Is Mitch McConnell really good for KY? (Clinton: credit, living in)

[orogenicman]

McConnell has been an embarrassment to Kentucky since his first day in office. Full stop.

[tomocox]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

No, the burning of high sulfur coal is certainly nothing to be proud of and Kentucky must move beyond coal like most of the rest of the US. The Ohio Valley is a non-containment region for not meeting the Clean Air Act and geographic components are just one piece of the pie.

You are mistaken!!! High sulphur coal actually burns very clean as the sulfur dioxide is removed by current evironment standards and tools. There is no doubt, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Ohioians, Illinoisians would accept and enjoy a better energy/jobs opportunity, but facts are that the people of Vermont aren't about giving up their cheap energy "YET."

Are you aware that the entire South African Air Force flys on coal derivived fuel, that US politics won't accept? For years now, we have had USAF jets testing coal fuel, but because coal doesn't spin well on TV news, its all bad.

Stop reading the NYT and start learning would be my advice to most of the NE.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by tomocox

You are mistaken!!! High sulphur coal actually burns very clean as the sulfur dioxide is removed by current evironment standards and tools. There is no doubt, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Ohioians, Illinoisians would accept and enjoy a better energy/jobs opportunity, but facts are that the people of Vermont aren't about giving up their cheap energy "YET."

Are you aware that the entire South African Air Force flys on coal derivived fuel, that US politics won't accept? For years now, we have had USAF jets testing coal fuel, but because coal doesn't spin well on TV news, its all bad.

Stop reading the NYT and start learning would be my advice to most of the NE.

No.

"An alternative to scrubber technology is using lower sulfur coal to fuel power plants. The Department of Energy estimates that the use of the lowest sulfur coal can result in up to 85 percent lower SO2 emissions than the use of many types of higher sulfur coal.[17] In the U.S., coal from eastern states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia has higher sulfur content, accounting for 3 to 10 percent of the coal's weight; coal from western states such as Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Colorado can have sulfur contents that make up less than 1 percent of its weight.[18] However, low-sulfur coal is significantly more expensive than higher sulfur coal, and often incurs additional transportation costs. [19][20] At a plant in Virginia, Dominion decided against both domestic low-sulfur coal and scrubber technology, and instead chose to import lower sulfur coal from Indonesia and Columbia as a less expensive way to meet new emission standards.[21]"

Most coal generating stations burn low sulfur coal from the Powder River basin region of Wyoming and Montana.

"There is no doubt, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Ohioians, Illinoisians would accept and enjoy a better energy/jobs opportunity, but facts are that the people of Vermont aren't about giving up their cheap energy "YET.""

No, the reliance on coal based economy has only made things worse in central areas of Appalachia. The fact now is that even fewer people are needed in the underground mining sector due to the horrors of mountaintop removal mining mechanization that is destroying entire regions, not enriching the populace or improving quality of life. Increasing educational attainment and trying for an increase in economic diversification are the only ways out of the big problems the region faces. Vermont? I am a current resident of the Louisville metro area and have lived in numerous other places.

"Stop reading the NYT and start learning would be my advice to most of the NE"

That is a nice strawman. I know it is en vogue to be anti-intellectual in Kentucky, though...


Actual Data and Facts can all be found here:

Kentucky and coal - SourceWatch

[tomocox]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

No.

"An alternative to scrubber technology is using lower sulfur coal to fuel power plants. The Department of Energy estimates that the use of the lowest sulfur coal can result in up to 85 percent lower SO2 emissions than the use of many types of higher sulfur coal.[17] In the U.S., coal from eastern states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia has higher sulfur content, accounting for 3 to 10 percent of the coal's weight; coal from western states such as Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Colorado can have sulfur contents that make up less than 1 percent of its weight.[18] However, low-sulfur coal is significantly more expensive than higher sulfur coal, and often incurs additional transportation costs. [19][20] At a plant in Virginia, Dominion decided against both domestic low-sulfur coal and scrubber technology, and instead chose to import lower sulfur coal from Indonesia and Columbia as a less expensive way to meet new emission standards.[21]"

Most coal generating stations burn low sulfur coal from the Powder River basin region of Wyoming and Montana.

"There is no doubt, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Ohioians, Illinoisians would accept and enjoy a better energy/jobs opportunity, but facts are that the people of Vermont aren't about giving up their cheap energy "YET.""

No, the reliance on coal based economy has only made things worse in central areas of Appalachia. The fact now is that even fewer people are needed in the underground mining sector due to the horrors of mountaintop removal mining mechanization that is destroying entire regions, not enriching the populace or improving quality of life. Increasing educational attainment and trying for an increase in economic diversification are the only ways out of the big problems the region faces. Vermont? I am a current resident of the Louisville metro area and have lived in numerous other places.

"Stop reading the NYT and start learning would be my advice to most of the NE"

That is a nice strawman. I know it is en vogue to be anti-intellectual in Kentucky, though...


Actual Data and Facts can all be found here:

Kentucky and coal - SourceWatch

Again, it takes as many people to mine a ton of mountain top coal as it does to mine a ton of underground coal.

[orogenicman]

Originally Posted by tomocox

You are mistaken!!! High sulphur coal actually burns very clean as the sulfur dioxide is removed by current evironment standards and tools. There is no doubt, Kentuckians, West Virginians, Ohioians, Illinoisians would accept and enjoy a better energy/jobs opportunity, but facts are that the people of Vermont aren't about giving up their cheap energy "YET."

Are you aware that the entire South African Air Force flys on coal derivived fuel, that US politics won't accept? For years now, we have had USAF jets testing coal fuel, but because coal doesn't spin well on TV news, its all bad.

Stop reading the NYT and start learning would be my advice to most of the NE.

Actually, the current standrards require those burning high sulphur coal to scrub their emissions to get the SO2 levels down to low sulphur coal emissions. But the fact remains that coal is the dirtiest fuel for energy generation, to say nothing at all of the environmental damage done mining it, damage that is by and large a permanent fixture of the landscape once it is done. Worst of all is what to do with the millions of tons fly ash,which is toxic.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by tomocox

Again, it takes as many people to mine a ton of mountain top coal as it does to mine a ton of underground coal.

You have provided zero documented sources or evidence to support any of your points.
The economic data in terms of employment change for 2000-2008 estimates are right here by county. The numbers are horrible in the rural Appalachia region, but lend credence to the notion that dependency on coal for economic activities are not good policy. Improving educational attainment and bringing in different employment types is what must be done.

Kentucky QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

[UKUKUK]

I'm gonna put an end to this discussion once and for all:
No.

If he were, maybe we wouldn't be a joke to the outside world.

[tomocox]

Originally Posted by UKUKUK

I'm gonna put an end to this discussion once and for all:
No.

If he were, maybe we wouldn't be a joke to the outside world.

If he really was a joke, then he would not be one of the most powerful individuals in America.

Do I like all he has done, or not done, heck no, but would I fire him, not on your life.

[kytoaz]

yup. he gone git darky outta that big white house!! and we gonna keep blowin up mountains and burnin everthin cuz the tv told me it was ok. and mitch's buddy's at the coal company really care bout me and my family!

a large portion of coal country can't read dr. suess, much less the new york times. and the fact that you belittle one of the nations longest running and most respected news publications is quite funny but not at all suprising.

appalachia needs to focus on education instead of the two dying industries that this state continues to cling to. it never will, though.

[carolinajack]

Originally Posted by kentuckydad95

Just curious, what good has this CAREER politician has done for KY recently?

as good as any career politician like chuck shumer for NY, or Nancy Pelosi to California, or Reid to Nevada.