Thread Rating:
07-09-2009, 02:10 PM
DevilsWin Wrote:Cant you formulate your own argument? That's the point here JP. Not only are you incapable of formulating your own position and defending it you chose to post the ramblings from someone with questionable motives and judgment.Hey then back that economy statment up, DW. :please:
:flush:
BTW Good luck on that "Celebrity Worship" issue.
Seems as though all you do is spout off and criticize but then cant back anything up any of your own ramblings.
07-19-2009, 12:53 PM
Im not anti coal by any means. But if you people cannot see by now that Rush is a complete idiot who popped one to many Oxycontin then your in worse shape than the American Economy.
07-19-2009, 04:18 PM
First let me say I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I think he has a vaild point here. The article Rush is referring is about the city of Los Angeles eliminating the use of electricity made from coal by 2020. Today Los Angeles receives about 40% of it's electricity from coal plants out of state. The big question is within the next 10 years how will they replace the 40% now supplied by coal and this is assuming that consumption remains the same as it is today.
The mayor insist that they will use natural gas, nuclear or hydroelectric to replace electricity produced by coal. Which brings these questions to mind.
How many nuclear, hydroelectric or natural gas plants will it take to supply this amount of power?
How many are being permitted or built in California today?
How long will the design, permitting and construction take to have these plants online?
I don't think a project of this size can be completed by 2020.
The mayor insist that they will use natural gas, nuclear or hydroelectric to replace electricity produced by coal. Which brings these questions to mind.
How many nuclear, hydroelectric or natural gas plants will it take to supply this amount of power?
How many are being permitted or built in California today?
How long will the design, permitting and construction take to have these plants online?
I don't think a project of this size can be completed by 2020.
07-19-2009, 08:37 PM
Old School Wrote:First let me say I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I think he has a vaild point here. The article Rush is referring is about the city of Los Angeles eliminating the use of electricity made from coal by 2020. Today Los Angeles receives about 40% of it's electricity from coal plants out of state. The big question is within the next 10 years how will they replace the 40% now supplied by coal and this is assuming that consumption remains the same as it is today.
The mayor insist that they will use natural gas, nuclear or hydroelectric to replace electricity produced by coal. Which brings these questions to mind.
How many nuclear, hydroelectric or natural gas plants will it take to supply this amount of power?
How many are being permitted or built in California today?
How long will the design, permitting and construction take to have these plants online?
I don't think a project of this size can be completed by 2020.
You are absolutely right.
There is no way that this plan can come into affect by 2020. It will take long enough to find out a good estimate of how many plants it will take to power it all. After that is determined, then permits will have to be given and that won't happen overnight. There is so much ignorance going on in the political world today that isn't even funny.
I also agree that Rush, for once has a good point here.
07-20-2009, 08:29 PM
Old School Wrote:First let me say I'm not a big fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I think he has a vaild point here. The article Rush is referring is about the city of Los Angeles eliminating the use of electricity made from coal by 2020. Today Los Angeles receives about 40% of it's electricity from coal plants out of state. The big question is within the next 10 years how will they replace the 40% now supplied by coal and this is assuming that consumption remains the same as it is today.
The mayor insist that they will use natural gas, nuclear or hydroelectric to replace electricity produced by coal. Which brings these questions to mind.
How many nuclear, hydroelectric or natural gas plants will it take to supply this amount of power?
How many are being permitted or built in California today?
How long will the design, permitting and construction take to have these plants online?
I don't think a project of this size can be completed by 2020.
(1)You can make a nuclear powerhouse that puts as much electric out as a coal burner for about the same money.
(2)About the same as it takes for a coal burner.
(3)As many as it would take using coal burners.
07-21-2009, 05:44 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:Listen, as I have told jetpilot in PM, I don't lay around and b***h and whine and depend on politicians to provide for my family. I work several different industry's to make my money. There is very good money to be made away from eastern Kentucky if you go get it. I have traveled as far west as New Mexico and as far north as Michigan to make money. My wife and I have a very trusting relationship and I don't have to lay around eastern Kentucky, depending on coal to feed me. There is very good money to be made out there, you just can't lay here in eastern Kentucky b***hing about politicians and expect to make it. I go where I need to, to provide a VERY good lifestyle for my family. You might even find out as I have, that you can afford to take off 6 months to be with the family, just because you can. You can get out there and make money, or b***h and whine about Obama, it's your choice. As much as I travel, and I haven't even traveled in the last 3 years, I never fail to be home on weekends to be with my family.
TheRealVille Wrote:Make no mistake though with my posts, I don't want coal done away with as an energy source. It is cheap energy. If the EPA determines that the powerhouses are overly polluting, they need to take steps to clean the emissions coming out of their stacks up. I know they can do it, because for the last 3 years I have been working on projects that do just that. After the scrubbers and SCR's are installed, the emissions coming out of the stack are almost 100% clean.
May I ask a question that is not hostile? What do I tell a coal miner who is already in the mines, and have been for at least 15 years and have to rely on that income to feed there families? Quit working in the mines, learn a new trade to get a new job, and in the mean time try to save up enough money to last about two years so they can learn the trade, take certification papers, and find a job. What my solution is if eastern ky could get together and bring the trade here that would pay them while they learn the trade so they can still work and provide for there families. I mean if that is all they know to do, how can the make it? They sure don't have the money to go to school, and they sure don't have the means to move and find another place. If the coal industry wants to stay alive they have to work together so they can stay in business.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[COLOR="Blue"]
My Priorities are:
1)God
2)Family
3)Cougar Athletics!
Everything else doesn't matter![/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]
My Priorities are:
1)God
2)Family
3)Cougar Athletics!
Everything else doesn't matter![/COLOR]
07-21-2009, 08:56 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:(1)You can make a nuclear powerhouse that puts as much electric out as a coal burner for about the same money.
(2)About the same as it takes for a coal burner.
(3)As many as it would take using coal burners.
You didn't answer any of the question's.
07-21-2009, 10:23 PM
Old School Wrote:You didn't answer any of the question's.I answered all of them. In sum, it's just as easy and almost as cheap to use nuclear energy as it is coal, and a whole lot cleaner. The questions are red herrings.
07-21-2009, 11:03 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:I answered all of them. In sum, it's just as easy and almost as cheap to use nuclear energy as it is coal, and a whole lot cleaner. The questions are red herrings.
Why not answer cougarpride's questions while your at it? :biggrin:
07-22-2009, 08:50 PM
TheRealVille Wrote:I answered all of them. In sum, it's just as easy and almost as cheap to use nuclear energy as it is coal, and a whole lot cleaner. The questions are red herrings.
Hey, I not against nuclear power, in fact I think nuclear power is a must if we want to become engery independent. I just don't think 10 years is a reasonable time table to replace 40% of their electricity, I think a 20-25 year timetable is more reasonable.
As I've said many times before as a nation we need to be engery indepentent and to do this we will need energy from all sources including wind, solar, coal, gas, oil , nuclear and whatever else we can think of.
07-22-2009, 08:57 PM
Old School Wrote:Hey, I not against nuclear power, in fact I think nuclear power is a must if we want to become engery independent. I just don't think 10 years is a reasonable time table to replace 40% of their electricity, I think a 20-25 year timetable is more reasonable.Again, a statement I totally agree with.:Thumbs:
As I've said many times before as a nation we need to be engery indepentent and to do this we will need energy from all sources including wind, solar, coal, gas, oil , nuclear and whatever else we can think of.
07-22-2009, 10:15 PM
Didn't think you had an answer for cougar's questions. :biggrin:
07-22-2009, 10:56 PM
No matter what is said the fact remains that coal isn't going to last forever and at the rate that this country and the other growing world powers consume energy it won't be long. For Rush (an unreliable source) to say that there is no replacement for coal is naive and an uneducated statement. There are alternatives, the most logical one that is at our disposal is of course Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy is cleaner and more efficient then coal can ever be. While I don't believe coal has a replacement over night but we must open our minds to the fact that it has to be replaced someday. People like Rush are blind to the world and their political ignorance is drowning in the ever changing tide of political thought.
07-22-2009, 11:02 PM
Mad Dog 420 Wrote:No matter what is said the fact remains that coal isn't going to last forever and at the rate that this country and the other growing world powers consume energy it won't be long. For Rush (an unreliable source) to say that there is no replacement for coal is naive and an uneducated statement. There are alternatives, the most logical one that is at our disposal is of course Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy is cleaner and more efficient then coal can ever be. While I don't believe coal has a replacement over night but we must open our minds to the fact that it has to be replaced someday. People like Rush are blind to the world and their political ignorance is drowning in the ever changing tide of political thought.
So this Country should just switch energy sources just like that?
Don't you realize what that would do to our economy? There would be amazingly high unemployment, black outs, etc.
07-22-2009, 11:17 PM
outdoorsman43 Wrote:So this Country should just switch energy sources just like that?
Don't you realize what that would do to our economy? There would be amazingly high unemployment, black outs, etc.
You didn't read what I said very clearly or you would notice that I said the following:
While I don't believe coal has a replacement over night but we must open our minds to the fact that it has to be replaced someday.
Someday isn't right now is it? No it isn't I think that you need to open your eyes and see that coal isn't gonna last forever. If we followed the plans of Rush and the other extreme right we would be using coal right up till the day it all ran out then we really would be in a world of hurt and all those things they say are gonna happen if we consider using some other alternative source will happen.
Also on the point of the Eastern Kentucky economy and coal, it should be the job of our political leaders to bring in more business and economic growth in order to keep us from depending so highly on one economic source. This hasn't happened and voters should wake up and become politically active until changes are made.
07-22-2009, 11:28 PM
Mad Dog 420 Wrote:You didn't read what I said very clearly or you would notice that I said the following:
While I don't believe coal has a replacement over night but we must open our minds to the fact that it has to be replaced someday.
Someday isn't right now is it? No it isn't I think that you need to open your eyes and see that coal isn't gonna last forever. If we followed the plans of Rush and the other extreme right we would be using coal right up till the day it all ran out then we really would be in a world of hurt and all those things they say are gonna happen if we consider using some other alternative source will happen.
Also on the point of the Eastern Kentucky economy and coal, it should be the job of our political leaders to bring in more business and economic growth in order to keep us from depending so highly on one economic source. This hasn't happened and voters should wake up and become politically active until changes are made.
My eyes are open.
Someday is a while from now, a pretty long while at that. I am by no means saying we should listen to anything Rush Limbaugh says either. I am saying that our area (the whole Appalachian region) depends on coal for many more jobs than just mining. Just about the whole state of West Virginia is dependent on coal.
I do agree with you that we will eventually be required to switch to alternative fuels, but the way Obama and the administration are trying to do it is ridiculous and ludicrous. There is nothing wrong with switching to alternative fuels and we as a country should start in that direction, but in a slow process. We have plenty generations left of coal and should take advantage of that time. But, the way Obama is handling this is just not right for the America. We all will be effected, if Obama and the administration keeps it up. You Obama defenders will understand then when you are paying for it, literally. I'm not pointing you out either MadDog, don't think that. I'm talking to everyone.
07-22-2009, 11:36 PM
outdoorsman43 Wrote:My eyes are open.
Someday is a while from now, a pretty long while at that. I am by no means saying we should listen to anything Rush Limbaugh says either. I am saying that our area (the whole Appalachian region) depends on coal for many more jobs than just mining. Just about the whole state of West Virginia is dependent on coal.
I do agree with you that we will eventually be required to switch to alternative fuels, but the way Obama and the administration are trying to do it is ridiculous and ludicrous. There is nothing wrong with switching to alternative fuels and we as a country should start in that direction, but in a slow process. We have plenty generations left of coal and should take advantage of that time. But, the way Obama is handling this is just not right for the America. We all will be effected, if Obama and the administration keeps it up. You Obama defenders will understand then when you are paying for it, literally. I'm not pointing you out either MadDog, don't think that. I'm talking to everyone.
Hard to argue with what you said and a lot more open minded then the rest of your party :Thumbs:.
Only thing I will say is that yes the administration is going too aggressively into the alternative switch. Problem is that the situation Obama inherited from his mildly incompetent predecessor is one that is almost impossible to handle. From a long drawn out war in Iraq to economic uncertainty the administration can't really do much right with the weight of the world baring down. I don't think any of the candidates could make it all go back to the way it was before Bush. It took 8 years for him to screw it all up and it will probably take the American people and good leadership that much time or longer to get back on the right track.
07-22-2009, 11:42 PM
Mad Dog 420 Wrote:Hard to argue with what you said and a lot more open minded then the rest of your party :Thumbs:.
Only thing I will say is that yes the administration is going too aggressively into the alternative switch. Problem is that the situation Obama inherited from his mildly incompetent predecessor is one that is almost impossible to handle. From a long drawn out war in Iraq to economic uncertainty the administration can't really do much right with the weight of the world baring down. I don't think any of the candidates could make it all go back to the way it was before Bush. It took 8 years for him to screw it all up and it will probably take the American people and good leadership that much time or longer to get back on the right track.
Nice post. This Country needs time to heal and who knows if we will ever have a surplus like we had when Clinton was in office. I'm not saying I liked Clinton at all (because I don't), but he did have the economy on track and it has all been tarnished for now, hopefully temporarily. Problem is, I really can't say if this nation will ever heal from this hole that we are in right now.
07-22-2009, 11:46 PM
Yea very true, a statement that either side of the political spectrum should realize and agree with.
07-23-2009, 10:27 PM
outdoorsman43 Wrote:Didn't think you had an answer for cougar's questions. :biggrin:That miner could do what I did when the bottom fell out from under my first job, retrain like I did. I am pretty well off because of that now.
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)