"Clean Coal" means No Coal

[NapRover]

Hopefully BHO's pattern of saying one thing while meaning another (called lying) will continue to become visible as more & more energy producers are out of jobs and on the dole and prices rocket upwards.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300989/clean-coal-means-no-coal-nash-keune

[jimmacqueen]

Coal is bad for life on Earth. Either clean it up or stop using it completely. If people working in that industry don't see the handwriting on the wall and find work somewhere else, then it's their own fault (and that's a conservative point of view on welfare, by the way!).

[cleetmud1]

Coal is not bad for earth.Our government is bad for earth.They would rather spend billions on unreliable alternative energy,like wind ,solar,gas and nuclear in place of spending millions to clean coal.....Talk about bad for earth NUCLEAR power, one screw up there and you kill millions.Coal is 67% cleaner today than it was 30 years ago,so they have cleaned it up.You just listen to the wrong people.

82% of Ohio gets its power from coal fired power plants,So you tree hugging money wasting democrats,here is a Ideal for you.Don't use any power until you get your alternative power and see where that gets you.

I hope you are not on a fixed income,because all your alternative planes will triple your utility bills.

[NapRover]

Coal is bad for life on Earth. Either clean it up or stop using it completely. If people working in that industry don't see the handwriting on the wall and find work somewhere else, then it's their own fault (and that's a conservative point of view on welfare, by the way!).

A rather extreme view, to be sure, nothing remotely conservative about it. All coal miners should quit their jobs and go find other ones, huh?

People in the industry will be voting in Romney as will the rest of us. He'll restore sanity.

[Homer Falcon]

Coal is not bad for earth.Our government is bad for earth.They would rather spend billions on unreliable alternative energy,like wind ,solar,gas and nuclear in place of spending millions to clean coal.....Talk about bad for earth NUCLEAR power, one screw up there and you kill millions.Coal is 67% cleaner today than it was 30 years ago,so they have cleaned it up.You just listen to the wrong people.

82% of Ohio gets its power from coal fired power plants,So you tree hugging money wasting democrats,here is a Ideal for you.Don't use any power until you get your alternative power and see where that gets you.

I hope you are not on a fixed income,because all your alternative planes will triple your utility bills.

I liked everything but the nuclear part.

What happened in Russia or Japan are not mistakes you'll see here with any new construction. Nuclear must be part of our inevitable weaning from fossil fuels. There is that troublesome problem of the waste...but surely there's a deep mine shaft we can sacrifice.

The working poor will pay for this stand by the social engineers. This isn't about the betterment of the people. This is about the government controlling the market, and eliminating the parts it doesn't like...and shoving it down our throat.

I do understand though, that ultimately we're too stupid to know what's good for us, and now we will pay for our ignorance. ;)

[east_ohio]

There is technology for clean coal and it is much cheaper then Green Energy. As for the Power Plants that have shut down and those that will shut down, most were/are partially is compliance with EPA regulations.
I worked for FE at a plant that did close in 2010. Not only did hundreds lose their job spin off jobs cost many others, not to mention the loss in tax monies for the local school district.
$517 million went to Solyndra and except for the millions that went into the pockets of several top Executives the rest is gone. That $517 million could have completely brought muliple Power Plants in complete compliance saving thousands of total jobs.

It's obvious, coal will still be mined but only for foreign export and not US consumption. In SE Ohio and WV, employment is at level that haven't been seen in years. US coal exports to China was 387,000 tons in 09 and 10. It jumped to 4,000,000 in 2011 and could possibly jump to 12,000,000 in 12-13. None of this coal will be "clean".

[Homer Falcon]

Yeah...but, the enlightened ones in government will sell karma points (carbon credits) to the Chinese so them taking advantage of cheap energy won't really be blood on our hands.

It's worth the price the poor will pay to 'do the right thing.'

[chs71]

No coal means sky rocketing electrical rates, loss of jobs, and economic recession.

So of course the Obamaites are all for it.

[jimmacqueen]

No coal also means cleaner air, cleaner water, and the long term survival of the human species. But those are minor things compared to jobs and the cost of electricity, I guess.

[NapRover]

No coal also means cleaner air, cleaner water, and the long term survival of the human species. But those are minor things compared to jobs and the cost of electricity, I guess.

Obama apparently doesn't agree with you.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-31/obama-boosts-coal-exports-prompting-allies-complaints

[wisdome]

No coal also means cleaner air, cleaner water, and the long term survival of the human species. But those are minor things compared to jobs and the cost of electricity, I guess.

If we stop breathing that will also help. If you put the money were it should be really put (instead of the Solyndra type folks) there is already technology out there called: Carbon sequestration...which is the capture of carbon dioxide (CO2)

Some close to my vest sources have indicated to me that there is already technology that can decompose the CO2 when put into the resevouir.

Spend the money in enhancing what we got vs the scare tactic that the true liberal uses!

[Homer Falcon]

No coal also means cleaner air, cleaner water, and the long term survival of the human species. But those are minor things compared to jobs and the cost of electricity, I guess.

Our air and water are cleaner than they have been at any point in the last 100 years. If there is a threat to that trend, it's not coming from coal production or usage. Based on population trends, the species seems to be thriving. When considering our need for good jobs, and the sky-rocketing cost of energy, I don't believe those little factoids to be 'minor.'

[minsterman]

No coal also means cleaner air, cleaner water, and the long term survival of the human species. But those are minor things compared to jobs and the cost of electricity, I guess.

this isn't the 40's, where is the dirty air and dirty water at.......:rolleyes:

[docthehun]

Our air and water are cleaner than they have been at any point in the last 100 years. If there is a threat to that trend, it's not coming from coal production or usage. Based on population trends, the species seems to be thriving. When considering our need for good jobs, and the sky-rocketing cost of energy, I don't believe those little factoids to be 'minor.'

Concur and might add that much of the blame lies elsewhere in the world. Can we do more? Without a doubt, but we can't bankrupt ourselves in the process. We're in a world economy whether we like it or not and we have to be competitive in both cost and quality. Like with everything in life, there has to be trade-offs. Those on both the far left and far right seem unwilling to accept the notion that there has to be compromise on this and many issues.

The youngsters probably don't remember this, but many of us old timers probably shoveled coal into a hopper to heat the house. Old coals plants were built without much concern to enviromental issues. Coal plants certainly weren't alone in that regards. As Homer stated, there has been a huge improvement in our environment. That same claim cannot be made by countries like China and India.

The new coal plants are clean and efficient, the plants built in the 30's were not. But we're making headway and would be much farther ahead in the process if not for the alarmists. This country (pardon counselors) is litigation crazy. More moderation across the board would save US ALL a ton of dough and DG still would have plenty of work. (Sorry guys, Sunday rant! :D)

Hey, have a "special" day. (Courtesy of you know who! LOL)

[chs71]

No coal also means cleaner air, cleaner water, and the long term survival of the human species. But those are minor things compared to jobs and the cost of electricity, I guess.

"Cleaner" is a relative term, clean enough is more important. Perfect is the enemy of good.

[bytheway]

2014 will be a tough year unless these clean air policies are reversed. FirstEnergy and AEP have scheduled 8 or 10 coal plants to be closed. Electricity prices will spike. auction prices right now are 300% higher than they were a year or two ago.

[sleeper]

2014 will be a tough year unless these clean air policies are reversed. FirstEnergy and AEP have scheduled 8 or 10 coal plants to be closed. Electricity prices will spike. auction prices right now are 300% higher than they were a year or two ago.

Prices will spike for everyone but the poor because you'll see the Democrats taking care of their base despite its effects on the rest of the country. Expect to see a new subsidy for anyone not deemed rich by the left; the current definition is "anyone who makes more than me".

[Rr_fan]

This is a terrible thread! All the government is doing is making our energy cost go up and for what? We are selling coal to other country's to burn for cheaper than cities around here can buy it? Lose lose! We burn much cleaner and have the resources here. Use them and all you who don't like it can pay three times as much for energy.

[majorspark]

Prices will spike for everyone but the poor because you'll see the Democrats taking care of their base despite its effects on the rest of the country. Expect to see a new subsidy for anyone not deemed rich by the left; the current definition is "anyone who makes more than me".

I can see the political commercials now. Grandma wrapped in a blanket, as she speaks her frozen breath rises out of her mouth. Coughing between sentences. In the background on the dining room table is a can of Alpo with the handle of a spoon sticking out of it.

In the end the words: Ask the republicans in the house why they favor tax cuts for the rich, but oppose HB123 that would help Americans with low incomes and those on a fixed incomes adjust to the rising cost of electricity.

End the commercial with a republican congressman in a suit and tie pulling a lever from on to off cutting grandma's power.

[NapRover]

I can see the political commercials now. Grandma wrapped in a blanket, as she speaks her frozen breath rises out of her mouth. Coughing between sentences. In the background on the dining room table is a can of Alpo with the handle of a spoon sticking out of it.

In the end the words: Ask the republicans in the house why they favor tax cuts for the rich, but oppose HB123 that would help Americans with low incomes and those on a fixed incomes adjust to the rising cost of electricity.

End the commercial with a republican congressman in a suit and tie pulling a lever from on to off cutting grandma's power.

LOL!
I bet you are very close to reality on this!

[DGUtley]

Sometimes I think the Democrats would rather put a fence around Ohio and call it a national park rather than let us use the energy resources that we already have. The cap and trade bill that the Obama originally sent for a vote would've done exactly that. In other words the medicine for the global warming disease they claim we have would've killed the patient.

[jimmacqueen]

^Anything that put's "clean coal" (there is no such thing) out of business is fine with me. I don't care enough about "ohio" and "ohio jobs" to vote that way. We need clean air, clean water, and environmental controls far more than we need jobs for Ohio families.

[Zunardo]

How eerily apropos - I just got done re-reading Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six".

[sleeper]

^Anything that put's "clean coal" (there is no such thing) out of business is fine with me. I don't care enough about "ohio" and "ohio jobs" to vote that way. We need clean air, clean water, and environmental controls far more than we need jobs for Ohio families.

I understand your position on this. What is your solution to the millions of Americans that cannot afford higher electricity? Should be socialize electricity so its "free"?

[DGUtley]

Largely agree.

[bethere]

I understand your position on this. What is your solution to the millions of Americans that cannot afford higher electricity? Should be socialize electricity so its "free"?

that would be not my ideal choice but it would be outstanding. we deregulated electricity here in ohio and it is no more competitive now a decade later than it was before the deregulation.

1--the energy market isn't even close to being free;
2--the market isn't even close to being competitive;
3--we are talking about municipal utilities here--NOT widgets (i know you didn''t say widgets, this is a drucker slam--look it up);
4--i'd rather they be free than have this country put into a position where young fascist recent college grads can almost single-highhandedly manipulate the grid and cause widespread fake shortages, brown outs, and the like for fun, games, and profit as they did at enron.

MY SOLUTION WOULD BE OPEN MARKETS. I BET YOU WOULDN'T LIKE THE THINGS I WOULD DO.

1--NATIONALIZE WHAT EXISTS OF THE GRID;
2--REBUILD THE GRID AND PUT PEOPLE TO WORK;
3--OPEN THE MARKET TO INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION AND MAKE THE GRID AVAILABLE TO ALL.

and remember, child: much of the deep south now has electrical power ONLY because FDR made it a national putting people to work issue. you guys called it--and many still do--communism.

educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/TVA-sites-map.png/250px-TVA-sites-map.png

[fbgom]

I'm generally not in favor of government "taking over" anything, but I've felt for the longest time that the electrical transmission system was one thing that did make perfect sense for the government to control and operate.

And yes, there needs to be lots of upgrades to the grid. Many projects have been stalled for years over siting, environmental permitting, and the typical NIMBY arguments. This just isn't a reliability (convenience) issue, it is a national security issue.

[sleeper]

Nationalizing the grid just makes the energy market LESS competitive and more inefficient. Prices may stay low, but the revenue will have to be generated elsewhere(read: higher taxes). In the end, people will be paying more for electricity and ruining any chance at innovation aimed at reducing costs to steal market share from the customers.

Your proposals would make the power market worse off. We need more deregulation of the energy market to give new companies a chance at delivering power at a reduced cost.

Once again, your grasp of economics is lacking at best and your interest in rational debate is non-existent. Carry on.

[bethere]

I'm generally not in favor of government "taking over" anything, but I've felt for the longest time that the electrical transmission system was one thing that did make perfect sense for the government to control and operate.

And yes, there needs to be lots of upgrades to the grid. Many projects have been stalled for years over siting, environmental permitting, and the typical NIMBY arguments. This just isn't a reliability (convenience) issue, it is a national security issue.

i agree and would accept that reality, but that isn't really what i am proposing. i think a model based after the internet would be fine. build it, then give it away.

make it available on the same terms to everyone.. and yeah that would be in our national interest and make us really unique in the energy marketplace. if free market dynamics are truly workable then that would give us an incredible edge.

[bethere]

Nationalizing the grid just makes the energy market LESS competitive and more inefficient. Prices may stay low, but the revenue will have to be generated elsewhere(read: higher taxes). In the end, people will be paying more for electricity and ruining any chance at innovation aimed at reducing costs to steal market share from the customers.

Your proposals would make the power market worse off. We need more deregulation of the energy market to give new companies a chance at delivering power at a reduced cost.

Once again, your grasp of economics is lacking at best and your interest in rational debate is non-existent. Carry on.

weren't you the one who made the stellar point earlier on this very forum that there is no economic reason that would drive any power companies to upgrade the national grid?

guffaw!

you were right for a change. so the only way you'll get an efficient grid is through a plan like mine. that's because there is no incentive for any of the individual players to do so as they are able to make tons of extra money through fake shortages.

[sleeper]

I'm generally not in favor of government "taking over" anything, but I've felt for the longest time that the electrical transmission system was one thing that did make perfect sense for the government to control and operate.

And yes, there needs to be lots of upgrades to the grid. Many projects have been stalled for years over siting, environmental permitting, and the typical NIMBY arguments. This just isn't a reliability (convenience) issue, it is a national security issue.

We are trillions in debt. We need upgrades to a vast majority of national infrastructure in this country, but with the apocalyptic debt overhang and entitlement mentality in America, where are you going to get the money from?

The rich? Tax them at the levels needed to cover anything relevant, and they will move(or higher more expensive tax accountants). The middle class and poor? They are already strapped to the limit.

[bethere]

We are trillions in debt. We need upgrades to a vast majority of national infrastructure in this country, but with the apocalyptic debt overhang and entitlement mentality in America, where are you going to get the money from?

we'll raise taxes, cut the military, and everything will fall neatly into place.

*amen*

[sleeper]

weren't you the one who made the stellar point earlier on this very forum that there is no economic reason that would drive any power companies to upgrade the national grid?

guffaw!

you were tight for a change. so the only way you'll get an efficient grid is through a plan like mine. that's because there is no incentive for any of the individual players to do so.

Why upgrade the grid? That takes an investment of capital for prices they cannot adjust. If prices were allowed to rise, companies would be willing to invest capital into infrastructure improvements since there would be a ROI from happy customers willing to pay higher prices for better service(and reliability).

I agree there is no incentive right now, but de-regulating the market and you will see an increase in power grid investment via increased competition.

[sleeper]

we'll raise taxes, cut the military, and everything will fall neatly into place.

*amen*

This has been debunked time and time again.

You might be able to squeeze an extra 100-200 billion a year out of the "rich" and military spending is only about 750 billion a year. Cut military spending to zero and increase taxes on the rich, and you barely cover about HALF the current deficit.

I understand you are not interested in rational debate though, so please carry on.

[bethere]

Why upgrade the grid? That takes an investment of capital for prices they cannot adjust. If prices were allowed to rise, companies would be willing to invest capital into infrastructure improvements since there would be a ROI from happy customers willing to pay higher prices for better service(and reliability).

I agree there is no incentive right now, but de-regulating the market and you will see an increase in power grid investment via increased competition.

we, and you are making me repeat myself again, deregulated in ohio over a decade ago and your prices have changed zero.

investment in the grid? zero.

increased competition? zero.

and we aren't an isolated case study here.

once again, it is left to me to teach you current events and economics.

i expect you to start paying for my services.

[bethere]

This has been debunked time and time again.

You might be able to squeeze an extra 100-200 billion a year out of the "rich" and military spending is only about 750 billion a year. Cut military spending to zero and increase taxes on the rich, and you barely cover about HALF the current deficit.

I understand you are not interested in rational debate though, so please carry on.

so while you use lowball numbers to try to make me look bad, you in effect have admitted that my plan would wipe out nearly a trillion dollars of deficit spending each and every year.

and yet somehow you'd like that to mean that i am wrong.

lol.

NOW EXPLAIN TO ME WHY MARKET DYNAMICS DIDN'T PROVIDE POWER TO A SEVEN STATE REGION AND YET THE TVA WAS ABLE TO DO SO IN JUST A MATTER OF A DECADE AND THEREBY SUPERCHARGED THE ECONOMY OF A PREVIOUSLY STRICTLY AGRICULTURAL AND BACKWARDS DEEP SOUTH?

[fbgom]

Sleeper, not sure if you were directing at me or elsewhere. I certainly don't claim to be an economist, but can see that the electrical power market is simply "different" than most others. We are also talking about the difference between centralized control of the delivery system, not the means of production. There hopefully will always be enough economic incentive to spark innovation on the production side. In any case, you could deregulate the bejesus out of the electrical market but you would still have immense barriers for new players to enter the power generation market. The siting and construction of facilities takes years and is outrageously expensive, and your product can't be stored. It is just different than anything else, so I don't expect all the same rules to apply as for wheat, petroleum, or other markets.

Just think if the TVA were proposed today; in the time it took to electrify the entire rural south you likely wouldn't build the first dam or string the first section of transmission line.

[sleeper]

We need more deregulation than and lower taxes. Prices likely haven't dropped because input prices are increasing and the risk of higher taxes and greater regulation have stifled any companies willingness to enter the market or make improvements to the power grid.

This is actually a microcosm of the entire economy at large. Companies aren't hiring because our economy recognizes tax increases and lower demand for products is on the horizon. Couple that with the most incompetent President of all time, and the economy has no chance.

[sleeper]

so while you use lowball numbers to try to make me look bad, you in effect have admitted that my plan would wipe out nearly a trillion dollars of deficit spending each and every year.

and yet somehow you'd like that to mean that i am wrong.

lol.

I'm not lowballing anything. The rich are rich because they are smart and they know how to hire smart people to manage their money to pay as little tax as possible. If the government closes said "loopholes" they will just change their investment strategy. If the government closes all loopholes, the rich will simply take their money and leave. It's an arms race and the rich will ALWAYS win out, no matter what.

Cutting military spending to zero would cripple this country. It was meant to be an extreme example to show the weakness in your position that cutting military spending and raising taxes on the rich is a valid plan.

[bethere]

I'm not lowballing anything. The rich are rich because they are smart and they know how to hire smart people to manage their money to pay as little tax as possible. If the government closes said "loopholes" they will just change their investment strategy. If the government closes all loopholes, the rich will simply take their money and leave. It's an arms race and the rich will ALWAYS win out, no matter what.

Cutting military spending to zero would cripple this country. It was meant to be an extreme example to show the weakness in your position that cutting military spending and raising taxes on the rich is a valid plan.

the soviet union crashed because of people like YOU who were afraid of their own shadows and were willing to spend trillions they did not have on weapons they would never use for situations that would never present themselves.

WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU OR THE GOP.

WE'D LIKE TO FEED THESE PEOPLE REAL FOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE HUNGRY INSTEAD WE MUST BUY WEAPONS THAT WILL NEVER BE USED BECAUSE YOU ARE A PUSS.

[sleeper]

Sleeper, not sure if you were directing at me or elsewhere. I certainly don't claim to be an economist, but can see that the electrical power market is simply "different" than most others. We are also talking about the difference between centralized control of the delivery system, not the means of production. There hopefully will always be enough economic incentive to spark innovation on the production side. In any case, you could deregulate the bejesus out of the electrical market but you would still have immense barriers for new players to enter the power generation market. The siting and construction of facilities takes years and is outrageously expensive, and your product can't be stored. It is just different than anything else, so I don't expect all the same rules to apply as for wheat, petroleum, or other markets.

Just think if the TVA were proposed today; in the time it took to electrify the entire rural south you likely wouldn't build the first dam or string the first section of transmission line.

It just seems different because the energy market is heavily regulated. It takes years of paperwork just for a new company to get off the ground and then its almost useless trying to deal with the oligopoly that controls the industry. De-regulate the market, it'll help more than you think.

The TVA is a poor example. The south would have had such a high demand for power that a private company would love to pour capital and investment dollars into providing the south that need. You don't need the government to stimulate any production, although I certainly would be lying if that investment by the government didn't make it happen quicker. The problem is, the government has nothing, so it had to take capital from other areas in order to help this particular project. We will never see the effects of what that money could have benefitted the country because it was taken from the more efficient and ROI driven private sector.

Economics is a give and take "science". Most people only see one side of the coin, but the other side is often, especially when dealing with the government, very ugly.

[sleeper]

the soviet union crashed because of people like YOU who were afraid of their own shadows and were willing to spend trillions they did not have on weapons they would never use for situations that would never present themselves.

WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU OR THE GOP.

Military spending is a fraction of how many trillions the entitlement programs are costing us. The GOP hasn't really done anything to curtail these issues, but you won't find many Democrats who wouldn't proudly stamp "D" onto Medicare/Medicaid/SS. Those programs are ultimately what will bankrupt this country, military spending is irrelevant to the discussion of "affordability".

[bethere]

It just seems different because the energy market is heavily regulated. It takes years of paperwork just for a new company to get off the ground and then its almost useless trying to deal with the oligopoly that controls the industry. De-regulate the market, it'll help more than you think.

The TVA is a poor example. The south would have had such a high demand for power that a private company would love to pour capital and investment dollars into providing the south that need. You don't need the government to stimulate any production, although I certainly would be lying if that investment by the government didn't make it happen quicker. The problem is, the government has nothing, so it had to take capital from other areas in order to help this particular project. We will never see the effects of what that money could have benefitted the country because it was taken from the more efficient and ROI driven private sector.

Economics is a give and take "science". Most people only see one side of the coin, but the other side is often, especially when dealing with the government, very ugly.


NO ONE WAS LINING UP TO PROVIDE POWER IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY. THE TVA IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, AND MUCH OF THE SOUTH WOULD STILL BE STONE AGE IF IT WEREN'T FOR FDR.

EVEN NOW, AS ANOTHER POSTER POINTED OUT, THE TVA WOULDN'T HAPPEN.

and you aren't happening, either.

[sleeper]

NO ONE WAS LINING UP TO PROVIDE POWER IN THE TENNESSEE VALLEY. THE TVA IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, AND MUCH OF THE SOUTH WOULD STILL BE STONE AGE IF IT WEREN'T FOR FDR.

EVEN NOW, AS ANOTHER POSTER POINTED OUT, THE TVA WOULDN'T HAPPEN.

and you aren't happening, either.

The question needs to be asked, "With such obvious strong demand, why were no companies lining up?" That tells me all I need to know about the TVA; it was an inefficient waste of resources.

[bethere]

Military spending is a fraction of how many trillions the entitlement programs are costing us.

nonsense. let's say we only spend a trillion on the military and war a year. in thirty years when entitlements are no longer paying for themselves that will be another $30 trillion of additional defense spending. add in compound interest, inflation, etc. and that number becomes something more like $70 trillion.

[sleeper]

nonsense. let's say we only spend a trillion on the military and war a year. in thirty years when entitlements are no longer paying for themselves that will be another $30 trillion of additional defense spending. add in compound interest, inflation, etc. and that number becomes something more like $70 trillion.

lol

[bethere]

The question needs to be asked, "With such obvious strong demand, why were no companies lining up?" That tells me all I need to know about the TVA; it was an inefficient waste of resources.

you claimed to be an economist... well, mr. economist--where exactly did i use the term or concept 'demand' in this discussion?

i await your pathetic response.

btw, that inefficient waste of resources raised the standard of living for tens of millions of people and helped lift our country out of a depression.

[sleeper]

you claimed to be an economist... well, mr. economist--where exactly did i use the term or concept 'demand' in this discussion?

i await your pathetic response.

A profit seeking company seeing an overwhelming amount of demand for a product will give them an incentive to make investments in that area in order to make money. :D

[bethere]

A profit seeking company seeing an overwhelming amount of demand for a product will give them an incentive to make investments in that area in order to make money. :D

so you are too much of a little girl to admit that you made up words to put in my mouth so that you might refute words that i never said?

name an example of one corporation in position or willing to do anything in tennessee in the 1930s.

then name one that was willing to build hoover dam so that las vegas could have water and power.

we'd talk of economy of scale and opportunity cost here, but jeez, you are an economist and you are already supposed to know this stuff.

[sleeper]

name an example of one in position or willing to do anything in tennessee in the 1930s.

then name one that was willing to build hoover dam so that las vegas could have water and power.

It's hard for a private company to compete with the government, if not impossible. The government doesn't care about profit/loss and can drive out any and all investment for a profit seeking firm.

If you were more a rational poster interested in discussion rather than ignorance and obvious trolling, perhaps I'd be more willing to put more effort into your questions and provide more evidence to support my positions. Your attitude is deplorable at best and your ignorance regarding economics is very apparent. I don't know what you do for a living, but I hope its nothing where someone's life or economic well being is on the line. I am choosing to place you on my ignore list again. I wish you the best.

[bethere]

It's hard for a private company to compete with the government, if not impossible. The government doesn't care about profit/loss and can drive out any and all investment for a profit seeking firm.

If you were more a rational poster interested in discussion rather than ignorance and obvious trolling, perhaps I'd be more willing to put more effort into your questions and provide more evidence to support my positions. Your attitude is deplorable at best and your ignorance regarding economics is very apparent. I don't know what you do for a living, but I hope its nothing where someone's life or economic well being is on the line. I am choosing to place you on my ignore list again. I wish you the best.



my attitude is outstanding. i am a christian. i am an economist. i want to feed people. God digs it. End of story.

why do you want people to starve sitting joblessly in the dark?

C'ya!

[minsterman]

Sometimes I think the Democrats would rather put a fence around Ohio and call it a national park rather than let us use the energy resources that we already have. The cap and trade bill that the Obama originally sent for a vote would've done exactly that. In other words the medicine for the global warming disease they claim we have would've killed the patient.

amen, brother....keep on preaching, someday it will reach through some of these thickheads....

[minsterman]

I understand your position on this. What is your solution to the millions of Americans that cannot afford higher electricity? Should be socialize electricity so its "free"?

well, we need to tax the rich, silly.....it's about sharing.......:rolleyes:

[BGFalcons82]

Who does this guy think he is? http://nation.foxnews.com/epa/2012/06/04/top-epa-official-obama-coal-regs-will-be-painful-every-step-way-communities

Where are the checks and balances against this wanton disregard for American livelihood?
Who ordained the EPA as our master?
Is this really America? Seriously?

That was a huge decision. You can’t imagine how tough that was. Because you got to remember if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal. And to say that we just think those communities should just go away, we can’t do that. But she had to do what the law and policy suggested. And it’s painful. It’s painful every step of the way.

On another level, we've already seen what Mountaineers think about Barry by voting for a convict instead of him, but what about the Keystone State? Will they still solidly back the regime that wants to put them and their families through needless and warrantless pain?

