Utilities Vote To Close Largest Coal Plant In Western US (arstechnica.com) 201
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: At 2.25 gigawatts, Arizona's Navajo Generating Station is the biggest coal-burning power plant in the Western U.S. The plant, and the nearby Kayenta coal mine that feeds it, are located on the Navajo Indian Reservation, and the Navajo and Hopi peoples have had a conflicted relationship with coal since the plant opened in the 1970s. Almost all the 900-plus jobs at the mine and plant are held by Native Americans, and the tribes receive royalties to account for large portions of their budget. Negotiations were underway to improve the tribes' lease terms, which expire in 2019. But on Monday, the four utilities that own most of the plant voted to close it at the end of 2019. They decided that the plant's coal-powered electricity just can't compete with plants burning natural gas. A press release from Salt River Projects, which runs the plant, explained, "The decision by the utility owners of [Navajo Generating Station] is based on the rapidly changing economics of the energy industry, which has seen natural gas prices sink to record lows and become a viable long-term and economical alternative to coal power."
Lots of Sunshine there (Score:5, Insightful)
massive Solar plant?
Re:Lots of Sunshine there (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Except you can't scale solar production up or down to handle fluctuations in demand. Or produce solar at night. Or control the weather.
But aside from that, sure.
Solar will always be a second-rate option for utilities until storage becomes cheap and plentiful.
Re:Lots of Sunshine there (Score:5, Insightful)
Except you can't scale solar production up or down to handle fluctuations in demand.
You can scale it down, absolutely.
Or produce solar at night.
You don't need nearly as much power at night, and if they go with solar thermal you get quite a bit of storage "for free."
Or control the weather.
It's Arizona. They basically have two types of weather; Sunny and Night.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Or produce solar at night.
You don't need nearly as much power at night, and if they go with solar thermal you get quite a bit of storage "for free."
True, Power companies typically have trouble selling excess energy produced during the night.
Or control the weather.
It's Arizona. They basically have two types of weather; Sunny and Night. =Smidge=
Where I come from we have two types of weather, rain and night ... we all hate you.
Re: (Score:3)
All renewables will struggle with high energy power requirements, industry, commercial and high density residential. Suburban power in suitable climes will not be a problem but beyond that simply can not achieve the required energy out comes.
That does not even touch the concept of substantially increasing recycling of all material via high energy industrial processes. So using energy to eliminate waste and minimise resource use, a double plus but it will take a lot of cheap energy to achieve it. We should
Re: (Score:3)
Err, not so much. You simply build your generating capacity to meet expected demands - no different than you would for coal or nuclear power, only in less time for less money. Most of the overwrought concerns over wind and solar power may be answered by simple technology from the '70s. The 1870's.
There are water towers and hydroelectric dams functioning today that were constructed more than
Re: (Score:2)
Or produce solar at night.
You don't need nearly as much power at night, and if they go with solar thermal you get quite a bit of storage "for free."
True, Power companies typically have trouble selling excess energy produced during the night.
Or control the weather.
It's Arizona. They basically have two types of weather; Sunny and Night. =Smidge=
Where I come from we have two types of weather, rain and night ... we all hate you.
Sigh, where I come from we have two types of weather, rain and rain at night, you lucky dogs
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want to scale it down. Solar's costs are almost entirely up-front. There are no recurring fuel costs. So after you've built the panels, you want them running at full capacity whenever possible. If power generation needs to be scaled down, you want to scale something else down (preferably something using fuel).
The flip side of this is that solar can't provide base load nor peaking load. You need other power sources to provide those. Something renewables a
Re: (Score:2)
Average peak demand occurs AFTER sunset. Solar Thermal with and without storage has a very different cost. You don't get anything "for free". Those which do have storage require some form of backup power anyway as the process of losing energy in the system can cause a several month outage for a plant (solidified thermal carrier material in your pipework is a disaster)
I'm not saying solar is a bad idea, but one has to be realistic on the applications of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why no one is manufacturing solar cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that, for this generator, demand can easily be modified.
This facility provides power to pump water as part of the Central Arizona Project. The pumps don't have to operate 24/7.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't scale a coal power plant up or down to follow demand, either. It takes days.
Re: (Score:3)
Pedant fail.
Irrelevant. The whole point of the Baseline Power Canard is that wind and solar cannot bridge the power gap on a dark, windless night. Do tell how a coal power plant ramping up generation "less than days later" manages to fill that overnight hole.
