GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[turbguy + 1,535]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You seem to forget that nearly all of coal pollution can be eliminated by the new technology. 

From one who has experience with "burning dirt", what "new technology" do you speak of that "eliminates" coal's pollution?

ESP's? (1940's)

Scrubbers?  (1960's)

SCR's? (1990's)

Ash pits? (1880's, if not much earlier).

Edited May 29 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

show data

You show data about the size of the national debt, projected to skyrocket as a result of Biden's wild schemes.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

Just now, TailingsPond said:

Tell me what technology is going to solve this mine pollution?  Cover all the exposed coal piles with tarps?  Spray the roads with even more dust control agents?   Reduce the pollution from the trucks with enormously expensive catalytic converters that require rare earth elements?

All this pollution is from the mine alone.  You are probably thinking only of the power plant emissions.

Look with your eyes, not your indoctrination.

So tell me where is this fantasy mine pollution control technology you so believe in that even modern mines do not yet have?

Lastly, why do you ignore the fact we have converted power plants away from coal without using the renewable energy sources you demonize?  It nat gas is still a fossil fuel, relax!   Coal is filth.

Check the decline in coal pollutants in the last thirty years, I showed you the data, that is a massive decline in pollutants.

Now look at the disaster waiting for us in the mining of lithium and cobalt...coal looks clean by comparison.

 

[TailingsPond + 671]

43 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

You show data about the size of the national debt, projected to skyrocket as a result of Biden's wild schemes.

No that was trump

[TailingsPond + 671]

41 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Check the decline in coal pollutants in the last thirty years, I showed you the data, that is a massive decline in pollutants.

Now look at the disaster waiting for us in the mining of lithium and cobalt...coal looks clean by comparison.

 

30 years! lol.  I showed you recent pollution data.  There is still huge amounts of pollution.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

From one who has experience with "burning dirt", what "new technology" do you speak of that "eliminates" coal's pollution?

ESP's? (1940's)

Scrubbers?  (1960's)

SCR's? (1990's)

Ash pits? (1880's, if not much earlier).

  On 5/21/2024 at 7:17 PM, TailingsPond said:

Here is the self reported pollution releases from a coal mine.  The facilities are required to report emissions.

https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/national-release-inventory/2022/6669

Scroll down a bit and click on the Releases tab.  Literally tonnes of pollution released to air, water, and land (relax CO2 is not even listed). 

The mines fully acknowledge they are polluters, why can't you? 

2,121 tonnes of PM 2.5 (the most toxic air particulate), loads of heavy metals, etc.

Expand  

Toxic emissions from fossil fuel products have declined by astronomical rates in recent years, that is what matters. This is a problem with a history but not a future.

https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/clean-air-act-successes-and-challenges-1970/#:~:text=[atmospheric concentration of] fine particles,1970%2C” the authors note.

“Despite the quadrupling of gross domestic product since 1970, air quality across the United States has improved substantially . . . [atmospheric concentration of] fine particles declined 41 percent since 2000, ozone fell 32 percent since 1980, and lead decreased 99 percent since 1970,” the authors note. As increases in gross domestic product (GDP) are usually associated with increased production and, therefore, emissions, this decrease in pollution is significant. The decline in pollutants and increase in GDP since 1980 are shown in the chart below.

Share

 

“The CAA has delivered clear success stories—removing lead from gasoline, phasing out chlorofluorocarbons and other substances that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, dramatically reducing sulfur emissions from power plants and transportation fuels. Emissions of air toxics have also declined substantially,” the authors highlight in their introduction."

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

2 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

30 years! lol.  I showed you recent pollution data.  There is still huge amounts of pollution.

And there would be catastrophic amounts of pollution if the wild renewable schemes of Biden & Co. ever come to pass...which they certainly will not.

Fossil fuel pollution relative to the massive growth in fossil fuel output is now a miniscule amount.

Edited May 29 by Ecocharger

[notsonice + 1,243]

30 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Check the decline in coal pollutants in the last thirty years, I showed you the data, that is a massive decline in pollutants.

Now look at the disaster waiting for us in the mining of lithium and cobalt...coal looks clean by comparison.

 

coal looks clean by comparison?????

when is the last time you were visiting or working at a coal mine?????? or for that matter a lithium operation..........

so lets do so numbers

amount of lithium produced every year.......180,000 tonnes now  compare it to coal............8 billion tonnes of coal produced annually...  50,000 times the amount of lithium

and get this the lithium that is produced can be  recycled and the spent coal???? well you can not put that nasty polluting  Coal Genie back in the bottle can you???? Carbon sequestration ...just a shame ploy a coal miner can say they are working on......

mining /production than coal....coal looks clean by comparison???? ha ha ha ha keep blowing smoke up your own arse....
 

once again I take it you never have been in a coal mine ...openpit , strip or underground and from your comment it is obvious you have never worked in a mine of any nature and from I can tell never in any refinery .....oil or chemical or you never have worked on a drill rig ever.......

 

real Fact...the mining and use of coal is the dirtiest of all mining /electricity producing methods out there

only a Luddite/moron would defend coal mining/use these days when their are cleaner and less expensive ways to produce electricity. 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

13 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Wow even when faced with facts from people who have actually worked at coal plants and coal mines you choose to ignore them.

The "new technology" reduces but by no means eliminates coal pollution.

I guess you do not like the truth about the drastic decline in fossil fuel pollution despite the massive growth in fossil fuel demand.

[notsonice + 1,243]

 

Coal and the environment - U.S. Energy Information ...

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (.gov)

https://www.eia.gov › energyexplained › coal-and-the-en...

 

 

 

 

In 2021, methane emissions from active and abandoned coal mines accounted for about 7% of total U.S. methane emissions and about 1% of total U.S. greenhouse gas .

 

Doubled mortality risk from coal-fired power plants | News

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu › news › press-releases

 

 

 

 

Particulate pollution from coal associated with double the risk of mortality than PM2.5 from other sources. smoke from Coal-Fired Power Plant with blue sky in morning day. For immediate

 

Killer Coal: Just how bad are the health effects of coal?

Climate Council

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au › News

 

 

 

 

May 22, 2023 — Coal is the most polluting way to generate electricity. It creates greenhouse gases and emits toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air ...

 

Coal Power Impacts

Union of Concerned Scientists

https://www.ucsusa.org › resources › coal-power-impacts

 

 

 

 

Nov 15, 2017 — Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is linked with asthma, cancer, heart and lung ailments, neurological problems, acid rain, global ...

 

[TailingsPond + 671]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

And there would be catastrophic amounts of pollution if the wild renewable schemes of Biden & Co. ever come to pass...which they certainly will not.

You make claims with no substance and have been discredited.  You purposefully try to deceive and refuse to look at real numbers.

Look up stuff yourself, if you want to claim Biden is creating more debt than trump did show it! I won't do that for you.

Just stop embarrassing yourself. 

 

Edited May 29 by TailingsPond

[TailingsPond + 671]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you do not like the truth about the drastic decline in fossil fuel pollution despite the massive growth in fossil fuel demand.

You forget that this is not a coal versus renewables issue.   I clearly showed you coal can be eliminated by replacement with natural gas.  You fail to respond to those facts and go on about President Biden and renewable energy fear mongering.

[notsonice + 1,243]

 

Mercury levels in the ocean have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution due to human activities. According to a 2014 study in Nature, mercury levels in the upper 100 meters of the ocean have tripled, with the highest levels in the Arctic and North Atlantic. A 2015 study found that the increase may be as much as 5 to 6 times. 

 

now  where does all the mercury in fish come from????

