MP173 wrote:My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.ed
My comment about nuclear being "viable" was probably not a good use of words. My thoughts, which I failed to communicate, concerns the infrastructure to build nuclear reactors to meet future demands. My guess is that we are years away from being able to turn on the switch to nuclear plants.
Dave...tell me more about the other planets temp rising. I havent heard that. How much are the temps rising? That is a major developement.
ed
my, I'll get off the and let someone else have it for a while, for the line is long.
"Populist ignorance"......
Well, I suppose I can agree with that.... combine that with "political reality", and there you go. The pressure, good or bad, is on. "Global Warming" is gaining alot of political traction whether we like it or not, and "big business" is responding to it. The people who are proffering the Global Warming theory are also those who wield considerable power, and businesses recognize this. It's not a "fringe" movement anymore, it is solidly in the mainstream. According to the science I have read, the "human cause" of so climate change is so much horse hockey, but, the fact remains, that it is becoming accepted by many people. If anything more and more people are developing a "something must be done, regardless" kind of attitude, and that attitude is what the proponents of global warming are couting on. There is a lot of political pressure out there, especially when prominent Hollywood types are on the bandwagon and these people carrry alot of weight with the younger crowd, who are the main force behind the "something needs to change" mentality. This younger crowd is going to be voting age soon, or are already there, and the politicians need to court this group to maintain their position. When you combine the steady stream of "Global warming" and "Green is Good" messages coming out of Hollywood, and in popular culture, as well as in our public schools, aimed at possibly the most powerful voting bloc that is of age, or coming of age, with politicians who desire to remain in office, and be popular you wind up with a cause that real or imagined, is going to drive not only legislation, but political thought as well. Add to that, businesses that want to stay in buisness are going to be proactive, and are going to do what they have to to avoid being taxed out of existence. So, if that means buying "hybrid" vehicles, egaging in "eco friendly" manufacturing processes, and adopting "green" energy use policies, the businesses will do it. Will it cost? Most likely, but some businesses may decide that the cost of making changes may outweigh the extra taxes, and fees that a future Congress may legislate, or, the potential boycott, and demonization of their product/business if they don't embrace "eco friendly" policies. Can that happen? Of course it can, the apparatus is already in place. Just look at any national election, and the smear ads candidates run against each other, or worse, the ones that some "special interest" groups air as well. All it takes is those people who create those ads to turn their skills toward making, or breaking a business, and you will have an atmosphere where businesses will stay in business, not based on their service, or product, but their perceived "goodness" or "evil" depending on how "eco friendly" they are.
So, there we are, the political reality of the situation. As the movement gains more and more traction, especially among the young, things will change, and it may not be for the better. There is a persistent desire among the "greenies" to think that all we have to do is stop using oil, coal, and chemicals, and we will be in a Utopia of a clean envirnoment. The economic ramifications seem to be beyond them.
You can call it BS, or propaganda, or label it the Left's way of usurping our rights, and forcing socialist type legislation or whatever, the fact remains that "Global Warming" or whatever the cause is here to stay, at least for the immediate future.
Did U C the program called boneyards on History Channel in which they showed used RR ties being shredded & then ship to a power plant in California because they no longer can use coal?
MP173 wrote: Page one article in July 25th Wall Street Journal reports that plans for coal powered power plants are being shelved due to the "green movement". "As recently as May, US power companies had announced intentions to build as many as 150 new generating plants fueld by coal, adding to the 645 existing units that produce one half the nation's electricity." A number of the units have been delayed or cancelled. Nuclear power plants are years away from being viable. Wind and solar generators are not reliable. That leaves natural gas as the energy choice to take care of our growth.Further, "coal has come under fire because it is a big source of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, in a time when climate change has become a hot - button political issue."Coal companies are working to develope alternative uses for their fuel, the article reports.So, it appears the DME extention might not be quite as viable as it was a short time ago.Comments?ed
Page one article in July 25th Wall Street Journal reports that plans for coal powered power plants are being shelved due to the "green movement".
"As recently as May, US power companies had announced intentions to build as many as 150 new generating plants fueld by coal, adding to the 645 existing units that produce one half the nation's electricity."
A number of the units have been delayed or cancelled. Nuclear power plants are years away from being viable. Wind and solar generators are not reliable. That leaves natural gas as the energy choice to take care of our growth.
Further, "coal has come under fire because it is a big source of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, in a time when climate change has become a hot - button political issue."
Coal companies are working to develope alternative uses for their fuel, the article reports.
So, it appears the DME extention might not be quite as viable as it was a short time ago.
Comments?
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
eastside wrote: No surprise here. Late last year I posted a thread "End of the line for coal?" that linked to a story in Business Week.The emerging consensus among power industry analysts was that coal was going to become more and more untenable as a power source because the newly elected Democratic congress was likely to enact carbon emissions taxes. Some of the more vocal members of this group went off on a completely irrelevant tangent, disputing the scientific basis for global warming. (Which is probably why the thread was removed.) What we’re really talking about is political reality. That has progressed beyond scientific debate and Congress is now considering bills to tax carbon emissions.<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Good luck to the coal companies for finding alternative uses. Every alternative that I've read about runs into the same problems with an emissions tax.Link to the original poster's WSJ story (may require subscription)
No surprise here. Late last year I posted a thread "End of the line for coal?" that linked to a story in Business Week.
The emerging consensus among power industry analysts was that coal was going to become more and more untenable as a power source because the newly elected Democratic congress was likely to enact carbon emissions taxes. Some of the more vocal members of this group went off on a completely irrelevant tangent, disputing the scientific basis for global warming. (Which is probably why the thread was removed.) What we’re really talking about is political reality. That has progressed beyond scientific debate and Congress is now considering bills to tax carbon emissions.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Good luck to the coal companies for finding alternative uses. Every alternative that I've read about runs into the same problems with an emissions tax.
Link to the original poster's WSJ story (may require subscription)
When it was discovered that concurrent warming is occuring on the other planets in the solar system, the idea of anthropogenic CO2 being a causal factor for Earth's observed warming went from being a highly auspicious debatable concept to a downright absurd notion, one that could only be carried forward by populist ignorance.
Hmmmmm......."populist ignorance"......that pretty much explains the 2006 elections.
There is no scientific basis for the notion of man made global warming. It is quite simply a religious disawakening, one on par with the 12th Iman. It is dis-evolution.
Opposition to coal is legit if it is based on normal environmental concerns, e.g. disruptions from mining the stuff, coal dust flying off unit trains, emissions of mercury, that sort of thing. But basing opposition to coal on the notion of CO2 inducement of climate change is for the tin hat crowd.
We had a discussion at our last meeting about how we're going to meet our future energy demand predictions. Since the state decided to mandate a 30% renewable energy portfolio combined with a ban on long term contracts for coal power without CO2 sequestration, we like so many other utilities have decided to just ride it out and take advantage of the ability to pass on the higher costs of renewables, conservation programs, and ultimately passing on the cost of buying merchant energy at 10 times the cost of self facilitated coal power. It is the consumers who will finally wake up to all this fraud once it hits them in the pocketbook bigtime, and then we'll finally see a reversal in this CO2 paranoia. Maybe 5 years, 10 years down the road.
At least that's what the corporate directors are banking on.
JonathanS wrote: Safety Valve wrote: The Leadership of this Nation is asleep at teh switch. And will be until election is over.We need power and lots of it. If those solar panels are cheap enough every home and building in the USA can use the sun to generate for the grid minus thier own consumption.How will solar cells work when it is daylight only half of the time and it is overcast or raining/sleeting/snowing a third or more of the daylight period?
Safety Valve wrote: The Leadership of this Nation is asleep at teh switch. And will be until election is over.We need power and lots of it. If those solar panels are cheap enough every home and building in the USA can use the sun to generate for the grid minus thier own consumption.
The Leadership of this Nation is asleep at teh switch. And will be until election is over.
We need power and lots of it. If those solar panels are cheap enough every home and building in the USA can use the sun to generate for the grid minus thier own consumption.
How will solar cells work when it is daylight only half of the time and it is overcast or raining/sleeting/snowing a third or more of the daylight period?
But even solar energy, especially on large scale, isn't completely enviro friendly. Battery systems do give off a gas and they must be disposed of when worn out. And the last I heard (and maybe that's changed) it took about a 1/4 of basement space for enough batteries to power a solar powered house.
I wonder what they mean by nuclear power not viable now. UK is going almost all nuclear, and Europe isn't far behind. Japan is almost, if not completely, nuclear powered. The only unviable part of it is NIMBY.
The article indicated growth in electricity use around 2 - 3% per year, which is about the same as GNP. It would seem at some point in time we would be facing some serious issues about supply of electricity. If coal is the least perferred method of production, if nuclear is years away and other sources are unreliable, then demand for natural gas will jump. Hang on to your wallet if you are heating your house by natural gas.
I dont really want to start a "green vs the masses" conversation, but something's gotta give at some point.
the same people that want to levey taxes on "carbon emstions" are the same ones that waste more resorses on pet projects.. privit jet aircraft flights to and from god knows where at there whim...this global warming is just another "hot button" to figer a way to get new taxes...you will see no major changes in anything other then the cost of living becouse anyone with half a brain knows that buisness dont pay taxes...they just pass what they would pay onto the consumoer with higher prices for goods and services...just another tax for them to pad there payroll and pention with if you ask me.. tax and spend..tax and spend..dont matter what party you vote for..the D and R both the same thing.. only out for themselfs.... and who gets the bill... you..me..and every other tax payer and consumer....
csx engineer
Good luck to the coal companies for finding alternative uses. Every alternative that I've read about runs into the same problems with an emissions tax.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.