New York State mandates all electric buildings

Hawkeye10 said:
climatechangedispatch.com

New York’s All-Electric Building Mandate Sparks Grid Strain, Soaring Power Costs

New York’s all-electric building mandate is straining the grid, driving up costs, and stalling housing development, experts warn.
climatechangedispatch.com climatechangedispatch.com

There is also a push to electrify rail.

What could go wrong?
Click to expand...
The big push for electric is a big push for control. The greenie weenies will ultimately tell you how far you can drive drive and how often by limiting how much you can charge the electric car they forced you to buy. The they will tell you how warm your house can be in the winter and how cool it can be in the summer by forcing you to buy electric furnaces and ACs "for the good of the planet". And they might even let you have some left over electricity, if there is any, so you can read a book at night by a blub they force you to buy. You may have to take it from room to room though, but hey the planet will be better for it and isnt that all that really matters?
 
Yakuda said:
The big push for electric is a big push for control. The greenie weenies will ultimately tell you how far you can drive drive and how often by limiting how much you can charge the electric car they forced you to buy. The they will tell you how warm your house can be in the winter and how cool it can be in the summer by forcing you to buy electric furnaces and ACs "for the good of the planet". And they might even let you have some left over electricity, if there is any, so you can read a book at night by a blub they force you to buy. You may have to take it from room to room though, but hey the planet will be better for it and isnt that all that really matters?
Click to expand...
is that like the control Trump is seeking over Corporations (demanding to approve who is CEO, telling them where they can and cannot do business and with whom), over Universities, over Law firms etc?

Just wondering if you actually care about big invasive gov'ts now pushing in to areas of control they have largely stayed away from prior??
 
QP! said:
is that like the control Trump is seeking over Corporations (demanding to approve who is CEO, telling them where they can and cannot do business and with whom), over Universities, over Law firms etc?

Just wondering if you actually care about big invasive gov'ts now pushing in to areas of control they have largely stayed away from prior??
Click to expand...
you mean like trying to regulate internet free speech?

oh wait, that's Dems.
 
QP! said:
is that like the control Trump is seeking over Corporations (demanding to approve who is CEO, telling them where they can and cannot do business and with whom), over Universities, over Law firms etc?

Just wondering if you actually care about big invasive gov'ts now pushing in to areas of control they have largely stayed away from prior??
Click to expand...
I have always been opposed the govt interference like when Obama bin laden decided some businesses were "too big to fail" and gave them bail outs. Id say there is a bit of a difference, not better, a bit of a difference between telling corporations what they can do and limiting what American citizens can do. Besides the govt has for decades been telling private businesses who they must serve and how they serve them. Smoking bans and requiring handicapped accessibility. Businesses can't refuse to serve base on gender or race or sexual orientation, etc. That's govt control of private business. I don't understand why a business would want to restrict who they serve but they should be free to decide who they want to serve and who they dont. That's the kind of freedom I'm for. Let the market decide which businesses will succeed not the govt.
 
archives said:
Actually is doing fine, was there last month, and if NY, plus other major urban areas, are “losing,” the country is in trouble because without it America is just a second rate Albania
Click to expand...
no it isn't.

its a big story about how they classify all the crime wrong to have better numbers.
 
QP! said:
is that like the control Trump is seeking over Corporations (demanding to approve who is CEO, telling them where they can and cannot do business and with whom), over Universities, over Law firms etc?

Just wondering if you actually care about big invasive gov'ts now pushing in to areas of control they have largely stayed away from prior??
Click to expand...
where were you on lockdowns and mandatory jabbing?
 
QP! said:
Ok.

I want everyone to see what Terry says above. He is holding the line that Oil and Gas has never got a single legit subsidy and it is all just 'tricks of the left' to call them that.
Click to expand...

Stick the list up. I stated that most of what you are calling "subsidies" aren't subsidies at all. Put the list up. I dare you.
QP! said:
I could cite countless Oil and Gas industry documents detailing the subsidies, that they call subsidies when explaining to investors and shareholders why certain projects will cost less then the full sticker due to subsidies and Terry will refuse to agree. He will push that those executives are just lying and he knows better, and those are not subsidies. to save you all the length i will just post one and note Terry will say this was not a subsidy despite what you see Republicans and the industry calling it...


-----------------------------------------
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) introduces the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, which would end $2.4 billion in tax breaks for the big five oil companies. Obama challenges Congress to “eliminate this oil industry giveaway right away.” Unable to get filibuster-proof support, it dies.
Mitt Romney says oil subsidies go “largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth.” He says he’d consider cutting them—if tax rates were slashed first.
The American Petroleum Institute launches a $3 million postelection media blitz, including ads that warn seven Democratic senators up for reelection in 2014 against touching the industry’s tax breaks: “American energy—not higher taxes on energy—will create jobs.”
[td]2012[/td]

Cite

-------------------------------------------


There simply is nothing Terry will admit is a subsidy in fossil fuels. he will say gov't, corporate executives and bankers a like are just lying leftists.
Click to expand...
Tax breaks aren't subsidies. They are tax breaks. Subisides are the government giving oil companies money.

sub·sidy
[ˈsʌbsɪdi]
noun
subsidy (noun)
subsidies (plural noun)
  1. a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low:

    • a sum of money granted to support an undertaking held to be in the public interest:

Words have meaning, and you, Humpty Dumpty, don't get to make your own definitions of them.
 
I am finding it interesting that for many hours more than 75% of Texas electricity has been coming from gas and coal.

Also interesting is that I was recently told that in 2024 humans burned the most coal ever.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I am finding it interesting that for many hours more than 75% of Texas electricity has been coming from gas and coal.

Also interesting is that I was recently told that in 2024 humans burned the most coal ever.
Click to expand...

There are three factors to what that means:

1] If the facility burning the coal is clean, meaning it has S2O4 scrubbers based on limestone and lots of fresh water, the environmental impact, isn't horrid, just high compared to Natural Gas or Nuclear. But it also means that the Energy Gain is only about 450K, rather than the 600K of dirty coal.

2] The emissions are largely driven by the type of coal, and its sulfur content. The high quality coal used by coal fired ships, in the golden age of Steam Power, has largely been used up. Some of the coal grades being used today, are horrible and would not have been allowed to be used by anyone, 30 or more years ago. If these types are coal are used in a Dirty Power Plant, as is often done in China, the environmental impact will effect everyone on the planet.

3] There always was allot more bad coal, than good, but there is still a limit on how much is still available. At current rates, any practically useful amounts will be 80% consumed within 120 years. Far longer than the supplies of Oil or Natural Gas, but once its gone, you're only choice is Nuclear or Hydro-Electric. No, Wind Turbines will never be a large enough source to provide the energy needed for food production, preservation, and transport. Solar Voltaic is useful for a few remote locations, but it will always be a secondary source, with an Energy Gain less than unity.

-
 
Last edited:
archives said:
Bill is not as stringent as your climate denier source implies, and a similar law has been in effect in NYC for years now. And by the way, electrify rail has been in place in NYC for over a century now

Love how NY gets southern and middle America all worked up, especially since the overwhelming majority of them have never been to the State and particularly the City
Click to expand...
I’m happy for them if that’s what they want. More power to them to govern themselves.

The problem is when some of those same people get a Federal position and decide that the rest of the country needs the same sort of law.

Happens both ways…conservative/liberal…Democratic/Republican. Never good either way.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Stick the list up. I stated that most of what you are calling "subsidies" aren't subsidies at all. Put the list up. I dare you.

Tax breaks aren't subsidies. They are tax breaks. Subisides are the government giving oil companies money.

sub·sidy
[ˈsʌbsɪdi]
noun
subsidy (noun)
subsidies (plural noun)
  1. a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low:
    • a sum of money granted to support an undertaking held to be in the public interest:

Words have meaning, and you, Humpty Dumpty, don't get to make your own definitions of them.
Click to expand...

yes but you are lying.

Give me the link to where you took that definition from as i GUARANTEE you are purposely blocking out the second part of what a subsidy is... because you do not like the "meaning" of the words you are trying to hide from us.


Investopedia

Subsidies are financial benefits typically given by governments to individuals, businesses, or industries to alleviate burdens or promote economic and social policies. They can be direct (cash payments) or indirect (tax breaks, price reductions).
 
I have provided to you Terry, gov'ts giving massive price breaks or free use of lands to Oil and Gas that any other business would have to pay for. Of course that is a subsidy in the same way, cities giving core downtown land to Arenas to built tax free holidays for dozens of years is a subsidy.

the word 'subsidize' at its basics means to help alleviate the cost they would normally pay.

So whether it is arena or an Oil and Gas company being forgiven taxes or granted use of land that others would have to pay full cost, that is a subsidy and in the finance documents of how the Sport Team or Oil and Gas company will tell their investors how they will pay for the project they would list under 'government subsidy' what the gov't is chipping in to make it more affordable and a better deal for investors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top