| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » A Lovely Lump Of Coal
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| David Naugler |
 Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From:
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3849
A Lovely Lump Of Coal
By Alan Caruba on 12/09/03
According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty" and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
I am old enough to recall shoveling coal into a furnace to heat my
home before we switched to natural gas. Back in the 1940s and 50s,
many homes still relied on coal in this manner, but in another way
coal is still a factor because electricity is required to operate
today's furnaces and more than fifty percent of all electricity
generated in America comes from utilities that use coal.
I was reminded of this when I read of a new War Between the States as
nine have gone into court to challenge fourteen others who have allied
to block new federal rules that relax stringent anti-pollution
requirements for power plants, refineries, and manufacturers. The
suit, filed by northeastern States, would stop the Environmental
Protection Agency from implementing new Clean Air Act rules that make
it easier for older plants to make upgrades without having to install
more extensive and costly pollution controls. Could this be
politically motivated? Twelve of the fourteen attorney generals are
Democrats.
The nine States in opposition argue that failure to implement the new
rules would increase the costs of enforcing air pollution cases, limit
enforcement options, and frustrate industry's ability to make
efficiency and other cost-saving improvements.
What most Americans don't know is that utilities and others that use
coal have achieved the ability to eliminate most of the pollutants
mandated in the 1970 Clean Air Act. Every single pollutant tracked by
the EPA since 1970 has declined and much of the cleanup began before
the EPA even existed.
These days, what one actually sees coming from "smokestacks" is steam!
Surprised? The dark, sooty material called fly ash is removed by
"precipitators" that eliminate 99.5% of it. Coal contains sulfur
which, when coal is burned, combines with oxygen to produce sulfur
oxides. Beginning in the 1970s, "flue gas scrubbers" were introduced
and they remove up to 95% of the sulfur oxides before they go up the
smokestack
None of this is cheap and the nine States fighting the fourteen others
understandably do not want to get stuck with a bill for "improvements"
that cost billions. This would be farcical if the money involved
didn't include more than a $100 million for a single "scrubber", plus
millions more to operate. Who pays for this? Consumers of electricity!
Right now there are more than 140 scrubbers installed and operating at
US utilities with about fifty more planned. You do the arithmetic.
Moreover, utilities have already spent $60 billion to control sulfur
emissions that are down 18% from their peak in 1973.
Other than the idiotic notion of wind-powered electricity which would
require covering every square mile of the US with giant windmills to
generate only a small percentage of what coal-operated utilities
currently produce, Greens have never found any source of energy that
really like. Some groups are actively trying to remove dams used to
produce hydroelectricity and what is cleaner than water power?
So, when you know the truth, coal takes on a new luster. And the news
just gets better. There is an estimated 250 to 300-year supply of coal
in the United States. Even the dreaded coal ash is put to use as
filler in tennis rackets, golf balls, and linoleum. More than two
million acres of mined land has been reclaimed over the past two
decades, an area larger than the State of Delaware.
For the Greens, however, enough is never enough. Since 1970, American
industry has spent some $350 billion to clean the air and, each year,
the tab for pollution controls totals another $33 million. Forcing
industries and utilities to spend millions more for massive upgrades
when they only need far less costly solutions makes no sense. That's
why the new EPA rules need to be implemented despite the objections of
the northeastern States.
According to the Electric Power Research Institute, pollution control
equipment accounts for up to 40% of the cost of a new power plant and
35% of operational costs. These costs account for about $10 billion of
the nation's electric bills each year and are expected to rise. Keep
that in mind when you get your monthly energy bill because YOU are the
one paying for all of this.
Another way Greens have found to force up costs is to put vast
reserves of coal and other energy sources off-limits to use. Thanks to
former President Clinton and his very Green Vice President, Albert
Gore, the abundant coal reserves in Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante
cannot be extracted. Clinton-Gore could not designate energy-rich
areas of the nation fast enough, including Colorado's Canyon of the
Ancients which has a high potential for oil and gas, Washington's
Hanford Reach, and Montana's Upper Missouri River Breaks, where gas
deposits are large.
The greatest "waste" of energy is to fail to use those resources
within our own national borders. This is a deliberate effort to deny
Americans access to their own energy and it is what environmentalism
and Democrats are all about.
So, let the States battle it out in the courts regarding who has to
spend billions to meet EPA clean air standards. It's not about clean
air. It's about the Green agenda to drive up the costs of energy in
every way possible.
Click here to send feedback to the author
Alan Caruba is the author of "Warning Signs", published by Merril
Press. His weekly commentary is posted on www.anxietycenter.com, the
Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312110810.31118851@posting.google.com...
Actually this is more of a collection of deliberate lies and misdirection.
Quote:
By Alan Caruba on 12/09/03
According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty" and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
Coal is the main power source for most major countries. China, India,
Russia, Germany,.. The US. is the exception to a degree because of it's
heavy importation and reliance on petroleum instead of coal.
Quote:
I am old enough to recall shoveling coal into a furnace to heat my
home before we switched to natural gas. Back in the 1940s and 50s,
many homes still relied on coal in this manner, but in another way
coal is still a factor because electricity is required to operate
today's furnaces and more than fifty percent of all electricity
generated in America comes from utilities that use coal.
If you shovelled coal you KNOW it's dirty, but really they mean in terms of
sulfates, mercury, uranium, thorium, and nitrate emissions.
Quote:
I was reminded of this when I read of a new War Between the States as
nine have gone into court to challenge fourteen others who have allied
to block new federal rules that relax stringent anti-pollution
requirements for power plants, refineries, and manufacturers.
So the lawsuit is to *PREVENT THE ELIMINATION OF POLLUTION CONTROLS*. Thank
you. About time someone stopped Dumbyas mad rush to pollute.
Quote: The
suit, filed by northeastern States, would stop the Environmental
Protection Agency from implementing new Clean Air Act rules that make
it easier for older plants to make upgrades without having to install
more extensive and costly pollution controls. Could this be
politically motivated? Twelve of the fourteen attorney generals are
Democrats.
I am certainly sure that it is being pushed by partisan policy difference.
Democrats are usually the source of environmental legislation while
RepubliCONS tend to only be concerned if the pollution is in their swank
neighborhoods.
Quote:
The nine States in opposition argue that failure to implement the new
rules would increase the costs of enforcing air pollution cases, limit
enforcement options, and frustrate industry's ability to make
efficiency and other cost-saving improvements.
The main barrier to higher effeiciency power plants has been the industries
refusal to install emissions controls up to modern standards. What does that
say?
Quote:
What most Americans don't know is that utilities and others that use
coal have achieved the ability to eliminate most of the pollutants
mandated in the 1970 Clean Air Act. Every single pollutant tracked by
the EPA since 1970 has declined and much of the cleanup began before
the EPA even existed.
Actually this is complete crap and the evidence is in the temperature record
which was still cooling from sulfate aerosols ( from smog and fossil fuel
use ) as late as 1975. The reduction in the sulfate aerosol effect came with
the EPA mandate and new regulation from the EPA to install scrubbing
technology.
Quote:
These days, what one actually sees coming from "smokestacks" is steam!
Steam was alwasy a large component of the emissions, but this just hides the
pollutants. It says nothing about how much is released. The yellow and brown
coloration reported by some local residents probably indicates the presence
of pollutants in the condenser steam.
Quote: Surprised? The dark, sooty material called fly ash is removed by
"precipitators" that eliminate 99.5% of it. Coal contains sulfur
which, when coal is burned, combines with oxygen to produce sulfur
oxides. Beginning in the 1970s, "flue gas scrubbers" were introduced
and they remove up to 95% of the sulfur oxides before they go up the
smokestack
The point here is that this is PREDICATED ON MODERN SCRUBBERS which they are
SEEKING TO ELIMINATE.
Quote:
None of this is cheap and the nine States fighting the fourteen others
understandably do not want to get stuck with a bill for "improvements"
that cost billions. This would be farcical if the money involved
didn't include more than a $100 million for a single "scrubber", plus
millions more to operate. Who pays for this? Consumers of electricity!
And the consumers of electricity benefit from their small contribution to
eliminating smog. Paying a penny more and NOT choking on brown acidic clouds
seems like a small price to pay. The 'big numbers' of 100M is way overblown
for any reasonable size power plant. Most coal power plants run about $1000
per kilowatt of installed capacity so a 1000 megawatt plant would be about a
billion dollars in investment. Ten percent for emissions controls? Seems a
bit high given the steady reduction in costs for scrubber technology. Maybe
they are theorising about some theoretical power plant size.
http://www2.bv.com/news/articles/jun02/emiss_tech_clear_air.htm
"Rules of thumb say particulate control added 2% to the cost of electricity,
while FGD and SCR added about 10 and 6%, respectively. But even here,
there's good news: Capital costs of emissions-control technologies have
dropped -- particularly for FGD systems, which cost about 75% less than the
first installation in the early 1970s. Operations and maintenance (O&M)
costs for emissions-control technologies generally have declined as well. "
This estimate is the more reasonable one, incorporating both capital and
operating costs.
Quote:
Right now there are more than 140 scrubbers installed and operating at
US utilities with about fifty more planned. You do the arithmetic.
Moreover, utilities have already spent $60 billion to control sulfur
emissions that are down 18% from their peak in 1973.
http://www2.bv.com/news/articles/jun02/emiss_tech_clear_air.htm
"Our clean air has come at no small price -- some $ 40-billion of capital
has been invested in the past quarter century in fabric filters, flue-gas
desulfurization (FGD) systems, selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
technology, and the like. "
Compare the $40B in costs with the trillions in health costs and the
destruction of land from acid rain. A small price to pay ( per capita ) for
clear skies, and to be able to breath without gas masks.
And mostly due to restrictions on sulfate emissions under the SOx cap and
trade scheme, not due to magic. This is merely evidence that the scrubber
technology, and use of relatively low sulfur coal, is very cost effective.
The problem with removing emission controls is that it would enable use of
high sulfur ( and thus cheaper ) coal without scrubber costs and thus
*increase* the sulfur emission over 1973 levels if we relax our guard. THis
is the sort of 'playing with numbers' that the coal industry love, implying
that the sulfur reductions are 'naturally occuring' so we don't need
scrubbers and more... what a crock.
Caruba is an obvious idiot and I will ignore the rest of this crap. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George |
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:tZ2Cb.8856$aF2.963069@news20.bellglobal.com...
Quote:
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312110810.31118851@posting.google.com...
From:
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3849
A Lovely Lump Of Coal
Actually this is more of a collection of deliberate lies and misdirection.
By Alan Caruba on 12/09/03
According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty" and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
Coal is the main power source for most major countries. China, India,
Russia, Germany,.. The US. is the exception to a degree because of it's
heavy importation and reliance on petroleum instead of coal.
Well, I cannot say what other states do Being a coal-producing state, every
power plant here burns coal, not petroleum. If you think coal is the
answer, I invite you to come and see what coal production is doing to my
state. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James |
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:Tf3Cb.642$L04.609@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Quote:
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:tZ2Cb.8856$aF2.963069@news20.bellglobal.com...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312110810.31118851@posting.google.com...
From:
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3849
A Lovely Lump Of Coal
Actually this is more of a collection of deliberate lies and
misdirection.
By Alan Caruba on 12/09/03
According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty" and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
Coal is the main power source for most major countries. China, India,
Russia, Germany,.. The US. is the exception to a degree because of it's
heavy importation and reliance on petroleum instead of coal.
Well, I cannot say what other states do Being a coal-producing state,
every
power plant here burns coal, not petroleum. If you think coal is the
answer, I invite you to come and see what coal production is doing to my
state.
You gotta remember that Ian makes up most of this stuff. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:Tf3Cb.642$L04.609@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Quote:
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
snip
Well, I cannot say what other states do Being a coal-producing state,
every
power plant here burns coal, not petroleum. If you think coal is the
answer, I invite you to come and see what coal production is doing to my
state.
I was referring to the heavy use of petroleum by the U.S. which is the one
factor that differentiates them from other countries. MANY countries have
large coal reserves. Levels of petroleum production/importation is the
uniquely U.S. difference.
Coal is not excluded from being *an* answer, if properly tamed. I do not
mean the 'business as usual' practices. The lowest internal cost is not
necessarily, or even likely, the total price to pay.
If you are referring to these 'externalised' costs, then please join the
chorus demanding that they be considered. Right now we have Dumbya trying to
re-externalise the cost of coal emissions, against the interests of the
country and the lessons of the past. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George |
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:zI3Cb.9164$aF2.988038@news20.bellglobal.com...
Quote:
"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:Tf3Cb.642$L04.609@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
snip
Well, I cannot say what other states do Being a coal-producing state,
every
power plant here burns coal, not petroleum. If you think coal is the
answer, I invite you to come and see what coal production is doing to my
state.
I was referring to the heavy use of petroleum by the U.S. which is the one
factor that differentiates them from other countries. MANY countries have
large coal reserves. Levels of petroleum production/importation is the
uniquely U.S. difference.
Ian, need I remind you that the US also has large reserves of coal? In
addition, petroleum in the US is largely used for transportation, and home
heating. Power generation in the US through the use of petroleum is not
nearly as common as it is elsewhere.
Quote: Coal is not excluded from being *an* answer, if properly tamed.
And you know how to tame it? By all means, enlgihten us. Before you do,
please take a trip to a coal state and see what coal production is doing to
the environment, then tell us how to "tame" it! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George |
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"James" <jrapier@dcr.net> wrote in message news:VK3Cb.4$ij2.3@fe10...
Quote:
"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:Tf3Cb.642$L04.609@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:tZ2Cb.8856$aF2.963069@news20.bellglobal.com...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312110810.31118851@posting.google.com...
From:
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3849
A Lovely Lump Of Coal
Actually this is more of a collection of deliberate lies and
misdirection.
By Alan Caruba on 12/09/03
According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens
targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty"
and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
Coal is the main power source for most major countries. China, India,
Russia, Germany,.. The US. is the exception to a degree because of
it's
heavy importation and reliance on petroleum instead of coal.
Well, I cannot say what other states do Being a coal-producing state,
every
power plant here burns coal, not petroleum. If you think coal is the
answer, I invite you to come and see what coal production is doing to my
state.
You gotta remember that Ian makes up most of this stuff.
Yeah, must be getting numb nuts living in that iglo! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312110810.31118851@posting.google.com...
Quote: According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty" and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
The truth about coal.
High sulfur.
High particulates
High residual ash.
Poorest source of hydrocarbon based energy.
There... The truth is told. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George |
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:jpbCb.5572$8Y4.236867@read2.cgocable.net...
Quote:
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312110810.31118851@posting.google.com...
According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty" and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
The truth about coal.
High sulfur.
High particulates
High residual ash.
Poorest source of hydrocarbon based energy.
There... The truth is told.
Typical greenhouse groupie response fails to mention the main reason not to
use coal:
http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/002/index.html
http://wvgazette.com/static/series/mining/
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/041400sci-environ-coal.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tequila |
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: The
suit, filed by northeastern States, would stop the Environmental
Protection Agency from implementing new Clean Air Act rules that make
it easier for older plants to make upgrades without having to install
more extensive and costly pollution controls. Could this be
politically motivated? Twelve of the fourteen attorney generals are
Democrats.<
---------------------
There was another lawsuit that readers might be interested in.
In Feb. of this year, seven states filed suit against the EPA in an
attempt to force the EPA to regulate co2.
(California, seperately, did the same thing)
Surprise, all those states (for reasons of luck, such as cool summers
or nearness to hydro power)
are below the US average for co2.
These states won't have to change at all, in fact, they'll
likely benefit from selling carbon credits to other states.
Kyoto and similiar plans, are just extortion
Tequila
David Naugler wrote:
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:jpbCb.5572$8Y4.236867@read2.cgocable.net...
Quote:
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312110810.31118851@posting.google.com...
According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty" and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
The truth about coal.
High sulfur.
High particulates
High residual ash.
Poorest source of hydrocarbon based energy.
There... The truth is told.
Not all of it.
Cheapest source of fossil fuels. Widely available. Most costs are
externalised. Usually heavily subsidized to maintain employment in poor
areas dependent on it.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George |
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tequila" <Tequila@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3FD953BF.28EDC4E4@nowhere.com...
Quote: The
suit, filed by northeastern States, would stop the Environmental
Protection Agency from implementing new Clean Air Act rules that make
it easier for older plants to make upgrades without having to install
more extensive and costly pollution controls. Could this be
politically motivated? Twelve of the fourteen attorney generals are
Democrats.
---------------------
There was another lawsuit that readers might be interested in.
In Feb. of this year, seven states filed suit against the EPA in an
attempt to force the EPA to regulate co2.
(California, seperately, did the same thing)
Surprise, all those states (for reasons of luck, such as cool summers
or nearness to hydro power)
are below the US average for co2.
These states won't have to change at all, in fact, they'll
likely benefit from selling carbon credits to other states.
Kyoto and similiar plans, are just extortion
Tequila
David Naugler wrote:
From:
http://www.americandaily.com/item/3849
A Lovely Lump Of Coal
By Alan Caruba on 12/09/03
The reason that California is suing is that under the new guidelines, the
power companies would be allowed to belch even more filth into the
atmosphere. If that happened, they would have to change what they currently
don't have to change. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George |
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:aucCb.11390$aF2.1258109@news20.bellglobal.com...
Quote:
"Vendicar Decarian" <VD@Pyro.net> wrote in message
news:jpbCb.5572$8Y4.236867@read2.cgocable.net...
"David Naugler" <dnaugler@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:c6bcfffa.0312110810.31118851@posting.google.com...
According to tradition, if one has been a bad little boy or girl,
Santa will leave a lump of coal in your stocking. The Greens targeted
coal along with virtually every other source of energy as "dirty" and,
frankly, the truth about coal needs to be told lest we forget what a
bounty we have in this nation and how well it serves us all.
The truth about coal.
High sulfur.
High particulates
High residual ash.
Poorest source of hydrocarbon based energy.
There... The truth is told.
Not all of it.
Cheapest source of fossil fuels. Widely available. Most costs are
externalised. Usually heavily subsidized to maintain employment in poor
areas dependent on it.
You gotta love that concept - externalized costs = not borne by the
polluters - borne by the sorry slob who lives next door, or down the street.
Clue: They are dependent on it because the government doesn't give them any
alternatives. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tim Worstall |
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<zI3Cb.9164$aF2.988038@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Quote: "George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:Tf3Cb.642$L04.609@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
snip
Well, I cannot say what other states do Being a coal-producing state,
every
power plant here burns coal, not petroleum. If you think coal is the
answer, I invite you to come and see what coal production is doing to my
state.
I was referring to the heavy use of petroleum by the U.S. which is the one
factor that differentiates them from other countries. MANY countries have
large coal reserves. Levels of petroleum production/importation is the
uniquely U.S. difference.
Coal is not excluded from being *an* answer, if properly tamed. I do not
mean the 'business as usual' practices. The lowest internal cost is not
necessarily, or even likely, the total price to pay.
If you are referring to these 'externalised' costs, then please join the
chorus demanding that they be considered. Right now we have Dumbya trying to
re-externalise the cost of coal emissions, against the interests of the
country and the lessons of the past.
As always there is rather more to this than first meets the eye.
EPA's and Clear Air Act methods of pollution control are to mandate
the technology that must be used. This includes, for example, the use
of sulfur scrubbers.
Now, one can in fact reduce sulfur emissions in another manner : by
burning low sulfur coal.
The insistence on the use of scrubbers in every coal burning plant,
even if they do or wish to use low sulfur coal, is in fact a disguised
subsidy to the producers of high sulfur coal. Changing the regulations
to allow coal plants to make their own decision, whether to use low
sulfur, or high sulfur and install a scrubber, is in fact just removal
of a corporate subsidy : something which most who post here would
celebrate, not attack.
Tim Worstall |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| George |
| Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0312121019.886b00e@posting.google.com...
Quote: "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
news:<zI3Cb.9164$aF2.988038@news20.bellglobal.com>...
"George" <george@george.net> wrote in message
news:Tf3Cb.642$L04.609@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
snip
Well, I cannot say what other states do Being a coal-producing state,
every
power plant here burns coal, not petroleum. If you think coal is the
answer, I invite you to come and see what coal production is doing to
my
state.
I was referring to the heavy use of petroleum by the U.S. which is the
one
factor that differentiates them from other countries. MANY countries
have
large coal reserves. Levels of petroleum production/importation is the
uniquely U.S. difference.
Coal is not excluded from being *an* answer, if properly tamed. I do not
mean the 'business as usual' practices. The lowest internal cost is not
necessarily, or even likely, the total price to pay.
If you are referring to these 'externalised' costs, then please join the
chorus demanding that they be considered. Right now we have Dumbya
trying to
re-externalise the cost of coal emissions, against the interests of the
country and the lessons of the past.
As always there is rather more to this than first meets the eye.
EPA's and Clear Air Act methods of pollution control are to mandate
the technology that must be used. This includes, for example, the use
of sulfur scrubbers.
Now, one can in fact reduce sulfur emissions in another manner : by
burning low sulfur coal.
Expensive, and in low supply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:57 am
|
|