Obama policies hammered following coal-mine closings, layoffs

[Mr. H.]

I see a bit of irony in the environmental movement's assertion that we must keep pouring billions of dollars into alternatives/renewables research and development regardless of today's cost... for SOME day it will become more efficient, economically viable, and a widely demanded consumer product.

But when it comes to carbons-based energy, especially coal, we are expected- regardless of today's cost- NOT to pour billions of dollars into R&D but to cease it's use in entirety.

The Popular Mechanics story is quite correct in its assertions, but (and I REFUSE to read it for a third time ) it does not go so far as to discount any possibility of coal burning becoming a clean process.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for supporting my statements. BTW that 3rd link is subscription based.

Are there hurdles to overcome? Sure. Why is Obama running away from the challenge?
For all the money he throws at worthless "clean" endeavors (Solyndra) he could be creating real jobs.

Carbon storage center unveiled

You couldn't have read the first link. It spells out all the problems of clean-ER coal, and the exorbitant costs.

Problems and costs the solutions for which are being ignored.

The so-called "problems" are only a problem for environmental wackos who would prefer it if humans didn't exist. "Mountain top removal" is really "hill to removal." One reason power plants still burn coal mined in the East is because the EPA put the cheaper coal mined in the West off limits because of it's higher sulfur content.

I agree the term "clean coal" is a joke because CO2 is not a pollutant. Coal is already clean enough. Coal is the cheapest form of energy we have. It's the poor man's energy. When environmental wackos like you attack coal, what you are really doing is attacking poor people. Your idiotic schemes to save poor people from cheap energy will cost everyone thousands of dollars every year.

 

[bripat9643]

Come on, you can raise your thinking above that childish propaganda. Speed limits are a 'regulation', are they implemented to stop people from driving, or is there a REAL reason for speed limits? There is nothing radical about the idea of clean air and clean water for our children.

That is what regulations do, and you know it. The government builds and owns the roads, so it has to set the rules. If private corporations owned the roads, then they would set the rules. Regulations are where a third party, the government, interferes with a business agreements between two other parties. Telling people they can't buy raw milk is a regulation. It prevents people from doing something that causes no conceivable harm to anyone else. it exists purely because bureaucrats want people to do as they are ordered.

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.

What utter horseshit. Most regulations don't force actors to pay the environmental costs of their activities. They force them to do specific things, regardless of the cost.

Environmental regulations are based on core conservative values. Personal responsibility.

ROFL! Yeah, right, and Joseph Stalin was a conservative!

Let's see if I can get you to see what I mean by example...

If this was your son or daughter's bedroom, and they said YOU should clean up their room, what would you say to that child?

The government is not our parent, nimrod. The fact that you think that's a good analogy only shows what a servile boot licking government toady you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Read more: The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis - Popular Mechanics

Coal is already clean. CO2 is not a pollutant. therefore the term "clean coal" is an oxymoron, but not in the way you think.

 

[peach174]

43% of this nation uses coal energy.
208 coal plants are closing in Dec.
This means that many people are going to freeze this winter.

 

[uscitizen]

Obama policies hammered following coal-mine closings, layoffs
y Joseph Weber
Energy In America
Published September 19, 2012
FoxNews.com

The announcement that 1,200 coal-mining jobs have been eliminated across central Appalachia has sparked renewed cries that Obama administration policies are crippling domestic-energy production and jobs -- and is already factoring into the 2012 presidential race.
Alpha Natural Resources announced Tuesday its plan to cut the positions and scale back coal production by 16 million tons annually -- which would result in eight mine closings in Virginia, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Four-hundred workers will be laid off immediately, though the company reportedly may try to re-hire some of the 1,200.
Kevin Crutchfield, the company’s chief executive officer, said the lay-offs and the closings of the non-union mines are the result a difficult market in which power plants are switching to abundant, less-expensive natural gas and "a regulatory environment that's aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal."


However, elected officials and business groups have been less oblique in their analysis, saying Alpha employees are victims of President Obama’s so-called "War on Coal."
The Mitt Romney campaign is among the most recent to put the blame squarely on the president, releasing a TV ad Wednesday that reminds voters about what Obama said in 2008.
“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them,” the president said, in a quote interpreted by critics as a campaign promise that coal would have no future in an Obama White House.


Obama policies hammered following coal-mine closings, layoffs | Fox News

So the drill baby drill worked for natural gas and it got cheap since it is limited pretty much to a domestic market and cannot be readially exported.
And coal use declined since even without scrubbers and such gas fired plants are cheaper to build and operate and can be spun up quickly when the load demands their need unlike coal plants which take maybe a day to spin up.

Actually requireing scrubbers increased demand for Western KY high sulfur coal which could not be burned without scrubbers.

 

[Bfgrn]

Come on, you can raise your thinking above that childish propaganda. Speed limits are a 'regulation', are they implemented to stop people from driving, or is there a REAL reason for speed limits? There is nothing radical about the idea of clean air and clean water for our children.

That is what regulations do, and you know it. The government builds and owns the roads, so it has to set the rules. If private corporations owned the roads, then they would set the rules. Regulations are where a third party, the government, interferes with a business agreements between two other parties. Telling people they can't buy raw milk is a regulation. It prevents people from doing something that causes no conceivable harm to anyone else. it exists purely because bureaucrats want people to do as they are ordered.

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.

What utter horseshit. Most regulations don't force actors to pay the environmental costs of their activities. They force them to do specific things, regardless of the cost.

Environmental regulations are based on core conservative values. Personal responsibility.

ROFL! Yeah, right, and Joseph Stalin was a conservative!

Let's see if I can get you to see what I mean by example...

If this was your son or daughter's bedroom, and they said YOU should clean up their room, what would you say to that child?

The government is not our parent, nimrod. The fact that you think that's a good analogy only shows what a servile boot licking government toady you are.

Tell me bripat, how are you and today's anti-environment conservative's policies and view of environmental protection any different than the former communist Soviet Union?

Only in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a linkage identified between the increasingly poor state of human health and the destruction of ecosystems in Russia. When that linkage was established, a new word was coined to sum up the environmental record of the Soviet era--"ecocide."

Environmental issues in Russia

There are numerous environmental issues in Russia. Many of the issues have been attributed to policies during the Soviet Union, a time when officials felt that pollution control was an unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization. As a result, 40% of Russia's territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress by the 1990s, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

 

[Bfgrn]

Read more: The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis - Popular Mechanics

Coal is already clean. CO2 is not a pollutant. therefore the term "clean coal" is an oxymoron, but not in the way you think.

So, coal burning power plants only emit CO2? Is that what you are saying??

 

[uscitizen]

They emit mercury among other things.
Mercury which pollutes our water so that it is only recommended that people in KY eat wild caught fish a few times a month?

1) Statewide: All waters are under advisory for mercury. Women of childbearing age and children 6 years of age or younger should eat no more than one meal per week of freshwater fish. Adult men and other women are not included in the consumption notice.

3) Green River Lake (New Advisory):

Green River Lake is approximately 8,210 acres and impounds Robinson Creek and the Green River in Taylor and Adair counties. The current advisory for PCBs is lake-wide and lists channel catfish and common carp as “do not eat.” The advisory for both PCBs and mercury is considered lake-wide from the headwaters of the lake to the dam. Due to decreasing levels of PCBs in the Green River Lake, the advisory is modified from “do not eat” to one meal per month for the general population and six meals per year for the sensitive population. Channel Catfish are being removed from the PCB advisory.

5) Mud River-From Hancock Lake Dam to Wolf Lick Creek - Fish that feed on the bottom, such as catfish, carp, suckers, and freshwater drum, should not be eaten. Game fish such as bass, sunfish and crappie may be eaten, but not more than one meal per month. Women of childbearing age and children should not eat any bottom-feeding fish from this segment of the Mud River, but may eat six meals per year of game fish from this segment of the Mud River.

KY: Kentucky Dept Fish and Wildlife -

Much more at link and I expect your state has similar advisories.

We poison our water and food supplies and yet we need less polloution regulations?
Pretty stupidly shortsighted if you ask me.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Oh wait, liberals were claiming in another thread he is trying to save them from Black Lung disease.

The messiah is trying to save their lives by taking their jobs.

 

[bripat9643]

Tell me bripat, how are you and today's anti-environment conservative's policies and view of environmental protection any different than the former communist Soviet Union?

Only in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a linkage identified between the increasingly poor state of human health and the destruction of ecosystems in Russia. When that linkage was established, a new word was coined to sum up the environmental record of the Soviet era--"ecocide."

Environmental issues in Russia

There are numerous environmental issues in Russia. Many of the issues have been attributed to policies during the Soviet Union, a time when officials felt that pollution control was an unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization. As a result, 40% of Russia's territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress by the 1990s, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

Oh puhleeze. Comparing the the USA to the Soviet Union is absurd. The government of the Soviet Union inflicted Environmental problems on the public. It wasn't the result of a "lack of regulation." There, no one could sue the government because a chemical plant was spewing toxins into the air and making people sick.

How many people have died or become sick in this country as a result of pollution since 1990? I think you'll find the number is zero. None of the environmental regulations passed since then have saved a single life or even prevented a single person from getting sick. They are all purely the product of an anti-capitalist agenda supported by the commies working for the EPA.

 

[Mr. H.]

Come on, you can raise your thinking above that childish propaganda. Speed limits are a 'regulation', are they implemented to stop people from driving, or is there a REAL reason for speed limits? There is nothing radical about the idea of clean air and clean water for our children.

That is what regulations do, and you know it. The government builds and owns the roads, so it has to set the rules. If private corporations owned the roads, then they would set the rules. Regulations are where a third party, the government, interferes with a business agreements between two other parties. Telling people they can't buy raw milk is a regulation. It prevents people from doing something that causes no conceivable harm to anyone else. it exists purely because bureaucrats want people to do as they are ordered.



What utter horseshit. Most regulations don't force actors to pay the environmental costs of their activities. They force them to do specific things, regardless of the cost.



ROFL! Yeah, right, and Joseph Stalin was a conservative!

Let's see if I can get you to see what I mean by example...

If this was your son or daughter's bedroom, and they said YOU should clean up their room, what would you say to that child?

The government is not our parent, nimrod. The fact that you think that's a good analogy only shows what a servile boot licking government toady you are.

Tell me bripat, how are you and today's anti-environment conservative's policies and view of environmental protection any different than the former communist Soviet Union?

Only in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a linkage identified between the increasingly poor state of human health and the destruction of ecosystems in Russia. When that linkage was established, a new word was coined to sum up the environmental record of the Soviet era--"ecocide."

Environmental issues in Russia

There are numerous environmental issues in Russia. Many of the issues have been attributed to policies during the Soviet Union, a time when officials felt that pollution control was an unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization. As a result, 40% of Russia's territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress by the 1990s, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

I contend that there is a workable solution with coal- but this administration chooses not to seek one.

And this conservative is not anti-environment or anti-regulation. However, in too many instances agencies such as the EPA over step their bounds by enacting onerous, redundant, and counter-productive policies that add little to no benefit to the environment while burdening business to the point of collapse. This is not an endorsement of coal regulations as they stand today, but an endorsement of "workable solutions".

 

[bripat9643]

I contend that there is a workable solution with coal- but this administration chooses not to seek one.

And this conservative is not anti-environment or anti-regulation. However, in too many instances agencies such as the EPA over step their bounds by enacting onerous, redundant, and counter-productive policies that add little to no benefit to the environment while burdening business to the point of collapse. This is not an endorsement of coal regulations as they stand today, but an endorsement of "workable solutions".

There's no problem with coal, so why do we need a "solution?" CO2 is not a pollutant, and the amount of other pollutants emitted by modern coal fired power plants are so miniscule that they are swamped by natural sources.

Nothing needs to be done about coal fired power plants other than to build more of them. They are the cheapest form of energy we have.

 

[Vel]

That is what regulations do, and you know it. The government builds and owns the roads, so it has to set the rules. If private corporations owned the roads, then they would set the rules. Regulations are where a third party, the government, interferes with a business agreements between two other parties. Telling people they can't buy raw milk is a regulation. It prevents people from doing something that causes no conceivable harm to anyone else. it exists purely because bureaucrats want people to do as they are ordered.



What utter horseshit. Most regulations don't force actors to pay the environmental costs of their activities. They force them to do specific things, regardless of the cost.



ROFL! Yeah, right, and Joseph Stalin was a conservative!



The government is not our parent, nimrod. The fact that you think that's a good analogy only shows what a servile boot licking government toady you are.

Tell me bripat, how are you and today's anti-environment conservative's policies and view of environmental protection any different than the former communist Soviet Union?

Only in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a linkage identified between the increasingly poor state of human health and the destruction of ecosystems in Russia. When that linkage was established, a new word was coined to sum up the environmental record of the Soviet era--"ecocide."

Environmental issues in Russia

There are numerous environmental issues in Russia. Many of the issues have been attributed to policies during the Soviet Union, a time when officials felt that pollution control was an unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization. As a result, 40% of Russia's territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress by the 1990s, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

I contend that there is a workable solution with coal- but this administration chooses not to seek one.

And this conservative is not anti-environment or anti-regulation. However, in too many instances agencies such as the EPA over step their bounds by enacting onerous, redundant, and counter-productive policies that add little to no benefit to the environment while burdening business to the point of collapse. This is not an endorsement of coal regulations as they stand today, but an endorsement of "workable solutions".[/QUOTE]

This president is not interested in finding solutions. His push for green energy was simply to be able to reward his campaign bundlers with taxpayer dollars.

 

[Mr. H.]

I contend that there is a workable solution with coal- but this administration chooses not to seek one.

And this conservative is not anti-environment or anti-regulation. However, in too many instances agencies such as the EPA over step their bounds by enacting onerous, redundant, and counter-productive policies that add little to no benefit to the environment while burdening business to the point of collapse. This is not an endorsement of coal regulations as they stand today, but an endorsement of "workable solutions".

There's no problem with coal, so why do we need a "solution?" CO2 is not a pollutant, and the amount of other pollutants emitted by modern coal fired power plants are so miniscule that they are swamped by natural sources.

Nothing needs to be done about coal fired power plants other than to build more of them. They are the cheapest form of energy we have.

I'm not ready to give a blanket dismissal to concerns raised in other posts here regarding emissions from coal plants. Serious issues remain, but they can be addressed and dealt with effectively. Coal is an abundant high-BTU resource that must remain an integral part of this country's energy usage! It just boggles me that Obama chooses to move backwards- not forwards- with respect to carbon energy for the sole purpose of benefiting his My Little Pony programs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Funny, didn't Maobama carry those States in 08, I guess the old saying be careful what you wish for still holds true. Ya think they might reconsider this time?

Welcome to the board.


West Virginia has a Democrat Senator who ran against Obama in order to be elected.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJORBRpOPM]Dead Aim - Joe Manchin for West Virginia TV Ad - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bripat9643]

It appears the problem is mostly with PCBs, not mercury. Furthermore, there are numerous sources of mercury other than coal fired power plants. Natural sources are the most abundant. There are also numerous metal smelting plants in and around Kentucky. Volcanoes and undersea vents in the ocean account for over 95% of all environmental Mercury. and Chinese power plants emit 10 times more Mercury than American power plants.

The Myth of Killer Mercury | The SPPI Blog

How do America’s coal-burning power plants fit into the picture? They emit an estimated 41-48 tons of mercury per year. But U.S. forest fires emit at least 44 tons per year; cremation of human remains discharges 26 tons; Chinese power plants eject 400 tons; and volcanoes, subsea vents, geysers and other sources spew out 9,000-10,000 additional tons per year.

They emit mercury among other things.
Mercury which pollutes our water so that it is only recommended that people in KY eat wild caught fish a few times a month?

1) Statewide: All waters are under advisory for mercury. Women of childbearing age and children 6 years of age or younger should eat no more than one meal per week of freshwater fish. Adult men and other women are not included in the consumption notice.

3) Green River Lake (New Advisory):

Green River Lake is approximately 8,210 acres and impounds Robinson Creek and the Green River in Taylor and Adair counties. The current advisory for PCBs is lake-wide and lists channel catfish and common carp as “do not eat.” The advisory for both PCBs and mercury is considered lake-wide from the headwaters of the lake to the dam. Due to decreasing levels of PCBs in the Green River Lake, the advisory is modified from “do not eat” to one meal per month for the general population and six meals per year for the sensitive population. Channel Catfish are being removed from the PCB advisory.

5) Mud River-From Hancock Lake Dam to Wolf Lick Creek - Fish that feed on the bottom, such as catfish, carp, suckers, and freshwater drum, should not be eaten. Game fish such as bass, sunfish and crappie may be eaten, but not more than one meal per month. Women of childbearing age and children should not eat any bottom-feeding fish from this segment of the Mud River, but may eat six meals per year of game fish from this segment of the Mud River.

KY: Kentucky Dept Fish and Wildlife -

Much more at link and I expect your state has similar advisories.

We poison our water and food supplies and yet we need less polloution regulations?
Pretty stupidly shortsighted if you ask me.

 

[Bfgrn]

That is what regulations do, and you know it. The government builds and owns the roads, so it has to set the rules. If private corporations owned the roads, then they would set the rules. Regulations are where a third party, the government, interferes with a business agreements between two other parties. Telling people they can't buy raw milk is a regulation. It prevents people from doing something that causes no conceivable harm to anyone else. it exists purely because bureaucrats want people to do as they are ordered.



What utter horseshit. Most regulations don't force actors to pay the environmental costs of their activities. They force them to do specific things, regardless of the cost.



ROFL! Yeah, right, and Joseph Stalin was a conservative!



The government is not our parent, nimrod. The fact that you think that's a good analogy only shows what a servile boot licking government toady you are.

Tell me bripat, how are you and today's anti-environment conservative's policies and view of environmental protection any different than the former communist Soviet Union?

Only in the late 1980s and early 1990s was a linkage identified between the increasingly poor state of human health and the destruction of ecosystems in Russia. When that linkage was established, a new word was coined to sum up the environmental record of the Soviet era--"ecocide."

Environmental issues in Russia

There are numerous environmental issues in Russia. Many of the issues have been attributed to policies during the Soviet Union, a time when officials felt that pollution control was an unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization. As a result, 40% of Russia's territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress by the 1990s, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

I contend that there is a workable solution with coal- but this administration chooses not to seek one.

And this conservative is not anti-environment or anti-regulation. However, in too many instances agencies such as the EPA over step their bounds by enacting onerous, redundant, and counter-productive policies that add little to no benefit to the environment while burdening business to the point of collapse. This is not an endorsement of coal regulations as they stand today, but an endorsement of "workable solutions".

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Hyperbole and right wing propaganda. Is 'this conservative' aware that Obama succeeded the worst environmental administration in history? Bush/Cheney and polluters did their best to dismantle and disable the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and castrate the EPA.

Policies like these deserve words like onerous.

We Need Clean Water:
No More Dumping Mining Waste Into Our Waters!

Ever since President George W. Bush created a massive loophole in the Clean Water Act in 2002, mining companies have been able to dump their toxic and dangerous mining waste directly into the waters we all rely on.

In 1972, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Clean Water Act to end the use of lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands as waste dumps. Before that, America's waters and people had been suffering from pollution, and many lakes and rivers became unfit for drinking, swimming and fishing.

But in 2002, America's waters and people took a hard hit. By coming up with a new definition for "fill material," the Bush administration opened the floodgates for coal mines in Appalachia to destroy streams with the waste created by blowing the tops off of mountains. In 2004, the Bush administration expanded that loophole to allow even more dangerous dumping of toxic mine "tailings"—the chemically processed wastewater slurry from extracting gold and other metals.

For nearly a decade now, we've watched as wealthy mining corporations turn some of America's most pristine lakes and streams into industrial waste dumps.

In Alaska, a new gold mine is pumping hundreds of thousands of gallons per day of toxic wastewater slurry into Lower Slate Lake, killing its fish and aquatic life. And this is just the beginning. High gold and metal prices have triggered a mining boom that, without stronger regulation, threatens countless lakes, streams and wetlands in Alaska and throughout the country.

The Obama administration must close this loophole, now, and restore protections for our waters. Clean, safe, healthy water for all Americans must take priority over corporate interests. Please write to the Obama administration (Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, Army Corps of Engineers Commanding General and Chief of Engineers LTG Robert L. Van Antwerp, and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley) and tell them to close this loophole and stop the dumping of mining waste into our waters!

 

[GoneBezerk]

Liberals always roll out their biased bullshit op-eds as "proof."

 

[uscitizen]

Liberals always roll out their biased bullshit op-eds as "proof."

Of course the right never posts anything by Rush or Beck, etc do they?