• 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!

EPA: Power plants main global warming culprits

EPA: Power plants main global warming culprits - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The most detailed data yet on emissions of heat-trapping gases show that U.S. power plants are responsible for the bulk of the pollution blamed for global warming.
Power plants released 72 percent of the greenhouse gases reported to the Environmental Protection Agency for 2010, according to information released Wednesday that was the first catalog of global warming pollution by facility. The data include more than 6,700 of the largest industrial sources of greenhouse gases, or about 80 percent of total U.S. emissions.

ROFLMAO!

I guess the EPA has never heard of China or India. Figures.

The EPA is nothing but a bunch of radical political hacks with an agenda. The EPA needs to be disbanded.

Now, having said that.....

Part of my energy plan is to have at a minimum 1,000 nuclear power plants up and running ASAP.

There is no reason to product so much as one kilowatt of electricity in this country from fossil fuels.
 
ROFLMAO!

I guess the EPA has never heard of China or India. Figures.

The EPA is nothing but a bunch of radical political hacks with an agenda. The EPA needs to be disbanded.

Now, having said that.....

Part of my energy plan is to have at a minimum 1,000 nuclear power plants up and running ASAP.

There is no reason to product so much as one kilowatt of electricity in this country from fossil fuels.

Um, the US has released far more CO2 to date than China or India. Per-year, China recently passed us but they still have a lot of catching up to do. (and per-capita it's still not even a contest)
 
This is why I'm all for nuclear power.

Which is not without its own environmental risks. We still haven't really found a long-term storage plan for spent fuel rods, that's my main concern. But in the medium to long-term, definitely something that should be done.
 
Um, the US has released far more CO2 to date than China or India. Per-year, China recently passed us but they still have a lot of catching up to do. (and per-capita it's still not even a contest)
The first paragraph is a bit misleading. The EPA is only talking about US emissions, but the first paragraph of the article implies something much bigger.
 
Silly. Everybody knows Global Warming is a Russian plot to corrupt our precious bodily fluids, in tandem with "fluoridation." :roll:

Any Doctor Stranglove reference makes me smile!!!

:thumbs:
 
How about overall conversion efficiency numbers. The petroleum conversion trail is about 13% efficiency, and the 87% goes to the atmosphere as heat , co2, and water vapor, and other gases. Coal makes steam and electricity at about 30% efficiency and the smokestack sends water vapor, co2, and nasty gases into the atmosphere and that means 70% of the energy goes out the smokestack. Natural gas generates steam electric at 30% efficiency and sends hthe other 70% into the atmosphere as water vapor, co2, and other gases (considered very clean). Nukes make steam electricity at 30% efficiency and the other 70% is waste heat as water vapor to the atmosphere and the radioactive waste is long term danger.
Ok , I'm not just jackin' my fingers. We are discussing some terrible efficiency problems. Install wind, (not big towers), PV, solar thermal on individual homes as a National program. Makes manufacturing jobs, makes labor jobs, improves efficiency, eliminates some huge losses, and creates maintenance jobs. Frees money into the local economy and it incorporates all energy local. This does hurt existing Distributed energy (Centralized Collection of Monies) and these people can afford to buy some politicians and they do. The Distributed Energy Utilities prevent meaningful energy alternatives. Those giant windmills are not about renewable energy, but a big money scheme that sounds like Renewable energy but protects the Distributed energy monopoly.
 
Do people still believe in Global Warming?

Believe? Faith? I wish we had something like science and evidence. Faith is so, . . . . religous. Perhaps GW should be discussed in context of science, and maybe deniers can go to religion class?


Just a suggestion. :coffeepap
 
Believe? Faith? I wish we had something like science and evidence. Faith is so, . . . . religous. Perhaps GW should be discussed in context of science, and maybe deniers can go to religion class?


Just a suggestion. :coffeepap


Scientists are paid billions to research global warming, there's no way their conclusions would be motivated by all that research money.
 
How about we power the world with genetically engineered electric eels :D
 
I still don't understand why humanity doesn't see the potential of the sun, and wants the highest option with regards to energy investment: nuclear power. Not to mention nuclear waste. Those facilities will eventually break down you know. I mean, sure thousands of years, but who cares right? As long as I get my coffee in the morning with high definition TV I'm alright.
 
Scientists are paid billions to research global warming, there's no way their conclusions would be motivated by all that research money.

Scientists are paid billions by energy corporations to produce AGW papers with preconceived results. The Corporations have the purse strings in this matter.
 
What about the pollution that will be caused when those electric ars burn people's houses down?

Hmmm. Let's consider this simply shall we? Take a couple lithium batteries and place them in a shotglass. Fill another shotglass with automotive gas. Touch each for just an instant with an open flame like a match. Which will catch fire?

Okay, in all honesty it's more complicated than that. So let's consider real-world, practical examples.

Fires caused by gas-burning vehicles in general use:

Highway fires only from 2008 - 2010:
NFPA :: Research :: Fire statistics :: The U.S. fire problem
2008 207,000
2009 190,500
2010 184,500
Total: 581,500

Fires caused by electric vehicles in totality:
Well, it's really hard to find info on this. Much is made about the TESTING with the Chevy Volt where they were trying to force a failure. But I finally did find something:
EV-Related Fires Ignite Media Firestorm; Gas Stations Burn Ignored : Greentech Media
So that’s four publicized fires involving plug-in cars [from 2008 to 2011] -- two of them involving aftermarket retrofits, one ruled out as a cause of the fire, and one still under investigation. In other words, four plug-in fires, out of about 15,000 plug-in vehicles now on U.S. roads, or a rough statistic of one fire for every 3,750 plug-in cars.

Recalls of gas-burning vehicles relating to fire:
Hysteria Over Chevy Volt Fires Motivated by Politics | PluginCars.com

On August 22 of this year, Audi began a recall of their 2011 & 2012 R8 Spyder vehicles. It seems a fuel line can rub against a heat shield in the engine compartment and catch FIRE.

A few days earlier on August 15, Ford announced they would be recalling 2007 Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego’s because there were inadequate welds on the fuel filler pipe and gas tank which could leak and in the presence of an ignition source, catch FIRE.

Last month BMW announced they are recalling 32,000 of its 2008-2011 cars (select 5-series, 7-series, X5’s & X6’s) because of a faulty electronic circuit board that could damage the water pump of the car and lead to a FIRE.

On July 29 of this year, Daimler trucks of North America recalled certain 2010 & 2011 Saf-T-Liner C-2 school buses because “The intake air grid heater may short circuit and fail due to excessive internal temperatures. A short circuited grid heater could result in a FIRE and injury to vehicle occupants.” I wonder who might be the vehicle occupants of a school bus? Ya think school buses full of children possibly catching FIRE is a bit more newsworthy than a couple Volts catching fire weeks after NHTSA crash tests? I do!

Then there’s Honda. Last year Honda recalled 646,000 Fits because a faulty power window switch could cause a vehicle FIRE. That’s a lot of recalled cars. I swear I don’t remember seeing this in the headlines for a few weeks last year. On September 12, 2011, Ford began a recall of certain model F-150’s and F-250’s from various years between 1997 and 2003. The reason: The fuel tank straps were defective and could break. This would cause the fuel tank to possibly separate form the vehicle while it was being driven and come in contact with the ground. In other words, it can literally fall off while you’re driving down the highway. This obviously poses a FIRE hazard.

In October 2010, Chrysler recalled about 26,000 cars and pickup trucks because power steering fluid can leak onto a hot engine and cause a FIRE. In June of 2010 Toyota announced they were recalling approximately 13,000 Lexus HS 250 H after testing revealed that the car could leak fluid during a rear end collision and cause a FIRE.

Let’s not forget in March 2011 when Mazda recalled 52,000 Mazda6 sedans. I remember this one did make the news for a day, but only because of how strange the problem was. Mazda said the problem was because "a certain type of spider may weave a web in the evaporative canister vent line and this may cause a restriction of the line." Blocking the vent line can prevent air from getting into the gas tank. This results in negative air pressure inside the tank. That can lead to a crack in the gas tank and the possibility of a FIRE.

Recalls of electric vehicles relating to fire:

Electric-car maker Fisker recalling Karmas due to battery issue | VentureBeat
Fisker-Karma: 239
Chevy Volt: 8,000

Quite a bit less trouble with electric vehicles it seems. I wonder how many gas burning vehicles will burn down garages this year.
 
I feel absolutely certain that you know just how long it takes to have a working Nuclear Power Station, from inception to finished product is a minimum of 8 years.

Yes what you propose may well send Unemployment through the floor, but what you fail to mention is a Time frame.

Well, if you're anti-nuke (found a anti-nuke site that matched your estimate) then it takes 8 years.

Otherwise:
Nuclear Power Education - Cost of Nuclear Power.
The General Electric ABWR was the first third generation power plant approved. The first two ABWR's were commissioned in Japan in 1996 and 1997. These took just over 3 years to construct and were completed on budget. Their construction costs were around $2000 per KW.

Economics of new nuclear power plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in four years or less (42 months for CANDU ACR-1000, 60 months from order to operation for an AP1000, 48 months from first concrete to operation for an EPR and 45 months for an ESBWR

Timeline to convert to nuclear,wind,solar,hydro,wave,geo-thermal: My estimate (given an aggressive building program) would take 30 years. Realistically, it would take 40 years. That's why we should start now. Waffling and giving up because the result isn't instantaneous is childish (to be diplomatic about it).

This would be a many-staged project. The need for foreign oil must be eliminated first. Foreign oil demand constitutes a significant threat to our nation's energy, security, and civil vitality. This can be completed in less than 30 years. Coal is a threat to our overall health. I'd rather eliminate our need for it and then sell it to the Chinese. Let them deal with the mess it causes. Then we can tackle natural gas (least damaging of the fossil fuels).
 
Last edited:
Scientists are paid billions to research global warming, there's no way their conclusions would be motivated by all that research money.

Yeah, and they are also paid by folks to say it isn't so. Yet, even some of those making big bucks to eb deniers simply couldn't do it. Why? Because the evidence said otherwise. Believers like yourself don't want evidence. You want excuses. Anything you can hang your hat on that will allow you to suspend disbelief.
 
It's no longer global warming. It's climate change.

LOL!

....and it's not intelligence that makes one climb on the bandwagon. It's money and political ideology.
 
EPA: Power plants main global warming culprits - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The most detailed data yet on emissions of heat-trapping gases show that U.S. power plants are responsible for the bulk of the pollution blamed for global warming.
Power plants released 72 percent of the greenhouse gases reported to the Environmental Protection Agency for 2010, according to information released Wednesday that was the first catalog of global warming pollution by facility. The data include more than 6,700 of the largest industrial sources of greenhouse gases, or about 80 percent of total U.S. emissions.

I think that should pretty much be filed under "no ****".
 
It's no longer global warming. It's climate change.

LOL!

....and it's not intelligence that makes one climb on the bandwagon. It's money and political ideology.
Why don't our climate change friends setup protesting in China and India?
 
Back
Top Bottom