Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Officials Defend Power Plant Rule

EPA has Friday deadline to set new limitations

September 19, 2013

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s top energy and environmental officials said Wednesday there is a future for coal, despite a pending regulation aimed at limiting pollution from new power plants......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(61)

oldsteelmaker

Sep-20-13 11:49 AM

Somewhat off-topic, but relevant...

The president of a Canadian energy company thanked obie for dithering about the Keystone pipeline. He said it was the best thing for Canadians, because it was showing them that we are not such a reliable partner for business, and that Canada should concentrate on it's own best interests. This includes marketing their surplus energy to the world, not just us.

Along those lines, there have been several requests for quotes floating around the pipe industry for 2000 miles of heavy wall large diameter pipe with Canadian specifications.

Why is this significant? It's about the amount needed for a line from the tar sands area to British Columbia. In other words, what would be needed to sell that crude to the Chinese, who will have no qualms about using it.

So you greenies that think blocking the pipeline will keep the planet greener, sorry. The only effect long-term is help for China and Canada, not us.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-20-13 11:38 AM

GeoMetro, "NASA has developed a reactor, that, in a nearly self-sufficient reaction, converts CO2 into Methane"

The important word is "nearly". It means you have to put in more than you get out. And, once you do it, you will have the same methane you would get from a well, which will turn into the same amount of CO2 you started with when you use it.

There IS NO BENEFIT.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Sep-19-13 10:00 PM

oldsteelmaker: Attaboy, Your on a roll. Give em hell.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

UNCOMMONSENSE

Sep-19-13 9:11 PM

Coal is still king

Still the highest energy output per dollar bar none

We need to be building a new one every week!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-19-13 9:04 PM

(continued) BTW, I did do some work in the nuclear industry. There are new nukes under construction in the US right now, my steel is in some of them.

Hef, Geo's science level is cut and paste off internet sites that fit preconceptions. Anyone that can't understand basic thermodynamics has no business offering scientific positions.

None of these techniques will produce any new value. They are politically inspired stuff, designed to look like a way to get rid of the evil carbon dioxide and turn it into something good. Look at who is doing it; colleges and government agencies. I went through grad school; you can get a professor to study lunar green cheese, if you pay him enough. Even in engineering programs, over 90% of the work has no lasting benefit.

If you could really take CO2 and turn it back into fuel, don't you think the power plant owners would do it? Cut down on the coal bills?

SURE!!!!

It DOESN'T WORK!!!!!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Sep-19-13 8:53 PM

Geo, I don't know what claim you might have to practical experience, but your failure to acknowledge fundamental science shows me you are just parroting some stuff you found on the net. None of these patents and projects will make a commercially viable product, because all of them cost more to run than the value of the product produced.

Do you know what a perpetual motion machine is? It's anything that will do more work than you put into it. People have been buying them for centuries, and they all get gypped, for one simple reason: They don't exist. What you are claiming is you could take your car exhaust, turn it into fuel and run it some more.

I'll stack my 40+ years in engineering and two degrees from top end universities against whatever you have for credentials. Anyone that can't get past sophomore Thermo 101 is not a credible source for this stuff.

BTW, I did do some work in the nuclear industry. There are new nukes under construction in the US right now, my s

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hefner

Sep-19-13 8:07 PM

trollslayer: Why argue with me, I admitted to my lack of knowledge, but I do know that WVGEO keeps up with the science and I think he expresses here the possibilities that science has to offer, not necessarily that they are practical but that processes are available. Could it be that by combining A with B one would get a more efficient and less costly product. Hey, wadda I know?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Sep-19-13 7:11 PM

Impeach Obama. And his little dog, John McCain too.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-19-13 5:34 PM

WVUGEO “shale gas mythology/stone-age science”

All those well-paid, gainfully-employed geologists who are finding all that non-mythological shale gas you loons spend the other half of your time complaining about probably think the science is a little better than stone-age. LOL

Now if you want to talk stone-age science, your CO2 to fuel alchemy ranks right up there with lead to gold in the mythology arena.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-19-13 5:27 PM

GEO “Hefner: Amen blah blah blah using sunlight to drive the process.”

So GEO was for solar before he was against it. And now he’s for it again. Hard to keep track of all the flip-flops when you’re justifying the production of snake oil.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-19-13 5:24 PM

Amen.

And if you understand that "Wind, solar and wave energy are voodoo science and have no place in the national dialogue," at least no place until the technology can succeed unsubsidized by the taxpayer or money borrowed from China, then you need to reconsider your statement that "WVGEO ... knows what he is talking about," because those are the "green" energy sources GEO plans to use to make his snake oil from coal exhaust. Right, GEO?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-19-13 5:23 PM

Hefner: Amen - except for nuclear. As per the recent "United States Patent 8,461,215 - Rendering Coal As An Environmentally Carbon Dioxide Neutral Fuel And A Regenerative Carbon Source; June 11, 2013", awarded to Nobel Prize-winner George Olah and a colleague at The University of Southern California, we can, by recycling Carbon Dioxide into various fuels, continue using Coal to generate all the power we need, and derive nearly all other fuels we need from the byproducts of it's combustion. The chemistry calls for reacting CO2 with either Hydrogen or Methane. A number of technologies enable the extraction of Hydrogen from water using sunlight. Others, like Panasonic's "United States Patent 8,414,758 - Method for Reducing Carbon Dioxide", enable the synthesis of Methane from CO2 using sunlight to drive the process.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hefner

Sep-19-13 5:01 PM

Let me put it this way: I know nothing about energy beyond turning on the lights. I'm a West Virginian so naturally I'm all in on coal. I do know that liquefaction of coal would be useful if nuclear energy should signal the demise of coal, which in any case is years down the road. Wind, solar and wave energy are voodoo science and have no place in the national dialogue. Global warming is a myth. The U.S. has the natural resources and the intelligence to be energy independent. Vote the democrats and the career Republican politicians out of office, and let's become the undisputed world leader that we have always been. Do I hear an Amen?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Sep-19-13 4:55 PM

WVUGEO. I will take 'stone age science' over medieval sorcery any day.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Sep-19-13 4:50 PM

<begin sarc> Would coal be 'GREEN' if we used coal-fired power plants to operate huge fans to rotate wind turbines? And also, use huge lights aimed at solar panels. No, forget about that, just build a huge smokestack into outer space.<end sarc>.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Sep-19-13 4:49 PM

Hefner! Thank you! God bless. We posted earlier: "The entire debate about CO2 would be silenced if some US journalist, somewhere, somehow, found the courage within themselves to start printing the truth: Right now, in Iceland, industrial exhaust CO2 is being reclaimed and converted into fuel alcohol, which is being blended into Gasoline in several European nations. Right now, in Germany, the car maker Audi is converting industrial exhaust CO2 into Methane, which they're using for their LPG vehicles. Right now, also in Germany, Bayer is converting Coal power plant CO2 into the raw materials for certain polymers and plastics. The US Navy has developed an entire suite of technologies that reclaims CO2 from the environment, and then converts it into liquid hydrocarbon fuels. NASA has developed a reactor, that, in a nearly self-sufficient reaction, converts CO2 into Methane." All that is true, blind faith in shale gas mythology/stone-age science notwithstanding.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Sep-19-13 4:30 PM

I liked nuclear but get SERIOUS! It is as dead as Disco!

Germany is dismantling its nuclear industry and Japan is scared spitless of another Fu_kajima. I think the USA peeps are scared as well.

The plants cost many times a coal plant, the fuel is actual SCARCE,and the insurance liability is staggering.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-19-13 4:26 PM

Hefner, when GEO says it’s a good idea to put a solar farm or a wind farm next to a coal-fired power plant and use the “green” solar or wind power to turn the coal-produced CO2 back into fuel, he’s blowing smoke. Just put that solar-derived or wind-derived power straight onto the power grid and burn LESS coal to produce the same amount of energy and less CO2. The laws of physics say the simpler process will be more efficient. It only makes sense to do what GEO proposes if you’re a coal shill who needs to demonstrate how coal can be “green” by creating a convoluted fuel production chain that makes coal-produced CO2 a “resource.”

GEO may know what he's talking about, but if so he's deliberately misleading you with his CO2 to snake oil scam.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Sep-19-13 4:24 PM

Right now, in Iceland, industrial exhaust CO2 is being reclaimed and converted into fuel alcohol, which is being blended into Gasoline in several European nations.

Current gasoline price in Iceland: $7.92 median price, Range $7.72-$8.17. $7.95-$8.47 in Germany. So why hasn't CO2 conversion reduced fuel prices in Europe??

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Sep-19-13 4:08 PM

I'm a fan of nuclear energy and I suggest that if you are dueling with WVGEO about anything to do with energy, just read and absorb, because he knows what he is talking about.

You're joking, Right??

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Sep-19-13 4:06 PM

...has anyone been informed that, while still a US Senator, President Obama partnered with WV's Senator Robert Byrd, and others, to co-sponsor Senate Bill 155 in the 110th Congress, what came to be called the "Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007"?

Yes, WVUGEO, by you, many many, times. Like John Kerry, Obama was for it before he was against it. I don't know the real reason he supported it, but my guess is that election year politics played a part.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hefner

Sep-19-13 4:05 PM

I'm a fan of nuclear energy and I suggest that if you are dueling with WVGEO about anything to do with energy, just read and absorb, because he knows what he is talking about.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-19-13 1:41 PM

Subsidizing iPhones and handing out Food Stamps that can be sold to buy X-Boxes are a sure-fire way the Democrit Party can buy votes from the gimme-gimme crowd. Watch the video to hear it from a Democrit voter.

w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Sep-19-13 1:34 PM

Does the government have to subsidize Iphones and X-boxes?

If a product is good and does something BETTER than the current state of art, the FREE MARKET will embrace it and private investors will fund it based on a return on investment.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TrollSlayer

Sep-19-13 1:28 PM

ALL Government-subsidized programs are scams. Unconstitutional, anti-free market, vote-buying, crony-bribing schemes by corrupt politicians. What a mess we've elected.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 61 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: