Phasing out coal is the most significant environmental change the US can make

Moving the goal posts? The primary cost of renewable energy is the equipment needed to harvest it. Equipment that has high costs and a finite lifespan.

Enviromentalist don't support it now, but how did we get where we are?

Coal fired plants are at best 50% efficient. Then you have losses in power distribution, the battery charger, the battery, the inverters, the motors. Net is about 25%, just like a gasoline car.

Except, even at the same efficiency, gasoline puts out 16% less CO2 per mile driven than a coal.

As I mentioned before, a low boost (15PSI) diesel is 40% efficient, a high boost (45PSI) diesel 55%.

http://www.insideline.com/volkswage...oyota-prius-vs-2009-volkswagen-jetta-tdi.html

It takes 8 years for the 3MPG difference to offset the purchase price, but wait, there's more - how long does the Prius battery last, and what does replacement cost?

 

Equipment can be recycled and rebuilt. Fossil fuels cannot.

They didn't "then" either. Some Republicans did, and continue to.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-...n-ethanol-cellulosic-ethanol-alternative-fuel

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9647424

Their Prius estimate is way off.

http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/

I can back that up since I own one. I average high 40's, highway or city. It can go higher if I drive conservatively. It's about 20 mpg higher than the best Jettas in the city, or about 60% better. The highway savings is only about half as good.

Diesel fuel is a bit more expensive too. I personally couldn't drive a Diesel car. The fumes get to me for some reason.

Battery warranties are generally 100K to 150K and I haven't heard of many replacements. If you own the car long enough, a replacement might be necessary, but prices have dropped significantly. You'd probably hit the used market in such a scenario, and prices can run in the hundreds.

 

That link had nothing to do with that subject.

 

And they also tend to be jobs located in China... and if not...exportable.

If the government gives any money for renewables there must be a safeguard in place to keep the production here in the U.S. I do not want to give my tax dollars to a company that builds a factory here and then moves to China a year or two later.

 

A lot of the material and equipment used to mine and transport coal, and build power plants, is manufactured abroad, so the problem with outsourcing is not confined to renewables, and fossil fuels get big tax incentives. With renewables, even if not everything is manufactured here, there are plenty of jobs in assembly, transportation, installation, and maintenance. It's not an easily solvable problem without major overhauls to free trade agreements, although providing tax incentives for employers to keep factories here can help.

Here's an informative report:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/clean_economy/0713_clean_economy.pdf

 

Yes.. So is the stool I just passed. Would you like me to post it to you?


CO2 is a pollutant. Buy a dictionary and look the word up.

 

Stupidly enough the term pollution is subjective.

It would seem to me, due simply to the fact that plants use it to live, they would not consider it a pollutant.

Seems a very stupid thing to debate.

 

Plants use manure to live. So therefore it is not a pollutant? Shall we dump a load in your living room?

Even pure, fresh clean water is a pollutant when it is introduced into an environment in concentrations where it impacts upon ecosystems - eg - in a coral reef environment.


Look at the definition you quoted:

2. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Environmental Science) harmful or poisonous substances introduced into an environment

Excess CO2 in the atmosphere is a harmful substance introduced into an environment because it directly impacts on the amount of thermal energy being re-emitted back to the earth's surface.

It is a pollutant.

It is a very stupid thing to debate. The definition is very clear.

 

Soil is mainly made up of oxygen (46.7%), silicon (27%), aluminum (8.1 %) and iron (5.0%).

So aluminum is a naturally occurring substance in soil, and under your logic an unlimited amount of aluminum can be dumped into the solid through industrial activities without ever being considered a pollutant.

That makes no sense, nor does your logic.

 

You do realize your full of fossil fuels. Just gotta wait a few years for it to ferment.

 

CO2 is one of many molecules of life. Too little, or too much, is a problem.

No so, true pollutants. The planet can live without dioxin.

Eliminate CO2, you eliminate all plant life.

Eliminate coal today, and 9/10's of mankind starves.

 

Please be careful when quoting.

You have made it look like it was me trying to make the stupid argument that CO2 is not a pollution!

 

Since when did "pollutant" = "toxin"?

Don't go redefining words you suit your own ignorant opinions.

CO2 is a pollutant. As you implied - too much can be a problem. In certain concentrations in a given environment, it may have negative impact.

That is what a pollutant IS.

 

What damage does CO2 do as a pollutant?

 

Too much of it added too quickly to the atmosphere could have dire consequences for human civilization -- see http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...-article-written-dr-lee-kump.html#post4338086 for details.

Note: Dr. Kump, the author the article cited in the linked post, is one of the world's leading paleoclimatologists, and has published plenty of material in the peer-reviewed scientific literature backing up the claims that he made in that article. An author search of "LR Kump" at scholar.google.com will confirm that Dr. Kump is no lightweight.

 

What is the impact on human civilization if you cut back on CO2 production too quickly?

 

Cutting back of CO2 production as quickly as possible would reduce the risk of severe negative impacts on human civilisation due to climate change.

Do you really not understand that fundamental argument? Or were you really trying to ask a different question?

 

Yes it is very clear, that is why it is stupid. The problem with this debate is that it is not harmful to vegetation. Your assumption, of being a pollutant is subjective because it is harmful to you, however, it is not to plant life. The loss of plant life is also harmful to you, yet your assertion is to eradicate the very substance that help them survive because it is a pollutant.

Such a very stupid point.

 

WTF are you on about? Why are you posting such crap?

Who has suggested "eradicating" CO2? And when did the word "pollutant" only apply to something detrimental to vegetation?

If your objective here was to make the stupidest post of the day - then mission accomplished!

 

Your claim as being a pollutant is purely because you claim it to be harmful. IF you had comprehended what was said, it is not harmful to vegetation it is food. The fact is you are the one proclaiming it to suite the definition, which is entirely subjective to the way it interacts with you, not the rest of the planet.

Perhaps if you could comprehend what was said, then you might just see how stupidly you have represented the comment.

 

A pollutant causes pollution.

Co2 is a pollutant.

Trying to think like a tree does not change that simple fact.

 

..and exactly at what concentration does CO2 become a "pollutant"?

Sorry, but I link pollution with toxicity or other immediately destructive properties, like Acid Rain.

 

Since it is capable of causing "pollution" - it is a "pollutant" regardless of what concentration it is in.

The exact concentration at which CO2 causes "pollution" however, is the concentration at which it begins to have harmful effects upon a particular environment. In the specific case of atmospheric CO2 and its impact upon global climate - the general scientific consensus is that that concentration is less than the current concentration

That is not correct.

While many pollutants are toxic - not all are.

Another example of a "natural" substance essential for plant growth that is also a "pollutant" is topsoil. Out in the paddocks with the corn or whatever growing - soil is great. But when rainfall or irrigation causes topsoil to runoff into waterways - it increases water turbidity and has a negative impact on ecosystems. And generally - the better the soil is for plants - the worse it is in waterways, as the soil nutrients lower dissolved oxygen and can promote algal blooms.

CO2 is a pollutant.

 

Gee, now dirt is pollution. Tell us all what concentration does dirt need to be considered harmful to the environment?

 

Typical denier response. Are you are missing the point or just unable to admit that the standard "but CO2 is plant food" line of argument is bogus?

The point is that even though compounds are present in nature if the concentrations are increased by man's actions it can become problematic.

The "but CO2 is natural" denier line of argument is ridiculous, and frankly just shows how far away from actual science you have to reach to try and deny the science.