Thanks Barack 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close

[bripat9643]

Never said I was an expert, just that I have more than 30 years experience as a power plant technician. You don't like what I post? Tough shit. Go find another power plant tech to tell me where I'm wrong.

Okay: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...inia-coal-plants-to-close-16.html#post4807756

He's a "technician," which means he changes a light bulb or greases a pump in the facility. The idea that he knows why management makes a decision to decommission a perfectly good power plant doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[DaGoose]

Never said I was an expert, just that I have more than 30 years experience as a power plant technician. You don't like what I post? Tough shit. Go find another power plant tech to tell me where I'm wrong.

Okay: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...inia-coal-plants-to-close-16.html#post4807756

He's a "technician," which means he changes a light bulb or greases a pump in the facility. The idea that he knows why management makes a decision to decommission a perfectly good power plant doesn't pass the laugh test.

Even if that was all I did would be about 100% more than what you've ever done, right?

And by the way, these wdere NOT "perfectly good power plants". They were old, decrepit, run down plants that were only used for peaking.

You won't find any "perfectly good power plants" closing down.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...inia-coal-plants-to-close-16.html#post4807756

He's a "technician," which means he changes a light bulb or greases a pump in the facility. The idea that he knows why management makes a decision to decommission a perfectly good power plant doesn't pass the laugh test.

Even if that was all I did would be about 100% more than what you've ever done, right?

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Which means I understand the physical processes that make coal fired power plants work. When I was in school I had to take a course called "engineering economics," where I learne how to determine whether a given engineering project is economically feasible.

What training do you have?

And by the way, these wdere NOT "perfectly good power plants". They were old, decrepit, run down plants that were only used for peaking.

You won't find any "perfectly good power plants" closing down.

They produced electric power the way they were designed to, so they were perfectly good. An old plant that costs nothing is a lot better option than spending $500 million or $1 billion to build a new one that will only be in use a small fraction of the year.

 

[bripat9643]

Coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants are built (and approved by the gov't to operate) with a defined life expectancy. That's true with passenger planes, as well.

That's pure horseshit. Power plants and passenger planes have an expected life expectancy, not a "defined life expectancy." There is no clause on any document that says the plant is licensed to operate for so many years and then has to be decommissioned. As long as it's cost effective to maintain them, both airplanes and power plants can continue to operate as long as the owners wish to operate them. There are still numerous DC 3s in service that are over 60 years old.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Very often, utility operaters request, and receive, extensions to operate those power plants after their initial licensed operation period has passed. But they're not built to operate forever, just like passenger planes are not licensed to be flown forever.

Deal with it!

It's fun to watch nimrods like you making stuff up.

 

[bripat9643]

NO NO NO!!! Obama spent hours "conspiring" on how to put 100 people in the boonies out of work!!! This had nothing to do with safety, obsolete technology or anything else! Obama personally figured out a way to put 100 people out of work!!!!

You just made a fool of yourself by defending an idiocy.

 

[DaGoose]

He's a "technician," which means he changes a light bulb or greases a pump in the facility. The idea that he knows why management makes a decision to decommission a perfectly good power plant doesn't pass the laugh test.

Even if that was all I did would be about 100% more than what you've ever done, right?

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Which means I understand the physical processes that make coal fired power plants work. When I was in school I had to take a course called "engineering economics," where I learne how to determine whether a given engineering project is economically feasible.

What training do you have?

(I've been going to "school" for more than 30 years and have my entire livelyhood invested in coal power plants. That's my training. And yes, we have engineers on the payroll as well.)

And by the way, these wdere NOT "perfectly good power plants". They were old, decrepit, run down plants that were only used for peaking.

You won't find any "perfectly good power plants" closing down.

They produced electric power the way they were designed to, so they were perfectly good. An old plant that costs nothing is a lot better option than spending $500 million or $1 billion to build a new one that will only be in use a small fraction of the year.

But if a new one is built it won't be used "just a small fraction of the year". With new plants you get higher efficiency and less pollution and they would be used as base load.

An added bonus is that with new plant construction you get thousands of good paying jobs, plus millions in materials, as well as hundreds of good paying permanent jobs.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I have to say Indie... I don't quite know how to take the observation:

You sound like a Liberal Elitist!

Cause I sure as hell hate elitism and liberalism.

I would never have guessed! While I have Liberal to VERY Liberal views on some things (e.g. I really don't give a shet if Suzie marries Sally) I also have Conservative to VERY Conservative views on others (I think you've seen my posts on unions and yes, I'm a Christian - although not a "fire n brimstone" variety. I find merits in both.

I did college multiple times, hated it. Realized I learned far better on my own and did so. I have all sorts of stuff packed in the head which make me dangerous as hell for Trivia games.

The Ecofascisti... at one time, like unions, there was a purpose for them. There is a distinct benefit for protection from hidden dangers, abuse and mismanagement in both the environment and work. If you are Christian, you should pay attention to Genesis and realize that God commissioned us to be 'good stewards' of the Earth, even though we sinned and fucked up the sweet deal we had in Eden. That of course means that you should respect and manage nature and try to live in harmony with it. Of course, that does not mean you should be subjugated to it, for you are still on top of it all and are supposed to be responsible.

We do not leave the Earth for our children, we are borrowing it from them

So looping back to if there is merit? Absolutely. I'm a conservationist. Manage, don't submit. But, with every issue in the environment, from treatment of animals to pollution, really, there is a need to prove that what you are doing is a help. For instance, Kudzu was brought over to help shore up railroad cuts quickly. Nobody knew that this invasive species could be so dangerous to the south. Best intentions often go awry and that is why we must be so careful in what we choose to do in regards to the environment and never act too quickly.

Pollution really comes down to this for me, you don't shit where you sleep. Pollution often comes from necessary activity to survive. It's the curse of life and the modern western civ has some very nasty waste issues that need to be dealt with. That said, when we fix a problem, we should not automatically go off and continually tighten till an extreme is met. There are many pollutants in daily life that are relatively harmless. Car exhaust outside, for instance, stinks, but generally, unless you are unhealthy is not going to harm you. Your body can tolerate it. On the other hand, in your house for a prolonged period, you're gonna be bright pink and pushing up daisys soon. The response needs to balance the need to live life in the most efficent way possible, and not over react and try to create a 'no risk' impossible to reach world.

I'm probably more environmentally consciencsious than you. I remember growing up in Detroit when the joke was you could walk across Lake Erie without getting wet. The toxic waste and garbage dumped into our waters by the Auto industry was way outta control until the Feds came in (State govt. was in the pocket of the Big 3 - any surprise there). I also lived in San Diego when SDG&E was found guilty of wrongful death of all those children. Jeez was that a horrible story to witness. Then there's 3 Mile Island and the investigative journalist who busted the Yankee Nuke plant in the NE. So when it comes to err, I have no problem with erring on the side of safety.

The only thing I say I find flat out bullshit is Anthropogenic climate control. Consensus is not science, facts are. There are too many conflicting facts and not enough conclusive proof to generate enough justification to do a damn thing. I require a 'court level' degree of proof. Direct harm/cause must be shown while any solution must not be too espensive or inconvenient for the measure of improvement in life that is directly possible to the solution. This test cannot be met by anyone currently screaming "The Sky Is Falling!", and therefore, the policy should remain at 'no change'. When that information DOES become available, with a reasonable plan to stop it, then I would be for implementing it.

This is one where I severely piss off my LibDem friends. I don't dispute it's possible, I just don't see that it's been definitely proven. I remember hearing that the volcano in Iceland spewed as much CO2 in a couple weeks as every car in South America in a year. So much for feeling guilty about driving a huge, gas guzzling luxury car

As for my Avvie. That's Jimmer Nagumanee from Menominee! How could you not know the Jimmer? Boopity-BOOP!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VBTGgAKAcA]jimmer chevy took shit - YouTube[/ame]

Although we disagree sometimes (because you're obviously WRONG at those times!), I like your posts. Like me, you never fire unless fired upon (and then we both let loose a broadside here and there) and engage in actual debate.

 

[bripat9643]

But if a new one is built it won't be used "just a small fraction of the year". With new plants you get higher efficiency and less pollution and they would be used as base load.

