The Climate Bozos said "Coal is dead!" Oooops

[jc456]

Personally...
That site acknowledges being anti-American and has been caught lying more than a Trump whore.
I wouldn't wipe my glorious ass with anything from there.

Oh, and coal is DEAD.
It's just not smart enough to know it.
Invest away.

But nothing about the information huh? Don’t you just hate when reality smacks the shit out of you?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

How’s that proof? So anyone can just say so and it is? Too funny

Does this actually feel like witty repartee to you?

Really?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

But nothing about the information huh?

Oh wow, jc456 cares about "information"! (But you have to read it to 'em!)

 

[Dadoalex]

But nothing about the information huh? Don’t you just hate when reality smacks the shit out of you?

Information?
From that outhouse?

BWAHAHAHAHA

Try a source that's not proudly anti-American and maybe you can have a discussion.

Till then?
You're just being a useful idiot.

 

[Mac-7]

"The United States provides a number of tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry as a means of encouraging domestic energy production. These include both direct subsidies to corporations, as well as other tax benefits to the fossil fuel industry. Conservative estimates put U.S. direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry at roughly $20 billion per year; with 20 percent currently allocated to coal and 80 percent to natural gas and crude oil. European Union subsidies are estimated to total 55 billion euros annually." (SOURCE)

I was not impressed by the subsidies you found

such as winter heating oil help for poor people

thats more than they get for alternative which poor cannot afford at all

or money given the academia for research

and in $2.5 trillion dollar budget $20 billion is little more than a rounding error

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I was not impressed by the subsidies you found

Don't care.

I made the point that they get direct subsidies and I supported that claim. Regardless of how you "feel" about it.

 

[Mac-7]

That won't impact the other pollution coming off coal. Scrubbers do NOTHING for fly ash and many other up-stack emissions won't be impacted by scrubbers.

Scrubber can get it all if they are engineered to do so

However if libs dont like coal how sbout nuclear energy?

why does the left turn its collective nose at that?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Scrubber can get it all if they are engineered to do so

Don't think so. As I recall scrubbers are for dealing with SOx emissions. While there are some new technologies for lowering the amount of fly ash, the bottom ash is still going to be a problem. Can't fix that with a scrubber. That's why they store it in giant ash ponds. Ash ponds full of toxic metals that, when they leak into nearby rivers, cause all manner of environmental disasters. Like Kingston, TN

However if libs dont like coal how sbout nuclear energy?

Not a fan but realize it is one of the scalable greener energy

why does the left turn its collective nose at that?

Chernobyl, TMI, Fukushima, SL-1, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the list goes on. That's probably why.

I'm actually kind of a fan of the newer technologies that are more "safe" or passively safe. I think there's a place for it, but it isn't going to be an easy sell. It will, ultimately be one of the few options we actually have that we can easily and quickly scale and use.

 

[skookerasbil]

That good in your book?

Do you know what is in coal? (HINT: It isn't just all carbon and hydrogen and oxygen. It contains about every toxic metal on the Periodic Table. That stuff ends up in the fly ash. That stuff doesn't just magically disappear as the good folks of Tennessee can tell you.)

Coal is an easy mark when the going gets tough in terms of energy. If the junky is feeling dopesick they don't necessarily have the strength or resolve to go to proper treatment. Only a hit of the drug will do. That's where we're at right now.

If we had spent more time developing renewables (and not having to debate science with scientific illiterates) we might be better off when tough times hit. But, no, we can't do that because some folks would rather stick with a worse alternative because it's what is "comfortable" to them. Of course most of them don't know the first foreign thing about coal chemistry.

China has been opening 2-3 new coal plants/ mo for years. Will continue that out to 2030. Fact.

Go lobby them....

We need coal so people don't freeze to death. dOy.

 

[skookerasbil]

Don't think so. As I recall scrubbers are for dealing with SOx emissions. While there are some new technologies for lowering the amount of fly ash, the bottom ash is still going to be a problem. Can't fix that with a scrubber. That's why they store it in giant ash ponds. Ash ponds full of toxic metals that, when they leak into nearby rivers, cause all manner of environmental disasters. Like Kingston, TN



Not a fan but realize it is one of the scalable greener energy



Chernobyl, TMI, Fukushima, SL-1, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the list goes on. That's probably why.

I'm actually kind of a fan of the newer technologies that are more "safe" or passively safe. I think there's a place for it, but it isn't going to be an easy sell. It will, ultimately be one of the few options we actually have that we can easily and quickly scale and use.

But show us any evidence the energy policy-makers embrace your concerns!??

Links please.....

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

But show us any evidence the energy policy-makers embrace your concerns!??

Links please.....

What? Are you serious? Don't you read ANYTHING? Wow.

 

[skookerasbil]

What? Are you serious? Don't you read ANYTHING? Wow.

Where is the evidence of any public concern?

Again....links please....

 

[skookerasbil]

Very few concerned much about climate change.....

Bah Bah Booey

The Politics of Climate

If voters don't care, the "science" nothing more than a billboard for human racists...doesn't impact the real world

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Where is the evidence of any public concern?

Again....links please....

This sort of "gambit" is really annoying. It would be as if I came on here and said "Show me a LINK that proves the sky is blue! If you can't you lose".

It's manifestly stupid on its face.

Why are you here arguing about it if no one shows any concern for it?????

 

[Dadoalex]

But nothing about the information huh? Don’t you just hate when reality smacks the shit out of you?

Information?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'd read Archie for information before that shit wipe.

 

[jc456]

Information?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'd read Archie for information before that shit wipe.

Still nothing to refute huh?

 

[Sunsettommy]

This sort of "gambit" is really annoying. It would be as if I came on here and said "Show me a LINK that proves the sky is blue! If you can't you lose".

It's manifestly stupid on its face.

Why are you here arguing about it if no one shows any concern for it?????

You can't answer a simple request.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

You can't answer a simple request.

A "stupid" request is what you meant to type.

 

[skookerasbil]

Heres the thing......

Anybody saying coal is dead is not a serious person.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Heres the thing......

Anybody saying coal is dead is not a serious person.

Forbes aren't serious?

Coal’s Unstoppable Decline Means Carbon Emissions From Electricity Will Keep Dropping For Years To Come

When it comes to carbon emissions coal is king, even though it’s been over 10 years since coal abdicated its throne as the primary source of electricity in the United States.

www.forbes.com

Stanford?

What Is Killing the US Coal Industry?

Other

siepr.stanford.edu

Do you think maybe you are the one who isn't serious?