Posted on 01/14/2014 7:05:44 AM PST by rktman
Now a new Environmental Protection Agency rule on power plants requires a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and threatens to block any new coal-fired energy facilities because they cannot hope to meet the new standards without using unproven and cost-prohibitive technology.
Concerned individuals may email the EPA with their comments at a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. Comments MUST reference Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495.
The rule is currently in the public comment phase, but free-market energy advocates see the coal industry clearly within the Obama administration’s crosshairs.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Is it me or is that headline see a little...racist? LOL!
With the amount of natural gas we have coal fired plants are no longer needed and completely ridiculous.
That being said, let market forces work this out, not the EPA.
This thing in West Virginia - was the toxic chemical released a chemical that the greenies had insisted on to make coal more environmentally acceptable? I haven’t heard anyone say why this treatment was being used.
Oh....Really?
What does it cost to shut down a coal fired plant and start up a natural gas facility?
Oh....wait.....The EPA won’t authorize construction of any new natural gas facilities....
Your turn....
It was said that the chem used/leaked was required to scrub the coal to reduce sulpher emissions. In other words, it is an EPA requirement.
A coal-fired plant can store 30 days worth of fuel in a big pile. If you depressurize the natural gas line you can make a whole state go dark in minutes. Fuel diversity is a national security issue.
He could use the Clinton method:
http://www.timeswrsw.com/V032997.HTM
“I haven’t heard anyone say why this treatment was being used.”
Probably because some biggie campaign donor has a company that makes it...
You know not what you speak of. To make that forced change in less than a decade or two would skyrocket electric and heating bills. It would cripple this country. It would make this Obama recession seem like the glory days of economic bliss.
The W. Va. chemical is used in certain coal wash plant applications, not power plant use.
What is 4-methylcyclohexane methanol?
The compound involved in the West Virginia chemical spill is used to rid coal of impurities before it is burned to generate power.
“Short version – it is used in removing some sulfur from coal,” David Bayless, director of Ohio University’s Ohio Coal Research Center, wrote in an e-mail to the Monitor. “That is a separation process ... usually done at the mine before the coal is shipped to the utility to burn.”
I’m taking about new construction, not refitting existing plants.
See 13. I am confused unless you forgot the /s.
Well, they couldn’t very well say “Hispanic out ‘40% of US power supply” now could they? LOL! That would be too blatant.
The chemical is used in “froth flotation” cleaning of the very fine particles of coal. The company I once worked for used water only Dutch State Mines hydrocyclones for the 1&1/4 X 1/4 inch coal and Hyle and Patterson classifying cyclones for the 1/4 X 28 mesh coal. Our wash water was reused via a very large static thickener with almost no makeup water. Chemicals and heavy media (ground iron ore) are used in other wash plant designs for various coals, financial limitations and other reasons.
That, along with ObamaCare, shutting down most of the coal jobs, and extending unemployment compensation to about forever should give another big boost to the economy!
Well, thank God that we’ve turned the corner, the economy is recovering and unemployment rates are plummeting towards zero. HUH? Not from where I’m sittin’. (And no, it ain’t in the basement wearing my PJ’s. LOL!)
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.