Obamanation: Electricity Bills Are About To 'Necessarily Skyrocket'...

[paulitician]

In January of 2008, then Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, talking about his energy plan, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” He wasn’t kidding.

While he was talking about his cap and trade plan, something that went nowhere in Congress, even when Democrats controlled it with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, his objective of changing how we generate electricity hasn’t changed. Neither has his lack of concern for the cost to consumers.

President Obama hates coal because he has deemed it too “dirty.” It’s also the largest generator of electricity in this country. Were there a cheaper, easier (and even cleaner) source of electricity generation the market would have embraced it because that’s how markets work. But there isn’t, at least not yet.

But rather than allow the market to work, something new to be developed, the President seeks to force it, to steer it where he wants it to go. It’s something politicians have tried to do since there was a market to steer, and something they’ve failed to do successfully since their first try (Great Leap Forward anyone?).

President Obama wants to steer electricity generation away from coal to natural gas. The only problem with that is our system is set up for coal, coal is abundant and coal is easier to get. While the market may naturally gravitate to natural gas as it becomes easier to get through fracking, something the Left has demonized and is fighting, we’re not there yet...

Read More:
Electricity Bills Are About to 'Necessarily Skyrocket'

 

[waltky]

Makin' electricity from poop...

Microbes Produce Electricity from Sewage
September 17, 2013 ~ Researchers have devised a way to generate electricity using raw sewage and special bacteria.

Engineers at Stanford University call the invention a “microbial battery” and hope one day the technology will be suitable for use at sewage treatment plants. For now, the prototype is about the size of a D-cell battery and looks like a “chemistry experiment with two electrodes, one positive, the other negative, plunged into a bottle of wastewater.” Engineers at Stanford University have extracted electricity from raw sewage. (Xing Xie, Stanford Engineering)Engineers at Stanford University have extracted electricity from raw sewage. (Xing Xie, Stanford Engineering) Inside that murky vial, attached to the negative electrode like barnacles to a ship's hull, an unusual type of bacteria feast on particles of organic waste and produce electricity that is captured by the battery's positive electrode. "We call it fishing for electrons," said Craig Criddle, a professor in the department of civil and environmental engineering.

A microbes clings to a carbon filament, serving as an efficient electrical conductor.

The electrons come from exoelectrogenic microbes – organisms that evolved in airless environments and developed the ability to react with oxide minerals, rather than breathe oxygen as we do, to convert organic nutrients into biological fuel. For years, scientists have tried to tap the energy produced by these creatures, but until now it has proved challenging. The Stanford researchers approach was new. At the battery's negative electrode, colonies of wired microbes cling to carbon filaments that serve as efficient electrical conductors. "You can see that the microbes make nanowires to dump off their excess electrons," Criddle said. To put the images into perspective, about 100 of these microbes could fit, side by side, in the width of a human hair.

As these microbes ingest organic matter and convert it into biological fuel, their excess electrons flow into the carbon filaments, and across to the positive electrode, which is made of silver oxide, a material that attracts electrons. The electrons flowing to the positive node gradually reduce the silver oxide to silver, storing the spare electrons in the process. According to Xing Xie, an interdisciplinary researcher, after a day or so the positive electrode has absorbed a full load of electrons and has largely been converted into silver. At that point it is removed from the battery and re-oxidized back to silver oxide, releasing the stored electrons. The battery, scientists say, is about 30 percent efficient in extracting the energy from waste water. While that may sound small, it is roughly the same efficiency as the best commercially available solar cells.

Engineers at Stanford University have extracted electricity from raw sewage.

And while waste water will never offer the same potential solar energy could, the Stanford researchers say it’s worth pursuing because at the very least, it could offset some of the electricity used to treat sewage, or about 3 percent of the total electrical load in developed nations. One drawback with the battery is the expense of silver. "We demonstrated the principle using silver oxide, but silver is too expensive for use at large scale," said Yi Cui, an associate professor of materials science and engineering. "Though the search is underway for a more practical material, finding a substitute will take time."

Microbes Produce Electricity from Sewage

 

[TheOldSchool]

So far my bill's about the same as always

 

[auditor0007]

In January of 2008, then Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, talking about his energy plan, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” He wasn’t kidding.

While he was talking about his cap and trade plan, something that went nowhere in Congress, even when Democrats controlled it with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, his objective of changing how we generate electricity hasn’t changed. Neither has his lack of concern for the cost to consumers.

President Obama hates coal because he has deemed it too “dirty.” It’s also the largest generator of electricity in this country. Were there a cheaper, easier (and even cleaner) source of electricity generation the market would have embraced it because that’s how markets work. But there isn’t, at least not yet.

But rather than allow the market to work, something new to be developed, the President seeks to force it, to steer it where he wants it to go. It’s something politicians have tried to do since there was a market to steer, and something they’ve failed to do successfully since their first try (Great Leap Forward anyone?).

President Obama wants to steer electricity generation away from coal to natural gas. The only problem with that is our system is set up for coal, coal is abundant and coal is easier to get. While the market may naturally gravitate to natural gas as it becomes easier to get through fracking, something the Left has demonized and is fighting, we’re not there yet...

Read More:
Electricity Bills Are About to 'Necessarily Skyrocket'

The point so many of you seem to miss is that by putting pressure on to move away from coal, energy companies are moving harder and faster to find cheaper ways to get to that cheap gas. You are correct in the fact that just pushing for something doesn't necessarily make it so, but you miss the point that by putting pressure on energy producers is helping to speed things up.

To give you a better example of how this works, car companies have been forced to increase gas mileage over the years by increasing government standards. Now it can be argued that these car companies would have made cars more fuel efficient anyway, but the fact is that they are pushing the limits due to government regulation. Without it, most cars would only be getting 20 to 30 mpg today rather than 25 to 40.

 

[paulitician]

Aw, don't worry about those high electricity bills. The Dear Leader say it's for y'alls own good. This too...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-sdO6pwVHQ]Help Kickstart World War III! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In January of 2008, then Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, talking about his energy plan, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” He wasn’t kidding.

While he was talking about his cap and trade plan, something that went nowhere in Congress, even when Democrats controlled it with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, his objective of changing how we generate electricity hasn’t changed. Neither has his lack of concern for the cost to consumers.

President Obama hates coal because he has deemed it too “dirty.” It’s also the largest generator of electricity in this country. Were there a cheaper, easier (and even cleaner) source of electricity generation the market would have embraced it because that’s how markets work. But there isn’t, at least not yet.

But rather than allow the market to work, something new to be developed, the President seeks to force it, to steer it where he wants it to go. It’s something politicians have tried to do since there was a market to steer, and something they’ve failed to do successfully since their first try (Great Leap Forward anyone?).

President Obama wants to steer electricity generation away from coal to natural gas. The only problem with that is our system is set up for coal, coal is abundant and coal is easier to get. While the market may naturally gravitate to natural gas as it becomes easier to get through fracking, something the Left has demonized and is fighting, we’re not there yet...

Read More:
Electricity Bills Are About to 'Necessarily Skyrocket'

The point so many of you seem to miss is that by putting pressure on to move away from coal, energy companies are moving harder and faster to find cheaper ways to get to that cheap gas. You are correct in the fact that just pushing for something doesn't necessarily make it so, but you miss the point that by putting pressure on energy producers is helping to speed things up.

To give you a better example of how this works, car companies have been forced to increase gas mileage over the years by increasing government standards. Now it can be argued that these car companies would have made cars more fuel efficient anyway, but the fact is that they are pushing the limits due to government regulation. Without it, most cars would only be getting 20 to 30 mpg today rather than 25 to 40.

And what you fail to understand (like most) is the unintended consequences of such force. In the auto industry, most of those gains in MPG were done by chopping safety of vehicles. Lighter weight components, etc... (plastic). it's not that these companies do not wish to provide autos with better gas mileage and safety, it's that it can not and remain competitive. In the end, we end up with cars that last about a quarter of the life length than vehicles of 30 years ago.

In that, we end up with higher production, more enegery expended and cheaper quality products at the end of the day.

These force schemes, as the article indicates, don't work as intended and the unintended consequences are usuall;y far more disasterous than letting the market actually work. Central planning never works. Never has, never will.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Hey Obama defenders. What generates electricity? Starts with a C and not a K.

At the end of they day your faggy little Prius and your mextrosexual Tesla's get their juice from a dirty fossil fuel.

And the piece of black shit in the white house did say that he hoped your prices would increase 10X I believe it was. The colossal waste of sperm wants you to walk to work, or pedal chink style. He want's you crowded in a super urban security perimeter chink style. Sooner or later by legislation and gunpoint he and hi filthy supporters (you democrat pussies) will have anyone not living in that perimeter drug from their homes in the country at gunpoint and forced into a city, chink style.