Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Can't wait till we can get someone else in as President so we can PUT THE BRAKES on these out of control agencies.
In what way, do you consider what agencies, to be "out of control?"
If by "doing their job" means making sure all business relocates to a country where there are no epa regulations then yes, they are doing their job.
Their job is to protect the commons environment for the benefit and use of all. If companies can't make money while abiding by such constraints, then I won't be sad to see them fail or leave. This is like saying US law encourages our criminals to go to nations with more relaxed laws and law enforcement,...if that's the case, so be it.
Gonna take a while to get to replace the 48% that coal provides of the almost 4 billion kWh we generate, isn't it?
Don't bust out the champagne just yet, Roxy.
...It is my understanding that if there is criticism of New Coal Technology, which I am referring to, it is over CO2 Emissions, which I personally do not consider a pollutant. If Clean Coal Technology and Construction is being obstructed for that reason, I find those responsible responsible for the consequences...
Old Rocks, Seriously, concerning Geothermal, do you have any concern of the effects, consequences? You see no reason for concern?
...It is my understanding that if there is criticism of New Coal Technology, which I am referring to, it is over CO2 Emissions, which I personally do not consider a pollutant. If Clean Coal Technology and Construction is being obstructed for that reason, I find those responsible responsible for the consequences...QUOTE]
So what is your understanding of the nature of previously sequestered CO2 being emitted on large scale into our atmospere? We have geologic, historic and modern evidences of the environmental impact caused by substantively altering the composition of our planet's atmosphere upon existing ecosystems.
Pollution -
The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects
pollution - Google Search
undesirable state of the natural environment being contaminated with harmful substances as a consequence of human activities.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat, or light. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution
An undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of air, water, soil, or food that can adversely affect the health, survival, or activities of humans or other living organisms.
Florida DEP - TMDL Glossary of Terms
is a special case of habitat destruction; it is chemical destruction rather than the more obvious physical destruction. Pollution occurs in all habitatsland, sea, and fresh waterand in the atmosphere. ...
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/133385/conservation/272
Wow thank you so much for the definitions. I am so totally stupid that I dont know what pollution is.
I beileve that the consequences of carbon dioxide emissions are over stated at best an outright lie at worst.
You start factoring in maintenance costs and repair and things will change there.
Bullshit. Coal plants are high maintenance installations. With a high output of dangerous byproducts such as fly ash, mercury, and lead.
Then you have to clean the site up once you are done burning coal. Not only that, the mining of coal is an environmental disaster where ever and how ever it is done. A windmill is good for twenty years, then you just pull down the nacelle, and put another in it's place, while the old one is rebuilt. And the whole time, it is so clean that they grow wheat right up to the base of the towers.
Tell me how you build a windmill without steel?
And how do you make steel without coal?
Yes it is true that the smaller older plants are inefficent and hard to maintian. How come the EPA makes it so hard to open new more efficent plants. Because the EPA and the Obama administration are planning on eliminating coal as a power source. They have not even tired to keep it quiet. Obama is going to bancrupt the coal industry in a America and bancrupt us all in the process.
Must be why he keeps approving such unproductive and environmentally harmful practices like mountain top removal, strip mining, etc.. Historically, Obama has been very friendly and accommidating to the coal industry. In 1997, he voted to use state sales taxes to help reopen closed coal mines and create "incentives to attract new businesses that use coal," in the state of illinois. In 2001, he voted for legislation that provided $3.5 billion in loan guarantees to construct coal-fired power plants with no means of controlling carbon emissions. In 2003, Obama voted for $300 million in bonds towards the construction and expansion of coal-fired power plants. As he moved on to the national stage, this support continued unabated, and was largely one of the many reasons I never have or will support Barry. On January 4, 2007, Obama helped introduce the Coal-to-Liquids Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. The bill was intended to help grow the coal-to-liquids industry through tax incentives and public-private partnerships. On June 19, 2007, Obama voted in favor of an amendment to establish a loan program for projects to produce syngas from coal and other feedstocks, while working to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
So you enviromentalists, good luck keeping warm during the rolling blackouts. I will stay nice and warm with my coal and wood stove.
I stay warm and well powered without coal, though I did want to mention that there is nothing environmentally wrong with a wood stove.
So you think that Obama is a friend of coal. If he is then why dont he reign in the EPA?
The problem is, that making coal simply pay for their own market failure externalities, raises its price to the point where it is economically unviable. Making coal "clean" (which entails the recapture of all the CO2 generated in its production and combustion, as well as filtering all of the various combustion processes and then sequestering the CO2, and otherwise safely storing/disposing of the rest of the various sulfur and heavy metal contaminants) takes almost as much energy as the coal generates in combustion, and raises the price of the energy to the point where it is completely uncompetitive with most other energy sources.
Do you have a source for this?
Can't wait till we can get someone else in as President so we can PUT THE BRAKES on these out of control agencies.
In what way, do you consider what agencies, to be "out of control?"
EPA for one oh disingenuous one. They are attempting to pass Cap and Tax through regulations.
Renewables are over 10%? DoE says otherwise:Renewable is over 10% at present. Solar and geothermal have yet to be a factor.
Can't you make a case without resorting to fear-mongering?Were we to get serious about replacing coal, we could do that in a generation. We won't, and our children and grandchildren will pay the price of the willfull ignorance and greed of the present generation.
You buy it from China and blame the GOP.You start factoring in maintenance costs and repair and things will change there.
Bullshit. Coal plants are high maintenance installations. With a high output of dangerous byproducts such as fly ash, mercury, and lead.
Then you have to clean the site up once you are done burning coal. Not only that, the mining of coal is an environmental disaster where ever and how ever it is done. A windmill is good for twenty years, then you just pull down the nacelle, and put another in it's place, while the old one is rebuilt. And the whole time, it is so clean that they grow wheat right up to the base of the towers.
Tell me how you build a windmill without steel?
And how do you make steel without coal?
We need more mercury in our catfish, keep coal going!
Then throw all of those CFLs in the ocean.
Thanks to coal fired power plants there is more mercury in a tuna fish sandwich than there is in a CFL.
I do believe Roxy feels that way.Reality check for leftists:
There is no Magic Energy. Solar and wind will not scale up economically to replace the 45% of electrical power we get from coal.
That's just the way it is.
Who has ever stated that Solar or WInd energy generation systems were the only or even best options to replace base-load coal generated electricity?
Emotionalism is no basis for a rational energy policy.As stated before, the first goal is a moratorium on new coal powerplant construction. After this we need a coordinated national energy generation and delivery backbone plan that looks at such things as doubling the national Nuclear Power generation profile, from its current ~20% total US electrical capacity, with most power plants being 60s-70s era design gen II systems, into ~40/50% total US electrical capacity, with all plants being genIII+ or later systems by 2025. Most of the short-term slack from the phasing out of coal to the full integration of nuclear and non-fossil fuelled alternatives will have to be filled with natural gas. While not a solution in the mid-long term, it is better than coal with far fewer pollutants and emissions of concern. Solar, Wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, wave, waste repurposing, bio-gas and even biofuels all have roles to play, but it would be rather idiotic to try and replace "Big Coal" and "Big Oil" with "Big Solar" and "Big Grain Alcohol." The idea is to create a broadly diversified, stable and (most importantly) "sustainable" energy infrastructure, not to create another monolithic, despotic energy industry to replace the current monolithic despotic energy industry.
You mean like the AGW cultists? Yeah, they're pretty gullible, all right.Really? I'm not the cultist here, Roxy.
Try spreading those lies amongst those who are gullible enough to fall for them.
Natural gas? Burn it and it releases CO2. You'll never get the bunny huggers to go for that.Gonna take a while to get to replace the 48% that coal provides of the almost 4 billion kWh we generate, isn't it?
Don't bust out the champagne just yet, Roxy.
Not really, most of the NG gas generation capacity has been developed in the last 20 years, most of the coal generation capacity is nearly a half century old. New Wind power generation is more than triple that of new coal power generation, and if we return to the documented facts we see:
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report , and Form EIA-860M (see Table ES3 in the March 2011 Electric Power Monthly)in which it looks like NG could replace largely coal power plants within a decade in a rather seemless and smooth transition. During which alternative sources and nuclear power could account for growth and expansion of the electrical power demand.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report , and Form EIA-860M (see Table ES3 in the March 2011 Electric Power Monthly)
Note: Data for 2010 are preliminary. Generators with online dates earlier than 1930 are predominantly hydroelectric. Data include non-retired plants existing as of year-end 2010. This chart shows the most recent (summer) capacity data for each generator. However, this number may change over time, if a generator undergoes an uprate or derate.
If by "doing their job" means making sure all business relocates to a country where there are no epa regulations then yes, they are doing their job.
Their job is to protect the commons environment for the benefit and use of all. If companies can't make money while abiding by such constraints, then I won't be sad to see them fail or leave. This is like saying US law encourages our criminals to go to nations with more relaxed laws and law enforcement,...if that's the case, so be it.
Ahh yes the ever popular "commons" argument of the left.
