Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cripplecreek

Maybe you can help me here. As I understand it, coal is not prohibited as such, they simply established emission standards that coal can’t meet.

Which means that if someone discovers a method whereby coal can be used and still meet those emission standards, it’s right back in the game, and the inventor will become very, very rich.

Depending of course on the cost of the method for burning coal at low emissions.

Or am I missing something?


11 posted on 09/27/2014 6:00:49 PM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins most of the battles. Reality wins ALL the wars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

In one case here in Michigan they had a clean coal plant in the planning and development stages for a decade. Between the lawsuits to block it, endless permitting processes, and environmental impact studies they spent millions. When there was nothing left to stand in the way when the Granholm administration pulled the permits declaring that a new plant was unneeded.

Less than a month later, Granholm turned around and gave the go ahead for a wind farm and gave them subsidies.


14 posted on 09/27/2014 6:08:00 PM PDT by cripplecreek ("Moderates" are lying manipulative bottom feeding scum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson