Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Federal regs force coal plant closures now, higher rates later, critics warn

Federal regs force coal plant closures now, higher rates later, critics warn

+3
Floridatexan
Markle
gulfbeachbandit
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

The closure of seven coal-fired electric plants in four states could be a sign of things to come as tough new emissions standards threaten to relegate America’s top energy source to the back burner.

FirstEnergy Corp., headquartered in Ohio, closed power plants on Saturday in Albright, Rivesville, and Willow Island, W.Va., along with four others in Ohio, Maryland and Pennsylvania as the company phases out aging facilities that cannot comply with new environmental regulations. Three others in Ohio also will be closed in 2015, company officials told FoxNews.com.


The Obama administration has invested billions promoting cleaner coal technology through “carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS),” a process that focuses on trapping emissions from coal-fired power plants to either reusing or storing it so it will not enter the atmosphere. The commercial success of CCUS depends on developing more affordable technologies since the cost of capturing carbon dioxide from power plants is currently too high for wide-scale implementation.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/05/coal-plant-closures-will-lead-to-increased-energy-rates-critics-say/?intcmp=related#ixzz25pLpLvw4

You got to love it when our gov makes laws and spends Billions on stuff that aint even invented or working yet that is going to make the cost of our energy bills go up like we can really afford that.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

obama is saving the coal so they can make his figure on mount rushmore after he's a famous president.(after he does all the things he said he would do)lower unemployment, lower the deficit, fix the housing crisis, free the slaves.............give our money to solyndra for ceo bonuses, pay off the unions for the money they laundered to him..............

Guest


Guest

ghandi wrote:obama is saving the coal so they can make his figure on mount rushmore after he's a famous president.(after he does all the things he said he would do)lower unemployment, lower the deficit, fix the housing crisis, free the slaves.............give our money to solyndra for ceo bonuses, pay off the unions for the money they laundered to him..............

You're not funny...you just stupid.Big difference.

gulfbeachbandit

gulfbeachbandit

Dreamsglore wrote:
ghandi wrote:obama is saving the coal so they can make his figure on mount rushmore after he's a famous president.(after he does all the things he said he would do)lower unemployment, lower the deficit, fix the housing crisis, free the slaves.............give our money to solyndra for ceo bonuses, pay off the unions for the money they laundered to him..............

You're not funny...you just stupid.Big difference.

The MINUS -307 by your name is not a reflection on you. It's just what people vote on what you say and think.
Hope your real live is better judged than your internet life.

Markle

Markle

Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Tmi_fpUHs

Obama: "My Cap & Trade plan Will Cause Electricity Rates To NECESSARILY SKYROCKET"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLK-U8kggFk

Obama tells San Francisco that HE WILL INTENTIONALLY BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Jojrgx8eM

Guest


Guest

Markle wrote:Obama: I’d like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Tmi_fpUHs

Obama: "My Cap & Trade plan Will Cause Electricity Rates To NECESSARILY SKYROCKET"
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLK-U8kggFk

Obama tells San Francisco that HE WILL INTENTIONALLY BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Jojrgx8eM

Yes, again. I remember when he said that.

and again I dont think people beleived he would do that, or did they listen?

Him and the people he has appointed over these things are 'extremist"

and not very bright ones either to be passing regulations based on things not invented yet, theve done this 2 times now that I know of.

Guest


Guest

Senate rejects GOP bid to lift EPA coal plant regulations
Senate Democrats block a Republican effort to scrap recent curbs on mercury and toxic chemicals at coal power plants. GOP senators argue that the rules will cost jobs.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/20/nation/la-na-senate-mercury-20120621

Mercury is bad shit! But, to require a reduction in mercury when technology cannot curb emissions in a somewhat cost-effective manner, is bold but political suicide for the Dems.

I wouldn't eat too much fish from waters that are adjacent to coal-fired plants, though. Mercury is in our food chain. We all want cheap electricity and grouse loudly when the bill goes up.

Natural gas, nuclear anyone? Long-term coal delivery contracts will keep coal generation plants alive for a while, but we'll switch to alternatives eventually. Be prepared to pay more for electricity.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Yomama wrote:Senate rejects GOP bid to lift EPA coal plant regulations
Senate Democrats block a Republican effort to scrap recent curbs on mercury and toxic chemicals at coal power plants. GOP senators argue that the rules will cost jobs.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/20/nation/la-na-senate-mercury-20120621

Mercury is bad shit! But, to require a reduction in mercury when technology cannot curb emissions in a somewhat cost-effective manner, is bold but political suicide for the Dems.

I wouldn't eat too much fish from waters that are adjacent to coal-fired plants, though. Mercury is in our food chain. We all want cheap electricity and grouse loudly when the bill goes up.

Natural gas, nuclear anyone? Long-term coal delivery contracts will keep coal generation plants alive for a while, but we'll switch to alternatives eventually. Be prepared to pay more for electricity.

The technology is there for us to generate our own electricity, and it's clean and getting cheaper every day.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Yomama wrote:Senate rejects GOP bid to lift EPA coal plant regulations
Senate Democrats block a Republican effort to scrap recent curbs on mercury and toxic chemicals at coal power plants. GOP senators argue that the rules will cost jobs.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/20/nation/la-na-senate-mercury-20120621

Mercury is bad shit! But, to require a reduction in mercury when technology cannot curb emissions in a somewhat cost-effective manner, is bold but political suicide for the Dems.

I wouldn't eat too much fish from waters that are adjacent to coal-fired plants, though. Mercury is in our food chain. We all want cheap electricity and grouse loudly when the bill goes up.

Natural gas, nuclear anyone? Long-term coal delivery contracts will keep coal generation plants alive for a while, but we'll switch to alternatives eventually. Be prepared to pay more for electricity.

The technology is there for us to generate our own electricity, and it's clean and getting cheaper every day.

Really? You mean to tell me that after the obama administration has spent all these BILLIONs and these coal plants still cant meet the requirments and the technology needed to meet it isnt even perfected/invented/proven yet that YOU know of a way better than all this to have cheap energy?

Come on. stop holding out. America needs you to share.

Remember yomamma, that they already are closing down nuclear plants too by refusing to give permits to fix things that need to be fixed.

These people are real bright! Save the planet, kill the people! Except the rich ones that is.

Guest


Guest

i wonder who higher energy rates really hurt the most? al gore?

VectorMan

VectorMan

This alone should be enough to get Obama fired. Then again, there are soooo many other reasons.

Guest


Guest

result of policy doesn't matter... it's whether the intent makes you feel good or enlightened.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
Yomama wrote:Senate rejects GOP bid to lift EPA coal plant regulations
Senate Democrats block a Republican effort to scrap recent curbs on mercury and toxic chemicals at coal power plants. GOP senators argue that the rules will cost jobs.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/20/nation/la-na-senate-mercury-20120621

Mercury is bad shit! But, to require a reduction in mercury when technology cannot curb emissions in a somewhat cost-effective manner, is bold but political suicide for the Dems.

I wouldn't eat too much fish from waters that are adjacent to coal-fired plants, though. Mercury is in our food chain. We all want cheap electricity and grouse loudly when the bill goes up.

Natural gas, nuclear anyone? Long-term coal delivery contracts will keep coal generation plants alive for a while, but we'll switch to alternatives eventually. Be prepared to pay more for electricity.

The technology is there for us to generate our own electricity, and it's clean and getting cheaper every day.

We do generate our own energy every day.

There is no reason to stop using coal. We have hundreds of years of clean coal begging to be used, cheaply and effectively.

President Barack Hussein Obama and his ilk believe that by making our energy rare and expensive, that will help America conserve energy. It is a noble cause but, as with most things Progressive, totally unrealistic.

It is tunnel vision, it is as if the rest of the world does not exist.

Fact: China is building one highly sophisticated, ultra clean coal power plants each month. They have more nuclear power plants under construction and being planned than all other nations combined. Obviously they are aggressively pursuing solar and wind power as well. China learned from us that our massive growth and economy came from CHEAP PLENTIFUL energy. They are working toward that goal while we (Obama) runs the other way. India needs massive amounts of energy.

For us to intentionally bankrupt ourselves, drive ourselves out of the world market is sheer insanity.

Progressives think the only reason jobs move over seas is that the pay for employees is far less. ENERGY costs are critical as well.

Obviously Progressives do not care if jobs go to other countries, just so GOVERNMENT fills in and pays the people whose jobs have been displaced by the Progressives. Where that money comes from is always the same with Progressives...THOSE EVIL RICH THAT DON'T NEED ALL THE MONEY THEY EARNED.

knothead

knothead

I am from coal country and understand more than most of anyone on this forum the consequences of implementing these regulations. My father lost his leg in 1928 at age 23. His job was driving a mule that pulled cars loaded with coal from underground to the surface. Back on topic, I'm perplexed and pulled in both directions on this one. Our choice is to either accept dirty air (like China where you cannot see the sky) or put hardworking good people out of work closing these mines that provide the high sulphur coal. Yes we need and want clean air and yes we want reasonable electricity to power our lives. I'm so conflicted about it and I do not have the answer. Here in Escambia Co. I believe they spent several million dollars to have the 'clean coal' use. The technology is there so it seems that the plants should upgrade as required. I have a shirt that says "COAL KEEPS THE LIGHTS ON".

Guest


Guest

Rogue wrote:Remember yomamma, that they already are closing down nuclear plants too by refusing to give permits to fix things that need to be fixed.

I wasn't aware of this (that's nothing astounding Razz ). I found where our regulations require US ownership of Nuclear plants in the US... and where a French-owned company was denied a permit to build a plant... but I would like to learn more. Can you please tell me what plants were denied a permit to "fix" a problem.

My thoughts that proposed "fixes" that were proposed... were not sound (safe) proposals. If an old nuclear plant has a poor design that is so poor that it shouldn't be repaired with "band-aid" fixes... then I support a decision to deny said repair.

I remember a plant, in California I believe, that had cooling tube problems... and it wasn't an old plant either. I can't recall exact details, but it seems that a repair didn't fix the problems...



Last edited by Yomama on 9/8/2012, 6:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

This is the one I was thinking about with the cooling tube problem.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/26/local/la-me-san-onofre-20120326

Compromised transfer tubes leave San Onofre plant sitting idle
Deteriorating heat transfer tubes in the nuclear power plant's steam generators — installed a year ago — are a potential safety problem, officials say. The shutdown is the longest in San Onofre's history.

Deteriorating heat transfer tubes in the nuclear power plant's steam generators — installed a year ago — are a potential safety problem, officials say. The shutdown is the longest in San Onofre's history.
March 26, 2012|By Abby Sewell, Los Angeles Times

A year ago, Southern California Edison announced the installation of four new steam generators at the San Onofre nuclear power plant, hailing it as a major boost to electricity production.

The $671-million generators, which will be paid for by rate increases to Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric customers, were supposed to save ratepayers $1 billion over the next decade and extend the life of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

But for the last two months, San Onofre has been shut down after officials discovered problems in the generators' heat transfer tubes.

It's the longest outage in San Onofre's history, and federal regulators say the plant should remain idle until they are confident no more tubes will leak or rupture. (Wise in my opinion - Yomama)

Officials said deteriorating tubes are a potential safety problem because they carry radioactive water, and if they rupture, radiation can escape into the atmosphere.

In January, a small amount of radiation was released from a leak in one of the tubes. Officials decided to close the plant out of concern that if numerous tubes were compromised, a rupture could lead to a much more serious situation.

Guest


Guest

Yomama wrote:
Rogue wrote:Remember yomamma, that they already are closing down nuclear plants too by refusing to give permits to fix things that need to be fixed.

I wasn't aware of this (that's nothing astounding Razz ). I found where our regulations require US ownership of Nuclear plants in the US... and where a French-owned company was denied a permit to build a plant... but I would like to learn more. Can you please tell me what plants were denied a permit to "fix" a problem.

My thoughts that proposed "fixes" that were proposed... were not sound (safe) proposals. If an old nuclear plant has a poor design that is so poor that it shouldn't be repaired with "band-aid" fixes... then I support a decision to deny said repair.

I remember a plant, in California I believe, that had cooling tube problems... and it wasn't an old plant either. I can't recall exact details, but it seems that a repair didn't fix the problems...

The loss of permits is not just for fixing stuff. Here is one article about how they have stopped giving permits to build etc. The reason they are doing is waste, but waste has always been a issue. and like markle explained other countries understand having energy is important. we are being screwed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-waste-issues-freeze-permits-094500928.html

The U.S. government said it will stop issuing permits for new nuclear power plants and license extensions for existing facilities until it resolves issues around storing radioactive waste.
--
There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors at 64 plants across the country. Half are over 30 years old.
--
add this issue along with the coal issue and its one BIG DAMN ISSUE.

Let me just put this as bluntly as I can. Someone wants this country to come to a screaming HALT.

Now I am going to look up the "Union of concerned scientist"

Guest


Guest

who is it here that keeps defending investing (spending) on infastructure?

where does this fit into the ideology?

Guest


Guest

Rogue wrote: The reason they are doing is waste, but waste has always been a issue.

The U.S. government said it will stop issuing permits for new nuclear power plants and license extensions for existing facilities until it resolves issues around storing radioactive waste.

Chrissy, you have to understand that the NRC was headed up by Gordon Jaczko, who bullied his staff and was forced to resign because he followed Obama's wishes and decided that the Yucca Mountain waste disposal site was not acceptable.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-05-21/nuclear-regulatory-commission-chairman-resigns/55109998/1

Some excerpts from the linked article: "An inspector general's report released last summer said Jaczko had intimidated staff members who disagreed with him and withheld information from members of the commission to manipulate their decisions on critical votes.

Obama appointed Jaczko, a Democrat and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in 2009 to lead the independent agency. Since then, he has made a series of decisions to delay or halt work on a proposed nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, a project Obama had made a campaign promise to kill.

