New Coal Regulations Will Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills

[kiwiman127]

I'd bet that neither Marty or Bripat even read or more so, went to see what articles were posted and by whom. So they resorted to the ever popular far right technique, demonize the messenger.
Hell, I could copy & paste thousands of articles for them to ponder and demonize (because they are experts, you know).
Bottom-line, per the Chinese authoritarian government, China is converting to clean coal technology, now why would they do that?

A buddy of mine just returned from China this past weekend. He was there for ten days. It is a disgustingly polluted country.

,,,and that's why they have turned to clean coal,,though it seems to late. Coal is their main source of energy. They have also had an undergroud coal fire going on for decades.

 

[shintao]

...some of you are not yet aware of Obama's goal to ruin the economy of the United States and bring it into a more fair position of "average" among the nations of the world. He doesn't give a tinker's damn about the health of American citizens.

Is this something he said, or some delusional lie you are spitting about the walls of this BB?

His main goals are to create government jobs, cause the cost of living to rise, diminish the quality of life and for all lazy, unemployed, mooching welfare whores to continue to vote him and his ilk into power so more of the wealth can be re-distributed...to his supporters. He is an enemy of the capitalism and free enterprise that have made this country great.

One term may be all he needs. God forbid he should be given a second chance!

Whooo dude! Let me fasten my desk chair belt, this laughing fool might send me into orbit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

Well Monica for the elite, you must be projecting, because someone paid me 6 figures to sell Caterpillar construction equipment.

Oh, that was me because it was 100% commission...

That is not true. The lack of intellect you bring to this forum is evidence enough that you couldn't sell a bag of dog shit to a swarm of hungry flies.

Your disapproval is welcomed and encouraging.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'd bet that neither Marty or Bripat even read or more so, went to see what articles were posted and by whom. So they resorted to the ever popular far right technique, demonize the messenger.
Hell, I could copy & paste thousands of articles for them to ponder and demonize (because they are experts, you know).
Bottom-line, per the Chinese authoritarian government, China is converting to clean coal technology, now why would they do that?

A buddy of mine just returned from China this past weekend. He was there for ten days. It is a disgustingly polluted country.

Funny, they don't list China. ((ASK)

What country in the world produces the most pollution
CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country
#1 Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people
#3 Kuwait: 25.0499 per 1,000 people
#4 Bahrain: 20.0253 per 1,000 people
#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people
Waste generation (most recent) by country
#1 Denmark: 560 kgs per person per year
#2 Netherlands: 530 kgs per person per year
#3 United Kingdom: 480 kgs per person per year
#4 United States: 460 kgs per person per year
#5 Belgium: 450 kgs per person per year

Pollution > Carbon dioxide 1999 (most recent) by country
#1 United States: 1,499,850
#2 Russia: 392,287
#3 Japan: 315,274
#4 India: 293,938
#5 Germany: 216,213

Pollution > Nuclear waste (most recent) by country
#1 United States: 2,100
#2 Canada: 1,340
#3 France: 1,130
#4 Japan: 964
#5 United Kingdom:

And here the countries that work on being green the most..

Environmental agreement compliance (most recent) by country

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Finland: 6.72
#2 Denmark: 6.67
#3 Sweden: 6.54
#4 Austria: 6.33
#5 Germany: 6.27

Answers.com > Wiki Answers



Read more: Answers.com - What country in the world produces the most pollution

I read that the Chinese have big issues with Sulphuric acid in the air because of the high usage of coal-fired base boilers.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

For you I quess its easy to poisin children today to make a quick buck.

I guess for you distroying mountains and streams that belong to our children and their children too is easy for a quick buck.

Money isnt everything, sometimes people need clean air and water.

OUr grandchildren may have NO need of coal but you can bet your ass they will need healthy bodies clean streams and clean air.

You want to have them stand and look at the distroyed landscape and say " gee I quess grandpa couldnt do anything else for a living but cut down mountians and distroy the very land his grandfather left him".

Its not just YOUR mountains you greedy POS.

Ah the standard "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" screed from our in house lefty nitwit.

Plants like this already have controls on them. These regulations are basically a back door method of making coal electrical generation so costly that the companies are forced to either add additional controls, or change power generation sources.

I have no issue with people having to add controls, Hell I work in evironmental engineering, this makes more work for people like me. My issue is using a risk assement style study to claim that these laws will "save" X amount of lives/illnesses. Such claims are based in statisitical analysis, extrapolation, and guesswork, not hard science or numbers.

And your response has enough strawmen in it to start a barnfire, and enough begging the question retorts to make a person choke.

and you are still a pussy for not having your rep turned on.

It only kills the children in fantasy land. Its really doing a number on the unicorns to.

 

[martybegan]

I'd bet that neither Marty or Bripat even read or more so, went to see what articles were posted and by whom. So they resorted to the ever popular far right technique, demonize the messenger.
Hell, I could copy & paste thousands of articles for them to ponder and demonize (because they are experts, you know).
Bottom-line, per the Chinese authoritarian government, China is converting to clean coal technology, now why would they do that?

Clean as in more efficent maybe, but are they adding on the post exhaust treatment processes that are required in the west?

I have a Chem.E degree so i know about this type of stuff.

You still used a google search count as a backup to your argument, which is just silly.

Again, if it is just an efficency increase that comes from the plants being new. Also the environmental benefit is a side effect of more efficiency, not the main reason.

Edit:

From the article you listed:

"Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.

Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive. "

From my read they are using the new tech not out of any green desires, but more for the fact the techs use less coal per KW, and they need as much power as they can get from their availible reserves.

So why would a new plant produce less emissions than an old plant?

Why would we use a coal plant to kill people, over other forms of energy sources that don't?

It wouldnt, you just have to burn less coal per kilowatt. Also the process may select carbon for oxidation over sulfur and nitrogen vs. normal combustion.

The reason you use coal plants (for both China and the US) is that our reserve sizes of coal make it more cost effective than other forms, even oil.

and using a coal plant to kill a person is difficult, they can be rather heavy and noisy, making it diffcult to clock someone over the head with it.

 

[martybegan]

A buddy of mine just returned from China this past weekend. He was there for ten days. It is a disgustingly polluted country.

Funny, they don't list China. ((ASK)

What country in the world produces the most pollution
CO2 Emissions (per capita) (most recent) by country
#1 Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people
#2 United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people
#3 Kuwait: 25.0499 per 1,000 people
#4 Bahrain: 20.0253 per 1,000 people
#5 United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people
Waste generation (most recent) by country
#1 Denmark: 560 kgs per person per year
#2 Netherlands: 530 kgs per person per year
#3 United Kingdom: 480 kgs per person per year
#4 United States: 460 kgs per person per year
#5 Belgium: 450 kgs per person per year

Pollution > Carbon dioxide 1999 (most recent) by country
#1 United States: 1,499,850
#2 Russia: 392,287
#3 Japan: 315,274
#4 India: 293,938
#5 Germany: 216,213

Pollution > Nuclear waste (most recent) by country
#1 United States: 2,100
#2 Canada: 1,340
#3 France: 1,130
#4 Japan: 964
#5 United Kingdom:

And here the countries that work on being green the most..

Environmental agreement compliance (most recent) by country

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Finland: 6.72
#2 Denmark: 6.67
#3 Sweden: 6.54
#4 Austria: 6.33
#5 Germany: 6.27

Answers.com > Wiki Answers



Read more: Answers.com - What country in the world produces the most pollution

I read that the Chinese have big issues with Sulphuric acid in the air because of the high usage of coal-fired base boilers.

its because they dont make or use the scrubbers you add to remove the NOx and SOx generated, something US plants are required to do already.

Its easy for China to skirt stuff like this, as they are both the generator and the regulator.

 

[bripat9643]

You name one politician that pulled out 20 billion dollars from the economy for personal profit.

One.

All of them have done so for personal profit. Furthermore, most of the people on your list went to prison, and none of them illegally put $20 billion in their pocket. How many Congressmen have gone to prison for corruption? Charlie Rangel got reelected even though he's a tax cheat.

Here's the rule:

Corporate criminals go to prison. Congressional criminals get reelected. With that in mind, who would a rational person trust more, corporations or Congress?

 

[Sallow]

I'd bet that neither Marty or Bripat even read or more so, went to see what articles were posted and by whom. So they resorted to the ever popular far right technique, demonize the messenger.
Hell, I could copy & paste thousands of articles for them to ponder and demonize (because they are experts, you know).
Bottom-line, per the Chinese authoritarian government, China is converting to clean coal technology, now why would they do that?

A buddy of mine just returned from China this past weekend. He was there for ten days. It is a disgustingly polluted country.

Which is why they are fast tracking new energy technology. On some days in Bejing you can't see your hand in front of your face because the smog is so bad.

 

[asaratis]

...some of you are not yet aware of Obama's goal to ruin the economy of the United States and bring it into a more fair position of "average" among the nations of the world. He doesn't give a tinker's damn about the health of American citizens.

Is this something he said, or some delusional lie you are spitting about the walls of this BB?

His main goals are to create government jobs, cause the cost of living to rise, diminish the quality of life and for all lazy, unemployed, mooching welfare whores to continue to vote him and his ilk into power so more of the wealth can be re-distributed...to his supporters. He is an enemy of the capitalism and free enterprise that have made this country great.

One term may be all he needs. God forbid he should be given a second chance!

Whooo dude! Let me fasten my desk chair belt, this laughing fool might send me into orbit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not laughing...and I am no fool. It is the Obama worshipers that are fools, laughing or not. Most of them do not care that his is ruining a great country...as long as they get their free ride.

...and you substantiate my belief that liberals rely on catty responses, name calling and poor attempts at humor to grant themselves all manner of invalid claims of making a valid point.

 

[bripat9643]

,,,and that's why they have turned to clean coal,,though it seems to late. Coal is their main source of energy. They have also had an undergroud coal fire going on for decades.

In this country "clean coal" means plants that produce no CO2. In China it means a plant that doesn't kill everyone living within 5 miles of the plant.

 

[kiwiman127]

Clean as in more efficent maybe, but are they adding on the post exhaust treatment processes that are required in the west?

I have a Chem.E degree so i know about this type of stuff.

You still used a google search count as a backup to your argument, which is just silly.

Again, if it is just an efficency increase that comes from the plants being new. Also the environmental benefit is a side effect of more efficiency, not the main reason.

Edit:

From the article you listed:


"Only half the country’s coal-fired power plants have the emissions control equipment to remove sulfur compounds that cause acid rain, and even power plants with that technology do not always use it. China has not begun regulating some of the emissions that lead to heavy smog in big cities.

Even among China’s newly built plants, not all are modern. Only about 60 percent of the new plants are being built using newer technology that is highly efficient, but more expensive. "

From my read they are using the new tech not out of any green desires, but more for the fact the techs use less coal per KW, and they need as much power as they can get from their availible reserves.

So why would a new plant produce less emissions than an old plant?

Why would we use a coal plant to kill people, over other forms of energy sources that don't?

It wouldnt, you just have to burn less coal per kilowatt. Also the process may select carbon for oxidation over sulfur and nitrogen vs. normal combustion.

The reason you use coal plants (for both China and the US) is that our reserve sizes of coal make it more cost effective than other forms, even oil.

and using a coal plant to kill a person is difficult, they can be rather heavy and noisy, making it diffcult to clock someone over the head with it.

Thanks for your input and I'll stop thinking of you as an amateur

I found the following, which I found interesting.

"In fact, levels of sulfur pollution from Chinese power plants are so high that they counterbalance the warming effect produced by greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps by as much as one-third. This counterbalancing effect occurs when sulfur concentrations in the atmosphere create a protective layer that reflects the sun’s rays and keeps the region below cooler, thus mitigating the effects of carbon emissions. It can take up to 10 years for local carbon dioxide levels to offset the cooling effect created by constant sulfur pollution.

But this protection comes at a steep price. Sulfur dioxide pollution contributes to 400,000 deaths a year in China, and 55 percent of the country is blanketed by acid rain.2 This has created a virtually unprecedented dilemma for the Chinese, according to one expert, “It’s sort of unethical to expect people not to clear up their air quality for the sake of the climate.”3"
Chinese_coal

 

[martybegan]

So why would a new plant produce less emissions than an old plant?

