• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas

Were 3900 jobs really halted or did somebody choose the wrong fuel source to build a power plant for the 3900 jobs? Had Natural Gas been chosen, would this still be happening? If someone fails to monitor industry trends and technology, is that really the government's fault?
 
The reason Texas has not given their OK to the plant(note that it is Texas where they are having problems, not just the EPA) is their poor planning to handle pollutants. See, that is why we have the EPA, and why we have regulations regarding emissions. Some of us are old enough to remember when LA and other cities would get so bad from smog that some people could not even leave the house on certain days.

The problem in this case is of course not that the hurdles are so high, but that the company was unable to get the work done to get past the hurdles. That is not Obama's fault, that is not the EPA's fault. Just because some one blames them does not make it true.

Yep, this. Because we don't want to be like Beijing, where the quality of the air is 40 times worse than what the World Health Organization recommends, and puts everyone's health in danger.

It's really sad that people get mad at not allowing a company to pollute where we live out of political expedience.
 
Who pays for the increased health costs from Asthma, cancer, emphysema etc from plants that emit air pollution? Mostly tax payers, but also those paying health insurance premiums. Limiting air pollution is cost effective to society in the long run and improves the quality of life.

A little history:
The Great Smog of '52 or Big Smoke[1] was a severe air pollution event that affected London during December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants mostly from the use of coal to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday 5 to Tuesday 9 December 1952, and then dispersed quickly after a change of weather.

Although it caused major disruption due to the effect on visibility, and even penetrated indoor areas, it was not thought to be a significant event at the time, with London having experienced many smog events in the past, so called "pea soupers". However, government medical reports in the following weeks estimated that up until 20th December 4,000 people had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill because of the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater at about 12,000.[2]

It is known to be the worst air pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom,[3] and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2] It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956.

The weather preceding and during the smog meant that Londoners were burning more coal than usual to keep warm. Post-war domestic coal tended to be of a relatively low-grade, sulphurous variety (economic necessity meant that better-quality "hard" coals tended to be exported), which increased the amount of sulphur dioxide in the smoke. There were also numerous coal-fired power stations in the Greater London area, including Battersea, Bankside, and Kingston upon Thames, all of which added to the pollution.
Wikipedia
 
Damn nonpartisan sources...


Come to think of it, you offered no sources at all. Makes it easy to complain about other people's sources doesn't it. Come on, source those draconian regulations that Obama implemented that caused this plant to not be able to get past even Texas's regulations.

Still wont answer my questions huh ?

It's expected. When your whipped your whipped right ? And if you keep chosing to banter around my direct queries I would gather that not only have you been whipped in front of your lefty buddies but youv'e also taken to trollish tacticts and have nothing left to offer in terms of honest debate.

Go away...
 
Except for the crawfish you just described Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, and Detroit.

Considering I lived in Memphis for 20 years, I never saw any of that or heard anyone mention it, why don't you evidence your claim.
 
Who pays for the increased health costs from Asthma, cancer, emphysema et
c from plants that emit air pollution? Mostly tax payers, but also those paying health insurance premiums. Limiting air pollution is cost effective to society in the long run and improves the quality of life.

A little history:
The Great Smog of '52 or Big Smoke[1] was a severe air pollution event that affected London during December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants mostly from the use of coal to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday 5 to Tuesday 9 December 1952, and then dispersed quickly after a change of weather.

Although it caused major disruption due to the effect on visibility, and even penetrated indoor areas, it was not thought to be a significant event at the time, with London having experienced many smog events in the past, so called "pea soupers". However, government medical reports in the following weeks estimated that up until 20th December 4,000 people had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill because of the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater at about 12,000.[2]

It is known to be the worst air pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom,[3] and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2] It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956.

The weather preceding and during the smog meant that Londoners were burning more coal than usual to keep warm. Post-war domestic coal tended to be of a relatively low-grade, sulphurous variety (economic necessity meant that better-quality "hard" coals tended to be exported), which increased the amount of sulphur dioxide in the smoke. There were also numerous coal-fired power stations in the Greater London area, including Battersea, Bankside, and Kingston upon Thames, all of which added to the pollution.
Wikipedia

BS....

there should be rules to using WIKI as source.

My kids cant use WIKI as a source.

My oldest would get thrown out of any of his College Courses using WIKI as a source.

Maybe people dont understand what WIKI actually is.
 
Obama simply hates America because there's so many white people.
 
BS....

there should be rules to using WIKI as source.

My kids cant use WIKI as a source.

My oldest would get thrown out of any of his College Courses using WIKI as a source.

Maybe people dont understand what WIKI actually is.

Nonsense. If you knew how to use the wiki you'd see the piece is fully sourced.

1.^ Stegeman, John J. & Solow, Andrew R. A Look Back at the London Smog of 1952 and the Half Century Since; A Half Century Later: Recollections of the London Fog (Environmental Health Perspectives, Dec 2002).
2.^ a b c Bell, Michelle L.; Michelle L. Bell, Devra L. Davis, Tony Fletcher (January 2004). "A Retrospective Assessment of Mortality from the London Smog Episode of 1952: The Role of Influenza and Pollution". Environ Health Perspect 112 (1): 6–8. doi:10.1289/ehp.6539. PMC 1241789. PMID 14698923. A retrospective assessment of mortality from the London smog episode of 1952: the role of influenza and pollution..
3.^ McKie, Robin & Townsend, Mark. Great Smog is history, but foul air still kills (The Observer, 24 Nov 2002).
4.^ a b Mason, Nigel; Hughes, Peter; Mc Mllan, Randall. Introduction to environmental physics (CRC, 2001), pp112-113.
5.^ "Atmosphere, Climate & Environment Information Programme". Ace.mmu.ac.uk. 4 December 1952. Atmosphere, Climate & Environment Information Programme. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
6.^ "Met Office Education: Teens – Case Studies – The Great Smog". Metoffice.gov.uk. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/teens/casestudy_great_smog.html#p02. Retrieved 30 June 2010.
7.^ Greater London Authority. 50 Years On: The struggle for air quality in London since the great smog of December 1952, p3.
8.^ a b NPR. Killer Fog of '52 (National Public Radio).
9.^ The Great Smog of 1952, metoffice.gov.uk, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/teens/casestudy_great_smog.html, retrieved 17 August 2008
10.^ "Coal: Nutty slack", Commons Sitting of 16 February 1953, hansard.millbanksystems.com, Nutty Slack (Hansard, 16 February 1953), retrieved 5 December 2011
11.^ Camps, Francis E (Ed.) (1976). Gradwohl's Legal Medicine (Bristol: John Wright & Sons Ltd, 3rd ed.) ISBN 0-7236-0310-3. p. 236.

Now, if you have a beef with the content, goto the source and let us know YOUR sources for the contrarian info.
 
BS....

there should be rules to using WIKI as source.

My kids cant use WIKI as a source.

My oldest would get thrown out of any of his College Courses using WIKI as a source.

Maybe people dont understand what WIKI actually is.

If you have evidence that the event described in my post with the Wiki quote never happened I would be happy to look at your evidence.
 
You should at least understand the information you post before posting it. Coal still provides the cheapest $/GJ in the energy market, however states like Georgia benefit from NG because of the logisitics. There is a list of out there (about 28 pages) of energy plants that will be closing because of the latest EPA regs set to become effective by 2015.


What I do understand about what I posted is that they are shutting down loads of coal power plants and opening natural gas plants in their stead. That's kind of the whole point so... don't know what actual on-topic gripe you got with my post.
 
I lied? Whatever you say.

I don't think you lied Grim. I think you saw something you wanted to believe was true so you could cry about Obama some more and so never bothered to actually look at all the information or apply any critical thinking to it in your rush to get it posted here so you could cry some more about how evil that Obama guy is, despite this having exactly nmothing to do with Obama. You got played for a sucker by a nutbag right winger who was more than happy to lie, but you did not lie yourself.
 
I don't think you lied Grim. I think you saw something you wanted to believe was true so you could cry about Obama some more and so never bothered to actually look at all the information or apply any critical thinking to it in your rush to get it posted here so you could cry some more about how evil that Obama guy is, despite this having exactly nmothing to do with Obama. You got played for a sucker by a nutbag right winger who was more than happy to lie, but you did not lie yourself.

