thompsonx
Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
You seem to have backed away from your assertions the demise of coal is caused solely by price.
Funny how a few facts will do this.
The article cited claims that the lower cost of n/g is the reson.
quote:
Here's a quote I love:
" EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants would require that new fossil fuel-fired power plants meet an output-based standard of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatthour of electricity generated. That standard would effectively prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and storage
What utility would even *think* of starting a new coal plant, in this kind of regulatory environment?
Is it your position that there should be no regulation of the coal industry at any level from exploration to end use?
The regulations apply to both the coal and n/g power plants. Why the bias in favor of the more expensive and poluting technology?
Thompson, your blatant misquoting of the facts is growing tiresome.
The *fact* is that in many places, coal is cheaper than natural gas.
Opinion not supported by facts.
[qote]The *fact* is that epa regulations are *the* cause for mass closures of coal fired power plants.
Opinion not supported by fact.
quote:
If, as you thought, the closing were due to price pressures solely from natural gas, it would not be the occassion of the EPA regulations that will trigger the closing of 800 power plants.
Opinion not supported by fact.
quote:
I have never said, nor do I believe, that there should be no regulation of coal plants.
However, no, I do not believe that the US govt should be in the business of dictating to the power companies what method of generation should be used.
Which regulations would you remove?
quote:
In the other coal thread, I showed where the US government in its comparative costs of coal power to other sources of power almost tripled the cost of coal in order to get the outcome they desired.
In other words, rather than having an honest debate about the costs of coal vs natural gas and saying "we know that solar power is three times as expensive as coal power. But we think this is something we should do."
Opinion without supporting facts.
quote:
Rather than saying that they fudged the figures to show that solar power was only 25-50% more expensive.
Its simply not honest.
Opinion without supporting facts.
quote:
Like I showed (again in the other coal thread) the countries that have tried alternative energy- countries like spain & germany, are backing away from their alternative energy commitments. Germany has slashed its subsidy to alternate power, and Merkel has said that energy had to be considered in light of the economy.
You have posted a series of disjointed opinions and want us to accept your opinions "ex cathedra"...aint gonna happen.
quote:
There is ZERO talk of implimenting a new round of Kyoto in Europe. If anything most - france, ireland, poland, belarus are trying to follow the us approach with fracking. Japan has succeeded its first explorations of methyl clathrates.
More bullshit without validation.
quote:
As I said repeatedly, I have no bias in this fight. Personally I think that natural gas, with the amounts of natural gas that we are creating via fracking is the wave of the future.
Opinions without facts to back them up are prima facia evidence of "having a dog in the fight"
quote:
I merely corrected your fact saying that price was the only driver. It is not.
Expressing ignorant opinions does not correct anything.
|
RE: More good news on the fraud that is global warming - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread