Every Dawgtalker that has disputed anthropogenic climate change
BREITBART
Simon Kent
1 Dec 2019
Pelosi Flying out with Democrats to U.N. Climate Meeting in Spain
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will fly out Sunday with a large delegation of congressional Democrats heading 3,781 miles across the Atlantic to the United Nations COP25 climate change conference in Madrid.
A key element of the conference will seek to place financial penalties on global commercial aviation to stop people flying and making “unnecessary contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution.” The Pelosi delegation will join almost 25,000 people and 1500 journalists flying into the Spanish capital to attend the meeting.
So you can have nice breath when you walk your lady out to the car.
Instead of peppers and onions from the burger you ate.
Are peppers and onions actually unpleasant smells, or have the companies that market "breath fresheners" just made us believe it is so through years of advertising/conditioning?
I agree that I'd rather not have them blown in my face, but I like the smell when cooking. When does the like/dislike change? Why? Sometimes my tangentially operating brain disturbs me.
Seriously, when are you dropping your debut album?
I know Browns fans seem like they must be masochists and therefor might be into your Scream-O genre, but most of us are past the screaming stage and well on our way to disgusted resignation.
I suppose you did post in the political forum. Including Trump in the title probably would have attracted more screamers.
Or are you not trying to advertise and this is rather the closest you could come up with to screaming into the void?
Mr Squire, I hope you do a better job of representing the Cleveland Browns in southern Colorado, than you do talking climate on this thread.
Your views are antiquated, and will fall. It’s a matter of time
What "talking climate on this thread" did he do? I don't see where he expressed his views. All I see is a link that he posted that probably just shows faulty predictions. I couldn't get it to open.
Seriously, when are you dropping your debut album?
The day donald trump no longer represents the free world.
I’ll be eloquent
Do I sense disgusted resignation?
You've experienced a microcosm of a season of feelings for a typical Browns fan in one thread.
_____________
On the topic of climate change, I listened to Greta Thunberg's speech at COP25. I agreed with most of it.
The question is what do we do about it? Pointing out a problem isn't the same as fixing it. Cutting emissions might not be as easy as it sounds without destabilizing the global economy.
I've actually been kicking around some alternative energy business ideas the past few days. Patent law makes rather dry reading. Discussing technical feasibility with engineers isn't much fun, either.
most of us are past the screaming stage and well on our way to disgusted resignation.
And that's exactly what they're counting on.
They think that if they lie enough, say and do enough outrageous and disgusting things, that soon it will weigh the opposition down to a point we resign ourselves into thinking that has become business as usual and accept it.
most of us are past the screaming stage and well on our way to disgusted resignation.
And that's exactly what they're counting on.
They think that if they lie enough, say and do enough outrageous and disgusting things, that soon it will weigh the opposition down to a point we resign ourselves into thinking that has become business as usual and accept it.
Wait, which they are you referring to?
We were talking about Browns fandom and climate change.
I assume you were implying something more partison. Now that I think about it, I wonder if some Democrats "secretly wanted" Trump to get elected, knowing that after him just about anything they did wouldn't seem (quite so) insane.
I believe basic observations would make it easy to conclude what I was referring to. Unless of course you are one of those who needs to flush your toilet 15 times.
Every Dawgtalker that has disputed anthropogenic climate change
BREITBART
Simon Kent
1 Dec 2019
Pelosi Flying out with Democrats to U.N. Climate Meeting in Spain
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) will fly out Sunday with a large delegation of congressional Democrats heading 3,781 miles across the Atlantic to the United Nations COP25 climate change conference in Madrid.
A key element of the conference will seek to place financial penalties on global commercial aviation to stop people flying and making “unnecessary contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution.” The Pelosi delegation will join almost 25,000 people and 1500 journalists flying into the Spanish capital to attend the meeting.
I believe basic observations would make it easy to conclude what I was referring to. Unless of course you are one of those who needs to flush your toilet 15 times.
It did seem pretty easy.
Today, I might be. I think I may have caught the flu bug that's going around. Maybe at a calling hours yesterday. Not sure what the incubation period is. Or could just be something that I ate.
Your attempt at deflection and avoidance was pretty easy to see, too.
Deflection in this case? Certainly. But I'm not one to avoid things. Sometimes I see certain things I don't feel worthy of my attention however.
Hope you get to feeling better.
My attention isn't necessarily very selective. The pounding headache could be a result of too many disparate thoughts swirling in my mind rather than, or on top of, the flu.
Mr Squire, I hope you do a better job of representing the Cleveland Browns in southern Colorado, than you do talking climate on this thread.
Your views are antiquated, and will fall. It’s a matter of time
What "talking climate on this thread" did he do? I don't see where he expressed his views. All I see is a link that he posted that probably just shows faulty predictions. I couldn't get it to open.
The number one issue we face for continued human survival and nearly 40% of Americans thinks everything is a hoax because of an insane narcissistic racist dolt In the WH.
Not going to bury this one. Hot shot crews are admirable human beings, especially in a burning world.
1851 & 1898 5 mil acres burned with 24 deaths
Five deadliest bushfires on record
(Ranked according to number of fatalities)
1. Black Saturday (VIC), 7-8 Feb 2009
Black Saturday resulted from some of the worst fire conditions ever recorded in Victoria. Record-high temperatures and strong winds after a season of intense drought set the bush alight across the state, causing widespread devastation, 173 fatalities and the destruction of more than 2000 homes.
2. Ash Wednesday (VIC, SA), 16-18 Feb 1983
Widespread drought, gale-force winds, high temperatures and low relative humidity set the scene for a series of fires across Victoria and south-eastern South Australia. Accidents and arsonists started most of the fires, which spread rapidly through scenic residential regions near Melbourne and Adelaide, resulting in the death of 75 people and the destruction of nearly 1900 homes.
3. Black Friday (VIC), 13-20 Jan 1939
Drought conditions and water shortages also preceded Black Friday, but the usual combination of high temperatures, strong winds, and low humidity finally triggered fires throughout bush communities near Melbourne. Well-meaning locals and graziers made the problem worse by trying to use controlled burns to protect themselves from disaster, only to see their good intentions help spread the flames. In all, 71 people were killed and 650 houses were destroyed. A Royal Commission investigation into the fires led to increased fire awareness and prevention efforts throughout Australia.
4. Black Tuesday (TAS), 7 Feb 1967
An unusually abundant spring covered Tasmanian forest floors with litter, providing excess fuel for the bushfire season. Strong northerly winds and high temperatures coupled to help fuel at least 80 different fires across southern Tasmania, which swept over the south-east coast of the state and came within 2km of central Hobart. The fires killed 62 people and razed almost 1300 homes.
5. Gippsland fires and Black Sunday (VIC), 1 Feb-10 Mar 1926
Large areas of Gippsland caught fire, culminating in the Black Sunday fires on 14 February that killed 31 people in Warburton, near Melbourne. Over the two-month period, a total of 60 people were killed.
Fact, statistically speaking, if you voted for Donald Trump, you are possibly, a southern, religious, gun protecting, wealth preserving individual. Human rights must have gotten a pass on the segregation thing, huh?
Your antiquated ideology will fall, and will fall hard.
So your saying it hasn't been the hottest and driest summer on record? And thus is the first time people have been arrested for staying fires?
No, he's saying that climate change didn't start the fires.
People start fires all the time - in Australia and all over the world. In the USA 85% of forest fires are caused by humans.
But that's not the "story" and it's not why climate change is a factor. The reason climate change is a factor is how widespread and vast the fires are and how they cannot be extinguished.
Anyone want to guess WHY the fires are so widespread, vast and hard to extinguish??
I mean I know it's a catchy little thing to write those inane and thoughtless, clueless sentences trying to suggest that there is no climate change because people have been arrested for arson. But how absurd and ignorant does someone want to be?
Arizona Pastor: ‘God’s Judgement’ Responsible For Australian Wildfires
Blame God For The Fires: Arizona Pastor Steven Anderson claims the catastrophic wildfires in Australia are being caused by God because Australia has been “banning and deporting preachers of the Gospel.”
Pastor Anderson, the founder of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Arizona, gave God all the credit for the devastating fires destroying Australia earlier this week via Facebook.
On his church’s Facebook page Anderson declares:
Maybe if Australia weren't banning and deporting preachers of the Gospel, they wouldn't be under the judgment of God.
Australia officially banned Pastor Anderson from entering the country last July, and for good reason. The man is a deplorable human being and a promoter of Christian hate. Known as the “death to gays” pastor, Anderson frequently calls for the execution of LGBT people.
For those unfamiliar with Pastor Anderson, he is an obnoxious Christian extremist with a history of preaching a hateful and extreme Christian fundamentalism. Previously the Arizona pastor has called for the public execution of gays and lesbians, and prayed for the death of Caitlyn Jenner.
Anderson, the founder of Arizona’s Faithful Word Baptist Church, an “Independent Fundamental Baptist” church that uses only the King James version of the Bible, leads a hyper-conservative, virulently anti-gay congregation, and has previously called on the government to establish a Biblically mandated death penalty for LGBT people.
In the past the controversial pastor has used the Bible to explain why women should not have the right to vote, the right to work outside the home, or the right to seek a divorce.
In addition, Anderson has defended the institution of slavery “because the Bible’s always right.”
In short, Pastor Anderson is a dangerous Christian extremist who takes the Bible literally, even when doing so leads to morally reprehensible positions, such as defending the death penalty for gays.
In addition to being banned by Australia last July, Botswana arrested and deported Anderson in 2016 for hate speech; in 2018 Anderson was banned from Jamaica and was ejected from South Africa, and last year the “good Christian man” was banned from the Netherlands.
Bottom line: Arizona Pastor Steven Anderson claims the catastrophic wildfires in Australia are being caused by God because Australia has been “banning and deporting preachers of the Gospel.”
So what you're implicating is that Climate change is the direct cause of wildfires?
While I am not disputing that our climate is changing. How would you explain wildfires before the industrial revolution if you are insinuating climate change deniers are somehow to blame? Wildfires date back 24 million years.
how often do wildfires naturally happen compared to the current douchebags who start lighting them on purpose now?
and science states that the climate has something to do with how long the fires burn. for example, even those the assholes started the fire, the actual climate there was already hitting records for its hottest and driest year ever. but you cant chalk always chalk it up to climate now because its being shown that these fires lately have been started intentionally by humans.
Wildfires are rife in Australia - every year. They even have trees that have adapted to withstand brush fires and survive. Australian farmers and land owners routinely burn off the brush so as to prevent larger wildfires being created.
What is happening this year is different. It is the result of the hottest, driest spell of weather - creating a landscape that is like a tinderbox. As I mentioned before - every single year you get man made wildfires - in fact that is the biggest cause of brush/Forrest fires every year. . . . The start of the fires has not changed - it is the dry conditions of the outback/wild that has changed.
well thats what im saying. the rate of natural occurring fires compared to intentional first since the industrial revolution has to be low.
climate change is helping spread the fires in the amazon too. but the reason why the fires started to begin with has nothing to do with mother nature, right? same thing with the current fires in australia?
well thats what im saying. the rate of natural occurring fires compared to intentional first since the industrial revolution has to be low.
climate change is helping spread the fires in the amazon too. but the reason why the fires started to begin with has nothing to do with mother nature, right? same thing with the current fires in australia?
I believe I heard it's been crazy hot and dry in Australia, which is perfect for a wildfire to last longer and spread further.
Because in all of recorded time it has never heated at this rate before.
That's a fact you choose to ignore. I mean I would hope you believe in physics. One of the major points of physics is this. It's Newton's third law of physics....
Quote:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
So to claim we can just throw ton after ton of pollution into the air and there are no consequences for those actions seems to defy the very laws of physics. You don't actually believe that do you?
So to claim we can just throw ton after ton of pollution into the air and there are no consequences for those actions seems to defy the very laws of physics. You don't actually believe that do you?
Except, no one said that. Did they? Just you being you, adding comments no on said, asserting that someone said them, and then going off on a new tangent. Typical of you.
A tangent? Then what do you believe? I'm asking because you seem to indicate that you don't believe that when we pollute our environment negative consequences result because of it. Now if I have that wrong please inform rather than attack.
That's the exact intent of the question it seems you would rather attack than address. Either you believe that there is a direct impact on the environment due to us polluting it or you don't.
Just remember before you go off on yet another one of your tangents that I'm trying to find out what your position is here and it won't be me who is going off in some kind of rant.... again.
A tangent? Then what do you believe? I'm asking because you seem to indicate that you don't believe that when we pollute our environment negative consequences result because of it. Now if I have that wrong please inform rather than attack.
I have never, not once, said anything like that. Period. End.
The rest of your post is drivel, like most or your posts. You make a statement, claim someone said that, and proceed from there on totally baseless, made up lies that you created. That's you.
So you refuse to address the question in what you do and don't believe regarding climate change. That's pretty much what I expected.
You either agree or disagree that there is an equal and opposite reaction for the things that we do or not.
If you do, then you believe that man is instrumental in climate change. If you don't believe in the third law of physics you can use plausible deniability on the issue.
Yet you refuse to say and wish to blame me for that. Why am I not surprised?
So to claim we can just throw ton after ton of pollution into the air and there are no consequences for those actions seems to defy the very laws of physics. You don't actually believe that do you?
I have said numerous times man does effect the rate of global warming. I have also asked numerous times HOW MUCH are humans effecting it and all I get is crickets. Nobody can answer that question and unless or until somebody can I am not going to worry about it being 35 degrees on Jan 20th instead of 32 degrees on Jan 20th
The rate of change is faster and more dramatic than any time in history .... by a significant factor. Change in climate has always occurred - the rate at which it changes is NOT the same as always.
Of course - it's something like 98% of the worlds Climate Scientists all agree - but in today's age where ignorant people can find an online source on ANY subject that supports their own, inaccurate opinion - we don't pay attention to the experts any more. We can have Ted Cruz pick arbitrary points in time that happen to support his "opinion" that climate change is a myth - it doesn't matter in that case that the points in time that Cruz picker were like the blink of an eye and totally not representative of the historical data or overall trend.
So to claim we can just throw ton after ton of pollution into the air and there are no consequences for those actions seems to defy the very laws of physics. You don't actually believe that do you?
I have said numerous times man does effect the rate of global warming. I have also asked numerous times HOW MUCH are humans effecting it and all I get is crickets. Nobody can answer that question and unless or until somebody can I am not going to worry about it being 35 degrees on Jan 20th instead of 32 degrees on Jan 20th
You seem to be confusing weather with climate. The rise in the temperature of the oceans causing sea levels to rise is something that should concern us all.
3p Weekend: 5 Cities Already Feeling the Effects of Climate Change
I just find your outlook a bit confusing. You claim you know that climate change does have an impact yet your claim is we should do nothing unless we find out it has a lot of impact?
I'm pretty sure if you raised vegetables in a garden, you wouldn't wait to see how much of your plants the bugs ate before you tried to stop them from eating your plants.
Well maybe but that wouldn't make a lot of sense would it?
I wouldn't worry about my garden if it was going to be eaten by bugs in 400 years instead of 500 years. Just like I won't worry about the earth warming in 400 years vs warming in 500 years.
The future generations of my family, just like the current ones are all going to die at some point. I never said lets do nothing, but I am against going overboard like some folks do now. Once again the folks on the far right and the far left screw it up for everybody
That's the same type of tyhinking that would still have us driving horse and buggies. The world moves and figures things out. They see the outcome problems bring and try to combat them before a crisis consumes us.
Others still promote coal. They believe a man can bring it back. They think it's a conspiracy against the coal industry. Then, after three years of consistent deregulation which allows coal to pollute more, it still hasn't helped because coal is an antiquated way of doing things. The market has dictated its demise.
And some still refuse to see it. And with that, there's a lot of other things they refuse to see.
That's the same type of tyhinking that would still have us driving horse and buggies. The world moves and figures things out. They see the outcome problems bring and try to combat them before a crisis consumes us.
Others still promote coal. They believe a man can bring it back. They think it's a conspiracy against the coal industry. Then, after three years of consistent deregulation which allows coal to pollute more, it still hasn't helped because coal is an antiquated way of doing things. The market has dictated its demise.
And some still refuse to see it. And with that, there's a lot of other things they refuse to see.
If we were still using the Horse and buggy there would be less climate change right.
As for Coal... well as I have been saying for a long time. The market didn't dictate it's demise the government did.
Trump has removed many of the things that you claimed were holding coal back.
So what's the excuse now? I can give you plenty of sources showing coal has been given every advantage they had before and are now allowed to be a much larger polluter of the air we breath...... again.
well thats what im saying. the rate of natural occurring fires compared to intentional first since the industrial revolution has to be low.
If there is a change in the rate, it is most likely to be attributable to the adoption of modern forestry techniques, and probably since the 40s or 50s, that has us doing controlled burns, creating fire breaks, and having crews clearing underbrush and deadfalls (yes -- "raking the forest"). It's all pretty basic land management stuff these days.
Trump HAS NOT removed the things that hold back coal. Your either blind to this FACT or you just don't want to see it.
What part of Obama's regulations made it impossible for new coal plants to be built don't you get. What part of He made it impossible for coal to compete with gas don't you get? What part of NO utility company is going to invest in a new coal plant because of the Dems plans don't you understand?
Please feel free to show me how coal has been given every advantage. You won't find it anywhere.
I addressed this with my article. All Trump did was make it POSSIBLE to still burn coal. He upped the amount of existing standard sets a limit of 1,400 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour of electricity produced. Since Obama set it at 1,400 and it was not possible to get below 1500 to 1600 with todays tech. Which means NO NEW COAL plants could be built. Trump set it at 1,900 which is the same as most of THE REST OF THE WORLD is set.
Like I said Obama bent the Coal industry over and shoved it up their backside. So just how much more do you want to back our government screwing over the coal industry? Remember if they get away with it with coal they will try to get away with it with whatever else they want while you sit back and take it. If it makes you happy to be screwed up the backside by part of our government well then go for it bro.
You see I have no problem with moving away with coal when the people/market decide it's time.
No no.... it's a growth industry. It's the future.
Obama was holding it back - but now Trump's removed those restrictions it will BOOOOOOOM back .... I bet if you check the employment numbers the coal industry has probably DOUBLED or TREBLED it's employment numbers since Trump fixed it all.
So let me see if I get this straight, you think having solid coal underground has the same environmental impact as dumping coal ash into out waterways?
And you think clearing the way to building new coal plants isn't helping coal?
I don't need to post stats Obama killed the coal industry. If you can't read of understand English that's your problem and fault. Did you read my link or did you just pretend that it doesn't exist? Try thinking before you speak or talk
Please tell me you are not that hard headed or dense. Did you even read the link I posted or did you ignore it 100 percent bro? Use that big brain of yours instead of ignoring
Please tell me you are not that hard headed or dense. Did you even read the link I posted or did you ignore it 100 percent bro? Use that big brain of yours instead of ignoring
facts buddy
Your skewed facts that don't actually add up?
""Obama administration officials were well aware that limiting coal plants to the 1,400-pound standard would make it impossible to build a plant without CO2-capturing technologies.""
So ... not impossible, they just have to capture some CO2 ...
And - per my last post. That was 2015. Trump rolled that back. So .... the Coal industry is going to BOOOM. Right - because for the last 3 decades the world hasn't been talking about COAL as a dying industry/resource. No sir eeee.
Ya I read the title, and I think, well people bang lobsters on the head to stun them before they put them in a boiling pot, So, Koala's, ya, would want to, not cause them to suffer, poor things, but
After it becomes just meat??, It's probably just another example.
Two Penguins were standing on an iceberg, The first one says to the other, "You look like you're wearing a tuxedo." Then the 2nd penguin says: " What makes you think I'm not?" ... DON'T BURN THE KOALAS, Make em Medium Rare!
aww, poor things, ... were they too slow to run away? I really don't know?
I don't need to post stats Obama killed the coal industry. If you can't read of understand English that's your problem and fault. Did you read my link or did you just pretend that it doesn't exist? Try thinking before you speak or talk
We weren't discussing Obama but that's a nice way to dodge the issue. My point which you wish to try and avoid is that Trump has rolled back many of those regulations. So much so anyone can now build a coal plant and run it with far fewer regulations.
So why isn't it being done?
It would be nice if you actually addressed the topic rather than saying, "Yeah, but Obama".
It's already happened hasn't it? Trump told us. Must be true right? Brining back the coal industry !!! I know there weren't any stats offered to back that up.... but I mean, Trump and his supporters have SAID it SO OFTEN that it couldn't be a lie. Could it? I mean someone would have to be a real total MORON to roll back all those environmental protections and let coal generators dump their toxic crap in our rivers and waterways .... and not see jobs BOOMING in the coal industry.
Once again you seem to refuse to read the link I posted which answered your question.
"On Dec. 6, the EPA proposed revising a 2015 Obama administration regulation that effectively outlawed construction of coal-fired power plants in the United States. In its new form, the rule would help extract the federal government from its role of selecting winners and losers in electricity generation. But it will not, as some groups fear, guarantee that new coal plants will be built."
"The revision from the Trump administration recognizes the limitations and costs of using carbon-dioxide capture technologies, and instead focuses on pairing best industry practices with technologies that are widely tested and commercially available. But even these high-efficiency, low-emissions technologies, such as advanced ultra-supercritical boilers, emit around 1,500 to 1,600 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, more than allowed by the Obama standard.
Obama administration officials were well aware that limiting coal plants to the 1,400-pound standard would make it impossible to build a plant without CO2-capturing technologies. Coal industry heavyweights such as Bob Murray, CEO of Murray Energy, have criticized such approaches, saying those technologies are “neither practical nor economic.” So the new Trump administration rule increases the emissions limit to 1,900 pounds of CO2 per megawatt — meaning that commercially-available and -tested technologies widely used around the world could once again be used in the United States."
"But before the handwringing begins about a rising use of coal, another aspect of the proposed rule must be recognized. It does allow utilities to use coal, but unlike the market-bending games of the Obama-era rule, it does not tell them they must use a certain fuel. It only removes restrictions on energy markets, allowing them to operate in the manner that markets are supposed to.
"That fact is key, because the coal industry of 2019 is a far different beast than it was in the closing days of the Bush administration. In 2006, government and industry forecasts predicted the construction of dozens of coal-fired plants and increased domestic production of coal. Today’s predictions, by contrast, are for a substantially reduced industry to slowly decline as existing power plants continue to close."
"Finally, even if the proposed regulation is approved, and increasingly green utility execs somehow agreed to work toward building a coal-fired plant, a fast-tracked permitting process could take eight to 10 years to complete. Add in the inevitable litigation brought by hordes of environmental industry lawyers, and any permitting process would easily pass a decade. That date would put the start of construction well past the reach of even a potential second Trump term. With rumblings of a “New Green Deal” floating through Congress, utilities can ill-afford to spend a decade or more struggling to obtain permits for generation facilities that very easily could face oblivion from the next administration’s phone and pen."
The coal industry is killing itself. Stop blaming O.
Article is disinformation basically. It highlights the 2015 legislation that made it cost prohibitive to build new coal plants ... but failed to explain how or why the coal industry had been decimated since 2006 ... it's written as if the 2015 legislation impacted the industry from all the way back to 2006 but obviously that's not possible. The article doesn't try to address natural gas or the relative explosion of other clean energy alternatives. Why would it? Because it isn't interested in reality.
Coal industry has had the writing on the wall for nearly 4 decades. That's due to multiple factors.
Trump said he'd bring all the jobs back - everyone but the weak minded new that was a total lie.
And now - as I just asked - how freaking moronic would people be to undo legislation protecting the environment, allow coal companies to once again dump their toxic waste into our waterways ---- AND IT'S NOT MAKING A DAMN DIFFERENCE TO THE COAL INDUSTRY???? .... There is no answer other than lining rich people's pockets with more money.
Coal is more expensive than other major electricity generation systems. U.S. utilities no longer build coal-fired power plants because newer, more efficient natural gas and renewable power plants produce cheaper electricity.
That’s partly because of clean air requirements, partly because the coal infrastructure is getting older but mostly because "the price of producing power at natural gas plants and with wind and solar has declined so dramatically," said David Schlissel, director of resource planning analysis at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, an energy research firm based in Cleveland.
Prices per megawatt hour from electricity for coal-fired power plants range from a low of $60 to a high of $143, according to Lazard, a financial advisory firm that publishes annual estimates of the total cost of producing electricity. This is the levelized cost, which includes the cost to build, operate, fuel and maintain a power plant.
Wind is significantly cheaper: Unsubsidized, levelized prices per megawatt hour of electricity from wind range from $29 to $56, according to Lazard’s most recent figures. In contrast, a decade ago, wind costs topped out at $70 per megawatt hour, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s most recent report on the wind technologies market.
For solar electricity, unsubsidized, levelized prices range from $40 to $46, according to Lazard figures. In 2010, the average was closer to $120 per megawatt hour, said Mark Bolinger, a research scientist with the electric markets and policy group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Berkeley Lab conducts scientific research on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy.
For reference, the average U.S. home uses about 10 megawatt hours of electricity each year.
Renewables are getting ever cheaper
The rise of fracking has produced a natural gas boom in the USA. Though less polluting than coal, it's still a fossil fuel, and burning it pumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Natural gas is cheaper than coal, which it has rapidly replaced, and produces 35% of U.S. electricity, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Wind and solar power are becoming competitive with natural gas in many cases and are likely to grow even more competitive. The cost to produce a megawatt hour of electricity from natural gas ranges from $41 to $74, according to Lazard.
“It’s fair to say that taken as a whole, there are parts of the country where wind or solar are competitive with natural gas generation,” under current market conditions, said Chris Namovicz, who leads the renewable electricity analysis team for administration.
Even with federal subsidies for wind and solar power generation being phased out, they are increasingly one of, if not the most, cost-efficient options for utilities.
"They've definitely come down quite a bit over the past decade, to the point where they're comparable just with the cost of burning natural gas in an existing gas plant," Bolinger said. "You're seeing some utilities recognizing that, and they're buying wind and solar power, and they'll back down their gas plants to save fuel."
Regulators are beginning to agree. In April, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission rejected a proposal by Vectren, an energy company, to build a natural gas-fuel power plant to replace an aging coal-burning generating station. In denying approval for the plant, the commission cited the potential financial risk to Vectren customers, who would take on a 30-year debt when the energy industry is rapidly evolving.
The commission said it didn’t appear the company made “a serious effort to determine the price and availability of renewables.”
There's more to the article if you care to read it. But my point is, "things change". And as much as you hate to admit it, coal isn't the cheapest energy source anymore. The dirtiest, nastiest energy source of the past is going the way of the horse and buggy. Not because it doesn't work, but because there are cleaner, cheaper ways of doing things now.
The costs are pointed out here. As with all businesses, finding better, more efficient, cheaper costs drive the decisions of business. That's why coal is dying and nothing is going to change that.
Even if you green light new coal power plants, the energy industry won't build plants that will cost them and their customers more money to produce power. It's rather basic economics that are the reason for coals demise.
Start making sense !!! Damn-it man. Just repeat after me - IT WAS OBAMA !!!!
Just so we are clear - this means you are in favor of rolling back environmental protections, allowing coal companies to dump waste in our waterways and the Coal Industry will come roaring back?
Or you are for rolling back environmental protections, allowing coal companies to dump waste in our waterways and the Coal Industry will remain dead.
And finally despite all he facts to the contrary - and all the other cheaper energy sources - you still solely blame Obama for the entirety of the coal industry failing - based on 2015 legislation.
What I am against is Obama trying his best to destroy the coal industry. What I am for is letting the market decide what type of fuel and energy sources we use.
If I asked questions like you I would have asked you.
Are you against polluting our underground water supplies with fracking? Or are you against rolling back environmental laws like Bush did that allow the polluting of our water?
What I am against is Obama trying his best to destroy the coal industry. What I am for is letting the market decide what type of fuel and energy sources we use.
If I asked questions like you I would have asked you.
Are you against polluting our underground water supplies with fracking? Or are you against rolling back environmental laws like Bush did that allow the polluting of our water?
You didn't answer my questions. Again blamed Obama for something that he had a small - limited impact on. Well done.
As for Fracking - no I am not in favor of polluting water supplies by fracking. I'd like more transparency on the chemicals involved, the volume of water involved and greater research on the impact. Thanks for trying to change the subject but.
Yet I posted irrefutable evidence that almost every other major energy source has become cheaper than coal over time. That coal is now one of the most expensive forms of energy a new power plant could use.
That's why coal isn't coming back. The market dictates it. People are going to build power plants that give them the cheapest power for their customers. That's how capitalism works. I guess that's Obama's fault too. He was just too much of a capitalist.
I notice you ignored responding to the facts about present energy costs from coal compared to natural gas, solar and wind.
Look bro you know I love ya, and I respect you so I will answer your question again even though I already answer it before in this thread.
Why is coal one of the most expensive forms of energy?
Finally, even if the proposed regulation is approved, and increasingly green utility execs somehow agreed to work toward building a coal-fired plant, a fast-tracked permitting process could take eight to 10 years to complete. Add in the inevitable litigation brought by hordes of environmental industry lawyers, and any permitting process would easily pass a decade. That date would put the start of construction well past the reach of even a potential second Trump term. With rumblings of a “New Green Deal” floating through Congress, utilities can ill-afford to spend a decade or more struggling to obtain permits for generation facilities that very easily could face oblivion from the next administration’s phone and pen.
Quote:
That's why coal isn't coming back. The market dictates it. People are going to build power plants that give them the cheapest power for their customers. That's how capitalism works. I guess that's Obama's fault too. He was just too much of a capitalist.
If Obama had passed laws that would bankrupt a company for using GAS as a power source, or solar as a power source, or wind as a power source and charged them a fortune if they did guess what? Nobody would be building them either. Please tell me you can at least understand that.
Quote:
I notice you ignored responding to the facts about present energy costs from coal compared to natural gas, solar and wind.
and I noticed that you ignore anything that has to do with me being right about him driving up the cost of using coal.
Look I know what I am taking about. I owned a coal mine. I was a coal miner, I sold coal directly from the mine to the power plants. I dealt with all the government regulations. I know what I am talking about.
I certainly believe you know what you're talking about from one side of the debate without looking at both sides. While not knowing the industry the way you do, I do have relatives that own property that was being mined.
Even some of them admit that the advancements in lowering the cost of other forms of energy played a big factor here. The fact that that wind, solar and natural gas have all become far more economical due to both production and technology are certainly a part of the equation.
I'm not a huge proponent of natural gas, however, the huge increase in natural gas production drove the cost much lower. I'm not saying that you don't have a point. What I'm saying is there is a lot more involved than the singular point you are trying to make.
Your welcome. It will make you look better after your being so wrong on the subject we have been butting our heads about
Thanks for the smile and laugh. I disagree but hey ho. I'm still baffled what happened between 2006 and 2015 .... the article details the 2015 decision to make new coal plants too expensive. But then the article talks about the decline since 2006 without giving any insight or reason for the start of the demise in 2006. (That's the year Obama took office right )
and I am saying IF gas, wind, and solar are more reliable and cheaper then the market will dictate that we use them. The government should not be forcing US Citizens to use what THEY want.
Like I said I have no problem with us using another source of fuel if that's what the people want. I do still have a problem with it being shoved down our throats and people buying into the total BS that Obama was pushing on this subject.
Quote:
What I'm saying is there is a lot more involved than the singular point you are trying to make.
and what I am saying is many folks around here have shoved their heads in the sand and refuse to hear and admit the truth on the point I am making.
IMO What happened between 2006 and 2015 is that many folks in this country started acting like chicken little and blaming the good old USA for the worlds pollution problems. While the rest of the world just continues to pollute like there is no tomorrow. everybody wants the USA to suffer for it.
Let me ask you, how many Americans actually care what fuel their power plant is using as long as they're getting their electric power?
I don't think at least 90% of Americans care what the fuel is that produces their power or feel anything is being crammed down their throats.
I just signed up to a program which buys my power from green sources. Added about $4 to the last couple of month’s bills. Worth it to know I’m doing what I can within the grid. Would love to have solar on my roof but I have really tall trees around my house. https://www.portlandgeneral.com/residential/power-choices/renewable-power/green-source
I would venture to guess that the vast majority of Americans have no idea which energy source their power company uses to supply their power. Some of us do care and are very self aware. I applaud you for doing your due diligence. Sadly I do not have such an option.
Let me ask you, how many Americans actually care what fuel their power plant is using as long as they're getting their electric power?
I am glad you asked. Every elder american and younger American who is on a fixed income. So many people in this country struggle just to get by every month yet you don't seem to have a problem with our own government causing their utility bills to go up 20,30 or 40 bucks a month. Which they can't afford to pay. You and other seem to have forgotten about folks who are struggling to survive from day to day. You seem to worry more about great, great, great grandkids while ignoring the elderly folks who can't afford to pay for meds, groceries, heat, electric, etc, etc. You worry about WHAT IF 200, 400 or 600 years from now while totally ignoring those who are dying today.
Quote:
I don't think at least 90% of Americans care what the fuel is that produces their power or feel anything is being crammed down their throats.
I think close to 90 percent of folks on fixed incomes worry about the cost or their utilities 365 days a year.
Yet when shown how much cheaper other sources of energy have become, when showing natural gas is much cheaper than coal because of its mass production, you still wish to inflict the increased price of coal on them.
You still can't face the fact that the massive increase in the fracking of natural gas makes it cheaper no matter what you do.
What would the cost of coal be without all the regulations and restrictions Obama put on it????? I mean it was way, way cheaper before his regulations so just how much cheaper is gas really??????????
Bud, it was already as cheap or cheaper in 2008. Production has blown up since 2008 making it even cheaper now.
Does the fact that natural gas was just as cheap or cheaper in 2008, long before Obama regulations mean anything to you? Also wind was even cheaper in 2008.
ACEEE notes, for instance, that in 2008 coal cost between 7 and 14 cents per kWh; natural gas cost between 7 and 10 cents per kWh; and wind between 4 and 9 cents per kWh. In terms of new nuclear, some estimates put its price at 15 cents per kWh, or more.
Hopefully after seeing that coal wasn't cheaper even before Obama was elected president you'll open your mind to the other possibilities. But somehow I doubt it.
Trump announces the US will join 1 trillion tree initiative
President Trump on Tuesday announced the United States will join the One Trillion Trees Initiative launched at the World Economic Forum as world leaders seek to combat climate change.
Trump made the announcement during an address to global business leaders gathered for the annual event in Davos, Switzerland.
"We're committed to conserving he majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world," Trump said, adding that the U.S. "will continue to show strong leadership in restoring, growing and better managing our trees and our forests.
trump talking out both sides of his mouth again. Old growth can’t be ‘replanted’. It’s old growth for a reason. They’re massive carbon stores that saplings can’t replace.
Juneau, AK — The Trump administration today announced plans to gut long-standing protections against logging and road-building in the Tongass National Forest, a cherished old-growth temperate rainforest in Southeast Alaska and homelands of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian people. A coalition that includes Alaska Native people and Alaska-based and national organizations opposes the U.S. Forest Service plan, which comes weeks after revelations that President Trump exerted pressure to allow new clear-cuts in the Tongass. The agency’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), expected to be published by the end of this week, would repeal Roadless Rule protections across more than nine million acres of the Tongass, dangerously weakening this national standard by enabling logging interests to bulldoze roads and clear-cut trees in areas of the Tongass that have been off-limits for decades.
In Alaska, which experienced unprecedented heat waves this summer, the Tongass serves as a buffer against climate change and as a refuge for salmon, birds, and other wildlife. Much like the Amazon rainforest, the Tongass’ stands of ancient trees are champions at absorbing greenhouse gas emissions, storing approximately 8 percent of the total carbon in all national forests of the lower 48 states.
Logging the Tongass would threaten the health of Alaskan salmon by polluting rivers and streams, and by removing trees that help regulate water temperature. Current Roadless Rule protections also extend to cultural and sacred sites of great importance to Alaska Native people, who rely upon the Tongass for spiritual and subsistence practices.
The landmark 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule protects more than 58 million acres of roadless national forest lands across the country. Weakening this policy in Alaska will harm local and indigenous communities, Southeast Alaska’s economy, salmon fisheries, and wildlife. The Tongass, America’s largest and wildest national forest, draws outdoor adventurers, boaters, birders, hunters, and anglers. An intact Tongass supports a robust Southeast Alaskan economy through tourism, commercial and sport fishing, and small businesses. Its old-growth trees provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat for myriad species including wild Pacific salmon, Alexander Archipelago wolves, and Sitka black-tailed deer.
More than 1.5 million Americans voiced support for the Roadless Rule during the original rulemaking process, which followed decades of clear-cutting that had a destructive and lasting impact on the Tongass.
The rule continues to receive overwhelming support in Alaska and across the nation. Recent polling shows that 61 percent of voters nationwide oppose exempting large parts of the Tongass from the protections of the Roadless Rule. In Southeast Alaska, 60 percent support keeping the Roadless Rule in place, more than twice as many as those who support a Tongass exemption. Two different polls were conducted; by Tulchin Research and Lake Research.
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS WERE RELEASED IN RESPONSE TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT:
“We must holistically analyze the root causes of habitat destruction in the Tongass National Forest along with its directed social injustices, while quickly seeking solutions to the very real climate crisis today that is hugely impacting all the life on the lands we depend upon, including ours. We are the voices for the protection of the 2001 Roadless Rule. It must be coded into law for its own protection from industrial exploitation,” said Wanda Culp, Tlingit Activist, Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) Tongass Regional Coordinator
“The world’s largest remaining intact temperate rainforest containing vital old-growth trees is under attack because of efforts to undo the Roadless Rule. The Tongass Rainforest of Alaska — the traditional homelands of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian Peoples — has been called ‘the nation’s climate forest’ due to its unsurpassed ability to sequester carbon and mitigate climate impacts. For decades, industrial-scale logging has been destroying this precious ecosystem and disrupting the life-ways of the region’s Indigenous peoples and local communities. We stand with Indigenous peoples, Southeast Alaskans, and allies nationally and internationally to say no to further old-growth logging, and yes to maintaining the current Roadless Rule. Our national forests are essential lungs of the Earth,” said Osprey Orielle Lake, Executive Director, Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN)
“Relinquishing over nine million acres of protected national forest to feed the mouths of an industry that exports our old-growth forests overseas and provides free roads for mining development is not the future of Alaska for Alaskans,” said Natalie Dawson, executive director for Audubon Alaska. “It disregards decades of hard work by Alaskans to protect our remaining forests and salmon-rich waters for sustainable industries that actually exist and rely on healthy, intact forests, and their supported fish, birds, and other wildlife. This is the diversity that will drive the future of Alaska’s economy.”
“The push for an Alaska-specific roadless rule has always been just pretext for continuing to subsidize Southeast Alaska’s old-growth timber industry, and it will do so at the expense of recreation and fishing, Native communities, and wildlife,” said Andy Moderow, Alaska director at Alaska Wilderness League. “Moving forward with an Alaska-specific rule is wrong for the Tongass and wrong for Southeast Alaska. There are better ways to ‘meaningfully address local economic and development concerns’ than asking taxpayers to foot the bill for another hefty subsidy to Alaska’s timber industry, like addressing maintenance backlogs and permitting issues that will benefit the region’s booming tourism and recreation sectors, or stream restoration that will boost Southeast’s billion-dollar fishing industry and support the region’s wildlife.”
“The Tongass National Forest stores more carbon removed from the atmosphere than any other national forest in the country. The Roadless Rule has protected the Tongass rainforest for almost two decades,” said Josh Hicks, roadless defense campaign manager at The Wilderness Society. “By seeking to weaken the Roadless Rule’s protections, the Forest Service is prioritizing one forest use — harmful logging — over mitigating climate change, protecting wildlife habitat, and offering unmatched sight-seeing and recreation opportunities found only in southeast Alaska.”
“Efforts to undermine environmental protection for the Tongass National Forest not only put Alaska’s last vestiges of old-growth forest at risk, but also clear the way for even bigger attacks on forests nationwide. We cannot allow the Trump administration to log away our future and ignore the risks these rollbacks pose to Alaskan communities, forests, and economy,” said Kirin Kennedy, Deputy Legislative Director for lands and wildlife at Sierra Club.
“This is another Trump administration attempt to roll back protections for wildlife and hand over public lands to private interests,” said Patrick Lavin, Alaska policy advisor at Defenders of Wildlife. “The public has overwhelmingly opposed this effort and made clear that the Forest Service should keep watersheds and habitats supporting sustainable resources like salmon intact, not auction them off to timber companies at taxpayer expense.”
“Hundreds of scientists have supported the inclusion of the Tongass National Forest in the National Roadless Conservation Rule due to its extraordinary subsistence wildlife, fisheries, and climate benefits,” said Dominick DellaSala, PhD, president and chief scientist at Geos Institute. “It is Alaska’s first line of climate change defense and deserves full protection under the national Roadless Rule while at the same time the Forest Service implements plans to rapidly transition out of old-growth logging.”
“The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that was released today trades on Southeast Alaskans’ vision for our collective future by prolonging and delaying our region’s transition away from a remnant timber industry on life support,” said Meredith Trainor, Executive Director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council . “Nothing about the effort to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the National Roadless Rule makes sense for the future of Southeast Alaska. The proposed alternative contemplated in the DEIS threatens fish habitat and the fisheries they support; undermines tourism by damaging the landscapes our visitors come to see; destroys deep, wild, forested habitat relied upon by species other than our own; and lifts up the crown jewel of the National Forest system, the big old growth trees of the Tongass National Forest, and asserts that they are worth only as much as the lowest bidder is willing to pay.”
“President Trump’s attack on the Tongass National Forest threatens an irreplaceable national treasure,” said Eric Jorgensen, Earthjustice managing attorney in Juneau. “The millions of ancient trees across this temperate rainforest serve as the greatest carbon sanctuary in the U.S. national forest system, helping us all as a counterweight against the climate crisis. This ecologically rich landscape and critical wildlife habitat will be lost forever if industry is allowed to clear-cut our national forest. There is no good reason to roll back protections for the Tongass, and Earthjustice will oppose this attack on the safeguards wisely established by the Roadless Rule.”
“As a global climate crisis demands that we take urgent conservation and climate-mitigation measures, the Trump administration wants to do the opposite — and lay waste to some of our country’s most unspoiled wildlands that absorb massive amounts of carbon,” said Niel Lawrence, Alaska director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “For nearly two decades, the Roadless Rule has successfully shielded these magnificent natural resources, and we won’t allow the Trump administration to destroy the rule — or that progress — in another taxpayer-subsidized handout to its friends in industry.”
“Alaska’s elected officials are selling out their constituents and robbing future generations by trying to strip protections from one of the most pristine old-growth forests in the world,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Alaska is already reeling from the effects of climate change. Clearcutting remaining old-growth trees in the Tongass National Forest would release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and make things worse. This disastrous plan would smother vital wild salmon streams with sediment and irreparably harm subsistence hunters. It’s wrong to put private profits ahead of the health and future of Alaskans.”
Look, I understand your tears when it comes to anything Trump but some of us care more about helping our planet than hating our president.
You obviously don’t grasp the carbon sink difference between a field of saplings (good on donny for this initiative. I see the good in it.) and a span of old growth forest. The Tongass should be off limits. trump is causing more harm than good. Much like most of his policies.
car·bon sink nounECOLOGY a forest, ocean, or other natural environment viewed in terms of its ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
And you don’t see the bad when he does bad. Which is often. More often than the good.... and often the ‘good’ doesn’t counteract the bad. As seen by trump’s desire to plant saplings (Which I gave donny credit for.) while destroying old growth (which is far more damaging than planting saplings is helpful).
Send that chit to Obama ... he'll shut them down with his amazing powers. He may even travel back in time and your post will disappear !
No no no.... You convinced me.
I've thought for the last 3 decades of my life Coal was a dying industry. The end was in sight. Other options were cleaner and made more sense and the cost of the alternatives were getting cheaper and cheaper ..... it was YOU who convinced me that single handedly Obama is so powerful he shut the entire Coal Industry down in the USA. His prowess is such that legislation written and passed in 2015 impacted the Coal Industry from 2006 onwards.... That was YOU who insinuated that. (with no explanation despite my request) ..... so ... fair to assume Obama can do the same here to? No?
I even gave him the evidence that natural gas was as cheap, and in some cases cheaper than coal before Obama ever took office. That both solar and wind are much cheaper. And it still didn't change anything. Proof doesn't count once he has made up his mind. He sounds like Bobby Boucher's momma. "Obama is da devil Bobby Boucher!"
I'm getting a little tired of the impeachment joke. I'd like to talk about something else.
If Global Warming is all America's fault why is the number one Democrat, the smartist man in the world, the greatest President to ever live and his husband buying a 15 million dollar house on the coast. We all know the coasts will be under water in 10 years. Another thing, where did a community organizer get the money?
I'm getting a little tired of the impeachment joke. I'd like to talk about something else.
If Global Warming is all America's fault why is the number one Democrat, the smartist man in the world, the greatest President to ever live and his husband buying a 15 million dollar house on the coast. We all know the coasts will be under water in 10 years. Another thing, where did a community organizer get the money?
I walk outside each morning in the winter and long for global warming to get here. I am sick and tired of the cold. Can't get here fast enough.
Send that chit to Obama ... he'll shut them down with his amazing powers. He may even travel back in time and your post will disappear !
No no no.... You convinced me.
I've thought for the last 3 decades of my life Coal was a dying industry. The end was in sight. Other options were cleaner and made more sense and the cost of the alternatives were getting cheaper and cheaper ..... it was YOU who convinced me that single handedly Obama is so powerful he shut the entire Coal Industry down in the USA. His prowess is such that legislation written and passed in 2015 impacted the Coal Industry from 2006 onwards.... That was YOU who insinuated that. (with no explanation despite my request) ..... so ... fair to assume Obama can do the same here to? No?
It's all good ... I still can't believe that you lay the entire blame for the US coal industries demise at Obama's feet .... I still have a giant hole in your explanation and the article that sighted Obama and his 2015 legislation and how that caused or had any impact on the demise of the coal industry back to 2006 which is how the article is written. If you don't want to explain - that's cool but I am going to continue to think it's funny and poke some fun at the backward time influencing the Obama had.
Who was it that was going to build them when all other forms of energy was already cheaper than coal? Are you trying to suggest that from 2008 through 2012 that energy companies wanted to pay MORE for their fuel source? Really?
Who was it that was going to build them when all other forms of energy was already cheaper than coal? Are you trying to suggest that from 2008 through 2012 that energy companies wanted to pay MORE for their fuel source? Really?
And why, why, of WHY do you keep denying the truth that Obama caused the price of coal to raise through the roof. Why is that bro. Why do you keep denying the truth?????? I had said at least 50 times on this board that I was all for the market making the choice. You however have ignored, denied, and told untruths about Obama killing coal BEFORE ITS TIME.
You've never admitted it was already dying. Obama regulations weren't even enacted until what, 2015? Coal was already dead. People just don't want to admit it.
Once again, you're suggesting that people were going to pay more for coal than other energy sources to generate electricity since before 2008. Business simply doesn't work that way.
You've never admitted it was already dying. Obama regulations weren't even enacted until what, 2015? Coal was already dead. People just don't want to admit it.
Once again, you're suggesting that people were going to pay more for coal than other energy sources to generate electricity since before 2008. Business simply doesn't work that way.
and once again you ignore the fact that our own government drove up the price of coal just because they thought it caused global warming....opps I mean climate change, or whatever they change the name to next year.
So they killed an industry that was already dead? That sounds impossible.
Why do you insist on making up stories bro. Coal was not dead (except in your own mind) was or is it going to be phased out over the next 30 or 40years.... YES. But it was and is not dead. Quit making up stories bro. Will it be phased out.... I hope so. If and only if we can find another realible source.
Over 1.4 billion tones were burned last year. That is not dead no matter how much you want it to be.
So they killed an industry that was already dead? That sounds impossible.
Why do you insist on making up stories bro. Coal was not dead (except in your own mind) was or is it going to be phased out over the next 30 or 40years.... YES. But it was and is not dead. Quit making up stories bro. Will it be phased out.... I hope so. If and only if we can find another realible source.
Over 1.4 billion tones were burned last year. That is not dead no matter how much you want it to be.
Are we now talking globally or USA ? Coz they are two very different discussions.
Went looking for historical employment numbers ... this was the first I saw going back to early 80's.
LMAO have I ever said coal was not going to eventually die out as a source of energy in in the world. ???? Oh HELL NO. All I have ever said is that I want the world to have a choice. When the market kills it I am fine with that. But you seem to love that Obama killed it, while claiming that he didn't.
A recent report published by the U.S Energy Information Administration shows that between 2007 and 2015, the use of steam coal for electricity in the United States dropped 29% (from 1,045 million short tons to approximately 739). This decline can be seen in almost all states during that period of time, except for Nebraska and Alaska. The states that experienced the largest drop in coal consumption are found in areas of the Southeast and Midwest, while smaller dips in the market occurred in the Rocky Mountain region, Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.
Bud, the writing was on the wall before Obama regulations.
And the price of coal dropped, not increased. That's why the mining stopped in so many places. It was no longer profitable to mine coal. Fewer places are mining and bankruptcies are up.
Coal Market Roundup, February 2019: ‘Nobody is making any money’
The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the The Clean Air Transport Rule. Are two of many reason coal usage was declining from 2007 to 2015.
You'll just never get it. I will freely admit that regulations certainly hurt coal. I'm not in denial of that. I also realize the surge in natural gas and the advancement in technology in renewable energy was also a very important ingredient in all of this.
The market was a huge component in all of this. Trump has deregulated many of the very things you speak of. And coal still isn't coming back.
Glad to hear 48 more posts on Burning Koalas, a subject I'm still highly interested in, the plight of however many Koalas in Austrlia affected by the forest fire.
You'll just never get it. I will freely admit that regulations certainly hurt coal. I'm not in denial of that. I also realize the surge in natural gas and the advancement in technology in renewable energy was also a very important ingredient in all of this.
The market was a huge component in all of this. Trump has deregulated many of the very things you speak of. And coal still isn't coming back.
I won't get it? WOW just WOW. We can just keep head butting each other till our foreheads look like Frankenstein if you like, or we can drop it. I'm good either way bro.
Because people have to eat and have electric for TODAY. Like I have said time after time, after time. I have no problem with the world switching power sources once everything is in place for a smooth transaction and the market is ready for it. What I have the problem with is the government forcing people to do what they want. Plus fracking isn't safe either.
If you would prefer to send our youth into the mines and die, if that's a part of what you promote with coal, then I'll never join you. We have a lot of other sources for energy "today" without sending kids into the mines to die and get black lung.
That's the whole picture with climate change and the actual question that surrounds it.
Are we willing to risk the deaths in the future for the greed of today? For many that answer is yes.
Fracking has been linked to preterm births, high-risk pregnancies, asthma, migraine headaches, fatigue, nasal and sinus symptoms, and skin disorders over the last 10 years, according to a new study.
The researchers noted in the study that it's still too early to study some health impacts, like cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, because they take a long time to develop.
As a fossil fuel, natural gas extraction and use is contributing to climate change, of course," Gorski said, "but before conducting this study, I didn't realize the amount of of evidence we have that it may be even worse than coal."
She pointed to several studies suggesting that if fugitive emissions of methane from the equipment used to transport and store natural gas exceed more than 3 percent, natural gas use would have a greater climate change impact than coal. She also said there's evidence to suggest that the industry's methane emissions well exceed that 3 percent.
All from the link I provided above. Your safe gas isn't so safe.
Linked to? Yet coal mining has been proven to cause black lung. And I never said natural gas was safe. I said it's cheaper. And was cheaper before Obama was ever elected.
Linked to? Yet coal mining has been proven to cause black lung. And I never said natural gas was safe. I said it's cheaper. And was cheaper before Obama was ever elected.
Go back to the link I posted on Page five Bro. It includes a chart showing the cost of a Million BTU's for the Power companies. It was not even close. Coal was way cheaper than gas still in 2008 and 2009. and Just what year was Obama elected again?
Linked to? Yet coal mining has been proven to cause black lung. And I never said natural gas was safe. I said it's cheaper. And was cheaper before Obama was ever elected.
Go back to the link I posted on Page five Bro. It includes a chart showing the cost of a Million BTU's for the Power companies. It was not even close. Coal was way cheaper than gas still in 2008 and 2009. and Just what year was Obama elected again?
Coal is dead. Gladly. Mountain top removal is going the way of the boomer. Couldn’t happen to a more disgusting industry. Couldn’t happen fast enough. Now if we can kill fracking we could get on with moving into the future of clean energy sources. Just have to scrape the rest of the boomers off our shoes to make it happen.
Between 2007 and 2015, shale gas prices dropped almost in half, positioning natural gas to outprice coal mined in four of the five U.S. coal regions…the benchmark gas prices ("Henry Hub" prices) in the past four years [have been] cheaper than the coal of the two regions in Appalachian for over 88% of the months. Further, gas has been cheaper than the coal of Appalachia, Illinois, and the Rockies for over 57% of the months. Even the cheapest coal, in Wyoming's Powder River Basin, competes poorly in the great population centers east of the Mississippi once rail transport of $0.03 per ton-mile is considered. That prompted investment in pipelines and gas storage infrastructure that have made gas even more competitive.
Consumption of coal continued to grow under those 1990-era EPA rules until 2008, and then went into steady decline, dropping by 23 percent from 2008 thru 2015.
The data show the drop in those years to be correlated with the shale revolution, as natural gas production increased by a factor of more than 10 and its price dropped in half, the researchers say. And, due to the continuing—and in some cases accelerating—technological and economic advantages of gas over coal, the decline in coal is expected to continue at least decades into the future.
"Some people attribute the decline in coal-generated electricity to the EPA's air-quality rules, even calling it 'Obama's war on coal,'" said Mingguo Hong, associate professor of electrical engineering and computer science at Case Western Reserve and co-author of the study. "While we can't say that the EPA rules have no impact—as, for example, discouraging the building of new coal power plants because of the expectation that tougher air-quality rules will clear the courts—the data say the EPA rules have not been the driving force."
Hong, co-director of the Electricity Systems Research Lab at Case Western Reserve, and Walter Culver, a founding member of the Great Lakes Energy Institute Advisory Board at the university, say the data show that shale-gas competition is what's been hurting coal as of today. They expect that, as wind and solar sources of electricity continue to improve, they will be tough competitors to coal in the not-distant future. …
"If you're a power plant operator and you see gas supply is continuing to increase and natural gas can do the job cheaper—by a lot—the decision to switch from coal is pretty easy," Culver said. "As we look toward the future, we see no natural mechanisms that will permit coal to recover," Culver said.
Largely thanks to the shale gas revolution, the U.S. does appear to be treading Ausubel's light path toward energy decarbonization. Coal got mugged by natural gas, not regulators.
The last link has a graph showing that natural gas became much cheaper starting in 2009.
It seems as though we aren't the only one's that debate the merits of both sides. It also appears far more sources indicate is was the market rather than some "Obama war on coal" that caused this.
All one really needs to do is look at how many companies switched, or were in the process of switching over to natural gas before Obama regulation ever came to be in order st see the clear picture here.
"The researchers then created a model that accounted for an array of variables, such as daily power demand, and ran it to see how power use would have changed in 2008 if gas had been available at 2013 prices and wind power had been available at 2013 levels.
"This work uses the observed data -- capacity factors, fuel prices, power demand and so on -- to make predictions about how capacity factors are affected by different variables," Fell says. "In short, we can get a good idea of what influences the extent to which we use coal power generation."
And what the researchers found was that, if in 2008 natural gas had been available at 2013 prices and wind power had been available at 2013 levels, coal power use would have dropped significantly compared to what was observed in 2008. In fact, these predicted "counterfactual" 2008 capacity usages were similar to observed 2013 capacity usages. This suggests the so-called "war on coal" regulations were not the driver of the coal generation decline over this period.
So they made up their own Model, then started making predictions. To me that translates into we hired a fortune teller and they told us their predictions.
What I would like to see is an actual plain simple cost of coal vs gas. Your articles say gas is cheaper yet don't ever give any kind of prices. The link I posted shows that from 1998 to 2009 that Coal was cheaper than gas. It's on Page 5
Yet we have economic predictions and indicators in every section of our economy. Like I said, we can post conflicting data until hell freezes over. You'll believe the people saying what you want to hear and I'll believe those saying what I want to hear.
Coal went from 50% of our energy in 2005 down to 39% in 20013. All before Obama regulations began. It wasn't because coal was cheaper. I look at the choice industry made to determine what the market dictated. Business doesn't use a more expensive source. Their goal is to make profits.
But as I pointed out before Bush started the restrictions on coal plants and that's when the down turn started for building and operating coal fired plants.
I will give you a prime example from a coal powered plant that I grew up a few miles away from, and where my brother-in-law still works.
Due to Bushes regulations the plant had to add scrubbers at a cost of 1.5 BILLION dollars. They knew they had to do this several years before they did in 2011. 4 years later Obama changes the rules and that 1.5 BILLION that they invested is now out the window as they can't meet the new emission standards Obama put into place.
Quote:
Business doesn't use a more expensive source. Their goal is to make profits.
Which is what I have been saying. Regulations put in place by the government drove up the cost of burning coal. Pricing it out of the market. Just like was posted earlier in this thread when Obama said..... sure they can still build coal powered plants but it's going to bankrupt them if they do. I have several friends who work there besides my brother-in-law and they all talk about the regulations making it impossible for them to plan on working there much longer as it's only a matter of time before they shut down do to regulations, not due to the price of coal.
An area the size of Kentucky burned, and Yes Koalas are slower, too slow to escape the flames, and they eat Eucalyptus which is more flammable because it's oily.
Some of the facts from the first article I could find on the subject.
20 people died, half a billion animals died, 25? towns completely destroyed.
Last time on this thread, before I start the new one.
Remember when rump fired the heads of EPA, pandemic response teams? He never replaced them, could have used them right about now. Consider this the final nail in the coffin of Donald Trump presidency.
“The global struggle to slow the spread of the coronavirus has brought with it canceled flights, closed businesses and a quickly escalating economic slowdown that could be devastating to millions. It is also certain to shrink greenhouse gas emissions this year, according to climate scientists.
But does that mean we are turning a corner in cutting planet-warming pollution?
If history is any indication, no. The slide in emissions will be temporary, experts say. What’s more, scientists and environmentalists worry the pandemic will at the same time undermine government and industry’s resolve to cut emissions in the long term.
Experts are predicting the health crisis will cause global emissions to drop for the first time since 2009, during the Great Recession. But a look back over the decades shows a steady rise in greenhouse gases punctuated by temporary dips caused by economic downturns, including the 2008 global financial crisis and the oil shocks of the 1970s. Pollution bounces back predictably once the economy starts improving again, with the resurgence in industrial activity, travel and consumption more than offsetting any short-lived benefits to the climate.‘
It's an odd thing. People fully understand that if you started putting all your garbage in your back yard, soon it would be a dump. Yet some of those same people think you can keep dumping your garbage in the air and nothing happens.
I never understood the disconnect with people who think if they throw flowers in the air while their upwind neighbor is pumping garbage into that same air, they can't smell those flowers at all.
Stop trying to fix us (America) when it is your neighbor (China) that really needs the fixing.
What the heck, I clicked on the Burning Koalas' with 13 new responses, How does this get combined with the Burning Koalas, from the wildfires in Australia, several weeks ago.
TDS baby TDS fk the health of Americans TDS is their whole agenda,hell the nut TDS,ers are even spinning the wildfires in Australia that Trump somehow caused them. SMFH
Covid 19, the coronavirus already had a name that was known and used around the entire globe.
In Trump's notes used to give the address on national television, the word coronavirus was marked out and the China virus was written in with his famous sharpie.
Anyone who either can't, or refuses to do the math on that doesn't have a right to argue the point.
hey 40, you r a good guy at least you dont kneel to China, or criminal illegals,etc man they really keep the pedal to the metal on insulting you and they call us haters lol.
hey 40, you r a good guy at least you dont kneel to China, or criminal illegals,etc man they really keep the pedal to the metal on insulting you and they call us haters lol.
Yet you all bow to a orange orb that insults every American that doesn’t agree with it.
)
