Best
396 Comments
Post
  • #113
    !
    @dances-weebles LOL Sure they can. There are so many other jobs to be had in the mountains where farming is impossible and the business community relies in the business of the miners and their families.
  • #118
    !
    @Realthinker look... my family (who were miners) moved from west virginia and never looked back. it ain't really that difficult thing to do, you know.
  • R Load more replies

  • #58
    !
    Boo hoo... the job of dumping toxic waste into rivers and lakes is now gone because those nasty regs. I miss the days when you could set lakes on fire.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    !
    They cannot get rid of coal until they have a reliable alternative (and no, wind and solar are not it). So, yes it will cost the US jobs as the price of electrical power rises.
  • #54
    !
    At some point then it would be cheaper to go with wind and solar, which are very reliable sources of energy. Once that happens there would be a rush of investment and jobs in those new industries as fossil fuels are phased out. You never hear about that though because stooges like the author only care about a single industry, not our country or our overall energy needs.
  • #141
    !
    @AceLuby

    The problem with renewable energy (wind/solar) is that it just isn't as FLEXIBLE to use as coal. The UPFRONT costs of acquiring coal are also cheaper.

    One problem with renewable energy is STORAGE/USAGE.

    Wind and solar aren't as easily and/or cheaply stored as coal. Now that's not to say you can't store energy produced from wind/solar. You can. But it requires the use of EXPENSIVE batteries.

    Coal is MUCH more flexible. You can leave it in the ground.(that won't cost one red cent) You can mine it and burn it right away. Or you can mine it and STOCKPILE it.

    These options are difficult/impossible or just impossible with renewable energy.

    So for the moment, renewable energy is an APPENDAGE of coal not a REPLACEMENT of it. Now this won't last forever as fossil fuels are FINITE. But for now, as it relates to ELECTRICAL production, coal is king.

    Now on the flip side, I STILL have great disdain towards GM for them destroying the EV1 car/program.

    The EV1 could have been used as a springboard to bring electric vehicle use into the mainstream. The ONE thing OPEC doesn't like is when the price of oil gets SO high that we start using our HUMAN INNOVATION to find ways to REPLACE the very product that keeps them in relevant.

    GM SOLD OUT to the "enemies" of the electric vehicle.
  • #173
    !
    @AceLuby Why is that? When you add up all the government subsidies per kwh for each source of power and you would discover that solar is still the most expensive per kwh followed by wind. Even with subsidies, wind is just as expensive as coal on a per kwh basis.

    Then you have to remember that wind and solar are dependent on the weather. A calm cloudy day and wind and solar are out of the game while that coal fired power plant is picking up the load. Reliable, more like unreliable, since it is at the mercy of the weather. Until man controls the weather they will remain the same unreliable for the same reason.

    I heard the same bit about fossil fuels being phased out to be replaced with green energy back in the 70's. Funny thing is that fossil fuels was still going strong in the 90's and wind and solar were the ones that were phased out. The reason had nothing to do with big oil, big coal or anything else. It had to do with the fact that it was not a stable source of energy.

    The reason why you do not hear about it is because people like you do not want to admit it. That solar and wind have been tried before using the same tech and methods. Very little has changed since the last time. As for those who care about our energy needs, understand that now more than ever in our increasingly computerized society that we need a steady source of power. One that can handle the load 24/7/365. Coal is it, Natural Gas is it, nuclear is it. Wind and solar are not.
  • #176
    !
    @dances-weebles Lets take a look at some of the history of wind. I included a few links of that show what the future is for Boulder, Co. One is Hawaii, a state that has no fossil fuels of it's own and needs to ship every bit of it in. They tried wind and had everything going for them Fossil fuels being expensive, a steady wind that is nearly constant. Yet, it failed. So why would Boulder who has access to the same grid that everyone else has? Not a steady source of wind and nearly every day a sunny warm day.

    As for wind and solar being innovate, sorry, it is nothing new. It was something that was tried back in the seventies with the majority of how it works being the same. The wind turns a three bladed prop and turns a generator. Something Thomas Edison would understand and be able to create. Of course they can go with solar panels, which they would have to clean the snow off of.

    http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-aban...

    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/t...
  • R Load more replies

  • #87
    !
    mr. obama is trying to save the country and is doing a wonderful job. now if congress would move back to the center where they belong, the u.s. could get back on track.
  • #204
    !
    @TigerLandSC keep telling yourself that. there are only three presidents in american history who are better than he. the absolute best leader in world history was fdr.
  • #300
    !
    @dances-weebles
    A recent Texas A&M study called Omama the 5th best president ever.
    Lincoln and Reagan tied for first
    23 presidents tied for second
    17 for third place
    Jimmy Carter for fourth
    and Obama for fifth
  • R Load more replies

  • #19
    !
    @Food4thoughts your profile says Chicago, IL, so you may want to change that then. Second is that wind provides less then .1% of power for IL, so that is obviously not a replacement.

    Lastly Kentucky is even more reliant on coal then IL getting 92% of its electricity from coal plants (2nd highest in the US) and is the 3rd largest coal producing state, so it may have been better if you just pretended to be in IL.

    http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/201...

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/...
  • R Load more replies

  • #22
    !
    Now isn't the time to be killing out jobs. The EPA is the terrorist organization for killing jobs. They have way too much power.
  • #85
    !
    jobs aren't nearly as important as the environment. there are always different jobs even if it entails moving to another state or even another country.
  • #215
    !
    @dances-weebles Tell the people that will be put out of work due to the EPA. In fact inform them face to face if you feel brave enough.
  • #217
    !
    @wangotango people can move to where the jobs are. haven't you ever moved to a different town, city, state or country?

    when general electric i schenectady, ny shut down their large steam dept. and moved it to china they offered to move all 70 thousand employees and their families along with the jobs... do you think that most people took them up on it or decided to sit in bars in schenectady and cry because their crappy jobs went away?
  • #218
    !
    @dances-weebles I definitely agree with you that people can relocate for jobs. Thats one of my gripes over these long unemployment compensation extensions. If theres not a job in your area then relocate its that simple. The thing about the coal industry is im sure a majority of these workers started in these jobs out of high school and know nothing else. They are going to view the epa in a very negative way regardless if its for a cleaner environment. And yes I have had to relocate for jobs and will again if need be.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • R Load more replies

  • #21
    !
    It already has cost American jobs. Many coal mines are now shut down, as well as the last large lead smelter in the country which was locate in my hometown (just shut down last month). The reason the plant shut down? Economically not able to meet the NEW regulations from the EPA which increased tenfold last year. Many more Americans now OUT OF WORK thanks to the Obama administration.{spit}
  • R Load more replies

  • #31
    !
    Ah so much for liberals being the party for the poor.

    Goodbye mining jobs - one of the best jobs in West Virginia for an uneducated person

    Goodbye power plant jobs - one of the best jobs in Ohio for someone with a high school diploma

    Goodbye river boat transportation jobs - another wonderful job that pays a "living wage" and is directly linked to the coal industry

    Ah what do the EPA folks care? They can afford $300-400 electric bills. Of course most of their voting base will get HEAP and other programs to pay their utility costs. The middle class will again face another tax to strangle their income, if they don't lose their job that is related to the coal industry.
  • #90
    !
    'Goodbye power plant jobs - one of the best jobs in Ohio for someone with a high school diploma'

    maybe they should all finish their schooling, rather than quitting half way.
  • #103
    !
    @Zazziness
    Ah typical liberal switch. Give the worst case scenario outlier and try to make it the norm. What do you pay for energy costs each month?
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    !
    In most of the states where coal production has decreased, natural gas production has increased, so no jobs were necessarily lost, they were just switched to another industry. Also the US represent 5% of the world population but produces 22.6 of world's coal. There is no such thing as clean coal and we need to switch to greener renewable energy, if we wish to survive as a species.
  • #27
    !
    @BobSmith So you think the government should be a theocracy, you hate gays, your pro-life, don't believe in global warming and against gun control but you consider yourself a democrat? You sound like a very confused person to me.
  • R Load more replies

  • #48
    !
    I really don't like it when Politix publishes PR releases from lobbyists. I strongly feel they should be labeled as advertisements.
  • #47
    !
    The folks who've watched coal mining companies use mountaintop removal mining near their communities aren't so thrilled about the idea of supporting themselves with coal mining. It is well past time this country got off the fossil fuels kick. They are non-renewable, filthy, and antiquated. Time to develop the other methods of energy production available to us.

    I'd rather see folks in coal mining country employed in almost any other industry imaginable. Do mulberry trees grow well in Ohio? I hear ounce for ounce, silk can go for more than gold, let alone coal.
  • #137
    !
    My dad just retired from coal mining and he was glad to get out of it. He didn't like it but it was a good paying job in a state that doesn't have alot of great jobs. I think we could replace the coal jobs with renewable energy jobs though. There are areas in the mountains where they are already putting up wind turbines so hopefully we are moving forward to renewable energy.
  • #6
    !
    Probably, but that is because these coal companies would take their profit and run instead of changing their infrastructures to provide better power and newer jobs

    That is life. Out with the old and ineffective, in with progress.
  • #30
    !
    Do you know how expensive it was for the coal companies to install scrubbers to reduce coal fired gas emissions to meet EPA standards? With the new standards it makes it completely useless to build new coal fired plants as the cost is too high. So it would either be build the new plants and then pass the cost onto the consumers (that always makes people happy) through higher energy costs or a set charge on each bill to cover the cost of the plants being built.

    You also forget that the older plants must meet the new regulations which means further modifications. It's not a simple fix. This of course is all while PUCO requires electricity rates to be set at a certain rate.
  • #36
    !
    "Do you know how expensive it was for the coal companies to install scrubbers to reduce coal fired gas emissions to meet EPA standards? " --No, and I don;t care, and I don't feel any pity for coal companies or their profit margins-- only the people they gave black-lung.

    "With the new standards it makes it completely useless to build new coal fired plants as the cost is too high." Yes, they are regulating the industry out of existence. We don't need coal for anything except making steel, which we don't do anymore. We have been selling our coal to Russia and buying back their steel they make with it.

    "So it would either be build the new plants and then pass the cost onto the consumers (that always makes people happy) through higher energy costs or a set charge on each bill to cover the cost of the plants being built." --The energy industry is one of the few left that is regulated by FPM (and let's keep it that way). Nothing in government or business is simple; that doesn't mean you sit stagnant and do nothing.

    "You also forget that the older plants must meet the new regulations which means further modifications." --Your entire argument seems to revolve around making sure coal companies don't have to spend any more money on infrastructures.

    Renewable energy is the future. If your town isn't on board, get out or retire. The end.
  • #56
    !
    We have the same infrastructure as we did in the 50's. It's terrible and because it is all privatized it will never be invested in. This is what you get when the only thing that matters is profit.
  • #74
    !
    @DARSB it worked in brazil several years ago, and now they're producing some of the highest quality steel products in the world... without polluting the environment like they were.
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    !
    Except that we have already seen the plants start to close. Utah and NV have lost some already.
  • #78
    !
    @dances-weebles and you can stop using electricity if you have such a big problem with it. Maybe you are under some kind of pipe dream that there is an actual green replacement for coal?
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    !
    If anyone had gotten a raise in the last 40 years, the utility companies could have simply passed on the increased cost to the consumer.
  • #23
    !
    They already have been. I have two family members who work higher up in AEP corporate. They've been passing it on to the consumers.
  • #38
    !
    @DrNickels my point is; its coming to a screeching halt. They can't squeeze anymore out of the consumer who is stretched beyond just paycheck to paycheck.
  • R Load more replies

  • #339
    !
    If it does cost jobs it will be because of the greed of the coal burning power plants. Technology is available and affordable to make coal burning safe.
  • #262
    !
    So instead of coal they use natural gas, which is cheaper and it pollutes less. At least until they get serious about using renewable energy. As for strangling regulations, you have to wonder what it is conservatives have against clean air...
  • R Load more comments...
Post