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.
why do you people keep pretending that coal is not a polluting and distructive source of energy?
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 countrys 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 Chinas 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.
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.
So what do think of coal gasification?
why do you people keep pretending that coal is not a polluting and distructive source of energy?
Because the corporate masters are telling them to (through Faux)
And making electricity more expensive would have saved him...how, exactly?I wonder if people die from being COLD?
Far worse was the retired fire marshal who died in June. Like many of the others, he was too young to collect Social Security. When they found him, he had no electricity and no running water in his house, said David Anders, 58, a retired district fire chief. He was a proud enough man that he wouldnt accept help.
Alabama Town
People die of all sorts of things.
Obama appointed the EPA leader so yes, indirectly he had a hand in their closures.
And you can bask in the glow of the Lightbringer's halo this winter.Shouldn't be to hard to discern he's talking about building new coal plants with old technology. And he is correct...that shouldn't be the direction we head in.
The "new technology" that Obama favors is not economically feasible. We'll all be shivering in the dark if Obama is allowed to proceed with his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.
It's been 90 degrees or over in NYC for a week now.
Eff 'em. They're just bitter guns-and-religion clingers in the flyover red states.The EPA reports up to Obama. He made a campaign pledge to drive up energy costs.
It's one promise he's actually kept...to the misfortune of the many financially distressed people who will be hurt.
MERGED with existing thread.
And you can bask in the glow of the Lightbringer's halo this winter.The "new technology" that Obama favors is not economically feasible. We'll all be shivering in the dark if Obama is allowed to proceed with his schemes to bring on the new Utopia.
It's been 90 degrees or over in NYC for a week now.
And you can bask in the glow of the Lightbringer's halo this winter.It's been 90 degrees or over in NYC for a week now.
Its Generalissimo Lightbringer...............biatch.
I'm glad Obama is all for helping the middle class
Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills
Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.
Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.
[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]
Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges, said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized, he said.
The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standardssuch as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plantsare reasonable, common-sense, and achievable, said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]
Whats more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. This far outweighs the estimated annual costs, says an official on background
Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
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 worlds 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 Kentuckys state fiscal crisis and sluggish economic performance. The gap between Kentuckys 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 coals costs and benefits. The report provides an analysis of the industrys 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 industrys 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'm glad Obama is all for helping the middle class
Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills
Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.
Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.
[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]
Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges, said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized, he said.
The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standardssuch as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plantsare reasonable, common-sense, and achievable, said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]
Whats more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. This far outweighs the estimated annual costs, says an official on background
Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
What's a little mercury poisoning or respiratory illnesses among thousands of people compared to keeping coal companies and their executives rolling in green?
The question is how much is your health and your family's health worth to you? Is it worth a little higher cost in electricity which you can more than offset through the conservation of power by turning off the lights in the rooms not in use or not falling asleep with your TV on? Yes or no?
What's a little mercury poisoning or respiratory illnesses among thousands of people compared to keeping coal companies and their executives rolling in green?
At some point of course, some excessive and unrealistic exposure to methylmercury will cause some sort of reproductive/developmental problem. This will enable the researchers to declare victory and to call for a ban on mercury emissions.
The latter may be tough to justify since Mother Gaia releases just about 70 percent of the mercury emitted.
But although only about 1 percent of global mercury emissions come from U.S. coal fired power plants, you can expect the EPA to nevertheless hang the mercury albatross around their necks.
The PNAS study is obviously an exercise in trying to blame mercury (from fossil fuel combustion) for causing some sort of harm to some sort of living creature. But despite the fact that mercury bioaccumulates to some degree, there is no evidence of harm to anyone or anything from ambient levels of mercury.
The question is how much is your health and your family's health worth to you? Is it worth a little higher cost in electricity which you can more than offset through the conservation of power by turning off the lights in the rooms not in use or not falling asleep with your TV on? Yes or no?
Every time I've seen or heard an ad for "clean coal" I start laughing. I guess it is possible to convince people of almost anything.
Every time I've seen or heard an ad for "clean coal" I start laughing. I guess it is possible to convince people of almost anything.
I also laugh because coal is already clean enough. Why anyone would want to spend thousands of dollars every year to get rid of a non-problem defies comprehension.
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?
