Liberal War on Coal Industry is Now Hurting RR Workers.

[Picaro]

If you read article CSX and others cite FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

I won't apologize for wanting my kids to have limited mercury and toxic air emissions but it was the trend to frac'ing and the resultant increase in natural gas production that is killing coal prices. No liberals required.

How much are you willing to pay for "limited mercury and toxic air emissions?" $1000/yr? $10,000/yr? $50,000/yr? If you claim "yes" to the last one, you're a god damned liar.

I would certainly be willing to pay an amount equal to the costs of having mercury and toxic air emissions: increased health costs, lost productivity costs, clean up costs, etc. Would any rational person disagree with this? Do you?

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

 

[bripat9643]

If you read article CSX and others cite FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

I won't apologize for wanting my kids to have limited mercury and toxic air emissions but it was the trend to frac'ing and the resultant increase in natural gas production that is killing coal prices. No liberals required.

How much are you willing to pay for "limited mercury and toxic air emissions?" $1000/yr? $10,000/yr? $50,000/yr? If you claim "yes" to the last one, you're a god damned liar.

I would certainly be willing to pay an amount equal to the costs of having mercury and toxic air emissions: increased health costs, lost productivity costs, clean up costs, etc. Would any rational person disagree with this? Do you?

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

 

[Picaro]

I won't apologize for wanting my kids to have limited mercury and toxic air emissions but it was the trend to frac'ing and the resultant increase in natural gas production that is killing coal prices. No liberals required.

How much are you willing to pay for "limited mercury and toxic air emissions?" $1000/yr? $10,000/yr? $50,000/yr? If you claim "yes" to the last one, you're a god damned liar.

I would certainly be willing to pay an amount equal to the costs of having mercury and toxic air emissions: increased health costs, lost productivity costs, clean up costs, etc. Would any rational person disagree with this? Do you?

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

 

[bripat9643]

How much are you willing to pay for "limited mercury and toxic air emissions?" $1000/yr? $10,000/yr? $50,000/yr? If you claim "yes" to the last one, you're a god damned liar.

I would certainly be willing to pay an amount equal to the costs of having mercury and toxic air emissions: increased health costs, lost productivity costs, clean up costs, etc. Would any rational person disagree with this? Do you?

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

It wouldn't last 10 days without massive government subsidies.

 

[Picaro]

I would certainly be willing to pay an amount equal to the costs of having mercury and toxic air emissions: increased health costs, lost productivity costs, clean up costs, etc. Would any rational person disagree with this? Do you?

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

It wouldn't last 10 days without massive government subsidies.

Neither do any other types of power plants, so that isn't a real point.

 

[Freewill]

Should some left wing moderator be moving this thread?

 

[regent]

Think of what DuPont did to the silk worms or plastics, did to numerous industries.

 

[owebo]

If you read article CSX and others cite FEDERAL REGULATIONS.

I won't apologize for wanting my kids to have limited mercury and toxic air emissions but it was the trend to frac'ing and the resultant increase in natural gas production that is killing coal prices. No liberals required.

How much are you willing to pay for "limited mercury and toxic air emissions?" $1000/yr? $10,000/yr? $50,000/yr? If you claim "yes" to the last one, you're a god damned liar.

I would certainly be willing to pay an amount equal to the costs of having mercury and toxic air emissions: increased health costs, lost productivity costs, clean up costs, etc. Would any rational person disagree with this? Do you?

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

I won't apologize for wanting my kids to have limited mercury and toxic air emissions but it was the trend to frac'ing and the resultant increase in natural gas production that is killing coal prices. No liberals required.

How much are you willing to pay for "limited mercury and toxic air emissions?" $1000/yr? $10,000/yr? $50,000/yr? If you claim "yes" to the last one, you're a god damned liar.

I would certainly be willing to pay an amount equal to the costs of having mercury and toxic air emissions: increased health costs, lost productivity costs, clean up costs, etc. Would any rational person disagree with this? Do you?

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

Nor is solar cleaner when those coal plants idle 24 hours a day waiting for the sun to shine on the liberals creations....

 

[Picaro]

Think of what DuPont did to the silk worms or plastics, did to numerous industries.

Coal has a lot of other uses than as fuel. Du Pont used a lot of petroleum engineering to make those products.

 

[bripat9643]

These emissions are already so miniscule that any attempt to reduce them further will cost far more than the cost of any health problems they cause. There is absolutely no evidence that in their current concentrations they are causing any health problems at all.

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

It wouldn't last 10 days without massive government subsidies.

Neither do any other types of power plants, so that isn't a real point.

Horseshit. Coal and gas fired power plants have never required subsidies of any kind.

 

[alang1216]

I don't need evidence to refute it. You have to prove your claim is true. The evidence doesn't support your case. The authors of the evidence even admit it doesn't support their case. All these so-called "studies" have serious methodological flaws. They are propaganda, not science.

So what you're saying is that to prove my health claim is true we have to have one population of people that live downwind from a coal power plant and another population that doesn't (assuming there is such a place left on earth). Then we have to control their exposure to the environment by controlling everything they eat, breath, and touch. Any travel would have to be restricted and we have to do this for years. Seems reasonable to me.

Or we can wait a few more decades until we can check mortality statistics and find out if they really had their health impacted. Too late for them of course but at least we'd have your proof. Sounds a lot like the global warming debate.

 

[pwjohn]

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

It wouldn't last 10 days without massive government subsidies.

Neither do any other types of power plants, so that isn't a real point.

Horseshit. Coal and gas fired power plants have never required subsidies of any kind.

That's not entirely true. A very large gas fired power plant in my hometown was converted to coal with the substantial tab picked up by the ratepayers & taxpayers. There was no good reason for the conversion.

 

[owebo]

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

It wouldn't last 10 days without massive government subsidies.

Neither do any other types of power plants, so that isn't a real point.

Horseshit. Coal and gas fired power plants have never required subsidies of any kind.

That's not entirely true. A very large gas fired power plant in my hometown was converted to coal with the substantial tab picked up by the ratepayers & taxpayers. There was no good reason for the conversion.

Perhaps coal being 42$ a ton was a driver?

 

[pwjohn]

'sUOTE="owebo, post: 14661710, member: 58056"]

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

It wouldn't last 10 days without massive government subsidies.

Neither do any other types of power plants, so that isn't a real point.

Horseshit. Coal and gas fired power plants have never required subsidies of any kind.

That's not entirely true. A very large gas fired power plant in my hometown was converted to coal with the substantial tab picked up by the ratepayers & taxpayers. There was no good reason for the conversion.

Perhaps coal being 42$ a ton was a driver?[/QUOTE]

This was back in the late 1970's. I wonder what the competing prices were back than ?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Everybody knows windmills are the future!!!!

The liberal vision of the modern America:

 

[Picaro]

I agree, but it's still dirtier than solar, and if the current costs of producing solar keep declining, it's cheaper in the long run. Solar of course isn't going to replace the energy needed for running the big mills and smelters overseas, and that market will be buying more coal if or when manufacturing picks up.

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

It wouldn't last 10 days without massive government subsidies.

Neither do any other types of power plants, so that isn't a real point.

Horseshit. Coal and gas fired power plants have never required subsidies of any kind.

lol all utilities get subsidized, and always have; that's why they are such good 'investments' and people like Warren Buffet buy them. And, the subsidies just keep on coming; they're now lobbying state govts. to treat them like REIT's, and they will certainly win that status sooner or later.. Can you guess why? ...

 

[Picaro]

Everybody knows windmills are the future!!!!

The liberal vision of the modern America:

View attachment 80490

The windmill might scare some species of birds. An impact study must be done.

 

[bripat9643]

Solar will never be cheaper than fossil fuel sources because it requires 100% backup from fossil fuel sources.

As I said before, solar will never completely replace NG, coal, or oil; it will become a bigger player, at least as far as residential energy consumption goes.

It wouldn't last 10 days without massive government subsidies.

Neither do any other types of power plants, so that isn't a real point.

Horseshit. Coal and gas fired power plants have never required subsidies of any kind.

lol all utilities get subsidized, and always have; that's why they are such good 'investments' and people like Warren Buffet buy them. And, the subsidies just keep on coming; they're now lobbying state govts. to treat them like REIT's, and they will certainly win that status sooner or later.. Can you guess why? ...

They aren't the best investments. However, they are safe investments. That's because they are legal monopolies. Not because they are subsidized. The only subsidies they receive are for so-called "green energy" boondoggles, not for coal or natural gas fired power plants.

 

[OnePercenter]

As coal cools off, railroads close tracks and cut jobs across the country
Just as lousy trade agreements such as Pacific Trade and NAFTA have ripple effect on workers in other industries so does the liberal war on coal being championed by Billary. If your a working class American the Democratic Party has dumped you over the side of the PC boat. Hillary and Democrats are concerned about two guys being able to marry and make out in public than providing well paying blue collar jobs. Guess most of the coal miners in West Virginia are white males so in the eyes of urban and suburban Dem's they are the enemy.

Capitalist racketeers made natural gas cheap.

 

[Agit8r]

'Round these parts, all the coal trains are going toward the pacific.