Why would we use a coal plant to kill people, over other forms of energy sources that don't?

It wouldnt, you just have to burn less coal per kilowatt. Also the process may select carbon for oxidation over sulfur and nitrogen vs. normal combustion.

The reason you use coal plants (for both China and the US) is that our reserve sizes of coal make it more cost effective than other forms, even oil.

and using a coal plant to kill a person is difficult, they can be rather heavy and noisy, making it diffcult to clock someone over the head with it.

I found the follwwing, which I found interesting.

"In fact, levels of sulfur pollution from Chinese power plants are so high that they counterbalance the warming effect produced by greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps by as much as one-third. This counterbalancing effect occurs when sulfur concentrations in the atmosphere create a protective layer that reflects the sun’s rays and keeps the region below cooler, thus mitigating the effects of carbon emissions. It can take up to 10 years for local carbon dioxide levels to offset the cooling effect created by constant sulfur pollution.

But this protection comes at a steep price. Sulfur dioxide pollution contributes to 400,000 deaths a year in China, and 55 percent of the country is blanketed by acid rain.2 This has created a virtually unprecedented dilemma for the Chinese, according to one expert, “It’s sort of unethical to expect people not to clear up their air quality for the sake of the climate.”3"
Chinese_coal

Only in China would they try to make this spin positive. Acidifed precip is a more direct impactor on environmental conditions than CO2 ever could have. Acidifed precip causes direct WEATHER impacts, i.e. increases the ph of lakes, streams and the soil, which has direct human impacts.

No need for models on that one.

 

[Bfgrn]

Coal is not a cheap energy source, it is extremely expensive. It is only cheap for the coal companies because they are being allowed to internalize their profits and externalize their costs.

First of all, sound environmental policy is always sound economic policy, because it forces polluters to internalize all their costs. Pollution is cost externalization. It is pretty easy to understand if you think of it as making people clean up after themselves and holding them personally responsible if they cause harm to others and put a burden on them...i.e. an illness.

All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.

Here is a study done in Kentucky...coal COST the taxpayers money.

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

 

[martybegan]

Coal is not a cheap energy source, it is extremely expensive. It is only cheap for the coal companies because they are being allowed to internalize their profits and externalize their costs.

First of all, sound environmental policy is always sound economic policy, because it forces polluters to internalize all their costs. Pollution is cost externalization. It is pretty easy to understand if you think of it as making people clean up after themselves and holding them personally responsible if they cause harm to others and put a burden on them...i.e. an illness.

All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.

Here is a study done in Kentucky...coal COST the taxpayers money.

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget
Executive Summary

Rapid and dramatic changes in the world’s approach to energy have major implications for Kentucky and its coal industry. Concerns about climate change are driving policy that favors cleaner energy sources and increases the price of fossil fuels. The transition to sustainable forms of energy is becoming a major economic driver, and states are moving aggressively to develop, produce and install the energy technologies of the future. Long reliant on coal for jobs and electricity, Kentucky faces major challenges and difficult choices in the coming years.

These energy challenges come in the midst of Kentucky’s state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentucky’s revenues and expenditures makes it increasingly difficult to sustain existing public services. A recent University of Kentucky report notes that Kentucky ranks 44th among states in per capita income, just as in 1970, while other southern states like North Carolina and Georgia have out-performed the Commonwealth in recent years.1 Eastern Kentucky still includes 20 of the 100 poorest counties in the United States measured by median household income.2

In this critical energy, fiscal and economic context, it is increasingly important for Kentuckians to understand the role and impact of coal in our state. Coal provides economic benefits including jobs, low electricity rates and tax revenue. But the coal industry also imposes a number of costs ranging from regulatory and public infrastructure expenses to environmental and health impacts.

Coal and the Budget

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget tells one aspect of the story of coal’s costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industry’s fiscal impact by estimating the tax revenues generated by coal and the state expenditures associated with supporting the industry. We estimate for Fiscal Year 2006 Kentucky provided a net subsidy of nearly $115 million to the coal industry (see Figure 1).

Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

More

I just love it when people go to the internalizing and externalizing con job to make something they do not like sound unattractive. I note they never seem to go through this much calculation when it comes to technologies they do like. Studies like this also tend to make the costs seem to relate only to the industry they do not like, often placing the entire cost of maintaining items like roads onto the shoulders of the stat they do not like.

The reason for these numerical shennanigans is this allows them to include the costs of "global warming" into the calculation, making the technologies they do not like appear less cost effective.

Most of the time this is nothing more than a shell game.

 

[bripat9643]

Coal is not a cheap energy source, it is extremely expensive. It is only cheap for the coal companies because they are being allowed to internalize their profits and externalize their costs.

Coal is the cheapest energy. Bogus accounting gimmicks by the environmental industry only fool the gullible.

First of all, sound environmental policy is always sound economic policy, because it forces polluters to internalize all their costs. Pollution is cost externalization. It is pretty easy to understand if you think of it as making people clean up after themselves and holding them personally responsible if they cause harm to others and put a burden on them...i.e. an illness.

Your assumption that sound environmental policy includes the premise that cost is no obstacle is simply idiotic. Assume that removing the first 90% of Sulfer in coal costs a power plant $100 million dollars. If you want to reduce the sulfur in its emissions by 99%, then the cost will probably be $500 million. If you want to reduce the emissions by 99.9%, the cost will probably be $2.5 billion. For each incremental improvement, the cost increases exponentially. All that money spent on eliminating the last 0.9% could be better utilized elsewhere. For instance, it could be utilized to find cures for childhood diseases. It might therefore save far more lives than spending it on reducing the sulfur emissions of a power plant.

You claim is simply wrong. Furthermore, it’s counterproductive for your own agenda. Only imbeciles do not consider the cost of their policies.

All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.

Total and complete bullshit. The way to do that would be simply to make power companies pay a fine equivalent to the external costs they impose on society. However, that fine would be far lower than what environmental wackos like you find acceptable. People would continue using energy from coal, and you simply can’t allow that.

Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees.

The “costs” referred to are almost entirely fictional.

The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system

What the hell is the “coal haul road system?” Coal is transported almost entirely by private cargo ships or private railroads. There is not government run ““coal haul road system.”

as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal,

There is almost no cost to regulate the coal industry. There are no environmental or health costs that aren’t paid by the coal companies.

support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry,

What “worker training” does the government provide to the coal industry? What “research and development” does it conduct? None that I’m aware of.

promote education about coal in the public schools

That’s a hoot. You mean indoctrinating naïve public school students that the coal industry is evil is a cost of coal mining?

and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal.

“Supporting them” how, by providing schools and roads? Don’t their taxes pay for that? Are all roads and schools a subsidy to private corporations?

Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal. ]

So-called “tax expenditures” are not a cost except to the parasites that feed off of taxpayer money.

 

[boedicca]

AEP is closing five coal fueled electricity plants. The net result will be 35%+ increases in electricity bills for consumers, and the loss of 600 jobs.

Thanks Obama!

Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

The company’s dramatic plan to comply with the regulations could give Republicans and moderate Democrats ammunition in their ongoing fight against EPA's efforts to impose new regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants including mercury and arsenic.

(snip)

In a statement outlining its plan to comply with EPA's regulations, AEP said it would need to retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation in the coming years.

The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.

The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.

“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies,” AEP CEO Michael Morris said in a statement..

Utility giant AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs - The Hill's E2-Wire

 

[spectrumc01]

Did Obama himself order the shuttering of those plants? OR did they choose to close rather than follow EPA regulations?

They could have remained open modified to conform to EPA regulations, but instead they decided to make things harder on the citizens relying on that electricity, by closing. Staying open or closing didn't matter to the owners because they are already so rich that open or closed doesn't matter to them. This is just another way business is trying to extort the public into repealing all regulations and electing Republicans to ensure it.

 

[spectrumc01]

I was going to edit the above response, but I am choosing to leave it. I must stand corrected as I didn't read the article correctly and came to the wrong conclusion. the above statements are in error, and I retract all I said.

This is how it is done, when one is in error. My appologies.

 

[Trajan]

time to check the senate race chart for 2012

United States Senate elections, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

me-thinks this is a ripe campaign issue coming as it does in this economy too.......23 seats...hummmmm