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.
As a scientist that has studied the effects of Mercury pollution from most coal fired power plants I believe fitting controls to be a waste of time, money and effort. it would be more effective to reduce Mercury in all of the small fluorescent lamps being pushed on the public.
Mercury emissions are global issue, it's not local and reducing the estimated 1% of the global pool from US coal plants is going to have negligible effects. In fact due to higher energy costs those emissions could increase overseas making it worse.
For once I'd like a conservative to follow his/her principle about "letting the market decides."
I'm sorry but sometimes the market prefers one technology over another. Right now, natural gas is the thing. That's the reality. Just like when iPhone came out, almost everyone abandoned the blackberry. We live in a market driven business environment. Coal's struggle is the result of market forces' preference for natural gas.
To listen to the conservatives, it's like listening to someone whose brain has split in half and each doesn't know what the other half is thinking - that Obama, so incompetent that he couldn't jump start a job sector even if Jesus is in his cabinet, somehow managed to singlehandedly raised an industry (natural gas) and destroy another one (coal). Yeah, sure, makes sense.
Instead of being emotional and using baseless doomsday scenarios you need to do a little research. There are practical limits, for example I often point out we can produce a car that is 100% survivable in crash but that is kind of pointless if no one can afford the car. The energy industry is much the same way, we need practical and sane regulation of pollutants.
For example the recent mercury standards will reduce the deposition rates in the US from 1% to 10%. The issue with mercury is primarily neurological and estimates suggest that these reductions will increase the average IQ 2/1000 of one point. That sounds sane and practical to you?
As far as the overall Air Quality air pollution has been dropping since the 80's, most of these reductions are from the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress that was proposed by Bush. So where is the practical limit?
Here's one of the problems I have:
The OP suggests that it's Obama who has caused alpha to cut back jobs, which simply isn't factual.
Another problem I have: is when the so called liberal burners get onto this forum and jump onto the liberal bashing bandwagon. Now that you have posted what Bush did, maybe they'll see things in a different light, but, I won't hold my breath on that one.
I know there are practical scientific limits on what man can and cannot do. Every little bit can help though.
Some of the reasons why gas, wind, and solar generators have come about is through science and research, and people wanting alternative energy sources than what we have now. It is also why car companies are building cars which pollute less and get better mileage, because they know that this is not only what Goverment wants, it's what people want too. I read a article somewhere that stated a new fuel mileage standard for a future year was 54 m.p.g., I liked the sound of that.
The mere mention of coal to me disturbs me, especially after the loss of relatives.
Maybe exaggering the points of having clean air and water, but that is something that needs to be considered by all when they're pointing a finger and saying things that are not fact.
Over time, when man has totally mastered science and technology, there won't be any more coal mines, and we won't be drilling for oil any longer either, I am a optimist.
For once I'd like a conservative to follow his/her principle about "letting the market decides."
.
The market is deciding on natural gas because of burdemsome and in the case of the CO2 proposals unattainable regulations. There is too much uncertainty, the EPA starts enforcing one regulation that costs billions and they have yet another one on the table.
When Obama said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry he meant he was going to do it through regualtions and he's succeeding.
For once I'd like a conservative to follow his/her principle about "letting the market decides."
I'm sorry but sometimes the market prefers one technology over another. Right now, natural gas is the thing. That's the reality. Just like when iPhone came out, almost everyone abandoned the blackberry. We live in a market driven business environment. Coal's struggle is the result of market forces' preference for natural gas.
To listen to the conservatives, it's like listening to someone whose brain has split in half and each doesn't know what the other half is thinking - that Obama, so incompetent that he couldn't jump start a job sector even if Jesus is in his cabinet, somehow managed to singlehandedly raised an industry (natural gas) and destroy another one (coal). Yeah, sure, makes sense.
.
God Lord. How about doing some research before making yourself look stupid.
An estimated 2/1000 of one point increase in the average IQ is practical?
Of course it's not but when actual facts are put in front of folks they have no real answer. Regulations had nothing to do with all these plants shutting down to them.
Your link about the Sierra Club now turning their outrage at the nat gas industry proves that those people don't really care what type of energy it is they will lie and twist their way to try and destroy it. I don't know what their ultimate agenda really is. To just live in mud huts?
The market is deciding on natural gas because of burdemsome and in the case of the CO2 proposals unattainable regulations. There is too much uncertainty, the EPA starts enforcing one regulation that costs billions and they have yet another one on the table.
When Obama said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry he meant he was going to do it through regualtions and he's succeeding.
Not entirely true. The PRIMARY reason natural gas is so cheap is because of new technology.
Quote:
Vast natural gas deposits that previously couldn’t be extracted economically are now being tapped using new technologies. Instead of drilling straight down, companies can drill horizontally and follow seams of gas a mile or more underground. Then, the drillers use hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” to free the gas from the dense shale rock.
That supply surge is driving down the cost of natural gas, making the fuel more attractive for utilities that might otherwise rely on coal.
Strange then that the demand hasn't really dropped that much under Obama's presidency, yet they were never forced to lay off workers until now isn't it?
By the way....I think that the owner of a Coal Company would know better than you why he's forced to lay off people and close mines.
reeally? get rid of the epa and its overburdening rules concerning coal and see those mines reopen.
personally I think that the coal mines dont need any federal regulations at all concerning their mines, only state regulations. until that coal leaves the state, there is really nothing the feds can do Constitutionally.
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.
