It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Head of EPA: Obama’s Clean Power Plan will hit low-income minorities hardest

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

A whole lot to basically say, "Yes, I find it perfectly OK to outsource the mess to China."




posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: xuenchen

She's jittery because she's lying and she's lying because.......that's what liberal Democrat Government workers do. She knows the cost increases will be a lot more than the cost of a gallon of milk. And she knows the incentives to start the programs early won't help at all by 2030.

The truth of the matter is that they continuously tell this lie that the destruction of coal generated electrical power plants won't necessarily cause prices to skyrocket and that it will take 40 to 50 years for the "renewable" sources to make up even half of the lost capacity.


Not true. Geothermal is renewable. We could replace coal with geothermal on a near 1:1 ratio per mwh generated and save money since it's cheaper than coal. And while doing so we would save many lives considering the astronomically high deathprint of coal power compared to other forms of electricity generation.

Plus there's that pesky fact of limited resources which force the issue.


energyinformative.org...
Cons of Geothermal Energy

There are some minor environmental issues associated with geothermal power.
Geothermal power plants can in extreme cases cause earthquakes.
There are heavy upfront costs associated with both geothermal power plants and geothermal heating/cooling systems.
Very location specific (most resources are simply not cost-competitive).
Geothermal power is only sustainable (renewable) if the reservoirs are properly managed.

I love, "high upfront costs". The only long term "sustainable" solution I see coming down the pike is residential solar, but even there, in many locations, it doesn't work very well in the winter months. The consumer of electricity is gonna get screwed any way you look at it.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
So it's okay if we just transfer all the crappy, outdated jobs across the planet to the Chinese? Let them do the nasty, dangerous mining and foundry work instead of subjecting ourselves to a bit of sacrifice? Because sacrifice is the only word I can use to describe what is needed to attain that weaning we all so desire.
It's okay that Chinese children have to endure air and water pollution so we can feel good about "saving the planet" while depriving poor kids of food on their table?
Sorry, that just doesn't sound sustainable to me.


I don't think anyone said anything about transfering crappy jobs to China or anywhere else.

China is waking up to the negative health and environmental consequences of burning coal as well, he'll it's literally in their face everyday. Just keep in mind the fact that they're an emerging nation with ten times our population and it's going to take some space to turn that ship around.

In my mind, the "only" people who would even consider transfering such a toxic industry to a foreign nation devoid of environmental pollution standards, would be multi-national corporations seeking to maximize profits.

Clean energy is the next global industrial revolution and it's here to stay, whether the fossil fuel industry likes it or not.

Our planet and it's resources are finite and to continue destroying our environment for energy, when technology is providing us with cleaner and cheaper alternatives, is just plain shortsighted and ignorant.

Jobs come and go, it's a fact of life. Our environment on the other hand, is irreplaceable and "one-of-a-kind."



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

A whole lot to basically say, "Yes, I find it perfectly OK to outsource the mess to China."



Where did I say that? The only role China plays in our energy development is that we're buying rare earths from them. The US has enough of a rare earth supply that we could supply our own. I would have no problem with doing that, it would create jobs here and we could do it at whatever level of environmental devastation we find acceptable (and there would have to be some, what little I know of the mining process is that it's not clean) rather than doing even more to a poor country just because we can.


originally posted by: TonyS
There are some minor environmental issues associated with geothermal power.
Geothermal power plants can in extreme cases cause earthquakes.
There are heavy upfront costs associated with both geothermal power plants and geothermal heating/cooling systems.
Very location specific (most resources are simply not cost-competitive).
Geothermal power is only sustainable (renewable) if the reservoirs are properly managed.


Earthquakes are a minor issue. Heavy upfront costs yes, but the cost per kwh is quite low and over the lifespan of a plant the total cost is less than coal.

As far as saying it's only sustainable if reservoir's are properly managed, that's like saying anything is only possible if it's done correctly.
I love, "high upfront costs". The only long term "sustainable" solution I see coming down the pike is residential solar, but even there, in many locations, it doesn't work very well in the winter months. The consumer of electricity is gonna get screwed any way you look at it.
edit on 21-8-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

I can't wait till I am poor. Maybe in a few years once my AC unit and furnace get older I will quit my job so I can get them replaced for free. Sounds way better than working my ass off to make the 5 or 6 grand I would need to replace them.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish
See, here's your magical thinking again. Thinking that you can call something "clean energy" that creates far more pollution and destruction to the environment than current technology.
If your clean energy revolution is built on solar panels and wind turbines the mining has to happen in order to get the minerals needed to produce the machines. So in your magical world who is going to do the crappy, nasty mining work to bring those raw materials to manufacturers? What about the millions of gallons of water that are polluted in the processing and building of these green machines?
The "Stop the Earth" people don't want you looking at the hard science and mathematics on this issue despite all their demands that "the science is settled" on other issues. Well, the science is settled on this one too---far more resources are expended in the manufacture of these machines than can ever be recovered. The folks selling this idea are the people who are going to make money on it. That money is being made off the slave labor of Chinese people in mines, foundries and factories. You can cover your eyes and stop your ears but those facts don't go away.
Neither the Chinese nor the government stooges have any magic wands to make energy free. You've bought into the snake oil salesman's claims.
Don't believe me---take a semester to do the research like my friend did. He set out to prove to doubters that solar energy panels for the entire university would be the way to go. Imagine his surprise when the actual numbers proved his theory entirely wrong.




In my mind, the "only" people who would even consider transfering such a toxic industry to a foreign nation devoid of environmental pollution standards, would be multi-national corporations seeking to maximize profits.


And can you not see that is exactly what has been done and by purchasing their products you are endorsing the process? Your government has allowed and encouraged this behavior. They are the snake oil salesman's agent, taking a nice commission off every chump who buys into this system. They get taxes and political contributions and corporate interests get influence, subsidies and profits. They don't care if your electricity costs skyrocket and your children go hungry because the banksters are the true profiteers in this scenario and when the banksters are happy the politicos are ecstatic.




Our environment on the other hand, is irreplaceable and "one-of-a-kind."


Our environment is ever-changing and there is little to nothing of substance that we humans can do to stop those changes despite what you may have been led to believe by the Stop The Earth people who believe that inhabitants of the earth should have no impact. "Take only pictures and leave only footprints" is one of their famous catchy phrases that is just plain ignorant when taken literally. Every creature that lives on the face of the earth makes impacts on the earth so it is magical thinking to believe that we can creep about and leave no sign of our passing. Fairy godmothers/fathers don't exist to wave those wands and make everything good again.
Free energy is based on the labor of Chinese nationals working in nasty, crappy mining jobs so you can feel good about saving the US from the environmental degradation happening to China so the multi-national corporations can pay nice dividends to their stockholders and make hefty political campaign donations to US government officials.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

If anyone around here is selling "snake oil," I'd say it's you.

You know, there was a time when our nation's locomotives ran on coal too, but along came a better fuel and bingo, coal was out of that picture.

This is no different and of course we use the energy source of today to build that of the future. When have we not done that?

Did we expend more coal generated energy building the Hoover Dam than it will produce hydroelectrically over it's lifetime? I doubt it!

Did we expend more coal generated energy building nuclear power plants than they'll generate in their lifetime via nuclear fission? I doubt it!

Just like I highly doubt almost every assertion made in your post. If anything, it sounds more akin to a rant.

Being too reluctant to accept change will only insure that we stay stuck in the past.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish
Where did I say that I don't want change?
I even pointed out some alternative energy sources which actually make sense in select areas of the country. What I don't accept is the magical thinking that is being touted by the "Free Energy" people and their attitude of "We are doing it for the planet" when in reality they're just transferring the human suffering and environmental degradation to another country.
You can doubt all you please. Go take a semester and do the research. Find out what goes into making these devices and the associated costs in human and environmental damages. That is, if you can find the numbers from our "good trading partners" in China. Then take a realistic look at the life of these devices and the amount of energy they actually produce. But no, you'd rather sit in your comfortable, modern home and think green than to worry about people across the world from you who are making that comfort and greenness possible. You are perfectly willing to sacrifice thousands of US jobs to China and the lives of countless Chinese citizens but not willing to sacrifice your comfort/luxury to actually make a difference.
If alternative energy devices can be made in the US under safe conditions and made so that they actually produce more energy that is required in their manufacture---I'm all for it. I'm not for subjecting other people to suffering and damages just so I can feel good about myself.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Look, If it were up to me, I wouldn't buy anything from China period. Mainly because everything they produce is either pure crap or tainted with toxic additives.

That being said, you should know that some wind turbines are indeed manufactured in the USA and China is not the only option.

As a matter of fact, besides China they're also produced in Spain, Germany, India, Japan, S. Korea, France, Holland, Finland, Italy, Brazil, New Zealand, Denmark and Taiwan.

Hell, I'll even bet that by this time, some are even being built with "green energy."

So I guess that would mean that there are indeed other, better choices out there, it's just that some people always go for the lowest up front price.

Now let's ask ourselves, in the field of multi-million dollar wind turbines, "who would that be?"

I think we've now gone full circle and we're back to those multi-national corporations looking to maximize profits.


edit on 22-8-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join