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.
What about recent studies that suggest that the extraction and burning of natural gas has a bigger impact on climate change than coal does?
They're alarming. Studies in places like the Marcellus Shale and Colorado have shown that the greenhouse emissions from natural gas are much, much worse than originally thought. Unfortunately, there isn't yet a comprehensive empirical analysis of the full carbon footprint of gas. So the Sierra Club—along with almost every other environmental group—is calling for a full study that documents those emissions and the extent to which they can be controlled or avoided altogether.
There is lot of environmentalist pushing the idea it produces more greenhouse gases becsue of what is emitted during production. From the Sierra Club:
By refusing to allow the Keystone pipeline, 0bama will increase CO2 also, because now the oil will go to the Canadian west coast, be loaded on Chinese oil tankers. The idiot 0bama will actually cause more pollution, he is such an idiot.
I read the posts here by conservatives defending dirty unhealthy coal plants and wonder where the American will to build and improve has done. All they want to do is stick with outdated coal plants when more efficient and cleaner means are available to make electricity.
Oh, do you know what MY monthly electric bill is for a 2,500 sq. ft house with central air? $11 a month -- because the utility has a minimum 31 cent a day billing policy. Why so low? I have solar panels on my roof.
“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.
I would offer, to the contrary, that a war on the president is exactly what is needed.
There is lot of environmentalist pushing the idea it produces more greenhouse gases becsue of what is emitted during production. From the Sierra Club:
You forgot this quote from your article:
Quote:
So we no longer view gas as a "bridge fuel"?
No. We don't need a bridge. The recent and dramatic decline in wind and solar prices means these energy sources are ready for prime time now. Wind energy is coming in at prices that compete very well with gas across the country. South Dakota and Iowa already get around 20 percent of their power from wind. Five states get more than 10 percent of their power from wind. And prices for solar panels have dropped to the point where solar can now compete with gas peaker plants in places where demand spikes during the daytime, which is most of the country.
I read the posts here by conservatives defending dirty unhealthy coal plants and wonder where the American will to build and improve has done. All they want to do is stick with outdated coal plants when more efficient and cleaner means are available to make electricity.
Oh, do you know what MY monthly electric bill is for a 2,500 sq. ft house with central air? $11 a month -- because the utility has a minimum 31 cent a day billing policy. Why so low? I have solar panels on my roof.
Au contraire, my communist friend
1. Your solar panels do more to pollute the planet by the use of heavy metals, which are far more toxic than CO2, which has not actually been shown to be detrimental. High sulfer coal (which is NOT what is now being targeted by Obama) certainly can produce deleterious sulpher dioxide. However, give me CO2, rather than Cadmium, Arsenic, and Lead poisoning.
Are you that daft? Solar energy is TOXIC!
2. Why not allow low sulpher coal to be produced?
a. it lowers energy costs by providing cheap electricity
b.it employs Americans
c. it allows American exports (except with Obama)
d. a 5% "tax" could be earmarked on coal for "clean energy"
You libs are idiots. You embrace more toxic, higher priced energy and abandon an abundant source of energy which could assure US energy independence and actually employ Americans (which is something Obama has not done).
Do we need more liberal misery? Dump Obama and the fascists and employ a rational, intelligent energy policy. This Obama plan will do nothing but increase unemployment and increase energy costs. It appears as thought the libs have become the party of economic misery for the US.
1. Your solar panels do more to pollute the planet by the use of heavy metals, which are far more toxic than CO2, which has not actually been shown to be detrimental. High sulfer coal (which is NOT what is now being targeted by Obama) certainly can produce deleterious sulpher dioxide. However, give me CO2, rather than Cadmium, Arsenic, and Lead poisoning.
Are you that daft? Solar energy is TOXIC!
2. Why not allow low sulpher coal to be produced?
a. it lowers energy costs by providing cheap electricity
b.it employs Americans
c. it allows American exports (except with Obama)
d. a 5% "tax" could be earmarked on coal for "clean energy"
You libs are idiots. You embrace more toxic, higher priced energy and abandon an abundant source of energy which could assure US energy independence and actually employ Americans (which is something Obama has not done).
Do we need more liberal misery? Dump Obama and the fascists and employ a rational, intelligent energy policy. This Obama plan will do nothing but increase unemployment and increase energy costs. It appears as thought the libs have become the party of economic misery for the US.
Gee, MTA, this is even from "Mother Jones". Please stop killing our environment with heavy metals and embrace coal.
Jesus Christ.... how pathetic. Mining coal causes heavy metals to leach into groundwater supplies and waterways, as do a lot of mining. There is no free lunch.
Where are the numbers showing solar panels are overall more toxic? Hmmmm? Your link doesn't show that.....
i read an article the other day saying there are approx 4500 NG power plants in the US and approx 1400 coal. We seem to have a lot of NG why cant we fit plants to burn NG it is somewhat cleaner
The cost of natural gas as a fuel is more than double the cost of coal. You do the math.
There is lot of environmentalist pushing the idea it produces more greenhouse gases becsue of what is emitted during production. From the Sierra Club:
Wow, using the Sierra Club coalman when it's convenient huh?
There is no war on coal. Coal is just not as cheap when you don't subsidize pollution. We are flush with natural gas and solar technology is getting closer to being competitive every day.
Last edited by dv1033; 06-26-2013 at 07:11 PM..
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.
