Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close

[daveman]

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.

Yes, the eeeevil KKKorporations want to kill all their customers. That will maximize profits.

 

[daveman]

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.

How does he propose to get other nations to play along?

Oh, I forgot -- American CO2 is more dangerous than other nations'.

 

[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.

How does he propose to get other nations to play along?

Oh, I forgot -- American CO2 is more dangerous than other nations'.

Not sure he was saying that; he was identifying the problem.

There is no way to get the other nations of the world to "play along" however capturing the CO2 is definitely in their best interests as well.

I don't know that he said American CO2 was more dangerous. I do know (as do you) that American CO2 is more dangerous to Americans. Can't breathe that stuff.

 

[bripat9643]

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

That argument is even dumber and lamer. Being a NASA officer doesn't make you an expert on emissions from coal fired power plants. Even if it did, that would be an appeal to authority. What we are looking for here is actual tangible evidence to support your claim. So far, you have produced none.

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.

As usual, Candyass, my point went right over your head. First, California isn't any more urban than the states you're comparing it too. Second, California already has fewer emission sources. That means less particulates in the air, so it's not surprising that people with asthma fair better there. Furthermore, California has a dry climate, which makes for less pollen in the air. Also better for people with asthma.

The fact is that all sort of variables aren't controlled for. Therefore, using California as some measuring stick for the effects of coal fired plants because it has fewer of them is absurd.

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

Urban areas have more particulates in the air compared to rural areas. If you are going to control for that, you don't do it by comparing entire states. That is chicanery, not science.

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.

West Virginia also has a lot of coal mines, so it's hardly surprising that you find a lot of people with respiratory problems. Coal miners tend to suffer from them. This is another example of chicanery.

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

Yawn!

That is as credible of an explanation as the one your "study" makes.

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.

I haven't seen any evidence that coal ash is killing anyone. Like any waste product, if it's disposed of correctly, then its perfectly harmless. The subject of this thread is EPA regulations reducing the allowable amount of mercury emissions for coal fired power plants. Coal ash is another subject entirely. If you want to discuss that, then start a separate thread.

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.

I couldn't give a crap about "clean coal." People use it to mean a multitude of different things, anyway. Coal is clean enough. It isn't harming a soul and it's the cheapest form of energy there is. I see no reason it needs to be "cleaned up."

 

[Valox]

I could be wrong, but isn't the EPA under the authority of Congress, not the President.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

Here's your facts concerning the global warming argument from a historic timeline of "quoted statements" coming from various news sources and headline articles.

 

[daveman]

According to a NASA officer:

How does he propose to get other nations to play along?

Oh, I forgot -- American CO2 is more dangerous than other nations'.

Not sure he was saying that; he was identifying the problem.

There is no way to get the other nations of the world to "play along" however capturing the CO2 is definitely in their best interests as well.

I don't know that he said American CO2 was more dangerous. I do know (as do you) that American CO2 is more dangerous to Americans. Can't breathe that stuff.

Good thing it's only 0.038% of the atmosphere, huh?

 

[daveman]

According to a NASA officer:

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

Are you kidding with this crap?

Here's your facts concerning the global warming argument from a historic timeline of "quoted statements" coming from various news sources and headline articles.

One AGW cultist here actually told me that journalists don't get their hysterical predictions of doom from scientists. They make it all up.

 

[candycorn]

How does he propose to get other nations to play along?

Oh, I forgot -- American CO2 is more dangerous than other nations'.

Not sure he was saying that; he was identifying the problem.

There is no way to get the other nations of the world to "play along" however capturing the CO2 is definitely in their best interests as well.

I don't know that he said American CO2 was more dangerous. I do know (as do you) that American CO2 is more dangerous to Americans. Can't breathe that stuff.

Good thing it's only 0.038% of the atmosphere, huh?

Really? Thats not good.

 

[candycorn]

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

That argument is even dumber and lamer. Being a NASA officer doesn't make you an expert on emissions from coal fired power plants. Even if it did, that would be an appeal to authority. What we are looking for here is actual tangible evidence to support your claim. So far, you have produced none.

The statistics about Coal Ash are indisputable.

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.

As usual, Candyass, my point went right over your head. First, California isn't any more urban than the states you're comparing it too. Second, California already has fewer emission sources. That means less particulates in the air, so it's not surprising that people with asthma fair better there. Furthermore, California has a dry climate, which makes for less pollen in the air. Also better for people with asthma.

Yeah...LA, the car capitol of the universe has "very few emission sources" and is famous for being very clear...just a different type of pollution. It doesn't come from coal.

The fact is that all sort of variables aren't controlled for. Therefore, using California as some measuring stick for the effects of coal fired plants because it has fewer of them is absurd.

They didn't do that. They talked about the size of the state relative to the other states that have the coal plants powering their electricity. But since you bring it up... Now you say Cali has less emissions in the air? Gee...probably because they have a lot fewer coal power plants.

Urban areas have more particulates in the air compared to rural areas. If you are going to control for that, you don't do it by comparing entire states. That is chicanery, not science.

Ahhh....

West Virginia also has a lot of coal mines, so it's hardly surprising that you find a lot of people with respiratory problems. Coal miners tend to suffer from them. This is another example of chicanery.

And the people living near the coal ash the mines produced.

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.

I haven't seen any evidence that coal ash is killing anyone. Like any waste product, if it's disposed of correctly, then its perfectly harmless. The subject of this thread is EPA regulations reducing the allowable amount of mercury emissions for coal fired power plants. Coal ash is another subject entirely. If you want to discuss that, then start a separate thread.

I like this one. The coal ash supplied by the coal companies is being produced by the ton and is quite dangerous as described in the videos that you've run from.

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.

I couldn't give a crap about "clean coal." People use it to mean a multitude of different things, anyway. Coal is clean enough. It isn't harming a soul and it's the cheapest form of energy there is. I see no reason it needs to be "cleaned up."

Yet you agree that coal miners have serious respiratory problems? Hmmm. And the stats from the coal ash mean nothing etc...

That's cool. The coal industry disagrees with you but, just like the head of NASA, I'm sure
you're more of an authority.

It's so much fun debating you.....It's like 2 on one. Me & you against you.

 

[bripat9643]

The statistics about Coal Ash are indisputable.

What statistics? And don't tell me to watch one of your propaganda videos. Get it in text form or I'm not interested.

Yeah...LA, the car capitol of the universe has "very few emission sources" and is famous for being very clear...just a different type of pollution. It doesn't come from coal.

Per capita, LA has no more cars than any other city in America. What it doesn't have is major industrial sources of pollution.

They didn't do that. They talked about the size of the state relative to the other states that have the coal plants powering their electricity. But since you bring it up... Now you say Cali has less emissions in the air? Gee...probably because they have a lot fewer coal power plants.

They talked about its size in terms of population, as if that meant it was more urban than other states. It's not.

And the people living near the coal ash the mines produced.

Mines don't produce coal ash, moron, power plants do. Coal ash is only mildly toxic, and no one is going to ingest it. It's far less toxic than say, waste from a pig farm. Is the EPA going to demand that Americans stop eating pork? Not likely, at least not until this nation goes a lot further down the road to the police state.

I like this one. The coal ash supplied by the coal companies is being produced by the ton and is quite dangerous as described in the videos that you've run from.

Coal companies don't supply coal ash, moron. It's a by product of burning coal in a power plant. You don't know the slightest thing about coal ash, but here you are lecturing me about it.

Yet you agree that coal miners have serious respiratory problems? Hmmm. And the stats from the coal ash mean nothing etc...

Only the ones who smoke have respiratory problems. I'm not going to watch any propaganda videos, so if you want to discuss coal ash, you'll have to post some statistics in text form.

That's cool. The coal industry disagrees with you but, just like the head of NASA, I'm sure you're more of an authority.

It disagrees with me about what?

It's so much fun debating you.....It's like 2 on one. Me & you against you.

Your delusions of grandeur are absolutely charming.

 

[Big Fitz]

Not sure he was saying that; he was identifying the problem.

There is no way to get the other nations of the world to "play along" however capturing the CO2 is definitely in their best interests as well.

I don't know that he said American CO2 was more dangerous. I do know (as do you) that American CO2 is more dangerous to Americans. Can't breathe that stuff.

Good thing it's only 0.038% of the atmosphere, huh?

Really? Thats not good.

That's not good????? It's atmospheric composition. What's not good about it? Are we going to worry about too much Nitrogen in the atmosphere now? What loony leftist lament have we to put up with now? We've always been between 0.03 and 0.05% CO2 content in the atmosphere for the existence of mankind. And of that composition, mankind produces less than 0.004% of it. Who gives a fuck?

 

[Big Fitz]

Hmmm. And the stats from the coal ash mean nothing etc...

Let us make a (probably wrong) assumption that your inflated threats about coal ash are accurate. Now, the questions I have are this.

1. What is going to be the estimated costs for cleaning up these poisons in our nation?

2. What is the expected improvement to the health and quality of life? How many lives can be shown to be directly saved from these reductions?

3. What is the economic impact and loss for implementing these new 'cleaner' policies? Job lost and the secondary and tertiary markets that will be harmed as well including lost tax revenue and other related ripple effects of the decline.

If these answers can show a definite, trustworthy and economic positive benefit to society, I'd be happy to get behind them. But.. there's no fucking about with numbers that smell like fresh poo being plucked from lobbyist, propagandist or ecofascist sphincters here, or arrived at by coin flips or halfassed computer models. I want hard data.

 

[daveman]

Not sure he was saying that; he was identifying the problem.

There is no way to get the other nations of the world to "play along" however capturing the CO2 is definitely in their best interests as well.

I don't know that he said American CO2 was more dangerous. I do know (as do you) that American CO2 is more dangerous to Americans. Can't breathe that stuff.

Good thing it's only 0.038% of the atmosphere, huh?

Really? Thats not good.

Really? Perhaps you can tell us what the ideal percentage is.

 

[candycorn]

Good thing it's only 0.038% of the atmosphere, huh?

Really? Thats not good.

Really? Perhaps you can tell us what the ideal percentage is.

No sir...I'll let you and the other coal proponents tell us how much poison is good for you.

You're move.

 

[candycorn]

Good thing it's only 0.038% of the atmosphere, huh?

Really? Thats not good.

That's not good????? It's atmospheric composition. What's not good about it? Are we going to worry about too much Nitrogen in the atmosphere now? What loony leftist lament have we to put up with now? We've always been between 0.03 and 0.05% CO2 content in the atmosphere for the existence of mankind. And of that composition, mankind produces less than 0.004% of it. Who gives a fuck?

A lot of chemicals that are of little or no use to us in the atmosphere are good for things like plants.

 

[candycorn]

The coal ash is also very hazardous to the groundwater supply by the way.

 

[candycorn]

Hmmm. And the stats from the coal ash mean nothing etc...

Let us make a (probably wrong) assumption that your inflated threats about coal ash are accurate. Now, the questions I have are this.

1. What is going to be the estimated costs for cleaning up these poisons in our nation?

2. What is the expected improvement to the health and quality of life? How many lives can be shown to be directly saved from these reductions?

3. What is the economic impact and loss for implementing these new 'cleaner' policies? Job lost and the secondary and tertiary markets that will be harmed as well including lost tax revenue and other related ripple effects of the decline.

If these answers can show a definite, trustworthy and economic positive benefit to society, I'd be happy to get behind them. But.. there's no fucking about with numbers that smell like fresh poo being plucked from lobbyist, propagandist or ecofascist sphincters here, or arrived at by coin flips or halfassed computer models. I want hard data.

There is no hard data. Sorry. Or at least any that I have at my fingertips.

"Cleaning up" the ground is in one sense an argument of degrees. If you could see my condo right now, you may think it's messy. If you could compare it to what it was when I was studying for my finals (I passed by the way), you would think it is a major improvement. So you can't just arrive at a number.

Jobs wise, whenever there is a transition from old technology to newer technology, you have winners and losers. So the coal economy will suffer. I am a huge proponent of nuclear power. It's capable. It's been around for a long time. And as the Navy has proven, it can be as safe as coal all while being cleaner or at least as clean. Plus there is no ridiculous discussion being joined about Carbon Monoxide being good for you or "Coal plants are clean...Coal itself is not!"

I can give you this hard data. Coal byproducts are damaging to humans and the environment. Meanwhile, there is a cleaner (or at least as clean), proven alternative. Nuclear.

 

[daveman]

Really? Thats not good.

Really? Perhaps you can tell us what the ideal percentage is.

No sir...I'll let you and the other coal proponents tell us how much poison is good for you.

You're move.

It doesn't work that way. You claimed that the current percentage of atmospheric CO2 is not good. You need to tell us what the ideal percentage is.

Or you could just admit you don't know and are merely repeating the "CO2 BAD!!" bleat.

 

[candycorn]

Really? Perhaps you can tell us what the ideal percentage is.

No sir...I'll let you and the other coal proponents tell us how much poison is good for you.

You're move.

It doesn't work that way. You claimed that the current percentage of atmospheric CO2 is not good. You need to tell us what the ideal percentage is.

Or you could just admit you don't know and are merely repeating the "CO2 BAD!!" bleat.

Sure it works that way. We can't breathe it. It's poison to our lungs. You're talking about the "ideal" amount.

You're move slick.

Get on your tap shoes. We're about to see a dance everyone!