Coal mining company that supported Romney lays off 156 workers.

1. 60

   movingoutposted 11 years ago

   This is the company that had their employees stand behind Romney without pay. And this guy says a prayer and lays the workers off! Some Christian he is! Follow the money!

   replyreport
   1. 62

      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This was no surprise as they warned if Obama was re-elected this would happen. Closing of coal plants under Obama's regulations means less people working, more stress on the power grid, higher electric bills.
      
      "The official statement put out by Murray's company cited Obama's alleged "war on coal," claiming federal regulations have "already (led) to the closure by 2014 of 204 American coal-fired power plants."
      
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 … z2CDbPaJxc

      replyreport
2. 58

   Drive By Quipperposted 11 years ago

   Coal is over, anyway.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps in this country, but China is very interested in buying some coal from us, and setting up a coal terminal up near where I live.
      
      Coal is actually very clean, surprisingly. It burns cleanly. Also, if you drop a handfull of coal into a stream, it doesn't have any toxic effects (it doesn't disolve in water, or anything) and can easily be filtered out.
      
      Of course, nuclear energy also gets a bad rep, even though it's incredibly clean, too.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Yup, coal burning is clean
         
         
         http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne … ities.html
         
         
         
         
         From that bastion of the left wing (NOT), The Sun newspaper

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Stop trying to confuse me with facts!

            replyreport
         2. 83

            kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Since you absolutely *must* state your opinion on everything, here is another thing on which I'd *love* to hear your opinion: http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/power … cleancoal/

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Well, I am sorry I have an opinion. Would you rather I leave the forum?
               
               I was just showing examples of certain cities around the world who rely on coal. You mentioned China, I showed examples of China. I'm sure coal can be made clean but the technology still has to improve... but the majority is not.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, that may have been worded a little harshly on my part. I apologize. I just notice that you have over six thousand posts, and have been active in literally every single topic I have been active in. From my point of view, it looks like you like to have an opinion on every thing I say.

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         Peelander Gallyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         And incredibly dangerous. The same outdated generators used at the Fukushima plants are used all over the U.S. Why does it make more sense to invest so much money in finding, extracting and refining the rarest and most hazardous elements on Earth and then having to store the radioactive waste somewhere when you can just use the damn sun? If people were philanthropic and selfless by nature, solar technology would surely be advanced enough to provide more than enough energy for everyone by now.
         
         Plus, have you ever actually seen a coal mining operation at work? I'd like you to name a method of extraction that doesn't decimate a large swath of land, release various heavy metals into aquifers and require mind-boggingly large equipment for transport. It's disgusting.

         replyreport
      3. 58

         Drive-by Quipperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Give me a break. Coal isn't clean. That is why coal burning power plants are being dismantled. They pollute. They put mercury in the water and air along with a ton of other stuff.
         
         China? They are the worlds polluters on the planet. Don't sell them coal. We all breathe the same air.
         
         http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html
         
         Argue with this.
         
         Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
         3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
         
         
         10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
         
         
         500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
         
         
         10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
         
         
         720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
         
         
         220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
         
         
         170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
         
         
         225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
         
         
         114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I am flattered and tickled pink by the effort you put into this post, so I guess I'll take a couple seconds to respond to it:
            
            We have the technology to cleanly mine, move, and burn coal. And we do.
            
            Building this terminal up here would be excellent for our economy. We have a very high unemployment rate.
            
            
            That is all I have to say on the subject.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Drive-by Quipperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Don't flatter yourself. Have you ever heard of "cut and paste"?
               
               Leave my mountains and streams alone. It is a new era for energy. Get on board.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  They aren't "your" mountains and streams. They belong to whomever owns the property, be that the government, a farmer, or someone with a coal mine.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Actually they are everyone's, or should be as they pollute the whole water board and affect everyone.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't disagree.
                        
                        But Drive-By-Quipper has no right to tell the city of Ferndale that they can or can not build a coal train terminal on their land. Like it or not, unless its government-protected land, the control over what people do with their own land doesn't exend much past "you can't drill XXX without a permit" or "you can't build YYY because this isn't a YYY zone."

                        replyreport
                  2. 58

                     Drive-by Quipperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I thought you weren't going to say any more on the subject.
                     
                     Tecumseh said, " That is how it was at first, and should be still, for the land never was divided, but was for the use of everyone. Any tribe could go to an empty land and make a home there. No groups among us have a right to sell, even to one another, and surely not to outsiders who want all, and will not do with less.
                     
                     Sell the land?! Why not sell the air, the clouds, and the Great Sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?"
                     
                     The coal barons do not rightfully own the sacred mountains.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Ah, but the laws say they do.
                        
                        And we are on a different subject from the original one of whether coal can burn clean, on which I have nothing further to say.

                        replyreport
            2. 0

               Peelander Gallyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You just keep repeating yourself - "No, trust me, it's clean" - without giving any actual examples. I hope a coal terminal is built in your area, you deserve it.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  As rude as that was, let me refer you to my previous post, which you neglected to see the first time you replied to this topic:
                  
                  

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            Peelander Gallyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The only problem with trying to steer China and other developing nations away from coal is that they then accuse the U.S. of trying to hold them back, avoid having them become competitors, and claim that their people aren't being allowed the development that would afford them a first world quality of life. Everyone knows about the suffering the Chinese have experienced at the hands of their rapidly expanding GDP, and if you informed and asked the people it'd be different, but that's the whole point of keeping them quiet and barring them from using social media. The government knows cheap fossil fuel technology is horrible for the environment; visibility in Beijing is measured in metres. They just don't care, because it's so cheap and fast. Bogging yourself down with EPA-like regulations, complaints about working conditions, cancer rates and poisoned water... Screw it, no one has time for that.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I am curious as to why you think it is the US's job to "steer other countries" away from coal. Why should we call the shots? What makes you so certain that what we do is the best way to do things? That's why they feel restricted by us.

               replyreport
      4. 70

         rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Nuclear energy leaves a very nasty disposal problem that nobody has rectified. Wait till the holding facilities start leaching into the water table and the five legged toads start cropping up.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            kathleenkatposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No, I think it would be three-eyed fish:
            

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Drive-by Quipperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Or, Three Mile Island.
               
               

               replyreport
   2. 0

      Peelander Gallyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Drive-by Quipperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hey, I know that guy!

         replyreport
   3. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Coal is far from over. It's inexpensive and now is less polluting than other types of fossil fuels, including natural gas.
      
      By pushing coal out the door - Obama has opened another door to high energy costs and more people being unable to heat their homes in the winter.
      
      Bad move on his part. Very bad move.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Drive-by Quipperposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Turn Fox News off and think for yourself for the next 4 years. Fossil fuels are over. BP - beyond petroleum.

         replyreport