Re:Lots of Sunshine there (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah right, Dinowic (a pumped storage in Wales) can go from zero to 1800MW in 75 seconds. If the turbines are pre-synchronized (aka spinning in free air for a small power draw) they can go from zero to 1800MW in 16 seconds.
Re: (Score:3)
Solar PV is trivial to scale down, just rotate or shade the panels. In practice you would probably use the excess to charge batteries or pump water or use for some kind of non-time-critical process like desalination or refrigeration.
Re:Lots of Sunshine there (Score:5, Informative)
322 kW panels?
You lost a 10^3 and are ignoring capacity factor.
Re:Lots of Sunshine there (Score:5, Informative)
That part of the Colorado Plateau is pretty sunny. It does snow from time to time but it's not the kind of climate where the snow just builds up all winter, so it probably would be practical to keep the panels snow-free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Invest in your looser people.
Fuck you.
You said they were tight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mods failed to get it, too.
"Tight," is an old you-fee-mism for being drunk.
Re: (Score:2)
few billion... but who's counting.
Re: (Score:2)
As I see it, since people are most often awake and active during daylight hours, being able to operate enough base-load plants to meet nighttime needs coupled with solar to meet daytime needs would be a good way to transition the utility to provide the most efficiently and environmentally produced bulk generation while the consumer-end clean stuff satisfies the remainder.
Market Forces Kill Coal (Score:5, Insightful)
This demonstrates exactly how empty the campaign promises to bring back coal were. Nobody wants to burn coal when it's so much more expensive than everything else.
Just one market force - Fracking (Score:2)
It should be noted that the whole reason coal is more expensive is because we have so much more natural gas from fracking. You can thank Fracking for yet another environmental victory.
how empty the campaign promises to bring back coal were.
No-one said they would be coal jobs... plus maybe those jobs are not going away, from article:
it's at least possible that the tribes could work out a deal to keep the plant running under a different ownership arrangement.
Never underestimate the power of an aggrieved mino
Re:Just one market force - Fracking (Score:5, Informative)
No-one said they would be coal jobs
The only argument you could possibly have for that statement to be true is to argue that Trump's speaking style is so vague as to be meaningless. He did say this:
"We're gonna open the mines"
And this:
"Let me tell you: the miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week and Ohio and all over, they’re going to start to work again, believe me. You’re going to be proud again to be miners."
He told the miners to get ready to "work their ass off". He made several statements like those after Clinton said that, if she were elected, a lot of coal miners would be out of jobs. Naturally, Trump sensed a weakness and attacked. And people responded to him with statements like this:
One of [West Virginia's] delegates, donning a coal miner's hat, used the state's time to complain about how President Obama has wrecked the state's economy: "It has been devastating what has happened all across Appalachia and this country," the delegate said. "Tens of thousands of coal miners have lost their jobs over the last seven-and-a-half years under this administration - it's time we change course with a man named Donald J. Trump."
And this:
"I did vote for Donald Trump," Moeller says. "It's really hard to even say that because I so dislike his rhetoric. But I voted for him on one singular issue, and that was coal."
And this:
"I voted for Trump - I mean, a coal miner would be stupid not to," Hathaway says.
And this:
"He is a whacko; he's never going to stop being a whacko," Hathaway says. "But I mean, the things he did say - the good stuff - was good for the coal mining community. But we'll see what happens."
And this:
“I have said to Mr. Trump on a couple of occasions, 'Please temper your commitment to my coal miners and your expectations of bringing the coal industry back.' It cannot be brought back to what it was,” said Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., the nation's largest coal producer. “The destruction is permanent,” said Mr. Murray, a Trump supporter.
So, SuperKendall, why do you think all of those people would say things like that if Trump never promised to bring back the coal industry? Do a search for "Donald Trump coal jobs" and go and look at all of the articles going back to last May. Notice him standing on stage with a sign saying "Trump Digs Coal". He's got the CEO of the largest coal producer telling him to temper his promises to bring the coal industry back.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read what I wrote at all, did you? And to boot, you seem to have an absolutely terrible grasp of geography....
Sigh. So it goes these days, impossible to have rational debate when the left area only about talking points regardless of facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I did read what you wrote, you wrote this:
No-one said they would be coal jobs
That's an alt-fact, SuperKendall, Trump did promise to bring back coal jobs. But, just like Trump himself, if the facts on the ground start to look different the easiest way out is to just claim that you never said that, right?
And to boot, you seem to have an absolutely terrible grasp of geography....
I would question how that statement has anything at all to do with whether or not Trump promised to bring back coal jobs, but I'm sure you'd like to move the goal posts and distract from the fact that your statement is factually incorre
Re: (Score:2)
>> It cannot be brought back to what it was,
If Trump gives it enough subsidies anything could happen.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, burning coal for electrical power production is only a part of the coal indursty. The other part is steel production from iron ore.
Re: (Score:2)
So, SuperKendall, why do you think all of those people would say things like that if Trump never promised to bring back the coal industry?
What I've noticed with Trump is that people hear what they want to hear, and they react appropriately.
But the other thing I've noticed is that Trump very often lies about a problem and/or its severity, but he can be surprisingly truthful about what he plans to do to solve that problem based on a lie.
So coal jobs declined most due to the glut of natural gas, so it doesn't make any financial sense to have coal miners work their asses off. But who knows, he might do what he says and try to push it through anyw
Re: (Score:2)
What I've noticed with Trump is that people hear what they want to hear, and they react appropriately.
I think he makes that pretty easy. Take a few examples from his latest press conference:
We've begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare. Obamacare is a disaster, folks. It's a disaster. I know you can say, oh, Obamacare. I mean, they fill up our alleys with people that you wonder how they get there, but they are not the Republican people that our representatives are representing.
or...
It's all fake news. It's all fake news. The nice thing is, I see it starting to turn, where people are now looking at the illegal -- I think it's very important -- the illegal, giving out classified information. It was -- and let me just tell you, it was given out like so much.
I bet 5 different people could read those and come up with 5 different things that he means.
Re: (Score:2)
>> it's at least possible that the tribes could work out a deal to keep the plant running
God I hope not. The air quality is a major problem in Phoenix. They could just open yet another Casino on their land so they can avoid paying taxes, and probably employ just as many people and make just as much money.
>> do you think Democrats will vote for anything that keeps this plant running?
Of course. Especially if it means another donation to the Clinton Foundation.
Re: (Score:2)
And not the BS trope but forth by the high-almighty that we're going to train you to become code monkeys (and then triple the approved H1-B visas) .
The Dems used to be the party of labor. Not anymore. The Dems abandoned labor in favor
Re: (Score:2)
This demonstrates exactly how empty the campaign promises to bring back coal were. Nobody wants to burn coal when it's so much more expensive than everything else.
Campaign promises couldn't bring back the ice or seamstress industry either. It's called Creative Destruction [wikipedia.org] a term coined by John Schumpeter. You can't make promises on something beyond your control no matter who you are.
Re:Market Forces Kill Coal (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural gas killed coal, and by the time natural gas is on the decline, coal will be even less viable. It's done. Besides, why in the hell would you even want to burn the stuff? Apart from CO2 emissions, so much effort has to be put into keeping it from ruining the environment and poisoning everyone around it that it's a good thing they're erecting its tombstone.
Re:Market Forces Kill Coal (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true, natural gas combined cycles are far more efficient, produce much less CO2, require fewer operators and maintenance techs, and can be dispatched more easily with faster ramp rates. Design and construction times are much shorter, and the equipment is very robust after decades of optimization. They also require much less land and water (but that depends on whether they are air cooled or not). Modern control systems can be programmed to start up the plant at the push of a button with little operator interaction, or even operated remotely for some natural gas simple cycle plants.
There are drawbacks - modern heavy industrial gas turbines do have unique problems requiring extensive outages during major inspections (and often more unplanned outages depending on the design of the unit and age). Natural gas is more variable in price than coal, but operating companies and owners have gotten better at dispatching combined cycle plants to coincide with demand (some plants start up twice a day). Flexibility is important where natural gas power plants operate.
There will always be some fossil fuel plants in operation for the next century, if at a minimum to maintain voltage and VAR support. But coal has definitely seen its last decades. Few engineers I work with have done design work on a coal plant now, and those that have are all in their 50s or older. At some point that knowledge is going to be lost.
Re: (Score:3)
It's true, natural gas combined cycles are far more efficient, produce much less CO2, require fewer operators and maintenance techs, and can be dispatched more easily with faster ramp rates. Design and construction times are much shorter, and the equipment is very robust after decades of optimization.
Another big advantage of Natural Gas is it can distributed more efficiently through pipelines.
Re: (Score:2)
And it has all natural ingredients.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, there are unlikely to be any substantial amounts of power generated by fossil fuels by 2100. Storage technologies will almost certainly have overcome any difficulties like that. This is little more than the absurd claims of people who just want to believe investing in fossil fuels is a long-term viable way to use your money.
Re: (Score:2)
Two types of people burn wood fires in a house.
Rich people for ambiance, not heat.
Poor people who can't afford to live in the modern world.
I'm guessing you are in the angry subset of the second.
Not necessarily. My middle-class parents have a modern house heated by a wood-burning furnace in their basement with ducts that efficiently blow hot air around the whole house. They live in rural New England, so the wood furnace gets a lot of use in the winter. When they crunched the numbers vs other fuels wood was the most economical and renewable. They have a few back-up electric baseboard heaters to keep pipes from freezing if they have to leave the house in the winter for a few days. The rural area they
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you have ready access to rather cheap wood, buying properly seasoned wood is fairly expensive, and even where you have access to a ready supply of firewood, cutting, splitting and stacking is a LOT of work. I know, when I was a kid we had a wood furnace in the basement and a fireplace in the livingroom, and in the spring I'd be helping my grandfather and my cousin get firewood, either from clear cuts where my grandfather had a firewood license, or on his own property. To get enough firewood to last t
Oil Gets Subsidies Too (Score:2, Informative)
Don't look for crony-free capitalism in big energy. It won't and can't exist. Like capital itself, energy is too important to leave to the whims of the market. And where you don't see in-your-face subsidies (like Ethanol/corn producers), there's back-end subsidies like tax breaks, easements, or permits for getting rid of toxic waste for free. Coal ash is a particularly nasty nasty toxic waste, for example, full of heavy metals and even radio-active materials, that has to be dumped in horrid "ponds" that
Re:Market Forces Kill Coal (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving tax breaks to promote future progress is not a bad thing to do.
The switch to getting as much clean energy as possible won't be cheap, and won't happen over night. And other forms of energy will have to be available when clean sources may be unable to produce. But every bit helps.
We've tackled other huge projects. Rural electrification. Roads to support modern cars replacing horse and buggy. The interstate highway project. Electric street lighting and traffic signals literally everywhere -- and these things are friggin' expensive. But it was worth it for the benefits we collectively get from it.
It is inevitable that we will use electric cars. It is inevitable that we will stop using fossil fuels as they become ever harder to find. Coal isn't going to make our environment any better, so we should be minimizing its use to the extent possible. New technologies bring new jobs.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Coal NEEDS to choke under regulations before it chokes us all and destroys our climate.
For someone whose handle is "DickBreath" it seems to me that you have... bigger... issues to worry about choking on.
Re: (Score:2)
And "er," has side effects [rxlist.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't make a rational, well-thought-out argument for why it's a great idea to fuck up the environment, so instead you mock their username? Here's an idea:
Here's an idea, if you don't want to get mocked, regardless of the conversation topic, then consider not using a sex joke as a username.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal NEEDS to choke under regulations before it chokes us all and destroys our climate.
Here's a concept, how about instead of asking everyone to do things for you, do it yourself? Outfit your home with solar panels and then sell the electricity back to the power company. Campaign to convince your neighbors to do the same. If enough people do it, bam, community-fueled power grid. But you know, keep on asking the incompetent federal government to solve the problem and see where that gets you.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, there still needs to be regulations that choke things that harm everyon
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a concept, how about instead of asking everyone to do things for you, do it yourself? Outfit your home with solar panels and then sell the electricity back to the power company.
That's fine, and I heartily encourage people to do so. But this doesn't stop coal burning from affecting my health or my climate.
Re: (Score:3)
By market forces you mean the immense pressure Obama put on the industry, choking it under regulations while giving huge tax breaks to other energy producers? The "market" had nothing to do with this.
You think coal got the short stick over the last decade? Try finding a decent video rental shop these days. Thanks Obama.
Re:Market Forces Kill Coal (Score:4, Informative)
No, coal still receives massive subsidies. It gets to ignore the pollution costs, medical costs, causing up to 1/3 deaths, and so on.
For comparison, nuclear, beside all the regulation coal doesn't have to cope with, is required to store every bit of its waste for hundreds of years. Please tell me when coal plants have to put condoms on their chimneys that collect all the CO2, sulphur, nitrogen oxide and even radioactive isotopes, and instead of dumping them into the air stores them underground. Only then you can talk about a fair competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Liar.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, unless you're using the Invisible Hand as a sort of religious icon masking the fact that you want to take part in short term profiteering regardless of any long-term effects your business may be causing. Those that want to keep doing nasty things like selling cigarettes to children or vomiting sulfur dioxide and CO2 into the atmosphere will often decry any attempt to limit the harm their business cause by praying to the Invisible Hand, declaring that any attempt to interfere with this deity will lead
Re: (Score:2)
Natural gas can be used for cars, airplanes, etc., which coal can't. (emphasis mine)
That's not entirely true. You can turn coal into natural gas, and a bunch of other things. It's expensive, smells horrible, and requires a significant amount of energy, but it can be done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Make Gasoline instead (Score:3)
http://www.wvcoal.com/research... [wvcoal.com]
No long term stratergy (Score:3)
So based on this article:
1. Price on gas lowers
2. Gas plants gets built
3. It turned out once built en mass, that gas plants was cheaper than coal before price collapse, but nobody knew until economy of scale kicked in
====
That said, the statement in the article do not have to ring true at all.
Then again, per Wikipedia, Owners:
-U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (24.3%)
-Salt River Project (21.7%)
-LADWP (former) (21.2%)
-Arizona Public Service (14.0%)
-NV Energy (11.3%)
-Tucson Electric Power (7.5%)
So 4 out of 6 want it shut down, in the mid term future. Which one? And why?
There's also a nuke plant out there.... (Score:3)
About 60 miles west of Phoenix. The Tonopah plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Palo Verde is the largest power plant in the country, and the only large nuke plant in the world not near a major body of water.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding from my stepfather (who works in the nuclear power industry) is that the low price of natural gas, and low price of startup on the requisite power plants, is killing the nuclear power industry as well. Renewables (solar, hydro, wind) are taking over, with natural gas plants as the back up for lag times.
No more Haze in Grand Canyon (Score:5, Informative)
This plant is one of the worst polluters in the west. It was exempted from the mercury limits rule when they went into effect and it's responsible for 90% of the air pollution and haze in the Grand Canyon. This plant should have been shut down as soon as viable alternatives existed and market forces are finally doing it in.
Re:No more Haze in Grand Canyon (Score:5, Insightful)
If market forces were allowed their way, the Great Lakes would still be a toxic soup. Sometimes a government has to step in to prevent industries from fucking things up. I may remind you that that great conservative lion Ronald Reagan did a helluva lot of the initial work on what is, or was until a few weeks ago, the government's push to try to clean up polluting industries.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish that I had used my mod points instead. I would have modded you down.
Reagan was the WORST. With Watts, and Gorsuch were total FUCK-UPS and did even more damage to our environment than all of the previous presidents before.
It was NIXON, followed by Carter that cleaned up things. EPA was created by Nixon while reagan tried hard to kill it off and sell our public lands.
reagan and W were 2 of our presidents, until Trump came along.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really do feel that, in this Age of Trump, the days of the AC should come to an end. I know that a pseudonym isn't much better, but in general, the quality of posts is at least a little higher from those who have actually taken the time to create an account and log in to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can tell you that reagan and his cunt wife were personally responsible for allowing HIV to spread in America. Why? Because CDC went to him asking for 50 million to track those who had it. At the time, we KNEW that there were fewer than 500 ppl with an infection (turned out later, once known, that it was less than 200). We could not have stopped its sp
Re:No more Haze in Grand Canyon (Score:5, Insightful)
More propaganda, you people will blame Obama for everything, even things he had nothing to do with. This plant is going to be shut down because gas is cheaper, it has very little to do with Obama era regulations. It should have never been exempted from the Mercury rule for more than a decade (the exemption goes away in 2018 so they'll need the scrubbers in 2 years). The CO2 regulations Obama added on top had very little impact to this, it was driven primarily by costs, in particular the combined phase gas plants that are super efficient compared to this awful 50's era coal plant and have cheaper fuel.
The utilities were going to pay the costs to upgrade the plant until gas prices cratered and with wind/solar dropping so fast if they authorize it for another 20 years they'll be losing money on it for 18 of those years. Navajo generating station was dead when gas prices fell and it's about fucking time. It's poisoned two generations of people in the southwest with heavy metals and put haze in the grand canyon since it was built.Good riddance.
Re: (Score:2)
There was NOTHING that O did to kill Coal in any way. Yeah, he blocked mining on public land and prevented rate cuts that the GOP wants to give big coal (big coal already pays less on public land, than any other nation charging miners).
But,there is little doubt that it was Nat Gas being so low, combined with the Mercury emission cuts, that killed off the coal so far.
And with wind being cheaper than coal, it is also stopp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Market forces created slavery, because freedom is an externality that markets do not value.
Bullshit.
Slavery was the default option for human labor long before there was anything like market forces or even money.
To be fair "market forces" is a term that can encompass every economic exchange - under any political or economic system. Like "natural selection", it is part of any system. When Ug and Fug were deciding if they should steal the meat from Mug or barter for it some other way - "market forces" were in action.
So.... (Score:2)
Is Trump going to appear with the CEO to take credit for this one as well?
Not unexpected - newest unit in 1976 (Score:3)
A lot of units of that type from that time were designed for a 20 to 25 year life.
Good idea (Score:2)
The Navajo plant outgasses into the Grand Canyon, where sunlight acting on it produces smog. Let's close it and add another unit to Palo Verde.
Re: (Score:2)
Rocky Mountain Forest is loaded with Mercury and lots of pollution due to Navajo.
It will be nice to have this end.
Re: (Score:2)
NGS is located in Paige right off the Colorado (read GRAND CANYON), which it uses for cooling.
Energy companies declare war on coal! (Score:2)
And under the Invisible Hand of the Free Market (tm), which also declared War on Coal!!!
Oh, yeah, what "government war on coal"? I must have missed that in the corporate change to mountaintop removal, cutting 90% of mining jobs....
major polluter of the west (Score:2)
Now after this, China is the west's single largest source of pollution. Yes, it make all the way to Denver. The question is, what will the west, or even the world do, to stop them.
Natrual Gas and Trump (Score:2)
As long as we invest into nuke power, America will be OK. Otherwise, we are going to see our electricity and nat gas prices go WAY UP, and lose a bunch of our chemical industry jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
All we need is 1.21 Jigawatts, any more is unnecessary.
Re: (Score:3)
The largest coal plant in the country is 3.5GW. The largest nuclear plant is 3.9GW. That will power around 4 million homes, it's not that insignificant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed out loud
That had to smell terrible.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure there is! They have this magic smokestacks that take coal smoke and turn it into magic rainbows! It's true. It works on much the same principal as cigarette filters do, filtering out the nastiness and leaving only the cool, sweet smoke that leading chiropractors have determined is actually healthy!
Re: (Score:3)
That are at the best 90% effective. It doesn't reduce all the sulfur dioxide and other noxious compounds, and does little or nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.
Burning coal is just plain bad.
Re: (Score:2)
They "take out" the harmful pollutants? Where do the harmful pollutants go? Just, poof, they're gone?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, just like cleaning up the smog that cities used have. Yep, the invisible hand of the Ghost of Ayn Rand did that.
Re: (Score:2)
The liability would have destroyed the oil companies.
But if you want to give credit to Richard Nixon who am I to argue.
Re: (Score:2)
The liability would have destroyed the oil companies.
How would that have worked?
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I do. He did it in a wonderfull past in which conservatives actually did things that helped tue country
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theatlantic.com/te... [theatlantic.com]
I'd love to live in a wonderful present where liberals actually deal in facts, instead of just shouting down other people's conversations.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters, I fail to see how I "shut down a conversation". Second, what was the point of posting that link? are you confirming my point that Republicans of this era actually did things?
Re: (Score:2)
By comparison, about 11.1 million people are enrolled in ObamaCare exchange plans, with 9.4 million of them getting premium subsidies.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
by 99% you mean less 3%
Re: (Score:3)
Just like the liability of all those oil spills devastating the environment have destroyed the oil companies, right?
I'm sure BP will be filing for bankruptcy any day now after paying out $50-some-odd billion for cleanup, fines and lawsuits. Aaaaaany day now...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
The world still hasn't gotten rid of slavery. It may never.
Re: (Score:2)