Some make more than one donation
Many make none
Have YOU contributed?
Posted on 11/26/2012 4:41:39 PM PST by Libloather
More than 1,000 New Coal Plants Planned Worldwide
By Damian Carrington, The Guardian
Published: November 26th, 2012
More than 1,000 coal-fired power plants are being planned worldwide, new research has revealed.
The huge planned expansion comes despite warnings from politicians, scientists, and campaigners that the planet's fast-rising carbon emissions must peak within a few years if runaway climate change is to be avoided and that fossil fuel assets risk becoming worthless if international action on global warming moves forward.
Coal plants are the most polluting of all power stations and the World Resources Institute (WRI) identified 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India. The capacity of the new plants add up to 1,400GW to global greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of adding another China — the world's biggest emitter.
(Excerpt) Read more at climatecentral.org ...
I think in the US, cheap nat gas is a bigger problem for coal than the Baraqqis.
I talked to an exec of a company that makes fracking equipment, and he said fracking is just on the verge of going bigtime worldwide. Not Western Europe, because of the environazis, but darn near everywhere else. Nat gas and coal are going to be very affordable for a long time.
From the beginning, the purpose of the "climate change" scheme was global wealth-redistribution.
Follow the money. Buffett buys a railroad. Our coal needs to be shipped by rail. Obama breaks the coal companies and when they ho bankrupt we will see who buys them. My guess is Soros and buffett
With the money they save they can pay more for food, driving up it’s price for us while we’re paying higher “environmentally friendly” energy prices.
That’s a ‘two-fer’ in the Dems’ media.
Can anyone provide a citation of a credible source of evidence that a moderate increase in the the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could cause significaant warming of the earth’s atmosphere?
What I’ve read thus far is that gaseous CO2 has a very limited and readily saturable capacity to absorb long wave solar back radiation.
They want us using wind and solar exclusively, but that is entirely unreliable.
I guess we could use a vast array of squirrel and hamster cages, if it weren't for PETA.
These nutballs are going to make us all dehydrate, starve and freeze to death in the dark unless we get them under control, and there's really only one way to do that in the final analysis.
Well you know the air over the US stays over the US.
All of those coal plants will be polluting their own countries only.
So if we clean our air Americans will be able to breathe while these other countries are suffocating.
Yeah folks that’s sarcasm.
All of those coal plants will be polluting their own countries only.
ROFL, but I think that Jay Leno's street people believe it.
The third world desperately needs reliable cheap electricity. Without it there is miserable poverty, famines, and political instability. Third world countries have no choice but to invest in coal. They either do not have natural gas or the infrastructure to transport it where it is needed. They do not have the technical expertise to construct and operate nuclear power plants. China and India despite a relatively well educated population and ambitious plans to develop nuclear energy have to date been unable to open new nuclear plants. Wind and solar are simply niche options at best and can never power a modern grid. Obama may wish to lower US fossil fuel consumption and the American standard of living, but most of the world does not share his bizarre green fantasies.
This is Obastard’s fault.
Google Lord Monkton.
His presentations point out that CO2 has been slightly increasing for the past 20 years, but the global temperature has been declining. Also ... that increasing temperature causes increased CO2, not the reverse.
What I’ve read thus far is that gaseous CO2 has a very limited and readily saturable capacity to absorb long wave solar back radiation.
I have been challenging global warming alarmists with a similar question for a long time, and no one has really been able to provide an answer.
Now, I will become technical.
As far as I can tell, the whole idea that CO2 can trap heat in the air is based on its behavior as a fluorophore within the infrared range of the spectrum. In fluorescence, a molecule absorbs a photon of light at one wavelength, and releases it at a slightly longer wavelength. The energy difference between the absorption/emission wavelength is typically translated into various kinds of molecular energy--e.g., kinetic energy. CO2 happens to have an unusually wide fluorescent band within the IR range. Since both absorption and emission take place within the IR range, there is no net change in the quantity of IR light (IR converts to heat). There is a slight increase in the energy of CO2--which also converts to heat. I see no net increase of heat here. Someone once told me that the CO2 can, in fact, transfer some of its energy to another atmospheric molecule (most likely nitrogen) during the few nanoseconds between absorbing and emitting a photon, and in that manner, trap energy in the atmosphere. But that depends on it actually bumping into another molecule during that short window of time; I'm not sure the atmosphere is dense enough for that to happen enough to actually be a significant factor in heating the atmosphere. Also, heat radiates back into space fairly quickly.
In answer to your question, I have not actually seen any papers published in Science that show any calorimetric measurements of IR irradiated CO2 in a closed system. However, I've seen plenty of papers blaming everything under the sun on "global warming"--even in Science.
Any "data" the warmists present have been cherry-picked to support their conclusion. For example, they will say something like "The temperature and CO2 concentrations are positively correlated since 1970", completely ignoring that they are negatively correlated in the time period 1940 - 1970.
Wait, didn’t the usurper promise to shut down coal mines 4.5 years ago?
The Russians have a shale formation that is eighty times the size of the Bakken Play. It’s in Western Siberia and is called the Bazhenov Formation.
Amazing, according to that map there should be a large flow of people travelling South across our border since Mexico is such a “happy” place.../S
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.