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.
Once the EPA deemed CO2 a pollutant we all knew this madness would ensue. It is only just starting. They don't even have to mention it per say just find a evil manufacturing plant that produces whatever and show up and scream hazardous emissions and everybody just shakes their head and says yep shut em down. In reality the evil emissions could be c02 which is something we ourselves exhale every time we breath. World has gone completely insane.
I'm confused. That video is claimed to be Obama's promise to bankrupt the coal industry and I didn't hear that in there. Did you?
Yes you are very confused. Did you even read what was posted before the video? Cap and Trade? That is what the video was about and your here wondering why there was nothing about killing coal in it? Go back to sleep.
Yes you are very confused. Did you even read what was posted before the video? Cap and Trade? That is what the video was about and your here wondering why there was nothing about killing coal in it? Go back to sleep.
What I heard him say was that he's not against coal as an energy source, but is for a clean environment. What he said was that coal is welcome, so long as it's as clean as it can be made.
That would only result in bankrupting the coal industry IF they decided not to meet clean air requirements.
Of course, the GOP plan would be to simply remove those clean air requirements, allow the coal companies to pad their profits, and let "you people" and we 47 percenter's breath dirty air until we get sick and die because we won't have any healthcare either.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
Skillet the's talking about technology that doesn't exist in a production environment and quite possibly never will because of the numerous challenges and expense in storing it. Let me give just one example, there is a plant in Florida they built capable of carbon capture. They wanted to test it but they can't get indemnification for any massive release of CO2, it's uninsurable just like a nuclear power plant is.
There are 311 million, 591 thousand, 917 people in the US according to google.
Over thirty years, it has cost you a little more than $3/year for these subsidies, or approximately 80% of 1 penny every day. This has added up to about $93 over 30 years, assuming an equitable distribution of taxation, which is nonsense of course but much easier.
I agree that $1 billion per year in subsidies is not enough to make an issue about, but the bottom line is our government should NOT subsidize any products or industries.
First off, what does this have to do with elections?
Crutchfield can complain about regulations all he wants, but the truth is that the dive in demand for thermal coal is pretty much market driven. Thermal Coal Losses Out - Market Watch From teh artical,
Burning coal for electricity generation is a dirty and inefficient process that is being supplanted by less expensive natural gas and renewables. There will always be a need for coal in metals manufacturing, but making power within it should have been left behind in the 20th century. Hopefully those getting laid off can receive help and job training to reenter the workforce better prepared for this changing market.
"First off, what does this have to do with elections? "
What does this question have to do with the topic of the post?
Skillet the's talking about technology that doesn't exist in a production environment and quite possibly never will because of the numerous challenges and expense in storing it. Let me give just one example, there is a plant in Florida they built capable of carbon capture. They wanted to test it but they can't get indemnification for any massive release of CO2, it's uninsurable just like a nuclear power plant is.
The free market will find a solution. Isn't the free market what it's all about?
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.
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.
