(01-13-2017 12:34 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Obama #1 goal was to kill coal. Most likely his greatest "success".
The elite mf never saw the humanity of it. That is what kills me. Dems will scream about the destruction of the rain forest and the impact on the environment yet, ignores the coal minor. Total fail. There is a right way of doing things. Example #1 of how to do it wrong.

Why not do things the right way instead of "Tom's way"?

Well there is the whole environmental thing too...which isn't insignificant. Ever been to China? I suggest a trip.

I was in Mexico City during the bad old days (as a kid) before they cleaned it up. I've seen many places that are supposedly highly polluted...But Coal King China ....is just on an entirely different scale.

Beijing's air pollution situation is DANGEROUS. As in, ok, I cannot be out on the street in this much longer, I must go inside a building that has an A/c and a filtration system. Last time I was there, they cancelled my flight because the pollution was so bad that there was a question whether the pollution would damage the aircraft engines.

---

London had this problem before they said 'enough' and moved away from coal and put in those pesky reguations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London .

---

So lets recap. Coal is

1) Less effective in power generation
2) Less effective in system reliability
3) Not significantly cheaper
4) Much more damaging to the environment and has caused SIGNIFICANT and obvious negative consequences.

No reason to use coal. It just needs to go away.

(01-13-2017 12:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:34 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Obama #1 goal was to kill coal. Most likely his greatest "success".
The elite mf never saw the humanity of it. That is what kills me. Dems will scream about the destruction of the rain forest and the impact on the environment yet, ignores the coal minor. Total fail. There is a right way of doing things. Example #1 of how to do it wrong.

Why not do things the right way instead of "Tom's way"?

Well there is the whole environmental thing too...which isn't insignificant. Ever been to China? I suggest a trip.

I was in Mexico City during the bad old days (as a kid) before they cleaned it up. I've seen many places that are supposedly highly polluted...But Coal King China ....is just on an entirely different scale.

Beijing's air pollution situation is DANGEROUS. As in, ok, I cannot be out on the street in this much longer, I must go inside a building that has an A/c and a filtration system. Last time I was there, they cancelled my flight because the pollution was so bad that there was a question whether the pollution would damage the aircraft engines.

---

London had this problem before they said 'enough' and moved away from coal and put in those pesky reguations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London .

There is a "rain forest" of millennials on Obama Care.
Obama is wrong in how he did things.
Trump may do the same......
Or he may not.

(01-13-2017 10:55 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Just another example of what was already happening --- and what will continue to happen --- regardless of whatever Trump does to EPA regulations.

http://www.startribune.com/legislators-p...410578955/

Quote:The Minneapolis-based utility wants to build a 786-megawatt natural gas-fired plant in Becker, Minn., to partly replace the power lost when it shutters two big coal-fired plants there.

Also saw where Michigan is going to be shutting down a bunch of coal-fired plants, for new natural gas plants.



Dirty coal needs to die. I'll take natural gas, even from fracking, if we can completely kill dirty coal. One step at a time, towards completely clean power for all.

Good riddance, dirty coal.

The level of ignorance I've come to expect from you.... See one article about a single facet of something and run with it before you've taken the time to inform yourself.



You do know in addition to energy coal has hundreds of other industrial applications right? Activated carbon, Carbon Fiber, Steele Production, Silicon metal, alumina refineries, paper manufacturers, chemical and pharmaceutical industries.....

IOW..

What do You expect from a dedicated liberal Democrat. Towin' that party line

(01-13-2017 11:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  Whether you think it is necessary or not, to deny that the decline is primarily due to government regulations is just ridiculous.

Works for me.

You could probably say the same thing for smallpox outbreaks.

(01-13-2017 12:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think that a trip to Beijing or Chengdu or even Shanghai (on the coast) will convince anyone that "coal is a problem - and unregulated coal emissions would be a disaster"

Yeah, China is falling over itself to get away from coal.

Coal is just a filthy, disgusting form of energy.

It's funny to see some of the responses here.


To the extreme conservatives on this board, anything that even looks like a "win" for progressives is therefore a "loss" for conservatives. Even if that's nonsense.

They want so bad to defeat this, reverse the trend, and/or pretend like Trump can do something about it.

But they don't even have an inch of a leg to stand on. We won this one, thankfully.

(01-13-2017 12:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Just another example of what was already happening --- and what will continue to happen --- regardless of whatever Trump does to EPA regulations.

http://www.startribune.com/legislators-p...410578955/

Quote:The Minneapolis-based utility wants to build a 786-megawatt natural gas-fired plant in Becker, Minn., to partly replace the power lost when it shutters two big coal-fired plants there.

Also saw where Michigan is going to be shutting down a bunch of coal-fired plants, for new natural gas plants.



Dirty coal needs to die. I'll take natural gas, even from fracking, if we can completely kill dirty coal. One step at a time, towards completely clean power for all.

Good riddance, dirty coal.

This...DJT can't be FOR Keystone and FOR Coal Country at the same time. And everyone with half a brain knows it.

Anybody who knows anything knows that the Obama administration has made rules to try to force coal plants out of business.

Whether you think it is necessary or not, to deny that the decline is primarily due to government regulations is just ridiculous.

Coal is still cheap and plentiful.

In a plentiful energy scenario, energy sourcing is largely a zero sum game. Use one and you don't need the other.

So does DJT hurt Coal Country or restrict growth in the nat gas fields?

----

If you think massive power generation powered by coal with no regulation is a good idea, might I suggest you go to China. Bring a mask.

I think that a trip to Beijing or Chengdu or even Shanghai (on the coast) will convince anyone that "coal is a problem - and unregulated coal emissions would be a disaster"

There's an argument against using coal.

But its either ignorant or deceitful to say coal was declining on its own.

Government banned oil in power plants and they started building lots of new coal plants, especially ones using lignite in the 80s. The decline is due to government regulations.

(01-13-2017 12:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:34 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Obama #1 goal was to kill coal. Most likely his greatest "success".
The elite mf never saw the humanity of it. That is what kills me. Dems will scream about the destruction of the rain forest and the impact on the environment yet, ignores the coal minor. Total fail. There is a right way of doing things. Example #1 of how to do it wrong.

Why not do things the right way instead of "Tom's way"?

Well there is the whole environmental thing too...which isn't insignificant. Ever been to China? I suggest a trip.

I was in Mexico City during the bad old days (as a kid) before they cleaned it up. I've seen many places that are supposedly highly polluted...But Coal King China ....is just on an entirely different scale.

Beijing's air pollution situation is DANGEROUS. As in, ok, I cannot be out on the street in this much longer, I must go inside a building that has an A/c and a filtration system. Last time I was there, they cancelled my flight because the pollution was so bad that there was a question whether the pollution would damage the aircraft engines.

---

London had this problem before they said 'enough' and moved away from coal and put in those pesky reguations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London .

---

So lets recap. Coal is

1) Less effective in power generation
2) Less effective in system reliability
3) Not significantly cheaper
4) Much more damaging to the environment and has caused SIGNIFICANT and obvious negative consequences.

No reason to use coal. It just needs to go away.

Getting F'n oil from the Middle East is dangerous to all those huge Sandstorms can take out aircraft and vehicles so We need Our own desert free oil pipelines and coal mines to go with the limited Solar and Wind farms and Never rely on the Middle East oil fields again.

Obama has been against coal. He is even against methods to try to clean up coal power generation.

(01-13-2017 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  Obama has been against coal. He is even against methods to try to clean up coal power generation.

It's His spoiled child way to punish Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee for Not voting for His A$$ in 2008 & 2012 and Hillary in 2016. Let Him eat cake in His retirement.

(01-13-2017 01:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  Whether you think it is necessary or not, to deny that the decline is primarily due to government regulations is just ridiculous.

Works for me.

You could probably say the same thing for smallpox outbreaks.

(01-13-2017 12:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think that a trip to Beijing or Chengdu or even Shanghai (on the coast) will convince anyone that "coal is a problem - and unregulated coal emissions would be a disaster"

Yeah, China is falling over itself to get away from coal.

Coal is just a filthy, disgusting form of energy.

"Dirty jobs" . Ain't nothing wrong with them. Fracks me up that some of you "environmentalist" ignore the environment. I guess some species deserve to be extinct.

(01-13-2017 01:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  The decline is due to government regulations.

GOOD!!!!!!


Are you so bent against the government that you want asbestos regulations to be abolished???

China is a hugely invalid comparison, but one I would expect from someone who knows nothing of coal. China burns a lot of high sulfur, high ash coal in plants without scrubbers. We haven't done that in the US in decades, and didn't really do it to much before that. Appalachian coal, which was the primary source for power generation until the 1980s, is just fundamentally (actually metallurgically) better coal than Illinois or Powder River coal. The latter two burn much dirtier which necessitated the installation of scrubbers to be burned in a more environmentally favorable way. Also, the issue in China is much like the one in LA, it's more about population density in the major cities and the number of vehicles. Why is LA the smoggiest city in the US yet they have no coal power plants?

Go sit outside on any US coal plant and just stare at the stacks. You will see nothing but a white steam plume coming out. Look at the surrounding area and you will see no haze. You really need to investigate this stuff yourself.

(01-13-2017 01:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  The decline is due to government regulations.

GOOD!!!!!!


Are you so bent against the government that you want asbestos regulations to be abolished???

Outside of the United States, what changes can you hopefully wish to accomplish?
If you only listen to CNN, of coarse you are anti-USA.

(01-13-2017 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's funny to see some of the responses here.


To the extreme conservatives on this board, anything that even looks like a "win" for progressives is therefore a "loss" for conservatives. Even if that's nonsense.

They want so bad to defeat this, reverse the trend, and/or pretend like Trump can do something about it.

But they don't even have an inch of a leg to stand on. We won this one, thankfully.

not a conservative vs. liberal issue.

Its a energy security issue, that should involve folks that know what they are talking about.

"Ewwww... Dirty Coal... We should ban it." is not a good response.

At least Tom is trying to make a logical argument for Natural Gas, in which I don't necessarily disagree with him on.

(01-13-2017 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  They want so bad to defeat this, reverse the trend, and/or pretend like Trump can do something about it.

Exactly who has said they have a problem with this trend? who? when? and how?

What has been said is that artificially killing an industry, rather than letting it die a natural death, is an unnecessary hardship on the workers in that industry.

Coal, as a power source, should be around long enough for middle aged folks in the industry to work into their 60's.

It will be around as an industrial component afterwards so that the younger folks in the industry will have a job... Or is water filtration and carbon fiber something you want to go away?

Quote:But they don't even have an inch of a leg to stand on. We won this one, thankfully.

Were you not *JUST* saying this was not a "we / you" "won / lost" issue?

And FTR, I responded with figures and fact... You ignored that post.

(01-13-2017 01:25 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's funny to see some of the responses here.


To the extreme conservatives on this board, anything that even looks like a "win" for progressives is therefore a "loss" for conservatives. Even if that's nonsense.

They want so bad to defeat this, reverse the trend, and/or pretend like Trump can do something about it.

But they don't even have an inch of a leg to stand on. We won this one, thankfully.

not a conservative vs. liberal issue.

Its a energy security issue, that should involve folks that know what they are talking about.

"Ewwww... Dirty Coal... We should ban it." is not a good response.

At least Tom is trying to make a logical argument for Natural Gas, in which I don't necessarily disagree with him on.

The problem I have with Tom is that he shouts 360 but only goes 180. Anybody can change a finish line.
The only thing that makes Usain St Leo Bolt, the fastest man on earth is the finish line. Mess with that and your just jumping through hoops.

(01-13-2017 01:20 PM)banker Wrote:  China is a hugely invalid comparison, but one I would expect from someone who knows nothing of coal. China burns a lot of high sulfur, high ash coal in plants without scrubbers. We haven't done that in the US in decades, and didn't really do it to much before that. Appalachian coal, which was the primary source for power generation until the 1980s, is just fundamentally (actually metallurgically) better coal than Illinois or Powder River coal. The latter two burn much dirtier which necessitated the installation of scrubbers to be burned in a more environmentally favorable way. Also, the issue in China is much like the one in LA, it's more about population density in the major cities and the number of vehicles. Why is LA the smoggiest city in the US yet they have no coal power plants?

Go sit outside on any US coal plant and just stare at the stacks. You will see nothing but a white steam plume coming out. Look at the surrounding area and you will see no haze. You really need to investigate this stuff yourself.

An admirable attempt, for a West Virginia coal lobbyist such as yourself.

But the market has spoken. Energy companies aren't going to waste their money and time building "clean"-coal plants, when natural gas plants so superior.

(01-13-2017 01:23 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Outside of the United States, what changes can you hopefully wish to accomplish?

The market and the side-effects will take care of that. China, for example.

(01-13-2017 01:25 PM)muffinman Wrote:  At least Tom is trying to make a logical argument for Natural Gas, in which I don't necessarily disagree with him on.

If you had actually taken the time to understand the OP, you would've seen that I made the same argument.

(01-13-2017 01:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Exactly who has said they have a problem with this trend?

Trump, when he lied, and the coal workers who elected him.

(01-13-2017 01:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Were you not *JUST* saying this was not a "we / you" "won / lost" issue?

"We won" means the planet, public health, the betterment of human kind, etc.

(01-13-2017 01:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Exactly who has said they have a problem with this trend?

Trump, when he lied, and the coal workers who elected him.

(01-13-2017 01:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Were you not *JUST* saying this was not a "we / you" "won / lost" issue?

"We won" means the planet, public health, the betterment of human kind, etc.

Smoke ' Em if Ya got 'Em Clean air for Everyone !