Skip to comments.Coal company bankruptcies accellerating [Obama keeping his campaign promise]
Posted on 07/26/2014 11:41:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Driving this conversion is the prospect of new, draconian rules to be issued by the EPA on emissions from coal plants.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Screw em', the UMW stopped being a reliable voting block for the democrat fascist party and could no longer be relied on to deliver the votes of vast majority of their membership for democrat fascist candidates at the national level.
If they can't deliver the votes of their membership and intimidate a great many others, they can deal with the consequences.
Now they can get the same treatment the Steelworkers got after they went 75% for that bastard Nixon. We don't need any smokestack industry industrial unions anyway, we have government employees unions to replace them.
Coal is a bulky and difficult form of fuel to handle, as it must be boxed up in some way for transport, as normal transfer systems (pipelines, pumps, and closable valves) are not adaptable to coal in lumps. A finely pulverized form, either dry or mixed in a slurry of water, could be transferred this way, but the particles, no matter how finely ground, would be highly abrasive to the delivery system. And spills would be highly pernicious, as coal, other than by burning, does not degrade in the environment, as most forms of crude might, nor does it volatilize, as various lighter fractions of petroleum or natural gas would.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the suns planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
What would a Republican Senate do for the coal industry in 2015-2016?
Fuel efficiency will sell on it's own without the government involved so by all means, get the government out of it. If diesel being considered nasty is a stand alone thing or the EPA doesn't matter. Encourage the use of diesel with tax breaks, not higher taxes. We all pay the "highway diesel" tax on everything we buy, get rid of it completely. Gone, not a cent, period.
Anything worthwhile that would be repealed could stand or fall on it's own merits if it needs to be put back in force after being balanced against economic impact and reviewed by real scientists instead of space cadets.
I used it twice in emails to everyone on my list. No one has disagreed or argued the point YOU make.
I believe you can surely say the repetitiveness of posting your analogy has done a lot of good in putting the situation of "Climate Control" into perspective.
Good on you!
Obama made a deal with Richard Trumpk, former head of the UMW, current head of the AFL-CIO, to push the development of sub-bituminous coal, produced in the west, mostly on Indian land, managed by the federal government in exchange for killing off the high BTU coal, mined by private companies on private land in the East.
Peabody Energy sued the federal EPA over the hockey puck theory and the Manning e-mails, demanding that the EPA show new, verifiable proof of global warming and the role of coal in causing it.
Just before the law suit was to be decided the Obama administration stepped in and settled with Peabody, making the deal to facilitate the mining and export of Peabody coal in the west. Peabody divested their eastern subsidiaries, stranding the mine workers with no health coverage and no pensions.
The coal industry fuels the need for good blue collar jobs like welders, mechanics, machinists, and more. Coal builds homes, churches, schools, and roads. Coal creates wealth.
Therefore, it must be destroyed.
High BTU coal is bituminous or anthracite as opposed to what they call sub-bituminous coal. The Obama administration likes to refer to sub-bituminous coal as clean coal because it contains less sulfur, but it takes twice as much to produce the same amount of energy, so the reduction in sulfur doesn’t amount to much.