- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gotta love the propagandists at the NYT - global warming related
Posted on 8/6/14 at 12:34 pm to Zach
Posted on 8/6/14 at 12:34 pm to Zach
quote:
And that would be a lie.
Actually it's a fact...the regs are just the last few shovels of dirt on the grave. The only problem is gas prices are more susceptible to volatility and if we start using more for things other than power gen and start exporting I do think there will be some price pressure and the regs will them be problematic.
Now where did you get your info that exporting gas is cheaper than exporting coal?
1
Posted on 8/6/14 at 12:36 pm to twh318
quote:
quote: FIFY No. Just no.
Look the regs are bullshite, but if you have a cheaper resource you're going to convert and that's what happened.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 12:39 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
I fail to see the propaganda.
prop·a·gan·da
?präp?'gand?/Submit
noun
1. derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
quote:
coal-fired power plants, the nation’s largest source of planet-warming pollution.
The above is not a fact. It is an opinion that has not been proven. Therefore stating it as fact is misleading and is promoting a particular political point of view, i.e. propaganda.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 12:42 pm to twh318
quote:
There is an alternative. Nuclear power plants.
I like this better. Natural gas is good too. Each state already has on average 2 nuclear power plants.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 12:59 pm to fleaux
quote:
Dont you think they should have a viable alternative before they destroy our main power producing industry ??
Coal is the only way to produce electricity? When did that happen?
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:04 pm to twh318
quote:
I'm not saying coal shouldn't be used. I was simply pointing out that coal isn't the only source for the production of electricity. Some power plants are even being converted to natural gas due to government regulations.
Yes, but it's costly. As well as controlling CO2. There are many other pollutants coming out of a coal fired plant that, if I lived in the neighborhood, I would want that money go towards controlling. CO2 is not going to kill you.
This post was edited on 8/6/14 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:08 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Coal is the only way to produce electricity? When did that happen?
No, its not. And natural gas powerplants are very efficient and have low emissions (relatively speaking). But, you never really want all of your eggs in one basket. Natural gas prices have been known to fluctuate. In fact, the EPA modeled OUT older natural gas plants when they did the cross state air pollution rule because they thought they'd be too costly to operate. That caused a bunch of problems in distributing credits. Things change.
This post was edited on 8/6/14 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:09 pm to cwill
quote:
Actually it's a fact...the regs are just the last few shovels of dirt on the grave. The only problem is gas prices are more susceptible to volatility and if we start using more for things other than power gen and start exporting I do think there will be some price pressure and the regs will them be problematic.
Wrong (as you usually are). Coal is abundant and cheap. The regs started years ago and the coal industry realized that Obama turned the EPA into a coal destruction weapon. In fact, Obama said 4 years ago that they would have to pay or go out of business. He hoped they would go out of business.
quote:
Now where did you get your info that exporting gas is cheaper than exporting coal?
It's called LNG. I learned about it 40 years ago. Try to keep up.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:11 pm to geauxturbo
quote:
No, its not. And natural gas powerplants are very efficient and have low emissions (relatively speaking). But, you never really want all of your eggs in one basket. Natural gas prices have been known to fluctuate.
Coal and natural gas are the only ways to produce electricity?
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:13 pm to i am dan
if it were up to liberals we would all be living off the wind produced by butterflies and unicorn farts (as we all know unicorn farts do not contain methane, but strawberry flavored oxygen)
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:14 pm to Choctaw
What does it matter to you where you electricity comes from? You don't "believe" in AGW, so it shouldn't matter.
This post was edited on 8/6/14 at 1:16 pm
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:15 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Coal and natural gas are the only ways to produce electricity?
Not at all. But CO2 from Coal isn't going to kill you and the infrastructure already exists. Why don't you just say what you want to say instead of posing your point as a stupid question.
There are problems, limits, and constraints to all power production. Its not as easy as saying, "I'm going to do A or B."
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:15 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Coal and natural gas are the only ways to produce electricity?
There are indeed other less efficient ways...
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:16 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
What does it matter to you where you electricity comes from? You don't "believe" in AGW, so it shouldn't matter.
why do you want to take away jobs and destroy families?
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:16 pm to geauxturbo
quote:
Not at all. But CO2 from Coal isn't going to kill you and the infrastructure already exists.
Maybe not but its going to raise sea level and make it that much more likely my home will be flooded - even more so for my son and his children.
quote:
There are problems, limits, and constraints to all power production.
Actually there is one constraint that U.S. power company's don't presently have to deal with - but they will.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:18 pm to member12
quote:
The agency wants to release the final rule under the terms of the Clean Air Act, which requires the federal government to regulate all substances defined as pollutants. The E.P.A. determined in 2009 that carbon dioxide met the definition of a pollutant, a decision that has withstood numerous legal challenges.
I wish they'd regulate your breathing. As a citizen of the world and a consumer of agricultural products, you are a "polluter" according to the EPA. I for one believe that you must be stopped immmediately before you cause the sky to fall.
You do realize there's a difference between personal and industrial production right? That for example the government probably doesn't care if you take a crap in your backyard, but if you own a hog farm and have a 10,000 pig sourced pig shite lagoon they might want to regulate it?
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:20 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Maybe not but its going to raise sea level and make it that much more likely my home will be flooded - even more so for my son and his children.
No. It's not. If you believe in the sea level rising crap why don't you buy into Sharknado?
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:20 pm to member12
quote:
I wish they'd regulate your breathing. As a citizen of the world and a consumer of agricultural products, you are a "polluter" according to the EPA. I for one believe that you must be stopped immmediately before you cause the sky to fall.
Meh. I've posted this here before: In the state of California, the test used to classify a liquid as a hazardous material is to put a fish in it and see if it lives.
Such materials classified as hazardous are dangerous things like baby oil, shampoo, and Coca Cola. So if you dispose of trash containing a bunch or hand soap, you could be subject to large fines and jail time by the California DEQ.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:22 pm to Zach
quote:
Some power plants are even being converted to natural gas due to cheap, abundant natural gas. FIFY.
And that would be a lie. They are converting due to EPA regulations. Coal is very cheap if you get the govt out of the way.
Only if you remove all emissions controls completely, which even if you don't believe in global warming would be disasterous. Have you ever seen the pictures of the sky in Industrial areas in the 1950s in the US or the UK or China now-- that's what happens when you allow unregulated coal burning it degrades air quality leads to lower quality of life through things like asthma and other respiratory illnesses and sometimes deaths. Oh and the whole acid rain thing (why we in the US buy low Sulfur coal and send the cheaper stuff to China).
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:22 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Maybe not but its going to raise sea level and make it that much more likely my home will be flooded - even more so for my son and his children.
That's based on a model that is yet to be proven to be accurate and a theory based on 2.2* C rise in temps which ignores the logarithmic diminishing marginal returns of the thermal capacity of CO2. Those errors can compound drastically.
quote:
Actually there is one constraint that U.S. power company's don't presently have to deal with - but they will
Power companies plan 20+ years out. So, its good to slowly roll in changes. With enough planning time, they can usually comply without upsetting the system too much.
This post was edited on 8/6/14 at 1:26 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News