That's rich coming from someone using Trump's tweets as thread sources. Still think you're a troll, some of your posts regarding facts and bias just have to be intentional.
He might be a troll, but this past year should teach us all that trolls spreading propaganda should be taken more seriously. I watched part of the Senate hearing yesterday and its pretty shocking how internet trolls were incredibly effective this past year. We all saw the Pepe the frog twitter & facebook Trump fans, and its now widely known that they were actual paid Russian trolls. And 40% of Americans bought into their & Trumps BS, and fake stories on Facebook and shared them with folks like our parents & friends who hated Clinton since the 90's, and got a kick out of Trump. So while its easy to laugh at LilTexxx and all I think we do have to continue to fact check, and knock down any troll efforts to spread lies and propaganda. Not saying LilTexx is a paid Russian hack, but he sure is playing the role of how one would have operated on a forum such as this during the election.
That looks like sarcasm, but I do think it's true. The CPP was pretty much mandating coal be a loser. And, I'm cool with that. Coal is dirty and it's not nimble (coal is used as baseload gen because it takes a long time for it to ramp up and down. Gas-fired CCGTs are basically electricity-producing jet engines that don't rely on boiling a giant vat of water, so they can turn on and off at a moment's notice; that's important in a modern energy landscape with renewables and distributed generation). Coal can be useful as baseload because we're still going to have baseload, but why put up with the pollution when gas can be cleaner, cheaper, and more nimble. There is still something to be said for fuel diversity and security that I don't want to discount, but I don't see that the trade off is worth it.
Gas Prices in Houston have jumped .20 cents since Drumpf took office. If they continue to rise, what Drumpf do? Blame Obama? Say it is great for the middle class and poor?
LilTexx's Coal ministry mission statement revolves around coal deregulation making coal a cheaper source of energy and lowering consumer costs. What would that mean in consumer savings given we are already at 6 to 8 cents per KW which is pretty damn low. So even if Coal explosion leads to us spending 10 to 30 dollars less a month(even that much is debatable), what does that mean to consumers when they are paying 40 dollars more a month at the pump? As the previous poster mentions, gas prices have already gone up under Trump. The coal argument is such a waste of time even before you inject the moral argument of health, safety, and climate change. As a capitalism purist economic conversation, having many consumer choices for fuel and energy is ultimately the best way to bring costs down. Denying choices for alternative fuel and energy sources is stupid from a free market capitalist stand point. Making unethical concessions to Coal companies just doesn't make any sense in the grand scheme of things. Introducing more technology and innovation to our market to produce more clean energy options is only going to help consumers more than anything. And I think consumers will always choose the more efficient and clean options if given the choice in their price range. There is a reason auto producers like Ford put ECO and Fuel on the side of their trucks and market to high fuel efficiency in their class. It's because saving at the pump matters and people will ultimately prefer cleaner energy as well as cost savings. If coal can't keep up from a competitive and efficiency standpoint then F them. At least that's what traditional Republican Capitalists used to believe.
I am still hoping to read any studies (economic or other) supporting efforts to increase coal mining/use. Seems there are plenty showing its decline and health and environmental problems from coal, so studies showing the economic benefit to counter the health and environmental problems would be important in supporting Trump's move.
Your logic is truly terrible. Your point is that gasoline savings matter to people, but not power savings? That's laughable. Do power savings matter to large factories? What about data centers? Grocery stores? Of course they do. Lower energy costs stimulate the economy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-plant-is-closing-not-even-trump-can-save-it/ If coal is great maybe someone will step and buy that thing. Since Bigtexxx is so rich maybe he can buy it.
I think this is a good point. We have some of the lowest energy prices we've ever had. Even if coal can get lower, it can't get much lower. How much should we really sacrifice to get a marginal improvement on cost.
Also, I know it seems like Im changing the subject here, but if we are talking about consumer spending, what are the top bills folks pay monthly that are burdening to their spending? Mortgages, Car note, Student Loans, and Credit Card debt probably right? (Trump fans will pivot to say that they really meant savings for large factories, and companies that will saving money on energy expense. However the initial BigTexx mission statement was on CONSUMER SPENDING. Not corporate savings) Reg the bigger picture of consumer spending.... Obama deserves some credit for his focus on mortgages, and getting people in homes on good home loans. Dodd Frank getting repealed is a massive mistake IMO because its going to open up banks ability to again get people in bad loans again and again which will ultimately affect consumer spending. Keeping Americans on home & other loans that they can afford will give them the ability to spend regularly instead of only serving banking institutions by using most of their income on all the interest and debt they've accumulated. Lowering people's electricity bill is a nice thing if it happens, but in the grand scheme of things, its a relatively small problem we have with currently such low electricity costs especially here in Texas (where politics affects our energy choices more than most states).
I'll back Texxx on this one ( ). Your point is well-taken, but energy is a bit of a special animal because every endeavor uses energy. Since those energy bills are so important to companies, and they are a variable expense, you see them reflected in the price of every item you buy. The electricity to run the tools, the gas to fire the furnace, the gasoline to operate the delivery truck -- they all go into sales prices. So, if you can reduce the price of energy for businesses, you reduce the cost of just about every thing and service consumers buy as well. We want companies to have low energy bills.
Look I get it. I understand that's a part of it, but its a list of priorities that I see as larger ways to affect the economy, AND businesses to provide a better situation for us as consumers. In the grand scheme of things, Coal being a main priority is laughable to me. You mentioned gas to run trucks (not Coal related). Gas to fire a furnace (natural gas is the primary contributor I thought). Not sure how Coal power is affecting this much with corporate spending costs. If we want to talk about corporate infrastructure and supporting a better capitalist competitive marketplace, Coal regulations don't really jump to the top of the list for me personally. We want to go down this road then lets then look holistically at corporate spending, and how companies structure their capital. Where should our priorities be? I don't see endless think tanks raising the alarm about corporate energy costs, but lets then talk holistically to see where it ranks in the areas that can reduce their cost of doing business.
Whether Trumps rolls back on coal regulation or not, the INDUSTRY is moving away from it. Most coal-fired power plants on the east coast have been retrofitted into gas-fired ones. Just look at how many coal-fired power plants NRG Energy is shutting down in the upcoming years. And then look at how many gas-fired ones they're planning to build. In the electric industry, the RTOs/ISOs have worked very diligently with the National American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) over the past 6-7 years to align its electric nomination with gas timely nomination in order to support more gas-fired electric generation. Regardless of what the trolls say, the movement is already underway and it's largely driven by market economics. I also wouldn't worry too about the loss of renewable jobs due to Trump. Most of the renewable jobs are created by state regulatory agencies. Even if the federal government exists, state agencies will continue to grow green jobs and offer subsidies for renewable generation. Look at California as an example. On a different note, Trump hasn't produced too many "wins" since he's been at the White House. His biggest loss in his young political career is the health care reform bill. It was utterly embarrassing and will have snowball effect on his other initiatives such as the tax reform and infrastructure.
Environment needs to come first, change the energy to clean renewables, become energy independent and create jobs the right way. The tech is here and it's been past due for the U.S. along with the rest of the world to make changes.
Energy independence happened under obama. It happened because of fracking. It happened because of market forces, under Obama's term. Coal is dead and just an issue to get old dying conservatives riled. It has been replaced by natural gas. Conservatives need to eliminate coal from their vocabulary
meanwhile.... Between 2010 and 2014, e-commerce grew by an average of $30 billion annually. Over the past three years, average annual growth has increased to $40 billion. “That is the tipping point, right there,” said Barbara Denham, a senior economist at Reis, a real estate data and analytics firm. “It’s like the Doppler effect. The change is coming at you so fast, it feels like it is accelerating.” This transformation is hollowing out suburban shopping malls, bankrupting longtime brands and leading to staggering job losses. More workers in general merchandise stores have been laid off since October, about 89,000 Americans. That is more than all of the people employed in the United States coal industry, which President Trump championed during the campaign as a prime example of the workers who have been left behind in the economic recovery. The job losses in retail could have unexpected social and political consequences, as huge numbers of low-wage retail employees become economically unhinged, just as manufacturing workers did in recent decades. About one out of every 10 Americans works in retail. “There is a sea change happening in the retail industry,” said Mark Cohen, a former executive at Sears, who now runs the retail studies program at Columbia Business School. “And that is bringing a sea change in employment.” Store closures, meanwhile, are on pace this year to eclipse the number of stores that closed in the depths of the Great Recession of 2008. Back then Americans, mired in foreclosures and investment losses, retrenched away from buying stuff. The current torrent of closures comes as consumer confidence is strong and unemployment is low, suggesting that a permanent restructuring is underway, rather than a dip in the normal business cycle. In short, traditional retail may never recover.