Jaczko's actions have been criticized by congressional Republicans, his own scientific staff and the NRC's inspector general. The IG report found that Jaczko acted within his authority and broke no laws. But it also concluded that to get his way on the issue he failed to be forthcoming with other commissioners."
--------------------------------------
With Jaczko gone, it is likely that the Yucca Mountain disposal site will be declared sound and the NRC will support this plan. When? I have no idea. (Perhaps a different president might be needed.)



Last edited by Yomama on 9/8/2012, 8:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

What does it matter ?..there's nothing on TV and I don't need a freezer, I eat out and if restaurants lose power I will just forage and eat spam...Without lights people will stay home and huddle. That is better. It will bring us all home...just think no pesky power bills or jobs or much of anything...maybe my cute neighbor will get lonely or scared and need comforted.

Look on the darkside you bunch of Pansies .

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:who is it here that keeps defending investing (spending) on infastructure?

where does this fit into the ideology?

Im not sure if I get your comment pkr, but I would defend investing in our energy infrastructure before I would cars.

all this is going on and no one really knows about it, except for teeny bits here and teeny bits there. But we are under a major attack on our energy resources and we are going to be in big doo doo soon.

Guest


Guest

Yomama wrote:
Rogue wrote: The reason they are doing is waste, but waste has always been a issue.

The U.S. government said it will stop issuing permits for new nuclear power plants and license extensions for existing facilities until it resolves issues around storing radioactive waste.

Chrissy, you have to understand that the NRC was headed up by Gordon Jaczko, who bullied his staff and was forced to resign because he followed Obama's wishes and decided that the Yucca Mountain waste disposal site was not acceptable.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2012-05-21/nuclear-regulatory-commission-chairman-resigns/55109998/1

Some excerpts from the linked article: "An inspector general's report released last summer said Jaczko had intimidated staff members who disagreed with him and withheld information from members of the commission to manipulate their decisions on critical votes.

Obama appointed Jaczko, a Democrat and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in 2009 to lead the independent agency. Since then, he has made a series of decisions to delay or halt work on a proposed nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, a project Obama had made a campaign promise to kill.

Jaczko's actions have been criticized by congressional Republicans, his own scientific staff and the NRC's inspector general. The IG report found that Jaczko acted within his authority and broke no laws. But it also concluded that to get his way on the issue he failed to be forthcoming with other commissioners."
--------------------------------------
With Jaczko gone, it is likely that the Yucca Mountain disposal site will be declared sound and the NRC will support this plan. When? I have no ideal. (Perhaps a different president might be needed.)

yomamma, this article is AFTER yours. Yours is MAY, this one is AUG 2012

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/nuclear-plants-waste/index.htm

^ same one I posted before, just showing its from aug 2012, not may of 2012

Guest


Guest

TEOTWAWKI wrote:What does it matter ?..there's nothing on TV and I don't need a freezer, I eat out and if restaurants lose power I will just forage and eat spam...Without lights people will stay home and huddle. That is better. It will bring us all home...just think no pesky power bills or jobs or much of anything...maybe my cute neighbor will get lonely or scared and need comforted.

Look on the darkside you bunch of Pansies .

Let me ask you a question, Teo. Do you have a power meter at your property? If you do, does that make you a pansy too? (Ok, that's two questions. Surprised )

Guest


Guest

Rogue wrote:yomamma, this article is AFTER yours. Yours is MAY, this one is AUG 2012

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/nuclear-plants-waste/index.htm

^ same one I posted before, just showing its from aug 2012, not may of 2012

Doesn't matter. I didn't mention WHEN... As I mentioned, it may take a change in Administration (President). Gubment doesn't do many things fast. A couple of months... no biggie. They might not even have a new head of the NRC until after the election.

EDIT: I see that Obama has a new puppet http://my.firedoglake.com/gregglevine/2012/05/24/obama-taps-allison-macfarlane-as-new-head-of-nuclear-regulatory-commission/

part of this article: "As predicted, in choosing Macfarlane, Obama tapped someone who is on record as opposed to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository."

Guest


Guest

Yomama wrote:
Rogue wrote:yomamma, this article is AFTER yours. Yours is MAY, this one is AUG 2012

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/09/news/economy/nuclear-plants-waste/index.htm

^ same one I posted before, just showing its from aug 2012, not may of 2012

Doesn't matter. I didn't mention WHEN... As I mentioned, it may take a change in Administration (President). Gubment doesn't do many things fast. A couple of months... no biggie. They might not even have a new head of the NRC until after the election.

EDIT: I see that Obama has a new puppet http://my.firedoglake.com/gregglevine/2012/05/24/obama-taps-allison-macfarlane-as-new-head-of-nuclear-regulatory-commission/

oh I agree with you. I KNOW its going to take a president change to get us moving >>>forward again LOL and it aint the one who claims he wants to move us forward either. that SOB is going to take us back to the dark ages if we let him.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » Federal regs force coal plant closures now, higher rates later, critics warn

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum