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.

 

Texans, I'm Madder Than Hell and You Should Be Too!

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
A Texan and a New Yorker went to visit a Californian. Upon entering the house, the Texan said "somethin's wrong with yer lights, son."

"No, it's the law," the Californian rolled his eyes, "they're CFL bulbs. Super efficient, but the light makes my skin look just ghastly!"

"Super-efficient, eh?" The New Yorker rubbed his chin and winked "I bet that saves a lot of money."

The Texan smiled, lit a piece of coal on fire, held it over his head, and said "thanks, but I'll just use this."


 



I can get away with that joke, being a Texan. I'm not even going to touch upon the double-standard there. It pales on comparison to the truth. Governor Rick Perry has sold Texas to TXU, and Texans not only knew about it, they gave him another term in office.

My fellow Texans. What...The...Fillintheblank were you thinking?!

Is the hassel of clicking a link to change your energy provider so difficult nowadays that you're going to just allow 18 COAL-BURNING power plants.

Not coal-gasification, not clean coal, but the single worst possible polluting energy source even compared to nuclear power. Perry has fast-tracked the development as quickly as possible to get these done before too much noise could be made of it, but at the very last minute has been delayed by a lawsuit, which allowed enough time for Texans to stop and think about what they are doing.

You knew! You bloody well knew he was doing it and you STILL gave him another term. Well, bless your hearts.

Well now people are finally rubbing their eyes and wondering what all the fuss is about. I'll tell you. Your Governor, bless his heart, has been trying to sell the whole damned state to TXU Energy in the dirtiest energy-deal since Enron, just as fast as his fat little fingers can do it.

18 COAL BURNING PLANTS. IN TODAY'S WORLD. HAVE YOU NO SHAME?

I'm so thoroughly disgusted at the lack of anything Texan in what you have allowed this state to become. If you are a Texan, and you give one good g-ddamn about this state, then you need to get up off your arse, click this link to find your local representative, and you need to tell him that you're madder than hell about these power plants. And if you REALLY want TXU to notice, you'll stop using them as your provider, since money talks.

I was born and raised a Texan. I met my wife, a Texan, and married her in Texas. God-willing, our first child will be born in Texas, but I'm not raising him anywhere near another 18 coal-burning plants. I love this state, but I love my family more.

(edit to fix formatting)


[edit on 2/9/2007 by thelibra]




posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
That's an economic conundrum for the entire world. A free market system requires cheap reliable energy in order to grow and the long term ecological consequences are not considered, until it's usually too late to do anything but damage control. So it looks like Texas went with the quickie economic solution and will deal with the repercussions on the morrow.

It's the old damned if you do, damned if you don't.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
the libra,


but the single worst possible polluting energy source even compared to nuclear power

Just where did you get this information? People like you make me laugh. I work in the operations dept. of--oh gasp-- a coal burning power plant. A 1970's designed coal burning power plant. We are one of the cleanest plants in the nation. Do yourself a favor and look up scrubbing technology. You may learn something.

With the uproar about shifting energy needs away from oil from the middle east I would think you would be happy we are using a resource from the good old U.S.A. Just where do you think the electricity will come from when you plug in your hybrid car?

The EPA has enacted much tougher emmissions laws for power plants in the last few years. The facility I work for is currently in production of 4 new coal fired plants. The air permits are not easy to obtain. If it gets the ok from the EPA who are you to whine about it?



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Just where did you get this information?


If you look closely, you'll see I hyperlinked everything of importance, that should have been obvious. As for information that wasn't linked, the annual IEEE meeting power track, and several engineers from within the energy industry, as well as some anonymous friends at ERCOT and TXU.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
People like you make me laugh.


People like me? You mean people that don't want to breathe filthy air and be responsible for the release of more CO2? People who are looking past more than just our selfish little world and the two cents per kilowatt hour? You mean people who actually give a damn about the future of their world? Yeah, we're a bloody riot.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
I work in the operations dept. of--oh gasp-- a coal burning power plant.


Excuse me for saying I'm underwhelmed, and can now understand where your bias against clean renewable energy comes from. Sorry man, but you should read something besides your own company's literature sometime.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
We are one of the cleanest plants in the nation. Do yourself a favor and look up scrubbing technology. You may learn something.


Cleanest compared to what? Other coal plants? What do you take me for, an idiot? There is no way your plant is as clean as wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal. And I'd be willing to bet it's not as clean as natural gas or nuclear either.

Here's the problem, shooterbrody, you've offered nothing in the way of facts, figures, science, or references. All you've said is some offhanded comment about "scrubbing technology" which, I'm quite familiar with, and after reading your ridiculous claim, I may just be more familiar with it than yourself. Maybe not, but I've presented a helluva lot more in the way of evidence than yourself.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
With the uproar about shifting energy needs away from oil from the middle east I would think you would be happy we are using a resource from the good old U.S.A.


No, in point of fact, I'm livid. And your comment makes me doubt you're even in the power plant industry, or you'd already know that oil is hardly ever used in U.S. power plants anymore. Additionally, there's plenty of wind, sun, tidal, and geothermal energy for new plants. Hell, they could have even used Natural Gas, that would at least have been better than coal! All of those resources America has in spades.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
Just where do you think the electricity will come from when you plug in your hybrid car?


There's plenty of other companies out there, like Green Mountain. And if ERCOT can ever get around to upgrading its energy distribution system, it wouldn't matter if your energy was coming from all the way across the state or not, but they won't do it because they used to be part of TXU, they're still in bed with TXU, and there's far more profitability in simply tossing some more coal plants out there than there is to upgrade the transformer stations for the electricity we have.

There's no problem generating electric power. That's another thing that makes me doubt your credentials, or you'd know about it already. We don't have a problem generating enough power for Texans, there's plenty of juice. The problem is with storage and distribution. Now I know batteries aren't TXU or ERCOTs responsibility, but power distrubution falls well within their capacity to upgrade, at a reasonable cost to their consumers and themselves.

Unfortunately, ignorant people like yourself are willing to just make some wisearse remark about hybrids and chuckle about how clever you are instead of focusing on the real problem.

And for the record, I drive an Echo. I bought it before getting a Prius was an option, but yes, you can be damned certain my next car will be a hybrid.

What's even more funny though is your complete lack of knowledge about hybrids as well. You don't plug them in, they charge themselves through something like an alternator in normal cars. Ah, but I'm sure you knew that, right? Being as you're such an energy expert and all?


Originally posted by shooterbrody
The EPA has enacted much tougher emmissions laws for power plants in the last few years.


Your ignorance and disinformation staggers me. It's incredible. The EPA hasn't done JACK SQUAT about the coal plants in Texas because the standards are set back to a decades old standard, and to whit, there isn't any sort of official set of laws or guidelines protecting Texans from additional dirty power. That's one of the sad assumptions by my fellow Texans.

There's this idea that "oh, well, the EPA made some standards, so it can't possibly be that bad in Texas," and it is completley 100% wrong. There is no governing body for Texas "energy cleanliness" standards, and that's one of the reasons clean-energy is having such a hard time getting a foothold here. Why should someone spend four times as much building a coal-gassification plant when you can just plop a dirty coal plant down for less, and charge half of what your cleaner competition charges?



Originally posted by shooterbrody
If it gets the ok from the EPA who are you to whine about it?


I'm a Texan thinking about the future quality of life for his family and state, that's who I am. Who the hell are you?

The EPA hasn't done squat. TXU has actively worked with legislation and ERCOT to enact a flawed system that requires more power plants when a more efficient distribution network would suffice. They don't even go with the cleaner coal options, they go with the dirtiest one, coal burning, and to top it off, they make it illegal to power your own house with alternative energy sources unless you pay an enormous fee to get wired in, AND pay for a massive, outdated inverter, AND don't even let you put your excess energy back into the grid, making it almost impossible for anyone short of a very rich philantropist to try and even make a dent in their home energy consumption. It is a viscious cycle of greed, waste, and pollution that you would do well to familiarize yourself with.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
FYI…

This group is currently leading a heavy public campaign against the Texas projects.

Recently I’ve seen their ads in a couple of large circulation Texas newspapers; they provide some faqs and legislature access information as well.

mg



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Hi Libra, I know exactly what you're talking about. A long time ago, coal burning was banned in many places because it is so bad for the air quality and was causing alot of lung problems in people.

Have you heard about mountain top removal? I live in the Appalachians and that's the current rage for cheap energy - coal. They remove entire mountain tops to get to the coal underneath more cheaply. It ruins everything around the removal: water, soil, people's homes have been ruined and are worthless and besides that, it looks horrendous, especially in a place that is so beautiful. It looks like a huge mastectomy from a distance. But still it goes on. I don't have any mountain top removal going on in my area, but I live in dread that one day that's what they will do. Our home would be worthless and unlivable.

What the hell are they thinking??? Bush thinks this is a great idea and has encouraged other states to also use coal. It's just plain stupid. It not only ruins the air quality and is dangerous to inhale, but it's also another fossil fuel and fossil fuels always eventually run out. We need renewable sources of clean energy. If we can put a man on the moon 40 years ago, why the hell haven't we developed better energy sources yet?

You know, there's an old saying: "Don't # in your own nest." But that is exactly what we humans are doing to our planet that we call home.



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Constructon is going to start on 32 new nuke plants in a couple of years so that ought to make you happy I know it will keep me working for years to come.

mikell



posted on Feb, 10 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   


If you look closely, you'll see I hyperlinked everything of importance

The content of the sulphur in the coal directly corelates with the amout of co,so2 and nox. You hyperlinked nothing about this.
www.nytimes.com...
The most recent epa standards were updated in 2002.

We do need to focus on renewable energy sources, and I am all for that. I am looking at buying a hybrid vehicle myself. Coal plants produce most of the electricity in the US now and will for the many years. I referenced oil because that is used for gasoline which is used to power automobiles. Electricity is now being used to power hybrid cars. I believe,I'm not sure, that automobiles produce more pollution than any other source on the planet. Running automobiles on electricity will lower that pollution level significantlly.


Cleanest compared to what? Other coal plants? What do you take me for, an idiot? There is no way your plant is as clean as wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal. And I'd be willing to bet it's not as clean as natural gas or nuclear either.

Of course compared to other coal plants. The problem with wind,solar,tidal,and geothermal is that those systems of generating are not as cost efficient for start up and do not have the reliablility factor coal plants do. Until they do your gonna get generation from coal and now congress is debating allowing more nuc plants.


There's no problem generating electric power. That's another thing that makes me doubt your credentials, or you'd know about it already. We don't have a problem generating enough power for Texans, there's plenty of juice. The problem is with storage and distribution.

I don't know if things are different in Texas, but power works on a load driven system. When load is low we make less power, when load excedes ability to generate you get rolling blackouts. And I am not even gonna touch your storage comment.


There's this idea that "oh, well, the EPA made some standards, so it can't possibly be that bad in Texas," and it is completley 100% wrong. There is no governing body for Texas "energy cleanliness" standards, and that's one of the reasons clean-energy is having such a hard time getting a foothold here.

The EPA sets all pollution regulation standards for the nation,last I checked that included Texas.
I do not appreciate you attacks on my integrity or intentions. I have worked at a coal fired power plant for the last 6 years. We haved worked directly with the dept of energy on ways to make coal burn more efficiently and with less pollution.
I made the comment about laughing because most people don't realize that with the load demand the US currently has it will be generations before the technology and cost effiency will come together to make bio-friendly energy a reality.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
buy anthracite, stop being cheap, make the miners die for our clean burning coal



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear
FYI…

This group is currently leading a heavy public campaign against the Texas projects.


Thanks for the link! I just registered, and would encourage other Texans to do the same. If we don't act now, and fast, stopping these plants won't be an option. I'm going to fight these coal plants tooth and nail.



Originally posted by forestlady
Hi Libra, I know exactly what you're talking about. A long time ago, coal burning was banned in many places because it is so bad for the air quality and was causing alot of lung problems in people.


It still is, and still does. Even China, with the demands of 1.6 billion people, a 10%+ growth in infrastructure demand each year, and one of the largest coal belts in the entire world, has decided to cut back on coal as much as possible. And yet, somehow with a fifth as many people, and not much more in the way of electrical demand, the United States continues to encourage coal use. It makes me sick.



Originally posted by forestlady
Have you heard about mountain top removal? (snip)


Good lord... I can't believe people can be that stupid. Thank god we don't have any real mountains in Texas, or Rick Perry would be at them too. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried that on our mesas out west.


Originally posted by forestlady
What the hell are they thinking??? Bush thinks this is a great idea and has encouraged other states to also use coal.


There's a reason why the day after the 2004 elections, newspapers and magazines ran titles similar to this.



Originally posted by forestlady
We need renewable sources of clean energy. If we can put a man on the moon 40 years ago, why the hell haven't we developed better energy sources yet?


Because governors like Rick Perry sell us out to the companies that want the cheapest alternative possible.


Originally posted by mikellmikell
Constructon is going to start on 32 new nuke plants in a couple of years so that ought to make you happy I know it will keep me working for years to come.


I actually have very little problem with nuclear power plants. Certainly less so than coal. There hasn't been a nuclear power plant accident in the United States since the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_Nuclear_Generating_Station]Three Mile Island problem, and even that wasn't that bad, certainly not like Chernobyl, which was based off a graphite cooling system. Additional advances are even allowing for the re-use of previously spent fuel rods. I think the remote risk of meltdown is far less worrisome than the absolute dangers coal poses to our air.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by shooterbrody
We do need to focus on renewable energy sources, and I am all for that.


Are you? I'm sorry, from the appearance of your first response it looked like you were mocking them, and those who support them. Did I misread you somehow?



Originally posted by shooterbrody
I am looking at buying a hybrid vehicle myself.


Then you should, as in all things, do some reading on it. Here are six common myths about hybrids, including the one about "having to plug it in".



Originally posted by shooterbrody
Coal plants produce most of the electricity in the US now and will for the many years.


Not if I can help it, they won't. Unlike Bush, I give a damn about more than just today's needs. If I have to, I'll run for office myself.



Originally posted by shooterbrody
I believe,I'm not sure, that automobiles produce more pollution than any other source on the planet.


No, I'm afraid that would be coal power plants. Like I said, you really need to read more than just your company's literature.

The impact of adding 18 massive electricity plants running off of pulverized coal and spewing enough carbon dioxide into our skies to equal adding 14 million cars to our Texas highways.

I mean this with all due respect, but you're working for the bad guys, and the damage they are inflicting is abominable to anyone who has done even the slightest amount of research into what they do... here's a couple of more sources for you.


from www.ornl.gov...
First, coal combustion produces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are suspected to cause climatic warming, and it is a source of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, which are harmful to human health and may be largely responsible for acid rain. Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium.

(snip)

The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.


Now, if you're going to keep working for these guys, at least be honest with yourself about it. Don't try to justify their damage to the air and the environment with ignorant assumptions. I can't make you read, and I can't make you realize what you're contributing to in terms of direct harm and misinformation, but I can at least take time to debunk your false assertions that coal is neccessary and harmless.



Originally posted by shooterbrody
Running automobiles on electricity will lower that pollution level significantlly.


That's where my "storage" comment later on comes in regards to, which you also flippantly disregarded. Thankfully, MIT wasn't so quick to disregard the need as you were. However, even using something like biodiesel instead would cut emissions by 70+%. Oh, and hybrids don't "run on electricity", they use electricity to keep the motor in a "perfect idle" whenever conditions permit, which is what drastically improves the mileage.



Originally posted by shooterbrody


Cleanest compared to what? Other coal plants? What do you take me for, an idiot? There is no way your plant is as clean as wind, solar, tidal, or geothermal. And I'd be willing to bet it's not as clean as natural gas or nuclear either.

Of course compared to other coal plants. The problem with wind,solar,tidal,and geothermal is that those systems of generating are not as cost efficient for start up and do not have the reliablility factor coal plants do.


You can't justify coal power plants by pointing out the shortcomings of alternative power sources. We either need to conserve energy, or put more money into solving those shortcomings and making it work. Also, as I said, the problem isn't with energy generation, it is with distribution. Even still, nuclear power would be far more preferable than coal.



Originally posted by shooterbrody
I don't know if things are different in Texas, but power works on a load driven system. When load is low we make less power, when load excedes ability to generate you get rolling blackouts.


The problem in Texas is that our pockets of civilization are largely isolated from each other by hundreds of miles of nothing, and ERCOT has done very little to efficiently link them all, and claims it takes 7 years to even add one additional transformer system, which in today's world is complete and utter BS. Even ERCOT employees know this lie. Instead, it is more profitable for TXU to build another coal power plant for each isolated pocket, which is incredibly inefficient, but still cheaper than upgrading the distribution.



Originally posted by shooterbrody
And I am not even gonna touch your storage comment.


See above. Not everyone is so flippant about it.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
The EPA sets all pollution regulation standards for the nation,last I checked that included Texas.


Yes, they do. The problem is that there is not only no enforcement for it, but there is also no governing body to force Texas power systems to comply with even the current joke standards set by the Bush administration.

By the way, the same administration scientist that set the Bush EPA regulations is now working for Exxon Mobile.



Originally posted by shooterbrody
I do not appreciate you attacks on my integrity or intentions.


Then don't dismiss the reality or the research so flippantly. Let's face it, you work for a coal power plant, you dismiss nearly all my research without offering so much as a single link to back it up, and make a joke out of what we consider to be an extremely serious situation, and then spread disinformation in an attempt to discredit my proposition that Texans stand up to Rick Perry and TXU by diverting attention to some more disinformed assumptions. What did you expect me to do?

Now I'll try not to take it to a personal level in the future, but I'd advise you to actually read some scientific research on this that WASN'T done by Big Power.


Originally posted by shooterbrody
I have worked at a coal fired power plant for the last 6 years. We haved worked directly with the dept of energy on ways to make coal burn more efficiently and with less pollution.


Yeah, well, that's great and all, but it's still the dirtiest, most environmentally and health-damaging source of electricity on Earth. If you don't care, or can still sleep at night, well, everyone's gotta pay the mortgage somehow. But, after doing some reading on this, you might want to consider getting on with a different company. I think you're going to find the animosity to coal power plants only growing stronger as people become more and more informed about the damage it causes.



Originally posted by shooterbrody
I made the comment about laughing because most people don't realize that with the load demand the US currently has it will be generations before the technology and cost effiency will come together to make bio-friendly energy a reality.


Not true, and again, disinformation by the industry to fool us into thinking we need more coal plants "just to get by". The fact of the matter is that the consumers of electricity, ESPECIALLY in America, need to conserve their electricity usage a LOT more. Power Companies need to stop joking around about alternative power sources and realize just how incredible pissed off Americans are becoming about the lack of it. Electronics and appliances manufacturers need to make their models at least as efficient as the UK (typically TWICE as efficient, on average, so it is absolutely possible), and people need to take better care on the proper weather-sealing and insulation of their homes.

If all those measures were implemented across the board we would reduce our current load demand by 75-90%. But we don't, because ignorance, flippant responses, and dismissal of the REAL problems underlying the system allow companies like yours to get away with just adding more dirty coal plants.

The problem isn't with the technology, it's with ignorance, lies, and waste.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
There is no way to reduce the amount of CO2 in coal. We don't have that technology and we never will, since coal is carbon, and when it's burned it produces CO2. This is an unarguable fact. It's like trying to take the oxygen out of oxygen.

And CO2 is the major contributing factor to the current unbalance of the earth.
I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power, but I do think that's the form of energy that we need to head towards. Better than that to have a planet that will not sustain life, which is where we're headed now if we don't change our ways.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
exellent thread..with the info to back it up


imagine if you will, that fantasy world where the corporations spent as much money on 'alternative cleaner energy' has they do on the standard sources AND trying to avoid 'alternative sources'.......with all the technology out there and we still can't step out of the ....'dark ages'.....



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I love this thread.

Everyone on here is whining and complaining about "let's save the earth" and "coal plants are bad"...

You need the coal fired plants (or any other means) to produce electricity, and then you fall back to "let's conserve energy"...


and you stay online to argue your point... which is justification for producing more and more and more electricity.


How redundant.


Thanks guys... it's job security for me.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
Not coal-gasification, not clean coal, but the single worst possible polluting energy source even compared to nuclear power.


At the point of making the above statement, I would have ignored this topic.




thelibra,

What is your point of this "debate", "discussion", "rant", "argument", or "whatever" you want to call it?

You have repeatedly stated that the new plants to be built are bad, and shouldn't be, because they are obviously very bad for the environment...

But in your opening statement, you mention, or insinuate, that "coal gasification" or "clean coal" would be ok.


Which is it?

[edit on 2/11/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   


Then you should, as in all things, do some reading on it. Here are six common myths about hybrids, including the one about "having to plug it in".

www.chevrolet.com...


No, I'm afraid that would be coal power plants. Like I said, you really need to read more than just your company's literature

www.doodledee.com...
www.burnbarrel.org...
www.gencat.net...
web.mit.edu...
I'm glad they do this research. Does it say when it will be commercially viable?


But, after doing some reading on this, you might want to consider getting on with a different company.

Uh....no...I sleep well at night,and the wage I make keeps my family happy and healthy.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
There is no way to reduce the amount of CO2 in coal. We don't have that technology and we never will, since coal is carbon, and when it's burned it produces CO2. This is an unarguable fact. It's like trying to take the oxygen out of oxygen.

1st - there is no "CO2" in coal. CO2 is a byproduct of the chemical reaction in...... "FIRE". Yes, a release of carbon in the chemical reaction actually makes CO2, but there is no CO2 in coal.




Originally posted by forestlady
And CO2 is the major contributing factor to the current unbalance of the earth.
I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power, but I do think that's the form of energy that we need to head towards. Better than that to have a planet that will not sustain life, which is where we're headed now if we don't change our ways.

[sarcasm on]A good change that everyone could make.... plant a tree.

We breathe - we give off CO2
We drive - the car gives off CO2
We use coal to make electricity - the "burning process" gives off CO2
We burn leaves - the "burning process" gives off CO2
We whatever - surely there's an emission of CO2


Trees breathe in CO2 and return O2.

That should make for a lot of happy healthy trees.
[/sarcasm off]

[edit on 2/11/2007 by Infoholic]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infoholic

Originally posted by forestlady
There is no way to reduce the amount of CO2 in coal. We don't have that technology and we never will, since coal is carbon, and when it's burned it produces CO2. This is an unarguable fact. It's like trying to take the oxygen out of oxygen.

1st - there is no "CO2" in coal. CO2 is a byproduct of the chemical reaction in...... "FIRE". Yes, a release of carbon in the chemical reaction actually makes CO2, but there is no CO2 in coal.




Originally posted by forestlady
And CO2 is the major contributing factor to the current unbalance of the earth.
I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power, but I do think that's the form of energy that we need to head towards. Better than that to have a planet that will not sustain life, which is where we're headed now if we don't change our ways.

[sarcasm on]A good change that everyone could make.... plant a tree.

We breathe - we give off CO2
We drive - the car gives off CO2
We use coal to make electricity - the "burning process" gives off CO2
We burn leaves - the "burning process" gives off CO2
We whatever - surely there's an emission of CO2


Trees breathe in CO2 and return O2.

That should make for a lot of happy healthy trees.
[/sarcasm off]

[edit on 2/11/2007 by Infoholic]


You're right, I should have said the CO2 that is produced when you burn coal. I do know the difference, just didn't word it very well. But still, you didn't really address the problem that the CO2 creates. We have a majorly disproportionate amount of CO2 in our atmosphere - more than the trees can keep up with already.
Also, you can generate electricity from water, i.e. dams, etc. The problem with that is that we will soon be running out of water.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
TXU and the railroad vs. The Natural Gas Companies

Electricity from coal is a third of the cost that electricity from (cleaner) natural gas.

The natural gas lobby is shaking in its boots, because Dallas is a captive audience; almost completely fueled by natural gas in its electrical plants. Coal plants would seriously cut into that system, and lower the demad for NG, thus driving down prices.

The coal nearest to texas (although TX also contains its OWN unexploited coal beds) are the low anthracite beds in the four-corners region of the desert southwest, easily accessible by rail. Some of the Highest grade coal in the world by the way, with low sulfur, low odor, and low particulate products.

While proven NG reserves are enormous, America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, with a more than a quarter of the planet's projected reserves. America also has most of the Anthracite, the highest quality, cleanest variety of coal (much of which is unmined, in the desert southwest). America has more than China and the Russian confederation combined.

Railroads want to get into the energy business. NG companies are still paying for miles of pipelines, and are worried about a drop in demand (and thus prices).

The electric providers in surrounding states want to stop TXU because texas still has its own independent e-grid. They want texas to build NO new plants, and buy its power from suppliers outside the state---meaning, not TXU.

I'm probably in favor of coal, as the cleanest, low cost method for the US to power itself and maintain some kind of energy independence, as well as lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Not that TXU is "right" about these plants, this year; but I wanted to point out the players, for out-of-town spectators.

.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Thanks for the heads up good Dr.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join