- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It seems like Obama wants to destroy our economy or maybe he wants to change the subject and doesn't mind if he destroys the economy doing so, take your pick.
"Indeed, Obama made clear in his speech that he intends to impose regulations on existing coal plants that can only be met through carbon capture and storage (technology that doesn’t exist on a commercial scale), switching to natural gas, or shutting down completely.
Coal still produces 37 percentof U.S. electricity. A Heritage Foundation analysis found that implementing Obama’s proposed regulation on existing coal plants would destroy more than 500,000 jobs, slash the income of a typical family of four more than $1,400 a year, and increase electricity prices at least 20 percent. Price spikes could be much higher in states that depend heavily on coal-fired power plants, especially in the Midwest. President Obama once famously explained that he intended to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.”
Read more: Obama declares a War on Coal | Fox News
Oh, if the Heritage Foundation says so, it must be true. They've never straight-up lied on environmental issues before, nosiree.
This is nothing more than lip service in the environmental crowd the same as his lip service in front of the mothers and anti gun peoples after the Connecticut massacre. Most politicians will say anything to get elected he on the other hand, will say anything to anyone all the time. Don't give it another thought, coal will be around long after his great, great, great, great grandchildren.
What exactly do they say about this do you think is not true?
Before he was elected Obama straight up said that he wanted make energy prices skyrocket. And a bunch of idiots still voted for him anyways.
This is why we not only need voter ID, we also need IQ tests to gain a right to vote.
Well ... He DID say energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.
Lord knows they have and He never said anything about them stopping.
So you can't say He ALWAYS lies.
I question their numbers.
No kidding, the idiom "war on (x,y,z)" is silly in its overuse.I feel so sorry for coals children, friends, and relatives because war can be hell, and all of those people are in danger now because of it.
I feel so sorry for coals children, friends, and relatives because war can be hell, and all of those people are in danger now because of it.
Very true, this war on coal will put those people in dire straits when dad loses his job.
Which numbers exactly and if you question them do you have some source that gives other numbers?
No kidding, the idiom "war on (x,y,z)" is silly in its overuse.
Their numbers about the increase in energy prices, the number of jobs lost, income lost, etc. They've used pretty ridiculous methods to come up with their numbers before, and sometimes no method at all. As an example, their "cost of immigration reform" numbers assume that none of the immigrants granted citizenship would ever make more money than they do now, nor would their children. It also seemed to assume retirement at like 55, and they used the "cost" over a 50 year period to inflate the numbers.
Their numbers about the increase in energy prices, the number of jobs lost, income lost, etc. They've used pretty ridiculous methods to come up with their numbers before, and sometimes no method at all. As an example, their "cost of immigration reform" numbers assume that none of the immigrants granted citizenship would ever make more money than they do now, nor would their children. It also seemed to assume retirement at like 55, and they used the "cost" over a 50 year period to inflate the numbers.
According to the Edison Electric Institute, a utility trade group, there are 1,142 coal-fired utilities in the United States and 3,967 natural-gas-fired plants, all of which would face new carbon limits under Obama’s proposal. Last year they accounted for nearly 68 percent of all electricity production, according to EEI, compared with nuclear and hydropower utilities, which made up 19 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively. All renewables combined amounted to 5.4percent of electricity generation in 2012.
That's because he doesn't have one that hasn't already gone bankrupt.With the majority of US electrical energy generation coming from coal and natural gas, any regulations that shutter plants will raise prices drastically. I haven't heard the President's plan on how to replace the reduction in capacity.
Obama to take sweeping action on climate - The Washington Post
We have had this discussion before. The midwest coal burning plants are old and due for extensive upgrades to remain economic much less meet EPA clean air rules. Midwest plants burn soft, 'dirty' coal from shaft mines in places like WV, that are becoming more and more dangerous to operate safely. We recall the Upper Big Branch in 2010, Sago in 2006- flagrant safety violations and numerous smaller gigs, 44 miners killed.
The Midwest is converting to Natural Gas and it is cheaper. Yes speculators on the commodity market play with the future prices but NG is cheap and plentiful. Places like Ohio are building NG plants that are modern, efficient and provide construction jobs.
Out west huge strip mines produce hard coal for plants that can meet the new EPA guidelines. California power companies did threaten to close down if the decades old rules are finally enforced, but once they finished their diva dance they announced they can meet the new regulations. Imagine that... :roll:
NG plants will not have a problem meeting the new regs... the energy policy lobby is playing way too fast and loose with the facts on that.
There is no war on coal anymore than there was a war on whale oil or a war on horses and buggies...eace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?