Independence (Day) from fossil fuels

Samson's right!!! Coal is great!!!
Fossil fuel power station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for mercury contamination. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions

OOOOoooooooOOOOOOO!!!!

a wikipedia citation!!!:eek:

:lol:

Finally, an explaination for your moronic posts: Mercury poisoning

Hey, simple solution: Don't regularly eat the fish. Have a fucking ham sammich every once in a while, for christssakes, you goddamn dolphin.

I guarantee you will not find what contamination levels the China Environmental Protection Agency found in "isolated waterways."
 
I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam? :eusa_eh: :lol:

It's not conservatives' fault -- it's liberals'. You don't want coal, you don't want nuclear, you don't want us to do anything to get off foreign oil.

There is no Magic Energy. To insist we shut down all fossil fuel production and usage before an alternative is developed and proven to be feasible, economical, and scalable is quite simply stupid.

Get it? It's YOUR fault.
 
I wonder if the hand-wringers, that would be you, realize that if we could marginalize the liberals and rely on can-do folks, that would be conservatives, we could solve the so-called 'energy quandary.'

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal...

Whenever a poster starts with "liberals = bad; cons = good," rest assured some horseshit is about to follow.

But "liberals = good; cons = bad", as in the OP, is just dandy?
 
I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam? :eusa_eh: :lol:

It's not conservatives' fault -- it's liberals'. You don't want coal, you don't want nuclear, you don't want us to do anything to get off foreign oil.

There is no Magic Energy. To insist we shut down all fossil fuel production and usage before an alternative is developed and proven to be feasible, economical, and scalable is quite simply stupid.

Get it? It's YOUR fault.
No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.
 
Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back. :razz:

"Worn Out?"

Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.
I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.

The real problem I have, and I'm not saying you're one of these people, is folks who hear somebody even utter the words C02, solar, or electric car, and imediatly launch off into "you're a liberal!" "there is plenty of oil and coal!!" "oil and coal don't really pollute!!!" "global warming is a hoax!!!!" "no need to even examine the subject!!!!!"

If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?
 
Samson's suggestion is to overlook the poisoning of the environment. F'ing brilliant ;)

My suggestion is the same as the USFDA

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the risk from mercury by eating fish and shellfish shall not be a health concern for most people

1.Do not eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish because they might contain high levels of mercury.
2.Eat up to 12 ounces (2 average meals) a week of a variety of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury. Five of the most commonly eaten fish and shellfish that are low in mercury are: shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish. Another commonly eaten fish, albacore or big eye ("white") tuna depending on its origin might have more mercury than canned light tuna. So, when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish, it is recommended that you should not eat more than up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.
3.Check local advisories about the safety of fish caught by family and friends in your local lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. If no advice is available, eat up to 6 ounces (one average meal) per week of fish you catch from local waters, but consume no other fish during that week

Most don't need to be fucking geniuses to follow instructions not to eat tuna more than three times a week.

By the way, what streams do Tuna live in?
 
I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam? :eusa_eh: :lol:

It's not conservatives' fault -- it's liberals'. You don't want coal, you don't want nuclear, you don't want us to do anything to get off foreign oil.

There is no Magic Energy. To insist we shut down all fossil fuel production and usage before an alternative is developed and proven to be feasible, economical, and scalable is quite simply stupid.

Get it? It's YOUR fault.
No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.
Okay. And while you're at it, let us build new nuke plants and drill for our own oil.
 
I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam? :eusa_eh: :lol:

It's not conservatives' fault -- it's liberals'. You don't want coal, you don't want nuclear, you don't want us to do anything to get off foreign oil.

There is no Magic Energy. To insist we shut down all fossil fuel production and usage before an alternative is developed and proven to be feasible, economical, and scalable is quite simply stupid.

Get it? It's YOUR fault.
No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.

I'm not defending spending on Iraq, but nice try with the red herring.

Nor did I ever say that coal should be a "subsidized resource," whatever that means. IMHO No company should receive anything but a bill from the government every year for 10% of their profits.

I'm still not sure how any of this has anything to do with the idiotic proposal that the USA reduce coal consuption?
 
More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
 
More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.

No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.
PLUS this:
U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for mercury contamination. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions
Coal aint a miracle fuel.
 
More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.

No. I'm saying stop subsidizing them and allowing them to write expenses off if they are so superior to other forms of energy. OH! and don't send soldiers into countries that are known to be living primarily off of oil revenue. That reminds me. How much is Vietraq going to cost after all is said and done? $4 trillion? $5 trillion. BTW- We still won't know if it's going to work out for years to come AFTER we leave. That's one helluva subsidy.
PLUS this:
U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for mercury contamination. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions
Coal aint a miracle fuel.

I did not claim that coal was a miracle fuel but it is what we have its efficent and cheap. It has brought energy and drives our economy.

But like I said I dont oppose alternative energy but we cant stop fossile fuel right now and go green. The technology is not ready or proven.
 
More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.


PLUS this:
U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for mercury contamination. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions
Coal aint a miracle fuel.

I did not claim that coal was a miracle fuel but it is what we have its efficent and cheap. It has brought energy and drives our economy.

But like I said I dont oppose alternative energy but we cant stop fossile fuel right now and go green. The technology is not ready or proven.
This is true but we can stop giving them preferential treatment to the detriment of alternatives.
 
PLUS this:

Coal aint a miracle fuel.

I did not claim that coal was a miracle fuel but it is what we have its efficent and cheap. It has brought energy and drives our economy.

But like I said I dont oppose alternative energy but we cant stop fossile fuel right now and go green. The technology is not ready or proven.
This is true but we can stop giving them preferential treatment to the detriment of alternatives.

Where is the detriment of alternatives? Our govt pumps huge sums of cash into green energy.
 
Hey Dot Com:

Lemme help you out here. don't know why I'm volunteering. You never answered my question about what "alternatives" you were selling here on Pg 2. But mercury ain't the scariest aspect of coal..

The typical coal plant releases about 80 pounds of RADIOACTIVE waste into the atmosphere every day. FAR FAR more ejected radiation than is associated with normal operation of a nuclear plant. And the ash waste and the boilers themselves are soo radioactive, that maintenance workers have to limit exposure times.

That's why we should be replacing them with next gen nuclear plants. SOONER rather than later..

There are serious issues about even calling wind, solar "alternatives". They are really peaker technologies. Not 24/7/365 primary baseline generators. And there are enviromental and geographical limits to these technologies as well. You'll get your 20% "alternative" by 2030 or so. But that's about as far as it can be pushed.
 
More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
Leftists don't do common sense.
 
More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
Leftists don't do common sense.

Common sense and plans for world domination dont go hand in hand.
 
More elitist talk from the left who want to make energy so expensive that only the rich can afford it. I heat my house with coal every winter. We burn a ton or more every winter. I used to mine coal until the EPA refused us permits.

We are in a wonderful posistion to gain energy indepedence while working on alternatives. No one beileves that coal will last forever but we need to use it while we work on those alternative.

Common sense dictates that we use what we have and work on the energy of the future and thanks to coal we have a long time to work on that alternative.
Leftists don't do common sense.

Common sense and plans for world domination dont go hand in hand.
Leftists want power over others, but don't want to do anything to get it. They expect others to do the work and then hand the reins over to them.
 
Its your corporations right to despoil the air, ground, and water, while simultaneously getting tax loop-holes from the gov't, as long as it turns a profit :)
 

Forum List

Back
Top