Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...inia-coal-plants-to-close-16.html#post4807756Never said I was an expert, just that I have more than 30 years experience as a power plant technician. You don't like what I post? Tough shit. Go find another power plant tech to tell me where I'm wrong.
Okay: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...inia-coal-plants-to-close-16.html#post4807756Never said I was an expert, just that I have more than 30 years experience as a power plant technician. You don't like what I post? Tough shit. Go find another power plant tech to tell me where I'm wrong.
He's a "technician," which means he changes a light bulb or greases a pump in the facility. The idea that he knows why management makes a decision to decommission a perfectly good power plant doesn't pass the laugh test.
He's a "technician," which means he changes a light bulb or greases a pump in the facility. The idea that he knows why management makes a decision to decommission a perfectly good power plant doesn't pass the laugh test.
Even if that was all I did would be about 100% more than what you've ever done, right?
And by the way, these wdere NOT "perfectly good power plants". They were old, decrepit, run down plants that were only used for peaking.
You won't find any "perfectly good power plants" closing down.
Coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants are built (and approved by the gov't to operate) with a defined life expectancy. That's true with passenger planes, as well.
Very often, utility operaters request, and receive, extensions to operate those power plants after their initial licensed operation period has passed. But they're not built to operate forever, just like passenger planes are not licensed to be flown forever.
Deal with it!
NO NO NO!!! Obama spent hours "conspiring" on how to put 100 people in the boonies out of work!!! This had nothing to do with safety, obsolete technology or anything else! Obama personally figured out a way to put 100 people out of work!!!!
He's a "technician," which means he changes a light bulb or greases a pump in the facility. The idea that he knows why management makes a decision to decommission a perfectly good power plant doesn't pass the laugh test.
Even if that was all I did would be about 100% more than what you've ever done, right?
I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Which means I understand the physical processes that make coal fired power plants work. When I was in school I had to take a course called "engineering economics," where I learne how to determine whether a given engineering project is economically feasible.
What training do you have?
(I've been going to "school" for more than 30 years and have my entire livelyhood invested in coal power plants. That's my training. And yes, we have engineers on the payroll as well.)
And by the way, these wdere NOT "perfectly good power plants". They were old, decrepit, run down plants that were only used for peaking.
You won't find any "perfectly good power plants" closing down.
They produced electric power the way they were designed to, so they were perfectly good. An old plant that costs nothing is a lot better option than spending $500 million or $1 billion to build a new one that will only be in use a small fraction of the year.
I have to say Indie... I don't quite know how to take the observation:
You sound like a Liberal Elitist!
Cause I sure as hell hate elitism and liberalism.
I would never have guessed!While I have Liberal to VERY Liberal views on some things (e.g. I really don't give a shet if Suzie marries Sally) I also have Conservative to VERY Conservative views on others (I think you've seen my posts on unions and yes, I'm a Christian - although not a "fire n brimstone" variety. I find merits in both.
I did college multiple times, hated it. Realized I learned far better on my own and did so. I have all sorts of stuff packed in the head which make me dangerous as hell for Trivia games.
The Ecofascisti... at one time, like unions, there was a purpose for them. There is a distinct benefit for protection from hidden dangers, abuse and mismanagement in both the environment and work. If you are Christian, you should pay attention to Genesis and realize that God commissioned us to be 'good stewards' of the Earth, even though we sinned and fucked up the sweet deal we had in Eden. That of course means that you should respect and manage nature and try to live in harmony with it. Of course, that does not mean you should be subjugated to it, for you are still on top of it all and are supposed to be responsible.
We do not leave the Earth for our children, we are borrowing it from them
So looping back to if there is merit? Absolutely. I'm a conservationist. Manage, don't submit. But, with every issue in the environment, from treatment of animals to pollution, really, there is a need to prove that what you are doing is a help. For instance, Kudzu was brought over to help shore up railroad cuts quickly. Nobody knew that this invasive species could be so dangerous to the south. Best intentions often go awry and that is why we must be so careful in what we choose to do in regards to the environment and never act too quickly.
Pollution really comes down to this for me, you don't shit where you sleep. Pollution often comes from necessary activity to survive. It's the curse of life and the modern western civ has some very nasty waste issues that need to be dealt with. That said, when we fix a problem, we should not automatically go off and continually tighten till an extreme is met. There are many pollutants in daily life that are relatively harmless. Car exhaust outside, for instance, stinks, but generally, unless you are unhealthy is not going to harm you. Your body can tolerate it. On the other hand, in your house for a prolonged period, you're gonna be bright pink and pushing up daisys soon. The response needs to balance the need to live life in the most efficent way possible, and not over react and try to create a 'no risk' impossible to reach world.
