Obama Cap-and-Trade Will Meet Coal-Fired Energy Political Opposition
Reader Comments
?
i would like to find out what percentage of electricity in britain come from the coal burrning method
heh..
nice, really nice!
NUCLEAR POWER
I LIVED IN A TOWN WHERE THEY PUSHED A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ON US. RESIDENTS FOUGHT AGAINST IT,BUT THE LOCAL POLITICIANS SOLD OUT TO NUCLEAR GUYS AND BUILT THE PLANT. A YEAR LATER THE CANCER RATE WENT UP 900% AND HAS CONTINUED TO CLIMB. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED IN TOWN WAS THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. THE POLITICIANS ARE GONE ,BUT THE CANCER RATES WILL BE THERE FOREVER. IF YOU ARE A BIG FAN OF CANCER THEN BUILD MORE PLANTS. IF NOT,CALL YOUR SENATORS,CONGRESS,ETC AND HOPE THEY HAVE NOT SOLD OUT YET. McCAIN IS A PRIME EXAMPLE OF HOW FAR NUCLEAR MONEY CAN GO.NOW THERE IS TALK OBAMA HAS EXCEPTED THE CHECK. MANKIND WILL DESTROY ITSELF. $ ALWAYS WINS.
Tony Lee
Forget what burning coal does to the atmosphere. Look at the coal ash spills by TVA in Tennessee. Both the air and the earth has been poisoned by the coal ash (left over from burning coal to produce electricity). Property owners in the affected areas have lost everything for centuries to come. TVA has admitted it does not know how to clean up the damage that is as deadly as nuclear waste. Obama has good intentions with energy, but putting a man on the moon has nothing whatever to do with burning so called clean coal. Coal is not clean. Better to spend the money trying to burn coal cleanly and how to make the coal ash left over clean on developing the energy of the oceans that never sleep. That technology is doable and the U.S. is rich in coastlines. Solar power is great when the sun in shining and windmills are great when the wind is blowing, but the oceans are always in motion (with the tides influenced by that same moon we put a man on).
Man made global warming is only a theory
There is no proof humans are the global warming culprit. A few things we should keep in mind: Since the formation of Earth there have been 6 ice ages and 6 warming periods. Since 1999 there has been no global warming.
Is it intelligent to tax this country based upon a theory with no proof?
Let's Hope it Does Fail
Let's hope it does fail, it is an awful, awful idea, based on extremely flawed and politicized science.
www.notoriouslyconservative.com
Carbon particulates in the upper atmosphere
I had read an article that burning coal contributes to the particulates in the atmosphere, which helps to cool the air. That's good to counter global warming right? Once again the problem is we have experts and so called facts and interpretations on both sides of the global warming issue. What's the darn truth?
Dream on America
Coal is a disaster. Coaql release poisons into the environmeent. It releases far mor radioactivity that do uclear power plants. Tons of mercury are also released. Thousands of peopleare injured and killed in the production of Coal. Carbon Dioxide is causing GLOBAL WARMING which actually has possibly the potential to ause increasing weather related disasters, huricaines, droughts, floods. Melting of the polar ice caps and world glaciers will significantly raise the level of the Oceans thereby putting significant parts of the USA coastal areas under water. Continuing to foul our environment could kill us all. Wake up America. Read Gwyneth Cravins POWER TO SAVE THE WORLD - The Truth About Nuclear Energy page 269 The entire American inventory of waste presently being stored at nuclear plants , after forty years of of making trillionsf kilowatt-hours of electricity and sparing the f tons of carbon and greenhouse gases, comes to about fifty thousand metric tons. All that waste would coveran areaize of a football field to depth of about five yards, if the fuel assemblies were laid end to end. The percapita lifetime contribution of consumers getting all their electricity from nuclear power: two pounds of waste. By comparison, each year coal combustion in the United States alone yields one hundred million tons of ash and sludge containing toxic heavy metals.Find out that there actually is
a Waste Isolation Pilot Plant which is the world's fist successfullt operatinglong termdeep geologicrepository for nuclear waste. It is ocated near Carlsbad, New Mexico.
Both true
Coal isn't going anywhere. It's plentiful, and it has become somewhat cleaner to burn it. It's fairly cheap, and it's unwise to discount the impact of cheap power on quality of life, particularly among the poor.
However, coal remains filthy to extract, transport, and process. New technology notwithstanding, when burned its impact on public health is still quite negative.
Like lots of other issues, we need to take a more clear-eyed view and weigh the positives and negatives of both sides, an approach that would seem to be in short supply these days in our public discourse.
Coal Burning - Better than it was.
Thomas, coal doesn't "ruin the planet" or have the same drastic effects on the environment as it used to. Before it is burned, coal is cleaned and removed of many pollutants, thus decreasing the impact of the byproducts on the environment. Utility bills would increase 35-40%, which averages out to about 3 THOUSAND dollars/year increase in utility bills. I wouldn't call that "measly". Unfortunately, alternatives just aren't efficient enough to be widely used.
