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.
“Everybody is waiting for action,” Schrag tells the paper. “The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”
How can we shut down coal power without replacing it, and not run into serious energy problem, and drastically increasing the cost of our electric bills? Heavy users of electricity like manufacturing plants, and every other business for that matter, will be forced to pass these increased energy costs onto consumers.
Wind and solar cannot replace coal-fired power, so it's like and animal rights enthusiast in the White House, demanding we get rid of horses in the 1800s, without thinking it through, and finding an alternative method of transportation first.
Sure they can on the right scale. There's a lot more endless supply of wind and sun there is coal.
Just a little primer for those of you why fail to understand the electrical system in this country.....Better face up to coal isn't going away in your lifetime.....
The EPA is doing a good job of making it very, very expensive to run a coal-fired power plant, they only just defeated the EPA in the courts to stop the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in August 2011, and another case in the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Power plants are fighting the EPA every step of the way. If the EPA had their way, coal power would already be dead.
Sure they can on the right scale. There's a lot more endless supply of wind and sun there is coal.
This is where you show that you do not understand how our electrical grid and power works.
Coal power is base load power, which means it's always there when you need it, and power companies can plan months ahead to deliver a specific level of power for a specific time. Only fossil fuels and nuclear are considered sources of base load power. but even then, natural gas prices fluctuate a lot, so the pricing on gas is not very reliable.
Wind and solar, and to a lesser extent, hydro, are only available if nature says so. If there is no wind or sun, and a severe drought, you cannot deliver the power needed. Wind and solar are only forms of supplemental power, there are days when they offer next to nothing at all. The more wind and solar you have in a electrical grid, the more unstable your grid becomes.
Most of these old coal fired relics need to be shut down before they explode anyway so what is the big deal?
It's called, nothing to replace them with. You need to allow time for a power company to replace a coal power plant before you force them to scrap it. I know all the ones around us just spent tens of millions on new EPA mandated clean air act modifications, and some of the bigger power plants have spent a few hundred million. So you can't exactly demand they pay millions to upgrade to new EPA regs, thenforce them to close. Well, you could if you wanted to collapse our electrical power companies.
This is a war the government wins hands down. We are talking about privately owned companies that have to follow the law, not people who hide from the law, terrorists and drug dealers.
The war on poverty? How the hell is that comparable? The war on poverty is the government throwing free money at the poor, as long as they remain poor. You need to work on your analogies.
You are missing the point, which is that whenever the government declares "war" on something, it always backfires in their face and makes everything concerning that particular topic a disaster. This not only applies to real wars (like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.) but also these fake wars that I mentioned.
This is also not something they will "win hands down" because the cost of energy will skyrocket. Have fun not being able to afford to heat your home in the winter because instead of a $150 electric bill powered by coal, you'll be looking at $500-$600 because you are forced to use solar (which there is less of in the winter time too).
The fact is, we would use "green energy" if it was actually practical. As it is, it's not. It's too expensive. If you want people to stop using coal, figure out how to make wind and solar cheaper. You can't just say "you're not allowed to use coal", that doesn't work. It actually makes it LESS LIKELY that solar and wind will become affordable because if the competition is gone, why do they need to convince anyone to buy their product? When people are forced to buy a product, the product never gets better, it just gets more expensive (and usually gets worse).
Therefore, if there actually is a "war on coal" then the government will lose, because they will drown in all of the debt that is created by trying to pay for an unaffordable alternative.
Where exactly does Obama's plan state that or are you just generalizing to make your hyperbole point?
You're correct, he only said he wants energy prices to skyrocket, and when people cant afford it, create more governmental programs to make people more dependant.
we have alternate methods we just refuse to spend money to improve them.
We subsidize oil and coal thousanda of times more than solar or wind. Obviously we cant just flip a switch, but we have to start taking it seriously at some point.
I'm having a tough time trying to recall any post ever I've read on CD dumber than this ^^^ one.
What alternative methods are you referring to? Wood? If it's clean energy, we're already throwing more money at it than we can afford. Throwing more won't make it better. Burning greenbacks isn't going to work.
Oil and coal subsidized? That's a myth. In fact, the U.S. government makes money from both via BLM and FS lands in the west AND through income taxes from coal and oil profits, not to mention profits from nearly every other company in the U.S. that would dwindle if forced to buy electricity from wind (cough) and sun (cough-cough). In fact, the White House just recently (last month?) directed, due to financial shortfalls, to cease returning 50% of the mineral royalties it collects to the states where it originates. This has been the norm for decades as a way for states to build infrastructure for booming areas. For Wyoming, I'm thinking that's roughly $200 million per year, so the feds will be keeping $400 million per year just in Wyoming mineral royalties from coal. That's just the tip of the iceberg. And you think coal companies are subsidized? Get a clue.
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.