 

Ecochump do you know?????? let me give you a clue   one of the main sources is.....a black rock like substance mined for the production of electricity

 

notice there is an avoid line...........

it is not a good idea to eat too much fish from the ocean ....unless you love mercury in your own bloodstream

Edited May 29 by notsonice

[notsonice + 1,243]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You show data about the size of the national debt, projected to skyrocket as a result of Biden's wild schemes.

and who was the King of Debt.......... as the real number of importance is the debt to GDP ratio...Looks like the winner is the guy who did not want to wear a mask during Covid...133 percent in the fall of 2020, enjoy stability that we now enjoy with Joe in charge

 

and the debt to GDP ratio under sleepy Joe  a steady 120....no skyrocket today unlike under Trumps 2020 failure to control COVID. Under Trumps belt was a rise of 30 percent ...under Sleepy Joe it dropped 10 percent... Trump wins your Skyrocket Award.... Enjoy

PS and your gasoline price today????? last time I checked in my neck of the woods it was $2.90............under 3 bucks a gallon huh

 

need help in understanding why the chart below is the one that matters??????

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

 

Coal and the environment - U.S. Energy Information ...

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (.gov)

https://www.eia.gov › energyexplained › coal-and-the-en...

 

 

 

 

In 2021, methane emissions from active and abandoned coal mines accounted for about 7% of total U.S. methane emissions and about 1% of total U.S. greenhouse gas .

 

Doubled mortality risk from coal-fired power plants | News

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu › news › press-releases

 

 

 

 

Particulate pollution from coal associated with double the risk of mortality than PM2.5 from other sources. smoke from Coal-Fired Power Plant with blue sky in morning day. For immediate

 

Killer Coal: Just how bad are the health effects of coal?

Climate Council

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au › News

 

 

 

 

May 22, 2023 — Coal is the most polluting way to generate electricity. It creates greenhouse gases and emits toxic and carcinogenic substances into our air ...

 

Coal Power Impacts

Union of Concerned Scientists

https://www.ucsusa.org › resources › coal-power-impacts

 

 

 

 

Nov 15, 2017 — Air pollution from coal-fired power plants is linked with asthma, cancer, heart and lung ailments, neurological problems, acid rain, global ...

 

Outdated data, and CO2 is not necessarily a greenhouse gas...some folks are slow on this.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

You make claims with no substance and have been discredited.  You purposefully try to deceive and refuse to look at real numbers.

Look up stuff yourself, if you want to claim Biden is creating more debt than trump did show it! I won't do that for you.

Just stop embarrassing yourself. 

 

Time for you to look at the projected American national debt with the new Biden wild expenses for support of renewables...this makes Trump look cheap in comparison.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

1 hour ago, TailingsPond said:

You forget that this is not a coal versus renewables issue.   I clearly showed you coal can be eliminated by replacement with natural gas.  You fail to respond to those facts and go on about President Biden and renewable energy fear mongering.

Biden has natural gas squarely in his gunsights.

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Time for you to look at the projected American national debt with the new Biden wild expenses for support of renewables...this makes Trump look cheap in comparison.

I will look if you show me real data.  Right now your credibility is zero.  If you want people to listen to your forecasts or opinions you need to demonstrate that you can change your views when presented with data.  As it is you have locked-in indoctrination and no amount of information will change your views.

Reminds me of this dufus who continues to claim the election was stolen.

 

[TailingsPond + 671]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Biden has natural gas squarely in his gunsights.

You recently praised Biden for his encouragement of the oil and gas industry to increase production.

Do you not recall what you write?

Edited May 30 by TailingsPond

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

19 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

I will look if you show me real data.  Right now your credibility is zero.  If you want people to listen to your forecasts or opinions you need to demonstrate that you can change your views when presented with data.  As it is you have locked-in indoctrination and no amount of information will change your views.

Reminds me of this dufus who continues to claim the election was stolen.

 

I have noticed that you are unable to accept data which conflicts with your ideology...you need to get past that.

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

54 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

You recently praised Biden for his encouragement of the oil and gas industry to increase production.

Do you not recall what you write?

I do not recall "praising" Biden for anything, but I pointed out that there is a profound hypocrisy in Biden's insistence upon condemning fossil fuels while at the same time pleading with oil producers to increase output.

That type of  mental schizophrenia is beyond my understanding, but I guess it is merely par for the course with the Demo demagogues.

Edited May 30 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

Oil demand in America is hot and getting hotter. People are heading out on vacation and firing up their BBQs.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/API-Reports-Significant-Draw-in-Crude-Oil-Inventories.html

"Crude oil inventories in the United States fell this week by 6.490 million barrels for the week ending May 17, according to The American Petroleum Institute (API). "

[TailingsPond + 671]

35 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I have noticed that you are unable to accept data which conflicts with your ideology...you need to get past that.

You show no quality data.  I and others have.

[TailingsPond + 671]

34 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

I do not recall praising Biden for anything, but I pointed out that there is a profound hypocrisy in Biden's insistence upon condemning fossil fuels while at the same time pleading with oil producers to increase output.

 

"Pleading with oil producers to increase output" is encouraging the oil industry, which conflicts with your last post.

"Biden has natural gas squarely in his gunsights."

I am not a democrat, I don't even live in the USA. 

I do hate Trump and other forms of toxic pollution (once again not CO2). 

Edited May 30 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,535]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

  On 5/21/2024 at 7:17 PM, TailingsPond said:

Here is the self reported pollution releases from a coal mine.  The facilities are required to report emissions.

https://pollution-waste.canada.ca/national-release-inventory/2022/6669

Scroll down a bit and click on the Releases tab.  Literally tonnes of pollution released to air, water, and land (relax CO2 is not even listed). 

The mines fully acknowledge they are polluters, why can't you? 

2,121 tonnes of PM 2.5 (the most toxic air particulate), loads of heavy metals, etc.

Expand  

Toxic emissions from fossil fuel products have declined by astronomical rates in recent years, that is what matters. This is a problem with a history but not a future.

https://www.rff.org/news/press-releases/clean-air-act-successes-and-challenges-1970/#:~:text=[atmospheric concentration of] fine particles,1970%2C” the authors note.

“Despite the quadrupling of gross domestic product since 1970, air quality across the United States has improved substantially . . . [atmospheric concentration of] fine particles declined 41 percent since 2000, ozone fell 32 percent since 1980, and lead decreased 99 percent since 1970,” the authors note. As increases in gross domestic product (GDP) are usually associated with increased production and, therefore, emissions, this decrease in pollution is significant. The decline in pollutants and increase in GDP since 1980 are shown in the chart below.

Share

 

“The CAA has delivered clear success stories—removing lead from gasoline, phasing out chlorofluorocarbons and other substances that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, dramatically reducing sulfur emissions from power plants and transportation fuels. Emissions of air toxics have also declined substantially,” the authors highlight in their introduction."

True!  The CAA has made HUGE in roads, requiring "the best available technology" to reduce emissions from new (and old) sources. 

The Clean Air Act has a bit of a complex history. There was an initial version passed in 1963, but the one most people refer to today is the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970. This significantly strengthened the act and is what truly established the Federal government's role in regulating air quality.

Since then, the regulations have continued to be amended and updated. The EPA is responsible for overseeing the Clean Air Act, and they can issue new regulations or update existing ones as needed.

Federal regulation of airborne emissions worked!

Using OLD technologies...

If you are "talking coal", I would concentrate on Sulfur (down about 85%, thanks to some extent to scrubbers) and Nitrogen oxides (down about 50%, thanks to SCR's and combustion controls).  Not exactly zero pollutants,  but certainly better than it was.  Then, there was this Ultra-low sulfur diesel with a maximum sulfur content of 15 ppm that became mandatory for highway vehicles starting in 2010. 

Then, there's this "ash" (real estate that doesn't burn).

You are showing a graph of the TOTAL effect of the EPA's actions. The EPA deals with a lot more sources than coal-fired power plants.

Does the EPA make mistakes?  Sure!  Don't get me started on "new source review" when an owner upgrades a turbine's steam path to increase thermal efficiency.  Replace parts with like-kind=no new source.  Replace parts with upgraded materials and geometry=WATCH OUT!

I would like to see a chart with data beyond 2018...

 

Edited May 30 by turbguy