Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-11-02 13:47:28
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7012|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Newsflash: traditional coal plants = thing of the past.
Please tell that to the thousands employed by them.
Newsflash: they need to move on. There's is a whole new industry out there in green technology (which includes clean coal technology) and nuclear. Lamenting the passing of the most pollutant type of power station on earth is ridiculous. Go to Beijing and breathe it in and tell me there's nothing wrong with it.
Just because we need to implement alternatives does not mean we can rock the already unstable economic boat.

Your vision of the future blinds your reason in the present.
2008-11-02 13:55:55
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6853|San Diego, CA, USA
48.98% of our energy comes from Coal

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricit … at1p1.html
2008-11-02 14:00:20
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,060|7077|PNW

chittydog wrote:

ATG wrote:

B. Hussein O.
We get the point already, he's an Arab muslim extremist and will kill us all. He's our next President, too.
William Jefferson Clinton.
George Walker Bush.
Barack Hussein Obama.

Your point?

If a Republican with the middle name 'Stalin' was running, he'd be made fun of too. If you're a politician, you either get used to it, whine like a baby or let your supporters do it for you.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-11-02 14:01:08)

2008-11-02 14:31:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Obama's made some serious gaffes, but none of them have come close to the ones Palin has made.  Granted, Biden has made quite a few, and so has McCain.
How is that even a gaffe? He just downright said he wants to bankrupt them. I don't know how he could have meant anything else.
Because his goal is to move us away from conventional coal use.  Even though what he said is true, he could have phrased it better.
2008-11-02 14:33:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Obama's made some serious gaffes, but none of them have come close to the ones Palin has made.  Granted, Biden has made quite a few, and so has McCain.
Yeah...not being able to recite an undefined "Bush doctrine" in an interview is equivalent to saying you'll bankrupt a bedrock industry of this country in an interview. Exactly the same.
Palin is a tool.  Want more proof?

2008-11-02 14:38:51
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7012|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Obama's made some serious gaffes, but none of them have come close to the ones Palin has made.  Granted, Biden has made quite a few, and so has McCain.
How is that even a gaffe? He just downright said he wants to bankrupt them. I don't know how he could have meant anything else.
Because his goal is to move us away from conventional coal use.  Even though what he said is true, he could have phrased it better.
Moving away from conventional coal use is one thing. Intentionally putting business out of business with government interference is very different.
2008-11-02 14:51:24
mikkel
Member
+383|6906
Since when is emission quotas and heavy pollution taxation something new? I thought excessive generation of dangerous emission was due to be hit hard almost all over the world in the coming years. As far as I understand, there are a lot of clean ways to burn coal, most of which may require healthy doses of capital expenditure, but it's not like it snuck up on anyone.
2008-11-02 15:12:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Moving away from conventional coal use is one thing. Intentionally putting business out of business with government interference is very different.
Read mikkel's post.  He basically sums it up.
2008-11-02 15:19:10
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7012|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Moving away from conventional coal use is one thing. Intentionally putting business out of business with government interference is very different.
Read mikkel's post.  He basically sums it up.
This is no mere tax on carbon emissions, at least according to Obama. It's a huge sum that will bankrupt them.
2008-11-02 15:24:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Moving away from conventional coal use is one thing. Intentionally putting business out of business with government interference is very different.
Read mikkel's post.  He basically sums it up.
This is no mere tax on carbon emissions, at least according to Obama. It's a huge sum that will bankrupt them.
Well, if the Democrats really do take that approach, there will be a Republican Revolution in 2010.
2008-11-02 15:27:59
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7012|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Read mikkel's post.  He basically sums it up.
This is no mere tax on carbon emissions, at least according to Obama. It's a huge sum that will bankrupt them.
Well, if the Democrats really do take that approach, there will be a Republican Revolution in 2010.
k, well, I'd rather skip the stupidity all together.
2008-11-02 15:31:42
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


This is no mere tax on carbon emissions, at least according to Obama. It's a huge sum that will bankrupt them.
Well, if the Democrats really do take that approach, there will be a Republican Revolution in 2010.
k, well, I'd rather skip the stupidity all together.
Well, it took 6 years of Republican domination over government before people realized that was bad.  I'd say we can risk at least 2 years of Democratic domination.
2008-11-02 15:43:20
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Just because we need to implement alternatives does not mean we can rock the already unstable economic boat.

Your vision of the future blinds your reason in the present.
Look FM - there's a viable option vis a vis coal - clean coal technology. Just because we hit hard economic times doesn't mean we can continue to fuck the environment. The cost of doing so could be greater than any hardship right now in a particular energy sector (even though I fail to see where the hardship is). To reiterate: clean coal technology is economically viable - carbon taxes or no carbon taxes. Do you really want to stay stuck in the past when it's clearly time to move on? It's like sticking to landline telephones while mobiles are readily available. Bottom line is people need to look beyond their noses on matters like economics, politics, energy, etc. Incrementalism and stubborn adherence to dead industries will destroy your economy: it will only give the Japs and Germans a head start on developing the new industries.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-02 15:47:11)

2008-11-02 15:45:31
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7012|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Just because we need to implement alternatives does not mean we can rock the already unstable economic boat.

Your vision of the future blinds your reason in the present.
Look FM - there's a viable option vis a vis coal - clean coal technology. Just because we hit hard economic times doesn't mean we can continue to fuck the environment. The cost of doing so could be greater than any hardship right now in a particular energy sector (even though I fail to see where the hardship is).
You would rather put people out of a job now to immediately phase in high tech replacements than do so over a reasonably period of time.

edit: It's like sticking to landlines instead of going out to buy a cell phone when there is a fucking rapist banging on your door. There are more important things to worry about at the moment, we can deal with the rest in due time.
2008-11-02 15:48:01
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would rather put people out of a job now to immediately phase in high tech replacements than do so over a reasonably period of time.
Who is being put of a job? Making the changes instantaneous would be ridiculous. One has to have a lead in period.
2008-11-02 15:48:44
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7012|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would rather put people out of a job now to immediately phase in high tech replacements than do so over a reasonably period of time.
Who is being put of a job? Making the changes instantaneous would be ridiculous. One has to have a lead in period.
So why on earth do we need to bankrupt these people?
2008-11-02 15:51:49
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So why on earth do we need to bankrupt these people?
The rhetoric he used was pretty retarded. In the medium to long term traditional coal power plants MUST be decommissioned. One needn't bankrupt someone to do that. Moneypoint power station in Ireland (I work in the electricity sector btw) has just been retrofitted with scrubbers that extract the vast majority of emissions - it's a 915 MW dual fuel (oil & coal) plant. Now if a 30 year old station in backward little Ireland can do something like that relatively painlessly then why on earth is it not possible for the big powerful US to do likewise?
2008-11-02 15:52:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You would rather put people out of a job now to immediately phase in high tech replacements than do so over a reasonably period of time.
Who is being put of a job? Making the changes instantaneous would be ridiculous. One has to have a lead in period.
So why on earth do we need to bankrupt these people?
If you pay close attention to what Obama said, he was referring to people intent on building NEW coal plants.  He wasn't suggesting we fine the hell out of current coal plants.
2008-11-02 15:53:22
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860

Turquoise wrote:

If you pay close attention to what Obama said, he was referring to people intent on building NEW coal plants.  He wasn't suggesting we fine the hell out of current coal plants.
Certainly - on no account should we be stupid and short-sighted enough to build more of those monstrosities when there are better options out there.
2008-11-02 15:56:48
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7012|67.222.138.85
How will they bankrupt upcoming coal plants and not current coal plants?

He is talking about increasing emission taxes, which will effect current plants just as much as upcoming ones.
2008-11-02 16:00:45
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How will they bankrupt upcoming coal plants and not current coal plants?

He is talking about increasing emission taxes, which will effect current plants just as much as upcoming ones.
Yes, but the point of what he said earlier is that if someone wants to build a new coal plant, then they will do so in an environment where it isn't cost-effective.  Current coal plants can deal with higher fines because they are already up and running.  As you can imagine, starting up a coal plant is much more costly and would be very ill-advised if fines are rising.

So, in summary, ATG completely spun what Obama was saying, because these fines are meant to discourage further building of coal plants.  The fines aren't meant to bankrupt current plants, although they certainly will encourage moving toward clean coal technology.
2008-11-02 16:02:18
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6860
I just listened to the clip - I should really have done that before posting. D'oh. Sue Obama for being progressive and forward thinking. Everything he said made perfect sense and everybody in the enlightened modern world are doing the exact same as what he is suggesting. If some people would prefer the US to join the Russia-China axis of retardedness then so be it.

Newsflash: effecting a sea change in energy policy has to start somewhere and guess where it starts - financial penalties for pollution. How you roll those out is a matter for debate but they are necessary and they must happen and there are alternatives out there. It's amazing that Americans on this forum are talking like this: scared of change when traditionally they would be the ones driving it (the internet, the motor industry, etc.).

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-11-02 16:04:52)

2008-11-02 16:04:13
[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi
Why walk when you can dance?
+77|6892|sWEEDen
Any companies selling only green energy in the US? This is done in Sweden and for thoose who can pay the extra cost (not that big, but still an extra cost) for a clear enviroment and better conscience it´s a good deal...
2008-11-02 16:08:17
Icleos
Member
+101|7047
It's called collateral damage when a company bankrupts and people lose jobs.  You need to take a step back and look at the whole picture as to why someone would do this.
He's implying that when companies unethically climb to the top they will eventually be put in their place and collapse.  Economically abusing the general populous due to a lack or unsought regulations is something that should no longer be dismissed.

If you have a problem with this than perhaps you should consult to all the unemployed that lost their jobs due to an upheaval of corruption.
Those people that lost their jobs are likely going to be mad at the company that employed them, not the people who called the company out and burned it.

Perhaps instead of being upset with the inquisitor maybe you should focus it on the industry/companies that decided to take advantage of regulating/limiting their resources to the public.  Forcing and manipulating supply and demand through natural resources is something that the American Consumer should NOT have to tolerate anymore.

Last edited by Icleos (2008-11-02 16:18:47)

2008-11-02 16:15:28
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Any companies selling only green energy in the US? This is done in Sweden and for thoose who can pay the extra cost (not that big, but still an extra cost) for a clear enviroment and better conscience it´s a good deal...
Sort of...  My local power supplier offers paying extra for this sort of thing, but honestly, I have to question if it's legit.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard