What does he care if this causes you, the peasant, to suffer?
(Bloomberg) Representatives of coal-intensive utilities and coal-producing regions said that President Barack Obama would effectively outlaw construction of new power plants using the fuel with pending environmental rules.
The Environmental Protection Agency is revising proposed rules from last year in response to opposition by utilities and mining companies. The new version, under review by White House officials and scheduled for release next week, will be structured differently though it offers little solace to the industry, according to people who have been briefed on the measure and asked not to be identified before its release. (snip)
To deal with the (non-existent) threat (of globull warming), Obama directed the EPA to cap carbon dioxide from power plants, which account for 40 percent of U.S. emissions. The first step is to issue rules for new plants, a proposal set to be released next week. The more contentious rules would govern emissions from existing plants, and those aren’t scheduled to be issued until next year. The rules will be the first of their kind.
Hmm, did Congress, the lawmaking portion of the federal government, give the EPA/Executive Branch the power to decide this? Sadly, they probably did. Not that Obama and his peeps would give a damn, because Republicans won’t stand up en masse to stop him.
Coal is a Victorian era energy source. In 10 years or less solar will be cheaper. Why would anyone want to build a new coal plant ?? And of course nuclear power, haaha even you have stopped advocatong for that one. The radiation from Fukushima nuke explosion is already 40 times as bad as a bomb
[…] and avoid giving approval for fracking. So don’t count of natural gas saving the day.H/T The Pirate’s CoveTweetvaso linkgoogle_ad_client = "ca-pub-1395656889568144"; /* 300×250, created 8/11/08 */ […]
hey john, so have you gotten off your local nuclear\fossil-powered electric grid then?
Have you installed the $10,000 solar power and wind energy system on your mom’s house yet?
Coal is used because it has the highest energy per unit for anything but nuclear. It is cheaper to build and operate in the short term compared to nuclear.
Nuclear is actually safe to operate, tho its tear-down still takes 50 years to cool down.
If Obama was serious about green, then he would be pushing for Thorium reactors and not penalizing current energy production till we get replacements. Why punish the only source of power around?
Hey john, can you tell me what caused the radiation leak from the Japan nuclear power plant?
Solar panels in a Dietz & Watson plant in NJ are preventing cleanup crews from entering a warehouse that burned over Labor Day. The panels are still charged, making it hazardous to enter and put out the smoldering and now rotting meats and cheeses that are presently making the local residents sick from the smell.
Eagles are being killed in large numbers by wind turbines across the country.
And KY residents who rely on coal as a source of income (jobs) tax revenue for their schools and municipalities and as their local power supply, are being told they are shit out of luck now.
I’ve seen some of those coal plants in person, and my husband who works in the oil industry (and has had to deal with the EPA on many occasions) commented when he saw that they have some fancy new scrubbers, that must have reduced pollution there by a large percentage.
Liberals have to tear down businesses, destroy livelihoods and call them all evil. They won’t work to find solutions that will allow people’s lives to go on while working out the problems with new technology. Why do they hate the people of coal states??? Why do liberals hate so many things?
It is rather astounding that after the EPA mandated the extremely expensive scrubbers to be installed, they are now making it impossible to operate at all.
While I am in support of efforts to keep emissions clean as possible, there comes a point of diminishing returns and implementation of solutions that don’t fit the problem (economically).
For example: Wood stoves. They were designed to burn wood or coal in order to heat the home and cook the meals. EPA came along and said that they had to have scrubbers. Then, they had to be built in such a way to force more air up the chimney to help flush out soot and carbon, especially from the scrubbers. now, thanks to EPA, most of the heat goes up the chimney instead of in to the home.
In some states, you have to hire a licensed contractor to install a common wood stove (it is so in CA). After all the fees, permits, contractors, are you really saving money then by going to wood heat? And that’s not even taking in account the inability to get wood to burn. you need a permit for that too.