- 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 1:33 pm to socraticsilence
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:33 pm to socraticsilence
quote:
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
We haven't had unregulated coal burning for 60 years. Try to keep up.
quote:
Oh and the whole acid rain thing (why we in the US buy low Sulfur coal and send the cheaper stuff to China).
I am extremely familiar with Sox and NOx. But I am totally unfamiliar with our exportation of high Sulfur coal to China. So, I'm not gonna believe you on that one without a link.
2
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:35 pm to Zach
quote:
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.
You're certain old fool...Here you go:
quote:
The first reason is that these coal-fired power plants are being replaced by cheaper gas-fired plants. The gas-fired plants come courtesy of the revolution in hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), which has delivered a vast supply of low-cost natural gas to an electricity market that has struggled with steadily rising coal prices since 2001. Smaller coal-fired plants are now more expensive to operate than gas-fired plants, and the price gap is narrowing for large plants as well.
“
Thanks to the revolution in hydraulic fracturing, the Clean Air Act’s economic favoritism is coming to an end, and low-cost natural-gas-fired power is reducing wholesale electricity prices.”
Some have claimed that it’s not cheap gas that’s killing coal; it’s the regulations coming out of President Obama’s EPA, regulations that will cost coal-fired generators an estimated $126-144 billion in compliance expenditures. To be sure, the EPA regulations are expensive, but fuel costs are a much more important factor in the decline of coal. An analysis from the Brattle Group, a consultancy specializing in economics, concludes that future coal-plant closures will be “due mainly to lower expected gas prices.”
Peter Furniss, the CEO of Footprint Power, agrees. Speaking about the Salem (Mass.) Harbor Power Station, which Footprint bought in August 2012, he explained: “When we were first looking at the overall project, it really was a toss-up as to whether it would be more the environmental rules or the gas price that was going to drive coal plants to shut down. It now is very clearly the gas price.”
I like this bit of information too:
quote:
The second reason conservatives should cheer the demise of old coal-fired power plants is that the survival of those plants stems from government interference in markets. Their closure will end the state-sponsored transfer of wealth from everyone else in the electricity-generation business to the owners of these old plants.
LINK
More specific to Texas:
quote:
In Texas, the wholesale price for electricity is essentially tied to natural gas under the state's deregulation law. That used to mean coal plants were a license to print money, because coal cost much less than gas as a generating fuel. So coal-fired generators could produce power at a lower cost and sell it into the wholesale market at the higher gas price.
Taking their lumps
That's no longer the case. As natural gas prices have fallen, the market economics have flipped. It's now cheaper to run natural gas-fired plants than coal, leaving companies like White Stallion on the wrong side of the market.
"I never could see the economics of this being beneficial to anyone," Ed Hirs, a professor of energy economics at the University of Houston, said of the White Stallion project. "Obviously they were looking at gas prices going up at some point."
LINK
Clearly you bought into the political game playing hook, line and sinker. But facts are facts.
quote:
It's called LNG. I learned about it 40 years ago. Try to keep up.
I clearly asked how did you get the information that it's cheaper to export NG than coal. I would assume you got it from where you get most of your information - out of your arse - but I'm open to the possibility that this could be the case except for the cost of pipelining and then liquefying the gas whereas goal is just mined and transported.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:35 pm to Zach
quote:
quote:
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
We haven't had unregulated coal burning for 60 years. Try to keep up.
psst... zach - i hate to break it to you old man, but the 50's were 50 years ago.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:38 pm to Zach
quote:
So, I'm not gonna believe you on that one without a link
That's rather funny coming from you.
This post was edited on 8/6/14 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:39 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
That said, it's pretty stupid to get rid of a cheap energy source without a viable alternative.
The industry doesn't have an incentive to create a viable alternative.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:39 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
i hate to break it to you old man, but the 50's were 50 years ago.
what's 2014-1954.....you dumbass
This post was edited on 8/6/14 at 1:41 pm
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:41 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
That said, it's pretty stupid to get rid of a cheap energy source without a viable alternative.
There is a viable, cheaper alternative - natural gas - which is the main reason coal fired plants are closing or converting to natural gas.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 1:52 pm to cwill
Pounds of CO2 emitted per million Btu of energy for various fuels:
Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel & heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0
Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel & heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0
Posted on 8/6/14 at 2:04 pm to Vegas Bengal
Lol nuclear still beats renewables despite being weighed down by massively greater regulation than fossils (while renewables are propped up by subsidies) and the entire nuclear industry running on 40-year old tech
These slapfights go on for pages and pages and nobody speaks up for poor old uranium
These slapfights go on for pages and pages and nobody speaks up for poor old uranium
Posted on 8/6/14 at 2:09 pm to Iosh
I've got no problems with nuclear power but according to the nuke folks, the costs of natural gas has slowed incentive with nuclear energy:
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that six new units may come on line by 2020, four of those resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.
However, lower gas prices since 2009 have put the economic viability of some existing reactors and proposed projects in doubt.
Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs.
LINK
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that six new units may come on line by 2020, four of those resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.
However, lower gas prices since 2009 have put the economic viability of some existing reactors and proposed projects in doubt.
Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs.
LINK
Posted on 8/6/14 at 2:09 pm to Vegas Bengal
So even diesel fuel beats coal by a significant amount. Didn't know that.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 2:11 pm to Iosh
quote:
Lol nuclear still beats renewables despite being weighed down by massively greater regulation than fossils (while renewables are propped up by subsidies) and the entire nuclear industry running on 40-year old tech
Its kinda stupid to regulate the use of nuclear fuels. The free market can do that on its own.
quote:
These slapfights go on for pages and pages and nobody speaks up for poor old uranium
Uranium kicks arse but I'd be more interested in thermonuclear power. If that ever becomes viable it will render the entire global warming "debate" moot. With that much energy we can actually make oil by taking CO2 out the air so we wouldn't even need to get rid of things like the internal combustion engine. We could actually have carbon neutral gasoline guzzling engines!
This post was edited on 8/6/14 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 8/6/14 at 2:18 pm to Vegas Bengal
quote:You don't need a minimum six-year federal approval process to get a gas turbine built (and that's a best-case scenario, your loans will be draconian because you will inevitably hit snags in the NRC, or when you get hit with the "concerned citizens" lawsuit as soon as you announce your site.)
I've got no problems with nuclear power but according to the nuke folks, the costs of natural gas has slowed incentive with nuclear energy:
Posted on 8/6/14 at 2:21 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:I'm not an ancap but it's not like fossil fuels haven't caused hundreds of billions of dollars in environmental damage over the years. My issue is not that there should be no regulation but that there should be a level playing field between nuclear and fossils. Right now there isn't, despite the fact that coal plants throw up an order of magnitude more uncontrolled radioactive waste into the environment than nuke plants.
Its kinda stupid to regulate the use of nuclear fuels. The free market can do that on its own.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 3:01 pm to Zach
Additional info on the "coal crushing regs":
LINK
Turns out the regs are much like the closing of the western slope to O&G exploration which wasn't being explored because it was uneconomic - just a show for his green pals.
quote:
The regulation at issue proposes an emissions target of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of generation — something impossible for coal-fired power plants to meet without expensive carbon capture technology — but it applies only to brand-spanking-new, non-peaking natural gas power plants and coal-fired power plants that might be built some day in the future. Not to existing power plants. Not to existing power plants that undertake extensive upgrades that might deem them a “new source” for regulatory purposes under the Clean Air Act. And not to peaking gas-fired power generators.
That’s the key to understanding this regulation because — as the EPA points out (and as CEOs in the utility sector confirm) — there are no new coal-fired power plants in the pipeline that this rule might cover and no prospect of the same unless natural gas prices hit at least $9.60 per million BTU (in 2007 dollars) on a sustained basis. Moreover, almost all of the gas-fired power plants that will be built will meet these standards without any additional costs.
Hence the regulation will impose negligible costs and, as the EPA itself confesses, negligible benefits.
LINK
Turns out the regs are much like the closing of the western slope to O&G exploration which wasn't being explored because it was uneconomic - just a show for his green pals.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 3:42 pm to cwill
From your own source by CATO...
So...do you know the difference between 'cause' and 'effect'? The article does NOT say that they were shut down because gas is cheaper. The article says they were shut down by Obama.
Wrong, as you usually are, LNG is exported by ship. It goes to countries ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OCEAN. Would you like to pipeline the Atlantic Ocean? Really?
quote:
Over the course of President Obama’s first term, 135 coal-fired power generators were shut down, and at least another 175 have announced that they will go dark by 2016. By 2020, about one-sixth of today’s coal-fired generating capacity will likely have disappeared.
So...do you know the difference between 'cause' and 'effect'? The article does NOT say that they were shut down because gas is cheaper. The article says they were shut down by Obama.
quote:
clearly asked how did you get the information that it's cheaper to export NG than coal. I would assume you got it from where you get most of your information - out of your arse - but I'm open to the possibility that this could be the case except for the cost of pipelining and then liquefying the gas whereas goal is just mined and transported.
Wrong, as you usually are, LNG is exported by ship. It goes to countries ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OCEAN. Would you like to pipeline the Atlantic Ocean? Really?
Posted on 8/6/14 at 3:44 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
psst... zach - i hate to break it to you old man, but the 50's were 50 years ago.
Actually, they were 60 years ago but I realize you are horrible at math.
Posted on 8/6/14 at 4:11 pm to Zach
quote:
So...do you know the difference between 'cause' and 'effect'? The article does NOT say that they were shut down because gas is cheaper. The article says they were shut down by Obama.
The article doesn't say they were closed by Obama and the regs wouldn't affect existing plants anyway. You're a very bad and childish cherry picking liar.
quote:
Wrong, as you usually are, LNG is exported by ship. It goes to countries ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE OCEAN. Would you like to pipeline the Atlantic Ocean? Really?
Good grief... You have to pipeline it from the wellhead to the LNG facility for liquefication. Now you've asserted that it's cheaper to export gas than coal...what's the basis for your comment? Do you have a link? I doubt it but I'm open to the possibility.
This post was edited on 8/6/14 at 5:00 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News