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.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
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.
I'll wait for you to post some stats.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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?
How can you even post that?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
Last edited by mgh888; 01/13/2007:37 PM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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".
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
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.
Last edited by mgh888; 01/14/2007:46 PM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
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.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
