For bryant

A war on coal is what the planet needs

In June, US President Barack Obama told students at Georgetown University that he refused to condemn them and their children and grandchildren to “a planet that’s beyond fixing.” Saying that climate change cannot wait for Congress to overcome its “partisan gridlock,” he announced measures using his executive power to limit CO2 emissions, first from new fossil-fuel power plants, and then from existing ones.

Obama also called for an end to public financing of new coal plants overseas, unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies (which are not yet economically viable), or else there is, he said, “no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity.”

According to Daniel Schrag, Director of Harvard University’s Center for the Environment and a member of a presidential science panel that has helped to advise Obama on climate change, “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.”

Schrag is right. His university, like mine and many others, has a plan to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet most of them, including Schrag’s and mine, continue to invest part of their multi-billion-dollar endowments in companies that extract and sell coal.

But pressure on educational institutions to stop investing in fossil fuels is beginning to build. Student groups have formed on many campuses, and a handful of colleges and universities have already pledged to end their investment in fossil fuels. Several US cities, including San Francisco and Seattle, have agreed to do the same. Financial institutions, too, are coming under fire for their involvement with fossil fuels.

Speaking at Harvard earlier this year, former US Vice President Al Gore praised a student group that was pushing the university to sell its investments in fossil-fuel companies, and compared their activities to the divestment campaign in the 1980’s that helped to end South Africa’s racist apartheid policy.

How fair is that comparison? The dividing lines may be less sharp than they were with apartheid, but our continued high level of greenhouse-gas emissions protects the interests of one group of humans — mainly affluent people who are alive today — at the cost of others. Our behavior disregards most of the world’s poor, and everyone who will live on this planet in centuries to come.

Worldwide, the poor leave a very small carbon footprint, but they will suffer the most from climate change.

The poor are also the ones hit hardest by the higher energy prices brought on by climate folks. This is so ignorant to me you got these hipsters consuming the same power as the rest of us, and just as addicted to modern conveniences, yet they think by getting colleges to divest, theyre saving the world. Well i hate to break it to them, but we HAVE TO USE FOSSILFUELS STILL! This is what im talking about. You have all the elites lecturing us about energy use, when their carbon footprints are way bigger than joe shmoe's. in fact, im sure many of the elites would like to keep all their stuff, and just have us regular people walking everywhere and living in huts.

Coal is a horrible, dirty energy source. The sooner we quit using it the better. The only reason that regulations aren't tighter is because Pennsylvania and West Virginia are politically important.

Bryant wrote:Coal is a horrible, dirty energy source.  The sooner we quit using it the better.  The only reason that regulations aren't tighter is because Pennsylvania and West Virginia are politically important.

What is even more horrible and dirty Is that damn EPA making us put converters on our exhaust. Now we no longer worry about carbon emissions.......we now emit ammonia. Ammonia people.......is good for our environment. At least that is what the EPA is telling us. Same thing wilh coal fired plants.

So let's get this straight. In 1992 we cut our carbon emissions by 90%. In 1997 we cut by another 90%. In 2002, 2006, 2009, and 2012 we cut by 90% again. Anybody know what we are down to now??? We are now putting out .00001% of what we were when I first got into the industry. We now put out tons of ammonia which we weren't doing before. Same with coal.

So how exactly is it dirty???

Tell me what happens when our ammonia levels in the atmosphere get too high......acid rain sound good.

Seems to me that information isn't being provided for people to make informed choices.

Because right now there is no choice we get 80% of our power from coal fired plants. What are we going to replace that with, right now?

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:Coal is a horrible, dirty energy source.  The sooner we quit using it the better.  The only reason that regulations aren't tighter is because Pennsylvania and West Virginia are politically important.

What is even more horrible and dirty Is that damn EPA making us put converters on our exhaust. Now we no longer worry about carbon emissions.......we now emit ammonia. Ammonia people.......is good for our environment. At least that is what the EPA is telling us. Same thing wilh coal fired plants.

So let's get this straight. In 1992 we cut our carbon emissions by 90%. In 1997 we cut by another 90%. In 2002, 2006, 2009, and 2012 we cut by 90% again. Anybody know what we are down to now??? We are now putting out .00001% of what we were when I first got into the industry. We now put out tons of ammonia which we weren't doing before. Same with coal.

So how exactly is it dirty???

Tell me what happens when our ammonia levels in the atmosphere get too high......acid rain sound good.

Seems to me that information isn't being provided for people to make informed choices.

That would take a lot of nitrogen (three moles H for every one mole H).

Sir Pun wrote:Because right now there is no choice we get 80% of our power from coal fired plants. What are we going to replace that with, right now?

Other forms of energy, the most appropriate form of which depends on local. We aren't going to make this change over night, however it seems like anyone takes any anti-coal stance the Coal industry goes nuts and calls on its pets in Congress (both houses).

Other forms of energy...wow thats so simple, why hasnt anyone else thought of that? Youre not, at least not anywhere approaching economically possible, ie skyrocketing energy costs, which again hits the poorest hardest. Youre not going to replace that 80% anytime in the near future, and virtually overnight is exactly what obama and his eco elites want.

Bryant wrote:

Sir Pun wrote:Because right now there is no choice we get 80% of our power from coal fired plants. What are we going to replace that with, right now?

Other forms of energy, the most appropriate form of which depends on local.  We aren't going to make this change over night, however it seems like anyone takes any anti-coal stance the Coal industry goes nuts and calls on its pets in Congress (both houses).

Which is of course evil and selfish and totally unlike other industries pets???

Tell me again just how much in fines the wind industry has paid for the destruction of bald and golden eagles.

The answer is $0.00

Meanwhile how many fines have we paid just for chopping down a lupine plant(which is not endangered or theatened)???

Answer is billions.

Hypocrisy has no place in government......or anywhere else for that matter.

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:Coal is a horrible, dirty energy source.  The sooner we quit using it the better.  The only reason that regulations aren't tighter is because Pennsylvania and West Virginia are politically important.

What is even more horrible and dirty Is that damn EPA making us put converters on our exhaust. Now we no longer worry about carbon emissions.......we now emit ammonia. Ammonia people.......is good for our environment. At least that is what the EPA is telling us. Same thing wilh coal fired plants.

So let's get this straight. In 1992 we cut our carbon emissions by 90%. In 1997 we cut by another 90%. In 2002, 2006, 2009, and 2012 we cut by 90% again. Anybody know what we are down to now??? We are now putting out .00001% of what we were when I first got into the industry. We now put out tons of ammonia which we weren't doing before. Same with coal.

So how exactly is it dirty???

Tell me what happens when our ammonia levels in the atmosphere get too high......acid rain sound good.

Seems to me that information isn't being provided for people to make informed choices.

 I didn't know this.  They emit ammonia now?  That doesn't sound good.  If the EPA says its good for the environment, let em go to Wal-Mart and buy a bottle, open in and inhale.  then tell me if its good for us.   

I had thought that most plants had already reduced their pollutants to a pretty good level...at least compared to Hong Kong and places in India.  And I thought the catalytic converter on automobiles had greatly reduced pollution.  So I don't understand why the left keeps caving in to the greenies demands.  The greenies will never be satisfied until we're all swinging like monkeys from the trees.

Bryant wrote:

Sir Pun wrote:Because right now there is no choice we get 80% of our power from coal fired plants. What are we going to replace that with, right now?

Other forms of energy, the most appropriate form of which depends on local.  We aren't going to make this change over night, however it seems like anyone takes any anti-coal stance the Coal industry goes nuts and calls on its pets in Congress (both houses).

Kinda reminds me of what happens whenever anyone talks about banning gay marriage. 

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:

Sir Pun wrote:Because right now there is no choice we get 80% of our power from coal fired plants. What are we going to replace that with, right now?

Other forms of energy, the most appropriate form of which depends on local.  We aren't going to make this change over night, however it seems like anyone takes any anti-coal stance the Coal industry goes nuts and calls on its pets in Congress (both houses).

Which is of course evil and selfish and totally unlike other industries pets???

Tell me again just how much in fines the wind industry has paid for the destruction of bald and golden eagles.

The answer is $0.00

That's an interesting topic.  It looks to me like we could install some device that emits a light or sound that would repel eagles away from those windmills.  (Putting one of those loudspeakers they have in Muslims countries and having regular calls to prayer would repel em I bet).  It sure repels me. 

Dennis324 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Bryant wrote:Coal is a horrible, dirty energy source.  The sooner we quit using it the better.  The only reason that regulations aren't tighter is because Pennsylvania and West Virginia are politically important.

What is even more horrible and dirty Is that damn EPA making us put converters on our exhaust. Now we no longer worry about carbon emissions.......we now emit ammonia. Ammonia people.......is good for our environment. At least that is what the EPA is telling us. Same thing wilh coal fired plants.

So let's get this straight. In 1992 we cut our carbon emissions by 90%. In 1997 we cut by another 90%. In 2002, 2006, 2009, and 2012 we cut by 90% again. Anybody know what we are down to now??? We are now putting out .00001% of what we were when I first got into the industry. We now put out tons of ammonia which we weren't doing before. Same with coal.

So how exactly is it dirty???

Tell me what happens when our ammonia levels in the atmosphere get too high......acid rain sound good.

Seems to me that information isn't being provided for people to make informed choices.

 I didn't know this.  They emit ammonia now?  That doesn't sound good.  If the EPA says its good for the environment, let em go to Wal-Mart and buy a bottle, open in and inhale.  then tell me if its good for us.   

I had thought that most plants had already reduced their pollutants to a pretty good level...at least compared to Hong Kong and places in India.  And I thought the catalytic converter on automobiles had greatly reduced pollution.  So I don't understand why the left keeps caving in to the greenies demands.  The greenies will never be satisfied until we're all swinging like monkeys from the trees.

Yep, can't even stand anywhere downwind of our turbine generators or our gas compressors now-a-days. Eyes water, throat gets irritated and you cough all night.

Shell's Mobile Bay platforms was the site of the first catalyst units I ever installed. That was back in 2002 if memory serves me right. Supposedly it is trace amounts, but it is enough to irritate you. Add up all the facilities out there that are fitted with them and you get a good amount. Also realize that government also requires similar systems on diesels built after 2010 and we have even more of that "trace amount". Just another reason I will not get rid of my 2008.....love that truck anyway.