the garage.
You need to look at the larger picture. The larger picture shows that CO2 is a driver of climate and the levels are now higher than at any time during the last 3 million years.
Why are temperatures not yet as high as they were back then?
To go back to the car analogy - put a car in neutral, then push on it. It's hard at first, but when the car gets going, it's hard to stop. We are pushing really, really hard right now.
Regardless, one can look at the temperature records of the last 150 years and see periods when global temperatures decreased for a decade or two before continuing their inexorable climb. You can do the simple math of subtracting the beginning and end temperatures for any 16 year period over the last century and what you will find is that during some periods, the value is negative, and for others it is positive, but there are far more positives than negatives, meaning that long term trend is up.
Your logic is the same as determining the average speed of a car during a trip by looking only at the speed between the end of the driveway and the garage.
You need to look at the larger picture. The larger picture shows that CO2 is a driver of climate and the levels are now higher than at any time during the last 3 million years.
Why are temperatures not yet as high as they were back then?
To go back to the car analogy - put a car in neutral, then push on it. It's hard at first, but when the car gets going, it's hard to stop. We are pushing really, really hard right now.
7
No records broken here in Westchester County.
The last three winters have been some of the coldest on record.
And even our summers, including this summer, has been cool.
The last three winters have been some of the coldest on record.
And even our summers, including this summer, has been cool.
2
Much progress has been opposed by NIMBYs, but you seem to be pioneering the category of NOMOW -- Not Outside My Own Window. What part of "global" climate change don't you understand?:
It's nice that the GOP trolls show up in the comments on any hot-button issue for them, all out of proportion to their presence in the Times readership. It allows us to laugh at them. They can be recognized by their absolutism. Government: all bad! Obama: all bad! Green energy: all bad! They never met a nuance they could even recognize.
20
Well at least you admit there is an element of crony capitalism here. EPA regulations will help electric utilities get approval from state public utility commissions for rate increases for renewable generation, natural gas plants and maybe nuclear generation. Homeowners and manufacturers that consume electricity will pay higher rates. This is the price of progress.
7
But is it really progress???
1
Coal is the worst possible way to produce electricity, even without the greenhouse gas problem. What is needed is incentives to shut down coal plants and replace them with waste to energy conversion and nuclear power.
There is a role for *green* energy, but too many green activists oppose waste to energy conversion and nuclear power in knee-jerk fashion.
There is a role for *green* energy, but too many green activists oppose waste to energy conversion and nuclear power in knee-jerk fashion.
4
MBR: I'll be happy to support nuclear when someone comes up with a safe and credible way to use it without producing waste that must be stored safely long after our civilization is gone. In the meantime, renewables and efficiency are essential for our health today and for sustaining our civilization into the future.
1
The northeast US Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative has already reduced power system emissions by 40% since 2005. It is a model cap and trade system.
6
A genius plan. Obama has figured out how to fight climate change and boost the economy at the same time.
3
Actually any plan that results in increased spending for infrastructure will improve the economy both in the short run (jobs for the people in construction, money for the manufacturers) and in the long run through a modernized power grid and cheaper energy. Yes I said cheaper. Improved technology will lower the prices of renewables. Plus the biggest long term boost is avoiding the losses that would be incurred by unchecked global warming. These costs dwarf those of Obama's plan.
9
Thankfully, the president is able to school CEOs and corporations on how to be profitable.
Is there no end to this mans talents?
Is there no end to this mans talents?
4
Dumping their waste products on the rest of us is hardly a model of profitability.
1
Thankfully, too, the president is schooling greedy, cheater CEOs on the concepts of civic and social responsibility....
2
Carbon dioxide is a waste???
Then when are you going to stop breathing ???
Then when are you going to stop breathing ???
1
A Climate Change Businesses Can Like
Written by people who neither are businessmen nor respect business. Business has already stated many objections to this policy, but these academics profess that business will like it.
Those who can't, teach.
Written by people who neither are businessmen nor respect business. Business has already stated many objections to this policy, but these academics profess that business will like it.
Those who can't, teach.
7
Of course the coal business will not like it. I am on the business of renewable and clean energy and I love it. On almost every policy there are winners and losers. Unfortunately (for you, I guess) you are on the losing end of this policy. Business can better be explain by Darwin - adapt or die.
3
Many businesses beyond coal dislike this. I am not affected personally at all.
Of course you would like what favors your business.
I favor what would be good for the US, not me.
Of course you would like what favors your business.
I favor what would be good for the US, not me.
Unfortunately, the businesses that want to continue to pollute do not bear the costs of their pollution, either in cleanup or in health care costs for those who are made sick from their pollution. If this were a true free market, those businesses that pollute would not be making any profit.
3
I understand that Obama is doing what he can, but it would have been better if he could have taxed various forms of energy production, including cars burning gasoline.
2
When big power companies consult and work with the Democrats, that's good for the country? When they consult and work with the Republicans that's bad for the country? When the Republicans are in power they break out the Republican lobbyists. When the Democrats are in power, the break out the Democrat lobbyists. All the lobbyists work to make big profits for energy. I'm not so sure that they waver between being good guys and bad guys. Instead, I think they just want whatever party is in power to show them the money.
5
Since not one single NYT columnist or OpEd author every mentions more than solar and wind (here also nuclear) I have learned that I must repeat myself but now briefly even cryptically.
Electricity can be generated with high efficiency by using the solid-waste incineration technology standard in northern Europe. Could at least one OpEd writer learn this simple fact.
Buildings can be heated and cooled using heat pump technologies that of course use electricity but do so far more efficiently than standard US heating-cooling systems. Ground-source geothermal heat pump is one major variety. Could at least one OpEd writer learn this simple fact.
850 characters.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Electricity can be generated with high efficiency by using the solid-waste incineration technology standard in northern Europe. Could at least one OpEd writer learn this simple fact.
Buildings can be heated and cooled using heat pump technologies that of course use electricity but do so far more efficiently than standard US heating-cooling systems. Ground-source geothermal heat pump is one major variety. Could at least one OpEd writer learn this simple fact.
850 characters.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
44
YES!
(As a bonus, it also takes care of your trash. Landfills also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.)
(As a bonus, it also takes care of your trash. Landfills also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.)
4
Lies, and more lies. The idea that lower utility costs will result from O's new plan is the stuff delusion is made out of. The plan is nothing more then the latest 'cap and trade' ruse. Never forget O's original statement that 'costs will skyrocket', right then, right now. Reminds one of the 'you can keep your doctor'. Stupid and foolish is the electorate that believes O's lies.
6
You mean the Dems have lost your vote? That you're switching from the Dems to the GOP? This pushed you over the tipping point? You mean that all voters who don't agree with you're lame ideas are stupid and foolish? You're quite the guy, "Coolhunter." Sorry to lose you to the GOP. Hahahahaha. :)
6
The problem with your argument is that cap and trade has been a successful pollution control strategy for decades. Before you cry "lies" you should actually check the facts on pollution credits and how they have saved industry billions of dollars while simultaneously reducing air pollution since the 1980's.
Besides, I'm the article and the plan will reduce sosts to the economy. No one said it would reduce utility costs. The adverse health effects caused by burning coal cost you and I billions and shorten lives.
Imagine if, on your deathbed, you would be told you would have had another five years if only we had reduced coal-fired emissions in 2015. At that point I would hope you would finally realize that the cost of old coal-burning power plants is more than just your electric bill.
Besides, I'm the article and the plan will reduce sosts to the economy. No one said it would reduce utility costs. The adverse health effects caused by burning coal cost you and I billions and shorten lives.
Imagine if, on your deathbed, you would be told you would have had another five years if only we had reduced coal-fired emissions in 2015. At that point I would hope you would finally realize that the cost of old coal-burning power plants is more than just your electric bill.
6
Cap and trade has been an acknowledged success by all parties in the control and mitigation of air pollution. Cap & trade was promoted by and signed into law by President Bush (I) - the last true conservative Republican leader. Its stunning how far the current Republican Party has left behind the meaning of "conservative" and has become both reactionary and backward-looking.
3
LOL. If shifting to renewables didn't stand to make companies profits, the fossil fuel companies would ignore them. What causes the Koch brothers to stay up at night is the thought that before long renewables will be cheaper and more profitable than fossil fuels.
16
Always refreshing to see the Republican right-wing digging two political graves for itself - one grave as the party of coal, carbon pollution and killing Mother Earth...and a second grave as the party working against business, technology and the future.
No one doubles down on disaster, stupidity, incoherence and irrationality like your 2015 Republican Confederacy of Dunces.
Take a bow, GOP - you'll never see a finer bunch of nincompoops anywhere in the modern world.
It's not called The Party of Stupid for nothin'.
No one doubles down on disaster, stupidity, incoherence and irrationality like your 2015 Republican Confederacy of Dunces.
Take a bow, GOP - you'll never see a finer bunch of nincompoops anywhere in the modern world.
It's not called The Party of Stupid for nothin'.
73
True, but irrelevant. They have the money. And our 'Parliament of Whores' is always on the take.
1
Just like the Depression, big companies jump in bed with gov't to define the rules they will benefit by. Statism at it's finest. Some things never change.
2
There's plenty of oil, gas and coal for the next hundreds of years. The question is at what cost, both financial and environmental. The big oil and coal companies can either adapt and be the leaders of clean energy, or follow the way of Kodak, main frame computer manufacturers, and many other companies that had the de-facto monopoly on old technology, chose to fight innovation and became irrelevant.
36
The Pentagon recently "released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages."
Now consider that many of our lawmakers have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? (and this also goes for those paying the bribes) Imagine the reaction if these lawmakers were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lesser one) named ISIS.
I am not even considering the damage these people are doing to the biosphere on which we all depend.
And finally, why aren’t democratic lawmakers asking this question in public?
Now consider that many of our lawmakers have been slowing action on this "immediate threat to national security" in return for petrodollars. Why is this not a crime punishable by long prison sentences? (and this also goes for those paying the bribes) Imagine the reaction if these lawmakers were increasing our exposure to another threat to national security (albeit a lesser one) named ISIS.
I am not even considering the damage these people are doing to the biosphere on which we all depend.
And finally, why aren’t democratic lawmakers asking this question in public?
28
It is enlightening to recognize the DoD recognizes sea level rise (SLR) and climate change as both current and near-future threats to US interests globally. It's not only that the single largest Navy facility, Norfolk Naval Base, is at serious risk of being innudated by SLR and its effectiveness compromised in the coming decades, but also the climate change affecting entire countries and their abilities to feed their populations, leading to political instability and increasing rise of lawlessness. Why can't the Republicans listen to and hear the leaders of the US military on this issue when they so clearly want to hear about every other security threat?
3
While the DoD report is mostly relevant, remember that, unlike all other government organizations, they are directly commanded by the president.
Unfortunately the Obama administration opened up the southern Atlantic coast to oil and gas offshore drilling. It will be an ecological disaster and it is a bad legacy.
4
And deep well digging off Alaska.
3
The Times and similar partisan voices ignore the German Green Path. Not only are electric rates 3.5 times higher in Germany than the US, but Germany also will miss CO2 targets. That's because green power is unreliable and intermittent ... so a fossil fuel base load capacity has to be built and maintained in parallel to the Green System.
That's assuming electric power on demand 24/7/365 is desired.
The Germans are also having increased problems maintaining a stable grid which is not designed for huge transmission line voltage surges and contractions that are a feature of wind and solar systems.
This is quite a ghastly plan. We can only hope the republicans can beat it back and also use it to clobber the Democrats in a general election.
That's assuming electric power on demand 24/7/365 is desired.
The Germans are also having increased problems maintaining a stable grid which is not designed for huge transmission line voltage surges and contractions that are a feature of wind and solar systems.
This is quite a ghastly plan. We can only hope the republicans can beat it back and also use it to clobber the Democrats in a general election.
8
Problems can be solved.
Look at the epidemiology associated with coal and the effects of rising levels of CO2 on our environment and it is obvious that changes are urgently needed. The costs of retrenchment and doing nothing, simply accelerates environmental and related health degradation. Which path costs humanity more?
Look at the epidemiology associated with coal and the effects of rising levels of CO2 on our environment and it is obvious that changes are urgently needed. The costs of retrenchment and doing nothing, simply accelerates environmental and related health degradation. Which path costs humanity more?
6
The german didn't miss any targets, they are one of the four nations, that meet the Kyoto-Protocoll:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/kyoto-whos-on-target/
And for the prices, you are right, for the moment, but it's not the price that makes the impact, it is the 'power bill', and surprise, we are lower than the US:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/why-german-energy-consumers-pay-lower-bi...
About the stable grid, google for SAIDI (system average interruption duration index):
Germany is for years among the most relyable grids of all western nations (15 minutes), leaving the US (90 min) far behind
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-grid-reaches-record-reliab...
Of course it is all cherry picking and interpretation.
But on the other side, we are a top exporter, a high wage country, have low unemployment, social welfare. Blame it on something, but we are not affected by our 'green path', actually we are very content about it.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/kyoto-whos-on-target/
And for the prices, you are right, for the moment, but it's not the price that makes the impact, it is the 'power bill', and surprise, we are lower than the US:
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/why-german-energy-consumers-pay-lower-bi...
About the stable grid, google for SAIDI (system average interruption duration index):
Germany is for years among the most relyable grids of all western nations (15 minutes), leaving the US (90 min) far behind
http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-grid-reaches-record-reliab...
Of course it is all cherry picking and interpretation.
But on the other side, we are a top exporter, a high wage country, have low unemployment, social welfare. Blame it on something, but we are not affected by our 'green path', actually we are very content about it.
17
You are looking at the problem from a short-term profit-oriented angle. That has been the problem of US energy politics all along.
The German 'Energiewende' takes an ethical and long-term view: It is the right thing to do to avoid a catastrophic decline in liveable spaces on earth - and all countries will early R+D will be the exporters of those technologies when late countries run out of time to beat the crisis.
(Also: energy prices have always been at least double of that of the US. Germany needs to import most energy. The price increase due to the change to renewables is minor.)
Yes, there are challenges of energy storage + grid stability. They are being worked on.
The German 'Energiewende' takes an ethical and long-term view: It is the right thing to do to avoid a catastrophic decline in liveable spaces on earth - and all countries will early R+D will be the exporters of those technologies when late countries run out of time to beat the crisis.
(Also: energy prices have always been at least double of that of the US. Germany needs to import most energy. The price increase due to the change to renewables is minor.)
Yes, there are challenges of energy storage + grid stability. They are being worked on.
1
The title is un-believable and incomplete. Of course another intervention by President and his EPA will make some businesses happy, however it will cost most businesses and all consumers a great deal. Eventually new energy sources will be economic, but no amount of subsidies can make it so, before the science and economics advance to a point of near equivalence with traditional energy sources. Change can be effected without the costly disruptions and making American business less competitive, if the President and his lap dog, the EPA would work more traditionally through constitutional process and exercising presidential leadership with the legislative process and with the public. At one time, an elegant speech was enough to make us beleive. We have now learned that his pontifications often prove to be overly simple and much more costly or difficult to implement than he would have us believe. Of course because he never sullies his hand with implementing his dictates, he wouldn't know of the distance from soaring rhetoric to actually beneficial government policies.
5
Why not just ban the EPA and start fresh with unbiased people.
1
It is not a matter of supporting or opposing the plan, it is a question of survival.Nearly a decade back I read a paper published in Nature that argued that Homo sapiens has statistically completed the time that a species remains on the planet. So it is just a matter of deciding whether we come nearer to extinction in this century only or survive a few millenia more.
1
Sending a signal that it will be profitable is not the same as it being profitable in reality. The signals that business care about are whether the market thinks it will be profitable, not if Obama does.
Of course we have a nice little concise storyline about how it will all work. Just like a thousand government programs of all kinds before it which never work out the way they were promised. Like all the others, the millions of pieces of collateral damage and unintended consequences will never be forseen.
Of course we have a nice little concise storyline about how it will all work. Just like a thousand government programs of all kinds before it which never work out the way they were promised. Like all the others, the millions of pieces of collateral damage and unintended consequences will never be forseen.
2
From the NYT "But the plan’s clean-energy incentives offer utilities the opportunity to make investments that will enable state utility commissions to justify rates so utilities can recover their costs."
Make no mistake about it. The utility's will recover their costs; their rates on capital returns are guaranteed after all. Your electrical costs will go up. I live in a state with a significant wind portfolio. Our rates jumped dramatically to pay for the generation and distribution. You can't replace a perfectly fine gas plant with a new wind turbine farm and not have costs go up.
Make no mistake about it. The utility's will recover their costs; their rates on capital returns are guaranteed after all. Your electrical costs will go up. I live in a state with a significant wind portfolio. Our rates jumped dramatically to pay for the generation and distribution. You can't replace a perfectly fine gas plant with a new wind turbine farm and not have costs go up.
4
Maybe rising costs will be an incentive to reduce consumption of electricity, which in the end would be a good thing!
1
John Doe: "The utility's will recover their costs; their rates on capital returns are guaranteed after all. Your electrical costs will go up."
If the cost of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels had been included in our utility bills, we'd have switched to clean energy sources long ago.
If the cost of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels had been included in our utility bills, we'd have switched to clean energy sources long ago.
2
Natural gas is still extreme fossil. We need to and can do better than that. The accounting is inadequate and the toxic effects considerable.
We need full on clean energy, a great jobs program, efficiency, research and development on storage and delivery, a program to improve our hopes of surviving into the 22nd century.
Who cares? We all should care.
We need full on clean energy, a great jobs program, efficiency, research and development on storage and delivery, a program to improve our hopes of surviving into the 22nd century.
Who cares? We all should care.
22
That's not enough - liberalize the whole market.
Create a grid (supervised by the government) where everyone can sell energy, an open market where producers, traders and consumers can meet without restriction. It is a one time investment, like streets or irrigation, and after that it pays back.
And this is no crazy idea, this is exactly what the germans did. They can produce energy at lower expenses than any other nations (at the moment they pay more for installing the grid and putting up power-plants), and their grid is one of the most reliable grids in the world.
Every household could install solar panels, every farmer would use biogas, every community could make some extra dollar with windfarms, and small business would try new ideas to make some profit in a huge liberalized market.
A liberalized market would be the true american style, it would create thousands of new entrepreneurs. But instead it is this protect the big business fiddle, this is ensuring that the money just end up in a few pots. This business plan is just for serving the big business, to get their compliance, it is a shame.
Create a grid (supervised by the government) where everyone can sell energy, an open market where producers, traders and consumers can meet without restriction. It is a one time investment, like streets or irrigation, and after that it pays back.
And this is no crazy idea, this is exactly what the germans did. They can produce energy at lower expenses than any other nations (at the moment they pay more for installing the grid and putting up power-plants), and their grid is one of the most reliable grids in the world.
Every household could install solar panels, every farmer would use biogas, every community could make some extra dollar with windfarms, and small business would try new ideas to make some profit in a huge liberalized market.
A liberalized market would be the true american style, it would create thousands of new entrepreneurs. But instead it is this protect the big business fiddle, this is ensuring that the money just end up in a few pots. This business plan is just for serving the big business, to get their compliance, it is a shame.
34
Thus power from the people brings Power to the People.
Lieber Mathias,
That is a 'Realpolitik' idea - it only worked in Germany because ALL parties support the Energiewende. But Obama has to be strategic and do what is possible with a political majority that is bought and strangled by science + innovation denial oligarchs.
There will be companies that move ahead of those laws + then others will follow.
That is a 'Realpolitik' idea - it only worked in Germany because ALL parties support the Energiewende. But Obama has to be strategic and do what is possible with a political majority that is bought and strangled by science + innovation denial oligarchs.
There will be companies that move ahead of those laws + then others will follow.
Good regulations reward those businesses that are forward looking by providing a predictable future landscape and hurt the laggards.
Mitch McConnell is King of the Laggards, the bankrupt coal industry and old grandfathered power plants that led them into a dead end alley.
Given the multitude of disasters unleashed by the coal industry, from climate change to mercury poisoning to acid rain to environmental devastation and adandonment to respiratory diseases to coal ash heavy metal pollution to black lung and mining disasters, its an industry worth shrinking, not saving.
The US public needs to ask why people like McConnell, Inofe, Corker and others from small dependent states with radical agendas dominate powerful Congressional committees.
Mitch McConnell is King of the Laggards, the bankrupt coal industry and old grandfathered power plants that led them into a dead end alley.
Given the multitude of disasters unleashed by the coal industry, from climate change to mercury poisoning to acid rain to environmental devastation and adandonment to respiratory diseases to coal ash heavy metal pollution to black lung and mining disasters, its an industry worth shrinking, not saving.
The US public needs to ask why people like McConnell, Inofe, Corker and others from small dependent states with radical agendas dominate powerful Congressional committees.
42
Look Ahead:
Good regulations reward those businesses that are forward looking by providing a predictable future landscape and hurt the laggards.
***
If Goverment were god, perhaps. In reality, regulations do not do this. The government is awful at predictions, especially of industries and winners and losers.
Good regulations reward those businesses that are forward looking by providing a predictable future landscape and hurt the laggards.
***
If Goverment were god, perhaps. In reality, regulations do not do this. The government is awful at predictions, especially of industries and winners and losers.
1
You must mean Republican lead governments, betting on defense, coal, and Wall Street.
It was the Clinton Adminstration tha "predicted" the potential of the Internet. Lots of winners there. Obama's bet on clean energy will result in lots of winners, too, most important of which will be planet Earth.
It was the Clinton Adminstration tha "predicted" the potential of the Internet. Lots of winners there. Obama's bet on clean energy will result in lots of winners, too, most important of which will be planet Earth.
13
Let's see: unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, seat belts and air bags, fuel economy...Pretty good results from those regulations, and that's only with one product. If we'd fully fund food inspection, chemical and mass transportation industry oversight, and many other regulatory structures we'd see similar benefits there too.
And who actually did invent that there Internet, anyway?
And who actually did invent that there Internet, anyway?
8
"The plan sends a clear market signal that low-carbon energy will be profitable."
That is the right approach. We can expand on it.
Whoever masters the next form of energy will get rich from it. If that means several things in combination as seems likely, they a lot of people can get rich from it.
We are reaching the end of oil, gas, and coal. That isn't just "peak oil" ideas. Even if we are not really running out, even if we keep making discoveries, the whole world cannot modernize the way we have lived so far. It won't scale to five or ten times bigger than it is now. It is already staggering.
It is the same thing as using whale oil. Besides all the other issues, the planet was not big enough for enough whales to do that. It was impossible to scale up.
One measure of a civilization is the scale of the energy it can use. We have to make the next leap.
Whoever leads the way on that leap will make a lot of money, just like Rockefeller's Standard Oil did what he led the way to oil.
Who wants to be the next Rockefeller? There is probably room for several.
That is the larger version of what Obama is saying now, that clean energy will be profitable. The next step will be wealth beyond imagining.
Let's do it.
That is the right approach. We can expand on it.
Whoever masters the next form of energy will get rich from it. If that means several things in combination as seems likely, they a lot of people can get rich from it.
We are reaching the end of oil, gas, and coal. That isn't just "peak oil" ideas. Even if we are not really running out, even if we keep making discoveries, the whole world cannot modernize the way we have lived so far. It won't scale to five or ten times bigger than it is now. It is already staggering.
It is the same thing as using whale oil. Besides all the other issues, the planet was not big enough for enough whales to do that. It was impossible to scale up.
One measure of a civilization is the scale of the energy it can use. We have to make the next leap.
Whoever leads the way on that leap will make a lot of money, just like Rockefeller's Standard Oil did what he led the way to oil.
Who wants to be the next Rockefeller? There is probably room for several.
That is the larger version of what Obama is saying now, that clean energy will be profitable. The next step will be wealth beyond imagining.
Let's do it.
57
There will be profits yes, but there is no free lunch.
Your energy costs are going up under this plan.
Its just a question of how much and when: the utilities have invested in renewables etc..., but you have to remember they are regulated entities and aware of what the regulators are telling them to do.
If renewables could produce enough power at the same cost and volume as natural gas (cost being measured in $ only), they would already be doing it - they are not so it costs more and someone will have to pay the vig: either consumers (businesses and families) through their bills or the same selection of people thru taxation and government rebates to utilities.
To pretend this is a free lunch is delusional.
Maybe its worthwhile, maybe it isn't, i really don't know, and I strongly suspect those who say anything like this is certainty aren't real scientists in the classical sense.
And yes Germany is scaling back its energy plans on cost and reliability issues - they have rules like this, but their energy is MUCH more expensive (the same is true of most of Europe.
The most troubling part of this plan is that it is based on the hope that you cam get the Chinese to sign up to something similar by going 1st - you can talk about moral suasion, but i would be very surprised if this worked in the way intended.
Your energy costs are going up under this plan.
Its just a question of how much and when: the utilities have invested in renewables etc..., but you have to remember they are regulated entities and aware of what the regulators are telling them to do.
If renewables could produce enough power at the same cost and volume as natural gas (cost being measured in $ only), they would already be doing it - they are not so it costs more and someone will have to pay the vig: either consumers (businesses and families) through their bills or the same selection of people thru taxation and government rebates to utilities.
To pretend this is a free lunch is delusional.
Maybe its worthwhile, maybe it isn't, i really don't know, and I strongly suspect those who say anything like this is certainty aren't real scientists in the classical sense.
And yes Germany is scaling back its energy plans on cost and reliability issues - they have rules like this, but their energy is MUCH more expensive (the same is true of most of Europe.
The most troubling part of this plan is that it is based on the hope that you cam get the Chinese to sign up to something similar by going 1st - you can talk about moral suasion, but i would be very surprised if this worked in the way intended.
4
It seems to me when the government passed the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act it was a big success and everyone, each one of us including businesses and individuals, has benefited from it. It doesn't make sense to then claim that the government will not get this right when there is a clear record in front of us. Yes there will be challenges and problems to solve but the sooner we get started the better. There is no alternative unless continuing to use old-era fossil fuels is seen as nothing but good when there is so much evidence of its pollution.
3
bobo - firstly, there are initial capital costs (equipment, research) that, once addressed, make for a different result to the no-free-lunch equation. For example, the business model for rooftop solar has moved to installer-owned, paving the way for homeowners while enabling their relative freedom from the grid at comparable costs. Until recently, these weren't in the cost/volume calculations popularly pointed to by skeptics.
Secondly, once early adopters (often motivated by factors other than the strictly economic - gee-whizzness, or valuing independence from the grid highly) provide for volume, manufacturing costs drop so that a technology is picked up widely for the usual value-cost reasons. Think HDTV.
Government incentives are directed to these research and initial capital costs. I'm at TINTAAFL as the next guy, but I'll have a few tax dollars of mine get to that favorable part of the cost curve, thank you.
As for China, as eager you seem to be to participate in the tragedy of the commons, severe air pollution impacts are forcing them away from coal even besides their having signed on to greenhouse reduction goals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/world/asia/china-carbon-emissions-clim...
Secondly, once early adopters (often motivated by factors other than the strictly economic - gee-whizzness, or valuing independence from the grid highly) provide for volume, manufacturing costs drop so that a technology is picked up widely for the usual value-cost reasons. Think HDTV.
Government incentives are directed to these research and initial capital costs. I'm at TINTAAFL as the next guy, but I'll have a few tax dollars of mine get to that favorable part of the cost curve, thank you.
As for China, as eager you seem to be to participate in the tragedy of the commons, severe air pollution impacts are forcing them away from coal even besides their having signed on to greenhouse reduction goals:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/world/asia/china-carbon-emissions-clim...
4
Change in the next 35 to 100 years if we continue to listen to them. They know better, they know Climate Change is real and yet they work to kill millions in the US and the world. Now think about it - Isn't that a crime of Treason with the death penalty? I don't know how many people have died from the effect of this so far but at least a million world wide.