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.
...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...
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 buy it from China and blame the GOP.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?
Right, USMB lefties?
Renewables are over 10%? DoE says otherwise:Renewable is over 10% at present. Solar and geothermal have yet to be a factor.
Year-to-date, coal-fired plants contributed 43.6 percent of the power generated in the United States. Natural gas-fired plants contributed 21.7 percent, and nuclear plants contributed 19.4 percent. Of the 0.8 percent contributed by petroleum-fired plants, petroleum liquids accounted for approximately 0.4 percent and petroleum coke accounted for roughly 0.3 percent. Conventional hydroelectric sources provided 9.0 percent of the total, while other renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining 5.5 percent of electric power (Figure 2).Hydroelectric is not an enviro-nut approved source, because it interferes with turtles humping, and we can't have that. So where do you get your 10% figure? Just make it up?
Oh, and look what else I found:
Only around a quarter of the new electricity capacity introduced in 2010 came from wind power, down from 42 percent in 2009, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Energy.Your growth curve is plateauing.
The average cost of installing new wind power held steady in 2010, while the cost of other forms of electricity fell, according to the report.
--
The key problems remain building and maintaining new transmission lines, according to the report. Its easy enough to generate electricity from a wind turbine, but more difficult to move it from point A to point B. Its a problem that all new types of renewable energy face, Asmus said.
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.
No, it doesn't look like you can.
You buy it from China and blame the GOP.Tell me how you build a windmill without steel?
And how do you make steel without coal?
Right, USMB lefties?
All most all modern furnaces recycling scrap are powered by electricity. The amount of steel used in windmills is not that great, mostly the supporting tube. And the mill I work at rolls most of the steel used in the tubes that are used in Oregon. We get our electricity from Bonneville, which is primarily hydro, with a lot of wind in the mix now.
You buy it from China and blame the GOP.Tell me how you build a windmill without steel?
And how do you make steel without coal?
Right, USMB lefties?
All most all modern furnaces recycling scrap are powered by electricity. The amount of steel used in windmills is not that great, mostly the supporting tube. And the mill I work at rolls most of the steel used in the tubes that are used in Oregon. We get our electricity from Bonneville, which is primarily hydro, with a lot of wind in the mix now.
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.
As a matter of fact, you'll never get them to go for any rational energy policy.
You buy it from China and blame the GOP.
Right, USMB lefties?
All most all modern furnaces recycling scrap are powered by electricity. The amount of steel used in windmills is not that great, mostly the supporting tube. And the mill I work at rolls most of the steel used in the tubes that are used in Oregon. We get our electricity from Bonneville, which is primarily hydro, with a lot of wind in the mix now.
LOL, thanks for verifying when I said you had a vested interest in this... You denied it before.. So wind power employs you thats why you are so obsessed with it...
Hydroelectric is not an enviro-nut approved source, because it interferes with turtles humping, and we can't have that.
Natural gas? Burn it and it releases CO2. You'll never get the bunny huggers to go for that.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.
As a matter of fact, you'll never get them to go for any rational energy policy.
Natural gas is a good transistion material on the way to a non-polluting energy grid. It releases far less pollution than coal, and we get more energy per ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere than with coal.
As for rational energy policy, you brain dead 'Conservatives' have yet to present anything remotely rational.
Hydroelectric is not an enviro-nut approved source, because it interferes with turtles humping, and we can't have that.
Quite completely wrong. Hydro power has always been ecologically compatible. Of course, ecologists are concerned about insuring that there are environmental accommodations made for unique habitats and at risk populations, but this does not mean that anyone would rather have ten coal fired power plants in the place of one medium size dam.
In general, most intelligent and informed individuals realize that it is impractical to try and immediately end all fossil-fuel energy generation and fuel usage. But it is obvious that these particular carbon fuels and most importantly, their combustion products must be phased out over the coming few decades.
Sustainable Alternative Energy sources, from my perspective includes:
Nuclear, Hydro-electric, geothermal, wind, solar (thermal and PV), tidal, wave, biofuels, and a host of various combinations and varients of these. Virtually, the only sources to be removed are the previously sequestered fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas.
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.
...Each small, curly tube contains about 35 mg of mercurysignificantly less than the 500 mg in older thermometers, but enough that environmental and human health concerns remain...
...The research group headed by Robert Hurt, director of the Institute for Molecular and Nanoscale Innovation, broke a series of new and used CFLs to measure the release of mercury vapor into the air. In the hour immediately after each breakage, the team recorded mercury gas concentrations near the bulb shards between 200800 μg/m3. For comparison, the average 8-hour occupational exposure limit allowed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is 100 μg/m3. Within 4 days a new 13-W CFL released about 30% of its mercury, with the remainder appearing to remain trapped in the bulb debris; picking up the glass shards after breakage reduced mercury release by 67%. Used bulbs followed similar patterns but with lower rates. The study, which was funded by the NIEHS Superfund Basic Research Program, was reported in the 1 August 2008 issue of Environmental Science & Technology.The amount of mercury gas coming off [broken CFLs] is over a milligram over a few days. If you put that milligram into a poorly ventilated room, the concentration can be over the recommended limit for children [of 0.2 μg/m3], says Hurt. The overall risk is low, but its not zero risk, and there is definitely an opportunity to do better....
...Figure 2 shows the key comparisons between mercury exposures from breaking a CFL, and the methylmercury exposures from eating Albacore tuna. The top bar, showing the tiny mercury dose (0.068 micrograms) calculated from the median of the 45 breakage scenarios, is compared to the dose absorbed by breathing air contaminated at the state air quality standard for one hour (0.153 micrograms) and eight hours (1.22 micrograms). (Eight hours is an approximate upper limit on the time it takes to digest and absorb the mercury from a meal.) Most important in this comparison is the bar showing the dose from eating a single (6 oz) meal of Albacore tuna (48 micrograms of mercury), which is roughly equal to the very worst CFL breakage case measured by the MDEP. The last, and by far the largest, of the bars is the steady state body burden that would result if the recommended amount of fish is regularly consumed on a weekly basis.
So what do all these comparisons mean? First, they show that if simple commonsense is used in disposing of the broken CFL, the resulting exposure to mercury is equivalent to about 1/50th of an ouncea single nibbleof Albacore tuna! Second, when we account for the fact that methylmercury appears to be more hazardous than an equivalent amount of mercury vapor, they suggest that the state air quality standard (which is only marginally higher than a nibble of tuna) is an inappropriately conservative standard for a single short-term exposure.
Third, even the most extreme CFL breakage scenario measured by the MDEP only equaled the approximate exposure from a single meal of fish. Fourth, the equilibrium body burden that would result from long-term consumption of the recommended amount of fish is about 10 times larger than the very worst case CFL breakage scenario. The incremental dose from a single meal is only a fraction of the total dose due to long-term exposure. The FDA explicitly bases its recommendations on fish consumption with this in mind: One week's consumption of fish does not change the level of methylmercury in the body much at all. If you eat a lot of fish one week, you can cut back for the next week or two. Just make sure you average the recommended amount per week.[8]. Note that the worst case scenario was truly designed as the worst of worst cases. It yielded 800 times the median dose, and five times the dose of the second worst case. There were two main factors that contributed to this case. Firstly, every effort was made to force the mercury into the air. Although the bulk debris was picked up, it was disposed of in a trash can, in the room. A vacuum cleaner, with a beater attachment, was then used on the carpet where the lamp had been broken and then left, in the room. Secondly, entrances to the room were shut, and heating vents and windows sealed leaving little chance for the mercury to disperse. The important point here: all of these factors are easily avoidable...
Natural gas? Burn it and it releases CO2. You'll never get the bunny huggers to go for that.
As a matter of fact, you'll never get them to go for any rational energy policy.
Natural gas is a good transistion material on the way to a non-polluting energy grid. It releases far less pollution than coal, and we get more energy per ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere than with coal.
As for rational energy policy, you brain dead 'Conservatives' have yet to present anything remotely rational.
Got any put downs for us ***Independents***
Cause we don't believe your crap either.
Hydroelectric is not an enviro-nut approved source, because it interferes with turtles humping, and we can't have that.
Quite completely wrong. Hydro power has always been ecologically compatible. Of course, ecologists are concerned about insuring that there are environmental accommodations made for unique habitats and at risk populations, but this does not mean that anyone would rather have ten coal fired power plants in the place of one medium size dam.
In general, most intelligent and informed individuals realize that it is impractical to try and immediately end all fossil-fuel energy generation and fuel usage. But it is obvious that these particular carbon fuels and most importantly, their combustion products must be phased out over the coming few decades.
Sustainable Alternative Energy sources, from my perspective includes:
Nuclear, Hydro-electric, geothermal, wind, solar (thermal and PV), tidal, wave, biofuels, and a host of various combinations and varients of these. Virtually, the only sources to be removed are the previously sequestered fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas.
BULLSHIT!
Natural gas is a good transistion material on the way to a non-polluting energy grid. It releases far less pollution than coal, and we get more energy per ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere than with coal.
As for rational energy policy, you brain dead 'Conservatives' have yet to present anything remotely rational.
Got any put downs for us ***Independents***
Cause we don't believe your crap either.
I've only known two types of "independents" those who are too extremist and too pissed off at the party they'd rather be represented by, and those too busy and uninterested in political BS to recognize any real difference in either party.
Personally, I'm proud to be a Republican, though "conservatives" are a huge problem in our party and have made a mockery of everything that being Republican once meant. Republicans were the original Progressive party and we can trace the roots of progressivism from Jefferson to Teddy Roosevelt to Lincoln and Eisenhower. Not many progressive republican leaders of the last half century, but that's mostly due to the liberal left's distortionist slanders corrupting the popular understanding of what true progressivism means and stands for.
Quite completely wrong. Hydro power has always been ecologically compatible. Of course, ecologists are concerned about insuring that there are environmental accommodations made for unique habitats and at risk populations, but this does not mean that anyone would rather have ten coal fired power plants in the place of one medium size dam.
In general, most intelligent and informed individuals realize that it is impractical to try and immediately end all fossil-fuel energy generation and fuel usage. But it is obvious that these particular carbon fuels and most importantly, their combustion products must be phased out over the coming few decades.
Sustainable Alternative Energy sources, from my perspective includes:
Nuclear, Hydro-electric, geothermal, wind, solar (thermal and PV), tidal, wave, biofuels, and a host of various combinations and varients of these. Virtually, the only sources to be removed are the previously sequestered fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas.
BULLSHIT!
ineloquent as well as inaccurate, how unsurprising!
Climate solutions - Hydroelectic | Greenpeace International
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?
steel isn't essential for windmills, but more importantly, steel doesn't depend upon coal for its production and manufacture, and finally, I am talking about coal-fired power plants, not any of the other potential uses for coal,...at least so far.
For wind turbines there are carbon-fiber composites, Aluminium, and whole host of substitute alloys and constructions.
First and foremest, scrap steel (untold thousands of tons of which are buried in landfills around the nation every year) can be recycled with sustainably sourced electricity, to produce high quality steel without the use of any Coal at all. For new, steel, the only essential elements are the ores and a source of heat. There are methods of producing steel entirely without coal, but coking coal is a cheap and easily obtained source of adding carbon to the iron to generate high quality steels. Such small quantities of coal are actually consumed in this effort, however, that even if coal's externalities are fully internalized, it would add very little to the end-cost of steel production.
The US produces about 80Mt of Steel a year, and uses (not counting the energy) around 40Mt of coking coal in this process. In contrast, the US currently burns in excess of a Gt of coal a year in energy production. So even if we make an exception for steel productions (versus power generation) to go from over a Billion short tons a year, to a mere 40 Million tons a year, would be a huge step in the right direction, IMO.
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.
"The Commons" is a universal and fundemental economic principle. But, please feel free to continue displaying the level of your ignorances and misunderstandings.
economic explanations of "the Commons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good_(economics)
Business Economics | Introduction to Basic Economics
(common property)
Economics focus: Commons sense | The Economist
Tragedy of the Commons: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
It is immoral to pollute the Earth as God tell us that in the Bible. And it's immoral to pollute the Earth for the sake of money.
Anyone want to debate that?
All I want is you to quote the scriptures for where it tells us it is immoral to pollute the earth. Then we may have something to debate.
FYI: My understanding is that we are to take dominion over the earth and to be good stewards but it escapes me this polluting bit. What is that anyway?
Genesis 2:15
To environmentalists, letting man have dominion over the animals and being told to subdue the earth means that God gives man free rein to do anything he wants to the planetbend it to his uses and abuses, rape it of all its beauty and diversityfor his own benefit. "Does not the land have any rights?" they cry. "What about the plants and animals, birds and fish? What gives us the right to mine and burn and kill without care for nature?"
Certainly, God did not give man the authority to degrade and destroy His earth. Environmentalists are correct in saying that mankind should consider and address environmental concerns. They are quite wrong, however, to blame God for the earth's ecological problems; He is not responsible for man's destruction of the natural world.
To think that God gave man carte blanche to plunder and destroy the earth is simply ludicrous. He is its Creator! Why would He immediately command Adam to ruin it? Would any woodworker, upon just finishing a beautifully stained piece of furniture, tell his son to break it up for firewood? No! Just as God desires for His creation, the woodworker would put his handiwork to use and also care for it by keeping it waxed and dusted to prolong its life.
This is exactly what God told Adam. Genesis 2 contains a parallel account of creation, adding detail to certain parts of the narrative of the first chapter. Notice God's expanded instruction: "Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend [dress, KJV] and keep it" (verse 15). This greatly modifies the force of "have dominion" and "subdue it" from Genesis 1:26, 28!
Tend (Hebrew 'abad) means "to work or serve," and thus referring to the ground or a garden, it can be defined as "to till or cultivate." It possesses the nuance seen in the KJV's choice in its translation: "dress," implying adornment, embellishment, and improvement.
Keep (Hebrew shamar) means "to exercise great care over." In the context of Genesis 2:15, it expresses God's wish that mankind, in the person of Adam, "take care of," "guard," or "watch over" the garden. A caretaker maintains and protects his charge so that he can return it to its owner in as good or better condition than when he received it.
To Noah, God gives a similar command after the Flood:
So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. (Genesis 9:1-2)
Once again God gives man dominion over all other life on the earth, and with this renewed authority comes the implicit responsibility to tend and keep what was explicitly given to Adam. In this post-Flood world, God gives mankind a second chance to use and preserve the resources He had so abundantly provided. To that end Noah, after 120 years as a preacher and shipwright, took up farming and planted a vineyard (verse 20). We can assume, from what we know of human nature, that this attitude of stewardship did not pass to very many of his descendants.
Read more: Genesis 2:15 (King James Version) :: Forerunner Commentary :: Bible Tools