Let's see... The head of the company blames the new EPA regs from the Obama administration, and the headline of the story reflects that... I'm afraid I did not not get taken and as we all know, those EPA regs were designed to either put coal fired plants out of business, making electricity rates soar, or force them to comply with regs that would still result in electricity rates to skyrocket.

I'll let Obama sum it up for you:



Of course he couldn't get his cap & trade legislation passed, so he instead bypassed congress and had the EPA set standards that would effectively do the same.

You all can continue in your Obama worshiping dream world, but the facts are clear for those of us who aren't praying at his alter to see... And I did NOT lie.
 
Yes, environment bad, jobs at any cost good!!

Just ridiculous.
 
Yes, environment bad, jobs at any cost good!!

Just ridiculous.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the new EPA regulations put into place by the Obama administration costing jobs and causing electricity rates to soar, is a FACT.
 
Let's see... The head of the company blames the new EPA regs from the Obama administration, and the headline of the story reflects that... I'm afraid I did not not get taken and as we all know, those EPA regs were designed to either put coal fired plants out of business, making electricity rates soar, or force them to comply with regs that would still result in electricity rates to skyrocket.

I'll let Obama sum it up for you:



Of course he couldn't get his cap & trade legislation passed, so he instead bypassed congress and had the EPA set standards that would effectively do the same.

You all can continue in your Obama worshiping dream world, but the facts are clear for those of us who aren't praying at his alter to see... And I did NOT lie.


You want to document that claim Grim, and with more than some guy said so and I want to beleive it so it must be true?
 
Yes, environment bad, jobs at any cost good!!

Just ridiculous.

That goes a little too far into hyperbole. There's always a trade off. We keep growing and using more electricity and we are stuck with losing near half of what we generate in the transmission. The rafters and the enviromentalists won't let us dam everything up (one of the cleanest large generation methods). Wind is good, where there's wind and you can put up with the noise. And nuclear has it own bad awful drawbacks. Finally, natural gas is better/cleaner to burn, but don't kid yourself the extraction is a nightmare shoved down the road. Oh, I forgot solar, easy to do, large scale generation is still in the trials.

The coal generation we use today is nowhere close to the bad awfuls we had a few decades ago. The EPA was responsible for some of that. But they've forgotten the balance and the simple fact that if you don't have the replacement up and running BEFORE you close off the old, you're just asking for the pain.
 
You want to document that claim Grim, and with more than some guy said so and I want to beleive it so it must be true?

Document it? Isn't Obama's word good enough for you, or do you think he was lying?
 
Document it? Isn't Obama's word good enough for you, or do you think he was lying?

The EPA standards Obama put into place. Come on, every actual factual link posted here says it did not happen. I know, you blame Obama for everything, and you beleive ecery one who sways anything bad about him, but just once how about backing up a claim with something actually solid. We already know this company had problems that extended well beyond the EPA, and from the sound of it was pretty poorly managed, but you still some how blame Obama for it's failure. It's typical conservatism, play the victim.
 
Considering I lived in Memphis for 20 years, I never saw any of that or heard anyone mention it, why don't you evidence your claim.

You must have never traveled down south third street and entered voodoo village, or Brooks Rd, Summer, any of this ringing a bell?
 
What I do understand about what I posted is that they are shutting down loads of coal power plants and opening natural gas plants in their stead. That's kind of the whole point so... don't know what actual on-topic gripe you got with my post.

Actually they are just re-opening co-gen plants that werre built and then quickly closed when NG was 12.00+ per mmbtu.
 
The coal generation we use today is nowhere close to the bad awfuls we had a few decades ago. The EPA was responsible for some of that. But they've forgotten the balance and the simple fact that if you don't have the replacement up and running BEFORE you close off the old, you're just asking for the pain.

Then again, if you're making NEW power plants, why use an energy source you know is NOT going to be cost effective in the coming years? With the new regs, coal is not the way to go. A far better move is to build new plants as NG plants. Then a new plant like the one in the OP isn't gong to have all these problems.
 
Then again, if you're making NEW power plants, why use an energy source you know is NOT going to be cost effective in the coming years? With the new regs, coal is not the way to go. A far better move is to build new plants as NG plants. Then a new plant like the one in the OP isn't gong to have all these problems.

The Obama administration and environmentalists aren't real keen on natural gas either because it's still a fossil fuel.
 
Back
Top Bottom