3 3
brenthutch

Coal, the comeback kid?

Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

It's painful watching how much you have to twist or misrepresent the facts to fit your narrative. Really not sure what you hope to achieve by it...

 

Just the current state of the GOP and republicans in America. Misinformation and lies are intermingled to meet a narrative. Big interest groups with cash in coal country. Buy politicians who spin the lies and the base gobbles the lies up.

This weekend in Texas the GOP voted to rename President Biden the "Acting President". Because he won a fraudulent election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

You can't honestly ask such a dumb question.

who said anything about being honest?

 

He couldn't engage without making strawmen arguments or loaded questions. It's just impossible for him.

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stumpy said:

It's painful watching how much you have to twist or misrepresent the facts to fit your narrative. Really not sure what you hope to achieve by it.

For those intellectually less challenged individuals wondering what BS Brent is spouting this time, it's a very short term response to impending russian gas shortages. From the same article:

"Germany, a long-time heavy user of Russian gas, began cutting down on imports after the latest invasion Ukraine. Its climate target to phase out coal by 2030 remains in place, as does its policy to shut down its three remaining nuclear power plants by 2023.

Berlin also plans to expand its renewable energy generation - already one of the most ambitious countries - and improve gas storage and energy efficiency measures."

 

And in that article the Economy Minister, Robert Habeck does not mention wind and solar (that would be the parts that are between the quotation marks)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/19/german-green-party-announces-a-return-to-coal/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coal, the cancer kid:

 

Reliance on coal linked with lung cancer incidence

The more a country relies on coal-fired power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk is among its citizens . . . .

Researchers found that, for every 1-kilowatt increase of coal capacity per person, the relative risk of lung cancer increases 59% among men and 85% among women.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/reliance-on-coal-linked-with-lung-cancer-incidence/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, billvon said:

Coal, the cancer kid:

 

Reliance on coal linked with lung cancer incidence

The more a country relies on coal-fired power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk is among its citizens . . . .

Researchers found that, for every 1-kilowatt increase of coal capacity per person, the relative risk of lung cancer increases 59% among men and 85% among women.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/reliance-on-coal-linked-with-lung-cancer-incidence/

Hi Bill,

5 yrs ago, one of my best friends * died of lung cancer.  That IMO is not a fun way to go.

Jerry Baumchen

* I had known him for over 50 yrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

5 yrs ago, one of my best friends * died of lung cancer.  That IMO is not a fun way to go.

Jerry Baumchen

* I had known him for over 50 yrs.

My grandfather died of the same thing, but then again he was a two pack a day smoker (Winstons)

As I posted earlier I am no great fan of coal, however given the choice of burning coal or having the lights go out, I would choose the former (just like most of the world)

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

As I posted earlier I am no great fan of coal, however given the choice of burning coal or having the lights go out, I would choose the former (just like most of the world)

And just like nearly everyone on this forum. However, your stated position as a rule as far as i can tell is that cheapest in the short is always best, especially if it pisses off the libs.

I have the means to support energy sources that look like better choices for the long run, including technology that reduces the need to consume as much energy in the first place. By subsidizing that, even at my own cost, I hope I’m helping to make it more available for others. Kind of like how early adopters helped make internal combustion engines the go-to choice in a different era.

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And just like nearly everyone on this forum. However, your stated position as a rule as far as i can tell is that cheapest in the short is always best, especially if it pisses off the libs.

Or more accurately "whatever pisses off the libs is always best, especially if it's cheaper."

My own solution to "the lights going out" is . . well, I'll post that in its own thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And just like nearly everyone on this forum. However, your stated position as a rule as far as i can tell is that cheapest in the short is always best, especially if it pisses off the libs.

I have the means to support energy sources that look like better choices for the long run, including technology that reduces the need to consume as much energy in the first place. By subsidizing that, even at my own cost, I hope I’m helping to make it more available for others. Kind of like how early adopters helped make internal combustion engines the go-to choice in a different era.

Wendy P. 

My position is that economics trump ideology and any effort to overcome this simple reality are expensive, futile and counterproductive. (Germany going back to coal is a perfect example) As a Libertarian I fully support your personal choices, I just don’t want those choices to be foisted on the American people at the hand of a strong arming federal government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

No it isn't. And you thinking it is, is exactly everything that is wrong with your position.

I’m not saying Germany no longer has aspirations to end the use of coal, I am saying that when it comes down to a choice between shuttering factories and freezing, and burning coal, they will/are choosing the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I’m not saying Germany no longer has aspirations to end the use of coal, I am saying that when it comes down to a choice between shuttering factories and freezing, and burning coal, they will/are choosing the latter.

All these years about advocating for coal and all you were ever saying is that when people are faced with freezing they are going to find a way to stay warm?

I suggest a communications course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
20 hours ago, billvon said:

Coal, the cancer kid:

 

Reliance on coal linked with lung cancer incidence

The more a country relies on coal-fired power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk is among its citizens . . . .

Researchers found that, for every 1-kilowatt increase of coal capacity per person, the relative risk of lung cancer increases 59% among men and 85% among women.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/reliance-on-coal-linked-with-lung-cancer-incidence/

You say that like it is a bad thing. Having an increase in cancer risk is a good thing for everyone:

  • It is good for the economy (why do you hate economic progress?)

Just think of all the jobs created when cancer rates skyrocket. There are cancer centers employing - doctors, nurses, lab technicians, custodial workers, receptionists, administrators, etc. All these people would be out of work without coal causing lung cancer.

Then there is all the drug companies who are researching ways to cure coal inspired lung cancer. Just think of all the scientists, more lab technicians, custodial workers, and veterinarians. All out of a job. Do you really want that?

Not to mention all the miners, people that process and transport the coal. Gas station operators that supply the fuel to the trucks/trains that transport the coal. Let's face it, the whole country would shut down if we were to ban coal generated power plants!

  • It is good for the environment (why do you hate nature?)

With all these people dying from lung cancer and being buried in the ground improves the population of worms to decompose the bodies. The worms create waste products that the plants use as nutrients to grow beautiful big trees and grass. And its not just worms, but probably ants, beetles, fungus, bacteria. All these things are good for the environment. We need more people dying not less to help the environment!

 

Edited by CygnusX-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3