If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Obama to nuke coal power plants   (cnn.com) divider line 295
    More: Interesting, Obama, coal power plant, climate change skeptics, coal-fired power plants, senior administration official  
•       •       •

2412 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2013 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



295 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 01:54:22 PM

KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)


The last time we tried something like that (weatherproofing houses for energy effecieny) it did not meet expectations. The only way you are going to get large scale change like you are talking about is through the market.
 
2013-06-25 01:56:07 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: President speaking now. Link


Ugh. 120hz. Soap opera style video. Please tell me we're not going in that direction.
 
2013-06-25 01:56:12 PM

cman: We need more solar and nuclear options.

Simple as that.

They are very clean. Solar is limitless energy and nuclear can power significant numbers.

Coal plants everywhere should be shut down


Solar is a stupid idea, what are we supposed to do at night? Libtards!
 
2013-06-25 01:56:18 PM
Speaking as an engineer who has kept up with the practicalities of energy generation:

Good.  Coal has been by far the least cost-effective means of industrial-scale industry production we've had since the '50s.  Even wind power is cheaper in materials and overall labor investment, and that's terrible.  The fact that we're using mined coal in anything but steel production is a piece of goddamned idiocy on par with if we required every automobile to be furnished with a buggy whip and a set of reins at all times.

whidbey: netizencain: But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.

Bullshiat. You mean the market isn't "ready" (lol) with a CHEAP replacement.


Even that... well, see above.  Nuclear, natgas, and hydro blow coal out of the water on basic cost-effectiveness really, really easily, and even wind (which is terribly inefficient) gives it a run for its money, and even SOLAR of all goddamned things is catching up.

And again, this is just labor and capital investment versus return, I'm not even thinking about environmental impact here.  The only reason coal is "cheap" in monetary terms is monopoly price-fixing and abuse of the labor force, plus monopoly obstruction of competing plants.  If that's really what you're into, you could do that with a nuke plant too, and it would be preferable.
 
2013-06-25 01:56:55 PM

bdub77: Ugh. 120hz. Soap opera style video. Please tell me we're not going in that direction.


I don't know what this means.
 
2013-06-25 01:58:10 PM

nekom: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama

Yeah, I bet he doesn't even carry PA in 2016!


Midterm elections will be important for the Dems if they think they can get the House back.
 
2013-06-25 01:58:45 PM

Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.


But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.
 
2013-06-25 01:58:50 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: bdub77: Ugh. 120hz. Soap opera style video. Please tell me we're not going in that direction.

I don't know what this means.


TV refresh rate. At least on my monitor that's how it's showing up.
 
2013-06-25 01:59:15 PM

Fox doesn't even wait for Obama to finish before going to a climate change skeptic

- Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) June 25, 2013


Surprise.
 
2013-06-25 02:00:08 PM
So let me get this straight. Like a zombie crawling out of a graveyard, the US economy is sluggishly digging itself out of a major recession. Millions of men, women, and children are now living below the poverty line. The problem? There are no jobs.

So...

Obama has decided to hack a sector of the economy that produces energy, thereby causing a loss of jobs and higher energy costs that will surely increase what Americans pay in utility bills, consumer goods and services.

All of this driven by the tenuous global warming theory and fueled by dubious and costly 'Green' technology.

Well, smack my arugula and call me Solyndra.
 
2013-06-25 02:00:12 PM

netizencain: But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement. And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.


Which is why the energy industry puts CAPS on how much home electricity can be made by home solar in a state?

Right people don't want it so much that the energy industry has to make caps to not allow people to buy it.
 
2013-06-25 02:01:13 PM

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.


You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?
 
2013-06-25 02:01:30 PM

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.


You have no idea what you are talking about the solar I make at my home DOES go on the grid. Really shut the fark up because you have no farking idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:00 PM

KellyX: netizencain: KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.

It'd put a bunch of people to work and start changing over the economy to reduce energy consumption... (GOP does want to be "energy independent" right?)

Cash for Clunkers was a financial and environmental disaster.

I only mentioned it because it was a government sponsored program, I'd much rather responses on the idea I proposed.


We had the weatherstripping and properly inflate your tires program.
How did those work out?

Many states do provide tax incentives for solar installations.  It was the only reason it was cost effective for us to put the panels up.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:16 PM

Agneska: So let me get this straight.


I don't believe you accomplished this goal.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:19 PM

KellyX: Why can't we do a Cash for Clunkers type thing, the government offers to invest in housing/commercial upgrades. Everyone that owns a home/building can have solar installed on their roofs, etc. and the government will pay the company for it.


OK a few issues: (1) In general, the energy companies wouldn't really want this, as it would create excess supply in the system and they'd have to shut down/idle plants; (2) it would be a logistics problem to service every solar panel if something went wrong; (3) there are already local programs that provide for housing rehabilitation, including upgrades like this; (4) older homes would not be suitable for such a program as they are structurally suspect and probably contain hazardous materials that other government regulations require homeowners receiving federal assistance to abate; (5) not all areas are suitable for solar power (e.g., those without a southern exposure); and (6) you really want the owner to bear a portion of the cost so that they have something invested into the program.

That's off the top of my head. Not to say that the goal isn't good, but there's probably a more delicate and targeted way to do it.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:30 PM

netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.


Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2013-06-25 02:02:43 PM

Jim_Callahan: Speaking as an engineer who has kept up with the practicalities of energy generation:

Good.  Coal has been by far the least cost-effective means of industrial-scale industry production we've had since the '50s.  Even wind power is cheaper in materials and overall labor investment, and that's terrible.  The fact that we're using mined coal in anything but steel production is a piece of goddamned idiocy on par with if we required every automobile to be furnished with a buggy whip and a set of reins at all times.

whidbey: netizencain: But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.

Bullshiat. You mean the market isn't "ready" (lol) with a CHEAP replacement.

Even that... well, see above.  Nuclear, natgas, and hydro blow coal out of the water on basic cost-effectiveness really, really easily, and even wind (which is terribly inefficient) gives it a run for its money, and even SOLAR of all goddamned things is catching up.

And again, this is just labor and capital investment versus return, I'm not even thinking about environmental impact here.  The only reason coal is "cheap" in monetary terms is monopoly price-fixing and abuse of the labor force, plus monopoly obstruction of competing plants.  If that's really what you're into, you could do that with a nuke plant too, and it would be preferable.


There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.
 
2013-06-25 02:03:29 PM
The U.S. generated 730 million kilowatt hours of solar electricity in the first two months of 2013, 227% more than the same period in 2012, according to new EIA data.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.
 
2013-06-25 02:03:36 PM

Agneska: So let me get this straight. Like a zombie crawling out of a graveyard, the US economy is sluggishly digging itself out of a major recession. Millions of men, women, and children are now living below the poverty line. The problem? There are no jobs.

So...

Obama has decided to hack a sector of the economy that produces energy, thereby causing a loss of jobs and higher energy costs that will surely increase what Americans pay in utility bills, consumer goods and services.

All of this driven by the tenuous global warming theory and fueled by dubious and costly 'Green' technology.

Well, smack my arugula


Only if you pay extra.
 
2013-06-25 02:04:47 PM
This doesn't go far enough, IMHO.  With clean natural gas so cheap and plentiful in the US, I personally would be in favor of a complete ban on coal power plants, nationwide.  The number of people who get sick (some who die) from pollution from coal power plants from such is extremely large.
 
2013-06-25 02:04:47 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?


Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker.  So ya, I do know a little about LNG.
 
2013-06-25 02:04:54 PM
I wish Obama was less passive aggressive sometimes. "Those vague people I've generalized behind me that suck, they don't know what they are talking about."

Just start naming who is being sold to the oil and gas industry - (hint: it's everyone). Start talking about the big companies doing this.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:01 PM
Consider this: in the first three months of the year, the U.S. installed 723 MW, just under half of all new generation capacity installed across the country, and the best first quarter yet for solar.

The utility solar market scored big, with 318 MW installed under the direction and ownership of the electric utilities. However, the residential market saw 164 MW installed, with 53% year-over-year growth.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:08 PM

netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.


But they are being planned. We just gave  around 40 BILLION in US guaranteed loans to the Nuclear companies because they said in congressional hearings that it was such a risky investment that they could not fund the plants without the government handout.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:54 PM

vpb: jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.
Way to go Jobkillbama

No, just jobs being shifted from coal mining to fracking.


Killing off fracking is energy agenda item #3, right after making sure Keystone never gets built.
 
2013-06-25 02:05:58 PM

netizencain: Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker. So ya, I do know a little about LNG.


And you have no farking clue how solar works. It's been going into the grid for decades.
 
2013-06-25 02:06:04 PM
 
2013-06-25 02:06:18 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The U.S. generated 730 million kilowatt hours of solar electricity in the first two months of 2013, 227% more than the same period in 2012, according to new EIA data.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.


BUT...BUT....BUT...SOLYNDRA!
 
2013-06-25 02:06:56 PM
"Ten years ago, there were less than 2,000 turbines, and today there are over 20,000. These are not your father's turbines. These are efficient and are driving down the cost of electricity," Guyette said.

The wind industry also is good for Texas, good for Houston.

A study released by the Waco-based Perryman Group in May 2010 estimates the wind industry is responsible for nearly 10,000 manufacturing, headquarters, construction, and maintenance and support jobs in Texas annually.

Link

Clearly ruining the economy.
 
2013-06-25 02:07:06 PM

netizencain: Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?

Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker.  So ya, I do know a little about LNG.


Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.
 
2013-06-25 02:08:53 PM

netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.


Food I guess they don't need this 90 BILLION dollars in US tax payer money then:


In 2007 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee up to $18.5 billion of debt for nuclear power projects. In early 2010 President Obama proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion and also requested the $36 billion increase in the Administration's proposed 2012 budget.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:10 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.


I doubt it, the idiot thinks you can put solar electricity on the grid or you can't use it to create power at night (which you can we have 24 hour solar plants that heat water during the day and run generators 24/7)

He has no idea what he is talking about.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:45 PM

Corvus: netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.

Food I guess they don't need this 90 BILLION dollars in US tax payer money then:


In 2007 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee up to $18.5 billion of debt for nuclear power projects. In early 2010 President Obama proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion and also requested the $36 billion increase in the Administration's proposed 2012 budget.


Those are just debt guarantees not grants.
 
2013-06-25 02:11:48 PM

Corvus: Philip Francis Queeg: Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.

I doubt it, the idiot thinks you can not put solar electricity on the grid or you can't use it to create power at night (which you can we have 24 hour solar plants that heat water during the day and run generators 24/7)

He has no idea what he is talking about.


FTFM
 
2013-06-25 02:11:58 PM

Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.


I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.
 
2013-06-25 02:12:45 PM

nekom: Still, a LOT of union miners who traditionally voted Democrat every single time were convinced that Obama was going to take their job, and Romney would be far better. Not sure who convinced them of that. OH did I mention that many of the executives at Consolidated Coal are Mormon? I'm sure that's just a coincidence.


The mining areas near me still vote D for a lot of state and local stuff, but they went R nationally with Reagan and haven't looked back.
 
2013-06-25 02:12:49 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Corvus: netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.

Food I guess they don't need this 90 BILLION dollars in US tax payer money then:


In 2007 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee up to $18.5 billion of debt for nuclear power projects. In early 2010 President Obama proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion and also requested the $36 billion increase in the Administration's proposed 2012 budget.

Those are just debt guarantees not grants.


So was it for Solyndra. So you had no problem with that?

Yes and experts say half of those are going to fail which means that the US will be on the hook for 45 BILLION dollars.
 
2013-06-25 02:12:51 PM

vpb: Natural Gas is cheaper than coal anyway, so he is just encouraging the plant owners to do what they are already inclined to do.


Yep.  WE Energies wants to convert the power plant a couple of miles away from me here in Milwaukee, they're just waiting on state approval.  Not only will it be cheaper to operate, but it will be much cheaper to meet environmental regulations just by the virtue of natural gas being so much cheaper.
 
2013-06-25 02:13:15 PM

Corvus: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have no idea what you are talking about the solar I make at my home DOES go on the grid. Really shut the fark up because you have no farking idea what you are talking about.


He said you couldn't power a city with solar today, not that your excess solar power doesn't go to the grid. He also happened to be absolutely right. It's not feasible to power a city with solar power right now, at least not primarily with solar power.
 
2013-06-25 02:13:20 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?

Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker.  So ya, I do know a little about LNG.

Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.


Yep.  It is.  But America is not there yet.  We don't have the infrastructure like other countries do.  And I have no problem with the US government 'helping' motivate the market.
 
2013-06-25 02:15:06 PM

netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid. Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

Why do I know you have NO farkING idea what you are talking about.

Home solar DOES go on the grid you idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.  What you're talking about is a local issue.


Well you read from incorrect source and have no idea what your talking about my solar on my home goes on the grid. Plus southern California has solar plants since the 70s that go on the grid.

Also solar energy can run 24/7. You really have no idea what you're talking about?

What do you mean "a local issue" is my grid I pull power from different then the normal electrical grid?
 
2013-06-25 02:15:19 PM

Corvus: netizencain: There hasn't been a new nuke plant in the US in almost 40 years. Same with LNG.

Food I guess they don't need this 90 BILLION dollars in US tax payer money then:


In 2007 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee up to $18.5 billion of debt for nuclear power projects. In early 2010 President Obama proposed tripling that to $54.5 billion and also requested the $36 billion increase in the Administration's proposed 2012 budget.


Existing nuclear plants have been expanded and upgraded.  Also, that money is in place to encourage the construction of new plants.  Had Fukashima not happened, probably new plant construction would have happened by now, but since then, the NIMBY fear factor has stalled things again.

Keep in mind that coal power plants kill and injure many, many more people than nuclear power plants do, but they do so at a distance without scary radiation.

However, like I said, we have so much natural gas right now that, combined with a little solar and wind, we don't even need nuclear to eliminate coal.  Coal could easily be phased out for the good health of the citizens of the nation if there was enough political will do to so (which there isn't because nobody wants to lose PA).
 
2013-06-25 02:15:42 PM

netizencain: Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Philip Francis Queeg: netizencain: Corvus: netizencain: I have no problem with the government phasing out coal.  But the market isn't ready with a viable replacement.  And it's hard to force people to pay more for clean energy because it's not an apparent win for the consumer.  The understand seat belts, air bags and backup-cameras.  It's in their hand and they comprehend the cost.  Making them pay more for a non-coal solution seems like an intangible benefit to most Americans.

What are you talking about. I can get solar on my house nothing down and pay back payments for less than my electric bill to pay it of each month and when all is said and done after 20 years I pay half then what I would have on my electric bill. How in the fark is that not a viable replacement.

But you're not going to power a city with solar today.  Solar is fine for small solutions.  And it's great for off-setting some energy expenditures (solar water heating, etc)  But until it cant replace coal... there is still a need for a reliable energy source that can be transmitted over existing energy grid.  Solar and Wind just aren't there yet.

You have heard of natural gas, haven't you?

Funny, I just left Korea where I commissioned a new LNG Tanker.  So ya, I do know a little about LNG.

Then you might be aware that natural gas is a viable alternative to coal,.

Yep.  It is.  But America is not there yet.  We don't have the infrastructure like other countries do.  And I have no problem with the US government 'helping' motivate the market.


www.eia.gov
 
2013-06-25 02:16:37 PM
Oh yeah, and note that I'm ignoring the global warming problems of coal.  Even if global warming is a myth, frequent, common diseases caused by coal power plants certainly aren't.
 
2013-06-25 02:17:08 PM
The entire world's energy needs can be met by a solar farm that would cover only half of New Jersey, still leaving room for Chris Christie.
 
2013-06-25 02:17:34 PM

runin800m: He said you couldn't power a city with solar today, not that your excess solar power doesn't go to the grid. He also happened to be absolutely right. It's not feasible to power a city with solar power right now, at least not primarily with solar power.


No he did not he said it can't go on a grid, in fact he just said it again.

netizencain: I read an article that intermittent power (solar and wind) do not play well with the national power grid.


Also even if it can't run everything on solar (which you could) why does that mean we shouldn't do more solar? It's a BS argument. Are you saying that if something isn't the 100% solution we should not help it? That's a stupid argument.
 
2013-06-25 02:19:11 PM

Jim_Callahan: And again, this is just labor and capital investment versus return, I'm not even thinking about environmental impact here. The only reason coal is "cheap" in monetary terms is monopoly price-fixing and abuse of the labor force, plus monopoly obstruction of competing plants. If that's really what you're into, you could do that with a nuke plant too, and it would be preferable.


Also, because coal is essentially socialized risk and privatized profits.  The National Academy of Sciences concluded that coal plants pass on $62B annually to the  "people who breathe the air" demographic in the form of medical costs, damage to agriculture, etc.

Right now, the companies only pay for what happens within their walls.  They have to truck in the coal, burn it, haul away the ash, and bill the consumer by the Joule.  They don't pay for the cost of all the crap flying out of their smokestack.

This is why any of the "but, but free market!" people in this thread are ignorant or liars.  The free market only functions properly when externalities are priced in.  Coal is propped up by being allowed to pass hazards on to you and me, on top of the direct subsidies they already receive.
 
2013-06-25 02:19:57 PM

jehovahs witness protection: Democrats are gonna lose a shiatload of voters in Pa.


I would gladly give up PA's electoral votes in exchange for an actual legitimate War on Coal.
 
2013-06-25 02:21:10 PM

FlashHarry: [i38.tinypic.com image 600x300]


THIS. (Good Cat)

Now can we license a few dozens new nuclear plants?  Pretty please?
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report