More solar, more nat gas, less coal, less nukes! I can't believe I'm a conservative agruing this! :<)

"Harnessing energy from gravity"? You mean all those videos of 'perpetual motion machines' on YouYube? Riiiight! Let us know when you get it working!

Tidal energy alone could be used o provide a cheap non-polluting 35-40% of our electrical needs....

I'm glad we're dumping our coal fired plants.............the Chinese will pick up the slack though, and our coal companies here, can feed the Yellow Horde all the black rock they can consume. We all breathe the same air.

As for nuclear? Bring it on! As of now, Solar is a waste and so is Wind. Its only good use is standby when loads are up.

Right on, Ruken. More nuclear power plants is exactly what this country needs. Its relatively clean and cheap and very effective. Sure, when something goes disastrously wrong it's... well, a disaster. But honestly, American nuclear facilities have so many safety protocols, the odds are extremely low.

DP, I get the feeling you're trying to be really big and smart... and maybe you're right, those little toy sterling engine designs might get a breakthrough some day. Breakthroughs happen. But we have to operate on what we're given right now. And right now, coal is a vastly available resource and therefore cheap. So we'll use it. Nuclear power is also relatively cheap and efficient. So we'll use that too (unless environmentalists block the effort). When this "breakthrough" you predict comes true, then we'll talk.

And by the way, I'm an engineer.

"Right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be able to put into our skies -- and the health and economic threats of a changing climate continue to grow," Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a statement.

Thats and ignorant bald-faced lie!!

Lizard, you do realize that much of our country is landlocked don't you? Think man; do you actually believe that environmental groups are going to allow anyone to turn all of our tidal wetlands (which is where you would have to dredge and build massive jeddie systems and turbines) into electric generators?

30-45% huh? Wow gotta wonder where some of you pull your #'s out of.

DP, you're embarassing yourself, but it is commical. So lets hear some more.

P.S.

Personally I believe nuclear electric energy is where we should be heading, but I'm not gonna pretend (like many posting today) that Obama is giving it anything more than lip-service. I also think there is to much ignorance surrounding the safety of the plants to allow any to be built soon. I mean, we haven't built one in over 30 years because some stupid 70's hollywood movie (China Syndrome) scared the political will out of everyone. Unfortunate!

Thats and ignorant bald-faced lie

Ah, the dangers of indignant posting without spell checking, I know them well.

Should have checked your facts, too, Tod. Until today's announcement, the EPA has NOT been regulating the amount of carbon emissions power plants put out. They are only doing it now because of a June 20, 2011 SCOTUS decision forcing them to.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf

Have to agree about the tidal generators, though. And solar and wind are awesome, but they only are working while the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Nuclear may be the only way to go, in the end. Until then, cleaning up the amount of carbon US plants are putting in the air is a good idea.

Given all the wheezy people who won't be clogging up the ER, it may even be a money-saver, who knows.

While everybody appreciates relatively clean air quality (perfection is impossible unless all animal forms, including humans, stop breathing out carbon dioxide), I don't see any complaints about these new rules increasing the cost of energy on our 'poor and elderly' by as much as 30%.

One other point - Do people realize that all coal plant pollution from the East Coast blows out to the Atlantic Ocean within hours? By the way - California gets it's air off the Pacific from China, which is building a new coal fired plant every week. China loves that cheap coal energy, so they can maintain their cost advantage over American companies.

The intelligent really have no need to label others "stupid". The proof is constantly evident.

There will always be those who do not understand the facts. I can accept that. What I cannot accept are people who purposely ignore logic and reason while simultaneously attempting to convince others to accept, as truth, evidence free myths from the dark ages.

The problem with nuclear power is there is no way to safely dispose of the spent fuel. It will stay hazardous for thousands of years after use

I am concerned about that too, TNR. But over the last few years, oil producers have been going back to old played out fields and getting more oil out of them with new techniques. I'm wondering if what actually happens with all those spent-but-still-radioactive fuel rods is that they end up being recycled when new technology develops. It wouldn't surprise me.

Sorry, DK. but bald-faced is a word. unless you are upset because I forgot the ' on that's.

I'm not at all concerned about Carbon emmisions (Carcon dioxide that is) from power plants because it is a bald-faced lie that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant. Carbon monoxide (which is a pollutant) has been regulated since the clean air act in the 90's as well as Sulphur Dioxide the most concerning gas given off by coal plants.

I am in no way against continued regulations that are aimed at keeping our air clean (I happened to have been around in the 60 and 70's when it was not), but I am not fooled by those who have an irrational hatred of anything fossil fuels. Often times they are the same ignorami (I probably made that one up) who suggest we grow corn, algea, or soy (using millions of gallons in fossil fuels to farm and process) to turn into fuels for burning and producing the same "Carbon" footprint as the fossil fuels they are so against.

(March 27, 2020) "Dad, is it true that power cost only $0.17/kwh in 2012?"

"Yes son, it did."

"Then why does it cost $0.80/kwh now?"

"Well, the government thought it would be great to "go green" so they closed all of the coal power plants and cut off about 1/4 of our power supplies. They didn't have a way to produce the lost power so the costs tripled in about 2 years- because some power plants were closing, while the remaining ones tried to make the required upgrades that the government wanted. The other power providers tried to keep up with the drop off of power, but they had to cover a much larger grid and overworked their plants which then would break down and require more shut down maintenance. They then had to raise prices some more to keep up with their equipment costs."

"Wow, that's really bad."

"Remember the brownouts of 2016 when July was really hot and thousands died because they couldn't run their air conditioners? That was because about 40 states had 100 degree weather and the remaining power plants just couldn't keep up. That was when the federal government made "cyclical brownouts" forcing groups of states to loose power for a day while others had a chance to cool down."

"Why didn't the government build more power plants?"

"They don't do that. They just regulate the businesses that produce power."

"Didn't they make the businesses build more power plants."

"No. The government got caught up in creating new regulations and wouldn't allow more permits to be given out, so all of the new power plants fell further and further behind schedule. That's why we pay so much now. So, the sun's gone down and it's 8PM- you'd better turn off that light and get some sleep. We need to conserve energy you know."

Since it seems like so many people are against this, can someone please just explain one thing to me:

"This rule is part of the Obama administration's aggressive plan to change America's energy portfolio and eliminate coal as a source of affordable, reliable electricity generation,"

Why is it when US factories release pollution into the environment it's considered "a source of affordable, reliable electricity generation", but when China does it it's the most dispicable evil thing going on in the world?

The EPA should be put out of business and environmental groups should not have this much power either. We don't elect them (EPA) and they are doing their best to put out of business avenues that bring us inexpensive energy. Let's see how wonderful clean air will be when seniors or children freeze to death or die of heat stroke because they can no longer afford the energy. China is spewing out tons of carbon dioxide and it won't make a bit of difference if the U.S. closes coal plants. We all know that Obama is not an America lover. He shows a total disregard for the American people even though he says otherwise all the time. His policies will create poverty as more and more people will not be able to afford gas, electricity or heat. Or food for that matter because higher gas prices mean higher food prices too.

aah that sleepy d on the end of an, such a dummy I be.

Just so all of you are aware 50% of our electrical grid is supported by coal fired power. In saying this you do realize that while solar and wind energy is a excellent concept it is unreliable at this point. Natural Gas and Nucelar are more logical means of supporting our power grid but it comes at a huge cost to the consumer. I have worked in a coal fired plant for about 12 years now and we are now feeling the effects of the Obama regime. Coal fired power plants are a nessacary evil as much as we like to think they are not. Our gird has a base load and in order to maintain this base load we have to have a steady fuel source to produce this power. That power comes from coal that is burned in a boiler to produce steam that spins a turbine that turns a generator at 3600 RPM to produce the power needed by the grid. The US has an abundant supply so why not find ways to use it cleanly and keep our energy cost down. Natural Gas still produces carbon dioxide people just a bit cleaner than coal. There is many means of producing clean energy with coal but do not have the support from our government to use it. Its media sensalization as usual! What would you rather had old coal fired plant that continue to have to be updated or new cleaner burning plants that produce clean electricty and create good paying jobs. Good luck with Solar and Wind your gonna have to do without

If we don't get rid of that idiot president and his cronies we will wind up a third world country ruled by Obama.

Yeah, more solar my fanny. You think the people living in the NW US will go for that?

The EPA tells you what they and the government want you to believe. Remember, they are the same department that swore the dust cloud on 9/11 was safe. Tell that to the people who are now getting seriously ill from exposure.

look, nothing is going to happen in our lifetime so make as much money as you can and pollute the water and land and air as much as you like because it will take thousands of years to finally put the last nail in the coffin and to late to change anything. keep up the good work

Obama will not stop until every person is out of work. If he fully understood how coal plants function today he would see they do not harm anyone. With layoffs coming from most coal plants many people will be left without jobs. Without a job who the hell care's about the energy. Homeless people can't pay bills. First, the car industry is practically wiped out and now the coal plants. What next, toy stores, Food Stores. Maybe Romney should take over. With the MA Coal plant possibly going under, Romney might step in and save it. He constantly uses MA as the state he put on the right track. hmmmm

If $5 dollar for a gallon of gas will not destroy the economy then the only solution is to attack the companies that generate electricity. Once the economy is destroyed everything will look differently to the starving masses.

Any one saying solar is a waste is completely small minded and IGNORANT!

The key to solar is breaking down the centralized grid. Instead of US tax dollars going to subsidize giant money sucking energy Corporations. Subsidize the installation of the new solar panels on homes and businesses. You eliminate the energy loss thru transmission and cut into the pull on the centralized grid massively. Combine this with investment in conservation measures within American housing and the Energy savings are MASSIVE.

The problem is NO GIANT CORPORATION gets OUR MONEY!!! There for the GOP will never let it happen!

Nuke's...are you kidding!! What do we do when there are more spent fule rods than places to keep them?? Huh?

?? Tod, I was actually referring to the fact that you not only wrote "thats" without an apostrophe, but also wrote "a" as "and", in a sentence where you were referring to the head of the EPA as ignorant. No big deal. It's just Muphry's law, that's all, it's happened to me, too. Probably in this very post.

I don't see how Lisa Jackson can be both ignorant and a bald-faced liar though. As a chemical engineer, she no doubt is aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; beneficial up to a point, but a pollutant in excess, due to the fact that it can cause excessive global warming. You may not think that human activity can generate enough CO2 for such warming to be an issue. Evidently the SCOTUS disagrees with you. Given that the Supreme Court has directed the EPA to act on this issue, and that the scientific community pretty much concurs that this is a problem, it would seem that these regulations are a prudent step to take.

I am with you though, about trying to generate power through crops, unless they are biowaste, products of some already-grown food crop. Even then, the coasts of trucking such waste to a biowaste facility seem like they'd be high. Ethanol seems like a total scam to me for this very reason.

Look up Thorium powered LFTR reactors. Instead of making lots of waste, they BURN it as fuel. No risk of steam explosion. FAR SAFER AND MORE EFFICIENT!! Really, there is not excuse not to develop this as our primary means of energy production. Anything less is irresponsible.

The problem, no lobby. No one paid to spread the word. No research on this for 50 years. (Except the Chinese who are working on getting it as we speak.

Seriously, if you did your research, you would see that traditional nuclear is very limited compared to this new old tech that we never did bother to do anything with.

Stop whining about other stuff until you do some looking around at Thorium first.

This is all a way for the government to get more control over everyone's lives when not really acomplishing anything. For all you man made global warming greenies, 2 years ago was the warmest summer since the 1500's in Russia, for those that cant add or subtract that is over 500 years that russia has been coooler and just now warming to where it used to be. there have been multiple Ice Ages and it is cyclical, right now the temperature is overall warmer than in short recent times, not only onn earth but on the other planets also (Mars in particular) based on NASA's "BEST" estimates, Europe suffered from a "Little Ice Age" in the 1600's leading to crop failures, which also led to the 'plague' only now are we reaching temperatures equivilant to the period b4 this event, If we were in all time record highs from global warming, there would not still be record highs on the books from the 1960's and before they would all be from the last 10- 15 years. For those of you that want to talk about the glaciers melting, well yes while it is true SOME are melting there are many others that have been growing, even the Antartic ice pack has been growing at a fast pace, The earth changes regularly and to think man has ultimate control over natur is to be beyond concieted, much of the southwest US used to be forest and is now desert, much of the sahara desert also used to contain grasslands and forests, the land mass under Antartica and also under the coldest parts of siberia used to have grasslands and forests and animals that roamed the lands, where as they no longer can from the frozen tundra, should we maybe be worried instead that it has gotten to cold to support life in these area's instead of worrying about the warming that will in time cool again? As far as CO2 goes, CO2 also goes inn cycles based on the seasons, durin g spring and summer levels of CO2 drop due to increase in plant and tree growth and durring fall and winter they rise due to these same plants going dormant, Factors that are BEYOND MANS CONTROL are the Sun and its activity of solar storms and flares as well as the earths orbit that does vary in distance from the sun not only through the year but over centuries it does move, the size of the orbit varying slightly. Quit thinking in the short term as so many f you seem to only e capeable of doing and look back into history to find that this is not a new event!!

@ Tod the toady I didn't pull the figures out of thin air they came from the MAJOR corporation working on tidal energy generation plants right now..... I will leave it at "learn to use Google before making a fool of yourself..."

You do also realize power can be transmitted over long distances in our power grid right?

Also have you ever checked into the boiling point of propane? Using temperature differentials in seawater alone could generate as much more electricity as tidal motion and tidal motion doesn't require turbines you dolt...

Some years ago, when I was doing environmental activist work, I had to deal with the EPA. It was a depressing observation of that agency that is big, willful and frankly stupid. If the law said to jump over a cliff, they would never question that advise and instead be a big thorn in the side of both business and the general public.

On a smaller scale, I have also had to personally deal with environmental agencies at the local level. Let me give an example of the mess they created. We had a marshy area on our property. A small trout stream ran through out property that we wanted to harness to build a pond that at that time the DNR was funding with state dollars. We were told no. The reason being is that that trout stream to be classified as such needs to stay at a certain temp. So the release from our pond might make that stream warmer. I personally spent a lot of time studying other trout stream, temp, etc. So we decided on a release from the bottom of the pond which in fact would release water cooler than it was coming in. Keep in mind that stream wander and warm up from the stream head. That was our case. So here we were willing to spend extra money to ensure we did not damage the trout stream and the answer was still NO. The reason being this time was because the DNR did not have the funds to do a study on that particular project and thus had to say no. So my findings weren't enough. Eventually having the Corps of Engineering and the DNR, one person let it slip that if the pond was built near the stream and somehow the stream became part of the pond due to a storm, there would be nothing they could do to prevent the building of the pond. So we built the pond a few inches from the stream and the first rainstorm the pond wall broke and in came the stream. So all that bureaucratic nonsense for nothing. Government just likes to hear their own voice and they think they are important.

BTW, they made the pond project so difficult nobody else qualified and the ponds didn't get built. Our pond was successful and is still there today.

GOVERNMENT = DOPES.

I use to build solar homes in the 70's and that worked out real great, I wish these enviromentalist would go find another planet to live on if they dont like the way we do things to produce our power , if they had their ways they would outlaw autos, and electric and we would go back to living the way our ancestors did in the 1700's. If you feel yor must go green bend over and stick a tree up your a...... People like Gore are hyprocites , they fly around in jets and ride around in large suvs , what a bunch of two faced tirds. And as for Oil I hope the bottoms drops out of it and they have to beg people to buy gas.

Well, tidal energy generators are interesting, but surely limited in their utility.The 20 MW for one fence at a cost of $1.3 million in 2002 dollars mentioned in the below article, for instance, would not go far in powering San Franciso's peak power demand of more than 950 MW.

http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2002/09_October/tidal_energy.htm

And what would be the environmental cost to having the whole bay lined with these turbines? Gefilte fish, anyone? This is a technology with a long way to go.

Sorry, Tod-2791955, the phrase is "bold faced lie", not "bald faced lie"

Using "bald faced" makes no sense.

If global warming is so urgent, are all proponents ready to give up a LOT of your electronic goodies?

I'd be curious how many people waiting in line to get a new iPad to further drain the grid would bypass in order to save the planet. Probably not.

Until proponents of drastic climate change policy quit buying more stuff that uses electricity - CARS, gadgets, etc.- they prove that urgency really isn't there.

Put your gadgetry where your mouth is.

Secondly, if we move to shut down coal plants that's fine, BUT don't you think we should have viable energy already available AND ONLINE before we pull the plug on the source of 40% of our power?

Moving away from coal plants requires a transition. Everyone's excited about energy of the "past" or the "future" but there's almost no intelligent discussion about what to do in the meantime, in between time. None of the alternative energy sources are viable because they are extremely expensive and inaccessible to most people (who's got $25k to spend on solar for home?) at present.

People need to use their heads and quit arguing from emotions. We're on the verge of shooting our nose to spite our opponents. The dialogue usually borders on the ridiculous.

Here's an idea - Harness the useless energy being used by people making posts about things they know nothing about.

It would go a long ways towards solving our energy problems.

oy, I don't see how the extent of anyone's hypocrisy has any relevance to the reality of scientific findings.

And we don't have to give up all of our electronic gadgets to get the problem under control. A little restraint would be helpful, but that is always the case.

"I am concerned about that too, TNR. But over the last few years, oil producers have been going back to old played out fields and getting more oil out of them with new techniques. I'm wondering if what actually happens with all those spent-but-still-radioactive fuel rods is that they end up being recycled when new technology develops. It wouldn't surprise me. "

Already done. They figured this out over 20 years ago, it's called the thorium fuel cycle. Generation IV MSR / LFTRs run off the thorium cycle which consumes 99% of the nuclear fuel and leaves less then 1% of it as waste. Current Generation I / II PWR/LPWR's use the uranium fuel cycle which only consumes 2~5% of the fuel mass and leaves the rest behind as actinides and useless radioactive waste material. You could try to reprocess it with breeder reactors like they do in Europe, but that's expensive and not efficient with the uranium cycle. Breeder reactors are illegal in the USA due to non-proliferation laws. It's a red-tape restriction.

The only issue with the Thorium cycle is that it requires better technology to build the reactors, 40~50 years ago when all our current nukes were designed (not kidding, all current Gen I / II reactors are from 40+ year old technology) there simply wasn't good enough control systems and metallurgy for the allows required on a LFTR reactors. Now that's a different story and India / China / Japan and several European countries are developing them. The NRC and EPA have combined efforts to stop and prevent any development of any Generation IV plants in the USA. It's about politicss.

DRk - you have the most inquisitive questions.

Fuel Rods are radioactive isotopes that take hundreds of years to degrade.

The reason those oil fields have become rich again is because petroleum we have been scientifically mislead as to what petroleum really is.

Science has said for years that petroleum, coal, and natural gas are all derived from the remains of plants and animals. Yet, the closest living thing that can be easily changed into a synthetic petroleum is an algae found in the ocean. To get petroleum from this algae requires a great amount of heat and pressure.

You may remember that even in recent history that dinasaurs and other creatures are found preserved in huge tar pits. They weren't cold, they were hot, from geothermal activity. I.E. the tar was coming from well below the surface of the earth.

What you have is an ever renewing energy supply that we don't have any idea how much there is, and how much is being produced every day. All you need is a supply of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulfure, bromine, nitrogen, bromide, high pressure and a high heat. It doesn't require plants or animals to exist. Once converted the pressure forces the product up throught layers cools on the way up finding sands and voids to fill.

I.E. we have a continuous replenishment of petroleum at a rate we cannot determine from a source that we do not have any idea of how big it really is.

Well, as far as the fuel rods go, that's what I'm saying; previously, tar sands (for instance) were not worth the time, money, environmental damage and energy it takes to extract oil from them. Now they are. 'Cause now oil is over $100 a barrel. Fuel rods are more radioactive after going through the power plant than they are to start, in terms of harm to humans. But that means they hold a ton of energy! Surely we are going to want to harness that energy somehow. I'm just saying, when we bury those things, let's be sure to remember where we put them. Because I bet we are going to want to dig them up again and use them at some point.

No, Mark, Tod is correct in his usage (except that I don't agree with him that the EPA chief was actually telling a baldfaced lie, of course. But that's another question entirely). Bald-faced because it is just brazenly out there, unshielded by masks or whiskers or anything. You hear it sometimes as bare-faced, also, especially in Great Britain. Bold-faced is used as well, but it is a slightly later form. All three forms are OK.

You know what? Linguistics are more fun than power sources.

How about we round up all the progressive environmentalists riding their bicycles in traffic and put them in a warehouse with their rear wheels replaced with generators.

I'll bet all together they could generate as much electricity as one medium sized coal fired plant, and as an added bonus, they won't be screwing up traffic!

For those of u who want to put an end to the E.P.A. check out some of the pictures from CHINA the air in there major city's is so bad the are dying by the hundreds yea they have cheap energy but they cant breath the air.

Great news! Bring on the nuclear energy!

For all those concerned about disposal of spent fuel, check out "deep sea sequestration". Brilliant fix, but blocked politically so contractors could benefit from the billion dollar debacle called Yucca Mountain.

As a person who has actually studied climate change, I can tell you that nuclear is the ONLY viable option we have right now to replace coal. We need more reactors to be built, asap, and more uranium to be mined. Ending our dependence on coal is vital to avoid hot-house Earth conditions. Coal fired power plants spew enough naturally occurring uranium into the atmosphere each year to fuel all 104 of our reactors! And that isn't regulated at all.

Two new nuclear reactors have recently been approved for construction in Georgia. These will be the first to be built in the nation since the 1979 3 mile island incident. Cause to celebrate!

And for those who don't like the idea of nuclear for the long term, google "Enhanced Geothermal". The wave of the future! But the technology is still evolving and so in the interim, we must rely on nuclear to take up the slack left by aging, out-dated, inefficient, polluting (YES polluting - all those people with "black lung" from working with coal can verify that it is INDEED a pollutant) and dangerous coal fired plants.

Please read "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens if you have doubts or mis-understanding about nuclear power.

There is no excuse to be a willfully ignorant climate change denier, or an uninformed hysterical fearful anti-nuclear energy activist. Education education education! And not from political pundits, talking heads, politicians, radio shock jocks - go to the scientists directly. Listen to the experts in their fields, whether they are nuclear scientists or climate scientists. They are the EXPERTS. You wouldn't go to a mechanic to get a heart transplant, so why go to Rush Limbaugh or Al Gore for your climate science information? It's insane. Seriously people, wake up!

Thanks DRK (and I will try and slow down from now on).

I'm not on board with many of you who are worried about spent fuel rods (some of you act like we've got mountains of the stuff). Most of the material is no more harmful than the dirt in the crawlspae under your house. A very small percentage is dangerous and needs to be diposed of very carefully. There are also new techniques (Thorium is mentioned above) which either involve no radioactive waste, or recycling. But like I said before, no one has the political will to seriously push the issue (The Japanese sunami did'nt help).

Lizard Logic:

You do also realize power can be transmitted over long distances in our power grid right?

Also have you ever checked into the boiling point of propane? Using temperature differentials in seawater alone could generate as much more electricity as tidal motion and tidal motion doesn't require turbines you dolt...

I am going to try and make this real simple Einstein:

1) The most efficient way to make electricity is locally. Electricity flowing over wires encounters resistance (loss). Windfarms in the northern midwest are largely inactive due to the fact that there is not enough local need. A tidal generator in any coastal region will be local, period!! And personally I would rather have oil rigs off my coast than the insane idea of digging up every wetland bay to facilitate tidal generating Turbine fences.

2) Unless you are using solar panels to make electricity, you need to spin something (even some forms of solar farms create steam to spin a turbine). Wind, hydro-electric, geo-thermal, fossil fuels and yes even tidal, ocean current and temperature gradient generators require spinning turbines. In the case of tidal multiple large turbine rigged fences are required. Lets call them nets, fish and animal killing nets that also impede tidal flow (another environmental nightmare). So let me make this clear: It aint gonna happen!!

3) Anyone who has a barbeque knows the benefits of propane (ideal boiling points and atmospheric pressure allowing liquid strorage and gas useage). So what!!

Scitech, I'm with you on our nuclear need, and I wish we did not have to burn fossil fuels to create electricity, but your statement: "They are the EXPERTS". I have to disagree with. Actual climate scientists I will listen to and research, but they are not the ones pushing the GW montra. They are benefitting from the research dollars, but it is money grubbing lobbyists who are pushing the agenda by trying to convince us all that we're gonna die if we don't implement their regulations and pay for their research (cash cow).

The notion that the actual experts are all on the same page concerning man-made aspects of global warming is a myth.

It is not a myth Tod. Over 95 percent of climatologists (that's real climate experts) agree that global warming/climate change is caused by human activities, or in other words is anthropogenic.

You seem to be the one pushing an agenda and spouting a mantra. (Not 'montra'. That sounds like a giant 1960's Japanese horror flick creature.)

Science is not a democracy. Scientific truth is not determined by some voting system. There is scientific reasoning that human caused CO2 is not causing any significant "global warming". I have yet to uncover any true "smoking gun" type reasoning either way as to whether man is adversely affecting climate. Two decades ago predictions were made that the world would be significantly warmer than it is today but that did not happen. I have read papers that claim that the so called green house gas theory violates the laws of thermodynamics but I was not convinced. The green house gas theory is so poorly defined that one cannot prove anything by it. I cannot believe that CO2 is some magical gas that controls our climate. If you believe the green house gas theory, H2O and not CO2 is the primary green house gas. I cannot believe that N2, O2, and Argon are thermally inert and have an infinite thermal conductivity and zero thermal capacity. Labratory experiments have not come up with that result. In my home heating system heat is transferred by a gas heat convection system. This system depends on the heat carrying capabilities of N2 and O2. CO2 has no significant roll. The earth's surface retains significant heat because of the insulating effect of the atmosphere. N2 and O2 have a heat conductivity only a little higher than CO2 so in actuality N2, O2, and Argon are the primary green house gasses that are responsible for heat retention. H2O also plays a roll but not CO2. Even with all of the CO2 that man has added, there is just not enough of it our atmosphere to have a significant effect on climate. Actually the oceans hold a lot more heat than the atmosphere. Studies that I looked showed that atmospheric temperature was very strongly correlated with ocean surface temperatures. The correlation with CO2 is very weak. Remember that the ocean works as a huge nonlinear thermal capacitor that is enhanced by the earth itself. Even if human caused CO2 was causing the climate to change, the effect of the oceans would greatly obscure it. I think that there are a lot of good reasons for reducing our dependence on fossil fuel, but global warming is not one of them.

95% huh Mickey? Where did you pull that out of?

It might also be helpful to research climate scientists opinions on the effects of GW (man-made or natural) and the percentages represented by the man-made aspects. I am not a GW denier, I am simply a cause and consequence skeptic who has no worries what-so-ever about Carbon Dioxide (the politically evil lefty gas of choice). My only agenda/mantra (Mothra I believe is the monster my spelling error brougfht to mind) is I want politics out of science. Those who say politics are not playing a major role in the GW debate are not paying attention.

Will, no it's not a matter of majority rules vote 55% VS 45% so therefore "we win". It's a matter of almost everyone who is an expert agrees on the same thing. Yes, there are a FEW dissenters, and that's totally OK, skepticism is good, but when the opinion of just a few skeptics is amplified and publicized by a couple of extemely rich dudes (the Koch brothers) who have a very specific agenda to pursue, this is the "politics" you seem to be so wary of.

Since you do seem to be willing to do the research, here's a link to a significant page in the IPCC Physical Science Basis report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html

Tod, here's one for you. I actually rounded down to the 95% figure. It's really more like 97-98%.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

P.S. this stuff is really easy to find, both of those sources took less than 30 seconds to locate using Google. Just do the research with an open mind.

P.P.S. Yes, I know who/what Mothra was/is. Thanks for getting the reference.

Mikey, you are still talking about both the religion of global warming and the politics of global warming. The skeptics vs the alarmists treat each other as heretics and their words as some form of blasphemy. All of this including the 95% is debatable. Both sides are all over the Internet and it just does not matter. What I care about is the true science and I do not think that either side has it nailed. The IPCC seems to be more interest in substantiating past claims rather then finding the truth. The green house gas theory is at least a misnomer because a green house does not work with green house gasses. I see nothing that substantiates that CO2 is this super gas that controls our climate and that N2 and O2 are thermally inert and have infinite thermal conductivity and behave as if they were at absolute zero. There seems to be a big misunderstanding between IR radiation and heat.

Mickey,

I read your web page, now I would like you to actually re-read my post, and Will's, because you are not getting it.

The publication makes very clear that the 1372 scientists they polled are handpicked publishers. Now Micke,y who do you think is getting funding to do research and publish these days? Do you think the skeptics are getting any money? How is it you believe science is paid for? The percentages you mention are strangely similar to the # of lefty ideologues who are running our colleges and their research. As Will mentioned this is a religion (founded on the zero population movement, I beleive). Its almost all politics, and the only side of the political/religious spectrum that is getting funding are the "people are awfull GW Priests". You know this!!

Carbon dioxide is not an issue, and if it ever does become an issue it will not be due to the burning of fossil fuels, but due to de-forestation. Deforestation (mostly tropical rain forests) is not something the U.S. has control over, we don't have any.

Like most issues it is a matter of what is the actual truth, and quite frankly, as long as the discussion is being lead by nuts on both sides, the truth will not prevail.

Google, really?

Yes, Tod, Google. What search tools do you prefer? The card catalog at your local library?

The skeptical viewpoint regarding global warming receives tons of funding primarily from the multi-billionaire Koch brothers and other participants in fossil fuel industries. That's the politics!! If you claim to be unaware of this, I can only assume that you might be on their payroll.

Here's just one example, funny thing is, it didn't turn out like they expected it to...

http://voicesweb.org/koch-funded-climate-study-intended-prove-climate-scientists-distort-data-instead-proves-global-warmi

Valhalla Phil "More solar, more nat gas, less coal, less nukes! I can't believe I'm a conservative agruing this! :<)"

I think we can all be in favor of switching from dirty fossil fuels, but we need to do it in a sensible way. It all depends on cost.That's the nice thing about a 'Free Market Economy' - As one resource becomes scarcer, it becomes more expensive and a more plentiful resource takes its place. With the amount of energy we currently consume, even relatively small differences in price (say coal vs solar) can have huge economic consequences and literally cost millions of jobs in today's competitive World market. That's the reason that China is building a new coal fired plant virtually every week - it makes their economy run far more efficiently - hence, millions of new jobs 'stolen' from Western countries that refuse to allow more cheap energy plants to be built.

We are currently in the early 'transition' phase from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources, and the tendency of many is to 'speed up the process' instead of allowing natural economic forces to prevail, but the unintended consequences of 'speeding up the process' ultimately results in potentially millions of lost jobs and slower economic growth and societal disruptions.

Like it or not, our energy policies have a direct bearing on how many jobs we 'create or save' in today's competitive market.

Will,

of course there's no carbon dioxide in a green house, or to be REALLY accurate about it because you seem to want to quibble about the most infinitesimal of differences, there is no more CO2 inside a green house than thre is outside. That's not the point!! The phrases "green-house effect" and "green-house gases" are METAPHORS for the way that that carbon dioxide tends to prevent heat in the form of Infrared Radiation from escaping back into space. If you don't understand this and want to fixate on oxygen and nitrogen instead, fine. But maybe you could understand this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html

If that's too simplistic for you, here's a bunch of other stuff to look into

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#solar

The price of natural gas will go up. Guaranteed. We are also not allowing gas lines to be built either, so when the demand will then be greater for gas, the price will have to go up.

Sure, they just flip the switch, right?

that would cost billions...are you going to be the first to stand up and demand your electric bill be doubled?

By the time you convert them, natural gas will be really expensive too. We have to have all types of power to balance each other out. Coal plants can become more efficient; nukes aren't as unsafe as many make them sound; wind power and solar are also some options. We cannot afford to put all of our eggs or power options in one basket.

This week, the Obama administration sealed the deal on its anti-oil and natural gas agenda, proposing plans to increase taxes on producers, double royalty payments on federal lands, and implement federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing-a process already thoroughly regulated by the states.

The administration's proposed budget seeks to impose $41 billion taxes on the oil and natural gas industry over the next decade, jeopardizing American energy production while cutting jobs and reducing millions in local and state revenues. While the President believes that this proposal will target "Big Oil," he fails to recognize the burden this heavy tax increase will bear on the foundation of America's energy base-the thousands of small independent oil and natural gas producers who develop 95 percent of U.S. wells while producing 85 percent of U.S. natural gas and 54 percent of U.S. oil.

http://www.ipaa.org/news/fact_checks/2012/2012-02-17_87.php

Ohh dont worry Obama realizes that low natural gas prices is a serious hindrance to the American economy and is doing his best pushing for a 100% price hike. It wont be long before natural gas is as or more expensive than oil. Mission accomplished..

Actually, most coal-fired powerplants built since the late 1950's are so-called multi-fuel. That is, to convert them from coal to fuel oil or natural gas, you only have to remove the stoking apparatus and change out the burners. The ability to change fuels was a Cold War requirement intended to buffer this country against cutoffs of fuel, especially in places like Florida.

The other issue that seems to have been corrupted in the political "debate" is that of cap-and-trade. Carbon credits would be issue to the powerplants with the least pollution, based on the amount of energy produced. Wind turbines, for example would get surprisingly little because they produce very little electricity. Geothermal, hydro, natural gas and nuclear would get a substantial part of the credits because they produce a substantial amount of power. But initially, at least, the bulk of the carbon credits would go to coal- and oil-fired power plants that have installed active scrubbers and other measures to cut pollution. The carbon-producers in the lower half of the power plants would have to buy credits from those in the upper half to cover only their difference. The lesses polluters would have to buy less carbon credits and the greater polluters would have to buy more. The money received by the power companies would have to be disbursed in the form of savings to consumers or buyers of electricity. Over time, the setpoint for carbon credits would very slowly rise, giving power producers considerable time to install existing technology to clean up their act. Many consumers would actually see their electric rates decline as a result of cap-and-trade.

Chris, it's nice to see that somebody has done their homework and actually understands the Cap-and-Trade proposal. Good summary, no hyperbole. Kudos.

But precisely how do you all propose to encourage drilling for more natural gas? At its current pricing level it's not economical. Unless the price increases it's not going to happen. Drilling companies are going to drill for oil in Texas with its $100/bbl price instead of drilling for gas. Expense is about the same, return is vastly different. After spiking around 2005/6 prices have been steadily dropping:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm

If current oversupply of natural gas has driven prices down so far that it is no longer 'economical' to drill for more, then stop drilling. As more power plants are shifted over to gas instead of coal, demand will increase, price will rise, then drill for more.

Similar situation exists with difficult to extract oil such as the tar sands. If it's not economical to go after it now, leave it where it is. At some point in the future oil prices will rise to where it does become feasable.

In both cases, remove any tax subsidies that are creating artificially low prices. Let the market reflect the actual cost of the commodity.

Now then, as to the Cap-and-Trade proposal which Chris outlined in his concise summary above, the philosophical purpose of this idea (as I understand it) is to make it so that the market price of the product, be it oil or gas or whatever, actually reflects the real total costs to all of us, including compromised health, dangerous weather risks and more. Many are opposed to this sort of plan right now, as our economy is still in a rather less than robust growth cycle. I'm rather on the fence about it. If we do not do something soon to alter our over-reliance on coal, oil and gas, it may soon be too late to make any effective change, no matter what we do, and then as they say, the fit will hit the shan.

look at how much the energy company CEOs make in salary and bonus, then tell me it is not conceivable to pay for. It is not possible, because nobody wants to sacrafice anything. We all want a painless cutover to alternative energies. It can't happen, at least not as fast as it needs to. Now, if some kind of war happened where the US was cut off from a major energy source, then you would see sacrifice and innovation, much like WW2. You see, great need forces invention, not the other way around. Since there is no great IMMEDIATE need, the governement needs to regulate certain legacy tech out of existance, or we'll be forced to do it anyway, in an emergency fashion.

Free huh? Guess I paid for the privledge to heat my house then, what an idiotic statement. Coal doesn't put near the CO2 into the air that they try to say. I guess you do have one point, with Obama in office, the methane gas comming out of Washington is endless, but then they can also get it from cow manure too!

Coal doesn't put near the CO2 into the air that they try to say

Really? Cite, please.

I guess the part about man made global warming and cap and tax being fraudulent activities designed to rip off US consumers and tax payers was missed by a number of people on this list. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Without it, the rain forests would DIE. More Carbon Dioxide was belched out of the ground during the eruption of Mt St Helens than all of the coal fired power plants in US history.

As for those who keep claiming everything is "for the children or elderly" that's pure BS. It's not those people who have jobs who are freezing to death because they can't afford electricity to heat their homes, it's the elderly and this nonsense WILL NOT lower anyone's electrical bills. Does the statement "If I have my way, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket." ring a bell? The only way that this nonsense can be "for the children" is that causing parents to not be able to afford to feed their kids because of the high electricity bills will certainly help reduce childhood obesity. I'm certain that the coal miners currently making $50k a year will appreciate losing their jobs over this. Hey UMWA members (Dad was one for 25+ years) now that Trumka has moved on to another 6 figure income position with another union, are you going to keep voting Democrat? Of course Obamao's core voters won't be effected because utilities are included in public housing projects.

I'm old enough to remember when Jimma Cahtah's EPA came up with a bunch of regulations that crippled the coal industry. At the time, oil was almost as cheap as coal, so a lot of plants converted to oil. Now those people serviced by those utility companies are biting the bullet big time. I would bet that if the EPA and these environmentalist groups had to fire an employee for every miner, or other person who lost a job over their idiotic regulations, the standards wouldn't be nearly as rigid. BTW the EPA has targeted power plants that want to burn renewable biomass fuel pellets with ludicrous air quality standards as well. Of course those regs are only applicable to plants in Texas. Of course the EU is about to impose standards on power plants in Europe that will require them to use only certifiable renewable fuels. Guess which state has the largest amount of certified renewable forests in the country? Yep, Texas. So while local entrepreneurs would love to begin producing wood pellets for sale, the lack of a local market prevents them from being able to get the funding to do so. So we not only lose out on the local jobs, we lose out on the export sales as well.

I guess the part about man made global warming and cap and tax being fraudulent activities designed to rip off US consumers and tax payers was missed by a number of people on this list. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Without it, the rain forests would DIE. More Carbon Dioxide was belched out of the ground during the eruption of Mt St Helens than all of the coal fired power plants in US history.... Does the statement "If I have my way, energy prices will necessarily skyrocket." ring a bell?

Spend a lot of time watching FuxNnews and listening to Rush Lamebrain? I love the way you folks trot out these invented quotes time after time. Obama has never said any such thing. I defy you to find and cite a source for any quote from him which says anything even remotely close to that.

Now then, the energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has said something similar to what you typed but not precisely those words. He has also recanted his statement. From an article on Yahoo News:

With painfully high gas prices hurting Americans--and President Barack Obama's reelection prospects--Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday recanted his notorious September 2008 comment that he hoped to see the cost of filling up to reach the far more elevated levels common in Europe.

Republicans have used Chu's comment -- made months before there even was an Obama Administration--as a club to bludgeon the president and accuse him of deliberately enacting policies that have sent prices at the pump soaring.

"I no longer share that view," Chu told Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. "Of course we don't want the price of gasoline to go up. We want it to go down."

"That view" was Chu's comment, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in September 2008 and published in December of that year, that "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." The Journal at the time called the future energy secretary's position "one major internal difference" with the future president.

But Republicans seized on the comment and never let go

When all the ground water is polluted from fracking using ethanol among other chemicals, will mean bad water, tainted crops, sick animals and people. Great trade off; reminds me of plastic replacing glass, paper, and such a wonderous product. Cheap, easy to make, high profit margin and highly toxic in enviroment, Oceans-landfills so on & so on science my ass! Profit Margin.

Well Mickey mouse you couldnt pay me to watch the liberal media ,cbs (commie broadcasting suckups) they are always in the dems back pockets and have always been , as quotes from the president you have to dig for them or watch Fox, like he said he would make the cost to open a new coal plant if wouldnt be worth it and he didnt care if gas went up as long as it was gradually increased, with this administration it is like how to cook a frog, you dont throw it in hot water because he will jump out , you put him in cool water and turn up the heat very slowly and before he knows it he's cooked, just the way Obama thinks he can do the American people , well some of them he can cook because they believe what the goverment tells them to be the gospel truth. It is true with some people you cant fix stupid , right Mr. O.

mikeymike obviously you know it to be true but here is a link for you to hear it from the socialist himself

youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU

now why dont you quit kissing Obama's a** and wake up

Although with the comments from mikey i dont expect him to actually reply on this or admit that this has been said by Obama, instead if he bothers to acknowledge the video he will probably claim it was a paid actor from Fox news

MikeyMike

If current oversupply of natural gas has driven prices down so far that it is no longer 'economical' to drill for more, then stop drilling. As more power plants are shifted over to gas instead of coal, demand will increase, price will rise, then drill for more

So you're for skyrocketing utility bills? And apparently also for our continued reliance on fossil fuels? Don't get me wrong, it will be guaranteed employment for me as a driller, but in all honesty we should be looking for alternatives for utilities and advocating switching to natural gas for vehicles. You apparently have no comprehension of the difference in returns. Current revenue from an oil well is around $17-$18 per unit of production. Revenue from a LNG well is around $3.50 - $4 per unit of production. You'll need pricing in the $15-$16 range per MCF to get people to start drilling LNG again or FIVE times current cost.

Solar and wind don't have to be the only alternatives we consider although they are the most popular here. Hydro should be top of our review list both in the format of river turbines and tidal ones. They've been successfully used in many areas. They're a constant source as river flows are pretty consistent. They reduce the need for back-up / standby power required from solar and wind.

I can't access YouTube at the moment, so I'll have to check back on that later, but in response to the other question about "skyrocketing energy bills", No, I don't want energy to "skyrocket" but if it costs %50 more to be "green" I for one would be willing to pay the extra costs to preserve our environment.

As to your numbers on oil and LNG, you don't specify what "units" you're talking about so it's difficult to make a fair assessment of your statement. Oil is generally measured by the barrel at the well head and on the market. Natural gas is most often measured by the cubic foot and often in Millions of Cubic Feet (This is what I take it you mean by MCF, but you didn't specify, so I'll assume this is what you mean by a "unit" of natural gas). To make a fair comparison between the two it's necessary to convert into the equivalent BTUs or British Thermal Units, a measure of potential caloric heat content:

Natural gas: 1,027 BTU per cubic foot = about 1 Billion BTU per MCF at you claim $3.50 per unit.

Barrel of oil: 5.8 x 10^6 BTU = 6 million BTU per barrel at you claim $17 per unit.

This makes no sense. Please clarify your "units" in your statement so we can have an accurate and meaningful discussion.

BTU has zilch to do with revenue per unit of production to a drilling company. Not quite sure what's so hard to comprehend. Current revenue for a driller for an oil well is around $17/18 for a barrel i.e. unit of production. Revenue from lng is around $3.50 (and dropping). For a driller it's about expense and income. At its current pricing level lng is not worth it for a new well, oil is.

Do some searching for Aubrey McClendon from Chesapeake Energy Corp who addressed this issue well over a year ago ( e.g. http://seekingalpha.com/article/254593-chesapeake-energy-s-ceo-discusses-q4-2010-results-earnings-call-transcript) or look for numerous articles in drilling specific forums / media and you will see it's not a myth, it's simple economics for drillers.

BTW you'd better check your math. I'd have zero issues with 50% increase to be greener, but like I said we'll need 500% increases... Still for the lng conversion instead of other methods?

BTW here's another article by an oilman on the subject: http://seekingalpha.com/article/255793-chesapeake-s-mcclendon-six-reasons-for-long-term-bullishness-on-natural-gas

Just look some more in drilling related forums and media instead of popular press type articles.

Or does this clarify it better: http://geology.com/royalty/production-decline.shtml

Because they work.

Solar only became viable after China made them a commodity and Obama is trying to kill that!

Solar is now cheaper than nuclear, and even cheaper than coal and hydro if self installed. Outside of that everything else green is more expensive. This has nothing to do with greed. If some new green energy idea took off it takes me less than a minute to sell Exxon and buy into that.

The problem is most green energy is heavily subsidized yet still doesn't make economic sense. Solar is the only exception and that is only because of China.

Because the liberals are all scared of nuclear power. Seriously, none of the other options are viable today.

As long as the people in charge are fat and happy, the motivation for change is simply not there.

Even in the later stages of the Roman Empire the basic technological and metallurgical skills were there to make use of fossil fuels, but who needs to when you have SLAVE LABOR to do your work? In fact, the corrupt, cruel, way the Romans treated their subordinate peoples is what lead to their downfall. With no middle-class and incentive to innovate because you were either born a prince or a serf, who gave a care what was invented, unless it was for the acquisition of resources, territory, or conquest and domination of one's fellow man?

Thank Yersinia pestis (Black Death), cholera, other diseases, and bad weather for the innovations, at least on a massive scale, that spawned the industrial revolution, and mass-production of labor-saving devices. Deprived of their massive workforce of joyfully-intimidated peasants, western civilization had no choice but to uplift the technology they already had (in the form of clever, mechanical, but otherwise useless toys for the royalty) to do the work. But since that didn't seem as viscerally satisfying as whipping a fleshy back, the powers-that-be even tried desperately to satisfy their hunger for cruel power by drawing upon slave labor from Africa. Unfortunately, it took centuries more of enlightenment, political upheaval, and war to end it.

It's the same thing with fossil fuel systems. Too many in entrenched power and political influence still hold sway for change to come quickly, if at all. Does it seem idiotic to you that I compare the reluctance to move away from fossil fuels to feudalism, slavery, and serfdom? They all have one thing in common:

Status quo

All carbon credits will be paid for by the consumer in the form of higher rates. When have you ever seen anything go down? Credits issued to consumers that they'll have to pay back because of higher rates.

Why not just look at this from the evolution point that we will adapt over time to breathe more smog and we will adjust to higher temperatures over time. The strong will survive.

we will adapt over time to breathe more smog

Clearly, no child of yours has ever suffered from asthma.

I will tell you why we still make electricity with coal. It is cheap. An average coal plant sells the electricity for 6 to 8 cents per kilowatt. A llllllooooooooooooooottttttt cheaper than the so called green plants. You now why they call solar/wind green. Because the American tax payer subsidizes these plants with green money because they are not cost effective. So if you are willing to increase your electric bill by as much as twice what it is now, I hope your wish comes true. Coal plants have evolved with scrubbers, precipitators, and SCR units to clean there exhaust. Basically they don't pollute. Change them all to gas and then gas will be expensive. If the current administration would give the coal plants money to improve, then the world would see what can be accomplished. Even the playing field Obama!

Because the liberals are all scared of nuclear power.

Not so. It's because with the price of natural gas being what it is, it's just not economically feasible to go through the tremendously expensive process of permitting and building a nuclear plant. Well, and Fukishima sure didn't help.

In other words, it's the money people who are scared. After Fukishima, the South Texas Nuclear Project, which had been going to expand, lost its financing. Not because of liberals, but because the investors got cold feet.

I live in West Virginia and coal is our life. Being a supplier of a large part of the D.C. areas power, I think we should cut our power lines down at the border,keep our coal in-state and put all of you f%cks in the dark. Wyoming should do the same thing!

I would encourage you to do just that. Keep your coal, it's waste, it's electricity AND your selfish, greedy ego in West Virginia with the rest of the shallow-minded, low information coal people.

Cue the "Dueling Banjos" Da-da-ding-ding-ding-dang-ding-dang-diiing...

I think we should cut our power lines down at the border,keep our coal in-state and put all of you f%cks in the dark.

Enjoy 49 less states subsidising your coal industry.

I use solar and battery for my power needs. I sell my excess to the power companies.

Keep clinging to your coal until you die if you want to. Just stop expecting people to not want to advance technology so you can keep making money.

If you were smart, you would heavily invest in other energy sources. Coal will be just a footnote whether you like it or not. I would even say in the next 50 years, we will greatly advance our energy technology, providing the die hard fossil fuel junkies step out of the way of progress.

You people are clueless as to what goes on in the power industry and polotics. If whatever type of industry be it coal.nat gas,or oil does not support the person in the White House, that industry is attacked plain and simple.If you think ANY polotician really cares about you or this planet you are a fool!

Spot on this time jak-3696747. Most Republican politicians, like Ron Paul, want to abolish the EPA. If ever there was an absurd notion, that one takes the cake. I'm old enough to remember the days before the EPA when the free market did what it wanted to the environment. The entire town I lived in was contaminated with dioxon and chlorinated phenols. It was nearly evacuated and condemned. You could smell the phenols in every home and business. Once the EPA was formed. Our town became one of the first Superfund sites, the entire town. Every inch of sewer line had to be filled with concrete and replaced. Acres of soil had to be dug up and carried to a controlled disposal site. To this day and forever more, the ground water is contaminated beyond remediation. Fish in every creek and tributary are banned from consumption and must be continually monitored. The waste is still her and buried. There was simply too much to get rid of it all. It was determined that the dangers associated with digging it all up were greater than the risks of leaving it on place and controlling leachate and runoff by clay covers, french drains and an extensive (and expensive) groundwater treatment operation. If the EPA had been in place when the polluters were carelessly handling their waste, we would have had an agency to go to for help. We didn't. We complained for years to no avail until the EPA was formed.

Now we have crackpot, loony tune politicians going around complaining that the EPA is too expensive, gets in the way of commerce, and should be eliminated. I just hope Ron Paul and others keep talking their crap. It's a losing position and, fortunately, most of us know better. No wonder Ron Paul's numbers cannot grow beyond his starry-eyed young supply-side capitalist cult following.

NY Mike if you think this world will be here in another 50 years keep on dreaming bud, the way things have changed for the worse in the last 30 years , I doubt it will be here another 10 . And those who worry about saving this earth you better worrying about saving yourself. WORD...........

Fear and paranoia never accomplish anything positive, Wayne. Trumping up fear with ridiculous statements and doomsday scenarios is fodder for Fox News and right wing Republicans.

By the way, ending a serious statement with a slangy, word-of-the-day colloquialism like "word..." makes one seem inexperienced, uneducated, and quite plebeian. I suggest refraining from such if you wish to be taken seriously.

Mark like i care what you think , you must be one of the 66 million that put Mr. O in office , you know an educated idiot. Dont know how old you are but I am in my late 50"s and I have seen a lot of change for the worse and no hope but a lot of dopes. Like I have said just because someone chooses not to believe something doesnt make it untrue so believe what you want it, wont change whats going to happen.

An "educated idiot," Wayne?

Is that intended to be an oxymoron, or are you implying that an education is a disadvantage?

Smart, informed, and intelligent people have no need to call others idiots. Ignorance is self-evident.

"The only folks against this are the ones who are going to lose money,"

If the cost of energy goes up isn't everybody going to lose money?

Mark, although I can't be certain, I detect a hint of apocalypticism behind Wayne's comments. I wouldn't worry yourself about him. From his comment about "saving yourself" and even his use of "WORD" in all caps, I'll assume that he sides with a lot of his fellow christians (in name only) who have abandoned their stewardship of the Earth and are actively hoping for the "end times" which they believe are imminent.

Am I right on this Wayne? If not, please clarify your meaning.

You do realize it only applies to new plants, old plants and plants scheduled for this year are exempt.

We could import from China because we are exporting our coal to China. People in washington just like playing a shell game.

He's a snivelling little fascist, get over it.

I thought you foxfans called him socialist/marxist. Slipping a little?

He's just the lessor evil with a super pac. Why are we still in a war? Why is our economy still in the toilet? He got handed a mess but 3 or more years ago. He has losts of time to get going, but he sits on his hands and golfs.

First we get rid of Obamacare. Then we get rid of Obama. Then the EPA, the IRS, and a whole bunch of czars,

Ken,

You probably espouse over how liberals have some pie-in-the-sky Utopian idea of how the world should be, but you need to listen to yourself. You are absolutely delusional! Obama will be re-elected because no one wants one your three stooges for president. The EPA will survive, which is good because they offset the greed that hurts us and our children's future, and unfortunately the IRS will survive, too.

As far as "Czars" go, there's no such thing. It's a media reference to a job title where the person is responsible for a single national issue. G.W. Bush appointed 33 Czars, 28 of which were not confirmed by the senate.

if we could only capture the power from the typing of all these needless posts of drecks constantly deriding each other over political views, they could supply America with years of energy

Sparrow your still stupid that cant be fixed........ please remove your head from your a.... and come back to the real world. thats whats up then why are you on here , you can go back to watching lizard lick towing

Ken your right, but you cant reason with brainwashed liberals they have a one track mind ...right over the cliff and they want to take the rest of us with them.

The coal plant near me is over 80 years old. It has a railroad spur to it that is 12 miles long . Trains bring in coal once a month. It estimated they lose about 5% of the coal in transit from the mines in southern Ohio. Coal pollutes during mining. During transport and then when it's burned. How is that clean coal? Corperate propaganda..

What ever corporations make money at will be the energy we will use...

I'm sure algae power will be coming on line soon to lower your power bill.

Most of the plants are getting really old anyway. Just replace em with N. Gas or Nuke.

I'm all for elimination of burning coal, but I agree that the substitute must be built before any shut downs. This is typical politician insanity..scurry about...appear to be doing good, but all the while just making it worse.

I want to know how the hell the EPA can go ahead without the approval of congress? Must have learned that from king obama

You also have to think of the environmental costs (and health) that will be saved by converting over.

@David,

Basically, outside of speculation, energy is priced by the BTU. If you look at the BTU's per unit, there is roughly parity between coal, natural gas, and fuel oil. This is because most coal and oil-fired plants built since the late 1950's were designed to be able to switch between fuels. And it's not just power plants, its bakeries and applicance manufacturers and others that use huge amount of heat to make their products.

If it concerns you, why not stop altogether?

A comment by an idiot, for idiots, lacking anything intelligent to say, devoid of common sense, and to make it worse, believeing you are smart.

Well, maybe there is a point there. Wasn't there a study saying that cow farts we affecting the environment? How many years ago were there 3.5 billion people on the planet? We now have double. That's double the C02 emitted by humans. There are more humans than cows right?

I think the issue with cows was mathane... but the principle still stands. If there were double th e cows, would the methane iss not be worse?

You might say carbon is really not a product, but a cycle. However, an unbalance in said cycle could account for increased C02 levels sourcing to the lowest common denominator - plants. Maybe it should be said vegitarians are causing this imbalance, leaving too many breathing animals and removing too many C02 scubbing plants.

And you guys want to make it easier for people to breed? Don't have medical insurance? Can't afford food? No job? No Problem! We'll all pitch in so you can feel less burndened and have more little breathers!

Pollution is clearly caused by the Hippie Vegans.

MWP,

Please post a link to the area of the EPA website that states that exhaling causes pollution. If you're smoking tobacco, yes. If you breath pollution in, you also breath pollution out, but you're not the source of the pollution. If you can't provide a link, shut the L up.

Actually nuclear is very cheap and safe. Modern nuclear plants are very efficient.

So, does this mean you also support higher unemployment numbers? Or since it doesn't personally affect your pocketbook, you could care less?

Let's see, he's doing good for the environment, yet the go green projects he's pushed have went bankrupt. Let's see, he's also cutting the budget for military, more people on the market looking for jobs. Oh, and now we'll have this. Yet somehow his lap dogs and shoe lickers will find a way to spin the numbers in his favor. Oh yes, what a mighty fine President we have ser.

Safe ? Do the words Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and 87-year-half-life for plutonium ring a bell ?

Safe ? Do the words Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and 87-year-half-life for plutonium ring a bell ?

How many people died as a result of 3 Mile Island?

Safe ? Do the words Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island and 87-year-half-life for plutonium ring a bell ?

"How many people died as a result of 3 Mile Island?"

Let us expand that, how many people died in the US due to nuclear power?

Give ya a clue, I can count it on one hand. Fun fact, wind energy has killed more.

Typical democrat. Telling me what I think. Your wrong of course, but that has never influenced a democrat. They are never interested in the truth.

I'm a coal miner's granddaughter. Coal is dangerous, not because it pollutes but because its dangerous to actually mine. Most of the easy to get coal is gone and now they are demolishing entire mountains to get at the rest. Really, how many people have to die and how much of God's green earth to we have to destroy before people will consider alternatives.

Natural Gas is safer, cleaner and cheaper. Wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, solar, we should be investing in all of these. Its King Coal all over again. And don't tell me I'm wrong, I have family members who've died or lost limbs so you can blast your air conditioning all summer long.

SpyderGirl,

My condolences for your loss.

Most people don't appreciate miners any more than they appreciate soldiers, factory workers, etc, even though they kill themselves to give us something that we all take for granted. I'm sure you know more than most that "clean coal" is the fraudulent idea that's being shoved down everyone's throat. There are literally thousands of studies supporting Global Climate Change and it's relationship to carbon dioxide. There are no examples of clean burning coal and no studies that show how it's possible. It's a last gasp effort by the coal industry to keep people like your family members working for practically nothing to make the Koch brothers richer. BTW, I don't even have an air conditioner.

Truthfully these discussion should be about how to have your own power? solar & wind for the 1 acre and less suburbs Tye too the grid and local fuel cell power by natural gas bloom box and eventually batteries to cut out the utilities and Arabs ? ARE GOV needs to make it where it only take 2 1/2 years to pay off.

Anyone who talks about Republicans vs Democrats is a TV watching, global slave, moron. There is no difference. Obama is a war mongering, corporate whore just like Bush was. Obama is protecting the Rockefellers oil interests as well as General electric who will see huge market share increases if coal goes away. Obama represents globalist corporate oligarchs and central bankers. He doesn't give jack Sh*t about you or your family and if your are stupid enough to actually believe he does you are a farm animal and it doesn't matter anyway.

Just to ease our minds about how our granchildren and great grandchildren are going to survive after we have depleted the planet's non-renewable supplies of fuel---crude oil, natural gas and coal, consider the energy of the sun that shines SOMEWHERE on the planet 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. When we build dams to back up river water and use the force of the water exiting the reservoir to produce hydro-electric electricity we are utilizing solar energy; i.e., the sun causes water from the oceans to evaporate and fall as snow at higher elevations where the snow melts and the water returns to the lowest elevation it can find---the oceans. This has been happening for millions of years and will continue for millions more. Therefor, hydro-electric power comes from a naturally recurring renewable source.

When the energy from the sun is measured in a form we all understand---Watt (think of a 100 Watt light bulb) then we have a unit of energy that we can all understand. At high noon on a clear day the energy that flows from the sun to the earth surface has an energy density of 1000 Watt per square meter---enough to light 10 each 100 Watt bulbs. Photo-voltaic solar conversion currently has an efficiency of 10% to 20%---thus an output power equivalent to one or two 100 Watt bulbs. While that doesn't seem like much, think of what a very small proportion of the earth's surface one square meter represents.

Our great great great grandchildren will still have the sun's energy long after we are gone---thankfully.

In short, you want a government of one party. That has worked so well in the past. As for your hope for solar, the last article I read put the energy capacity of the largest solar farm in the US at about 1/10 the generating capacity of a small coal plant. There seems to be a big gap in return on investment. These issues make solar a questionable energy source for the near future.

I think you'ev lost your mind and so have OBAMA.

Now show me how many scientist there are in the entire world and the poll for the rest of them. Not just the hand picked ones. and I read it was 6000 records. There year before we busted a lot of the cold records too.

I'm for consistancy in any argument. Do any of you remember this?

A top Obama administration scientist on Monday struck back at climate skeptics who claim that record snowstorms this winter have undercut evidence of global warming.

“It is important that people recognize that weather is not the same thing as climate,” said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lubchenco, speaking on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show,” said the planet is warming but that weather is variable. The snowy weather, Lubchenco said, “is not a contradiction and it is not really unexpected.”

So if anyone wants to point at record high temps as being "proof" of climate change, please remember the above. I'm not a denier, but I demand consistancy in the argument.

Whats FOX have to do with her comment retread?

she's right...obama has the brown touch...everything he "fixes" turns to @!$%#