Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Manchin, McKinley Taking on the EPA

Legislation targets agency’s rules on coal-fired power plants

November 16, 2013

WHEELING — Legislation targeting U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules for new coal-fired power plants would prevent the agency from setting impossible-to-achieve standards in the future, Sen....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Nov-18-13 3:03 PM

Only an idiot would build anything coal fired today with the price of natural gas. These guys just feel the need to try to get some coal miners that really think the EPA is the problem to vote for them in the up coming elections. I'm not in any suggesting that the EPA isn't a little over the top. I'm just stating the fact that it wouldn't matter what the EPA does the new plants will still be gas fired and the existing ones will eventually be converted to gas.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 12:26 PM

Why is the EPA still in existence? They did their work in the 1970's and 80's and the agency should cease to exist. During the recent Government shutdown, over 90% of their staff was deemed "non-essential".

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 7:45 PM

*had the power

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 3:03 PM

black: On Appropriations Byrd and Mollohan has the power to trade project benefits to others in exchange for the legislation they wanted. We do not have this power now. Byrd did pump over one billion in Federal spending into WV. It helped. The Wheeling money was mostly squandered however via WNHAC.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 2:59 PM

chester has a point. WV is trying to hang on to the past vs embracing the future. Wheeling is the centerpiece of this thinking. The headline should read: Manchin and McKinley launch initiative for new manufacturing starts to replace the loss of coal employment.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 2:04 PM

The loss of jobs at Ormet can be tied directly to the war on coal and forcing prices to rise. Coal is still plentiful and technology has made mining more effective and cheaper. But we don't have a clear path of changing over from coal or exploring newer tech that uses coal emissions (German and Saudi Arabia), we just get policy made via sacks of cash from left wing groups and ethically compormised labor leaders. For a party and a President who preach looking out for the little guy, this administration has been more bought/paid for by lobbyists (alternative fuel paid big)than either Bush administrations. Thats odd and a disppointment to me a lifelong Dem. Fascist govs kill the people for the "common good", liberal often do not. The coal to gas idea was explorted in Marshall Co in the 80's but the plant lost its funding. The idea worked the politics didn't. With gas/oil/coal being used the US would be an energy giant. We don't have leadership unfortunately.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 1:31 PM

Yep. Byrd and Mollohan made WV #1. Yep.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 9:13 AM

Time magazine, 11-25-13 issue. Article entitled "Coal Miner's Totter - What Kentucky's effort to break its mining addiction can teach other states.

They meant to say 'enlightened' states. Of course, no one in the god-forsaken state will read the article or take it to heart.

Almost forgot. Memo to Manchin & McKinley: HELLO! The EPA is not coal's enemy. That would be the shale gas parasites who are currently busy ripping up the local landscape. Get a clue.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 11:32 PM

Coal's problem is cheap natural gas. Low natural gas prices in the U.S. have made coal a less-optimal option for new power plants. In 20 years WV will wake up and realize the free market has passed the coal industry by and it will have had nothing to do with the EPA. Meanwhile, a bunch of fatcats from Oklahoma and Texas will have reaped all of the benefits of WV's natural resources cause its citizens held on to the past for too long. Wake up folks... or just drive through a local hotel parking lot and read the license plates in the parking lot. It ain't that hard to figure out.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 8:17 PM

atoddh, How did the WV economy do while Byrd was in office?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 5:46 PM

If WV still had Byrd and Mollohan (Appropriations)this kind of legislation would have a chance. Junior legislators have no power. Nothing to bargain with. WV is a eunuch now.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 5:43 PM

folks: The plan (1.)curtail any new coal plants from being built.(2.) decommission all but the most efficient newer ones now operating(3.) encourage gas/ nuclear/alternatives for power.

This will become the global policy as well in the near future.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 4:35 PM

The USA policy is- now- to replace coal plants with gas. Junior Congresspersons will not change this. They know this. Soon it will be a global initiative.

What about alternative WV employment ideas to compensate for the loss of coal jobs? Have not heard much from these gentlemen.

Recall the Highlands was to be a light manufacturing mecca; not retail. Downtown and the Capitol was to be a tourism attraction. Yet the main anchor attraction JUSA was turned away.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 2:07 PM

Apparently WVU isn’t teaching their GEOs about the law of conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics. They ARE receiving a comprehensive education in snake oil sales and conspiracy theories, though. LOL

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 10:47 AM

And, even a little further, in a patent application that's still pending, the USDOE itself, in: "United States Patent Application 20100205856 - Method of Producing Synthetic Fuels and Organic Chemicals from Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", disclosed technology developed by scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory that would, using environmental energies to drive the processes, convert Carbon Dioxide into, as the USDOE specifies: "diesel fuel, jet fuel, gasoline, petrochemicals, plastics, butane, methanol, ethylene, propylene, aromatic compounds, petrochemical derivatives, derivatives thereof, and mixtures thereof". We're just not being kept up to speed.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 8:35 AM

And even further, again if this is about CO2 emissions, the Icelandic company, Carbon Recycling International, look 'em up in the Wiki, for Pete's sake, using in part chemistry developed by a Nobel Prize-winning chemist in California, are collecting industrial off-gas Carbon Dioxide and converting it into Methanol which is, right now, being blended into Gasoline and being sold at service stations in several European countries. We simply are not being fully informed.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 8:24 AM


Charlie Ballouz has more influence in D.C. than Dave McKinley.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 8:20 AM

Even further, and again if this is all about CO2 emissions, CO2 can be converted via a number of known processes into substitute natural gas Methane. The original technology for doing so was awarded a Nobel Prize all the way back in 1912. The recipient was Paul Sabatier, of France, who said, in his Nobel acceptance speech: "methane ... can be synthesized with the greatest ease". Right now, in Germany, the car maker Audi has a pilot plant up and running that, using wind-generated electricity, is collecting exhaust gas Carbon Dioxide and converting it into Methane. Search for, from June of this year, the Volkswagen Group news release: "Audi's New e-gas Plant Comes Online". NASA has designed a highly-efficient, CO2-consuming, Methane-synthesizing Sabatier-type reactor. Look up: "United States Patent Application 20120029095 - Sabatier Process and Apparatus for Controlling Exothermic Reaction".

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 8:05 AM

Further, and again, if this really is about CO2 emissions, then your government is snowing you. The US Navy has established an entire body of technology for recovering Carbon Dioxide from the environment and, then, in some cases using environmental energy to drive the processes, converting that CO2 into liquid hydrocarbon fuels. See, for the latest example: "United States Patent 8,436,457 - Synthesis of Hydrocarbons Via Catalytic Reduction of CO2". The Navy has even issued news releases about it all which haven't been picked up by our press. Search for, from last year: "Fueling The Fleet, Navy Looks To The Seas", from the Naval Research Laboratory. We, simply, are not being fully and honestly informed.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-16-13 7:57 AM

Unfortunately, this article doesn't go into any useful detail, at all, about what the new regulations are all about. If it all really is about "reducing carbon pollution" then we're all being taken for a ride. Right now, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Basic Industries has contracted with the German engineering firm Linde Group to build a factory that will collect Carbon Dioxide emissions from petrochemical refineries and convert it into Methanol. And, Methanol can be converted directly into Gasoline via ExxonMobil's "MTG"(r) process. The US Government, at the Brookhaven, NY, National Laboratory, first established the tech for converting CO2 into Methanol back in 1976. Look up: "United States Patent 3,959,094 - Electrolytic Synthesis of Methanol from CO2".

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: