We Must Choose Between Our Babies And Affordable Energy: The New War On Coal

[Disenchanted61]

Where did the poster get this information from, is what I want to know?!

 

[bripat9643]

The new regulations will affect power plants in 28 states and are scheduled to go into effect in 2012.

EPA Unveils New Standards For Coal-Fired Power Plants

By reducing this ozone and particle pollution which are linked to costly and life threatening problems such as asthma, heart attacks and premature deaths, we anticipate up to $280 billion in annual benefits,"

well

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

That is hilarious!

To think: people actually swallow this manure!

 

[bripat9643]

We need solutions.

The tree-huggers won't let us build nuke plants, the Chinese are building new coal plants at an alarming rate and we can't stop them from polluting our air.

I'm seeing more regulations and fewer solutions. It's obvious Obama doesn't have any answers so he allows the EPA to regulate us back into the Stone Age.

coal is more than clean enough. Have you ever heard of anyone getting sick from environment mercury? The fact is there are plenty of natural sources of mercury that spew far more into the environment than man made coal plants. The later is trivial in comparison.

The radiation danger is also trivial. It's almost entirely in the form of Carbon 14, which is abundant in the environment.

 

[bripat9643]

The energy companies have had plenty of time to meet existing environmental regulations. They have failed to do so, and will continue to fail to do so until they are forced to.

Horseshit. Existing coal plants meet all existing regulations. They have to. it's the law.

What we're talking about here is new draconian regulations that the Obama brownshirts have conjured up.

 

[bripat9643]

I remember Clinton signing water purity laws right before he left office that would have raised bottled-water prices to an estimated $100/gal.

Bush had to override the new regs and was accused of wanting to kill babies.

These regulations are intended purely to curb consumption.

Obama is in the habit of governing with politics only in mind rather than worrying about the economic impact.

Those were regulations on tap water, not bottled water. They would have cost communities across the country $ billions and $ billions.

 

[Moonglow]

We need solutions.

The tree-huggers won't let us build nuke plants, the Chinese are building new coal plants at an alarming rate and we can't stop them from polluting our air.

I'm seeing more regulations and fewer solutions. It's obvious Obama doesn't have any answers so he allows the EPA to regulate us back into the Stone Age.

coal is more than clean enough. Have you ever heard of anyone getting sick from environment mercury? The fact is there are plenty of natural sources of mercury that spew far more into the environment than man made coal plants. The later is trivial in comparison.

The radiation danger is also trivial. It's almost entirely in the form of Carbon 14, which is abundant in the environment.

and black lung is a miners myth, all so they can get free monies and not have to work.

 

[Moonglow]

The energy companies have had plenty of time to meet existing environmental regulations. They have failed to do so, and will continue to fail to do so until they are forced to.

Horseshit. Existing coal plants meet all existing regulations. They have to. it's the law.

What we're talking about here is new draconian regulations that the Obama brownshirts have conjured up.

got any proof ?

 

[bripat9643]

It is too much to ask of the energy companies that they don't destroy our water with mercury?

Spend some fucking money and put in the scrubbers that are going to clean up this mess, you cheap fucking bastards.

No one is "destroying our water." Coal plants are far cleaner than they were 40 years ago, and no one was dropping dead then from environmental mercury poisoning. This is just another Obama scheme to drive up the cost of electricity from coal.

 

[bripat9643]

It is too much to ask of the energy companies that they don't destroy our water with mercury?

Spend some fucking money and put in the scrubbers that are going to clean up this mess, you cheap fucking bastards.

And then you'll bitch that your power bill goes up.

Yeah, they'll blame that on greedy corporations making obscene profits!

 

[Disenchanted61]

The energy companies have had plenty of time to meet existing environmental regulations. They have failed to do so, and will continue to fail to do so until they are forced to.

Horseshit. Existing coal plants meet all existing regulations. They have to. it's the law.

What we're talking about here is new draconian regulations that the Obama brownshirts have conjured up.

The poor coal industry is being held to a standard that the rest of the population is; OH BOO FUCKING HOO!! QUIT YOUR BITCHIN !!

 

[Moonglow]

. Have you ever heard of anyone getting sick from environment mercury?

.

Although it is less toxic than methylmercury, elemental mercury may be found in higher concentrations in environments such as gold mine sites, where it has been used to extract gold. If elemental mercury is ingested, it is absorbed relatively slowly and may pass through the digestive system without causing damage. Ingestion of other common forms of mercury, such as the salt HgCl2, which damages the gastrointestinal tract and causes kidney failure, is unlikely from environmental sources.

Mercury in the Environment

 

[Moonglow]

It is too much to ask of the energy companies that they don't destroy our water with mercury?

Spend some fucking money and put in the scrubbers that are going to clean up this mess, you cheap fucking bastards.

And then you'll bitch that your power bill goes up.

Yeah, they'll blame that on greedy corporations making obscene profits!

power plants are a govt. subsidised monopoly

 

[tonystewart1]

We need solutions.

The tree-huggers won't let us build nuke plants, the Chinese are building new coal plants at an alarming rate and we can't stop them from polluting our air.

I'm seeing more regulations and fewer solutions. It's obvious Obama doesn't have any answers so he allows the EPA to regulate us back into the Stone Age.

coal is more than clean enough. Have you ever heard of anyone getting sick from environment mercury? The fact is there are plenty of natural sources of mercury that spew far more into the environment than man made coal plants. The later is trivial in comparison.

The radiation danger is also trivial. It's almost entirely in the form of Carbon 14, which is abundant in the environment.

and black lung is a miners myth, all so they can get free monies and not have to work.

You dont have to worry about black lung when you strip mine like me.

 

[Moonglow]

coal is more than clean enough. Have you ever heard of anyone getting sick from environment mercury? The fact is there are plenty of natural sources of mercury that spew far more into the environment than man made coal plants. The later is trivial in comparison.

The radiation danger is also trivial. It's almost entirely in the form of Carbon 14, which is abundant in the environment.

and black lung is a miners myth, all so they can get free monies and not have to work.

You dont have to worry about black lung when you strip mine like me.

do u tip the strippers?

 

[tonystewart1]

Coal is not going to go away. We can not power this country without it.

 

[tonystewart1]

and black lung is a miners myth, all so they can get free monies and not have to work.

You dont have to worry about black lung when you strip mine like me.

do u tip the strippers?

I would not pay any of the dudes at work to strip for me.

 

[Moonglow]

it is one of our largest resources. But the largest part is low grade

 

[tonystewart1]

it is one of our largest resources. But the largest part is low grade

Even low grade coal can be cleaned and processed as a good source of energy.

 

[bripat9643]

The energy companies have had plenty of time to meet existing environmental regulations. They have failed to do so, and will continue to fail to do so until they are forced to.

Horseshit. Existing coal plants meet all existing regulations. They have to. it's the law.

What we're talking about here is new draconian regulations that the Obama brownshirts have conjured up.

The poor coal industry is being held to a standard that the rest of the population is; OH BOO FUCKING HOO!! QUIT YOUR BITCHIN !!

What sulfur dioxide emission controls am I subject to?

Consumers are the ones who will get in the ass when these regulations are enforced, disptick.

What a moron.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is too much to ask of the energy companies that they don't destroy our water with mercury?

Spend some fucking money and put in the scrubbers that are going to clean up this mess, you cheap fucking bastards.

One CFL bulb in 6000 gallons of water exceeds the EPA mercury standard.. Care to condemn the bastards that are forcing THAT choice on every consumer???

Actually, modern CFLs (from the same Stanford study) only have enough to make about a 1000 gallons of water unsafe to drink. 1000 gallons is about as much water as is in one of the small inflatable back yard soaking tubs that some people call "pools." You know, those 10' diameter, 2.5' deep kiddie splashers. The mercury (not to mention radioactive particulates, sulfur compounds, arsenic, fly ash, and CO2) emitted by the power plants to make up the difference between the energy to power a modern CFL, or even more importantly LED, lighting over compensates many hundred fold any minor release that may occur from the rare CFL that ends up broken and in a landfill. There are recycle centers everywhere for the CFL bulbs and you only need to change them every decade or so. If that bothers you buy the LED bulbs, no mercury, more efficient than even the CFLs, and they will last several decades.

Frequently Asked Questions
Information on Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) and Mercury
November 2010
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

What are mercury emissions caused by humans?

EPA estimates the U.S. is responsible for the release of 103 metric tons1 of mercury emissions each year. More than half of these emissions come from coal-fired electrical power. Mercury released into the air is the main way that mercury gets into water and bio-accumulates in fish. (Eating fish contaminated with mercury is the main way for humans to be exposed.) Most mercury vapor inside fluorescent light bulbs becomes bound to the inside of the light bulb as it is used. EPA estimates that the rest of the mercury within a CFL – about 11 percent – is released into air or water when it is sent to a landfill, assuming the light bulb is broken. Therefore, if all 272 million CFLs3 sold in 2009 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) – they would add 0.12 metric tons, or 0.12 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans.

How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light
bulbs?

Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.3 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 3.9 mg. EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.

I've since done a partial fact check on this and I'm convinced it's a mangled interpretation of different studies.. There is the fact that the majority of mercury in USED bulbs does bind to phosphor and glass over time. But if you break that bulb and allow it to sit in a landfill for a couple years, almost ALL of the mercury is subject to leaching into groundwater and even landfill vapors..

The disconnect came from studies showing that the bound Mercury was released OVER TIME. And the 11% seems to come from the 24 hour mark for vapors being released from the "binding". That was the period the EPA initially used to determine the exposure risk for say a HOUSEHOLD accident where the homeowner would only be exposed to a fraction of that mercury.. THAT -- makes GOOD science.. Lowers the clean-up hazard.

However -- this thing went viral and crazy when that factoid get to the DOEnergy Saver folks. THey mistakenly assumed this 11% number in their TOTAL mercury exposure once the bulbs hit the landfill.. THAT -- makes BAD science. So all of their "savings" over burning coal numbers seem to be WAAAAY off and the bad estimate is now legend all over the net without looking at the facts..

Here's one study from NIH confirming my suspicions about the phoney use of the 11% number...

Mercury Vapor Release from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps and In Situ Capture by New Nanomaterial Sorbents

The projected increase in the use of compact fluorescent lamps
(CFLs) motivates the development of methods to manage consumer
exposure to mercury and its environmental release at the end of
lamp life. This work characterizes the time-resolved release of
mercury vapor from broken CFLs and from underlying substrates
after removal of glass fragments to simulate cleanup. In new
lamps, mercury vapor is released gradually in amounts that reach
1.3 mg or 30% of the total lamp inventory after four days.
Similar time profiles but smaller amounts are released from spent
lamps or from underlying substrates.

Figure 1 shows time-resolved mercury release data from
two CFL models. The release is initially rapid producing vapor
concentrations from 200−800 μg/m3 during the first hour, which
far exceed the OSHA occupational limits. The release decays on a
time scale of hours and continues at significant rate for at
least four days (data beyond 24 h not shown). The total Hg
released after 24 h is 504 (13 W model) and 113 μg (for 9 W) by
integration, which are 11.1% and 1.9% of the total Hg content
specified by the vendors, respectively. Over 4 days (extended
data not shown), the 13 W bulb released 1.34 mg or 30% of the
total Hg.

Mercury in new lamps is primarily in elemental form, but over
time interacts with the phosphor and glass to produce a more
complex internal partitioning in spent lamps, which contain
elemental, immobile (glass matrix imbedded), and oxidized soluble
forms (3,5,12). Landfill leaching can be minimized by avoiding or
reducing the mercury to water-soluble oxidized forms. Some
manufacturers are reported to incorporate reducing agents in
lamps to improve performance in TCLP testing. This approach may
protect local groundwater but would lead to formation of volatile
elemental mercury and enhanced environmental release of the vapor
in landfill gases.

The graphs in that doc CLEARLY show that MOST ALL of the Mercury WILL get out eventually..