http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443855804577603302771584214.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
***************
"Little did I realize that my desire to add value to others would be the thing that added value to me." (John C. Maxwell)
***************
Today a federal appeals court vacated the EPA's latest rule limiting soot and smog-forming air pollution that crosses state lines.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia said the rule affecting power plants "exceeds the agency's statutory authority" and remanded the rule for the EPA to revise.
The court was scrutinizing the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule which sets state-by-state limits on pollution that blows across state lines.
This has to be a blow to the EPA bureaucrats that are trying to shut down coal-fired power plants in Texas.
Note to the EPA: how about "negotiating" something with the states that constitutes a long term solution benefiting all sides and preserving (instead of threatening) power for the people who use it?
What a concept!
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Monday, August 20, 2012
Zakaria's Mistake
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/business/media/scandal-threatens-fareed-zakarias-image-as-media-star.html?_r=1&ref=business
***************
"People with humility don't think less of themselves; they just think of themselves less." (Ken Blanchard and Norman Vincent Peale)
***************
Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World" was, for many reasons, the best non-fiction book written in 2008. He defined the world as he saw it then with the great story of our times being "the rise of the rest:" the growth of countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa and many more. He made it interesting: I don't think many of us knew that Chinese Admiral Zheng He began expeditions to explore the world 87 years before Christopher Columbus in ships that were much larger and better constructed. On his first sailing, in 1405, he took 317 vessels and 28,000 men (compared with Columbus 4 boats and 150 sailors). The largest vessels in the Chinese fleet were over 400 feet! Each ship required so much wood that 300 acres of forest were felled to build a single one.
China was "ahead" (my term) before Western Europe and was charging to get "ahead" again. China's GDP growth over the last 30/40 years has been nothing short of exceptional.
To Zakaria (and his book editors), the challenge for America was/is political decline, "...for as others grow in importance, the central role of the United States has to shrink." While Zakaria may not have intended to put it this way, he was/is saying that the 21st century will be China's century and the U.S. needs to move over.
Between his books, feature articles in Time Magazine, and his television show, where he had(has) the power to "get" any world or business leader "on," Zakaria could frame any issue.
My problem, as a teacher, was to try to balance Zakaria's view (some people would call he and other well known economist/political scientists "declinists."), which students should hear, with other views which contradict Zakaria's vision. So, for example, George Friedman asks what "ocean" China controls? Like it or not, America controls "all" of them. Or, for example, several voices who ask what about China's "demographic?" Will China stall because it has lost a generation (or more) to the "one child policy?"
So, with this in mind, it was quite surprising to me that Zakaria was "suspended" last week for "plagiarism." Suddenly there was no "Fareed Zakaria: GPS" (Global Public Square) on CNN - his show is weekly and I (along with 25 million other people around the world) watch. He was suspended from Time, CNN and The Washington Post simultaneously. All parties investigated and restored him within a week (or, after his suspension ends). I don't think anybody thought his plagiarism was intentional but I do think he's doing what, even for him, is too many things at once.
Zakaria is a "brand." But, he's been given a message that he's taken on too much and he either needs help or needs to do less.
Zakaria is as good as it gets but he needs to be careful.
***************
"People with humility don't think less of themselves; they just think of themselves less." (Ken Blanchard and Norman Vincent Peale)
***************
Fareed Zakaria's "The Post-American World" was, for many reasons, the best non-fiction book written in 2008. He defined the world as he saw it then with the great story of our times being "the rise of the rest:" the growth of countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, South Africa and many more. He made it interesting: I don't think many of us knew that Chinese Admiral Zheng He began expeditions to explore the world 87 years before Christopher Columbus in ships that were much larger and better constructed. On his first sailing, in 1405, he took 317 vessels and 28,000 men (compared with Columbus 4 boats and 150 sailors). The largest vessels in the Chinese fleet were over 400 feet! Each ship required so much wood that 300 acres of forest were felled to build a single one.
China was "ahead" (my term) before Western Europe and was charging to get "ahead" again. China's GDP growth over the last 30/40 years has been nothing short of exceptional.
To Zakaria (and his book editors), the challenge for America was/is political decline, "...for as others grow in importance, the central role of the United States has to shrink." While Zakaria may not have intended to put it this way, he was/is saying that the 21st century will be China's century and the U.S. needs to move over.
Between his books, feature articles in Time Magazine, and his television show, where he had(has) the power to "get" any world or business leader "on," Zakaria could frame any issue.
My problem, as a teacher, was to try to balance Zakaria's view (some people would call he and other well known economist/political scientists "declinists."), which students should hear, with other views which contradict Zakaria's vision. So, for example, George Friedman asks what "ocean" China controls? Like it or not, America controls "all" of them. Or, for example, several voices who ask what about China's "demographic?" Will China stall because it has lost a generation (or more) to the "one child policy?"
So, with this in mind, it was quite surprising to me that Zakaria was "suspended" last week for "plagiarism." Suddenly there was no "Fareed Zakaria: GPS" (Global Public Square) on CNN - his show is weekly and I (along with 25 million other people around the world) watch. He was suspended from Time, CNN and The Washington Post simultaneously. All parties investigated and restored him within a week (or, after his suspension ends). I don't think anybody thought his plagiarism was intentional but I do think he's doing what, even for him, is too many things at once.
Zakaria is a "brand." But, he's been given a message that he's taken on too much and he either needs help or needs to do less.
Zakaria is as good as it gets but he needs to be careful.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Coal & Climate Change
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444508504577591212039656948.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecondBucket
***************
"Always be on the lookout for ideas. Be completely indiscriminate as to the source ... It doesn't matter who thought of an idea." (Jeffrey J. Fox)
***************
Robert Bryce wrote an excellent article in the "City Journal" that was picked up by the editors of wsj.com. It's about "coal." Coal appears to be the "villain of the piece" today because the EPA believes that coal plants, "... by emitting carbon dioxide in profusion, contribute to global warming." I have the impression that the EPA would just as soon shut down all the coal plants in Texas. Since they (the EPA bureaucrats) wouldn't suffer the electricity shortages that would play havoc with air conditioning, refrigeration, etc, in Texas, they'd (the EPA) feel they'd done their duty in the fight against global warming without any discomfort to themselves. Sad.
Bryce went to the most prolific coal mine in North America to see what they do and discovered that they load one coal train per hour (roughly) so by noon in a single day, they had loaded 11 trains, each with 16,000 tons of coal. That particular mine is probably good for another 5 decades. It produces 3 tons of coal per second.
Nobody wants global warming and it looks like progress is being made with sequestering carbon dioxide during coal-fired electricity generation (see my prior post). So, why can't the EPA and the Department of Energy, which seems to be taking the "sequestration" process seriously, get together on what they're doing? The Texas Clean Energy Project might be a good way to do that. But, of course, all that is just too logical.
From Robert Bryce: "There's no denying that coal has earned its reputation as a relatively dirty fuel. But those concerned about CO2 emissions and climate change should realize that the administration's attack on coal is little more than a token gesture. The rest of the world will continue to burn coal, and lots of it. Reducing the domestic use of coal may force Americans to pay higher prices for electricity, but it will have nearly NO EFFECT ON GLOBAL EMISSIONS (my emphasis)."
Bryce again: "But even if the EPA and the Obama administration succeed in prohibiting new coal-fired electricity generation in the United States, they will leave global coal demand and CO2 emissions almost unchanged. Over the past decade or so, American coal consumption fell by 5%, but global coal consumption soared, growing by about the same amount as the growth in oil, natural gas, and nuclear combined. Coal now fuels about 40% of global electricity production. Coal's dominance helps explain why global CO2 emissions rose by 28.5% between 2001 and 2010, even as American CO2 emissions fell by 1.7%. Over the past decade, even if American emissions had dropped to zero, global emissions would still have increased."
Bryce points out that ExxonMobil's current energy forecast predicts that in 2030, the cheapest form of electricity production will remain coal-fired generation units. This means that, even at that point in time, electricity produced by coal would be cheaper than electricity produced by natural gas, nuclear, wind, or solar photovoltaic panels.
So, wouldn't it make sense to follow projects that seem to work with more and more investment in things like carbon dioxide sequestration during coal-fired energy generation? So, Japan and Germany, which are shutting down all of their nuclear reactors, have to look at coal. German utilities are already placing their bets on coal. Coal will be used. The question is, can the world come up with a way to deal the emissions question?
China, where CO2 emissions have gone up 123% between 2001 and 2010, is investing $1 billion in a Texas sequestering project, while the U.S. EPA is threatening to shut down Texas coal-fired power plants. How ironic!
*****
According to "wire reports" and the Dallas Morning News today (8/17/12), the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from "dirtier-burning" coal.
According to this report: "Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide ..."
Market Forces! What a concept!
***************
"Always be on the lookout for ideas. Be completely indiscriminate as to the source ... It doesn't matter who thought of an idea." (Jeffrey J. Fox)
***************
Robert Bryce wrote an excellent article in the "City Journal" that was picked up by the editors of wsj.com. It's about "coal." Coal appears to be the "villain of the piece" today because the EPA believes that coal plants, "... by emitting carbon dioxide in profusion, contribute to global warming." I have the impression that the EPA would just as soon shut down all the coal plants in Texas. Since they (the EPA bureaucrats) wouldn't suffer the electricity shortages that would play havoc with air conditioning, refrigeration, etc, in Texas, they'd (the EPA) feel they'd done their duty in the fight against global warming without any discomfort to themselves. Sad.
Bryce went to the most prolific coal mine in North America to see what they do and discovered that they load one coal train per hour (roughly) so by noon in a single day, they had loaded 11 trains, each with 16,000 tons of coal. That particular mine is probably good for another 5 decades. It produces 3 tons of coal per second.
Nobody wants global warming and it looks like progress is being made with sequestering carbon dioxide during coal-fired electricity generation (see my prior post). So, why can't the EPA and the Department of Energy, which seems to be taking the "sequestration" process seriously, get together on what they're doing? The Texas Clean Energy Project might be a good way to do that. But, of course, all that is just too logical.
From Robert Bryce: "There's no denying that coal has earned its reputation as a relatively dirty fuel. But those concerned about CO2 emissions and climate change should realize that the administration's attack on coal is little more than a token gesture. The rest of the world will continue to burn coal, and lots of it. Reducing the domestic use of coal may force Americans to pay higher prices for electricity, but it will have nearly NO EFFECT ON GLOBAL EMISSIONS (my emphasis)."
Bryce again: "But even if the EPA and the Obama administration succeed in prohibiting new coal-fired electricity generation in the United States, they will leave global coal demand and CO2 emissions almost unchanged. Over the past decade or so, American coal consumption fell by 5%, but global coal consumption soared, growing by about the same amount as the growth in oil, natural gas, and nuclear combined. Coal now fuels about 40% of global electricity production. Coal's dominance helps explain why global CO2 emissions rose by 28.5% between 2001 and 2010, even as American CO2 emissions fell by 1.7%. Over the past decade, even if American emissions had dropped to zero, global emissions would still have increased."
Bryce points out that ExxonMobil's current energy forecast predicts that in 2030, the cheapest form of electricity production will remain coal-fired generation units. This means that, even at that point in time, electricity produced by coal would be cheaper than electricity produced by natural gas, nuclear, wind, or solar photovoltaic panels.
So, wouldn't it make sense to follow projects that seem to work with more and more investment in things like carbon dioxide sequestration during coal-fired energy generation? So, Japan and Germany, which are shutting down all of their nuclear reactors, have to look at coal. German utilities are already placing their bets on coal. Coal will be used. The question is, can the world come up with a way to deal the emissions question?
China, where CO2 emissions have gone up 123% between 2001 and 2010, is investing $1 billion in a Texas sequestering project, while the U.S. EPA is threatening to shut down Texas coal-fired power plants. How ironic!
*****
According to "wire reports" and the Dallas Morning News today (8/17/12), the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from "dirtier-burning" coal.
According to this report: "Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide ..."
Market Forces! What a concept!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Sinopec Investing In Texas Clean Energy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444042704577589092360345550.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
***************
"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an invasion of ideas." (Victor Hugo)
***************
According to wsj.com, a Chinese group that includes Sinopec is in advanced talks to put up to $1 billion in a Texas clean energy project. This would be one of the biggest investments by a Chinese company in the U.S. power sector. Sinopec would do this (together with Chinese banks) by acquiring an equity stake in and provide financing to the roughly $2.5 billion Texas Energy Project. The project has already secured $450 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy, in addition to tax benefits. It also has the necessary permits and contracts, including a contract with San Antonio to buy its electricity for 25 years.
This project is about sequestering carbon dioxide from coal plants. As the coal is burned, carbon dioxide is trapped through one of several processes. Then it is stored underground and piped for use in oil recovery and other industrial uses.
Sinopec is looking to build "favor" in the U.S. as it aggressively acquires energy reserves. At the same time, Chinese oil-industry officials "...remain wary that Chinese energy investment in the U.S. will be criticized, especially following a deal by Sinopec rival Cnooc Ltd for Canada's Nexen inc. that includes some Gulf of Mexico properties."
To me, this is good news on several fronts. I have the impression that the U.S. EPA is on a mission to shut down coal-fired power plants in Texas. Elizabeth Souder pointed out in a July Dallas Morning News article that Luminant is being accused by the EPA of violating the Clean Air Act at two of the company's coal-fired power plants. Now, I'm just guessing that those Washington bureaucrats don't have to worry about "interrupted power" here in Texas when it's 100 degrees. But we do.
Fortunately, a different U.S. government department has come up with a way to support a Texas project to reduce carbon emissions: The Texas Energy Project. And China has come up with a way to spend money on that project in order to show good intent as its companies look to buy oil reserves.
Elizabeth Souder went on to point out in another article that same day that Panda Power managed to get "rare financing" for a natural gas-fired power plant that will ease concerns about the "lights going out in Texas." According to Souder, "The company expects the plant to begin making electricity in 2014, just as Texas' tight power supply problem becomes acute. State electricity regulators included the Panda plant in forecasts of future power supply, but it is comforting for a planned plant to actually get financing."
Maybe there's hope for coal plants and electric power in Texas because gas and oil are plentiful again.
***************
"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an invasion of ideas." (Victor Hugo)
***************
According to wsj.com, a Chinese group that includes Sinopec is in advanced talks to put up to $1 billion in a Texas clean energy project. This would be one of the biggest investments by a Chinese company in the U.S. power sector. Sinopec would do this (together with Chinese banks) by acquiring an equity stake in and provide financing to the roughly $2.5 billion Texas Energy Project. The project has already secured $450 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy, in addition to tax benefits. It also has the necessary permits and contracts, including a contract with San Antonio to buy its electricity for 25 years.
This project is about sequestering carbon dioxide from coal plants. As the coal is burned, carbon dioxide is trapped through one of several processes. Then it is stored underground and piped for use in oil recovery and other industrial uses.
Sinopec is looking to build "favor" in the U.S. as it aggressively acquires energy reserves. At the same time, Chinese oil-industry officials "...remain wary that Chinese energy investment in the U.S. will be criticized, especially following a deal by Sinopec rival Cnooc Ltd for Canada's Nexen inc. that includes some Gulf of Mexico properties."
To me, this is good news on several fronts. I have the impression that the U.S. EPA is on a mission to shut down coal-fired power plants in Texas. Elizabeth Souder pointed out in a July Dallas Morning News article that Luminant is being accused by the EPA of violating the Clean Air Act at two of the company's coal-fired power plants. Now, I'm just guessing that those Washington bureaucrats don't have to worry about "interrupted power" here in Texas when it's 100 degrees. But we do.
Fortunately, a different U.S. government department has come up with a way to support a Texas project to reduce carbon emissions: The Texas Energy Project. And China has come up with a way to spend money on that project in order to show good intent as its companies look to buy oil reserves.
Elizabeth Souder went on to point out in another article that same day that Panda Power managed to get "rare financing" for a natural gas-fired power plant that will ease concerns about the "lights going out in Texas." According to Souder, "The company expects the plant to begin making electricity in 2014, just as Texas' tight power supply problem becomes acute. State electricity regulators included the Panda plant in forecasts of future power supply, but it is comforting for a planned plant to actually get financing."
Maybe there's hope for coal plants and electric power in Texas because gas and oil are plentiful again.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
HCA's Growing Profit
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/hca-giant-hospital-chain-creates-a-windfall-for-private-equity.html?_r=1&ref=business
***************
"It takes 2 to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." (Henry David Thoreau)
***************
Today's nytimes.com has a heavily researched article on how the HCA hospital system has achieved dramatic profit growth. According to the Times, HCA controls 163 hospitals from New Hampshire to California.
The article attaches excellent graphics depicting "Total Margin" (total margin is defined as total revenue minus total costs, divided by total costs) for HCA vs competitors. Since 2006, when it was taken private in a leveraged buyout, profits at its acute-care hospitals are up substantially. Essentially, three private equity firms made the buyout possible: Bain Capital, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and Merrill Private Equity (now owned by BOA).
Without getting into all of the detail, in 2008 HCA changed all of the billing codes it assigned to emergency room patients. As a result, many more patients began to be coded at the highest levels of emergency care which are reimbursed by Medicare at higher rates.
So, I'm probably just old fashioned (or just "old") but I think I'm seeing profit-oriented management looking to game the system - in this case, Medicare - for improved profits. This is the difficulty I have with "for profit" hospitals. If "profit" comes first, where's patient care on the list?
Here, I have to insert a quote: "Several years ago, digital billboards began popping up along highways throughout Florida, featuring the image of a painter falling from a ladder and the message: 'Accidents happen fast. Emergency care should too.' Like highway signs that list the travel times to various destinations, the billboards flashed in real time the emergency room wait times - 17 minutes for example, or 45 minutes - at nearby HCA hospitals."
Continuing the Times quote: "HCA wanted to attract more patients to its emergency rooms, and it did. Annual visits climbed 20% between 2007 and 2011." Emergency rooms "...are frequently money-losers because many patients do not have insurance. HCA found a solution: it figured out how to be paid more for the patients it was seeing." Its new billing codes charged more using higher level Medicare codes.
I could go on but what really causes me some heartburn is that HCA is simply charging more for what they do and charging it to Medicare which is at the heart of what needs to be fixed as part of the U.S. social safety net. And, just like Social Security, doesn't Medicare come out of our U.S. tax base?
***************
"It takes 2 to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." (Henry David Thoreau)
***************
Today's nytimes.com has a heavily researched article on how the HCA hospital system has achieved dramatic profit growth. According to the Times, HCA controls 163 hospitals from New Hampshire to California.
The article attaches excellent graphics depicting "Total Margin" (total margin is defined as total revenue minus total costs, divided by total costs) for HCA vs competitors. Since 2006, when it was taken private in a leveraged buyout, profits at its acute-care hospitals are up substantially. Essentially, three private equity firms made the buyout possible: Bain Capital, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, and Merrill Private Equity (now owned by BOA).
Without getting into all of the detail, in 2008 HCA changed all of the billing codes it assigned to emergency room patients. As a result, many more patients began to be coded at the highest levels of emergency care which are reimbursed by Medicare at higher rates.
So, I'm probably just old fashioned (or just "old") but I think I'm seeing profit-oriented management looking to game the system - in this case, Medicare - for improved profits. This is the difficulty I have with "for profit" hospitals. If "profit" comes first, where's patient care on the list?
Here, I have to insert a quote: "Several years ago, digital billboards began popping up along highways throughout Florida, featuring the image of a painter falling from a ladder and the message: 'Accidents happen fast. Emergency care should too.' Like highway signs that list the travel times to various destinations, the billboards flashed in real time the emergency room wait times - 17 minutes for example, or 45 minutes - at nearby HCA hospitals."
Continuing the Times quote: "HCA wanted to attract more patients to its emergency rooms, and it did. Annual visits climbed 20% between 2007 and 2011." Emergency rooms "...are frequently money-losers because many patients do not have insurance. HCA found a solution: it figured out how to be paid more for the patients it was seeing." Its new billing codes charged more using higher level Medicare codes.
I could go on but what really causes me some heartburn is that HCA is simply charging more for what they do and charging it to Medicare which is at the heart of what needs to be fixed as part of the U.S. social safety net. And, just like Social Security, doesn't Medicare come out of our U.S. tax base?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)