Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
15 hours ago.
by NasCarNut
BeRight
#1

Barack Obama Legacy

BBB

 
 

Member Comments

BeRight

Slink pay attention. We are talking about Scrubbers, then Sorbent Injection and then SCRs. Fix one problem and they make up a new one. Once the Clean Coal technology proves out (your definition of owners upgrading to new tech) there will be a new issue, made up by the EPA, that the power plants will have to deal with.

Posted 99 days ago.

Shopsteward

Exactly Beright

Posted 99 days ago.

Shopsteward

Exactly Beright

Posted 99 days ago.

BeRight

And SCR's

Posted 99 days ago.

A big part of the fault in this goes to the owner -operators of these plants who were supposed to upgrade while being let to continue operations . Instead of doing what they were supposed to do they chose to just take the money and run !

Posted 99 days ago.

Shopsteward

This has happened many times Beright, if one chose a sorbent lime injection several years ago, it is now obsolete.

Posted 99 days ago.

Nope , this was supposed to happen years ago and your republinutz just kepy on selling them credits !

Posted 100 days ago.

Shopsteward

Beright that is exactly the problem, its a moving target. As soon as one spends the money to hit the target, it has changed before the system can be put online

Posted 100 days ago.

BeRight

If or when Kemper County/ Southern Company comes on line and proves the technology of clean coal, the environmentalist and the EPA will ask that the standards be raised again. Guaranteed.

Posted 100 days ago.

Shopsteward

Some idiots have no clue what it takes to convert coal power plants that are only "outdated" because of a hostile EPA and power hungry socialist president

Posted 100 days ago.

The whole problem was in the understanding that out of date powerplants would eventually be updated with clean coal technology but sadly when the owners of said plants found that they could just buy credits they halted the research into clean coal which wasnt part of the deal .

Posted 100 days ago.

Kunectdots

slinky - I Googled "pollution credits" and the first article speaks of the action to which you refer. Others can check it at; "Trading away the Earth; Pollution Credits and the Perils of Free Market Environmentalism".

Here is an exert from that article.

"To true believers in the magic of the free market, it seemed like the perfect plan. But once the EPA actually began auctioning pollution credits in 1993 it became clear that virtually nothing was going according to their projections."

Began in 1993, the very year William Jefferson Blythe III became president and HIS EPA was apparently happy with the arrangement for the full eight years of his term.

h ttp://social-ecology.o rg/w p/1996/04/trading-away-the-earth-pollution-credits-and-the-perils-of-free-market-environmentalism/

Posted 100 days ago.

They were called pollution credits and thats what kept out of date power plants in business for 20 or so years . google "pollution credits"

Posted 101 days ago.

BeRight

Kemper County/ Southern Company Project: This plant says it will meet all current EPA requirements. Why ae Environmentalists so against a project that meets all current rules?

Posted 101 days ago.

harryanderson

BeRight, you wrote, "The fact that we have an abundance of natural gas through fracking does not change what Obama 'intended' do."

Maybe, maybe not, but we haven't been talking about intentions. Shopsteward was talking cause and effect, not intention, when he wrote that Obama's EPA was the number-one killer of UMW jobs. The discussion is about whether shopsteward's claim is true or false, not Obama's intention.

And I offered up a competent source, the head of a large coal-burning power company, to dispute shopsteward's claim. And my source, Charles Patton, didn't address Obama's intent.

I won't address Obama's intent, either. It's not that important, since the Congress and Court stopped his drive to address it in 2009 and again with the CPP. What actually happened is what counts.

Yes, cheap gas has fallen into our laps. We have been blessed.

Posted 101 days ago.

Kunectdots

slinky - Please be a Dear and cite a reference source for information about the "selling chits to energy businesses to keep the coal burning".

While it may be true, your allusion to it is the first I've heard about it and I would like to know more.

Posted 101 days ago.

And yes we are trying to get other countries to work on that problem but the reality is they are their own countries and we can suggest but they will do what they want . All we can do is our part in this !

Posted 101 days ago.

Bewrite , we were supposed to either move to clean coal technology or phase coal out in the late 70's-early 80's, the government however learned that there was money to be made in selling chits to energy businesses to keep the coal burning ! That all had limitations and had to end sometime , it just happened to end on Obama's watch !

Posted 101 days ago.

BeRight

Remember, this is a "global" problem. Libs seems to forget that.

Posted 101 days ago.

BeRight

One way or another, he wanted to move away from coal. But wait there more: China, the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases from coal, has been burning up to 17 percent more coal a year than the government previously disclosed, according to newly released data. The sharp upward revision in official figures means that China has released much more carbon dioxide — almost a billion more tons a year according to initial calculations — than previously estimated. The increase alone is greater than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.

I never see letters to the editor wringing their hands about China.

Posted 101 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or