Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [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 11-04-2008, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Indiana Uplands
26,494 posts, read 46,897,634 times
Reputation: 19665

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
False: Basic Information | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/basic.htm - broken link)
I don't care how low the percentage is. Anytime you burn coal in a power plant you produce mercury, even when using the best technologies. Mercury is a proven neurtoxin, and some of the oldest coal plants are still "grandfathered" into the system. Older coal plants generate higher mercury emissions compared to modern coal plants. In fact, some old coal plants do not even have scrubbers for reducing merucry emissions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2008, 03:33 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,266,371 times
Reputation: 17867
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain View Post
Most coal that is burned is bituminous, and it ain't clean by any stretch of the coal industry's imagination.
Yes, anthracite is only used for home heating. It's too expensive and actually not suitable for burning in a power plant compared to Bit. Even if it was there isn't enough of it.

The plants being built under todays regulations are much cleaner. The primary obstacle to making them "clean" is the CO2 emissions which because of the quantity and other things is a major problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 03:35 PM
 
11,944 posts, read 14,829,483 times
Reputation: 2772
LOL coalman-- no neener neener to follow?

I'd rather not bother with contests but just say with moderate voice that we can all stand to make improvements in all industries over time. Hopefully the clock starts now, and not 4yrs from now when we find ourselves in yet another untenable crisis. Coal is a fact of life, and I've heard far too many coal men telling their sons to make sure they get in college, don't walk in my steps. I want to see a better life for all, including coal industry. Removing every mountaintop of WV to keep up with city folks electricity demands isn't good for anyone. Too short sighted a mentality. I think a better way that serves all fairly can be achieved. We won't know if we don't try.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Indiana Uplands
26,494 posts, read 46,897,634 times
Reputation: 19665
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
LOL coalman-- no neener neener to follow?

I'd rather not bother with contests but just say with moderate voice that we can all stand to make improvements in all industries over time. Hopefully the clock starts now, and not 4yrs from now when we find ourselves in yet another untenable crisis. Coal is a fact of life, and I've heard far too many coal men telling their sons to make sure they get in college, don't walk in my steps. I want to see a better life for all, including coal industry. Removing every mountaintop of WV to keep up with city folks electricity demands isn't good for anyone. Too short sighted a mentality. I think a better way that serves all fairly can be achieved. We won't know if we don't try.
+1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 03:43 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,266,371 times
Reputation: 17867
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
I don't care how low the percentage is..
Well the point is there are other sources that are far greater. 1 percent is quite a small amount.

I think we should ban granite as its a proven source of radioactivity:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/ga...pics/Radiation

I'm being sarcastic in case you missed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2008, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,067 posts, read 10,163,501 times
Reputation: 1651
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
I agree. The big problem is sequestration of CO2 is an unproven technology, and is expensive. However, we must address CO2 due to the fact that we are facing a continuation of the warming trend in global average temperature. The more we diversify to renewables that are cleaner the better off we will be.
Peridotite is a possibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2008, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,067 posts, read 10,163,501 times
Reputation: 1651
Quote:
Originally Posted by harborlady View Post
I'm a resident of WV and voted for Obama. Coal needs to stay for dozens of reasons, but it needs to evolve through cleaner technology. Business as usual is what will go bankrupt. Follow through with the full picture instead of running amok with sound bytes... well lets just say somebody would rather you didn't know facts because you might be making informed decisions. Obama supports clean coal.

I'm 3rd party since early 1990's so I don't have to follow ANY party dogma blindly. Too bad repubs and dems can't get up in arms about that subject.

As far as WV economy goes, coal rules the road for over a century. Dem's here know all too well which side of their bread is buttered and I think this state has been very generous about keeping america's electricity rates reasonable. Blame her for poverty? You're right-- we should raise the price of coal the same way alaska kicked america in the teeth when she was mired in oil crisis. Excellent plan!
Bush has been pushing for clean coal for years, and it is a lot cleaner than it used to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2008, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Indiana Uplands
26,494 posts, read 46,897,634 times
Reputation: 19665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
Bush has been pushing for clean coal for years, and it is a lot cleaner than it used to be.
Blowing up mountains (mountaintop removal) doesn't sound like clean coal to me. I suggest a visit to southern WV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2008, 05:46 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 10,306,318 times
Reputation: 1893
No such thing as "clean coal." Total greenwashing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2008, 05:49 PM
 
29,917 posts, read 39,569,723 times
Reputation: 4799
Put down the utopia and enter into reality where coal is required. Your emotions have no weight in this issue no matter how loud you cry or how blind you keep yourself.
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 > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top