By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - EPA Withdrawing from Clean Power Plan

 

Should EPA withdraw from the CPP?

Yes, because I have no gr... 19 21.35%
 
No. 70 78.65%
 
Total:89
fatslob-:O said:
SpokenTruth said:

That's your counter?  That Earth will die off in 1 billion years anyway so why bother?  

There is so much wrong with this.  

It's not even meant to be a counter, it's just meant to point out the futility in even trying to stop industrialization. If the human race hasn't figured interstellar travel and interstellar colonization in the hundreds of millions of years available then our fate is to be cremated either way ... 

Why shouldn't we use up our fossil fuel reserves if it provides a stable way to progress to a better human race ? We should we deny the usage of these resources when it could come in handy to drive our consumption for biotechnology which could dramatically improve the intelligence of human race so that we can progress faster ... 

Think of it as a debt game where where we take out a loan from earth to invest in the human race where the hope lies in humans progressing civilization faster than earth's environment deteriorating so we can buy ourselves a new home or in this case a new planet before the inevitable end of our original planet ... 

But even if our gamble doesn't play out the risk in the long term is mitigated since the CO2 gets reabsorbed again and are deposited into sediments ... (Which one sounds better to you ? Making a desperate attempt to prevent the invetable future of our boiling oceans or explore terraforming/interstellar colonization ?)

What the?  This is even worse.

Your natural Earth death event will happen a billion years from now and you're claiming we won't invent interstellar travel before then unless we keep using coal.  A coal fired rocket won't even reach escape velocity.  Hell, we'll run out of coal long before we can travel to any star.  And we'll have destroyed our planet in the process.

I'm just amazed that you think we cannot develop intersellar travel without using coal and that we shouldn't care because Earth wil die in a billion years anyway.  Do you not realize that in a billion years we would not een be the same species of animal were are today?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:

Machiavellian said:

I am not sure if CPP effects Natural gas as much as it effect coal.  From what I have read the real impact of CPP has always been coal and probably why the Senator is in Kentucky preaching about this saving their jobs.  Even still, this only just prolong their jobs as more companies look to move away from Coal to Natural Gas which has all the benefits and less of the issues coal has.

Also way before the CPP and even the Obama Administration Coal was on the decline and jobs in that market was dropping as well.  Now that most mines are looking for automation it will be like the Automotive industry where machines will take care of those manual jobs.

The key issue here is if America isn't on the for front of renewable energy then we will still be in the same place buying our products from another country. 

I believe there is no empathy is because Coal is considered bad for the environment but also for the health of the people that do the work, for the people that breath in the air like children, drink the water that is contaminated with mercury or deal with the effect in the atmosphere.  If the coal industry want to keep rolling then they need to put more effort in converting their plants to the many clean coal solutions but instead they do not want to put any money into it instead they want to continue business as usual.   

Prolonging the jobs for as much as 2 decades is a benefit to the younger generation of these vulnerable communities who are trying to reach higher educational standards to be able to compete ... (if we risk cutting coal out altogether then we also risk taking away the only option for social mobility for some families) 

Not only are we sacrificing social mobility for some of these communities but we lose our only realistic potential to energy independence to the likes of Canada which can charge as high of an asking price they want ... (Renewables can't meet all of our demands. Hydro power is nearly tapped out and solar panel installations cost thousands of dollars per skilowatt which makes solar power inaccessable so the best bet is wind power or doubling down on nuclear power) 

But there is empathy to be had for coal miner in being able provide for their family, right ? (giving all the money to Canada doesn't help them either since that just means less money for the coal miner's family) 


This doesn't prolong any jobs since they are going away with automation just like other industries have gone that way as well.  This is only perserving invested money to people in power willing to go for the buck and forget anything else.  If you are so concerning about all this vulnerable communities and social mobility, why are you not avocating the Coal industry implement more clean coal solutions to combat its dangerous effect on those same people lives. I believe the reason why is that you pretty much do not care as long as it doesn't effect you.  

As for empthy for coal miners, I definitely have that.  My solution is the one already said in this thread.  Put money in retraining them into the green tech which is gaining a lot of traction and probably will be the path forward.  Why put money and effort into the coal industry for those miners when their jobs are already getting replaced by automation.  Train them to do something else and I am sure the nation would be more acceptable to that.  



Errorist76 said:

So you’re actually admitting you’re just self-centred, wasteful and ignorant. Not only you personally, but the way your whole country is acting atm. Thank you, that’s exactly the point I was trying to make, actually it’s exactly been the whole point of that thread!

F’in disgusting behaviour in all honesty.

”Humans will adapt, nothing lasts forever” Yeah, “it doesn’t matter if deserts grow bigger and bigger in Africa...as long as the people fleeing to Europe, not the states. We’re not taking people anyway, just causing havoc on the whole planet cause that’s what we do, That’s what we know best!”

Seriously, I’m a rather peaceful person usually but if I ever meat you in person remind me to give you a fat-slap!

So much anger emanating from you, LOL ... (keep getting irritated then)

And how can you be certain that we're the ones causing damage ? (The fact that you harbour so much ill intent for a random poster on the internet means that you were never peaceful, how can you claim yourself so if you're never open minded ?)

SpokenTruth said:

What the?  This is even worse.

Your natural Earth death event will happen a billion years from now and you're claiming we won't invent interstellar travel before then unless we keep using coal.  A coal fired rocket won't even reach escape velocity.  Hell, we'll run out of coal long before we can travel to any star.  And we'll have destroyed our planet in the process.

I'm just amazed that you think we cannot develop intersellar travel without using coal and that we shouldn't care because Earth wil die in a billion years anyway.  Do you not realize that in a billion years we would not een be the same species of animal were are today?

I'm just saying that coal should be our stepping stone and it has been for a long time. It is thanks to industrialization that our quality of life dramatically elevated because of our usage of fossil fuels ... 

I'm not purposing that we use coal to develop interstellar technologies (that's just preposterous of course) but are you proposing that we stunt the growth of poorer countries by putting limits one of the most easily accessible resources ? (You should at the very least have mercy on the poorer nations who can't possibly afford the infrastructure of renewable and battery technologies, no ?)  

I'm just saying we should use whatever tools necessary for the development of humanity and that we should have no limits barred on that ... 

I don't deny the very possibility we could develop interstellar travel without coal but how can you be so certain that we'll ruin our planet in the process before the sun does ? What's more is are you OK with making the human race poorer by forcing them to transition to the usage of renewable energy ? 

I don't understand why people are so bent up about fossil fuels vs renewables when I simply see both as nothing more than tools to be expended ... (you and the others should not deny the benefits of fossil fuels while ignoring drawbacks of renewable sources, that's just academically dishonest in an intellectual discussion) 

Machiavellian said:

This doesn't prolong any jobs since they are going away with automation just like other industries have gone that way as well.  This is only perserving invested money to people in power willing to go for the buck and forget anything else.  If you are so concerning about all this vulnerable communities and social mobility, why are you not avocating the Coal industry implement more clean coal solutions to combat its dangerous effect on those same people lives. I believe the reason why is that you pretty much do not care as long as it doesn't effect you.  

As for empthy for coal miners, I definitely have that.  My solution is the one already said in this thread.  Put money in retraining them into the green tech which is gaining a lot of traction and probably will be the path forward.  Why put money and effort into the coal industry for those miners when their jobs are already getting replaced by automation.  Train them to do something else and I am sure the nation would be more acceptable to that.  

Funnily enough it's the manufacturing and service sector that is most threatened by automation, not so much for resource extraction since automation is more underdeveloped in that sector. Miners are still going to persist for at least another decade or so before a reliable replacement comes in ... 

As far as mining investors making a buck that hasn't been true recently since they've been running thinner and thinner margins several years back to back. The ones making a buck are the actual larbourers themselves so the ones struggling are the brass ... 

Implementing more clean coal at a time where the coal industry is struggling to be profitable ? The industry already has to comply with EPA standards for mercury emissions ... (What more do you want ?) 

Miners aren't getting replaced by automation yet and the only renewable source of energy that could realistically meet american consumption is wind energy but that's still a big stretch ... (tapped out on hydro power and solar power has poor value/low output) 

We're going to have to increase our imports of natural gas and ramp up nuclear energy ... (I doubt we'll be able to train the vast majority of miners into operating nuclear power plants) 



fatslob-:O said:
SpokenTruth said:

What the?  This is even worse.

Your natural Earth death event will happen a billion years from now and you're claiming we won't invent interstellar travel before then unless we keep using coal.  A coal fired rocket won't even reach escape velocity.  Hell, we'll run out of coal long before we can travel to any star.  And we'll have destroyed our planet in the process.

I'm just amazed that you think we cannot develop intersellar travel without using coal and that we shouldn't care because Earth wil die in a billion years anyway.  Do you not realize that in a billion years we would not een be the same species of animal were are today?

I'm just saying that coal should be our stepping stone and it has been for a long time. It is thanks to industrialization that our quality of life dramatically elevated because of our usage of fossil fuels ... 

I'm not purposing that we use coal to develop interstellar technologies (that's just preposterous of course) (1) but are you proposing that we stunt the growth of poorer countries by putting limits one of the most easily accessible resources ? (You should at the very least have mercy on the poorer nations who can't possibly afford the infrastructure of renewable and battery technologies, no ?)  

I'm just saying we should use whatever tools necessary for the development of humanity and that we should have no limits barred on that ... 

I don't deny the very possibility we could develop interstellar travel without coal but (2) how can you be so certain that we'll ruin our planet in the process before the sun does ? (3) What's more is are you OK with making the human race poorer by forcing them to transition to the usage of renewable energy ? 

I don't understand why people are so bent up about fossil fuels vs renewables when I simply see both as nothing more than tools to be expended ... (you and the others should not deny the benefits of fossil fuels while ignoring drawbacks of renewable sources, that's just academically dishonest in an intellectual discussion) 

(1): Holy....you do realize that is the very purpose of the Paris Accord that Trump is making is pull out of?  It was to allow poorer nations to continue using coal while other nations transitioned to renewables.

(2): Have you not paid attention to any climatologist over the past 4-5 decades?  This planet does not stand a chance for survival if we continue our rate of coal usage and the hinderance to cleaner options. We will leave it a uninhabitable wasteland long before the sun uses up the last of its hydrogen and the helium starts fusing into carbon. At that point we have a red giant star with Earth inside it.  And we really won't have to wait that long.  The sun's luminosity will be 10% greater in 1 billion years than now and that will be enough to render Earth dead.

(3): Please provide proof that renewable energies make the human race poorer.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

(1): Holy....you do realize that is the very purpose of the Paris Accord that Trump is making is pull out of?  It was to allow poorer nations to continue using coal while other nations transitioned to renewables.

There's less potential for renewable energy in the US than you think ... (heck the US isn't even the biggest offender when it comes to emissions, China has 2x higher emission per energy consumption and compared to the US) 

Despite the fact that China has a higher portion of it's electricity generation come from renewables than the US, they have 2x higher emissions per generation so the US isn't doing all that bad ... (looking at absolute emissions isn't the best way to do a comparison, a better measure would be is how efficient each country is when consuming energy such as emissions vs kW/h) 

The US will have capitalized as much hydropower they can get their hands on which stands at 6.5% of their electricity generation. The only other source of renewable energy that has potential to meet capacity is wind energy which currently stands at 5.5% of electricity generation but even then you'd have to move to the middle of america to reap the most benefits ... (Solar power is fairly ignore worthy at this point)

How do you propose we can realistically make up our lost 30% of the power generation due to coal ?

SpokenTruth said:

(2): Have you not paid attention to any climatologist over the past 4-5 decades?  This planet does not stand a chance for survival if we continue our rate of coal usage and the hinderance to cleaner options. We will leave it a uninhabitable wasteland long before the sun uses up the last of its hydrogen and the helium starts fusing into carbon. At that point we have a red giant star with Earth inside it.  And we really won't have to wait that long.  The sun's luminosity will be 10% greater in 1 billion years than now and that will be enough to render Earth dead.

I have and they usually don't have anything conclusive to say ... 

The rest of what you said is nothing but alarmism. We're literally at no risk for a runaway greenhouse effect. This is even something Stephen Hawking, a renowned theoretical physicist got hilariously wrong

If we were at immediate risk of runaway global warming like we see with Venus today it would've happened long ago during the paleocene–eocene thermal maximum where CO2 concentrations were five times higher than it is today not too recently. To even trigger runaway global warming today, you'd at least need CO2 concentrations of above at least 10000 ppm (that's still not enough) and we don't even have enough fossil fuels reach that high either ... (I can see us reaching there if we burn every organic material including the last lifeform out there but even that's a stretch) 

There's a reason why life still existed before even with CO2 concentrations being 10x higher in the past ... 

There's almost no chance of us creating a wasteland before the sun does in a billion years ... (the wait is longer than you think) 

SpokenTruth said:

(3): Please provide proof that renewable energies make the human race poorer.

Easy, it's just one less resource that you're able to use for energy ... 



Around the Network

I saw "EPA" and it reminded me of something but couldn't figure out what... did a google search and found what I was looking for;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2mwalIv72o

... Sorry for being completely offtopic, just popped in to say that, lol. 



fatslob-:O said:
SpokenTruth said:

(1): Holy....you do realize that is the very purpose of the Paris Accord that Trump is making is pull out of?  It was to allow poorer nations to continue using coal while other nations transitioned to renewables.

There's less potential for renewable energy in the US than you think ... (heck the US isn't even the biggest offender when it comes to emissions, China has 2x higher emission per energy consumption and compared to the US) 

Despite the fact that China has a higher portion of it's electricity generation come from renewables than the US, they have 2x higher emissions per generation so the US isn't doing all that bad ... (looking at absolute emissions isn't the best way to do a comparison, a better measure would be is how efficient each country is when consuming energy such as emissions vs kW/h) 

The US will have capitalized as much hydropower they can get their hands on which stands at 6.5% of their electricity generation. The only other source of renewable energy that has potential to meet capacity is wind energy which currently stands at 5.5% of electricity generation but even then you'd have to move to the middle of america to reap the most benefits ... (Solar power is fairly ignore worthy at this point)

How do you propose we can realistically make up our lost 30% of the power generation due to coal ?

SpokenTruth said:

(2): Have you not paid attention to any climatologist over the past 4-5 decades?  This planet does not stand a chance for survival if we continue our rate of coal usage and the hinderance to cleaner options. We will leave it a uninhabitable wasteland long before the sun uses up the last of its hydrogen and the helium starts fusing into carbon. At that point we have a red giant star with Earth inside it.  And we really won't have to wait that long.  The sun's luminosity will be 10% greater in 1 billion years than now and that will be enough to render Earth dead.

I have and they usually don't have anything conclusive to say ... 

The rest of what you said is nothing but alarmism. We're literally at no risk for a runaway greenhouse effect. This is even something Stephen Hawking, a renowned theoretical physicist got hilariously wrong

If we were at immediate risk of runaway global warming like we see with Venus today it would've happened long ago during the paleocene–eocene thermal maximum where CO2 concentrations were five times higher than it is today not too recently. To even trigger runaway global warming today, you'd at least need CO2 concentrations of above at least 10000 ppm (that's still not enough) and we don't even have enough fossil fuels reach that high either ... (I can see us reaching there if we burn every organic material including the last lifeform out there but even that's a stretch) 

There's a reason why life still existed before even with CO2 concentrations being 10x higher in the past ... 

There's almost no chance of us creating a wasteland before the sun does in a billion years ... (the wait is longer than you think) 

SpokenTruth said:

(3): Please provide proof that renewable energies make the human race poorer.

Easy, it's just one less resource that you're able to use for energy ... 

(1): Why in the world are you using current usage figures to compare potential?  That's like saying your first job pays minum wage and that's all the income potential you'll ever have. 

(2): Not conclusive? Find me one reputable climatologist that says we should stick with coal forever and not use renewables.  Just one.  And you apparently don't understand astrophysics or what I wrote.  I said the runaway green house effect would be a result of the sun's luminosity increase 10% in ~1 billion years.  You even said that part yourself.   But a green house effect is not the only wasteland you can achieve.  Flood 50% of our population and crank the heat up a few more degrees to kill our oxygen producing algae and yeah, wasteland.

(3): That makes no sense at all.  Besides, coal is a finite resource.  You understand supply and demand, right?  How is it possible for a finite resource with growing demand to maintain price parity with an infinite resource that is getting cheaper and more efficicent every year?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:

(1): Why in the world are you using current usage figures to compare potential?  That's like saying your first job pays minum wage and that's all the income potential you'll ever have. 

I just listed out the reasons ... 

Reaping the most out of renewable energy requires following the geography of these sources of energy. The most populated parts of United states live in these coastal areas where wind or solar energy is not abundant ... 

It gets very cold in the east coast of US state's such as New York where solar energy gets dimmed down and there isn't a whole lot of wind power either. For the west coast such as California, their biggest renewable source of energy is hydropower which has very little potential left to capitalize on ...

I guess for the liberal residence of these states they should move to less glamorous states such as Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Texas if they want to save the planet so badly where those places are a haven for republicans LOL ... (liberals should pack up and take an L for once since they can't ever have leadership in renewable energy in their own states) 

SpokenTruth said:

(2): Not conclusive? Find me one reputable climatologist that says we should stick with coal forever and not use renewables.  Just one.  And you apparently don't understand astrophysics or what I wrote.  I said the runaway green house effect would be a result of the sun's luminosity increase 10% in ~1 billion years.  You even said that part yourself.   But a green house effect is not the only wasteland you can achieve.  Flood 50% of our population and crank the heat up a few more degrees to kill our oxygen producing algae and yeah, wasteland.

Do I have to when I showed you that using coal is not an immediate threat ? 

No, I'm willing to bet that the algae will be just fine if they could survive the Paleozoic and Mesozoic era where temperatures were very easily 10 degrees celsius higher in the past than it is today ... 

There's almost no chance of your proposed wasteland scenario happening for at least 200 million years or we could even sit out for the whole billion years where earth will be done for as far as being a habitable zone either way ... (before the increasing output in solar energy from the sun becomes a threat, most of the CO2 will have been consumed by organic life which then die in anaerobic environments where more dead organic life accumulates thus forming these sedimentary rocks such as limestones in less than 20 million years) 

I'd be surprised if we ever able to break the 1000 ppm barrier by ourselves ... (CO2 usually a retention tme of ~10 years in the atmosphere and of the 10 gigatons of CO2 produced by humans yearly, half of it gets consumed by the natural carbon cycle so in less than a 100 years we'd be able to return to pre-industrialization levels)

SpokenTruth said:

(3): That makes no sense at all.  Besides, coal is a finite resource.  You understand supply and demand, right?  How is it possible for a finite resource with growing demand to maintain price parity with an infinite resource that is getting cheaper and more efficicent every year?

Coal is finite but it is FAR more accessible than the likes of solar energy where you have to pay for expensive PV panels that usually have an MTBF of ~20 years so while you're just breaking even with solar energy, it costs almost nothing to burn coal ... 

Coal is far more valuable than solar because of accessibility, energy density and is not intermittent which makes it a nearly ideal storage of energy since nature has optimized that aspect of coal over over millions of years whereas you have to pay for expensive batteries to store the solar energy ... (I just listed 3 advantages in favour of coal compared to solar for you) 

The only renewable energy that can even compete with coal is hydropower (we've dammed every river we could get) and wind energy ... 



I would love wind energy to take over, but there are quite a bit of flaws with wind energy right now. The maintenance cost is so expensive it's ridiculous. Engineers need to come up with a more solid way to build turbines. The upfront cost is expensive too as well.