U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:54 AM
 
Location: A great city, by a Great Lake!
15,908 posts, read 9,643,939 times
Reputation: 7449

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Yea, i've read similar articles that basically expose the coal industry for what they are. Anyone thinking that Obama had anything to do with this is out of his gourd. They would've laid these folks off anyway.

We're now seeing corporate titans basically telling their workers who to vote for under the threat of layoffs. Amazing how they get away with it.

Yep. Companies are becoming quite fascist these days. Not only do they want to pry into their employee's personal lives, they want to "encourage" their employees who to vote for.

 
Old 11-13-2012, 09:57 AM
 
33,134 posts, read 39,078,504 times
Reputation: 28484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
How exactly is the first link a Fox news article?
Coal company exec lays off more than 160 workers after Obama re-election | Fox News
 
Old 11-13-2012, 10:03 AM
 
25,631 posts, read 29,109,412 times
Reputation: 23049
Well goody for you but that has nothing to do with the OP's contention that a FOX article was some how obfuscating the facts about why coal use is down and layoffs are occurring.

Did you even read your article? it has to do with CEO's across different sectors laying off people not just coal.

Try again libbies.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 10:09 AM
 
23,873 posts, read 17,577,017 times
Reputation: 12760
that's not ford's link. this is: Utah company blames Pres. Obama for 102 workers laid off | ksl.com
 
Old 11-13-2012, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,004,420 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Well goody for you but that has nothing to do with the OP's contention that a FOX article was some how obfuscating the facts about why coal use is down and layoffs are occurring.

Did you even read your article? it has to do with CEO's across different sectors laying off people not just coal.

Try again libbies.
Sure. You do need help.

Paragraph 1:
"A major coal company announced more than 160 layoffs across three subsidiaries this week, becoming perhaps the first company to follow through on threats to make cutbacks in the event of a second President Obama term."

Paragraph 2:
"Robert Murray, a vocal Mitt Romney supporter and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, began to inform workers of the layoffs the day after Obama won re-election. He announced 102 layoffs at UtahAmerican Energy Inc. and another 54 layoffs at The American Coal Company in Illinois."

Paragraph 3:
The official statement put out by Murray's company cited Obama's alleged "war on coal," claiming federal regulations have "already (led) to the closure by 2014 of 204 American coal-fired power plants."
 
Old 11-13-2012, 10:20 AM
 
37,071 posts, read 38,273,370 times
Reputation: 14835
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
the 'easy' coal has already been dug up,
About 40 percent of the coal we use comes from he Powder river Basin and that percentage increases every year, it's an enormous resource and very easy to get too:




Quote:
and natural gas prices are way down.
Yes they are due to over supply, they went below the cost of coal last year at this time. Whether they remain there remains to be seen but that is certainly not preventing the Obama administration from implementing CO2 regulations that will prevent any new coal plant from being built, it's really a moot point.

Get ready for the "War on Natural gas", note the bolded because it's the CO2 caps that will end coal and even some of the natural gas plants built in the early part of the last decade could not meet these standards if they were retroactive:
Quote:
Fractured Lives - July/August 2012- Sierra Magazine - Sierra Club
What's the official position now?
We view natural gas as a significant source of air and water pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions. In addition to its large climate footprint, the extraction of natural gas is having a big impact on rural communities, state forests, and the landscapes that we've worked hard to protect. Our primary goal is still to retire coal plants as quickly as possible and replace them with genuinely clean energy like solar and wind. Investing in gas actually hinders deployment of wind and solar, so we want to leapfrog gas as we move to a clean-energy future.

What about recent studies that suggest that the extraction and burning of natural gas has a bigger impact on climate change than coal does?
They're alarming. Studies in places like the Marcellus Shale and Colorado have shown that the greenhouse emissions from natural gas are much, much worse than originally thought. Unfortunately, there isn't yet a comprehensive empirical analysis of the full carbon footprint of gas. So the Sierra Club—along with almost every other environmental group—is calling for a full study that documents those emissions and the extent to which they can be controlled or avoided altogether.

Last edited by thecoalman; 11-13-2012 at 10:42 AM..
 
Old 11-13-2012, 10:21 AM
 
37,071 posts, read 38,273,370 times
Reputation: 14835
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
There are a lot of tobacco workers who had to find new employment too. It's for the greater good.
If natural gas prices go up there will be a lot more people than miners looking for work.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 10:26 AM
 
37,071 posts, read 38,273,370 times
Reputation: 14835
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellhead View Post
The Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in its report that coal has become uneconomic at many power plants because of cheap natural gas prices and the cost of installing modern pollution controls on decades-old plants.
Correct, if you own an old car and the EPA says you need to install thousands of dollars of pollution control you go get a new car.........however in this case the new car can no longer be purchased since the addtional pollution tec required for them doesn't exist in a production environment and will will be very expensive. .

Here is what those mercury regulations will accomplish:
Quote:
Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits of Controlling Mercury Emissions from U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants

Changes in mercury deposition rates associated with reductions in power plant
mercury emissions are based on regional deposition modeling results from the EPA's
analysis of the Clear Skies Initiative. In its analysis, the EPA simulated current mercury
deposition rates and the changes in these rates that would result if power plants
reduced their mercury emissions from the current rate of 49 tons per year to either 26 or
15 tons per year. We used these predictions to estimate changes in deposition rates for
the freshwater regions, the Atlantic Coastal Region, and the Gulf of Mexico. Estimated
decreases range from approximately 1% to 10%.
The change in deposition rates to the
All Other Waters region is assumed to be proportional to the change in total global
emissions that would result from U.S. power plant emissions reductions, which is less
than 1%.
Quote:

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards


The average effect on individual avoided IQ loss in 2016 is 0.00209 IQ points, with total nationwide benefits estimated between $0.5 and $6.1 million.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 10:29 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 6,147,124 times
Reputation: 1785
Fact:Coal fired power stations have a typical lifespan of 40 years.

Fact:Older coal fired power stations can be life extended but the costs are exorbitant.

Fact:Newer technology coal fired power station with direct air cooling are cleaner burning and more efficient.

I know as I worked in the Power Utility industry and we have a six pack that underwent life-ex, the last unit commissioned in 1976. Its lifespan ends in 2016. This is a PF fired station and has undergone various modifications to clean out flu gases so it was worth the effort. Now it has another 20 odd years.

Stations built in the 50s and 60s are no longer eco friendly plus their control systems are outdated and they are inefficient.

It has nothing to do with coal or a war on coal, it is simple economics.
 
Old 11-13-2012, 10:30 AM
 
37,071 posts, read 38,273,370 times
Reputation: 14835
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
Yea, i've read similar articles that basically expose the coal industry for what they are.
The CO caps that will go into effect in March will effectively prevent any new coal plant from being built in the near future and possibly forever. That's the bottom line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top