By Steve HanerGovernor Glenn Youngkin recently flew to Louisiana to join with other Republican governors in criticizing President Joe Biden’s energy policy, especially the president’s hostility to hydrocarbon fuels. Youngkin and the rest gathered at an oil refinery to make their point that oil and gas should not go away in the decades to come. Energy realism begins at home. Right here in Virginia Youngkin has a golden opportunity to fix Virginia’s broken energy policy and to maintain energy choice in our state economy. The 2025 General Assembly may revisit the Virginia laws meant to eliminate natural gas electricity. Youngkin should make it clear early that he will only sign a bill that protects energy reliability, preserves consumer choice, and prevents major cost increases. Youngkin is celebrating some energy policy wins that are good news for Virginia consumers. The state is now out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon tax meant punish the use of coal or natural gas in making electricity. Prior carbon tax payments made by our dominant electricity provider are now fully reimbursed and the cost has disappeared from monthly bills. We got out in the nick of time. Yet another RGGI carbon allowance auction was held June 5 and the carbon tax rose to $21.03 per ton, a new record. In the March 2021 auction, Virginia’s first, the tax was $7.60 per ton. When Virginia Democrats voted to put Virginia under RGGI, the tax was standing at less than $6, and nobody except the Thomas Jefferson Institute spoke honestly about how it would likely increase.Last week, Youngkin announced that he and Attorney General Jason Miyares have concluded Virginia is not legally obligated to adopt the most recent California air emissions regulations for light-duty vehicles. The now-abandoned rules would have controlled the mix of new vehicles sold, with a rising requirement that a percentage of them be all-electric. A legal challenge is likely. Exiting the RGGI and California Advanced Clean Car interstate compacts were huge and positive steps. But the larger challenge to Virginia consumers is the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), which also seeks to drive hydrocarbon fuels out of the electricity market within a few years. Even more broadly restrictive on Virginia’s economy is the clean energy policy enshrined in state law which demands changes in agriculture, transportation and energy in homes and offices. During the 2024 General Assembly, legislators sidestepped most efforts to either strengthen or weaken the clean energy mandates. Key Senate Democratic leaders instead discussed plans to revisit and revise the full VCEA later in 2024. That effort is fully underway, with more transparency than is usually the case when the legislature meddles in energy policy. Unfortunately, nobody on the inside is focused on protecting the average residential user or the small business customer. Senator David Marsden, D-Fairfax, has grabbed control of the effort (not actually authorized by a study resolution) and he recently told stakeholders that an activist environmental legal agency, The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), will be the official protector of consumers. The SELC in Charlottesville as the retail consumer advocate in the closed room negotiations? The utilities themselves will have more concern for the ratepayer impact of the massive switch to solar, wind and battery power. Marsden’s designation of SELC as speaking for ratepayers is a flashing warning sign of what may emerge. If there is going to be a revision of the VCEA, ratepayer concerns about reliability and cost need to lead the agenda. VCEA is composed of deadlines to eliminate coal and natural gas at power plants, mandates for the construction of expensive wind, solar and battery projects and required purchases of “renewable energy certificates,” which create no electrons for Virginia homes or businesses. One way or another, all those costs land on customers. If the rapid conversion to unreliable wind and solar power means Virginia faces periods of energy shortage, especially if the expanding energy demands of the tech industry and its data centers match expectations, people will feel the pinch at home as their power is metered or included in unscheduled rolling blackouts. The panel of stakeholders Marsden announced in late May is dominated, however, by the utilities, the anti-carbon fuel environmentalists, lobbyists for companies that will reap billions in revenue building wind, solar and battery installations, and gigantic industrial players who are also pledged to some version of net-zero or zero carbon energy. Local governments are at the table because the solar industry is complaining it cannot get enough locations approved. Bills were introduced in 2024 to override local zoning and neighbor complaints and force approval of about ten times as many solar farms as have already been built — miles and miles of panels. VCEA requires it. Many farmers are eager to convert to a crop of electrons. The Youngkin Administration is represented in Marsden’s effort through the Department of Energy. But it remains an advocate for Youngkin’s “all of the above” rhetoric, which commits Virginia to continued expansion of weather-dependent generation. For example, it may continue to support the expansion of offshore wind beyond what is already planned. It is actively chasing all forms of federal funding, a trail of breadcrumbs leading Virginia away from reliable energy. “All of the above” is a fine political slogan but is a mushy energy policy. A real energy policy is going to demand some actual choices and standing up to bullies. A real energy policy will make reliability the priority. A real energy policy will require substantial natural gas generation to continue well into the 21st century at the very least and need far less wind or solar. If enough of the current legislators do not understand that, the voters should pick some new ones. First published this morning by the Thomas Jefferson Institute of Public Policy.
Now Fix the Clean Economy Act, Governor
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
155 responses to “Now Fix the Clean Economy Act, Governor”
-
How did the Greens do in the most recent election for seats in the European Parliament?
-
Blew up.
-
-
Why have the renewable folks missed the issue of storage to bridge periods when solar does not generate (like every night) or the wind does not blow, or both (a calm night)? Similar with the profound generation and transmission revolution, billions of watts, millions of miles of transmission line and transformer upgrades needed to run 500,000 EV charging stations?
With $7.5B funding and almost 2 years we have 8 charging stations. To hit the 500,00 funded we would need to build about 250 a day for more than the next 5 years (and without Chinese components, fat chance). But of course the Administration has adjusted to slow EV adoption, it has reduced the CAFE from 55 to 51 mpg. That'll fix it!
Are we in Wonderland where wishing will just make it so?
-
big time gaslighting from the GOP:
-
Check this out, Larry. US gas prices adjusted for inflation over time. Pretty flat….
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2024/06/Gasoline-prices-over-time-adjusted-.png
-
The POTUS cannot effect gas prices – it's a free market.
How about this? What does the GOP say about it? Not exactly the truth.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ed0d0ae8387af4c5f52314facb479a934d7e94ad524f1abe7281cf3eb90ba024.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f778e7211911b74517b35efe30a0d92233b392eb6cbaa45dc7550a2e7ebb520.png
-
-
-
A couple of truth-telling facts to go with the gaslighting!
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8709d37d5147f9cc089238a4897e868af6dfbc6a72a137cd7836fca64e706cc7.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2933bfeaceaaf5565959c5ab772a4811e91ed704751051bba4add4dd3f919143.png
and the terrible RGGI – it costs consumers half a penny an hour on their bills… or about 16 cents a day …. awful!-
I thought the G in your handle was for gaslight. Should be. What does either of those have to do with revising the VCEA? Nada.
-
I thought the G in your handle was for gaslight. Should be. What does either of those have to do with revising the VCEA? Nada.
-
"Governor Glenn Youngkin recently flew to Louisiana to join with other Republican governors in criticizing President Joe Biden’s energy policy, especially the president’s hostility to hydrocarbon fuels. Youngkin and the rest gathered at an oil refinery to make their point that oil and gas should not go away in the decades to come. "
gaslighting?
-
Biden always says he is agin' oil and gas. Droned on and on about existential climate crises in Europe the other day. Are you saying he is only preaching that nonsense but not actually doing it? 😉 You'd have a point.
Remember this?https://www.baconsrebellion.com/app/uploads/2022/07/Biden-MBS-Fist-Bump-July-22.webp
-
He wants to phase it out for sure on Federal lands but his policies are obviously not hurting our output – which continues to be the most ever!
Yes, I'm saying he is essentially doing "all the above" with a longer therm plan to transition away from gas and oil and to cleaner fuels.
Does he swallow toads in foreign affairs? Does ANY POTUS?
Methinks you are diverting here….
The gaslighting from Conservatives and GOP is to misrepresent the whole picture. We need to transition but we'd not going to do stupid things to hurt reliability or availability of energy.
We can and ARE doing BOTH unless you buy what Youngkin is blowing smoke about.
The money from RGGI could easily be used to fix the grid and to do it via public-private approaches.
Technologies like Re-conductering alone can DOUBLE our current capacity.
Where is THAT "plan" from conservatives? There is none, just grievance-mongering and boogeyman politics. THe usual .
-
Yep. The usual for sure.
-
-
-
Biden remarked in January that climate change poses the "single-most existential threat to humanity we’ve ever faced, including nuclear weapons," adding that it is a "real big problem."
This is why you can't re-elect a person with deep dementia.
After 2+ years of insisting that the escalatory potential of letting Ukraine use US weapons against targets on Russian soil was prohibitive, it's now just fine.
Under its long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity,” the United States has never committed to coming to Taiwan’s defense if China attacks. But, President Biden has repeatedly said he would send the U.S. military to defend Taiwan, although he added a new caveat in his latest interview with Time, saying, “It would depend on the circumstances.” Meanwhile, the Communist Chinese continue to harrass Taiwan – more and more frequently.
Iran is on the verge of having working nuclear arms while catalyzing chaos in the Middle East by arming Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis.
North Korea remains a totally rogue state and a nuclear armed wild card.
"I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says of Vice President Joe Biden in his book published in 2014.
It's ten years later and Biden's mental capacities have taken a long, sharp nosedive.
Biden is, as usual, completely wrong.
Nuclear war is the biggest threat to humanity.
-
he's got more intelligence ad reason in his pinky finger than Mr. Bull in the china shop. No contest.
-
Many of us Double Haters support RFK. To me, his most redeeming quality is that he is not Trump or Biden.
-
A vote for RFK is a vote for Trump, right?
-
No, it's a vote for RFK. I hate (make that detest) both Trump and Biden.
-
-
-
and Biden's mental capacities were nothing to write home about before they took the nosedive.
Taiwan is an even worse case than you present.
Half a century ago when we swapped mainland China for Taiwan at the UN we agreed that China was one country but that Taiwan for a time was separately administered. We have no, zero, none, nada treaties to go to Taiwan's defense. The policy has been "strategic ambiguity". Arming Taiwan and threats to go to war are not ambiguous.
As Ukraine and Israel have demonstrated by emptying our cupboards, we have about a weeks worth of ammunition for a war with China. Because we have almost no manufacturing base resupply takes years. What could go wrong with that? "Ok, Xi, we're out of ammo, never mind" or go nuclear as we're idiotically toying with in Ukraine.
Any war we have with China over Taiwan will be primarily naval. China has the largest navy in the world and it will be fighting close to home, as opposed to being strung out across the Pacific with a navy that has not fought a war against a peer in more than 75 years. We have a goal of about a 350 ship navy but fewer than 300 ships currently and the count is going down, not up. We are decommissioning ships faster than we are building them.
Everything we use in the US today is made in China. Without Chinese manufacturing we could not get parts to fix our toilets, or furnaces, or tractors, or computers, or any other damn thing we might want or need. It is possible the Chinese would cut off the flow of goods if we start shooting at them.
The current antagonism towards China over Taiwan and the sanctions war we are waging with China are sheer demented lunacy. They are compounded by the incompetent neocon twits in service to the demented lunacy. AKA Blinken, Nuland, Sullivan, Graham, Johnson, et al.
I wish there were prospects for better, but last time we got Pompeo and Bolton in service of narcissism. There's no indications that Trump has a learning curve that would make next term better.
As the old Chinese curse frames it, we are living in interesting times with the likelihood of more to come.
The refinery chosen for the Youngkin event, Chalmette, is an old stomping ground for me. I had to read their 100-yr history to make sure, as there has been many owners.
Steve do I interpret that you do not believe that we are facing climate change caused by human activity/choices?
-
Change yes, crisis no. Slight temp rises, same sea level rise as the last 1000 years, no acceleration of major storms due to CO2. The media lies and hype far exceed the worst of the COVID panic era. See:
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/no-climate-crisis-very-little-climate-change/
Of course, Covid was actually real and something science could actually deal with, test hypotheses, measure outcomes…The claim humans understand a system as complex as climate is bogus.
-
Ask what he favors us doing in response…. and when,… he's got an extensive comment record in BR about what to do about it.
-
The real question is "will these policies pay off for Virginia?" If Virginia participates in RGGI, the California vehicle standards and the VCEA generally, Virginia's homes and businesses will incur extra energy costs with certainty. Given the global nature of the alleged negative externality associated with carbon emissions, will the adoption of these policies impact future climate outcomes? And would any change in future climate outcomes result in measurable benefits for Virginia?
THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS. Warmer? Yes. More CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. Crisis? NO. There are lawsuits before the Supreme Court trying to bankrupt oil companies because of a nonexistent climate crisis. Imagine destroying an economy over a myth.
-
12 straight months of record temperatures on Earth say it is no myth.
-
Troll, even you have to know that claim is silly on its face. Over 100 years of records and every month in the past 12 was the hottest on record? Even if you foolishly think they have credible "global" records (they don't), maybe one or two months were hotter sometime? These claims are intended for the math illiterate.
-
In other words, NASA, NOAA and most of the worlds scientists are lying….. or incompetent.
-
In other words, NASA, NOAA and most of the worlds scientists are lying….. or incompetent.
-
Or maybe the people making the claims have a financial interest in "reanalyzing" other organizations' data, incorporating it into their predictive software and selling it?. Their time frame is 1940 to 2024. Anybody remember the predicted coming ice age for the 70's?
-
what financial interests? Do you have something that shows scientists in cahoots with businesses to sell products based on falsified science from many scientists conspiring to do this? Was there scientific consensus of a coming ice age?
-
Their Climate Store is being redone so there is no info on what they might sell or charge.
re 70’s:
https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/today-its-global-warming-in-the-70s-it-was-the-coming-ice-age -
sounds like something skeptics would read… totally an off-the-wall opinion, right? individual scientists
do come up with theories all the time and get joined by others… and over time if more and more agree, it’s called a consensus. Even then , it’s not “proof” or even close but it’s more like 50 models predicting the
path of a hurricane. None are right. All are wrong, BUT…. it’s REAL and factual.
-
-
-
“May 2024 was the warmest May on record globally, with a global average surface air temperature 0.65°C above the 1991–2020 average, marking the 12th consecutive month for which the global average temperature reaches a record value for the corresponding month, based on ERA5 data.”
-
none of these numbers are accepted as valid by the deniers.. they're all false.
-
<i>"with a global average surface air temperature 0.65°C above the 1991–2020 average"</i>
Don't suppose that average had a couple of months that were hotter than the average temperature do you? 2/3 of a degree even C above average is not a lot. Standard deviation must be awfully small.
Nobody’s disputing it’s warmer. Where’s the crisis?
-
what would have to happen to make you re-think and believe that's it's serious?
-
Polar ice cap needs to melt.
-
Ok. Thank You for your answer!
-
Haner denies it as do many others. Polar ice and glaciers in retreat. Permafrost melting. Coral reef die off. Do you really need to be in the midst of the cataclysm before you act – if so, then it will be too late.
-
Coral reefs are fine. Melting began before 1950.
-
“Coral reefs are fine.”
No, they are not.
https://reefresilience.org/stressors/reefs-are-at-risk/
“Melting began before 1950.”
It is not about when it began, it is about the increasing rates in recent decades.
-
The scientists AND the media are in cahoots and lying!
Everything is FINE! -
Why are you posting links to this same blog?
First, thanks for reefsilence.org. Nice to have disagreement backed up by data. My statement is based on Patrick Moore’s video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX1z_6pvM-Q.
He talks about coral at about 1:20 and states that bleaching is normal, that coral likes warm water.
Again, thank you for the essd.pernicus.org link. Rare for alarmists to respond with data. This website acknowledges the decrease https://climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm#NSIDC%20recent%20Arctic%20and%20Antarctic%20sea%20ice%20extent
but makes the following observation: Sea ice variations have recently attracted much public interest. Part of the reason for this is the high albedo (c. 80%) of sea ice, which reflects much of the incoming solar short-wave radiation during the summer time. If not reflected, this radiation may instead be consumed by warming ocean water, thereby initiating a positive feedback, leading to more warming. This simple analysis however ignores that evaporation will increase from the ocean when the total sea icecover are reduced in size. Increased evaporation usually results in an increased cloud cover and increased reflectance of incoming solar radiation, which tend to counteract the above process. The decrease or increase of sea ice has no effect on the global sea level.
I would not expect melting sea ice to increase sea levels (although I am not a climate scientist who studies such things). Melting ice in a glass of water does not raise the level of water in that glass after all. The sea level rises come from melting continental ice sheets (like Greenland and Antarctica).
so what should be done in response?
-
The problem is not looking for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but rather, the financial impacts. The current path will lead to the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy in human history. For example, why send hundreds of millions of dollars to academics to study warming instead of funding insulation of older homes? Why bail out owners of multi-million dollars homes on the coasts? Why allow tax deductions for the elites to fly private jets to global warming conferences around the world?
-
re: insulation. THey do both TMT and people complain about it.
The thing about the flood insurance is that it won't affect the millionaires much…oh they'll take the subsidized insurance if available but if not, they'll self insure.
But what about the millions of other people that are in flood zones that are not millionaires and can't stay in their homes if they can't get insurance or they go bare and lose everything when floods.
What happens to a city's tax base if the houses in the flood plains lose their value, and the people leave?
There's a whole lot of pain coming down on flooding – not only from the ocean but from rivers in the ineterior that now seem to have 100 yr and 500 yr floods every few years – and the private insurance companies don''t want nothing to do with them.
THe skeptics will deny the data til the cows come home but the insurance companies won't… they're pulling out of places that are seeing more and more claims.
-
Larry, you are twisting remarks. A big cause of greenhouse gas emissions is older, poorly insulated housing. We know that. I propose to defund the academics and to use the savings to insulate older houses. That will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Don't spend money protecting property in oceanside flood zones. That would be more money to insulate older houses.
Eliminate any tax deduction for the operation of private jets. Limit the business expense deduction to first class airfare. Take away the tax-exempt status for any nonprofit using a private jet. Shame the celebrities using their private jets to go to global warming summits.
Look at the number of federal agencies dealing with climate change and consolidate operations into a single agency. Use the funds to insulate older houses.
-
Larry, you are twisting remarks. A big cause of greenhouse gas emissions is older, poorly insulated housing. We know that. I propose to defund the academics and to use the savings to insulate older houses. That will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Don't spend money protecting property in oceanside flood zones. That would be more money to insulate older houses.
Eliminate any tax deduction for the operation of private jets. Limit the business expense deduction to first class airfare. Take away the tax-exempt status for any nonprofit using a private jet. Shame the celebrities using their private jets to go to global warming summits.
Look at the number of federal agencies dealing with climate change and consolidate operations into a single agency. Use the funds to insulate older houses.
-
I’m pointing out we ALREADY provide incentives to insulate houses (as well as other things to reduce energy use in homes) . It’s not an either/or thing.
If you want to defund the flood insurance subsidies, fine.
And if you want to put more money into insulation, that also.
but the budget process treats each as a discrete item.
This is why we have an elected Congress… to fairly represent all citizens and their interests.
Unless we have a POTUS who just decides, right?
-
But for the subsidies for the climate scientists and government bureaucrats and nonprofit grants we could insulate more homes for the same amount of money. But like most things associated with the federal government, payment to the insiders comes first.
-
We just don’t budget that way TMT. You work for a Federal agency. Do you think it
would be okay to take funds from your agency to spend on a better purpose somewhere
else?
You know this guy. You’re talking the way that wild-eyed zealots do. defund this and defund that!We should defund the FBI and spent it on insulation?
-
-
that’s the argument against. What should be done instead? nothing?
Expose the alarmist fraud by asking them for evidence of an existing climate crisis. It’s been 18 years since Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. That should be enough time to see evidence of an existential crisis. I’ve asked alarmists Gerry Connolly, Chairman McKay, the Director of Fairfax County Dept of Public Works and Environmental Science (DPWES), and Supervisor Walkinshaw for evidence of an existing existential climate crisis. The only thing substantive that they’ve given me is that DPEWS reports we’re getting 2 more inches of rain a year and 4 more days between 90-100 degrees (and no more days over 100 degrees). That’s a crisis? Connolly provided a lot of evidence that there’s more CO2 and warming, which I don’t dispute, but no evidence of a crisis. He did mention sea level rise in Louisiana, but that is due to shoreline subsidence. Supervisor Walkinshaw had a climate summit last year where a GMU scientist showed temperatures at Reagan National as evidence of warming. When I asked how much of the warming was due to the heat island effect, he said “great question” and said he did not know. More recently Walkinshaw cited NASA billion-dollar climate disaster findings, but those findings have methodological flaws. He has not offered a defense of the NASA findings nor any other evidence. By the way, lithium batteries are dangerous.
-
Let me ask you. DO you think the Ozone Holes were a crisis?
Why have the renewable folks missed the issue of storage to bridge periods when solar does not generate (like every night) or the wind does not blow, or both (a calm night)? Similar with the profound generation and transmission revolution, billions of watts, millions of miles of transmission line and transformer upgrades needed to run 500,000 EV charging stations?
With $7.5B funding and almost 2 years we have 8 charging stations. To hit the 500,00 funded we would need to build about 250 a day for more than the next 5 years (and without Chinese components, fat chance). But of course the Administration has adjusted to slow EV adoption, it has reduced the CAFE from 55 to 51 mpg. That'll fix it!
Are we in Wonderland where wishing will just make it so?
-
Speaking of renewables, the refinery in question (Chalmette) has, according to reports, been focus on making advanced biodiesel, generally that is for the California diesel market mandates.
I thought the Attorney General's office was supposed to represent consumers. Where is he in this process?
I had to smile about your declaration that "“All of the above” is a fine political slogan but is a mushy energy policy. A real energy policy is going to demand some actual choices and standing up to bullies." Political slogans are what have defined this administration.
Finally, you urge the governor not to sign any bill coming out of the Marsden group unless it "protects energy reliability, preserves consumer choice, and prevents major cost increases." Those are excellent criteria, but any threat not to sign any such bill would be an empty threat because not to do so would result in the VCEA remaining intact and you think the VCEA is terrible public policy.
-
Well, repeal at this point is not possible. So the best would be some bill that improved the situation, made it clear that gas can remain to maintain reliability, backed off on offshore wind II, etc. Change the GA and then yes, repeal would be another outcome.
-
What Youngkin is doing is basically helping to promote a lie about energy policy in the US and Virginia.
here's that "mush" that is referred to:
-
As I recall, former president Obama called for an "All of the Above" energy policy.
-
He did and if you look at Biden's approach, it's exactly that but also has a transition .
-
You cannot legislate technology. Nor can you pass rules to make technological breakthroughs happen.
The financial aspects of climate change are designed to enrich the upper and bureaucrat classes. If we really cared, we'd see a whole lot of people lose government funding and put the savings into insulating older homes.
-
Wonder how many homes built during the NoVA building booms of the 80s and 90s are missing insulation. I know my dad's house was missing insulation in places.. Cheap thermal cameras didn't exist back then, so it was easy for a builder to get away with a crappy job.
-
I've spent a fair amount of money upfitting the house even before the "climate" thing, more the electric bill "thing". 😉
Spent a bunch on a new roof – thicker shingles… wanted metal but could not afford.
If the govt gave a big credit for a metal roof, I'd do it!
😉
-
Since it’s much easier to insulate and seal a house, and to make sure that it is done correctly, during the construction process, that is exactly what I did when my house was being built.
I probably used at least 20 cans of Great Stuff before it was built–this is on top of what the builder did.
-
Of if I did a new, I would be a royal pain. I’d demand one of those pressurized tests…. Used to have cedar
siding but it got raggedy so I replaced with brown vertical siding that had some insulation value and
functioned a bit like ‘house wrap’. I’d do what Eric did with a ground-based HVAC and I”d build
where I could do solar. A “conservative” approach to “conserving”. 😉 -
The blower door test is now required for new construction, at least since 2017 in Virginia. Supposed to achieve an air tightness no more than 3 ACH (air changes per hour).
-
shows what I don’t know and am ignorant about.
-
I tried to find out WHEN the blower door test requirement in Virginia happened, couldn’t find anything.
Kind of strange, it seems like the sort of requirement that would have the new home builder lobby up in arms, while at the same time quality builders like Stanley Martin would have no problem with it.
-
-
-
Let me ask. Do you think we mandated removing lead from gasoline and after we did that the technology evolved to do it? That’s how it worked, right?
Did we legislate banning chemicals that caused the ozone holes and the industry followed with
technology changes to do it?
How about higher gas mileage? Didn’t we mandate higher gas mileage and industry worked with
technology to make it happen?
seat belts? HVACs? Fridges? tailpipe standards? Seems like we do that , no?
Lead was used as a cheap octane booster and alternatives were always available.
yep. But we would have continued to use it unless the govt banned it, right? The industry wasn't going to do it.
Some countries STILL have leaded gas, right?
Fuel injection would’ve spelled the end of leaded gas, ban or not.
didn’t happen. wouldn’t happen in a free market….strongly suspect no country got to unleaded without mandating it.
Yes, it would happen in a free market. Anyone who had to deal with a carbureted vehicle in cold weather would appreciate fuel injection, and probably pay the extra money for it.
did it happen anywhere solely from free market? My impression is that most countries that did not mandate it still use leaded. No?
I don’t think, even in countries where leaded gas is still available, anyone is using it in any modern vehicles.
In the USA, leaded gas (for motor vehicles) was legally sold up until 1995, but I don’t recall seeing it for sale much past the late 80s.
Even today in the USA you can still get aviation gas which is leaded. It has an octane of 100 (LL100). I’ve heard of people running this in their vehicle, but the result of doing that in a post-1970s vehicle is going to be a trashed oxygen sensor and catalytic converter, some expensive repairs.
I read that leaded gas wasn’t very good for engines, either, the lead deposits could cause problems.
SO…. you are of the opinion that gas would have become unleaded without the govt mandates, just free market? RIght?
Leaded gas has problems aside from the environmental issues. The exhaust gasses are corrosive. That’s not good for the engine or the exhaust system. It causes the engine oil to need to be changed more often, as well as causing the spark plugs to need to be changed more often. (Also makes the exhaust system rust out/fail).
It wasn’t government mandates that resulted in 100K tuneups and 10K oil changes. That was auto industry innovation–and if leaded gas stood in the way of that, the auto industry would do away with it.
Not to mention it doesn’t play nice with oxygen sensors, which are the main method by which fuel injection fine tines the air/fuel ratios.
Have you googled “how gas became unleaded”
Have you ever googled why it was leaded in the first place?
EDIT: It should be noted that the company that pushed for the lead additive to be added to gasoline is/was based in Richmond, Virginia.
Just another example among many of the wonderful things that Virginians have brought to the world.
geeze….. ” In 1921 (in Ohio) , General Motors engineer Thomas Midgley Jr. discovered that tetraethyl lead (TEL), also known as lead, could be added to gasoline to prevent engine knocking. TEL is a highly toxic compound that was originally discovered in 1854″
Pretty sure it did not become unleaded because it was “better” for the engines… easy to find lots
of articles as to how it became unleaded around the world in fact. By govts because it was/is dangerous to people and industry fought against it.. , attacked the science and lied about it in general.
Easy to find the truth here.
TEL was used because it was cheap. That’s the only reason. It had no other advantages and quite a few disadvantages I already mentioned, in addition to the toxicity problems.
Those disadvantages alone, even without the toxicity problems, are reason enough that it would have eventually been phased out even without government mandates.
Well, except in places where they sold Ladas.
No where on earth did that happen. Every country banned it before the “free market” could.
And apparently still used/needed in some aircraft? No better product replaced?
Aircraft engines have different requirements than motor vehicle engines. For one thing, it isn't even legal to run an aircraft engine on anything other than the fuel it was approved to run. So while running your 1965 Caddy on unleaded gas is perfectly legal, it isn't legal to do the same with a Piper Cub.
Here's one for you. Why isn't MTBE used in gasoline anymore. Hint: It's not because the government banned it.
” The U.S. Congress passed a law that stated the federal government would not offer liability protection for oil companies still using MTBE in fuel by May 2006, which caused MTBE to be completely phased out as a fuel oxygenate.”
I’d say that’s pretty much a ban. No?
re: aircraft – if there are actually better additives than Tetraethyllead, why not use them instead in aircraft?
Sounds like there are not better additives and that’s why leaded fuel ended up outlawed and not replaced by a better additive. No?
We outlawed Tetraethyllead because it was highly toxic. The free market doesn’t care if something is toxic as long as the govt says it’s not and even when the govt said it was – it took decades to get to a ban – at which time the free market did not come up with a better additive. Truth.
It’s the government refusing to step in and do something, so the free market decided that the liability was not worth it. I wouldn’t call that a ban.
As far as aircraft goes…one major difference between aircraft and motor vehicles is that aircraft cannot just pull over to the side of the road in the event of an engine problem. So the regulations demand a lot of testing and validation before ANY changes are allowed to be made. Even something as simple as changing from a rubber fuel hose to a braided steel fuel hose isn’t allowed.
Given this, it should be easy to see why banning leaded gasoline for aviation use hasn’t happened and likely never will. Who will pay for all of the testing and validation to ensure that planes don’t fall out of the sky if they’re running unleaded gasoline?
Incidentally, MTBE is one of the octane enhancers used after TEL was banned. It was largely replaced with ethanol.
When the govt won’t protect you from liability is that “free market”?
re” aircraft – but the free market did not come up with something better for them………
MTBE was polluting ground water big time. The “free market” would be subject to civil suits
for liability if no govt protection, right? When we say “free market” we don’t mean
“with govt help” right?
I think it's pretty well established that to have a "free market" there has to be some way to right a civil wrong that doesn't involve a duel.
As far as aircraft goes, who knows. Maybe if there weren't a bunch of legal red tape involved, someone would have figured out if aviation engines really can run just fine on regular unleaded gasoline. it's much cheaper.
I think it's pretty well established that to have a "free market" there has to be some way to right a civil wrong that doesn't involve a duel.
As far as aircraft goes, who knows. Maybe if there weren't a bunch of legal red tape involved, someone would have figured out if aviation engines really can run just fine on regular unleaded gasoline. it's much cheaper.
well a free market that does not sell a harmful product to begin with, needs no “protection” from the govt. for a civil wrong.
That’s why they stopped selling the harmful product when it became apparent that it was causing groundwater quality problems.
No…. did they stop selling cigarettes or asbestos or mercury other harmful products when they KNEW they were harmful? The free market does not do that. It will sell harmful products that are in demand until the cows come home – unless or until the govt says it’s harmful. Even then industry and supporters will fight it for a long time before giving up. The free market does not care if something is harmful. They’ll manufacture and sell kepone no matter what happens if there is demand for it, until the govt steps in. Ditto for PDBs or oxycodone, you name it and many still do sell unfettered in countries with less govt/weaker laws.
There was a substitute product which worked.
Many times when you see that industry “refuses” to stop selling a harmful product, what is really going on is that a replacement isn’t readily available, or doesn’t work as well, or costs more.
As far as oxycodone, I’ve always wondered how many of those painkiller addicts are getting their addiction subsidized by the taxpayer via Medicaid. I know of at least one that is.
the free market does not “look” for alternatives to something that sells well unless it will sell
even better. They don’t care if the product causes harm. They’ll produce toxic weed killer as long as there is strong demand for it and not govt rules against it. Only when the govt steps in do they look for alternatives?
A good and correct free market works without regard to whatever downsides are on the products.
They produce foods that taste so good that people eat them to excess to their own harm. The free
market could care less about that – a “good” free market should not. It’s totally up to govt to do
what is best in the interests of citizens. That’s why we have laws and regulations and the free market
“likes” the govt saying they meet/certify to US regs!
Yea, like my morbidly obese friend who is so stupid that when I asked him how many calories were in the drink he had, he said “I dunno, probably a lot”.
He needs a government program to control what he eats, because he has no self-control.
Honestly, I think he and people like him ought to be institutionalized. They’re too stupid to live their own life and since he’s already drawing a disability check, it’s clear he will never be a productive member of society.
there are folks like that… I classify as “givers” or “doers” “producers” and “takers” Yes. Bad parents!
I think bad parenting plays a big role in this.
Leaded-fuel bans for road vehicles came into effect as follows:
Europe
Austria: 1989
Belarus: 1998
Bulgaria: 2002
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 2009
Croatia: 2006
Cyprus: 2004
Czech Republic: 2001[41]
Denmark: 1994[42]
European Union: 1 January 2000[43]
Finland: 1994[44]
France: 2000[45]
Germany: 1996[46]
Gibraltar: 2001 [47]
Greece: 2002[48]
Hungary: 1999
Ireland: 1 January 2000
Italy: 1 January 2002[49]
Malta: 2003
Monaco: 2000
Netherlands: 1998[50]
Norway: 1997
Poland: December 2000[51]
Slovenia: 2001[52]
Spain: 1 August 2001[53]
Portugal: 1999
Romania: 2005[54]
Russia: 2003[55]
Serbia: 2010[56]
Sweden: 1995[57]
Switzerland: 2000
Ukraine: 2003
United Kingdom: 1 January 2000[58]
North America
Anguilla: 1998
Antigua and Barbuda: 1991
Aruba: 1997
Bahamas: 1996
Belize: 1997
Bermuda: 1990
Cayman Islands: 1999
Canada: December 1990[59][60]
Costa Rica: 1996[61]
Dominican Republic: 1999
El Salvador: 1992
Guatemala: 1991
Haiti: 1998
Honduras: 1996
Jamaica: 2000
Mexico: 1998
Nicaragua: 1995
Panama: 2002[62]
Trinidad and Tobago: 2000
United States (including Puerto Rico): 1 January 1996
California: 1992
South America
Argentina: 1998
Bolivia: 1995[63]
Brazil: 1989[64] or 1991[63]
Chile: 2001[65] or 2005[63]
Colombia: 1991[66]
Guyana: 2000
Peru: 2004
Suriname: 2001
Uruguay: 2004[67]
Venezuela: 2005
Asia
Afghanistan: 2016[68]
Bangladesh: 1999
China: 2000
Hong Kong: 1999
India: March 2000[69]
Saudi Arabia: 2001
Indonesia: 2006
Iran: 2003
Iraq: 2018[70][71]
Japan: 1986
Malaysia: 2000
Myanmar: 2016[68]
Nepal: 2000
North Korea: 2016[68]
Pakistan: 2001[72]
Philippines: 2000
Singapore: 1998
South Korea: 1993
Sri Lanka: 1999
Taiwan: 2000[73]
Thailand: 1996
Turkey: 2006[74]
United Arab Emirates: 2003[75]
Vietnam: 2001
Yemen: 2018[70][71]
Oceania
Australia: 2002[76]
New Zealand: 1996
Guam: 1 January 1996 (USA)
Samoa: 2001
Africa
Egypt: 1999
South Africa: 2006
Leaded petrol was supposed to be completely phased out continent-wide on 1 January 2006, following a ban initiated from the 2002 Earth Summit.[77] However, in Algeria refineries needed to be altered; as a result, leaded fuel remained available in parts of Algeria,[37] with phaseout scheduled for 2016. After the Algerian Government outlawed the sale of leaded petrol throughout all of Algeria, leaded petrol has now been effectively phased out.[78][79]
Banned in the USA in 1996, yet where would you have found it for sale even in 1991?
I don’t understand why you refuse to admit this. It’s pretty clear. It was banned worldwide and the free market did not find something better to replace it with. It’s just the simple truth.
Yes, the free market did find something better to replace it with. In fact, I read that before TEL was even used, ethanol was used as an octane enhancer! History repeats itself…
With no govt involved at all what would the free market choose?
Let me ask about the Ozone Holes? Free Market or Govt mandated?
If the free market wants longer carburetor, spark plug, and exhaust system life, they choose something other than TEL as an octane enhancer, as the SAE paper I linked to earlier shows.
but they didn’t. THey did not offer other fuels until the govt mandated it. They had plenty of time. It was decades between the govt deciding lead was harmful and complete bans. No company that made gasoline
offered an unleaded version at their pumps and if they did, it would essentially destroy an engine not set
up to run on lead-free. In fact, that was the argument against lead-free fuel.. it was bad for engines.
I don’t get it why you won’t admit this… the free-market did not bring unleaded fuel to the market , as far as I can tell, not anywhere on the planet. It only became a fuel at the gas pumps after govt mandated it.
It’s not true that unleaded gasoline would destroy an engine not set up to run on lead free gasoline.
It certainly was the claim from the opponents to removing lead from fuel… for decades… were they
lying? What was the purpose of Tel to start with? To deal with “knock” right? Called anti-knock!
and did reduce the life of the engine, if not used, right?
We can go down a list of harmful chemicals and toxics that the govt has banned that the free market
did not but if you won’t admit the lead , I suspect not the others either, right?
Are we going in circles now? I already mentioned the several substitutes that could be (and are/were) used instead of TEL as an octane booster. Anyone with a clue knows that if you remove TEL from gasoline, you use a different octane booster to create a fuel with the required octane for the engine to eliminate engine knock.
On that subject, modern engines usually have a knock sensor which can reduce timing to eliminate knock, so it isn’t necessary to run high octane gas as much as it was in the past.
we are but the essential point is that TEL was harmful and the govt removed it and the free-market did nothing about it prior even though they knew it was harmful and knew there were alternatives, they did not act.
Modern engines use computers now. They started using computers when the EPA mandated much tighter emission standards that could not be met with non-computer equipment. Right? Let me guess your answer! 😉
The industry did it on it’s own with no “help” from the govt… right? 😉
I believe computerized fuel injection PREDATED EPA requirements:
“The first vehicle with computerized fuel injection (EFI) was likely the 1968 Volkswagen Type III Fastback and Squareback, which used Bosch’s Jetronic system.”
Fuel injection has many benefits over carburetion that have nothing to do with emissions. As I previously noted, cold weather startup is one of them. Much improved throttle response is another.
All I know is that the car manufacturers initially said the mandated mileage standards were impossible
to meet…and they would result is badly tuned engines with problems out the wazoo .. remember that?
They never let the engineers and scientists talk to the public.
well some did… they said the EPA mileage standards were impossible to meet ! Don’t know
if you noticed but V-8s are going away as are some bigger V-6s. The 24 Tacoma comes only with
a 4 banger and it’s got that stuff you’re talking about on the front so it has as much power as the 6 and
gets better mileage (but not much).
Why do you care so much about all of this if you have a Volt?
Turbocharged 4-cylinder engines are taking over the role of the V6 for sure, and maybe the V8 as well.
I care because it affects me regardless.
Worldwide ethanol replaced lead?
There are 3 main ways to increase octane besides TEL:
1)MTBE
2)Ethanol
3)BTX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTX_(chemistry)
what is used in most other countries?
the impression I get is that few other countries use ethanol.
I looked up Germany:
“Yes, ethanol gasoline is used in Germany, where all gasoline sold contains up to 5% ethanol, also known as E5 fuel. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service (ESSO) in Germany is also required to add Super E10 to its facilities, which contains up to 10% ethanol. However, some cars may not be able to use E10 gasoline, so it’s best to check your car’s manual or manufacturer to be sure. ESSO and Exchange gas stations in Germany will clearly label their pumps that dispense E10 fuel”
and Sweden:
“Yes, Sweden uses ethanol gasoline, known as E10, as the standard unleaded 95-octane petrol quality. E10 is a blend of 10% ethanol by volume in petrol, and Sweden introduced it on August 1, 2021. This increase from the previous 5% ethanol blend reduces fossil carbon dioxide emissions per liter consumed. E10 is considered a low-cost way to reduce fossil CO2 emissions from road transportation, and most petrol-powered cars, even older models, can use it.”
I just chose those two countries since those are the ones I have the most interest in (majority of my ancestors from those two countries).
the vast majority of the other 200 countries do not use ethanol, correct? You can google it.
From what I can tell, the countries that do use ethanol are the major ones.
I can’t tell what they use in Zimbabwe, but I doubt it matters.
It pretty much aligns with their ability to grow enough extra corn that is not needed for humans.
but you can google it. As far as I can tell, NONE of them used ethanol until lead was banned. No free market brought it to market to replace lead. The govt required it.
Not to be pedantic, but ethanol was used in the USA well before the 1996 ban of leaded gasoline.
It was. Agree. but still say there is a difference between replacing something harmful like leaded vs an additive that can make things “better” compare to the removal of lead from paint – as opposed to an additive to make paint better or replacing Chlorofluorocarbons with something else because of the harm of Chlorofluorocarbons.
It was with the formation of Ozone Holes that some folks said that “WE” on earth CAN harm the earth ecosystem and we NEED to take action and others disagreed and said it was not true, a lie concocted by corrupt scientists…bad data, evil govt, no harm… no crisis, etc yadda yadda
and Brazil uses sugarcane to produce ethanol. Most vehicles in that country run on E85 or higher on a regular basis, from what I understand.
… which apparently some engines can do… and they do offer it at WaWa and related (as well as ethanol free) but need to have “warnings” for the herd… in general.
Just got a new WaWa on a hill.. they put a beautiful stone wall with black steel fence on top. Took 3
day for the first wackadoodle… and 2 more within a month or so. Someone at WaWa added to their
“learning” …. don’t do nice things… people can’t handle and actually seem to enjoy messing it up for others.
In my testing, a regular non-E85 vehicle can operate on up to a 50/50 blend of E85 and E10 before the computer reaches it’s max adaptation for the fuel trims and sets a lean code.
Some vehicles can be easily modified to run on E85, like my Chevy Volt. All it needs is an ethanol sensor in the fuel line and a change to the the engine computer software.
I forgot you have a Volt! You should love EVs and Hybrid electrics! I will admit that CHevy did produce
that car on their own volition without govt mandate and maybe that’s where govt got the idea to do
more!
I like plug-in hybrids more than straight EVs for the simple fact that you never have to worry about finding a charger.
GM, unfortunately, decided to cancel all of their plug-in hybrid cars and go to straight EVs.
Though I heard that they’ve reconsidered that and may re-introduce a plug-in hybrid. Their competition, Toyota, has a plug-in hybrid.
Toyota was not big on the EVs, it believed the plug-in hybrids would win. But I think they have
been changing their mind. Battery prices on going down and ranges going up.
New EVs charge quick and getting enough chargers is not a technology issue
just an issue of getting enough built. like in apts/condos/workplaces, etc. That will happen.
However I have the same “anxiety” with pure EV’s.
If they become cheaper than equivalent cars.. say like you can get a daily driver for 20K…a lot
of young people will do it. Empty nester retired types will also. And it may happen faster than
the critics think- more based on economics than climate fears.
I have no idea how you’re going to install EV chargers in a typical townhouse community, for example, where there’s a sidewalk between the parking lot and the house that isn’t going to be RIDICULOUSLY expensive. It’s no big deal for me–I have a single family detached house with a 2-car garage and 400-amp service.
That is by far not the norm.
Here’s an SAE paper from 1972. The writing was on the wall even back then.
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/720084/
1972-02-01
Saving Maintenance Dollars with Lead-Free Gasoline 720084
Motorists who use lead-free rather than leaded gasolines postpone the need to replace spark plugs, exhaust systems, and carburetors, and thus save a significant part of their maintenance dollar. These savings were documented in a four-year test with a fleet of automobiles operated in city-suburban driving, and in a five-year survey of a representative sample of the motoring public. Savings on gasoline-related maintenance over the lifetime of an average car were about $0.05/gal in the fleet tests and $0.04/gal in the survey. 2
right. but it was not done by the private sector….. it was not even offered at gasoline stations until the
govt mandated it. RIght? And without engine modifications to compensate for the lack of lead. This
was worldwide. No country that I know of converted to unleaded fuel as a free market offering and choice.
It was only after govts mandated it. right?
How about a more modern example.
Have you ever heard of “top tier gasoline”?
It’s not government mandated. It’s gasoline that exceeds the minimum government standards for detergent levels. It’s available at Costco and other gas stations.
https://www.toptiergas.com/gasoline-brands/
Had TEL not been banned, TEL-free gasoline would have been produced anyway and positioned as a premium product as top tier gasoline is today.
Sure but it’s NOT harmful! geeze guy. TEL IS harmful and 200 countries over several decades never had the free market offer a substitute for it. Only AFTER the govt banned TEL did the market offer something else.
We’re not talking about the govt banning products the free market offers that are not harmful.
We’re talking about products that are harmful that the free market offers and continues to offer unless
or until the govt stops it.
Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Holes? free market or Govt ban? Do you remember the outcry when the
govt banned them? It was not the free market doing that – they were on the opposite side decrying the govt actions for a product they insisted was not causing harm.
Surely you must see this – the difference between govt and the free market when it comes to products
that cause harm. The free market could care less about it. It takes the govt to act.
The only engine modification that *may* have needed to be made for unleaded gasoline is hardened valve seats and I the research I read indicates that is unlikely to be a problem.
But hey, we live in a world where people will claim that ethanol gasoline will destroy any engine made prior to 2000, so….
yes, the opponents to removing lead … for decades…
Same as the opponents to ethanol. Show me someone who claims ethanol destroyed their lawnmower or whatever, I’ll show you someone who can’t be bothered to put it in a garage or shed to keep it out of the rain.
would you maybe agree that it was the govt that overcame the opponents , not the free market? 😉
The free market employed the engineers and scientists who made it work!
once they were told they had to? I agree! Who should the engineers and scientists take their
marching orders from – the free market or the govt?
Regarding ethanol, research on it’s use as a replacement for TEL was being conducted as early as 1964. Possibly even earlier, I am not, however, going through ALL of the papers that mention ethanol fuel from 1950-1970!
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/640650/
1964-01-01
Ethyl Alcohol and Gasoline as a Modern Motor Fuel 640650
An investigation is being conducted to explore the use of ethanol-gasoline blends in unmodified present-day automotive engines. Results of the program thus far show that, when 25% ethanol was used in lieu of tetraethyl lead in a catalytically cracked base gasoline, the percentage of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust effluent was significantly reduced. Combustion chamber deposit weights were sharply reduced with the ethanol-gasoline blends under the endurance conditions selected. Performance of the 25% ethanol blend closely approximated that of the same base gasoline blended with tel, but specific fuel consumption was generally increased at part throttle.
yeah, I have no doubt. And if the free market made a transition, the govt would have stayed out of it.
But we might be getting confused. Ethanol did not replace TEL.. it was years after gas went unleaded before ethanol was added… right?
I don’t know that ANYTHING replaced TEL when the mandate took effect. No? Didn’t it take
some years for ethanol to become widely available nationally beyond the urban centers?
Like in Stafford… and north – you gotta pass the pollution rules because of non-attainment.
In fact , when ethanol came along, there was this big hew and cry (and continuing) that ethanol “eats” and
ruins the carburetor and related if it sits awhile – like in a chain saw or other similar. And NOW, you CAN
buy ethanol-free fuel… I do that for some power equipment (but have been switching over to electric, tired of paying out the wazoo to get the gas-powered equipment to actually run).
Ethanol was one of the octane boosters used to replace TEL. MTBE was the other, and BTX was used also. You couldn’t just remove the TEL from gasoline, it HAD to be replaced with SOMETHING.
In the midwest, ethanol gasoline was available as early as the 1980s, if not the 1970s. In the rest of the country MTBE was often used instead.
In 1985 or thereabouts, GM issued a TSB stating that 10% ethanol gasoline is acceptable for use in their vehicles, so that suggests to me that it was available in sufficient quantity to warrant a TSB about it.
I think the fears of ethanol with respect to outdoor power equipment are overblown, and in fact I’ve used 10% ethanol gas in my riding mower for 7 years now. I don’t drain the gas at the end of the mowing season either. It always fires up in spring with no problem. But I keep it in my garage, not outside where it’s going to get rained on so water can get into the gasoline (which I think is what most of the problems with ethanol come from).
I cannot buy ethanol free fuel anywhere in Prince William County, closest place I can get it is either Catlett or Warrenton. It’s not legal to sell ethanol free gasoline in PWC because it’s non-attainment area, same reason why we have emissions inspections.
Finally, I have a 1984 Chevy Cavalier that’s probably been run on ethanol gas for years and the only fuel system components that have ever needed to be replaced are the fuel tank (due to internal rusting), the fuel pump, and the fuel filter. It sat for 10 years undriven with circa 2010 ethanol gas in it, once I fixed the fuel pump and dumped the old gas and put fresh gas in it, it fired right up. I later replaced the fuel tank due to the internal rust and the fuel filter at the same time.
I have an electric chainsaw and an electric weed wacker, and a couple hundred feet of extension cords to run them.
ryobi!
Well historically Dems will in fact mandate the impossible: cellulosic ethanol, which as a fallback, corn ethanol was allowed as a substitute. Banning non-EV's is similar probably. Wishful thinking.
Are there known legislative mandates that failed and were repealed subsequently (for energy and related technology)?
Here's what the EPA says about mandated technologies:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/322cd55bdb8db967c203638bbac3196a23f1534370fcc8a56b64945251521acc.png https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/setting-emissions-standards-based-technology-performance
The best thing that the General Assembly could do after repealing the VCEA is to focus on an energy policy that is not driven by ideology. That may be wishful thinking but without that foundation, policy is likely to do more harm than good.
Energy drives the economy and jobs. That needs to be a primary focus, so that policy will promote a stronger economy and job growth. The transition from coal will take place without long term mandates that will always be wrong headed because of too many variables and too much uncertainty.
The economy will move towards natural gas and away from coal because it is abundant, cheap, and there is public and political pressure to reduce carbon emissions. If the transition is determined by facts, including advances in science, to be too slow a carbon tax will be more effective than industrial policy initiatives. The world's experience with pushing wind, solar, and electric vehicles should be a source of humility.
It is a "fact" that the demand for liquid hydrocarbon fuels is not going to disappear for decades. It is also a "fact" that nuclear power will have to become less costly for it to play a larger role in our energy budget.
Energy reality may not be as exciting as a future dominated by alternatives but it will have fewer unintended consequences, be a lot cheaper, and will support a strong and growing economy.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.