[jmog]

No coal also means cleaner air, cleaner water, and the long term survival of the human species. But those are minor things compared to jobs and the cost of electricity, I guess.

You can't be serious with this crap.

No offense, but as a scientist who actually studies combustion research, this is laughable at best.

Are there definite measures that can be done to make it even cleaner than it is not? Absolutely.

However, the crap you are spewing is laughable, the world will end if we don't stop burning coal?

[sleeper]

You can't be serious with this crap.

No offense, but as a scientist who actually studies combustion research, this is laughable at best.

Are there definite measures that can be done to make it even cleaner than it is not? Absolutely.

However, the crap you are spewing is laughable, the world will end if we don't stop burning coal?

You clearly don't post here enough; dude is dead serious.

[Homer Falcon]

You can't be serious with this crap.

No offense, but as a scientist who actually studies combustion research, this is laughable at best.

Are there definite measures that can be done to make it even cleaner than it is not? Absolutely.

However, the crap you are spewing is laughable, the world will end if we don't stop burning coal?

Obviously he knows that statement was ridiculous. At least 5 posters have called him on it and his response was...errr...no response.

Defending hyperbole is like herding cats...an exercise in futility. He is smart enough to just walk away though. ;)

[docthehun]

I've offered on more than one occasion to have Jim attend one of our Energy Board meetings which I believe would provide a lot of insight into why we rely on coal to provide a large percentage of our power, especially here in the midwest. He's never responded in any form or fashion. I'm far from being any sort of expert and make no such claims, but I've reaped a ton of information in my half dozen years on the board. At the very least, I'd like him to research our (AMP) most recent project, the Prairie State coal burning facility in Illinois. It's a "state of the art" plant that is both efficient and clean. Unless he makes some attempt to become more knowledgeable on energy in general, I'll have trouble putting much stock in his arguments on this particular topic.

[bethere]

I've offered on more than one occasion to have Jim attend one of our Energy Board meetings which I believe would provide a lot of insight into why we rely on coal to provide a large percentage of our power, especially here in the midwest. He's never responded in any form or fashion. I'm far from being any sort of expert and make no such claims, but I've reaped a ton of information in my half dozen years on the board. At the very least, I'd like him to research our (AMP) most recent project, the Prairie State coal burning facility in Illinois. It's a "state of the art" plant that is both efficient and clean. Unless he makes some attempt to become more knowledgeable on energy in general, I'll have trouble putting much stock in his arguments on this particular topic.

get him a booster chair. maybe he was afraid he wouldn't be able to see the podium?

[docthehun]

get him a booster chair. maybe he was afraid he wouldn't be able to see the podium?

:D Too funny! Let's go fishing!

[bethere]

:D Too funny! Let's go fishing!

this could happen!

here's a pic to get you warmed up. i threw this sickly thing back the other day at the stillwater. i caught him on 4-lb line with a piece of aluminum foil and a dough ball...

http://www.kayaksportfishing.com/images_3/photos_18/images/JewFish3a.jpg

[docthehun]

this could happen!

here's a pic to get you warmed up. i threw this sickly thing back the other day at the stillwater. i caught him on 4-lb line with a piece of aluminum foil and a dough ball...

http://www.kayaksportfishing.com/images_3/photos_18/images/JewFish3a.jpg

As a kid, we used three baits. Minnows, softcrawlers and DOUGH BOYS! :D

[Homer Falcon]

this could happen!

here's a pic to get you warmed up. i threw this sickly thing back the other day at the stillwater. i caught him on 4-lb line with a piece of aluminum foil and a dough ball...

http://www.kayaksportfishing.com/images_3/photos_18/images/JewFish3a.jpg

Nice shorts.

[bethere]

Nice shorts.

does that look like the stillwater to you, dude?

lol.

[Homer Falcon]

does that look like the stillwater to you, dude?

lol.

Now that you mention it, that was you in the banjo picture...wasn't it? :D

I'm guessing downstream of Englewood. ;)