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.
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 jobs
No one ever died from living near a coal plant. No one has ever even gotten sick.
Actually 30,000 people a year die due to living near a coal plant
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
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.
Coal Does More Harm Than Good in Kentucky: $62 Million for Asthma Costs, $10 Billion for Lost Lives | ThinkProgress
^Another study finds that coal mining in Kentucky has a negative impact overall on the economy
Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.
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.
And green energy create 3 times more jobs
The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy
And FirstEnergy could take the matter into court. They chose to close instead. No question however, the rules & regs are smothering some US businesses.Um, your article doesn't mention how most of those employees were offered spots at FirstEnergy's other plants. Besides, demand for coal powered electricity will fall as cities realize that clean energy isn't actually that much more expensive.
No one ever died from living near a coal plant. No one has ever even gotten sick.
Actually 30,000 people a year die due to living near a coal plant
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
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.
Coal Does More Harm Than Good in Kentucky: $62 Million for Asthma Costs, $10 Billion for Lost Lives | ThinkProgress
^Another study finds that coal mining in Kentucky has a negative impact overall on the economy
Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.
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.
And green energy create 3 times more jobs
The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy
Oh hell, now you went and brought verifiable FACTS into a debate with bripat. Crap, now he'll Cut & Run. And I had several other studies to verify the same thing, specifically in the counties where those plants were located!
Knew I shouldn't have sandbagged and waited for him to address a reasonable posts. Wadday expect from whackjobs?
And yet you somehow manage to not have a response to the engineer who says you're wrong, even though you asked for it.
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.
Actually 30,000 people a year die due to living near a coal plant
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
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.
Coal Does More Harm Than Good in Kentucky: $62 Million for Asthma Costs, $10 Billion for Lost Lives | ThinkProgress
^Another study finds that coal mining in Kentucky has a negative impact overall on the economy
Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.
Has shown above fossil fuels cost 2 times more then green energy.
And green energy create 3 times more jobs
The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy
Oh hell, now you went and brought verifiable FACTS into a debate with bripat. Crap, now he'll Cut & Run. And I had several other studies to verify the same thing, specifically in the counties where those plants were located!
Knew I shouldn't have sandbagged and waited for him to address a reasonable posts. Wadday expect from whackjobs?
Don't forget Daveman and Big Fitz.
but I can forgive that. And yet you somehow manage to not have a response to the engineer who says you're wrong, even though you asked for it.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.
So do you ever have anything more substantive to offer than puerile insults or is that the extent of your interactive abilities? Honestly, I don't know that I've ever seen you once reply to someone with a differing opinion, in which you acknowledged the possibility that any opinion other than your own could be valid or (heaven forbid!) that you were ever just wrong about something. Perhaps that's just who you are. If so, you're not alone.
So you have a BSME. That's fine. I'm a business guy myself (although through weird circumstances, my major ended up being theology). Let's discuss or clarify what seems to be your assertations.
It is a fact that the plants being closed are very old and use archaic technology. They also produce less than 1% of the power generated in the area. You seem to think this is a conspiracy by Obama (c'mon seriously???) and not just a matter of a cost / benefit analysis that determined it would be cheaper to close them and shift production or open new facilities. Care to back that up with say, facts? Evidence?
You have also asserted that the new regs do nothing to protect the lives of those living in the area or reduce the measured & verified heightened incidence of lung and other disease in the areas where these plants are located. As far as I know, the regs require that less measurable toxins be produced. Counterpoint?
Now the only reason peakers are used is for pure economics. We had a couple of old units that were used for peaking (after deregulation) but then we decided to mothball them and build new natural gas units that did not have to be constantly manned yet could be used when the national megawatt price exceeded $50.
Simply put, it does not make good economic sense to use old, worn out power plants for peaking since they are off line much more than on, draw lots of power when they're off and need to be constantly manned and maintained.
IMO the power company execs had already planned to shut these units down. That's the only thing that makes sense.
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.
http://appalachiarising.org/press-and-bloggers/factsheet-on-mountaintop-removal-coal-mining/
Unemployment rates and Surface Mining in Appalachia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
^1)A 2009 report estimates that mountaintop coal mining costs Appalachia five times more than the benefits it receives from mountaintop mining. 42 billion to 8 billion.
^2) residents in major mining locations had a 70% higher chance of having kidney disease a 64% increased chance for chronic pulmonary disease, and a 30% increase chance to have higher blood pressure.
^3) Local governments are propping up the coal industry, taking into account all revenue and expenditures the industry costs the local government of West Virginia 100 million a year and Kentucky 115 million a year.
^4) Local areas with mountaintop mining had an unemployment rate 44% higher than other local areas.
Like always conservatives are ignorant
Um, your article doesn't mention how most of those employees were offered spots at FirstEnergy's other plants. Besides, demand for coal powered electricity will fall as cities realize that clean energy isn't actually that much more expensive.
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 jobs
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.
Ah. So presenting an ideas or counterpoints without being an azzhole is simply beyond you.
It seemed fairly obvious but I thought what the heck, why not give it a try?
So your assertation is that there has never been a verified and measured anomolous increase in emphysema, lung disease, hypertension, heart attacks etc... specifically in the areas surrounding these plants?
Well, I guess you aren't bothered by things like facts, reality etc... when "debating". Got it.
I got your 'running for the hills' right here by the short and curleys, CookedGewse.Actually 30,000 people a year die due to living near a coal plant
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
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.
Coal Does More Harm Than Good in Kentucky: $62 Million for Asthma Costs, $10 Billion for Lost Lives | ThinkProgress
^Another study finds that coal mining in Kentucky has a negative impact overall on the economy
Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.
Has shown above fossil fuels cost 2 times more then green energy.
And green energy create 3 times more jobs
The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy
Oh hell, now you went and brought verifiable FACTS into a debate with bripat. Crap, now he'll Cut & Run. And I had several other studies to verify the same thing, specifically in the counties where those plants were located!
Knew I shouldn't have sandbagged and waited for him to address a reasonable posts. Wadday expect from whackjobs?
Don't forget Daveman and Big Fitz.
"science" on face value?
Actually 30,000 people a year die due to living near a coal plantLife-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
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.
The Kentucky Environmental Foundation (KEF) is a non-profi t organization
dedicated to securing solutions to environmental problems in a manner,
which safeguards human health, promotes environmental justice,
preserves ecological systems and encourages sustainability.
^Another study finds that coal mining in Kentucky has a negative impact overall on the economy
Economists: Coal Is Incredibly Costly | ThinkProgress
^New study finds that Coal and Oil are more costly then renewable energy once health and environmental effects are included.
Life-cycle study: Accounting for total harm from coal would add "close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated" | ThinkProgress
^New study fines that Coals negative effect on human health and the environmental cost the nation at least 125% more than the electricity generated from coal.
^Coal results in at least 30,000 American deaths each year.
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.
And green energy create 3 times more jobs
The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy
Typical of a Republican to ignore realityAnother libturd moron pulling stuff out of his ass.
http://appalachiarising.org/press-and-bloggers/factsheet-on-mountaintop-removal-coal-mining/
Unemployment rates and Surface Mining in Appalachia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
^1)A 2009 report estimates that mountaintop coal mining costs Appalachia five times more than the benefits it receives from mountaintop mining. 42 billion to 8 billion.
^2) residents in major mining locations had a 70% higher chance of having kidney disease a 64% increased chance for chronic pulmonary disease, and a 30% increase chance to have higher blood pressure.
^3) Local governments are propping up the coal industry, taking into account all revenue and expenditures the industry costs the local government of West Virginia 100 million a year and Kentucky 115 million a year.
^4) Local areas with mountaintop mining had an unemployment rate 44% higher than other local areas.
Like always conservatives are ignorant
Your
http://appalachiarising.org/press-and-bloggers/factsheet-on-mountaintop-removal-coal-mining/ link doesn't resolve. But don't bother correcting it, the appalachiarising.org site is an anti coal mining propaganda organ.
Enough said.
Fossil fuels are twice as expensive as green energyIt's far more expensive. Furthermore, it requires 100% backup. Utilities will not be able to dispense with the slightest amount of the current conventional generating capacity if they adopt so-called "green energy."
Typical of a Republican to ignore reality
Unemployment rates and Surface Mining in Appalachia | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Fossil fuels are twice as expensive as green energy
Oh hell, now you went and brought verifiable FACTS into a debate with bripat. Crap, now he'll Cut & Run. And I had several other studies to verify the same thing, specifically in the counties where those plants were located!
Knew I shouldn't have sandbagged and waited for him to address a reasonable posts. Wadday expect from whackjobs?
And FirstEnergy could take the matter into court. They chose to close instead. No question however, the rules & regs are smothering some US businesses.Um, your article doesn't mention how most of those employees were offered spots at FirstEnergy's other plants. Besides, demand for coal powered electricity will fall as cities realize that clean energy isn't actually that much more expensive.
Did I ask for a response from an engineer or another power plant technician? Hell, there are lots of engineers. I would not ask advice from say.... a highway engineer on what power plants should be shut down. And we shouldn't need one. If they are old an inefficient common sense would dictate that it's time to retire them
Find me a death certificate any time in the last 100 years that has 'coal pollution' as the cause of death.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.
The poster won't, and it knows it.Find me a death certificate any time in the last 100 years that has 'coal pollution' as the cause of death.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.
Just one.
Far better to put 100 families out into the cold or destroy their standard of living so you can get high off your self-righteous sanctimony.