I'm probably more environmentally consciencsious than you. I remember growing up in Detroit when the joke was you could walk across Lake Erie without getting wet. The toxic waste and garbage dumped into our waters by the Auto industry was way outta control until the Feds came in (State govt. was in the pocket of the Big 3 - any surprise there). I also lived in San Diego when SDG&E was found guilty of wrongful death of all those children. Jeez was that a horrible story to witness. Then there's 3 Mile Island and the investigative journalist who busted the Yankee Nuke plant in the NE. So when it comes to err, I have no problem with erring on the side of safety.
The only thing I say I find flat out bullshit is Anthropogenic climate control. Consensus is not science, facts are. There are too many conflicting facts and not enough conclusive proof to generate enough justification to do a damn thing. I require a 'court level' degree of proof. Direct harm/cause must be shown while any solution must not be too espensive or inconvenient for the measure of improvement in life that is directly possible to the solution. This test cannot be met by anyone currently screaming "The Sky Is Falling!", and therefore, the policy should remain at 'no change'. When that information DOES become available, with a reasonable plan to stop it, then I would be for implementing it.
This is one where I severely piss off my LibDem friends. I don't dispute it's possible, I just don't see that it's been definitely proven. I remember hearing that the volcano in Iceland spewed as much CO2 in a couple weeks as every car in South America in a year. So much for feeling guilty about driving a huge, gas guzzling luxury car
As for my Avvie. That's Jimmer Nagumanee from Menominee! How could you not know the Jimmer? Boopity-BOOP!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VBTGgAKAcA]jimmer chevy took shit - YouTube[/ame]
But if a new one is built it won't be used "just a small fraction of the year". With new plants you get higher efficiency and less pollution and they would be used as base load.
An added bonus is that with new plant construction you get thousands of good paying jobs, plus millions in materials, as well as hundreds of good paying permanent jobs.
NO NO NO!!! Obama spent hours "conspiring" on how to put 100 people in the boonies out of work!!! This had nothing to do with safety, obsolete technology or anything else! Obama personally figured out a way to put 100 people out of work!!!!
You just made a fool of yourself by defending an idiocy.
The original poster is a tool. Shutting down old coal plants that cause massive pollution is a good thing. Coal plants/mining in the Appalachia region costs the region 5 times more then the economic benefits of the mining
OMG!
Three old polluting plants had to close!
Thanks President Obama for protecting America from corporate greed.
Better then their children dying from coal plant pollution. When you include health and environmental costs coal costs 2 time more then green energy and green energy create 3 times more jobsOMG!
Three old polluting plants had to close!
Thanks President Obama for protecting America from corporate greed.
Yeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.
Better then their children dying from coal plant pollution. When you include health and environmental costs coal costs 2 time more then green energy and green energy create 3 times more jobsYeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.
But if a new one is built it won't be used "just a small fraction of the year". With new plants you get higher efficiency and less pollution and they would be used as base load.
Wrong. The plants were use for peaking power. If they take those plants offline, they still need a source of peaking power. That means they will probably be replaced by natural gas plants that utilize gas turbines to produce power. The cost will be hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions. The people who pay for it will be the power company's customers.
All your blather about the retired coal plants being "old" an "decrepit" doesn't change a thing. They will still have to be replaced, and the cost will be astronomical.
An added bonus is that with new plant construction you get thousands of good paying jobs, plus millions in materials, as well as hundreds of good paying permanent jobs.
Spending money you didn't have to spend is not a "bonus." There may be added jobs in the construction industry, but that means fewer jobs somewhere else. What you have expressed above is called "the broken window fallacy."
The original poster is a tool. Shutting down old coal plants that cause massive pollution is a good thing. Coal plants/mining in the Appalachia region costs the region 5 times more then the economic benefits of the mining
Another libturd moron pulling stuff out of his ass.
Better then their children dying from coal plant pollution. When you include health and environmental costs coal costs 2 time more then green energy and green energy create 3 times more jobsYeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.
No one ever died from living near a coal plant. No one has ever even gotten sick. When you include health and environmental costs, coal is even cheaper in comparison to green energy. A reliable source of energy prevents food from spoiling and hospitals from shutting down.
The claim that green energy "creates three times more jobs" means it's 1/3 as efficient in terms of labor costs.
You're a environmental nutburger who is completely devoid of reason and common sense. Nothing you spout bares the slightest resemblance to an actual fact.
Better then their children dying from coal plant pollution. When you include health and environmental costs coal costs 2 time more then green energy and green energy create 3 times more jobsYeah, thanks for protecting poor children from low energy prices. Now their parents can spend their money on "green energy" instead of nutritious food or medical care.
No one ever died from living near a coal plant. No one has ever even gotten sick.
Electricity from solar/wind keeps refrigerates working and hospitals open the same as coal you thinking else wise is just more evidence to your vast ignorance.When you include health and environmental costs, coal is even cheaper in comparison to green energy. A reliable source of energy prevents food from spoiling and hospitals from shutting down.
Has shown above fossil fuels cost 2 times more then green energy.The claim that green energy "creates three times more jobs" means it's 1/3 as efficient in terms of labor costs.
