Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Enjoy being extorted by the Russians when buying it. Or do you really want to discuss the merits of fracking?
Coal is cheap, plentiful and domestic. You're not going to win the argument. The focus should be on making coal plants cleaner, and the EPA has already stepped in to affect that.
I already mentioned I'm not in favor of fracking, given what the situation is in the Marcellus Shale region. There are plenty of areas in the US and Canada where natural gas is produced that isn't through fracking. Natural gas is far cleaner than coal when burned at an electricity generating station as it produces MUCH LOWER amounts of carbon and other pollutants. Natural gas does not produce radiation, mercury, and other poisons like coal does when burned. Many old coal plants are exempt from regulations. Do some googling and research AEP and other such outfits. Indiana has the 2nd or 3rd highest carbon emission levels in the entire country and the most per capita. It couldn't get much worse at this point and that is why most areas of the US are quickly moving away from coal.
Per capita personal income and wages are not exactly the same thing.
I have personal experience, so I'll put my two cents in.
My husband worked in a S. Indiana power plant for three years in a specififed department. When one of their power plants was sold to the manufacturer and the manufacturer decided to outsource the jobs, my husband, being the man with the least seniority, and two others in his department, were laid off.
A couple months later he took the exact same position in a power plant in Texas, starting pay was nearly double what he made in Indiana. The only difference was that the department he worked in at the power plant in Texas was non-union and the one in Indiana was.
Fast foward ten years. We've been back in Indiana three years. My husband took a job back home in a similar field, but after several years, decided his heart was still in the power plant industry. Seeing an opportunity to get in with a power plant close to home, he chose to take a cut in pay (exactly half, at least for the nine month probation). Now, he makes what he made ten years ago in the exact same position.
Even though his boss tells him he knows more about their department then his co-workers and even his two bosses (not only does my husband have a related degree, but he chose to serve on every committee he could to learn more about everything about his job), and even though he's received accolades of monetary reward from the power plant manager twice for saving them from one near-disaster and one descrepency with EPA reports, his pay must reflect starting level because of the contract between company and union. So, basically, he's getting screwed and the company is benifiting from him, because of the union agreement.
I grew up in a two-union-working-parent household. I have lived and breathed union all my life, the benefits and the detriments. And I have had the good fortune to be able to personally live the differences (and they aren't all monetary) between a right-to-work state/company, and a company forced to hire union workers and make certain that everyone is treated the same, no matter their experience or knowledge. Personally, I'll take the right-to-work situation every time, because my husband was able to negotiate his salary right off the bat, his probation wasn't nine months (ack!!), and his opportunities abounded in the TX plant.
You may ask, then why did he choose to take this position/cut in pay? Because he knows his ability, and no union can put a cap on that. He'll advance in spite of his limits at present. I've seen too many people within the union who decide the union will choose their limits because it's just easier.
Does this mean right-to-work is perfect. Absolutely not. There are so many other factors. However, right-to-work means, in a society where, as one poster stated, most union efforts are now law, the individual employee can have so much more say in his/her working experience/career. And we all deserve that.
No, carbon dioxide rises into the atmosphere. Regardless, average temperatures are increasing now compared to historical averages. Burning coal is an extremely dirty, inefficient, and 19th century way of generating electricity. All the externalized costs of coal ash waste, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and radiation are not included in the price of electricity. The big utilities only clean things up when forced to. Indiana has extremely old coal plants that are grandfathered in and the big utilities are running them into the ground until they are shuttered. They could give 2 cents about the health of the public. Gas is MUCH cleaner than coal.
Not true. There are elective tests going on all the time which our EPA cares nothing about because it's not driving the global warming craze. Even tests such as advanced mercury testing has been going on for more than two years now. Some of that is only now coming into law through the EPA.
And part of the "running them into the ground" is because they aren't allowed to build newer plants (permit rules and residential petition), and when they do, they have to fight lawsuit after lawsuit to get it up and running.
Our country demands more energy. Somebody has to supply it. Hands are tied. This is what happens when organizations like the EPA are told to go after things they really shouldn't, instead of dangers that really are hurting our air.
Even against those crazy capitalist moneymakers, there's always two sides to every story. Just some are told over and over again, so they sound better than others.
Enjoy being extorted by the Russians when buying it. Or do you really want to discuss the merits of fracking?
Coal is cheap, plentiful and domestic. You're not going to win the argument. The focus should be on making coal plants cleaner, and the EPA has already stepped in to affect that.
But actually, they are hindering some of the most important efforts for cleaner coal.
I agree with you, we definitely need cleaner coal. I just see things through a different perspective.
Not true. There are elective tests going on all the time which our EPA cares nothing about because it's not driving the global warming craze. Even tests such as advanced mercury testing has been going on for more than two years now. Some of that is only now coming into law through the EPA.
And part of the "running them into the ground" is because they aren't allowed to build newer plants (permit rules and residential petition), and when they do, they have to fight lawsuit after lawsuit to get it up and running.
Our country demands more energy. Somebody has to supply it. Hands are tied. This is what happens when organizations like the EPA are told to go after things they really shouldn't, instead of dangers that really are hurting our air.
Even against those crazy capitalist moneymakers, there's always two sides to every story. Just some are told over and over again, so they sound better than others.
"Not true" No, it definitely IS TRUE that gas is far cleaner than coal. It's a pretty much indisputed fact.
