On 1/31/2018 1:22 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 1:06 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:


Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes
you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom.


Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his
administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.�

It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried
to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In
fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is.



Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left
regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we?

First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in
the United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces
34 percent.

Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent.

Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar
and geothermal contribute 15 percent.

"Petroleum" makes up 1 percent.

Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook
for nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in
operation with
one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in
GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed,
they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the
scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening
faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus,
the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we
can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long.

For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from?

Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and
permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances
especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can
contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15
percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating
affects on geology and other environmental concerns.

Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed
to keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United States are
far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account
for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and
more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves.

It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart.






Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about
"ended the war on beautiful, clean coal."

Coal isn't beautiful or clean.


Holy crap.Â* You really are something else.

You mean because I posted something specific about a false Trump comment
and you didn't get it?


I got exactly what he was implying. You don't.

You are wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you. You're as
slippery as an eel.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:31:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:

Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration
had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.�

It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to
boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact,
they create some of the most polluting power there is.



The DNC is your evangelical leader. As to coal. How are we to generate
power? We close nuclear plants, most of the rivers good for hydroelectric
power are already dammed. Governor Moonbeam Brown is committed $2.5
Billion to get 5 million EV on California roads. Problem is we already
have brownouts in the summer. Closed San Onofre nuclear plant, which
supplied 20% of California power. Wind and solar are not yet a viable
supply. And most of the solar panels are imported crap.

Don't worry they mine a ****load of clean beautiful coal just east of
you and there is always that shale sludge coming down from Canada.
Jerry can keep the lights on ;-)

I do think it is funny when they talk about electric cars being zero
emission but they don't ask where the electricity comes from and how
much is lost before it gets to you.
There was a great article in the IAEI magazine about how hot
transmission cables typically run and that is almost all I2R losses.
Basically those lines you see running across the country are big
toasters and where the grid is stressed the most is where the most is
wasted.

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:06:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about
"ended the war on beautiful, clean coal."

Coal isn't beautiful or clean.

I choked a little on that myself but it is only money. The Germans
figured how to make clean fuel from coal 75 years ago and there is a
coal gassification plant that we got a look at in Beulah North Dakota.
It just can't compete with gasoline from shale or fracked natural gas.

On 1/31/18 1:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 1:22 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 1:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 1:06 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:


Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes
you nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom.


Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his
administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.�

It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried
to boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In
fact, they create some of the most polluting power there is.



Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left
regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we?

First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in
the United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces
34 percent.

Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent.

Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar
and geothermal contribute 15 percent.

"Petroleum" makes up 1 percent.

Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook
for nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in
operation with
one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in
GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed,
they will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the
scheduled shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening
faster than new plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus,
the cost of a modern nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we
can't plan on that 20 percent of energy for very long.

For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from?

Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and
permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances
especially in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can
contribute enough to produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15
percent they contribute now. Some of the sources have devastating
affects on geology and other environmental concerns.

Technological advances is being, and should continue to be
developed to keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United
States are far more plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas;
they account for more than 90 percent of the country's fossil fuel
reserves and more than 60 percent of the world's fuel reserves.

It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart.






Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about
"ended the war on beautiful, clean coal."

Coal isn't beautiful or clean.


Holy crap.Â* You really are something else.

You mean because I posted something specific about a false Trump
comment and you didn't get it?


I got exactly what he was implying.Â* You don't.

You are wasting my time trying to discuss anything with you.Â* You're as
slippery as an eel.



Coal is neither beautiful nor clean. That statement of Trump's was a
lie, no matter how you try to spin it. What was Trump "implying" with
those words?

On 1/31/18 1:13 PM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:


Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you
nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom.


Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his
administration had ?ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.?

It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to
boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact,
they create some of the most polluting power there is.



Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left
regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we?

First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the
United States. It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent.

Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent.

Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and
geothermal contribute 15 percent.

"Petroleum" makes up 1 percent.

Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for
nuclear power looks bleak. There are 61 nuke plants in operation with
one new one that came on line in 2016. Two more are being built in
Georgia despite calls to stop their construction. If completed, they
will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022. However, the scheduled
shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new
plants can be approved, permitted and built. Plus, the cost of a modern
nuke plant is incredibly expensive. So, we can't plan on that 20
percent of energy for very long.

For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from?

Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and
permits can be obtained. But, despite technological advances especially
in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to
produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute
now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other
environmental concerns.

Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to
keep coal in the game. Coal supplies in the United States are far more
plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than
90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60
percent of the world's fuel reserves.

It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart.






Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about
"ended the war on beautiful, clean coal."

Coal isn't beautiful or clean.


I'm not sure anyone want's to have a conversation with you. Most
just want to blow a little wind up your skirt.


Your time would be better spent blowing up Herring's skirt. I'm sure he
has something there you'd like...

On 1/31/18 12:36 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/31/2018 11:14 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:


Trump is your evangelism. You're in the bag for him, and it makes you
nervous when everyone else doesn't share your Trump fandom.


Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his
administration had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.�

It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to
boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact,
they create some of the most polluting power there is.



Rather than just regurgitating the approved position of the left
regarding coal, let's examine the real world, shall we?

First of all, coal still generates 30 percent of the energy used in the
United States.Â* It is second only to natural gas that produces 34 percent.

Energy produced by nuclear power currently supplies 20 percent.

Renewable energy sources consisting of hydro, wind, biomass, solar and
geothermal contribute 15 percent.

"Petroleum" makes up 1 percent.

Looking forward and planning for future energy needs, the outlook for
nuclear power looks bleak.Â* There are 61 nuke plants in operation with
one new one that came on line in 2016.Â* Two more are being built in
GeorgiaÂ* despite calls to stop their construction.Â* If completed, they
will come on-line some time in 2021 or 2022.Â* However, the scheduled
shutdown of existing and aging nuke plants is happening faster than new
plants can be approved, permitted and built.Â* Plus, the cost of a modern
nuke plant is incredibly expensive.Â* So, we can't plan on that 20
percent of energy for very long.

For future planning, where will that energy deficit come from?

Renewable sources are being built anywhere land can be acquired and
permits can be obtained.Â* But, despite technological advances especially
in solar, it's a stretch to think renewables can contribute enough to
produce as much power as coal, nuke and the 15 percent they contribute
now. Some of the sources have devastating affects on geology and other
environmental concerns.

Technological advances is being, and should continue to be developed to
keep coal in the game.Â* Coal supplies in the United States are far more
plentiful than domestic oil or natural gas; they account for more than
90 percent of the country's fossil fuel reserves and more than 60
percent of the world's fuel reserves.

It's a planning thing ... not an idealistic brain fart.






So, coal is "clean"?

On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

10%
of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money.

I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most
working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are
still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That
statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not
stocks.
My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she
made in her 401k last year.


What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and
how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are
owned by 10% of Americans?

Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most
Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter
whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a
union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that
money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later
retiree's) money.
The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they
have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear
in taxes.

On 1/31/18 2:56 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:06:07 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Try reading for content. My comment was about Trump boasting about
"ended the war on beautiful, clean coal."

Coal isn't beautiful or clean.

I choked a little on that myself but it is only money. The Germans
figured how to make clean fuel from coal 75 years ago and there is a
coal gassification plant that we got a look at in Beulah North Dakota.
It just can't compete with gasoline from shale or fracked natural gas.


Trump talks up the idea of clean coal, but where in the United States
would one be doing the carbon capture and storage? How about under Trump
Tower or below Mar-a-Lago?

On 1/31/18 3:00 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 13:07:49 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 1/31/18 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:03:21 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

10%
of Americans who own 80% of corporate shares need more money.

I heard MSBNC say that too but what they ignore is just because most
working class Americans do not hold individual stock shares, they are
still invested in the market through their IRA and 401k plans. That
statistic they like to throw around assumes mutual funds are not
stocks.
My wife is a Trump hater too but she certainly likes the 10 grand she
made in her 401k last year.


What is the basis for your comment about "most" working Americans, and
how does that conflict with the claim that 80% of corporate shares are
owned by 10% of Americans?

Because you are talking about "shares" not money in funds where most
Americans have their retirement money. It doesn't really matter
whether that is a 401k/IRA, a private pension plan or a
union/government employee plan. A significant part of all of that
money is in equities and it is ultimately the worker's (later
retiree's) money.
The only exception I can think of is the federal government and they
have no real investments at all other than whatever our kids can bear
in taxes.


What percentage of equities, directly or indirectly through funds, are
held by the 10% of the wealthiest?

wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 17:31:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:

Trump announced in his State of the Union speech that his administration
had “ended the war on beautiful, clean coal.�

It was a puzzling remark. Most of the coal plants Trump has tried to
boost are hardly clean compared with other forms of energy. In fact,
they create some of the most polluting power there is.



The DNC is your evangelical leader. As to coal. How are we to generate
power? We close nuclear plants, most of the rivers good for hydroelectric
power are already dammed. Governor Moonbeam Brown is committed $2.5
Billion to get 5 million EV on California roads. Problem is we already
have brownouts in the summer. Closed San Onofre nuclear plant, which
supplied 20% of California power. Wind and solar are not yet a viable
supply. And most of the solar panels are imported crap.

Don't worry they mine a ****load of clean beautiful coal just east of
you and there is always that shale sludge coming down from Canada.
Jerry can keep the lights on ;-)

I do think it is funny when they talk about electric cars being zero
emission but they don't ask where the electricity comes from and how
much is lost before it gets to you.
There was a great article in the IAEI magazine about how hot
transmission cables typically run and that is almost all I2R losses.
Basically those lines you see running across the country are big
toasters and where the grid is stressed the most is where the most is
wasted.


Years ago, when I was still a young engineer, we figured 5% line loss.
Last I heard was up to 9% line loss. Probably more now. I own a Volt
for my running around car. On 120v takes about 11 hours to charge. 18
kWh I think. The pollution is probably 300 miles from me, so does not
matter.
On gas hets about 32-34 mpg. Lots of the new compact gars are getting
40mpg, so the electric drive has a fairly large energy loss component,
besides the inefficiency’s of power generation, and battery charging.