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.
Similar to roys complaint of obstructionism, I'm afraid the same thing happens to coal everytime they try to move foward on clean coal & gasification projects. If I recall correctly it's been delayed for over 12yrs now. Politicians start making an arse of themselves and the investment as venture capital gets spooked off because govt wants to get ham handed. Make it too hard for people to do the right thing, they quit doing the right thing.
Similar to roys complaint of obstructionism, I'm afraid the same thing happens to coal everytime they try to move foward on clean coal & gasification projects. If I recall correctly it's been delayed for over 12yrs now. Politicians start making an arse of themselves and the investment as venture capital gets spooked off because govt wants to get ham handed. Make it too hard for people to do the right thing, they quit doing the right thing.
DOE has had a "clean coal" program for over 30 years. They've throw millions of $s at it. Industry has declined to build "clean coal" plants.
This article explains the benefits of cap and trade. Cap and trade is still the right call | csmonitor.com
It was the scheme used to address the acid rain problem and was very successful. It allows way more innovation than a tax or setting emission limits.
Downfalls are inaccurate measuring of emissions, corruption and temporary(hopefully) price increases.
If you let Americans loose on coming up with ways to lower carbon output, and pay them to do it, I think you'll see amazing progress faster than predicted.
This artical explains whats wrong with cap and trade......I think my source is better then your source............
http://www.instituteforenergyresearc..._Cap_Trade.pdf arack Obama and his team have made it clear that a cap-and-trade system will be an important tool for the new administration to provide green jobs and reduce the nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions. But the real purpose of cap-and-trade is to increase the cost of energy. The European experience shows that countries lose their enthusiasm once they experience the actual costs of these programs. Implementing cap-and-trade now would kick the U.S. economy while it’s already down.
This artical explains whats wrong with cap and trade......I think my source is better then your source............
http://www.instituteforenergyresearc..._Cap_Trade.pdf arack Obama and his team have made it clear that a cap-and-trade system will be an important tool for the new administration to provide green jobs and reduce the nation’s greenhouse-gas emissions. But the real purpose of cap-and-trade is to increase the cost of energy. The European experience shows that countries lose their enthusiasm once they experience the actual costs of these programs. Implementing cap-and-trade now would kick the U.S. economy while it’s already down.
I keep wondering who gets the money paid in with a cap and trade system. Is is Algore, the UN or some governmental agency. I hear all the talk and still don't hear who gets the money.
I do know that a local rancher thought that it would be good because he could sell all his clean air to fools. However, about the time he started to get excited about it the EPA started talking about taxing cattle because they tend to pass off lots of methane in their farts. They eat plant life and that causes all that nasty methane. The proposed taxes would run lots of cattle producers out of business, my son is one of them. The proposed tax on beef cattle was $75 per head. I guess they meant to collect that on those ranchers and farmers, then again on feed lots that supply packing plants and hopefully that is all. One feed lot near my home (far enough away that we don't have to smell it, ever) keeps about 40,000 cattle all the time. You figure out how much money that would cost them in one year.
I hope that none of the people who end up supporting this method of cutting back on methane in the air don't like eating beef, at least beef that is produced in the US. When those producers start selling their herds and the feed lots go out of business I guess all the illegal aliens working in packing plants will have to go home, so maybe in a round about way this will be one of the EPA's very best bad ideas.
Similar to roys complaint of obstructionism, I'm afraid the same thing happens to coal everytime they try to move foward on clean coal & gasification projects. If I recall correctly it's been delayed for over 12yrs now. Politicians start making an arse of themselves and the investment as venture capital gets spooked off because govt wants to get ham handed. Make it too hard for people to do the right thing, they quit doing the right thing.
HL, you are really serious about this situation, aren't you? May I suggest another source of much information that you may be interested to see. I think that from this article a scientist at NASA may be in for some trouble concerning his job because he has disagreed with the head man there who has spent several years talking about CO 2 and global warming. Try reading this article and some of those suggested in it.
DOE has had a "clean coal" program for over 30 years. They've throw millions of $s at it. Industry has declined to build "clean coal" plants.
The power company that wants so badly to build two new coal generators in western Kansas claims that they will use "clean coal" technology. They have been held back by the Democrat governor and her administration. She just vetoed the fourth attempt at allowing this plant yesterday. Our biggest problem is that she has been appointed by President Obama to serve as the Housing Secretary and if she gets by the Senate will be leaving for DC and her Lt. Governor, a reformed Republican, isn't as much against the generators.
isn't that something? Our President is taking that governor, with two years left on her last term, away from us and causing those coal fired power generators to be approved. What a tangled web we find in politics, huh?
I do know that a local rancher thought that it would be good because he could sell all his clean air to fools. However, about the time he started to get excited about it the EPA started talking about taxing cattle because they tend to pass off lots of methane in their farts. They eat plant life and that causes all that nasty methane. The proposed taxes would run lots of cattle producers out of business, my son is one of them. The proposed tax on beef cattle was $75 per head. I guess they meant to collect that on those ranchers and farmers, then again on feed lots that supply packing plants and hopefully that is all. One feed lot near my home (far enough away that we don't have to smell it, ever) keeps about 40,000 cattle all the time. You figure out how much money that would cost them in one year.
No such proposal was issued by the EPA. The EPA has indicated that agriculture is both a source and sink for GHGs. At some point those may be considered.
The power company that wants so badly to build two new coal generators in western Kansas claims that they will use "clean coal" technology. They have been held back by the Democrat governor and her administration. She just vetoed the fourth attempt at allowing this plant yesterday. Our biggest problem is that she has been appointed by President Obama to serve as the Housing Secretary and if she gets by the Senate will be leaving for DC and her Lt. Governor, a reformed Republican, isn't as much against the generators.
isn't that something? Our President is taking that governor, with two years left on her last term, away from us and causing those coal fired power generators to be approved. What a tangled web we find in politics, huh?
Show me one CCS technology (what they are relying on in KS) with commercial guarantees. It's technology that might work some day, but even then the entire cycle is fraught with issues. People are assuming you can just inject it into the ground. That's completely untested legal ground.
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.
