• Coal industry warns proposed EPA rule could force fourth of plants to close
    45 replies, posted
Coal industry warns proposed EPA rule could force fourth of plants to close May 10, 2012 FOX [quote]In obscure, blue-collar towns across Appalachia -- places that most Americans have never seen -- generations of coal miners have toiled away at back-breaking labor to power American homes and industry. Now, as many as 200,000 of them who dig, process, transport and burn America's most abundant fuel are threatened by EPA's latest coal rule. It imposes a standard for emissions that is all but impossible for many plants to meet. It requires coal-fired plants to release no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. The only means for many older plants to attain that standard is to install what is known as carbon capture and storage technology. But that's expensive and not commercially available. "At the end of the day, we just couldn't justify it based upon what that cost would be," says Mark Durbin of First Energy, which owns the Willow Island Power Station in Albright, W.Va., "It would be astronomical to try and retrofit some of older units that really are not as efficient as they should be." Environmentalists are praising the new rule as a vital defense against climate change. "We know what fossil fuel damages do to our public health, the health of our kids, our families," said Brent Blackwelder at a recent gathering of Friends of the Earth. "We know the damage it does to crops and to buildings. And now the big damage all around the world is climate disruption." But coal industry representatives believe they've made great strides in reducing emissions through the years -- now capturing over 99 percent of particulate emissions released during the combustion process. The EPA's proposed rule, they say, sets the bar too high and may force the closure of 20 to 25 percent of coal-fired plants across the United States. In a state known for its bare-knuckles politics, both men vying for the governor’s office have joined forces in fighting this and other EPA regulations that target the coal industry. Incumbent Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin plans to sue the EPA over the rule - a move that his Republican opponent Bill Maloney welcomes. "Last year at this time, we were looking for 2,000 coal miners to go to work. Now there's 2,000 laid off," Maloney said. "We've got six coal-fired power plants that are being shut. We're losing our competitive edge, and it's wrong." As one measure of the disdain in West Virginia for the Obama administration's crackdown on coal, a federal prisoner doing 17 years for extortion got 41 percent of the vote in Tuesday's Democratic primary to President Obama's 59 percent. Administration supporters are banking on cheap, clean and abundant natural gas as a substitute for coal-fired power, but critics say there are problems with its transportation and storage -- problems which have lead to price hikes in the past. Craig Jennings, president of the Preston County, W.Va., Commission, says his constituents are bracing for big spikes in their electricity bills. "They're telling us that you're going to see at least a 30 percent increase in your electric bill now," he said. "For an older person on a fixed income in an older home who's used to paying $300 a month for an electric bill they're going to be pushing $400 a month now on that same electric bill." West Virginians can take comfort in one small legal victory, one they hope to see repeated in other pending lawsuits. In March, a federal judge reversed a controversial EPA rule that forced Mingo Logan Coal Company to stop work at its Spruce Number One Mine, a property in which it had already invested millions of dollars. The judge concluded that the EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act by revoking a permit that had already been granted.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/10/coal-industry-warns-proposed-epa-rule-could-force-fourth-plants-to-close/[/url]
the horror.
I don't give a shit about what the coal industry thinks, they're a dying industry that needs a few more nails in the coffin. You want to pollute the Earth with coal fumes? It's called industrial progress. New forms of business are made while others die. This will die. It has to. If they're forced to utilize new forms of energy, they'll survive. If they can't meet the regulations, they'll die. It's how business works. Clean energy will dominate the face of the energy industry within the next five years. I've been in the plants that make windmills and I've seen the solar panels being made. They produce power better and cleaner, and they're [B]GOING[/B] to get the price down to 10% of what it is right now. You think this shit will survive? Grow up and welcome to the real world kid.
It's dumb to oppose this in the way you almost certainly do Glaber.
Considering we've been adamant to stick to coal (a notoriously dirty burning fuel) while at the same time refusing to upgrade aging facilities, these guys have to bite the bullet someday and revamp. The coal plant's argument is the same one as factories that dump raw sewage into rivers in order to "cut costs and stay competitive". [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] also, lmaofoxnewsbalancedreporting
And you know what? You can call me a fucking hippy for "wanting hopeless shit to work" like clean energy, but you know what? I'm supporting because not only will it help the environment, [B]it's profitable as fuck.[/B] The environmental industry is taking off like nothing else, and NOTHING can stop it. Not the coal industry, not the lobbyists, not even your pitiful little politicians with their oil-company money. This shit is going down HARD, and it'll make people like [B]me[/B] a whole lot of money. I REALLY hope you enjoy being stuck in the 20th century, because you're going to be fucked because of it.
of course they do. why the hell should I believe anything "the coal industry" has to say about regulations on the coal industry?
Ohhhhh, that's too bad.
opens up room for some new nuclear power
Good. Anything's better then the coal fired plants.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35909757]Clean energy will dominate the face of the energy industry [B]within the next five years.[/B][/QUOTE] I don't know if we're going to get it THAT quick. Don't get me wrong, I believe cleaner, alternative forms of energy will spring up sooner or later, but I don't think we'll be getting it quite that soon. I suppose I'm just being pessimistic, though.
I do care about the workers, but coal in general is bad for all of us.
[QUOTE=Marcolade;35910120]I don't know if we're going to get it THAT quick. Don't get me wrong, I believe cleaner, alternative forms of energy will spring up sooner or later, but I don't think we'll be getting it quite that soon. I suppose I'm just being pessimistic, though.[/QUOTE] Dude, I've been touring these facilities, particularly the ones in Phoenix and Tucson. They KNOW the issues with solar power and they've fixed it. Newer and cheaper panels will be on the market in less than a year. There's an underground revolution stirring within the energy industry, and it's about to break out exponentially.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35910290]Dude, I've been touring these facilities, particularly the ones in Phoenix and Tucson. They KNOW the issues with solar power and they've fixed it. Newer and cheaper panels will be on the market in less than a year. There's an underground revolution stirring within the energy industry, and it's about to break out exponentially.[/QUOTE] Awesome, then! :dance:
[QUOTE=Marcolade;35910330]Awesome, then! :dance:[/QUOTE] It's amazing. The amount of people they have working on all of this would blow you away. Solon and A few other Spanish and German firms are the biggest players. China is definitely making the cheapest ones though. ASU is 60% solar-powered. We're almost self-sustained.
Oh shit, then they may have to INNOVATE with the record breaking profits they are making. Oh no, some CEO might go without a bonus - but who am I kidding, it'll surely get passed down to us and the CEO's will take home millions anyways.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35910290]Dude, I've been touring these facilities, particularly the ones in Phoenix and Tucson. They KNOW the issues with solar power and they've fixed it. Newer and cheaper panels will be on the market in less than a year. There's an underground revolution stirring within the energy industry, and it's about to break out exponentially.[/QUOTE] plus, doesn't the cost of solar panels decrease by 1/3rd every year or something?
Another example of big government busting the balls of the industry which created America, there is no cost incentive to lower emissions, why must you punish success?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35909851]And you know what? You can call me a fucking hippy for "wanting hopeless shit to work" like clean energy, but you know what? I'm supporting because not only will it help the environment, [B]it's profitable as fuck.[/B] The environmental industry is taking off like nothing else, and NOTHING can stop it. Not the coal industry, not the lobbyists, not even your pitiful little politicians with their oil-company money. This shit is going down HARD, and it'll make people like [B]me[/B] a whole lot of money. I REALLY hope you enjoy being stuck in the 20th century, because you're going to be fucked because of it.[/QUOTE] Another good thing about green energy(specifically stuff like tidal, wind and solar) is that those jobs can't be outsourced. unless something crazy happens to the earth we'll always have the sun, wind and waves. Unlike fossil fuels which we will inevitably run out of and seek it out elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35910473]Another example of big government busting the balls of the industry which created America, there is no cost incentive to lower emissions, why must you punish success?[/QUOTE] There is an incentive to lower emissions, it's called [B]lower[/B] maintenance costs, [B]zero[/B] third-party suppliers (such as coal mining), tax-breaks, as well as the fact that you let it SIT and it makes money. Coal has so many variables that makes it old-fashioned and inefficient. It would die with or without regulation, it just determines how long it takes. Also Glaber, come out of your damn hidey hole! I want you friggin' opinion on this so I can smash it down with some good old fashioned business and insider-engineer knowledge.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35910577]There is an incentive to lower emissions, it's called [B]lower[/B] maintenance costs, [B]zero[/B] third-party suppliers (such as coal mining), tax-breaks, as well as the fact that you let it SIT and it makes money. Coal has so many variables that makes it old-fashioned and inefficient. It would die with or without regulation, it just determines how long it takes.[/QUOTE] I was talking about coal plants not needing to lower their emissions output, but too bad the Democrats are hell bent on destroying American industry (like they did with GM) through over-regulation. Also, what you say about no 3rd party suppliers sounds dangerously like nationalised energy production, what's next? wealth redistribution? worker co-ops? take your Communism elsewhere Stalin
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35910611]I was talking about coal plants not needing to lower their emissions output, but too bad the Democrats are hell bent on destroying American industry (like they did with GM) through over-regulation. Also, what you say about no 3rd party suppliers sounds dangerously like nationalised energy production, what's next? wealth redistribution? worker co-ops? take your Communism elsewhere Stalin[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;YIlL0T2yTss]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIlL0T2yTss&hd=1[/video]
[QUOTE=Funcoot;35910684][video=youtube;YIlL0T2yTss]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIlL0T2yTss&hd=1[/video][/QUOTE] Typical liberals, got nothing to reply with so they just pretend they are more superior
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35910693]Typical liberals, got nothing to reply with so they just pretend they are more superior[/QUOTE] It's funny that you assume I'm a liberal. I was just laughing at your stupidity. I'm left leaning, but no where to the extent of most facepunch users.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;35910700]It's funny that you assume I'm a liberal. I was just laughing at your stupidity. I'm left leaning, but no where to the extent of most facepunch users.[/QUOTE] And you still have nothing to reply with, thanks for the ad hominem
Guys. Guys. I think he's trolling. No one is that unabashedly stupid.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35910717]And you still have nothing to reply with, thanks for the ad hominem[/QUOTE] You suggested that a power company that has no need to pay other companies to procure resources is communism.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;35910733]You suggested that a power company that has no need to pay other companies to procure resources is communism.[/QUOTE] Uhh, obviously the government gets its energy from 3rd party suppliers (as it should). So what he was inferring by saying zero 3rd party suppliers was that the government should abandon the resources it has for an unfeasible 'green' energy (which is actually worse for the environment for coal, carbon dioxide is one of the key molecules for life, why wouldn't we want more of it?) run by themselves rather than allowing companies to do it more efficiently.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35909757]I don't give a shit about what the coal industry thinks, they're a dying industry that needs a few more nails in the coffin. You want to pollute the Earth with coal fumes? It's called industrial progress. New forms of business are made while others die. This will die. It has to. If they're forced to utilize new forms of energy, they'll survive. If they can't meet the regulations, they'll die. It's how business works. Clean energy will dominate the face of the energy industry within the next five years. I've been in the plants that make windmills and I've seen the solar panels being made. They produce power better and cleaner, and they're [B]GOING[/B] to get the price down to 10% of what it is right now. You think this shit will survive? Grow up and welcome to the real world kid.[/QUOTE] Calling multi-millionaire/billionaires kids, very angsty of you.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;35910764]Uhh, obviously the government gets its energy from 3rd party suppliers (as it should). So what he was inferring by saying zero 3rd party suppliers was that the government should abandon the resources it has for an unfeasible 'green' energy (which is actually worse for the environment for coal, carbon dioxide is one of the key molecules for life, why wouldn't we want more of it?) run by themselves rather than allowing companies to do it more efficiently.[/QUOTE] The fact that you assume the government runs every power company show how ignorant you are. Most power companies are private companies. What Ewitwin's is saying is that oil and coal are expensive energies. Coal and oil must be extracted, which is very expensive. Then you have to transport it to a plant, which is also expensive. Then you have to refine it, which is also expensive. Then you burn it and pollute the Earth. Solar, wind, tidal, and other similar energies are all consolidated, so that you don't have to worry paying another company to extract these resources, it all happens in the same location. Oh, and they don't harm the planet. They don't cause large scale disasters that decimate ecosystems. Oh and by the way. I would like to inform you that life existed before coal fueled power plants did. We don't need coal fueled power plants polluting the atmosphere to survive; Earth can produce its own carbon dioxide on it's own. :downs: But what do I know? I'm just a typical liberal with no reply.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.