• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

War on coal casualties

Try as he may, I just don't see that happening.

Regardless of what he thinks. ;)
 
MikeD said:
He bought his way into a third term (which he lobbied to revert back to a two term limit during his third term) so why not heaven. LOL
Click to expand...

...because god is a Life-Member of the NRA... ;)

"Global Warming" (and Cooling) is cyclical. Sure, it is plausible that man and the industrial revolution may have raised the earth's temp a degree or so and that the current industrial boom may raise it another degree or so, but mark my words: we will be in another ice age in 1000 years! :D
 
Bobster said:
"Global Warming" (and Cooling) is cyclical. Sure, it is plausible that man and the industrial revolution may have raised the earth's temp a degree or so and that the current industrial boom may raise it another degree or so, but mark my words: we will be in another ice age in 1000 years! :D
Click to expand...
this is a fact. Anyone who likes to read and dosent like to believe everything they hear needs to read "The Deniers"....Subtitled "The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud,"
 
Obama and the head of the UN are getting stiffed for their UN Climate Summit to be held in NY. The leaders of Canada, Australia, Germany and China will not be attending. I guess they heard about the record ice levels.

It's not my joke so I don't want the credit but the article did note that attendance may be better if they would announce that Al Gore won't be speaking.
 
Obama doesn't want to know what I'd like him to do with the EPA.

Sideways.
 
I guess there was a time when things like the smoking gun emails quoted below would have made a difference. We have passed the tipping point where the government can do what it wants and they frankly don't care who knows. Nothing will happen. Just look at the IRS scandal, fast and furious, Benghazi and the EPA. Their own emails admit it's about implementing a progressive agenda. They are the new royalty and we are the new serfs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...es-part-progressive-agenda/?intcmp=latestnews

Emails between top Environmental Protection Agency officials reveal they saw their fight against global warming as putting them at “forefront of progressive national policy.”
“You are at the forefront of progressive national policy on one of the critical issues of our time. Do you realize that?” former EPA chief Lisa Jackson asked former EPA policy office head Lisa Heinzerling in a Feb. 27, 2009 email.
“You’re a good boss. I do realize that. I pinch myself all the time,” Heinzerling replied that same day to Jackson, who was using an alias email account under the fake name “Richard Windsor.”
These emails, which were part of a batch obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, show what top EPA officials were thinking as the agency prepared to release its greenhouse gas endangerment finding. which would give the agency the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipes and, eventually, from power plants.
“This is not about climate,” CEI senior fellow Chris Horner told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “This is the progressive agenda.”
“Our laws don’t always shine to being used as pretenses for ideological agendas; this is plainly in the name of climate, but Obama has said it is to finally make renewables profitable,” Horner added.
Indeed, EPA rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have little to no impact on global warming since developing countries, like China and India, will continue emitting, thus negating any actions taken in the U.S.
President Barack Obama and the EPA have also sold recent greenhouse gas emission limits on power plants as being necessary to promote green energy and essential for social justice.
“The great thing about this proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity,” current EPA chief Gina McCarthy told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in July. ”This is not about pollution control.”
“It’s about increased efficiency at our plants. It’s about investment in renewables and clean energy,” she added. “It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.”
“Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice,” McCarthy told environmentalists on a phone conference in August. “If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.”
Heinzerling played an integral role in convincing the Supreme Court in 2007, which said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions if they represent a threat to public health and welfare. The EPA made this determination less than one year after Obama took office.
“Our auto task force subgroup meeting went very well. The purpose of the meeting was to hear from EPA and DOT [Department of Transportation] on our plans for mobile sources,” Heinzerling wrote to Jackson on Feb. 27, 2009 — about 10 months before the EPA released its endangerment finding.
The first source the EPA sought to regulate was greenhouse gases from vehicle tailpipe emissions, a rule which was finalized in May 2010 and forced light-duty vehicles to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In November 2011, the EPA clamped down on emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
In 2012, the Obama administration unveiled even stricter greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles.
Apparently, these mobile source rules were only the beginning of a “progressive national policy” by the Obama administration. But Heinzerling would not be in the administration to help see it through, as she left the EPA in at the end of 2010 to return to Georgetown University as a law professor, according to Politico.
After emissions from mobile sources were regulated, they began to focus on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, especially power plants. In 2013, the EPA issued its first-ever greenhouse gas emissions rules for new power plants. The rules have been criticized for harming the coal industry.
The EPA’s new power plant rule sets greenhouse gas emissions limits so low that even the most efficient coal-fired power plant cannot meet the standard on its own. To come into compliance, new coal plants would have to install carbon capture and storage technology, but such equipment is not a commercially proven technology.
This past summer, the EPA doubled down on its power plant regulating binge and proposed greenhouse gas emissions limits for power plants already in operation. The rule has been extremely controversial, with opponents saying it will raise electricity prices and force more power plants to shut down.
“The EPA’s war on coal has troubling economic implications for every American and U.S. business,” wrote Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Mike Kelly in The Wall Street Journal. “As the new regulations take effect, Americans could see their electric bills increase annually by more than 10 percent — $150 for the average consumer — by the end of the decade.”
Environmentalists and the Obama administration say the rules will improve public health and prove the U.S. is serious about fighting global warming.
Click to expand...
 
Makes me want to rush out and cut the catylictic convertor off of my truck.
 
John A. said:
Makes me want to rush out and cut the catylictic convertor off of my truck.
Click to expand...
I wonder if they still sell "test pipes" for replacing them? We used to put them on everything until they started emissions testing.


“It’s about increased efficiency at our plants. It’s about investment in renewables and clean energy,” she added. “It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.”
“Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice,” McCarthy told environmentalists on a phone conference in August. “If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.”

What a load of horse crap. I don't know what she's smoking but my guess is that it's only legal in a few states. Everything they do drives the price of electricity up. They proclaim they are for the little guy. How does that help the little guy? It's an issue of justice?...she needs to get away from the colleges, think tanks and federal government for a few years and get a clue. As usual, what they say and reality are polar opposites.
 
There was a decent 30 minute segment on fox news that was filmed in majority in Harlan KY. Here is a 5 minute excerpt, however, I agree with many of the people who were interviewed in the segment that is not shown in this short clip.

 
I wanted to show some of you folks who've never been around mining some of the equipment and processes of mining while it was in operation. This video was done near my home.

One of the machines is what are known as continuous miners. They are controlled by a remote at the end of long cables.

One of the other machines are known as a scoop, which obviously scoops up the freshly mined coal.

And one of the other machines shown is a roof bolter. It is arguably the most dangerous job in the mines due to having to work beneath of unsupported (unbolted) roof.

Just for the record, this mine (or at least one of the old portions) have seen as many as 7 men killed simultaneously.

 
WASHINGTON – The energy industry and coal-producing states are projecting a wave of power plant closures in the final two years of the Obama administration as Environmental Protection Agency regulations take hold.
The goal of the agency's campaign is to cut down on carbon pollution. However, industry groups and agencies say the EPA’s demands are simply too difficult to meet and will lead to powering down many facilities -- eliminating hundreds of jobs and hurting cash-strapped state economies.

“It’s a game we can’t win,” Alan Minier, chairman of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, told FoxNews.com.
The number of projected closures has steadily risen. Though estimates vary, according to the Institute for Energy Research a total of 37 states including Wyoming are seeing closures. The group lists nearly 170 plants that have closed or are closing, or are being converted to other purposes.
IER cites a handful of existing EPA regulations, as well as a major proposal to cut emissions from existing power plants. That calls for cutting emissions nationally by 30 percent of 2005 levels by 2030. The plan assumes emissions can be curbed through remedial action in four general areas: improved efficiency of coal plants, enhanced energy conservation measures, increased natural gas and renewable power generation.
But industry groups say in many cases, it's too heavy a lift. And they say not only jobs, but the nation's power supply will suffer.
The Institute for Energy Research, in its latest report, predicts more than 72 gigawatts of "electrical generating capacity" are going offline. “To put 72 GW in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes – or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas,” IER report says.
The EPA has received hundreds of thousands of comments on the proposal as it pushes to finalize the rules.
The agency calls it a "commonsense plan" that will tackle the health and economic risks of climate change, including avoiding thousands of premature deaths.
But as the agency claims to be giving states flexibility, those trying to meet the new eco-friendly rules say they are up against unrealistic standards.
In Wyoming, for example, four coal-fired power plants are set to be prematurely shuttered because they fall short of the requirements imposed by the Obama administration to curb carbon emissions.
Minier, who wrote a Nov. 21 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, believes the federal proposal overestimates utilities’ ability to improve the efficiency of their coal-fired power plants, overstates the potential growth of renewable power and makes incorrect calculations concerning Wyoming’s natural gas generation.
“I’m trying not to sound alarmist, but it seems to me the scale at which this would affect us, because we are exporters of electricity and coal, I think it will impact our economy in a materially adverse way,” Minier said in a recent interview with the Casper Star-Tribune.
In August, the Government Accountability Office estimated the number of coal-fired power plants that will close by 2025. The GAO, a watchdog agency, had initially estimated that 2 percent to 12 percent of U.S. coal capacity would retire, but the August estimates have it even higher at 13 percent.
“This level of retirements is significantly more retirements than have occurred in the past,” the GAO said.
Other estimates say the proposed carbon rules could close “hundreds” of plants.
States have until June 30, 2016 to come up with a plan to meet and implement the changes.
The problem, at least in states like Wyoming, is the EPA requirements may be too ambitious. Wyoming isn’t going to fall short in one area, Minier told FoxNews.com -- the state will fail all four.
The GAO’s report reinforced concerns many Republicans have that the EPA’s rules are closing down plants. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, this week urged McCarthy to scrap the "outrageous" power plant proposal.
The EPA argues that efficiency improvements will pay for themselves in terms of fuel costs and other health and environmental benefits.
While Wyoming has a tough climb to meet the standards, its neighbors are no better off.
Colorado and South Dakota need to cut carbon emissions by 35 percent, Utah by 27 percent, and Montana by 21 percent -- while Idaho faces a 33 percent reduction.
But the Obama administration still has plenty of defenders in its regulatory push.
Dean Baker, a D.C.-based economist and the co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says shutting down coal plants could be good for not only the environment but also the economy.
Baker told Think Progress that clean alternatives to coal – not just natural gas but wind and solar – are competitive, so switches should come with minimal economic hassle. He also believes that renewables can work in tandem with natural gas to make the transition smoother. Indeed, some of the plants on IER's closure list are converting to natural gas.
Click to expand...
 
Mike, I'm not one to wish harm on anyone. I'll say that up front so please don't misinterpret what I'm about to say next as a wish for harm to come to anyone because it isn't, though it is likely to happen.

But I hope I'm around when they start pulling plugs on all of those coal fired power plants when they realize the other electricity producers are not enough to keep up with demand and it causes too much stress on the grid.

The grid will start toppling like it did back a few years ago with the blackouts from Ohio all the way up into the Northeast and Canada.

It will start with random rolling blackouts, then it will go dark and may stay that way for a long term.

Aside from living in coal country, remember that I was a lineman for the biggest part of my adult life and I've had numerous conversations with some really smart engineers and even many of them will admit in private they don't know what is keeping it on now. Let alone when you cut a HUGE amount of the supply and you have to start making changes in sources and directional and even jurisdictional changes, it can be bad.

But what do I know? I'm just a dumb broke down old guy sitting behind a keyboard.
 
http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headl...notice-from-Harlan-County-mine-288453211.html

More than 90 miners receive WARN notice from Harlan County mine
Posted: Tue 4:39 PM, Jan 13, 2015

Harlan County, Kentucky (WYMT) - More than 90 coal miners in Harlan County will soon head to the unemployment line.
In a letter to workers, JAD Coal Company officials announced the closing of mines in the Coldiron community.

They cite unforeseeable business circumstances as a reason for the mine closing.

A letter sent to us by a miner states employees will lose their jobs on or about January 23rd and will be permanent.
We tried to contact JAD Coal Company officials, but we have not heard back.
 
Yeah, another nail in the coffin.

And I was hoping that with the Republican takeover of the congress and the house that things would be starting in a slightly different direction.

Granted that the new session has just started, I haven't given up hope, but this still pisses me off.
 
Sorry to read your earlier post on the layoffs John. It seems like the only union that is attacked are the miners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top