Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close

[The T]

Waste to power generation is fantastic! I'm a huge fan of it. Incinerators are stupid. Why waste all that potential power? Often the remains can be used for other chemical processes too from fertilizer to plastics. A great profitable useful green project.

You, a conservative, support waste-to-power?


Hmmm. Where do the dead children come into play?

Waste not, want not. Talk to Planned Parenthood.

But then You'd be talking to a Statist that thinks it's smart to abort future prodginy...I fail to see Dave in that role...ever...

 

[Big Fitz]

Waste to power generation is fantastic! I'm a huge fan of it. Incinerators are stupid. Why waste all that potential power? Often the remains can be used for other chemical processes too from fertilizer to plastics. A great profitable useful green project.

Now I can go with this type of 'Green'...slow to catch on...but usefully slow, so it can catch on and become more economically viable.

Shoving people into things that aren't viable in hopes people will accept, or speed up the process is unproductive, a waste, and ill advised.

Leftists like to shove people into things -- identity-politics pigeon holes, re-education camps, mass graves...

you said mass graves....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWDozBLKdJ4&NR=1&feature=endscreen]What the heck, I'll laugh anyway - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Big Fitz]

You, a conservative, support waste-to-power?


Hmmm. Where do the dead children come into play?

Waste not, want not. Talk to Planned Parenthood.

But then You'd be talking to a Statist that thinks it's smart to abort future prodginy...I fail to see Dave in that role...ever...

Awwww..... now I'm going to have to cross off "Besmirch Daveman's Character" off my 'Honey Do' list without accomplishing it!

I'm so depressed.

 

[daveman]

You, a conservative, support waste-to-power?


Hmmm. Where do the dead children come into play?

Waste not, want not. Talk to Planned Parenthood.

But then You'd be talking to a Statist that thinks it's smart to abort future prodginy...I fail to see Dave in that role...ever...

We lost three babies to miscarriage -- I simply can't imagine someone killing their own child on purpose.

 

[daveman]

Waste not, want not. Talk to Planned Parenthood.

But then You'd be talking to a Statist that thinks it's smart to abort future prodginy...I fail to see Dave in that role...ever...

Awwww..... now I'm going to have to cross off "Besmirch Daveman's Character" off my 'Honey Do' list without accomplishing it!

I'm so depressed.

S'okay -- you can accuse me of mopery.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The Left and the MSM would rather talk about condoms

not the real issues that face this nation

 

[Sallow]

These old plants need to be retired.

Utility engineers and accountants should decide when they are retired, not politicians or imbeciles like you.

Ah so private interests can poison and kill the public and the public has no other recourse then to wait for the private interest to decide when enough people are dead?

Good stuff.

Hope you guys run on that.

Oh wait..you already do.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Oh no

people would rather wait for PapaObama Care
to tell us when to die

 

[bripat9643]

These old plants need to be retired.

Utility engineers and accountants should decide when they are retired, not politicians or imbeciles like you.

Ah so private interests can poison and kill the public and the public has no other recourse then to wait for the private interest to decide when enough people are dead?

Good stuff.

Hope you guys run on that.

Oh wait..you already do.

Show us a death certificate for someone who was killed by emissions from a coal fired power plant.

 

[Big Fitz]

Utility engineers and accountants should decide when they are retired, not politicians or imbeciles like you.

Ah so private interests can poison and kill the public and the public has no other recourse then to wait for the private interest to decide when enough people are dead?

Good stuff.

Hope you guys run on that.

Oh wait..you already do.

Show us a death certificate for someone who was killed by emissions from a coal fired power plant.

or proof that any disease that did kill someone is DIRECTLY caused by coal plant emissions.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah so private interests can poison and kill the public and the public has no other recourse then to wait for the private interest to decide when enough people are dead?

Good stuff.

Hope you guys run on that.

Oh wait..you already do.

Show us a death certificate for someone who was killed by emissions from a coal fired power plant.

or proof that any disease that did kill someone is DIRECTLY caused by coal plant emissions.

They can't even show the slightest bit of hard evidence of a single person getting sick from being in the vicinity of a coal fired power plant. Many of these plants are located right in the heart of major cities, within a block from high rise buildings. Has the EPA ever shown any increased incidence of illness among people living or working near these plants?

Nope.

 

[bripat9643]

Notice the silence of the Eco-fascists.

 

[candycorn]

According to a NASA officer:

Indeed, agreement to phase
out coal use except where the CO2 is captured is 80% of the solution to the global
warming crisis.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080414_GovernorGibbons.pdf

The risks to public health outside of the planetary existence is pronounced as well: See the 6:20-6:50 range of this video: Chilling stuff.

Surrounded by Coal Ash - Communities at Risk - YouTube

More evidence:

Conversely, states with large populations but without coal-fired plants fared much better. For example,California, which has the nation's largest population and some of its worst air quality, has veryfew coal or oil-fired power plants. Abt Associates estimates that only 259 deaths are attributable topower plant pollution in California and the state ranked almost last in per capita impact (1.4 deaths per100,000 adults). Kentucky, the state with the highest reliance on coal for production of electricityranked first in related per capita mortality at more than 44 deaths per 100,000 adults, over 30 timeshigher than California's per capita mortality rate.Note - For complete tables, see Appendix.

Similarly,metropolitan areas with large populations near coal-fired power plants feel their impacts most acutely.In large metropolitan areas, many hundreds of lives are shortened each year.

However, much smaller metropolitan areas in and around "coal country" suffer the greatest per capitaimpacts, such as Chattanooga, Tennessee; Gadsden, Alabama; Terre Haute, Indiana; Wheeling, West Virginia;and Owensboro, Kentucky. Their death rates are much higher, for example, than that of New York City.Compare Chattanooga at 49.3 deaths per 100,000 adults with New York at 19.3 per 100,000. (You can view a more complete list of metropolitan areas in "The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions", the source report prepared by Abt Associates. Note: The Abt report is in PDF format.)

In fact,because these health effects estimates include only the effects from airborne fine particles, theysignificantly understate the total adverse impact on public health from power plants. Excluded from theseestimates are the health effects from other power plant pollutants, such as air emissions that result inozone smog, air toxics, global warming, and the impacts from the consumption of fish contaminated bypower plant mercury emissions.

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

Since we're able to post without cross checking sources for accuracy, you have to admit that the accuracy is assured...just like Bripat's lies about soldiers "having to be shot at" to receive combat pay.

Here's a 60 Minutes story about it: Look at the 1:00 mark....

60 Minutes SHOCKING 130M Tons of Waste / Toxic golf courses made of coal ash!!! 10/4/2009 - YouTube

130,000,000 tons equals 260 Billion pounds of toxic waste...every year.

 

[Listening]

According to a NASA officer:

Indeed, agreement to phase
out coal use except where the CO2 is captured is 80% of the solution to the global
warming crisis.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080414_GovernorGibbons.pdf

The risks to public health outside of the planetary existence is pronounced as well: See the 6:20-6:50 range of this video: Chilling stuff.

Surrounded by Coal Ash - Communities at Risk - YouTube

More evidence:

Conversely, states with large populations but without coal-fired plants fared much better. For example,California, which has the nation's largest population and some of its worst air quality, has veryfew coal or oil-fired power plants. Abt Associates estimates that only 259 deaths are attributable topower plant pollution in California and the state ranked almost last in per capita impact (1.4 deaths per100,000 adults). Kentucky, the state with the highest reliance on coal for production of electricityranked first in related per capita mortality at more than 44 deaths per 100,000 adults, over 30 timeshigher than California's per capita mortality rate.Note - For complete tables, see Appendix.

Similarly,metropolitan areas with large populations near coal-fired power plants feel their impacts most acutely.In large metropolitan areas, many hundreds of lives are shortened each year.

However, much smaller metropolitan areas in and around "coal country" suffer the greatest per capitaimpacts, such as Chattanooga, Tennessee; Gadsden, Alabama; Terre Haute, Indiana; Wheeling, West Virginia;and Owensboro, Kentucky. Their death rates are much higher, for example, than that of New York City.Compare Chattanooga at 49.3 deaths per 100,000 adults with New York at 19.3 per 100,000. (You can view a more complete list of metropolitan areas in "The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions", the source report prepared by Abt Associates. Note: The Abt report is in PDF format.)

In fact,because these health effects estimates include only the effects from airborne fine particles, theysignificantly understate the total adverse impact on public health from power plants. Excluded from theseestimates are the health effects from other power plant pollutants, such as air emissions that result inozone smog, air toxics, global warming, and the impacts from the consumption of fish contaminated bypower plant mercury emissions.

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

Since we're able to post without cross checking sources for accuracy, you have to admit that the accuracy is assured...just like Bripat's lies about soldiers "having to be shot at" to receive combat pay.

Here's a 60 Minutes story about it: Look at the 1:00 mark....

60 Minutes SHOCKING 130M Tons of Waste / Toxic golf courses made of coal ash!!! 10/4/2009 - YouTube

130,000,000 tons equals 260 Billion pounds of toxic waste...every year.

This is great..."The EPA estimates...."

Try again.

When people get serious about taking reformate out of gasoline...then we'll talk.

 

[Big Fitz]

According to a NASA officer:

Indeed, agreement to phase
out coal use except where the CO2 is captured is 80% of the solution to the global
warming crisis.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080414_GovernorGibbons.pdf

The risks to public health outside of the planetary existence is pronounced as well: See the 6:20-6:50 range of this video: Chilling stuff.

Surrounded by Coal Ash - Communities at Risk - YouTube

More evidence:

Conversely, states with large populations but without coal-fired plants fared much better. For example,California, which has the nation's largest population and some of its worst air quality, has veryfew coal or oil-fired power plants. Abt Associates estimates that only 259 deaths are attributable topower plant pollution in California and the state ranked almost last in per capita impact (1.4 deaths per100,000 adults). Kentucky, the state with the highest reliance on coal for production of electricityranked first in related per capita mortality at more than 44 deaths per 100,000 adults, over 30 timeshigher than California's per capita mortality rate.Note - For complete tables, see Appendix.

Similarly,metropolitan areas with large populations near coal-fired power plants feel their impacts most acutely.In large metropolitan areas, many hundreds of lives are shortened each year.

However, much smaller metropolitan areas in and around "coal country" suffer the greatest per capitaimpacts, such as Chattanooga, Tennessee; Gadsden, Alabama; Terre Haute, Indiana; Wheeling, West Virginia;and Owensboro, Kentucky. Their death rates are much higher, for example, than that of New York City.Compare Chattanooga at 49.3 deaths per 100,000 adults with New York at 19.3 per 100,000. (You can view a more complete list of metropolitan areas in "The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions", the source report prepared by Abt Associates. Note: The Abt report is in PDF format.)

In fact,because these health effects estimates include only the effects from airborne fine particles, theysignificantly understate the total adverse impact on public health from power plants. Excluded from theseestimates are the health effects from other power plant pollutants, such as air emissions that result inozone smog, air toxics, global warming, and the impacts from the consumption of fish contaminated bypower plant mercury emissions.

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

Since we're able to post without cross checking sources for accuracy, you have to admit that the accuracy is assured...just like Bripat's lies about soldiers "having to be shot at" to receive combat pay.

Here's a 60 Minutes story about it: Look at the 1:00 mark....

60 Minutes SHOCKING 130M Tons of Waste / Toxic golf courses made of coal ash!!! 10/4/2009 - YouTube

130,000,000 tons equals 260 Billion pounds of toxic waste...every year.

This is great..."The EPA estimates...."

Try again.

When people get serious about taking reformate out of gasoline...then we'll talk.

and I'm sure our piddlyass little coal plants are a threat to planetary survival. When Mount Pinatubo blew it's stack for months on end, we didn't feel much change in weather from emissions far worse than anything we put out, in volumes we could never match in the history of mankind.

Color me underwhelmed.

 

[Cowman]

Oh no

people would rather wait for PapaObama Care
to tell us when to die

Obama is your dad now? Strange ass conservatives.

 

[thereisnospoon]

These old plants need to be retired.

Utility engineers and accountants should decide when they are retired, not politicians or imbeciles like you.

Ah so private interests can poison and kill the public and the public has no other recourse then to wait for the private interest to decide when enough people are dead?

Good stuff.

Hope you guys run on that.

Oh wait..you already do.

Of course not.
But your claim does not represent reality.
Clearly, Obama has an anti fossil fuel agenda. He has done everything in his power to curtail development of US based oil reserves, generation of electricity, modernization of the US Electrical grid and scuttled the long distance transport of oil via Keystone.
The price of gas has doubled under Obama's watch. The blame for which falls squarely on this administration's shoulders. Obama has the power to make the US a world dominant force in fossil fuel production. The US Treasury could rake in billions in oil and gas royalties which would go right to funding the democrats precious social agenda. But no. Obama has shown a 100% lack of leadership in favor of solidifying his political base by pandering to his most likely voting blocs.

 

[bripat9643]

According to a NASA officer:

Indeed, agreement to phase
out coal use except where the CO2 is captured is 80% of the solution to the global
warming crisis.

Well, if a NASA officer says so, then it must be true!

Are you kidding with this crap?

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080414_GovernorGibbons.pdf

The risks to public health outside of the planetary existence is pronounced as well: See the 6:20-6:50 range of this video: Chilling stuff.

Surrounded by Coal Ash - Communities at Risk - YouTube

I'm not responding to a video. Quoting the idiocies in the video takes more effort that I'm willing to expend debunking Eco-fascist propaganda.

More evidence:

Conversely, states with large populations but without coal-fired plants fared much better. For example,California, which has the nation's largest population and some of its worst air quality, has veryfew coal or oil-fired power plants. Abt Associates estimates that only 259 deaths are attributable topower plant pollution in California and the state ranked almost last in per capita impact (1.4 deaths per100,000 adults).

That is the lamest argument I've seen in a long time. California may have a large population, but it's a large state. It's as big as the entire country of Japan. Most of the industries in the state are very clean, like software development, and aerospace. The urban areas it has are very spread out. They are almost entirely suburbs. Characterizing California as more urban than other states is absurd. It doesn't prove a damn thing. What you need to do is prove that people living near coal fired power plants have died or become ill at greater incidences than people who live farther away, and that is evidence that the EPA has been singularly unable to provide.

Kentucky, the state with the highest reliance on coal for production of electricityranked first in related per capita mortality at more than 44 deaths per 100,000 adults, over 30 timeshigher than California's per capita mortality rate.Note - For complete tables, see Appendix.

How is "related per capital mortality" defined? Does that include coal miners? I'm almost certain it does. Again, this claim does nothing to prove that people living near coal fired power plants have died or become ill at greater incidences than people who live farther away.

No banana.

Similarly,metropolitan areas with large populations near coal-fired power plants feel their impacts most acutely.In large metropolitan areas, many hundreds of lives are shortened each year.

Really? Produce a single example. Produce some statistics that show people living near coal fired power plants have died or become ill at greater incidences than people who live farther away.

However, much smaller metropolitan areas in and around "coal country" suffer the greatest per capitaimpacts, such as Chattanooga, Tennessee; Gadsden, Alabama; Terre Haute, Indiana; Wheeling, West Virginia;and Owensboro, Kentucky. Their death rates are much higher, for example, than that of New York City.Compare Chattanooga at 49.3 deaths per 100,000 adults with New York at 19.3 per 100,000. (You can view a more complete list of metropolitan areas in "The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions", the source report prepared by Abt Associates. Note: The Abt report is in PDF format.)

They are comparing all deaths in the city of Chattanooga with some other city and calling that evidence of coal fired power plants killing people? That is about as absurd as you can get. We don't know the cause of the deaths in Chattanooga. For all we know, they were gunned down in the street. The fact that they occurred in what the authors call "coal country" means nothing. They haven't even defined the term "coal country."

In fact,because these health effects estimates include only the effects from airborne fine particles, theysignificantly understate the total adverse impact on public health from power plants. Excluded from theseestimates are the health effects from other power plant pollutants, such as air emissions that result inozone smog, air toxics, global warming, and the impacts from the consumption of fish contaminated bypower plant mercury emissions.

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

There are a lot of sources for "airborne particulates" other than coal. Hell, if you've ever lived in Florida, you know that the oak pollen can get so thick at certain times of the year that you can write your name in it. The authors have done nothing to separate out particulates coming from coal plants from particulates due to other sources. Urbanization itself is a big source of particulates. Cars driving on the freeway stir up particulates, and diesel engines spew particulates into the air.

These statistics are absolutely worthless. They prove nothing other than the fact that people with asthma suffer from airborne particulates.

Since we're able to post without cross checking sources for accuracy, you have to admit that the accuracy is assured...just like Bripat's lies about soldiers "having to be shot at" to receive combat pay.

Here's a 60 Minutes story about it: Look at the 1:00 mark....

60 Minutes SHOCKING 130M Tons of Waste / Toxic golf courses made of coal ash!!! 10/4/2009 - YouTube

130,000,000 tons equals 260 Billion pounds of toxic waste...every year.

It's obvious you cross checked nothing. That's what Eco-fascists do. They whip up piles of bogus statistics that prove nothing and throw it against the wall in the hope that suckers will swallow some if it.

That's all you've done here.

Again, where is the evidence showing that the incidence of death or illness among people living near coal fired power plants is greater than the incidence among people living farther away? You haven't posted any such evidence.

 

[candycorn]

According to a NASA officer:

Indeed, agreement to phase
out coal use except where the CO2 is captured is 80% of the solution to the global
warming crisis.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080414_GovernorGibbons.pdf

The risks to public health outside of the planetary existence is pronounced as well: See the 6:20-6:50 range of this video: Chilling stuff.

Surrounded by Coal Ash - Communities at Risk - YouTube

More evidence:

Conversely, states with large populations but without coal-fired plants fared much better. For example,California, which has the nation's largest population and some of its worst air quality, has veryfew coal or oil-fired power plants. Abt Associates estimates that only 259 deaths are attributable topower plant pollution in California and the state ranked almost last in per capita impact (1.4 deaths per100,000 adults). Kentucky, the state with the highest reliance on coal for production of electricityranked first in related per capita mortality at more than 44 deaths per 100,000 adults, over 30 timeshigher than California's per capita mortality rate.Note - For complete tables, see Appendix.

Similarly,metropolitan areas with large populations near coal-fired power plants feel their impacts most acutely.In large metropolitan areas, many hundreds of lives are shortened each year.

However, much smaller metropolitan areas in and around "coal country" suffer the greatest per capitaimpacts, such as Chattanooga, Tennessee; Gadsden, Alabama; Terre Haute, Indiana; Wheeling, West Virginia;and Owensboro, Kentucky. Their death rates are much higher, for example, than that of New York City.Compare Chattanooga at 49.3 deaths per 100,000 adults with New York at 19.3 per 100,000. (You can view a more complete list of metropolitan areas in "The Particulate-Related Health Benefits of Reducing Power Plant Emissions", the source report prepared by Abt Associates. Note: The Abt report is in PDF format.)

In fact,because these health effects estimates include only the effects from airborne fine particles, theysignificantly understate the total adverse impact on public health from power plants. Excluded from theseestimates are the health effects from other power plant pollutants, such as air emissions that result inozone smog, air toxics, global warming, and the impacts from the consumption of fish contaminated bypower plant mercury emissions.

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

Since we're able to post without cross checking sources for accuracy, you have to admit that the accuracy is assured...just like Bripat's lies about soldiers "having to be shot at" to receive combat pay.

Here's a 60 Minutes story about it: Look at the 1:00 mark....

60 Minutes SHOCKING 130M Tons of Waste / Toxic golf courses made of coal ash!!! 10/4/2009 - YouTube

130,000,000 tons equals 260 Billion pounds of toxic waste...every year.

This is great..."The EPA estimates...."

Try again.

When people get serious about taking reformate out of gasoline...then we'll talk.

That you're right about. Typical government half measures.

 

[candycorn]

According to a NASA officer:

Indeed, agreement to phase
out coal use except where the CO2 is captured is 80% of the solution to the global
warming crisis.

Well, if a NASA officer says so, then it must be true!

Are you kidding with this crap?

Yeah, lets listen to the profane guy on the internet...much more decorated. Lame!

I'm not responding to a video. Quoting the idiocies in the video takes more effort that I'm willing to expend debunking Eco-fascist propaganda.

Chicken.

That is the lamest argument I've seen in a long time. California may have a large population, but it's a large state. It's as big as the entire country of Japan. Most of the industries in the state are very clean, like software development, and aerospace.

Their power comes from clean sources. That was the point you willfully neglected. You're not THAT stupid. Doesn't matter if you're making silicon chips or potato chips if your power comes from coal, the coal pollutes the air as the deaths detailed below prove.

Ouch! Theres that word again...proof.

Sucks for you.

The urban areas it has are very spread out. They are almost entirely suburbs.

And that means what? Densely packed cities use power while suburban cities do not? Lame!

Characterizing California as more urban than other states is absurd. It doesn't prove a damn thing. What you need to do is prove that people living near coal fired power plants have died or become ill at greater incidences than people who live farther away, and that is evidence that the EPA has been singularly unable to provide.



How is "related per capital mortality" defined? Does that include coal miners? I'm almost certain it does. Again, this claim does nothing to prove that people living near coal fired power plants have died or become ill at greater incidences than people who live farther away.

No banana.



Really? Produce a single example. Produce some statistics that show people living near coal fired power plants have died or become ill at greater incidences than people who live farther away.



They are comparing all deaths in the city of Chattanooga with some other city and calling that evidence of coal fired power plants killing people? That is about as absurd as you can get. We don't know the cause of the deaths in Chattanooga. For all we know, they were gunned down in the street. The fact that they occurred in what the authors call "coal country" means nothing. They haven't even defined the term "coal country."

Somehow West Virginia with it's coal fired plants and all of the coal ash in the air is more deadly than California with it's "spread out cities"? You've impeached your own argument there silly.

Gunned down in the street? LOL....gee, you're defining lame ain't you boy?

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

There are a lot of sources for "airborne particulates" other than coal. Hell, if you've ever lived in Florida, you know that the oak pollen can get so thick at certain times of the year that you can write your name in it. The authors have done nothing to separate out particulates coming from coal plants from particulates due to other sources. Urbanization itself is a big source of particulates. Cars driving on the freeway stir up particulates, and diesel engines spew particulates into the air.

These statistics are absolutely worthless. They prove nothing other than the fact that people with asthma suffer from airborne particulates.

Yawn!

Since we're able to post without cross checking sources for accuracy, you have to admit that the accuracy is assured...just like Bripat's lies about soldiers "having to be shot at" to receive combat pay.

Here's a 60 Minutes story about it: Look at the 1:00 mark....

60 Minutes SHOCKING 130M Tons of Waste / Toxic golf courses made of coal ash!!! 10/4/2009 - YouTube

130,000,000 tons equals 260 Billion pounds of toxic waste...every year.

It's obvious you cross checked nothing. That's what Eco-fascists do. They whip up piles of bogus statistics that prove nothing and throw it against the wall in the hope that suckers will swallow some if it.

That's all you've done here.

Again, where is the evidence showing that the incidence of death or illness among people living near coal fired power plants is greater than the incidence among people living farther away? You haven't posted any such evidence.

[/QUOTE]

Never Thought I was talking about coal fired plants; the coal ash is killing enough people. You're trying to limit the argument to the plants burning things. Can't do that sonny. But do try again.

You cross-checked nothing in the other thread.. You know...remember when you lied about combat pay? Karma's a bitch and it owns you.

As for this thread, we all know coal is dirty which is why the coal companies are fronting "clean coal" as some sort of defense mechanism. They disagree with you.