"Our country demands more energy." Energy efficiency and conservation efforts need to be ramped up to reduce the demand side issue. This has worked in other areas of the country. In the Midwest it seems like a completely foreign concept. Idiocy.
"And part of the "running them into the ground" is because they aren't allowed to build newer plants (permit rules and residential petition), and when they do, they have to fight lawsuit after lawsuit to get it up and running"
I'm sure many do take the NIMBY approach because they are fearful of a coal plant in their backyard after seeing all the old grandfathered plants operate for decades. Most would prefer EE, natural gas, or wind. It's just the public is much more involved and informed about these things.
"it's not driving the global warming craze." I sure wouldn't call a scientific consensus a craze. The US is moving beyond a heavily carbon based economy, and Indiana is the laggard- finishing close to dead last in that regard.
But actually, they are hindering some of the most important efforts for cleaner coal.
I agree with you, we definitely need cleaner coal. I just see things through a different perspective.
Visit Appalachia and see the end result of coal dependency. Blown up mountains, posioned water supplies, land erosion, hazardous waste, poverty, massive drug problems, and other such disasters. From what I've read natural gas seems like the future (generated through non-fracking means).
I know that you are coming from the coal industry side of things, but I've seen plenty of evidence of all the negatives as well.
Visit Appalachia and see the end result of coal dependency. Blown up mountains, posioned water supplies, land erosion, hazardous waste, poverty, massive drug problems, and other such disasters. From what I've read natural gas seems like the future (generated through non-fracking means).
I know that you are coming from the coal industry side of things, but I've seen plenty of evidence of all the negatives as well.
granite you should know this nothings perfect. Always pick the lesser of two evils and the tradeoff for our society. Coal is much cleaner now than in the past cause of the processes to purify it and remove the dangerous elements. Granted it isn't perfect but with 500+ years of reserves (Well all be long dead lol) i would like to contiune coal but keep researching on ways to purify it and clean it up more.
"Not true" No, it definitely IS TRUE that gas is far cleaner than coal. It's a pretty much indisputed fact.
"Our country demands more energy." Energy efficiency and conservation efforts need to be ramped up to reduce the demand side issue. This has worked in other areas of the country. In the Midwest it seems like a completely foreign concept. Idiocy.
"And part of the "running them into the ground" is because they aren't allowed to build newer plants (permit rules and residential petition), and when they do, they have to fight lawsuit after lawsuit to get it up and running"
I'm sure many do take the NIMBY approach because they are fearful of a coal plant in their backyard after seeing all the old grandfathered plants operate for decades. Most would prefer EE, natural gas, or wind. It's just the public is much more involved and informed about these things.
"it's not driving the global warming craze." I sure wouldn't call a scientific consensus a craze. The US is moving beyond a heavily carbon based economy, and Indiana is the laggard- finishing close to dead last in that regard.
Sorry, but I wasn't disputing the fact that gas in cleaner than coal. I just didn't emphasize my point. I didn't mean to insuate that coal was cleaner. I know better.
I meant that there are several power companies who are leading the way on developing better testing for air, water and soil that go much further that the EPA standards on certain environmental hazards. There are a lot of factors that go into the chemicals used in and byproduct of producing energy.
And I agree, we should have a conglomerate of different energy sources, but with a global economy as we are in, it will be tough to make that transition at present. It costs, a lot and for a lot of people, companies and governements.
No, carbon dioxide rises into the atmosphere. Regardless, average temperatures are increasing now compared to historical averages. Burning coal is an extremely dirty, inefficient, and 19th century way of generating electricity. All the externalized costs of coal ash waste, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and radiation are not included in the price of electricity. The big utilities only clean things up when forced to. Indiana has extremely old coal plants that are grandfathered in and the big utilities are running them into the ground until they are shuttered. They could give 2 cents about the health of the public. Gas is MUCH cleaner than coal.
You have concrete average temperature data from 500-3000 years ago? Humans exhale carbon dioxide, so what is being done about that pollution issue?
granite you should know this nothings perfect. Always pick the lesser of two evils and the tradeoff for our society. Coal is much cleaner now than in the past cause of the processes to purify it and remove the dangerous elements. Granted it isn't perfect but with 500+ years of reserves (Well all be long dead lol) i would like to contiune coal but keep researching on ways to purify it and clean it up more.
Somehow, I doubt you've actually been to Appalachia and all the MTR areas...
Clean coal is a fallacy, a lie that is bought and paid for by industry. Oil and gas is much the same way. However, a natural gas power plant does not produce mercury, sulfur dioxide, and radiation like burining coal does. Regardless, of how "clean" coal plants burn they will emit those pollutants while gas does not.
Indiana should maximize its wind reserves in the remainer of the cornbelt region while transitioning some of the oldest coal units over to gas. Next instituting even stronger EE programs through the local utilities to decrease demand growth so that new baseload generation will not have to be built. New generation capacity is extremely expensive and ratepayers will be on the hook for all of those costs. The ratepayers should not pay for dinosaur technology like pulverized coal, that is already obsolete.
It shouldn't be hard to move forward somewhat on this issue. The fact that you don't think 97% of all electricity generated from coal in the state is a problem says quite a bit. This is not how the rest of the country operates these days as they have a much more diverse portfolio of energy sources.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
