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.
Where are they going to dispose the coal ash, seems that is a rather large problem.
Quote:
As EPA delays new coal ash rules, residents turn to the courts for relief
.................................................. .............................................
The pending action and others come as the federal government weighs how to regulate coal ash, one of the nation’s largest refuse streams at 136 million tons a year. Two years after unveiling a plan to regulate coal ash disposal for the first time, the EPA has delayed the rules.
As the agency studies the issue, lawyers and citizens are filing toxic torts and regulatory appeals targeting specific ash sites. More than two dozen such challenges have surfaced in the past year, from Illinois to Nevada to West Virginia. Most of the litigation alleges unlined or partially lined dumps have leaked boron, uranium, chromium, thalium, manganese and other metals, tainting water sources and harming property and health.
Another hapless response proudly displayed by you for all to see.
Of course he, Bush, "touted" the program itself, because he was out ahead of the demonRATs with it. He never touted the bad loans made under conditions that were corrupt, politically selective back-scratching. Those were Obozo administration loans as I've already proven to you.
More... READ at CPI: White House Had Role in Federal Benefit for Failed Solar Company, House Investigators Say
Quote:
Homing in on one of the several shocking aspects of the Solyndra scandal, lawmakers noted that, a few months before the “clean energy” enterprise went belly-up last week, the Obama Energy Department signed off on a sweetheart deal. In the event of bankruptcy — the destination to which it was screamingly obvious Solyndra was headed despite the president’s injection of $535 million in federal loans — the cozily connected private investors would be given priority over American taxpayers. In other words, when the busted company’s assets were sold off, Obama pals would recoup some of their losses, while you would be left holding the half-billion-dollar bag.
And the money wasted in this shameless political bribery scheme was horrific... Obama's Failed Stimulus Program Cost More Than The Iraq War
And bear in mind that Solyndra laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 when it closed up shop in Obozos corrupt and failed attempt to create jobs. What a gross incompetent!
Just for you NoJiveMan, here's some of your Great Leader's historical legacy in an Obozo Scorecard of Corruption & Failure...
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
Total to date = $7,572,200,981.00 or $7.6BILLION, rounded-off.
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy
** Company and amount added as per source text comment)
I wouldn't expect this process to be as efficient. The trade off is it essentially eliminates air pollutants from the process and all of the generated CO2 is captured.
You may be right, but even if you are the efficiency trade-off is worth almost eliminating the negative impact of the air pollutants. Point being that if the federal government would work with the oil companies, instead of demonizing them, they could in the long-term convert to that form of coal energy production. And I don't mean by lending them MONEY THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE (STIMULUS). A simple revision of the tax code to allow ALL R&D costs to be fully deductible would have them on-board and a repeal of EPA regulations, enough to allow a reduced, but cleaner coal production in the interim would give the coal companies some 'breathing room' to cover the years of technologytransition.
A pragmatic realists's solution, NOT a partisan political scam solution.
And the money wasted in this shameless political bribery scheme was horrific... Obama's Failed Stimulus Program Cost More Than The Iraq War
And bear in mind that Solyndra laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 when it closed up shop in Obozos corrupt and failed attempt to create jobs. What a gross incompetent!
Just for you NoJiveMan, here's some of your Great Leader's historical legacy in an Obozo Scorecard of Corruption & Failure...
The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
Total to date = $7,572,200,981.00 or $7.6BILLION, rounded-off.
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy
** Company and amount added as per source text comment)
And I haven't even included all the JOBS LOST!
You vastly over reach. The big ones with a a couple of exceptions are capital project with little risk of a significant loss.
The small ones are speculative. A payoff by one or two could make the whole deal a big winner. You need to come back and recheck the list in 5 years or so.
Solyndra actually had a product that could well have won in a world with a level playing field. The technology was pretty good. The playing field however was not level.
I am surprised that you are not upset by the sinking of an American Corporation by Chinese dumping and subsidies. That is OK with you?
Ashes are an ingredient used in cement mixes. Brick mortar, concrete for roads, foundations for everything from bridges, buildings, sidewalks, pilings, curbs, etc.
Ashes are an ingredient used in cement mixes. Brick mortar, concrete for roads, foundations for everything from bridges, buildings, sidewalks, pilings, curbs, etc.
Do you have an expert authority for that observation OR is it just your opinion? That was also a complaint at the time that Edison developed the incandescent light bulb. People said that it was totally impractical and too expensive to bring to the marketplace. A good dozen and more preceded him in unsuccessful attempts. What Edison did, and without ANY govenment intervention or regulatory pressure (imagine that?), was that he was able to develop a higher vacuum than others were able to, in order to achieve a high resistance that made power distribution from a centralized source economically feasible. Like the fella said...'You could look it up.'
They were not very specific on the entire process, but they are essentially talking about CO2 capture, which means a lot of expense and energy is going into that, which takes away from the energy output, and greatly adds to costs. That CO2 has got to go someplace, so what do they intend to do with it?
The process calls for the manufacture of what will realistically become tons of iron-oxide pellets, what energy and resources will this entail, the article does not say, so we are left to believe they just magically appear.
I'm a realist, I don't go ooo and ahhh every time someone comes up with an idea, I try to tear it apart and see the bad side that the promoters try to hide.
Now now. No cheating. Fly ash is used as an additive in some concretes.
But it is not a solution to the fly ash problem. It is more a constructive way of not burying part of the fly ash produced.
Read your reference...it is pretty clear about all this.
Not so much any more, not since the EPA made power plants introduce low-NO x burners. The fly ash produced by those contain unburned carbon makes the ash unsuitable for use in the manufacture of cement. Now we potentially have tons of ash that lost most of the recycle ability.
They were not very specific on the entire process, but they are essentially talking about CO2 capture, which means a lot of expense and energy is going into that, which takes away from the energy output, and greatly adds to costs. That CO2 has got to go someplace, so what do they intend to do with it?
The process calls for the manufacture of what will realistically become tons of iron-oxide pellets, what energy and resources will this entail, the article does not say, so we are left to believe they just magically appear.
I'm a realist, I don't go ooo and ahhh every time someone comes up with an idea, I try to tear it apart and see the bad side that the promoters try to hide.
Well Wapasha all these alternative energy sources require much invested expense. No way around that and I'm a pragmatic realist also, but admittedly no expert research scientist in this process, but it makes 'reasonable' sense to let the development go forward UNTIL it shows that process is too expensive. The marketplace will ultimately make that decision.
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.
. 
