Posted on 04/26/2024 6:39:15 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
The coal fly ash is a very good concrete additive, too.
As to the relative cleanness of coal (compared to 40 years ago) it’s very clean today and as a NASA QA manager was fond of saying, “Those who insist on 100% safety don’t have the balls to live in the real world.”
Fossil fuels = evil. That is about the level of thinking of most of these luddites out there. So no coal. No natural gas, even though NG is clean.
The oil leaks didn’t help
Well, eastern Washington, Kansas, etc. ARE fly-over country, so....
I agree though. I drive from Seattle to eastern Washington a lot. The windmills beyond Snoqualmie Pass and elsewhere have really destroyed views that haven’t changed much in 10,000 years.
Panderbear
And they are just getting started building them.
Colfax is FULL of signs on yards, buildings and barns that simply say “No Wind Farms.” People have caught on.
“If you like your coal, you can keep your coal.”
Coal ash is used as a concrete additive because it’s not possible to do anything else with it. Even in concrete it will still gradually leach out heavy metals from the surface of the concrete itself as the material weathers out. Just like any other sedimentary rock weathering. Concrete is simply man made sedimentary rock that a lot of geologists kidding call urbanite when a freshman geologist student brings us a hand sample and is like look limestone conglomerate.
The point also is coal is never going to be zero emissions up the stacks of heavy metals where as natural gas and nuclear and every other form of power already is zero. There is no safe limits for heavy metals they were tolerated by.society because there was no other alternatives now there is and coal need to be in the history books.
Here is the actual EPA statement with the links to the actual limits here again thst are giving an advantage to coal all the others are not allowed to emit heavy metals at all. They only tell coal to cut by 67% that’s no where near zero.
Also coal gets a pass on it’s huge toxis forever waste piles and also it’s toxic run off. Both of which are real pollution and have nothing to do with CO2. Here again none of the other forms of energy have toxic run off nor toxic sludge ponds that a single accident here in the USA at a coal waste pond killed more people than all the nuclear accidents world wide. 40 people died in that pond breach. Only a handful died heroically at Chernobyl and one or two will also due to self sacrifice from Japan’s meltdown they are not dead yet but will be included in the numbers they stayed and got irradiated like hero’s they are.
Key point.
A final rule strengthening and updating the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for coal-fired power plants, tightening the emissions standard for toxic metals by 67 percent and finalizing a 70 percent reduction in the emissions standard for mercury from existing lignite-fired sources.
A final rule to reduce pollutants discharged through wastewater from coal-fired power plants by more than 660 million pounds per year, ensuring cleaner water for affected communities, including communities with environmental justice concerns that are disproportionately impacted.
A final rule that will require the safe management of coal ash that is placed in areas that were unregulated at the federal level until now, including at previously used disposal areas that may leak and contaminate groundwater.
Yeah, "folks" is a tell.
Natural gas is next up on the firing line, now that they've almost gotten rid of coal.
I had to do some research.
The Wild Horse Wind Farm is what I’m thinking of. North of I-90 and west of Vantage and the Columbia River. 149 windmills generating 273 MW. (I’m not clear on the MW, but I think that is the maximum production when the wind is blowing hard). In one article it said enough electricity to power 50,000 homes.
The Columbia Nuclear Plant near Richland has a capacity of about 1,200 MW and is fairly constant except when they replace the rods. An article said that is enough for 1 million homes.
In your neck of the woods on the Lower Snake River they are talking about taking down four dams, each with an average output of about 1,000 MW - so each is similar to the nuke plant.
In the article about the dams it said that it take 5 MW of wind energy to replace 1 MW of hydroelectric energy. I have no idea why. Perhaps because the amount of water moving the turbines is more consistent than the amount of time the wind is blowing?? Or loss of energy as the windpower is stored in batteries??
That article about the dams also noted that all of the dams have fish ladders.
Washington State is nuts. No new diesel or gas cars will be able to be purchased OR registered in the state starting in 2036!
In some old article the UN person in charge of climate change was saying how the USA already had its opportunity to pollute and grow and enrich itself. Now it is the third world’s chance to grow and become stronger, which is why the new pollution rules don’t apply to them.
She also said something like “Climate change policies will bring about a new shift in the global economy.”
“And the trees are all kept equal
by hatchet, axe and saw.”
Very informative. I’m not necessarily pro coal, but so-called “green energy”, solar and wind are not exactly green. The mining involved for lithium and other minerals is not green, wind turbines take hundreds of gallons of oil to lube the moving parts and has to be changed every so often, and they kill thousands of birds. As far as I know there is no recycling of solar panels yet, and it will be costly when it is available. Me, personally prefer natural gas, and I’d like to see more investment in hydrogen.
They want to harm coal. West Virginia will be sure to show their thanks in November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.