Is coal still a valid energy source for Colorado? No.


#1

Tale of 2+ States:

Life is triumphing in some states, and losing in others stuck with coal -- when one considers the harms from local pollution, regional pollution (e.g. acid rain harming lakes, forests, soil, property, and lungs), and global warming (increasing droughts, famines, floods, storms, wildfires, disease spread, land loss).

We need more eco-pro-lifers to fight the good fight against harms and death (note: people can both fight against abortion AND eco-harms....it's not an either/or situation).

Alt energy is now cheaper in some cases, even without the eco-harms to human health factored in.

COLORADO:

"Is coal still a valid energy source for Colorado? No" - The Denver Post
denverpost.com/headlines/ci_20862339/is-coal-still-valid-energy-source-colorado-no

...Colorado's largest energy provider, Xcel, provided 14 percent percent of its energy from wind and solar power in 2011...to increase to 23 percent by 2013...

...renewable energy supports more than 14,000 jobs in Colorado.

...the reductions in air pollution will yield public health benefits valued at more than $200 million per year.

...the newest Limon 2 wind plant will create cheaper energy than coal from day one....

S. ILLINOIS MISSOURI & 7 OTHER STATES:
"Delays, cost overruns blemish coal project"

stltoday.com/business/local/delays-cost-overruns-blemish-coal-project/article_ffaa187e-b729-11e1-b412-001a4bcf6878.html

Back in 2006, plans for the Prairie State Energy Campus, a hulking coal-fired power plant on farmland in Washington County, Ill., seemed serendipitous for the city of Kirkwood...The parties struck a deal -- a 30-year contract that would supply more than half of Kirkwood’s electricity beginning in late 2011. The kicker: The energy produced at Prairie State [for communities in 9 states] would be cheap compared to market power prices at the time...[but now it's costing them much more than other available energy, not to mention health costs, etc]...

NEW YORK:

"Schneiderman crushes Koch Brothers in climate-change lawsuit"
nyaltnews.com/2012/06/schneiderman-crushes-koch-brothers-climate-change-lawsuit/18514/

New York Attorney Generals office recently won an important decision ... dismissing a lawsuit by a Koch Brothers-backed political organization [Americans for Prosperity] that attempted to stop New Yorks involvement in a multi-state campaign to cut climate changing emissions...

...A recent study conducted by the independent economic consulting firm Analysis Group concluded greenhouse gas programs from the multi-state initiative added $1.6 billion to the economies, and 16,000 new jobs. The study also says the initiative will give consumers in these states with $1.3 billion in savings on their electric bills over the next decade through energy efficiency measures using funds generated by the Initiative...

2 wins and 1 loss for life.


#2

You can give me that Coal baby....mmm mmm I'm loving it! :thumbsup:


#3

It is certainly possible to be both pro-life and environmental; but the two issues are not the same, and should not be combined by using one term (“pro life”) to mean both.

Like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels until “green” energies are cost competitive; we are not there yet.

God Bless, ICXC NIKA


#4

What I find hilarous, is that “green” energy isn’t all that environmentally sound at all.

Wind Power in Britain, Pollutes China

Pro-Life…yeah right, tell that to the Chinese baby with missing limbs and cancerous growths on its lungs. :rolleyes:

Environmentalists are the equivalent of a guy who reduces his pollution, by dumping his garbage on his neighbor’s lawn to dispose of.


#5

As the 1st article states, wind power in Colorado is cheaper right from the beginning than coal. “Green” energies are either cheaper, competitive, or quickly becoming competitive. And the best form is “negawatts” – energy/resource efficiency and conservation.

I think pro-life means pro-life and anti-killing.

I’m thinking what you mean is that, of course, killing a person with a gun or knife in the course of a crime or by an abortion method would be a much worse sin, as these are more one-on-one situations.

I’m not engaged in those activities and am very much against them, and am engaged in projects to reduce crime (including violent crime) and abortion.

However, I am contributing to the death of people (in a much more elusive and diffuse way) by my pollution, so I’ve been working for over 20 years to reduce that. And – praise the Lord – we’ve been able to reduce our GHG emissions and other concomitant pollution by over 60% cost effectively – saving us $1000s – without lowering our living standards. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all thing will be added unto you.

Where there’s a will to reduce harming people, there’s a way. And there are so many ways in which we harm (including being mean and facetious to others), and there are many ways to reduce these, including simple kindness. And prayer and God’s grace form the bedrock of such solutions.


#6

Agreed. That’s how they can (with some creative accounting) attempt to claim wind energy is cheaper than coal - especially when the government subsidies are counted as “free”.


#7

I’m not sure what the subsidies for wind are, but I know the subsidies and tax-breaks for coal are really high. And the external costs re human harms are really high too…from the mining to the burning to the coal ash spills. But I guess none of you here know of anyone who has asthma or emphysema, or live close to sealevel or have any problems with floods, droughts, tornados, hurricanes, heat-strokes, or wildfires. You are the blessed ones of God!


#8

There is nothing wrong with coal. Its a natural resource. Use it.


#9

[quote="lynnvinc, post:7, topic:288348"]
I'm not sure what the subsidies for wind are, but I know the subsidies and tax-breaks for coal are really high. !

[/quote]

Source?

windfarmrealities.org/?p=1240

Coal gets 44 cents per megawatt hour of energy, wind gets $23.37 of subsidy per megawatt hour. Overall wind gets 42% of all subsidies paid to producers while coal gets 10%.


#10

If you can scientifically link these occurrances to coal fired plants you’ll be the first.


#11

You are trying to co-opt a very specific phrase to support your own agenda. The prolife agenda focuses mainly on the horrors of abortion, and was coined for the purposes of identifying people who support banning legal abortion. Being prolife can also be safely stated to be a person who supports human life from natural birth to natural death.

IT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.


#12

In my part of the country, there are two kinds of power generation; water power and coal fired plants. Water power is nowhere near enough to supply the area’s needs, so the coal-fired plants in next-door Kansas, are far and away the biggest source.

I don’t know how it is in Colorado. But people here don’t like to freeze to death in the winter. Most would prefer to keep their food refrigerated instead of letting it go bad. Many even like air conditioning and depend on it. Most people would like to have electric lights that can be turned on at night. Factories run on electricity here.

The wind here is extremely undependable; likely due to the hilly nature of the area. It’s quite calm almost all the time. Nobody even imagines that wind power can be of any value whether the government subsidizes it or not. And, of course, being in “tornado alley” as we are, the expectable life span of one of those big wind turbines would be hard to predict optimistically.

So, just because some subsidized wind power project delivers a fair amount of power in Colorado, it does not mean shutting down coal plants will fail to create terrible misery and even deaths in other places.

“Global warming” effects some day or other, are much debated. Freezing to death in the very next winter without heat is an indisputable effect. It is difficult for me to imagine anything more uncharitable than shutting down coal fired power generation.


#13

Data say’s you’re way off, and tax breaks are not subsidies. Even so, Fossil Fuels only had the tax exemption lead until 2007 (Yeah that’s when that eeeeevil oil-man Bush was still in office) when the tax code began favoring renewable energies. In 2008 it has jumped dramatically.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/cbo-chart.jpg

BTW what does energy have to do with sea levels, hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, heat-strokes, and wildfires have ANYTHING to do with Fossil Fuels? NEWSFLASH those natural disasters were occurring at a more frequent rate before oil was even formed.

NEWSFLASH, I know many people with asthma (my sister is one of them) who did not get it because of a car, or some coal plant. I know many people who got asthma because of genetics. Also the main cause of emphysema is tobacco use, not living near coal plants.

Perhaps you should do some fact-finding instead of making wild claims and spouting abject nonsense. :rolleyes:


#14

The Denver Post had a DEBATE yesterday on Coal in Colorado You chose to link to only the con side of the debate. heres the other side:

**
Is coal still a valid energy source for Colorado? Yes
It is vital to energy security**

Coal is not only valid but is also vital to our nation’s energy security. The United States has 27 percent of the world’s coal, more than any other nation, and more energy potential than all the oil in the Middle East. It only makes sense that we continue to harness this unmatched abundance, which accounts for over 40 percent of the nation’s electricity and 66 percent in Colorado.

Read more: Is coal still a valid energy source for Colorado? Yes - The Denver Post denverpost.com/opinion/ci_20860368/yes-it-is-vital-energy-security?IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com&IADID=Search-www.denverpost.com-www.denverpost.com#ixzz1yAGgtAQl
Read The Denver Post’s Terms of Use of its content: denverpost.com/termsofuse


#15

I recall this article on Gerri Willis’s sight the other day. Seems wind farms are bird cuisinarts. I’d guess eventually environmental regulations will take issue with the killing of endangered eagles.

“The Elephant in the Room, Plus Desert Lizards & Golden Eagles”

snippet from her article:

…We’ve told you about the rare Golden Eagle.
It’s threatened by so-called “clean” wind turbines with 70 eagles killed at just one wind farm every year. And the wind farms get away with it, scot-free.
What was the government doing instead? They were looking into shutting down oil producers to protect a lizard. Because you see, the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard lives in the Permian Basin, a piece of land stretching from Texas to New Mexico, a crucial area for oil and natural gas.
For over a decade, the Federal Wildlife Agency has been considering naming it an endangered species, which could shut down the over 70 active drilling rigs there overnight.
So here’s the good news: No less than the Secretary of the Interior announcing this week the Wildlife Agency is standing down from this fight. That’s progress. And here’s what’s so incredible about it.
Rather than rolling out the red tape in typical Fed fashion, the government and the energy producers came to an agreement creating a program to voluntarily protect the lizard’s habitat.
How often does that happen?
I’m happy for the lizard, but I’m still waiting for the eagle, and I’m still waiting for the pipeline.
The clock is ticking Mr. President!

Read more: foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/06/14/elephant-room-plus-desert-lizards-golden-eagles#ixzz1yAlIhOc2


#16

Agreed…

aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/

High oil prices and the desire to reduce energy dependence in the United States have brought coal-to-liquid (CTL) technology to the forefront of the discussion about alternative fuel sources. Nearly 100 years old, CTL processes have long been used by countries lacking access to oil, most notably Germany, where production peaked during the 1940s; South Africa, which has been using CTL technology for fuel since the 1950s; and, more recently, China, where the Shenhua Group LLC began trial operation of the world�s first direct CTL facility in December 2008, and intends to eventually produce 1 million tons of coal-based liquid fuel a year. The U.S. Government promoted the development of CTL technologies following the oil shocks of the 1970s, but shelved the projects after the price of oil fell during the 1980s. In the current economic and political environment of the United States, with oil prices surpassing $100 per barrel in summer 2008 and generally projected to rise in the long term, synthetic fuel derived from coal may once again become economically viable, and several projects are in the initial design phase around the country. From an environmental standpoint, however, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced throughout the lifecycle of coal-based liquid fuel make it a less desirable option.


#17

Thats right. Don’t go green, go brown!!!


#18

Green doesn't match well and it makes me look fat :p


#19

Convert Coal to Liquid… and its green. ( Not the color lol ).


#20

There are plenty of studies over many decades; for instance the Great London Smog of 1952 (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog ).

I don’t have good internet access, or I’d list a few. Perhaps in a few weeks when I get home.

I do know they have clean up the coal plant a lot, so health harms are reduced, but there are still plenty.

Re climate change, there are also plenty of studies showing the impact of it.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.