U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2009, 04:50 AM
 
1,352 posts, read 1,710,426 times
Reputation: 499

Advertisements

I totally concur Dwatted Wabbit...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2009, 05:40 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,231,132 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit View Post
Kathleen Sebelius is/was the R-governator.
Considering the words Republican and Conservative synonyms is a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. Kathy is BO's new HHS secretary.

Besides, from what I've seen, many governators are driven more by the lust for power, political correctness, and lobbyist dollars than by doing what's smart and right for the people they (supposedly) work for.
Let's start with some gross factual errors. Secretary Sebelius is a lifelong Democrat. The current governor of Kansas ia Mark Parkinson, is a moderate pro-business Republican.

Moderator cut: No personal attacks or insults - Debate the issue not the poster

Last edited by vec101; 05-23-2009 at 06:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Midwest
4,191 posts, read 7,091,839 times
Reputation: 6978
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Let's start with some gross factual errors. Secretary Sebelius is a lifelong Democrat. The current governor of Kansas ia Mark Parkinson, is a moderate pro-business Republican.

Moderator cut: No personal attacks or insults - Debate the issue not the poster
I am absolutely stunned that the backers of the Empathy Party would resort to personal attacks rather than stick to a reasonable discussion.

First, I acknowledge my error in calling Kathy an R.
I did a search before posting, and wherever I got, they referred to her as a republican.

Here is wiki:
Sebelius is the daughter of former Democratic Ohio Governor John J. Gilligan, and thus they became the first father/daughter governor pair in the United States after her election.[4] Her husband K. Gary Sebelius[5] is a federal magistrate judge and the son of former U.S. Representative Keith Sebelius, a Republican. They have two sons. She also visits her childhood and current vacation home, located in Leland, Michigan, north of Traverse City, Michigan. An avid fan of jazz music, Sebelius as of 2009 has a 30-year unbroken streak of annually attending Jazz Fest in New Orleans.[6]

I for one love the incestuous way that political families just keep going like the Duracell bunny.

And just because a "moderate" R adopts a plan, that doesn't mean all of us Constitutional Conservatives should jump aboard the train. After all, Colin Powell is a moderate republican, aka RINO, aka D-lite. I should agree with him and love him as my brother just because he claims he's a republican?
Whatever.

Clean coal is a logical way to create energy. Coal is ours for the digging. Coalman clearly has more coal-knowledge in his pinkie's fingernail than many greenies have in their entire cranial cavities.
"Environmentalists," aka the anti-US-progress lobby, are always against anything that could benefit the US. Have you heard the term "the enemy within"?
The "environmentalists" are also fighting tooth and nail against digging the recent massive gold strike in Alaska. Despite what the locals want.
Free will for only the self righteous, eh? Sweet.

Creating a "green" way using solar and wind is a nice theory. Considering it's being advanced by those who have agitpropped about CO2 being a greenhouse gas--no proof--and that we should no longer be allowed to debate whether globaloney warming is fact or a massive UN-endorsed con job, are not what I would consider people who are seeking the truth.

BTW, if global warming were in fact true, it would be more a boon than a danger to mankind.
More crops growing faster and longer, fewer wintertime deaths from cold (which outpace heat-caused deaths by a factor of 5 or 10 IIRC), open ocean passage over northern Canada saving billions of gallons of diesel used by cargo ships, there are many positives that would accrue IF the al gore con job were true.

Cooling, a cycle we have been in for 10 years now, is a far greater danger to man and beast than a few degrees warming in 100 years could ever be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,231,132 times
Reputation: 948
There was no personal attack.


"Clean coal" is one of the biggest frauds ever invented. Cola is a nasty dirty fuel that releases tons of harmful pollutants when burned, more often than not scars the earth where mined, and is a major contributor to global warming. By the time you take all be bad stuff out of coal to "clean" it, you have nothing left.

Clean coal is like a chaste prostitute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 6,617,863 times
Reputation: 835
Interesting theory argued by an environmentalist --
instead of increasing the cost of coal via Cap & Trade, etc., work on making alternative energy sources more affordable.

Everyone agrees (politicians/environmentalists/etc.) that we can't get rid of coal tomorrow. So what do they want to do? Since we can't get rid of it right away, let's make it more expensive. That makes a lot of sense.

Hmmm, - an environmentalist who thinks man-made Global Warming is a fact and something should be done BUT disagrees with what is being done or attempted to be done. I'm sure there are other environmentalists who agree with him but you don't hear them speaking out like he does.

Of course, he's been attacked by other environmentalists for his stance.
http://lomborg.com/faq/

Interesting article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/13/climatechange-carbonemissions

Quote:
The fact is, carbon remains the only way for developing countries to work their way out of poverty. Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it in China and India,

No green energy source is inexpensive enough to replace coal now. Given substantially more research, however, green energy could be cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/opinion/25lomborg.html?_r=2
Interesting video of a GW debate via IQ2 US whose goal of is to raise the level of public discourse on challenging issues and provide a new forum for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned analysis.
Does their goal work? Who knows.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=103E85BD20CD33F2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,231,132 times
Reputation: 948
Fortunately the adults are in charge in Congress again and Cap & Trade will pass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 01:14 PM
 
39,116 posts, read 40,451,870 times
Reputation: 16023
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
By the time you take all be bad stuff out of coal to "clean" it, you have nothing left.
Percentage depends on where it's mined but the major component of coal is carbon. The amount of carbon varies depending on the quality, the higher the grade of coal the more carbon it will have. Anthracite for example is going to be 90% plus. Emissions will be lower than other coals but the CO2 will also be much higher. Bit. coal will be about 80 to 90% for the most sought after, power plants want this coal for more reasons that it's cleaner to burn.

The pollution issue is being addressed through a variety of ways. Simply changing the way it's burned, scrubber technology, gasification, K-fuel which can have an immedite impact on existing older coal plants without modification to the plant....

Quote:
http://www.evgenergy.com/fact_sheets/Benefits.PDF (broken link)

At the University of Notre Dame, a test burn of 100 percent K-Fuel® in December 2006 yielded a 75 percent reduction in chloride emissions, a 90 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and a 75 percent reduction in mercury content compared to the raw feedstock.
These are all exising or emerging tecnologies. Clean coal is myth or fraud? Well I guess it depends on your definition of "clean" but there's been lots of advancements and people that will lead you beleive there hasn't been have no clue or are simply trying to perpetuate the real myth. As the technology becomes available and better every day the plants are becoming cleaner.


Since the 70's when regulation of pollutants really started power generation has increased but pollution has deceased within the U.S.. That's an overall assessment, see page 4:

http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqt...s/brochure.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 01:30 PM
 
39,116 posts, read 40,451,870 times
Reputation: 16023
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Fortunately the adults are in charge in Congress again and Cap & Trade will pass.
The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned at this point because it will be that much faster they get voted out. Hopefully they will not do too much damage in the meantime.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Floribama
14,608 posts, read 31,067,689 times
Reputation: 13386
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Fortunately the adults are in charge in Congress again and Cap & Trade will pass.
Yeah and all of that can be rolled back too.

You must be heavily invested in "green energy" and hoping to make some money from it? Either that or you're obsessed. Every time there's a thread about energy on here your posts make up 50% of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2009, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Wyoming
9,386 posts, read 17,268,029 times
Reputation: 14010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
"Clean coal" is one of the biggest frauds ever invented. Cola is a nasty dirty fuel that releases tons of harmful pollutants when burned, more often than not scars the earth where mined, and is a major contributor to global warming. By the time you take all be bad stuff out of coal to "clean" it, you have nothing left.

Clean coal is like a chaste prostitute.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. Coal can be very clean; even the CO2 can be stored and/or reused. Can it be as clean as wind or solar? No, but when you consider the space that windmills and solar collectors would occupy to replace coal, and the costs and materials to build and replace them, it's not that cut and dried.

The fact is, anything we do results in "pollution," as it's now defined. But without that pollution, Earth would cease to exist as it has for eons. Most of Earth's pollution is from natural events over which man has no control -- volcanos, forest fires, the life cycles of plants and animals, etc.

I am very much an environmentalist, but I prefer to keep it real. Coal-fired power plants are not the polluters they were in the past, thank goodness, and they can be even better. Since we know they'll continue to be our (Earth's) main source of energy for decades to come, we should be working on ways to make coal even cleaner, rather than penalizing its use.

Does anyone really believe that China will replace its coal plants with windmills and solar panels? I doubt it, but if coal can be made to burn cleaner at a reasonable cost, there's no reason to think China wouldn't hop on the band wagon -- eventually.

If the government wants to tax coal further, they should just do it. They should set guidelines so that coal and power companies can make sound economic plans. The cap and trade "idea" doesn't involve much planning, as I understand it. It would result in less energy production, fewer power plants, more brown outs and black outs, and substantially higher energy costs.

I know there was supposed to be some advantage to it, but it's hard to remember what when you think of all the disadvantages.

I'm hoping our lawmakers in Washington have enough sense to vote the whole idea down -- at least until they can formulate a plan that won't handcuff our industries. Failure to do that will most certainly result in more pollution. Old plants, grandfathered to allow less than acceptable emissions, could and would be replaced with a reasonable energy plan. Without long-term guidelines to work with, we're headed for very serious power shortages in the very near future.

Last edited by WyoNewk; 05-25-2009 at 04:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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