• 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!

AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Obama and the EPA show that do not care how much they hurt financially strapped citizens. This will put even a bigger burden on the already struggling unemployed

AEP says it will close five coal plants to comply with EPA regs - The Hill's E2-Wire

Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

The company’s dramatic plan to comply with the regulations could give Republicans and moderate Democrats ammunition in their ongoing fight against EPA's efforts to impose new regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants including mercury and arsenic.
 
Obama Superstar said he would do it.


.
 
Last edited:
It is very expensive to retrofit a coal fired plant with a bag house and scrubbers.

It is very expensive to retrofit a coal fired plant with a bag house and scrubbers.

I watched the fight over Mohave Generating Plant in Laughlin, Nevada that went on for many years and a few years ago they finally closed it because they didn't want to retrofit it, and the affect on the air was over night.

It cleared up and I assume it's still better than it was.

There are negatives to closing a plant such as jobs. and of course the cost of power and possible shortages that can range far and wide.

I would like to see the money spent to retrofit all these plants come from the money we waste on Foreign Aid, we could save the jobs and maintain the current power levels, not to mention, local economies.

We could also use the same money could be used to change or to Natural Gas which burns clean.

Why do I have to come up these ideas when we have all these so-called geniuses in office. Someone send this idea to all your people in Washington and include Obama.
 
My question is who elected the EPA? Who are they... this unelected subversive? We didn't elect them, we can't fire them and they're unaccountable to the public.

Another dept. to close.

.
 
How DARE you use Obama's own words against him!

It's been a day and a half and the outrage from Obamatrons is deafening. I can't hear or see a thing?
Oh! You mean they haven't been here to discuss this Leftist idiocy? You say they're busy sifting through Sarah Palin's emails?

OK.

.
 
Last edited:
My question is who elected the EPA? Who are they... this unelected subversive? We didn't elect them, we can't fire them and they're unaccountable to the public.

Another dept. to close.

.

Who elected the Department of Defense?

Regarding the closing - we had an opportunity to implement a market-based approach to emissions control. This type of system was first implemented by President Reagan and it outperformed the expected costs of the "command and control" proposal from the Democrats significantly. The same type of system came up under the Obama administration, and the Republicans (and some Democrats) voted against it.

GOP shot down the market-based solution, so the EPA gave us the command and control approach because they are legally required to tackle this.
 
Who elected the Department of Defense?

Regarding the closing - we had an opportunity to implement a market-based approach to emissions control. This type of system was first implemented by President Reagan and it outperformed the expected costs of the "command and control" proposal from the Democrats significantly. The same type of system came up under the Obama administration, and the Republicans (and some Democrats) voted against it.

GOP shot down the market-based solution, so the EPA gave us the command and control approach because they are legally required to tackle this.

Bill number? House or Senate?
 
It is very expensive to retrofit a coal fired plant with a bag house and scrubbers.

It is very expensive to retrofit a coal fired plant with a bag house and scrubbers.

I watched the fight over Mohave Generating Plant in Laughlin, Nevada that went on for many years and a few years ago they finally closed it because they didn't want to retrofit it, and the affect on the air was over night.

It cleared up and I assume it's still better than it was.

There are negatives to closing a plant such as jobs. and of course the cost of power and possible shortages that can range far and wide.

I would like to see the money spent to retrofit all these plants come from the money we waste on Foreign Aid, we could save the jobs and maintain the current power levels, not to mention, local economies.

We could also use the same money could be used to change or to Natural Gas which burns clean.

Why do I have to come up these ideas when we have all these so-called geniuses in office. Someone send this idea to all your people in Washington and include Obama.

The alternative is how expensive food will be when our farmlands suffer from the negative impacts of climate change.
 
It's been a day and a half and the outrage from Obamatrons is deafening. I can't hear or see a thing?

Your call for "outrage" implies that we "Obamatrons" must agree with you on the substantive issue. What exactly is the problem?
 
Last edited:
The alternative is how expensive food will be when our farmlands suffer from the negative impacts of climate change.

Or the soil erosion from ignoring proper crop rotation to plant corn over and over because its subsidized and selling extremely well.
 
It is very expensive to retrofit a coal fired plant with a bag house and scrubbers.

It is very expensive to retrofit a coal fired plant with a bag house and scrubbers.

I watched the fight over Mohave Generating Plant in Laughlin, Nevada that went on for many years and a few years ago they finally closed it because they didn't want to retrofit it, and the affect on the air was over night.

It cleared up and I assume it's still better than it was.

There are negatives to closing a plant such as jobs. and of course the cost of power and possible shortages that can range far and wide.

I would like to see the money spent to retrofit all these plants come from the money we waste on Foreign Aid, we could save the jobs and maintain the current power levels, not to mention, local economies.

We could also use the same money could be used to change or to Natural Gas which burns clean.

Why do I have to come up these ideas when we have all these so-called geniuses in office. Someone send this idea to all your people in Washington and include Obama.

Natural gas does not burn CLEAN, it burns cleanER than coal, but no fossil fuel plant burns clean.
Nuclear is the only type that can be called clean, but it has other issues.
 
You mean from farmland being used for windmills

Your obsession with this is just plain bizarre. Windmills do not take up a significant portion of farmlands.
 
Democrat Sierra Club NO-ENERGY policies in action.........

.....shutdown all the coal plants, the nuclear plants, the oil industry.......our homes and Chevy volts will run on Hope and Caribou poop......
.
.
.
.
 
Your obsession with this is just plain bizarre. Windmills do not take up a significant portion of farmlands.

In Illinois on I65 there are 120 on farm land. Each uses one quarter acre not being able to farm. That is 30 acres. Your idea of not significant shows you have an agenda and care nothing about the world food shortage
 
Your obsession with this is just plain bizarre. Windmills do not take up a significant portion of farmlands.

As long as the blades don't get too close to the farmer sitting on his tractor, windmills can coexist with farming....
 
As long as the blades don't get too close to the farmer sitting on his tractor, windmills can coexist with farming....

Wrong they take up a quarter acre each You also deny facts when it does not fit your agenda
 
Already talking about this http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...nt-announces-job-cuts-and-rate-increases.html

You mean from farmland being used for windmills

What?. http://www.ameslab.gov/news/news-releases/wind-turbines

Or the soil erosion from ignoring proper crop rotation to plant corn over and over because its subsidized and selling extremely well.

Actually, part of the reason why we give subsides to "corn" is due to crop rotation requirements. We learned that lesson during the great depression.
 
Last edited:
In Illinois on I65 there are 120 on farm land. Each uses one quarter acre not being able to farm. That is 30 acres. Your idea of not significant shows you have an agenda and care nothing about the world food shortage

The biggest wind turbine in the world takes up around a quarter acre and produces about 6MW of power, for a total of 24MW/acre, which is way better than a coal or nuclear plant if you include the massive cooling ponds required, waste storage areas, etc. Wind power takes up less space than coal or nuclear.
 
Closing theses coal plants is the first step in radical environmentalist plan of using global warming scam as a club to destroy all fossil fuel based power. They successfully did this in the Pacific Northwest with the spotted owl scam to shut down three quarters of our sawmills and put 1000s of mill workers and loggers out of work.
 
Closing theses coal plants is the first step in radical environmentalist plan of using global warming scam as a club to destroy all fossil fuel based power. They successfully did this in the Pacific Northwest with the spotted owl scam to shut down three quarters of our sawmills and put 1000s of mill workers and loggers out of work.

So, global warming is a scam but the goal is to stop fossil fuel power production... for what reason, again?
 
Back
Top Bottom