Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close

[daveman]

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!

Yes, CO2 is poisonous...in sufficient quantities. At 0.038%, it's utterly harmless to humans.

Yet you claim that level is bad. The fact that you're still alive despite breathing that level of CO2 suggests you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

But by all means, continue your fear-mongering.

 

[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.

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.

Wow, you've just destroyed your tenuous credibility by that silliness. You want to assert without proof of your assertions that there is a threat. If you could prove a threat, you'd have my support. But you don't. You've got hunches and opinions and circumstantial indicators, but no real proof. Relativism and science don't mix too well and make worse policy decisions.

No one here is debating that coal is dirty. What the issue has been for almost 700 posts now is that any tightening of the regulations on the use of coal yield little to no improvement with a disproportionate negative impact on society.

You say you're for nuclear power? Fine. So am I. Lets go ahead and replace those plants with nukes. I'm all for it. But till they are built, what exactly are we going to do about the doubling of the cost of electricity in those areas serviced by the plants? How are you going to get the ecofascisti out of the way for building the nuke plants who want to return to a hunter-gatherer society?

Idealism is nice, but stupid when not tempered with practicality and rational decisions. Right now, you've not developed any of that, you're too young.

 

[Big Fitz]

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!

Yes, CO2 is poisonous...in sufficient quantities. At 0.038%, it's utterly harmless to humans.

Yet you claim that level is bad. The fact that you're still alive despite breathing that level of CO2 suggests you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

But by all means, continue your fear-mongering.

I was shocked at the blatant naivete of such an answer.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Wow, you've just destroyed your tenuous credibility by that silliness.

Oh well, it had to go sometime. I guess, we can start gargling with coal ash polluted water now since my "credibility" is destroyed.

You want to assert without proof of your assertions that there is a threat. If you could prove a threat, you'd have my support. But you don't. You've got hunches and opinions and circumstantial indicators, but no real proof. Relativism and science don't mix too well and make worse policy decisions.

The OP admits that coal causes respiratory problems. Explain it to him.

No one here is debating that coal is dirty.

Speaking of destroyed credibility.

What the issue has been for almost 700 posts now is that any tightening of the regulations on the use of coal yield little to no improvement with a disproportionate negative impact on society.

Yeah, I changed it to all of the other dangers of coal such as Coal Ash and what we're doing with it, how it's seeping into the ground, is in the water table....etc...

You say you're for nuclear power? Fine. So am I. Lets go ahead and replace those plants with nukes. I'm all for it. But till they are built, what exactly are we going to do about the doubling of the cost of electricity in those areas serviced by the plants? How are you going to get the ecofascisti out of the way for building the nuke plants who want to return to a hunter-gatherer society?

I'll put your melodrama on the back burner for now. You begin a phase-out model while at the same time continuing the research into the better use of coal. Expensive? sure. Worth it? You bet.

PS: You'd have gotten further if you had thrown in "Will someone please think of the children!!!"

Idealism is nice, but stupid when not tempered with practicality and rational decisions. Right now, you've not developed any of that, you're too young.

Stupid is stupid and apparently you're too old to remember that--if you want to make this a personal thing.

Coal is something we have. Eventually we'll run out.

It pollutes the air.

It causes health problems.

All of the above are facts and they are not in dispute. You're "We'll worry about it tomorrow" stance on the subject is fine. Except....that is what you said yesterday.

 

[candycorn]

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!

Yes, CO2 is poisonous...in sufficient quantities. At 0.038%, it's utterly harmless to humans.

Yet you claim that level is bad. The fact that you're still alive despite breathing that level of CO2 suggests you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

But by all means, continue your fear-mongering.

So you're happy with us putting more poison into the air?

Next time, set your response to music. It will still be just as daft but much more entertaining.

 

[Big Fitz]

Speaking of destroyed credibility.

I've never contested the dirt. I've contested the improvement of health by the tightened standards do not do much. Nobody's been able to provide any credible evidence that improvement over current law is worth the cost. You included.

 

[Big Fitz]

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!

Yes, CO2 is poisonous...in sufficient quantities. At 0.038%, it's utterly harmless to humans.

Yet you claim that level is bad. The fact that you're still alive despite breathing that level of CO2 suggests you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

But by all means, continue your fear-mongering.

So you're happy with us putting more poison into the air?

Next time, set your response to music. It will still be just as daft but much more entertaining.

How much of a danger is 0.00024% increase? How many deaths can be attributed to it? What is the proven practical cost? How is quality of life decreased?

You're pimping a protection to a threat that does not exist.

 

[candycorn]

Yes, CO2 is poisonous...in sufficient quantities. At 0.038%, it's utterly harmless to humans.

Yet you claim that level is bad. The fact that you're still alive despite breathing that level of CO2 suggests you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

But by all means, continue your fear-mongering.

So you're happy with us putting more poison into the air?

Next time, set your response to music. It will still be just as daft but much more entertaining.

How much of a danger is 0.00024% increase? How many deaths can be attributed to it? What is the proven practical cost? How is quality of life decreased?

You're pimping a protection to a threat that does not exist.

Where do you get your 0.00024% figure from? Curious.

 

[candycorn]

Speaking of destroyed credibility.

I've never contested the dirt. I've contested the improvement of health by the tightened standards do not do much. Nobody's been able to provide any credible evidence that improvement over current law is worth the cost. You included.

Okay.

 

[daveman]

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!

Yes, CO2 is poisonous...in sufficient quantities. At 0.038%, it's utterly harmless to humans.

Yet you claim that level is bad. The fact that you're still alive despite breathing that level of CO2 suggests you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

But by all means, continue your fear-mongering.

I was shocked at the blatant naivete of such an answer.

Really? I wasn't.

 

[daveman]

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!

Yes, CO2 is poisonous...in sufficient quantities. At 0.038%, it's utterly harmless to humans.

Yet you claim that level is bad. The fact that you're still alive despite breathing that level of CO2 suggests you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

But by all means, continue your fear-mongering.

So you're happy with us putting more poison into the air?

Next time, set your response to music. It will still be just as daft but much more entertaining.

And there you sit, irresponsibly and selfishly exhaling more and more poison into the air.

You should stop. It's for the children.

 

[Big Fitz]

So you're happy with us putting more poison into the air?

Next time, set your response to music. It will still be just as daft but much more entertaining.

How much of a danger is 0.00024% increase? How many deaths can be attributed to it? What is the proven practical cost? How is quality of life decreased?

You're pimping a protection to a threat that does not exist.

Where do you get your 0.00024% figure from? Curious.

It is based on the math of the amount of CO2 produced by man in tons, versus what is the current volume in the atmosphere as a natural state. It works out that of the 0.04% of total atmospheric composition formed by CO2, we as mankind produce 0.006% of that IIRC, which then equates to an amount of 0.00024% of the total volume of the atmosphere by weight. I may be off by a decimal point, but honestly, that's a hairs worth of difference when you're measuring in miles.

so, scale ends the danger as moot.

Oh, and the volume of the earth's atmosphere is found on Google or any 8th grade science book, and the amount produced by man is from the hysterical claims of our resident chicken little chorus in various posts scattered about the forums from ecofascisti blogs.

 

[bripat9643]

And there you sit, irresponsibly and selfishly exhaling more and more poison into the air.

You should stop. It's for the children.

I think it's hysterical the way candyass can't see the irony of his posts. He's calling 0.034% CO2 in the atmosphere a deadly poison, yet the breath he exhales contains about 5% CO2, about 150 times more.

 

[Care4all]

Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close | The Gateway Pundit

Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported: Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations. The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted. The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of...

They've been given up to 5 years to clean up their act though...that's a pretty long time..... plus the opportunity to "average" their pollution by adding in all plants together, clean ones and piss poor ones....

you would THINK that the coal industry would not just close a plant instead of trying to make it work in the 5 years they could be given to do such.............

Mercury poison's all of our fish, so this DOES affect everyone, NOT just the 100 people being let go by the plants....the coal industry, CHOSE to retire.

 

[candycorn]

Egg all over my face on this one. Sorry.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close | The Gateway Pundit

Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported: Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations. The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted. The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of...

They've been given up to 5 years to clean up their act though...that's a pretty long time..... plus the opportunity to "average" their pollution by adding in all plants together, clean ones and piss poor ones.....

Tell you what, I'll give you 5 years to stop spewing CO2 into the air with your breath. That should be plenty of time to comply, don't you think?

you would THINK that the coal industry would not just close a plant instead of trying to make it work in the 5 years they could be given to do such..........

You would think that idiots like you might understand that there's nothing to be gained by shutting down a power plant that is in perfect working order.

Furthermore, there was no regulation issued 5 years ago that said utilities had to close any coal fired power plants. That's an Eco-fascist propaganda meme.

Mercury poison's all of our fish, so this DOES affect everyone, NOT just the 100 people being let go by the plants....the coal industry, CHOSE to retire.

If you rea the rest of this threa, then you would understand why the Mercury poisoning claim is a canard. The miniscule amount of mercury our coal fired power plants emit doesn't amount to a fart in the wind when you look at all sources of Mercury.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Sure looks that way..

Bhopal disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Love Canal Tragedy | About EPA | US EPA
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sallow]

Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close | The Gateway Pundit

Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported: Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations. The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted. The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of...

They've been given up to 5 years to clean up their act though...that's a pretty long time..... plus the opportunity to "average" their pollution by adding in all plants together, clean ones and piss poor ones....

you would THINK that the coal industry would not just close a plant instead of trying to make it work in the 5 years they could be given to do such.............

Mercury poison's all of our fish, so this DOES affect everyone, NOT just the 100 people being let go by the plants....the coal industry, CHOSE to retire.

They had more time then that. Bush kiboshed the EPA during his 2 terms..but it was well known this was coming.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Sure looks that way..

Bhopal disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Love Canal Tragedy | About EPA | US EPA
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh look, a bunch of strawmen.

 

[Care4all]

Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close | The Gateway Pundit

Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported: Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations. The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted. The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of...

They've been given up to 5 years to clean up their act though...that's a pretty long time..... plus the opportunity to "average" their pollution by adding in all plants together, clean ones and piss poor ones.....

Tell you what, I'll give you 5 years to stop spewing CO2 into the air with your breath. That should be plenty of time to comply, don't you think?

you would THINK that the coal industry would not just close a plant instead of trying to make it work in the 5 years they could be given to do such..........

You would think that idiots like you might understand that there's nothing to be gained by shutting down a power plant that is in perfect working order.

Furthermore, there was no regulation issued 5 years ago that said utilities had to close any coal fired power plants. That's an Eco-fascist propaganda meme.

Mercury poison's all of our fish, so this DOES affect everyone, NOT just the 100 people being let go by the plants....the coal industry, CHOSE to retire.

If you rea the rest of this threa, then you would understand why the Mercury poisoning claim is a canard. The miniscule amount of mercury our coal fired power plants emit doesn't amount to a fart in the wind when you look at all sources of Mercury.

no, I hadn't read the whole thread, could you please direct me where it is posted about where Mercury levels comes from or the source that information came from and I could try to find it myself?

Care