Posted on 09/07/2012 6:20:18 PM PDT by count-your-change
While the U.S. is either closing coal fired powered plants or forcing them to change to much more expensive natural gas, Germny is pressing ahead with coal fired generation of electricity.
Has Germany abandoned its efforts to be "green"?
No, but the rising costs and unreliablity of "green" electricity has some German government ministers concerned. Go to the link and read the rest of the article with the excerpt below:
"He (Altmaier) is also worried that his country could become dependent on foreign imports of electricity, the mainstay of its industrial sector. To avoid that risk, Altmaier has given the green light to build twenty-three new coal-fired plants, which are currently under construction."
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Perhaps not throwing up road blocks is “giving the green light”.
This is exactly the plan of liberals. That glassy eyed spittle-lipped liberal outrage over x percent of the population using y percent of the world’s resources is not feigned.
Me? I love coal. When I was kid sawing fire wood with a big crosscut to keep from freezing to death a couple of tons of coal was like a gift from heaven. Actually it was from a guy with a truck and a small seam on his property.
“Perhaps not throwing up road blocks is “giving the green light”.”
Perhaps it’s a gesture of vanity knowing the feedback that’ll happen if people die because there is no heat this winter.
If people die this winter, they can at least show they’re moving on the problem.
Socialism, people simply must die. Not before or after a problem....but, they simply must die.
Sacrifices must be made.
We have essentially the same thing here in North Dakota. Another conveyor belt takes the ashes back down to fill in the hole.
But since you open this can of worms-
More people die in coal mining accidents per year than from all nuclear power related deaths since it's inception with Chicago Pile 1.
Coal throws out nice things like Xylene, toluene, benzene... hydrocarbons that are carcinogenic and also associated with some of the asthma and other respiratory disorders we're seeing. This despite scrubbers and other measures to reduce what they throw out.
Coal produces CO2, assuming one believes in the global warming horse shit, that would matter.
Coal produces sludge and other by products in great volume compared to nuclear.
Coal produces H2SO4, the primary cause of acid rain. Once again, while better than in the past, they still throw this out as well.
Coal requires extensive mining and has an environmental impact from that alone.
There is enough Thorium on this planet to run reactors literally for “MILLIONS” of years. Coal will be a temporary fix that like oil will eventually require ever greater costs for extraction after the low bearing fruit has been harvested/mined.
There are applications and spin offs for nuclear technology in the fields of medicine (isotopes used in nuclear imaging, seeding prostate cancers etc) and defense (nuclear weapons).
Nuclear is the most energy dense.
Nuclear is without figuring in all the imaginary costs factored in by environmentalists, the cheapest source of power.
This is what China is buying: http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/
http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_glance.html
http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety.html
“Sacrifices must be made”
The elite will turn their thermostats down a degree or two and turn ours off. Everybody just has to do their part.
Humanism, that drives socialism, is an oxymoron.
The elite want no more than 500 million inhabiting the earth, ergo, people must die.
The resources are theirs, let’s not kid ourselves.
Strange, some genius came to the same conclusion in 2005(?)
We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We've got more coal than just about anybody else.
This is America. We figured out how to put a man on the moon in ten years. You can't tell me we can't figure out how to burn coal, that we mine right here in the United States of America, and make it work. We can do that.
Hussein Obama's evil twin--- 2005?
You can wonder if you will but I was making an observation on what I see occurring.
Coal has many problems associated with is burning but a nuke plant on the drawing boards produces no power.
“There is enough Thorium on this planet to run reactors literally for “MILLIONS” of years.”
Exactly how many watts of power has thorium produced? Until I can turn on my lights with thorium made electricity it is just thorium theorium. Those “millions of years” haven't started yet.
So I need make no defence of anything and my only “position” is that want electricity coming to my home reliably and at a cost I afford...today.
The difference is one country acts while the other talks.
Eventually necessity will out strip the “ Pie in the sky “ dream of the liberals/environmentalist not ready for prime time alternative energy.
They learned that green cannot run baseload plants.
You have coal, hydro and nuke, natural gas can but still works best as peaking power unless you build on the gas field.
bump!
“peaking power”
Pea-king power? Sounds Chinese.
You forgot natural gas.
We should agressively develop all of our native energy sources including, coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc. No single source is going to take care of all or our energy needs. That is why I think Romney’s number one priority — Energy Development is such a great thing. It addresses our long-term energy needs and creates jobs/economic activity almost instantly.
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.