Wrong. The plants were use for peaking power. If they take those plants offline, they still need a source of peaking power. That means they will probably be replaced by natural gas plants that utilize gas turbines to produce power. The cost will be hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. The people who pay for it will be the power company's customers.

All your blather about the retired coal plants being "old" an "decrepit" doesn't change a thing. They will still have to be replaced, and the cost will be astronomical.

An added bonus is that with new plant construction you get thousands of good paying jobs, plus millions in materials, as well as hundreds of good paying permanent jobs.

Spending money you didn't have to spend is not a "bonus." There may be added jobs in the construction industry, but that means fewer jobs somewhere else. What you have expressed above is called "the broken window fallacy."

 

[starcraftzzz]

The original poster is a tool. Shutting down old coal plants that cause massive pollution is a good thing. Coal plants/mining in the Appalachia region costs the region 5 times more then the economic benefits of the mining

 

[Chris]

OMG!

Three old polluting plants had to close!

Thanks President Obama for protecting America from corporate greed.

 

[IndependntLogic]

NO NO NO!!! Obama spent hours "conspiring" on how to put 100 people in the boonies out of work!!! This had nothing to do with safety, obsolete technology or anything else! Obama personally figured out a way to put 100 people out of work!!!!

You just made a fool of yourself by defending an idiocy.

So do you ever have anything more substantive to offer than puerile insults or is that the extent of your interactive abilities? Honestly, I don't know that I've ever seen you once reply to someone with a differing opinion, in which you acknowledged the possibility that any opinion other than your own could be valid or (heaven forbid!) that you were ever just wrong about something. Perhaps that's just who you are. If so, you're not alone.

So you have a BSME. That's fine. I'm a business guy myself (although through weird circumstances, my major ended up being theology). Let's discuss or clarify what seems to be your assertations.

It is a fact that the plants being closed are very old and use archaic technology. They also produce less than 1% of the power generated in the area. You seem to think this is a conspiracy by Obama (c'mon seriously???) and not just a matter of a cost / benefit analysis that determined it would be cheaper to close them and shift production or open new facilities. Care to back that up with say, facts? Evidence?

You have also asserted that the new regs do nothing to protect the lives of those living in the area or reduce the measured & verified heightened incidence of lung and other disease in the areas where these plants are located. As far as I know, the regs require that less measurable toxins be produced. Counterpoint?

Let's just start with two simple points and see if it's possible for you to do something other than dodge, change the subject, blame Obama or sling petty insults. If you have something of substance to offer, I have already displayed an open mind with Big Fitz and am happy to consider what you would like to share.

 

[bripat9643]

The original poster is a tool. Shutting down old coal plants that cause massive pollution is a good thing. Coal plants/mining in the Appalachia region costs the region 5 times more then the economic benefits of the mining

Another libturd moron pulling stuff out of his ass.

 

[bripat9643]

OMG!

Three old polluting plants had to close!

Thanks President Obama for protecting America from corporate greed.

Yeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.

 

[starcraftzzz]

OMG!

Three old polluting plants had to close!

Thanks President Obama for protecting America from corporate greed.

Yeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.

Better then their children dying from coal plant pollution. When you include health and environmental costs coal costs 2 time more then green energy and green energy create 3 times more jobs

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.

Better then their children dying from coal plant pollution. When you include health and environmental costs coal costs 2 time more then green energy and green energy create 3 times more jobs

No one ever died from living near a coal plant. No one has ever even gotten sick. When you include health and environmental costs, coal is even cheaper in comparison to green energy. A reliable source of energy prevents food from spoiling and hospitals from shutting down.

The claim that green energy "creates three times more jobs" means it's 1/3 as efficient in terms of labor costs.

You're a environmental nutburger who is completely devoid of reason and common sense. Nothing you spout bares the slightest resemblance to an actual fact.

 

[DaGoose]

But if a new one is built it won't be used "just a small fraction of the year". With new plants you get higher efficiency and less pollution and they would be used as base load.

Wrong. The plants were use for peaking power. If they take those plants offline, they still need a source of peaking power. That means they will probably be replaced by natural gas plants that utilize gas turbines to produce power. The cost will be hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. The people who pay for it will be the power company's customers.

All your blather about the retired coal plants being "old" an "decrepit" doesn't change a thing. They will still have to be replaced, and the cost will be astronomical.

An added bonus is that with new plant construction you get thousands of good paying jobs, plus millions in materials, as well as hundreds of good paying permanent jobs.

Spending money you didn't have to spend is not a "bonus." There may be added jobs in the construction industry, but that means fewer jobs somewhere else. What you have expressed above is called "the broken window fallacy."

Ok....now I see where you are falling short. You don't understand "peaking".

Peaker plants used to be used to make up shortages when they had a "captive" group of customers.

But all of that changed with deregulation.

Now the only reason peakers are used is for pure economics. We had a couple of old units that were used for peaking (after deregulation) but then we decided to mothball them and build new natural gas units that did not have to be constantly manned yet could be used when the national megawatt price exceeded $50.

Simply put, it does not make good economic sense to use old, worn out power plants for peaking since they are off line much more than on, draw lots of power when they're off and need to be constantly manned and maintained.

IMO the power company execs had already planned to shut these units down. That's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[starcraftzzz]

The original poster is a tool. Shutting down old coal plants that cause massive pollution is a good thing. Coal plants/mining in the Appalachia region costs the region 5 times more then the economic benefits of the mining

Another libturd moron pulling stuff out of his ass.

http://appalachiarising.org/press-and-bloggers/factsheet-on-mountaintop-removal-coal-mining/
Unemployment rates and Surface Mining in Appalachia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
^1)A 2009 report estimates that mountaintop coal mining costs Appalachia five times more than the benefits it receives from mountaintop mining. 42 billion to 8 billion.
^2) residents in major mining locations had a 70% higher chance of having kidney disease a 64% increased chance for chronic pulmonary disease, and a 30% increase chance to have higher blood pressure.
^3) Local governments are propping up the coal industry, taking into account all revenue and expenditures the industry costs the local government of West Virginia 100 million a year and Kentucky 115 million a year.
^4) Local areas with mountaintop mining had an unemployment rate 44% higher than other local areas.

Like always conservatives are ignorant

 

[AmericaFirst88]

Um, your article doesn't mention how most of those employees were offered spots at FirstEnergy's other plants. Besides, demand for coal powered electricity will fall as cities realize that clean energy isn't actually that much more expensive.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Yeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.

Better then their children dying from coal plant pollution. When you include health and environmental costs coal costs 2 time more then green energy and green energy create 3 times more jobs

No one ever died from living near a coal plant. No one has ever even gotten sick. When you include health and environmental costs, coal is even cheaper in comparison to green energy. A reliable source of energy prevents food from spoiling and hospitals from shutting down.

The claim that green energy "creates three times more jobs" means it's 1/3 as efficient in terms of labor costs.

You're a environmental nutburger who is completely devoid of reason and common sense. Nothing you spout bares the slightest resemblance to an actual fact.

Ah. So presenting an ideas or counterpoints without being an azzhole is simply beyond you.
It seemed fairly obvious but I thought what the heck, why not give it a try?

So your assertation is that there has never been a verified and measured anomolous increase in emphysema, lung disease, hypertension, heart attacks etc... specifically in the areas surrounding these plants?
Well, I guess you aren't bothered by things like facts, reality etc... when "debating". Got it.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Yeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.

Better then their children dying from coal plant pollution. When you include health and environmental costs coal costs 2 time more then green energy and green energy create 3 times more jobs

No one ever died from living near a coal plant. No one has ever even gotten sick.

Actually 30,000 people a year die due to living near a coal plant
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress

When you include health and environmental costs, coal is even cheaper in comparison to green energy. A reliable source of energy prevents food from spoiling and hospitals from shutting down.

Electricity from solar/wind keeps refrigerates working and hospitals open the same as coal you thinking else wise is just more evidence to your vast ignorance.

Coal Does More Harm Than Good in Kentucky: $62 Million for Asthma Costs, $10 Billion for Lost Lives | ThinkProgress
^Another study finds that coal mining in Kentucky has a negative impact overall on the economy

Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.

Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.

The claim that green energy "creates three times more jobs" means it's 1/3 as efficient in terms of labor costs.

Has shown above fossil fuels cost 2 times more then green energy.
And green energy create 3 times more jobs
The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy