Coal is an integral part of railroading, perhaps the class actions that one day will be raised against the generators for environmental irresponsibility, might name the RR’s as codefendants, for their contributory involvement? [:-^]
Surely those class action lawyers, with their 33% plus expenses take on all monetary awards, will not leave out we consumers of electricity as defendents. After all, if we did not buy it there would be no need for the generating plants, so we are the primary source of the problem.
In effect, they will ONLY go after the consumers, but they won’t have to go after them directly. They will go for the deep pockets of the utilities, mines, and railroads, and they will pass it ALL on to the consumers.
There is so much cost increase associated with the green bandwagon that is coming down the pike for the consumers that it offers a ray of hope of a huge public backlash. Such a backlash could derail the whole bandwagon. After all, this is a society that screams bloody murder when gasoline goes up 75 cents. What are they going to say when food, motor fuel, heating, and electricity quadruple inside of ten years?
ERGO–
The real winners will be the “suits”[oX)] who filed the suits!
You guess the loosers[:(][:(][:(]
For me it’s not about hugging trees but protecting the health of others. The pollutates emitted from many of these coal plants are not only harming the environment, but also our health. One of the toxins released is mercury which as we know is dangerous to have in our bodies (hence why they are doing away with mercury filled themometers). The mercury is release into the air when coal is burned and evenutally settles into our lakes and streams. The fish and animals consume this water and the mercury ends up in they bodies. So when we eat the wild fish and animals, we end up consuming the mercury. Although I would prefer an mroe environmentally friendly, renewable source of fuel be used, such an alternative does not exist in which can meet our current needs. Until then, i would prefer to see coal powered plants install devices that can clean the smoke released by the burning process. The only major cost the energy companies would endure is the initial cost to install the devices. After that, maintainence is would cost no more than the generators and steam turbines already in the plant. The cost increase should be minimal at best. I’m supporting it for health reasons… YOURS and mine. If you still disagree with my intents, then I appologize for caring about your health and well being.
The only reason why the energy companies don’t want to install the air cleaning devices is because it would cut into their profits. The owners are very aware that their company’s stock prices are highly dependant on how much profit they make. Wall Street will penalize a company for making less profit from the previous year. Wall Street also penalizes a company if they fall short of a company’s expected increase in profit. Let’s say Union Pacific told investors that they will make a $150 million profit this year but by the end of the year they only made $148 million pro
Very well put.
Time and again it has been shown, that the utility companies generally will do nothing ecosensible until forced to.
Two thoughts:
1.If profits are bad then where will the money come from to build whatever may be needed? And where will all the tax revenue come from without profits? These profits are double taxed, by the way, 1st to the company and then to the stockholders. Maybe they should all sell out to the Gov’t and have a beaurcracy run them. Chernobyl anyone? Earmarks for a new plant in my state?
2.If we swallow all the ’ statistical info’ and ‘faux science’ that is now out there without any significant attemp to verify we deserve what we receive. The health of the American public is improving each year, even when we recognize that some of us refuse to care for ourselves by not smoking, refusing drugs and not using alcohol in excess, to name the worst. Those who cite a ‘terrible danger" have motives which are related to more than our health. They would save us from ourselves if we just let them have control. Educated intelectuals perhaps, but without the wisdom that experience brings. Wisdom is perhaps best describded as ’ knowing how much you don’t know’.
It seems anytime I pickup a newspaper and there is an article or guest column about or relating to human caused global warming, it begins with “The debate is over, global warming is real.” Just because you keep saying something over and over doesn’t make it so.
Actually, I never knew there was a debate. In the public realm it’s mostly been one-sided. You either believed 110% with human caused global warming or you were dismissed as being a shill for the oil/coal/utility etc, industries. To get the other point of view one usually has to do their own investigating. Some debate.
Jeff
Dale: Your question made me realize that probably very few of us ever thought of mercury in our environment, after all the primary sources are man made and when eating fish and shellfish.
I went in and did a little research:
Start here: http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercuryrule/basic.htm
An interesting quote from the EPA site:
- Mercury is a toxic, persistent pollutant that accumulates in the food chain. Mercury in the air is a global problem. While fossil fuel-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute only a small amount (about 1 percent) of total annual mercury emissions worldwide.
The information contained on the above site is pretty interesting, but your question about how far can the mercury travel downwind, I have been unable to find a direct answer, based on the pdf maps and info I would guess it is as far as other particulates from the tall stacks of current power generating plants. Again, I’m not a scientist, but while they are a particulate to be tracked, they are bioaccumulative and problematic for people who consume lots of shellfish and fish in their diets. Much stuff can be found by searching ‘Mercury in Coal,’ ‘Vaporized Mercury.’
Another interesting website is : http://hgtech.com/Data/Coal/Coal.htm
Another: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/combust/utiltox/utoxpg.html#DA3
Coal is king, long live coal.
If they wanna scrap the power plants and all go live in the woods off deer skin tents go ahead.
Now where is my electric bill?
[xx(][xx(] Good thing I live south of Fort Wayne.[8D] Dale, prevailing winds around here tend to be Southwest or WSW, (look at the runway layouts, they try to always face the wind) so the “foot print” from Wheatland is headed between FWA and South Bend. But your question is a valid one. The point of having tall stacks at power plants is to disperse the exhaust over a larger area thereby reducing the concentration to those who live nearby.
If global warming is “man-made”, then why are the other planets getting warmer, too?
Okay diningcar, bring it on!!
You said “Those who cite a 'terrible danger” have motives which are related to more than our health. They would save us from ourselves if we just let them have control." You’re insighting that I have some sort of ‘evil’ motive. So tell me, what do you think my motive is? You’re talking a big game and trying to persuade others that my and others intentions are actually deceiteful. Please tell me what my intentions are. I’m very interested in knowing them.
You also said: “Educated intelectuals perhaps, but without the wisdom that experience brings”… basically you think I’m sitting in some little box insolated from world. That I and my peers don’t
According to past sources I have read, 250 miles to 500 miles down wind is the “sweet spot”. The gasses/fine particles get a pretty good launch by the smokestacks, and as they cool, and begin to settle, the noteworthy concentrations begin to show up 200 miles away, with the last appreciable concentrations falling in the 500 mile range.
The biggest (mercury) problem being, the fallout into lakes and streams, where over 30-50 years, it becomes concentrated in the food chain, whether it be in Moose Jaw or Effingham.
Merrily … Along:
I have no idea who you are or about your background but your presentation indicated you had significant data about:
costs for utility companies; amounts of pollutents being dispersed by type; when and where levels of these were in excess of prescribed controling criteria; and motivations of investors and of corporate executives.
But you just furnished your words, no data, as if ( and I don’t know this) you were using talking points gathered from various sources.
I have no desire to ‘bring it on’ for you, but I might have a greater appreciation for your ideas with a more specific presentation. Please don’t take offense so quickly, I meant nothing personal.
Good day to you!!
H’mmm, no doubt you are correct, not everyone claiming to be our friend, is (our friend).
Just as many of those who seek to debunk the claims of hazard might have a vested interest in not spending to solve the problem.
I guess there are snakes everywhere you find grass?
I knew you’d come back, AG. Try though they might, FM and MS can’t fill your sandals.
I have no doubt that the amount of mercury and other pollutants is measurable, and traceable to fairly specific sources. And I’ll agree that we should do all we can to reduce or eliminate said pollutants.
However, IIRC, there was a big mercury scare back in the '70’s. Man was putting too much mercury into the water, the fish were inedible, etc, etc. Then someone found a fossilized fish with higher levels of mercury than anything swimming around at the time.
As for global warming - we don’t have enough data to know whether the phenomenon is completely man-made. Man may be helping, but there is nothing to disprove the possibility that Mother Nature herself has turned up the thermostat…
Well, of course you are correct, only the vested interests and the narcissistically arrogant would insist other wise
sowwey, try again
Naw. I’ll hold. The styles are much too similar to be a coincidence.
Appropriate avatar, too, methinks. [:-,]