• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

America prepares to put final nail in economic coffin - Climate Change Buffonery

bshole

bshole

Diamond Member
Complete and utter lunacy. A CATASTROPHIC day in American history. The "cure" turns out to be orders of magnitude worse than the "disease".

So now we will ship OUR coal to fire the engines of manufacture in China.

The rule will help further diminishing coal's role in producing U.S. electricity. Coal, which once supplied about half the nation's electricity, has dropped to 40 percent as it has been replaced by booming supplies of natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and solar.

"Today's proposal from the EPA could singlehandedly eliminate this competitive advantage by removing reliable and abundant sources of energy from our nation's energy mix," Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a statement issued Sunday.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/epa-seek-cut-power-plant-carbon-23950643
 
Last edited:
How_the_public_reacts_to_social_issues_82513e_50.jpg
 
There are far better reasons to reduce coal usage than CO2.

Coal has the highest per Terawatt death count of any fuel type.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Coal contains mercury, uranium and sulphur which are released into the air or stored in giant ash ponds that pollute the environment.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Coal mining does significant ecological damage to lakes, rivers and mountains.

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/strip_mining_of_coal.htm

I am not a big fan of coal and see Nat Gas as a far better alternative.
 
KB said:
I am not a big fan of coal and see Nat Gas as a far better alternative.
Click to expand...

Combined cycle power plants are what will replace the coal fired power plants. However, they have their own problems with NOx emissions which are known to create acid rain.
 
KB said:
There are far better reasons to reduce coal usage than CO2.

Coal has the highest per Terawatt death count of any fuel type.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Coal contains mercury, uranium and sulphur which are released into the air or stored in giant ash ponds that pollute the environment.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

Coal mining does significant ecological damage to lakes, rivers and mountains.

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/strip_mining_of_coal.htm

I am not a big fan of coal and see Nat Gas as a far better alternative.
Click to expand...

First its coal, then its natural gas, the seeds of anti coal have started with the anti fracking movement. The man made global warming movement wont stop until America is destroyed.
 
bshole said:
Complete and utter lunacy. A CATASTROPHIC day in American history. The "cure" turns out to be orders of magnitude worse than the "disease".

So now we will ship OUR coal to fire the engines of manufacture in China.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/epa-seek-cut-power-plant-carbon-23950643
Click to expand...

According to the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a liberal institution, reduction of US emissions by 40% (a full third larger than this!) would cost us approximately 0.2% of our GDP per year. Considering the overwhelming scientific case for AGW and the consequences of it, 0.2% of GDP seems like a pretty fabulously cheap price to pay!

I'm sure this information makes you really happy. Maybe you're just mad that if the world shifted away from fossil fuels as a whole that this would limit Russia's financial ability to invade its neighbors? You were really a big fan of that.
 
KB said:
I am not a big fan of coal and see Nat Gas as a far better alternative.
Click to expand...

One could make the switch in a subtly gentle manner, where the nation encourages Nat Gas and has those built instead of new coal plants. This appears directed at shutting down current coal plants, if not making them very costly to legally maintain. They appear to be rushing this with explicit zeal for CO2 emissions. I only hope it does not threaten the stability of our electrical grid.

You would not want it breaking down in the middle of another winter like 2014. That assuredly would cost lives.
 
Obama's war on coal continues. Why should this surprise anybody? He said he was going to eliminate the cheapest and most abundant source of energy we have. He SAID he was going to make the price of coal energy skyrocket! Energy prices will skyrocket, all part of his plan to kill the middle class.
 
eskimospy said:
According to the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a liberal institution, reduction of US emissions by 40% (a full third larger than this!) would cost us approximately 0.2% of our GDP per year. Considering the overwhelming scientific case for AGW and the consequences of it, 0.2% of GDP seems like a pretty fabulously cheap price to pay!

I'm sure this information makes you really happy. Maybe you're just mad that if the world shifted away from fossil fuels as a whole that this would limit Russia's financial ability to invade its neighbors? You were really a big fan of that.
Click to expand...


I am mad (more like incensed) because I purchased $20K of Peabody Energy (BTU) stock several years back and that investment is now worth $10k. Christ with this shit rule, I am probably better off selling it now and taking the loss. Obama seems determined to destroy my investment. How the hell will coal ever come back with crappy decisions like this?
 
eskimospy said:
According to the Chamber of Commerce, hardly a liberal institution, reduction of US emissions by 40% (a full third larger than this!) would cost us approximately 0.2% of our GDP per year. Considering the overwhelming scientific case for AGW and the consequences of it, 0.2% of GDP seems like a pretty fabulously cheap price to pay!

I'm sure this information makes you really happy. Maybe you're just mad that if the world shifted away from fossil fuels as a whole that this would limit Russia's financial ability to invade its neighbors? You were really a big fan of that.
Click to expand...

Like every other liberal policy, your actions will have the exact opposite of their desired intent. For every percent of US GDP lost, Asia will gain. The demands for the goods and services produced by the US will shift to Asia where they will produce them with even dirtier energy. The net result will be even greater worldwide CO2 and pollution release.
 
drebo said:
I'm all for replacing coal plants with nuclear plants.
Click to expand...

This. But, it will never happen. Everyone will cry about Chernobyl and Fukushima, as if those are even moderately relevant. The Japan incident is the best "if a powerplant is hit by the 3rd largest Earthquake ever recorded AND then by a massive tidal wave, it might leak a little bit! Nuclear power is too dangerous!"
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-guay/chinas-thirst-for-coal-is_b_5358194.html

China is dumping coal regardless, they understand how toxic it has been to their air.


The dangers of burning coal have become increasingly clear to the Chinese public - and the country has already seen an astonishing reduction in the growth of coal consumption and total coal demand. Several high profile banks have predicted China will hit peak coal demand before 2020, and a decline in coal burning and coal pollution would be just around the corner. At the same time, China's clean energy industry is booming, with solar production skyrocketing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top