90 amps for electric car charge!

[keithw86]

The suggestion that the city building/inspection/permitting department talks to the power company, even if they are both city departments (which is certainly not universal, as you suggest).

[David Nebenzahl]

On 2/17/2010 7:40 AM Bob F spake thus:

Except that this is the wrong comparison: the methane is being used to power garbage trucks, so the proper comparison would be with gasoline, diesel or propane.

So the only carbon that's being kept out of the atmosphere is the marginal difference between the carbon emitted by burning one of these fuels and the carbon emitted by burning methane. Not at all what the TV news report said.

[keithw86]

...or in fact that there is any reason to do so. The power company knows what the trends are by usage statistics. The certainly don't micromanage planning down to the hot tub. Yes, it *is* laughable.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 2/17/2010 10:29 AM terry spake thus:

Yes. Most educated people know that CO2 is essential for life on earth. (It's what green plants take in.) The thing is to have just enough, but not too much, of it.

[Cindy Hamilton]

Well, there's the confusion right there. Many utilities are in the private sector. For example, my "city" is Pittsfield Township. My electric utility is DTE Energy, a publicly traded corporation.

Cindy Hamilton

[Michael A. Terrell]

I've never lived anywhere where "the power utility is the city", so you are laughable.

[HeyBub]

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal puts a different sping on the court's ruling:

"The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA had the power to regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, but didn't require the agency to find that it was a danger to public welfare and also didn't require the agency to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, the EPA was required to "ground its reasons for action or inaction" within federal law."

So, here's the conclusions:

1. The EPA has the right to regulate CO2.
2. If it does not, if must give compelling reasons for declining to do so.
3. The EPA is NOT required to regulate CO2. Here's the actual decision: This is a decision from August 2007. You'll note it is replete with justifications from the IPCC.

Aside: There is a fundamental principle in law that a plaintiff must have "standing" in order to place a matter before the court. That is, the litigant must have a dog in the fight. Interestingly, the five wild-eyed liberals on the court who were so exercised they painted themselves blue and began stabbing each other, saw fit to bypass this hallowed tradition so they could save the planet. Specifically:

"Notwithstanding the serious character of that jurisdictional argument [not one of the petitioners has demonstrable standing under Article III] and the absence of any conflicting decisions ... the unusual importance of the underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ.... [and take up the issue]."

[HeyBub]

I used to work as a programmer for a company that monitored electric loads for smaller power companies, typically Rural Electric Cooperatives. One of the selling points of our software was the administrators would be better able to correct transformer loading. One director told our sales representative:

"What's to monitor? If a transformer blows, we replace it with a bigger one. End of story."

[krw]

The city here has the power company, but I assure you that their planning tsars aren't counting hot tubs. Tax assessors, OTOH...

[David Nebenzahl]

On 2/17/2010 4:14 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners of the companies building the goddamned things.

Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?

[bud--]

Nope, significant *carbon* is being kept out of the atmosphere. As Bob said you are *substituting* methane for other fuels instead of just having the methane (a greenhouse gas) leak out to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gas emissions are clearly reduced - the major reason for using the methane.

That is assuming you heard right. If the report said "reduce carbon emissions" [or greenhouse gas emissions] it would accurately describe what is happening.

"Reduce carbon dioxide emissions" is a misstatement of the major benefit [but true using Bob's reference]. IMHO as misstatements go, it is relatively minor. There is a major benefit in using the methane.

In addition, if I remember right, methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than the CO2 that the methane is turned into - an additional excellent reason to use the methane.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 2/17/2010 1:00 PM Michael A. Terrell spake thus:

You've never heard of municipal power companies? Lessee, not far from where I live, Palo Alto, Sacramento, and several others I can't think of just at the moment run their own power systems within their cities. Marin County just decided to set up a county-wide power authority. So yes, in many places "the power utility is the city".

Now who's laughing?

[HeyBub]

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.

[HeyBub]

Yeah, but that's California where the word for government ownership of the means of production is "normal."

Now my city owns the water system - and makes a small profit. The real reason for city ownership, I've been told, is so the city can keep up with buildings and so forth for tax purposes.

[trader4]

Everything you've just posted above is consistent with what I said from the start. Of course the Supreme Court did not thell the EPA that they HAD to regulate CO2. They told the EPA they could not ignore CO2 and had to determine if it was harmful in excess amounts as they have done with all the other pollutants. The EPA proceeded to do that and said, once again:

"(Washington, D.C. =96 April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare. The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat."

So. like I said with my initial post, if you want to argue that CO2 emissions aren't a pollutant, you need to take it up with the Supreme Court and the EPA, at least as far as the USA is concerned. I don't understand why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying any govt should or shouldn't be treating CO2 as a pollutant. Only that they are. I don't see how any rational and intelligent person today could say that CO2 is not being treated as a pollutant both by the USA and internationally.

[Douglas Johnson]

Several cities in that greatest of red states, Texas, own their electric utilities, including the capital, Austin (a blue island in a sea of red). Also, Garland, near Dallas, as red as you can get.

OK, when did red shift from liberal pinko commie red to god fearing conservative red?

-- Doug

[trader4]

Another comparison in general would be with natural gas. Here in NJ at the local landfill we are already doing exactly what the news report talked about. The methane is being captured at the landfill but here it's used in a small gas turbine to generate electricity. Look at any other similar small turbine facility and they typically use natural gas as a fuel. And the amount of CO2 released by either fuel is exactly the same.

If you compare the methane to gas, diesel, etc, fuels, it's anywhere from 4% to 15% less CO2 emissions. But it's so small it's clearly not worth mentioning in the news story. Or if they did, they should say it will reduce CO2 emissions by that amount. But by reporting it the way they did, I agree, it's very misleading and really the typical junk journalism. The typical buffoon listens to that and thinks it's some great achievement relative to CO2.

[Michael A. Terrell]

I didn't say that. Read it again.

Doesn't say they aren't the same in some places, but it does say it isn't true everywhere. Two cities near me by bulk electric, then rip off residents and business by doubling the cost to everyone else in the area.

Me, at you for your very poor reading skills.

[Michael A. Terrell]

When one of the TV networks news department painted a large US map on the floor of their studio and chose red and blue for the two major political parties for a presidential election. We know how liberal most of MSM is.

[trader4]

I guess we still are laughing because the real issue was that the poster claimed utilities are routinely notified by residential customers when they add significant loads to their homes. First he claimed it was required of homeowners by utilities directly. Then he claimed it was because you had to get a permit for electrical work. Then he claimed that because his electric utility happens to be run by the municipality, that when you get an electric permit, that counts as notifying the utility.

No question there are some electric utilities owned and run by municipalities. The rest of that is obvious hogwash. Any of us that have actually pulled permits know that the permit doesn't ask for or calculate the actual load. You get a permit to put in a new 50 amp sub-panel or a permit to put in six 15 amp circuits. Big deal, what does that mean? It says nothing about what might or might not actually be connected to those circuits, only the theoretical maximum. And the utility already knows what the theoretical maximum is. It's the service rating installed to the house, eg 200 amps.