Without COAL some will be in the dark!!!

[skookerasbil]

Skook, lying is ghey, so stop it. Seriously, a daily caller piece predicting what will happen, but didn't happen?

http://www.analysisgroup.com/upload...ts/publishing/economic_impact_rggi_report.pdf
---
From a consumer perspective, RGGI program impacts are net positive over the study period. Although CO2 allowances tend to raise electricity prices in the near term,
there is also a lowering of prices over time because the states invested so much of the allowance proceeds on energy efficiency programs. RGGI expenditures on energy efficiency programs increase the opportunities for consumers to reduce their energy use and their energy bills. This occurs primarily for electricity, but also for fuel consumed for heating. Lower overall electric load levels resulting from RGGI-funded energy efficiency places downward pressure on electricity prices and energy payments for all electricity consumers, relative to a no-RGGI case. After the early impacts of small electricity price increases, consumers gain because their overall electricity bills go down as a result of this investment in energy efficiency. All told, electricity consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – enjoy a net gain of nearly$1.1 billion, as their overall electric bills drop over time.

This reflects average savings of approximately $25 for residential consumers, $181 for commercial consumers, and $2,493 for industrial consumers over the study period.
Consumers who participate in an energy efficiency program funded by RGGI proceeds actually experience a level of savings much higher than the average savings for all consumers.
---

Whatever you say s0n!!!

The global carbon market has been dead for years now.......Cap and Trade died in the US in 2009............just check out the graph here of carbon prices gigantic collapse in the past several years............yuk...........yuk..............

State of the carbon market in 2013 is so sick the World Bank cancelled the report JoNova



And as per usual, Mamooth is a total liar on the costs of electricity..........of all the states in the union, northeast rates are HIGHEST!!!!


BUT DONT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.........CHECK OUT THIS GRAPH >>>>


5 charts that explain U.S. electricity prices Utility Dive


Yep ahhhhhhh ( takes toke of ciggy in classic Denis Leary fashion!!). Savings!!!


Vermont soon pulling out of RGGI and New Jersey already gone!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Dang I love this forum!!!

 

[mamooth]

Speaking of losers, here are how the major coal company stocks have been doing. I hope no one other than Skook has followed the Skook investment plan.

Arch Coal, Inc. (ACI)
05/06/2015 9.99
08/07/2015 1.35

Peabody Enegy (BTU)
05/06/2015 4.67
08/07/2015 1.12

Alpha Natural Resources (ANR)
No data. Delisted after recently filing for bankruptcy.

Alpha Natural Resources Files For Chapter 11 What Now - Alpha Natural Resources Inc. NYSE ANR Seeking Alpha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bottom line is and its not even debatable....................coal will be king of electricity generation for decades to come all over the world but particularly in China and India who will be using massive tonnage in coal.

Renewables?

Fringe energy source.

But don't take my word for it........check the 2015 Obama EIA graphs out to 2040!!

How can that be? Matt stated coal dead and used Germany as his proof. Ask him.

There was a recent report that 78% of all power came from Renewables for Germany for a short period of time.

I agree with Doniger that the numbers from Europe are scary. Consider Germany, which has mandated huge increases in renewable energy. Between early 2007 and late 2014, residential electricity prices (for households that consumed between 2,500 and 5,000 kilowatt-hours per year) rose by more than 40 percent, going from $0.23 cents to $0.33 per kilowatt-hour. Those prices — which are readily available on Eurostat and include all taxes — jumped at the same time Germany’s solar capacity increased 17-fold and wind capacity more than doubled.

Read more at: Clean Power Plan -- Kill Jobs Increase Poverty National Review Online

 

[jc456]

The third world is skipping the overly-expensive grid and going straight to renewables.

Deniers hate that. Deniers probably also hate the fact that the third world skipped landlines and went straight to cellphones. They seem to want the third world to have to spend more money for inferior tech. Well, not just the third world, they want everyone to spend more money.

dude/ dudette, the third world skipped landlines because of costs. That's been known for years. The cell phones are not as reliable, it is sad they are too poor to deploy cable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Can one of you eco-nauts explain to me how it is that cannot burn coal cleanly --- but yet you can add GWatts of "biomass conversion" which is burning garbage and trees and call it GREEN and CLEAN??

There were LOTS of biomass groupies in England until they started to build them.. NOW they enviros HATE them. Because they were DUPED.. Which is easy to do with a eco-naut.. Go back and look at your list of "alternatives" for ELECTRICITY production and tell me whether garbage incineration ought to be on there if COAL can't be burned cleanly...

 

[mamooth]

The liberals have always hated garbage incinerators.

And they understand the difference between biomass and garbage.

 

[flacaltenn]

The liberals have always hated garbage incinerators.

And they understand the difference between biomass and garbage.

Down to your last life this week cat... It's always a bait and switch as they found out in England once a couple dozen of these plants were approved.. Never enough "trees or wood chips" to keep the plant running so you extend your list of fuels to stuff that actually garbage sooner or later..

In fact, the EPA allowed burning of trees in many COAL plants as a "green offset" for the owners of those plants. A move that just strangles credibility of the priests of Green that bless that crap...


http://www.sierraclubmass.org/issues/conservation/biomass/biomass.html

Impacts of Biomass Energy include:
Large scale biomass used primarily for electricity generation is extremely inefficient and emits 1.5 times as much CO2 than a coal-fired power plant.

Claims of “carbon neutrality” for biomass do not account for externalities and full lifecycle accounting of carbon, including harvesting processing and transportation of fuels. Truckloads of biomass fuel would need to be transported on regional roads, adding to diesel particulate pollution and additional fuel use.
Large scale biomass calls for the harvesting of millions of trees on tens of thousands of acres - some of it on state forest lands. Multiple facilities proposed in MA all claim competing areas for harvesting fuel at a rate that is not sustainable.

Biomass consumes and removes organic forest material, including that which would normally remain behind and contribute to the forests ongoing ability to sequester carbon.
Burning biomass can release carcinogenic substances and particulates in our air water.
Biomass facilities evaporate and/or otherwise use massive volumes of water to operate and can impact rivers, streams, and water supplies.
Conclusion
The Sierra Club has significant concerns over the production of energy from biomass, including the net emissions of CO2 and airborne toxins, the inefficiency of biomass energy production, impact on ecosystems and public health, and assumptions made regarding “carbon neutrality” of such operations.

Biomass Incineration Energy Justice Network

"Green" biomass (like energy crops) is often a foot in the door for more toxic waste streams. Plants that start off burning "clean wood chips" can easily turn to burning more contaminated fuels (which may be cheaper or even free), or get paid to take really dirty wastes like trash or tires. Economic pressures encourage use of these dirtier fuels.


UK biomass industry under fire over incinerators - 28 Jul 2008 - News from BusinessGreen

Plans for a huge increase in waste-to-energy plants across the UK are at risk of being "derailed" as a result of protests from green groups campaigning against local waste incinerators.

That is the stark warning from David Williams, chief executive of renewable energy specialist Eco2 and chairman of the Biomass Sub Group on the government's Renewable Advisory Board.

Speaking to BusinessGreen.com, Williams said that groups such as Friends of the Earth were seeking to stir up public opposition to waste-to-energy facilities at a time when the government has just signalled its support for the technology as part of its new renewable energy strategy.

"Every few years the government puts forward a renewables strategy including incineration, only for groups like Friends of the Earth to campaign against it, " he said. "Every time the government has backed down and there is always a chance it could happen again."

His comments came as Friends of the Earth last week joined with campaign group the UK Without Incineration Network (UK WIN) to release a map showing that over 100 waste incinerators are currently being planned across the UK.

Michael Warhurst, senior resource use campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said that the planned incinerators would lead to high levels of pollution for local communities and result in millions of tonnes of recyclable material being wasted.


Like I said -- they end up being garbage incinerators because of demand for fuel.
And you didn't answer ANY of my questions. Like how come you cant burn coal cleanly if you can burn trees and tires cleanly and greenly..

Seems to me we got an alternative to scratch off YOUR list here. And maybe, if the eco-nauts get wind of the fact that geothermal is a dirty non-renewable fracking operation, that one just might have to go as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bait and Switch -- Burning tires as GREEN...

Turning waste residue and biomass into clean energy ReEnergy Holdings

Blessed and multiplied by those crazy Calis.. Fuels INCLUDE garbage (MSW Municipal Solid Waste)
It's the Greening of America folks.. Garbage incinerators are A -OK !!!!

Waste to Energy Biomass in California

Coal plants are not.. Go figure....

 

[mamooth]

And you didn't answer ANY of my questions. Like how come you cant burn coal cleanly if you can burn trees and tires cleanly and greenly.

Don't ask me to defend your strawman. Nobody think tires can be burned cleanly. That's your strange fantasy.

Actual garbage can't be burned cleanly. Coal can't be burned cleanly. Wood and other actual biomass can be burned cleanly. It's not that complicated. If you can't figure it out, I don't know what to say.

 

[flacaltenn]

One more kitty so that you get it.. Instead of biomass conversation being a bait and switch on mindnumb eco-nauts, I like the way this is phrased..


11. “It’s sort of like Ben & Jerry’s playing a role in dieting,” said Jeff Tittel, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club of New Jersey, referring to the energy-from-waste facilities run by Covanta. “They’re trying to change the name, but in the end it’s still incineration.”

Covanta s waste-burning plants are controversial but seen as energy solution NJ.com

More ANTI garbage burning at this Sierra Club site..
Sierra Club Incinerator Free Mecklenburg

Apparently Mammoth doesn't KNOW much about the "difference between biomass and incineration". Because in practice --- there IS NOT ANY...

 

[flacaltenn]

And you didn't answer ANY of my questions. Like how come you cant burn coal cleanly if you can burn trees and tires cleanly and greenly.

Don't ask me to defend your strawman. Nobody think tires can be burned cleanly. That's your strange fantasy.

Actual garbage can't be burned cleanly. Coal can't be burned cleanly. Wood and other actual biomass can be burned cleanly. It's not that complicated. If you can't figure it out, I don't know what to say.

1) You didn't read ANY of the links provided because CALI says burning municipal waste "PROVIDES A SOURCE OF CLEAN ENERGY".. Stop wasting my time...

2) This technology was SOLD as Clean and Green and ended up burning ship just like a garbage incinerator and the fuel streams INCLUDE tires..

3) I DON'T agree that it's impossible to burn coal or trash cleanly. We might never KNOW how far you can push that limit because regulations won't allow EXperimentation with Clean Coal or Clean incineration.. SOMEONE will do it. And it won't be IN AMERICA.. And you and all your ecofraud buddies will wonder why it didn't happen here.

4) You still didn't answer the questions..

 

[flacaltenn]

And you didn't answer ANY of my questions. Like how come you cant burn coal cleanly if you can burn trees and tires cleanly and greenly.

Don't ask me to defend your strawman. Nobody think tires can be burned cleanly. That's your strange fantasy.

Actual garbage can't be burned cleanly. Coal can't be burned cleanly. Wood and other actual biomass can be burned cleanly. It's not that complicated. If you can't figure it out, I don't know what to say.

You are so awfullly confused. You think wood and other actual biomass CAN be burned cleanly??

Then Why the FUCK is EPA and most states cracking down on woodstoves and fireplaces? If a coal plant gets a waiver to burn TREES -- would that be fine with you???

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing........these AGW climate crusading cheesedicks think we are on the precipice of saying "bye-bye" to coal!!!

OK

Good luck s0nnnnnnnnnnnnns!!!!

 

[mamooth]

Then Why the FUCK is EPA and most states cracking down on woodstoves and fireplaces?

They're not. The EPA is quite happy with my fireplace. The EPA is cracking down on woodburning stuff that burns wood poorly and emits lots of particulates. As my fireplace demonstrates, it's quite possible to burn wood much more cleanly.

If a coal plant gets a waiver to burn TREES -- would that be fine with you???

Sure.

Now, the issue of where the trees come from is a totally different discussion, and sort of a red herring. The point is that wood doesn't leave toxic stuff all over, and that wood grows back and absorbs the carbon again, while coal doesn't.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then Why the FUCK is EPA and most states cracking down on woodstoves and fireplaces?

They're not. The EPA is quite happy with my fireplace. The EPA is cracking down on woodburning stuff that burns wood poorly and emits lots of particulates. As my fireplace demonstrates, it's quite possible to burn wood much more cleanly.

If a coal plant gets a waiver to burn TREES -- would that be fine with you???

Sure.

Now, the issue of where the trees come from is a totally different discussion, and sort of a red herring. The point is that wood doesn't leave toxic stuff all over, and that wood grows back and absorbs the carbon again, while coal doesn't.

That's your story? That tree/brush burning at a coal plant would put no toxics or particulates or noxious gases into the air and the ASH would be free of contaminants? Maybe you better go read a bit...

 

[mamooth]

1) You didn't read ANY of the links provided because CALI says burning municipal waste "PROVIDES A SOURCE OF CLEAN ENERGY".. Stop wasting my time...

How about you stop pretending your strawmen and red herrings represent some kind of liberal opinion?

I see the actual liberals opposing garbage burning. You even gave us some links to the liberals opposing garbage burning. Can you make up your mind and pick one side to argue?

2) This technology was SOLD as Clean and Green and ended up burning ship just like a garbage incinerator and the fuel streams INCLUDE tires.

Which would have nothing to do with liberals. It's not the liberals building the trash burners. So your whole argument goes boom.

3) I DON'T agree that it's impossible to burn coal or trash cleanly. We might never KNOW how far you can push that limit because regulations won't allow EXperimentation with Clean Coal or Clean incineration.. SOMEONE will do it. And it won't be IN AMERICA.. And you and all your ecofraud buddies will wonder why it didn't happen here.

Ah, invoking magical future technology. Why not just scream that liberals are blocking fusion power? Same difference.

4) You still didn't answer the questions..

You just don't like the answers.

All you've shown is that somebody pulled a bait and switch. Then you pulled a bait and switch, declared it was the liberals doing it.

 

[mamooth]

That's your story? That tree/brush burning at a coal plant would put no toxics or particulates or noxious gases into the air and the ASH would be free of contaminants.

No, it seems to be your story, so don't expect me to defend it.

You're quite talented at making these strawmen.

 

[skookerasbil]

Then Why the FUCK is EPA and most states cracking down on woodstoves and fireplaces?

They're not. The EPA is quite happy with my fireplace. The EPA is cracking down on woodburning stuff that burns wood poorly and emits lots of particulates. As my fireplace demonstrates, it's quite possible to burn wood much more cleanly.

If a coal plant gets a waiver to burn TREES -- would that be fine with you???

Sure.

Now, the issue of where the trees come from is a totally different discussion, and sort of a red herring. The point is that wood doesn't leave toxic stuff all over, and that wood grows back and absorbs the carbon again, while coal doesn't.

Who worries about shit like this?


Dang the social oddballs weird me...........

 

[skookerasbil]

AGW climate crusaders live in a perpetual state of the land of the lost..............the most naïve amongst the sheep

They Live We Sleep A Dictatorship Disguised as a Democracy Washington s Blog