People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Coal Is Dead?

Al Weed, a man who doesn't know when he's being told to go home, close the door, and leave us alone, is back. Now he's telling us that coal is dead and that something called woody biomass is the way of the future for Southwest Virginia:
What happens after coal?
Roanoke Times

Coal ... has been fading fast -- even without carbon pricing that will make coal pay for the CO2 it emits as a greenhouse gas. Direct employment in coal mining in Virginia in 2007 was down to about 4,800. (This is down 40 percent in the last 10 years.)

Even in the Virginia coalfields, there is no longer a consensus to defend coal. What should be defended, however, is the right of these folks to have jobs and clean communities -- and to have leaders who will spend more energy helping to build a future than they do defending the past.

Done right, coal country too will thrive in the production of biomass energy and as the locus for Virginia's efforts to create green jobs.

Biomass-fueled electricity could become a major industry in Southwest Virginia. Each of the 22 counties that make up the 9th Congressional District has enough woody biomass alone to support a 50-megawatt plant. A recent University of Florida study estimates that each such plant would generate 400 jobs and roughly $40 million to the local economy. [link]
First, I can't let that crack - "Even in the Virginia coalfields, there is no longer a consensus to defend coal" - go by. With Virginia Tech and its pimpled minions not being located in the that region, who, Al, in Dickenson, Lee, Russell, Scott, Tazewell, or Wise County is arguing against coal? (Okay, I'll give you one - Rick Boucher, but he's technically from Washington County).

Beyond that, can we expect this "woody biomass" industry to take hold in Southwest Virginia? Will 400 "woody biomass" plant jobs replace 400 coal-powered plant jobs?

Or is this pie in the sky from a man who gets paid to dream up silly pie in the sky?

And are we considering trading one "pollutant" for another?

And is burning wood any better than burning coal to the nuts who think we're destroying the planet by producing a chemical compound - CO2 - that is vital to the life and health of every living plant on earth?

And what the hell is woody biomass?

Get this (from Oregon Toxics Alliance)*:
Renewable energy cannot come at the expense of the health of the public or the enviironment. The following is a rundown of some of the expected emissions and their impacts [from a wood-burning power plant]:

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), 185.61 ton/year (tty)
According to the EPA, NOx causes respiratory problems and aggravates heart disease. It can damage lung tissue, and cause premature death. NOx is also a main component of ground-level ozone and contributes to global warming.

CO, Carbon Monoxide, 200.89 tty
According to the EPA, CO can trigger serious respiratory problems and even at low levels is a serious threat to people with heart problems.

Formaldehyde, 1.70 tty
The Department of Health and Human Services has determined it is reasonable to assume formaldehyde causes cancer.

PM10 and PM2.5, 13.24 and 13.15 tty (26.39)
The American Medical Association has found that even short-term exposure to these particles increases the risk for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases including diabetes, arrhythmia, asthma, heart failure, and cardiac arrest.

HCl, 1.04 tty
Hydrogen chloride can cause respiratory illness.

Benzene, 0.185 tty (370 lbs/year)
The United States Environmental Protection Agency classifies benzene as a Class A carcinogen. Eugene already has 10 times the amount of benzene in our air than the EPA believes can increase chances of cancer.

Chlorine, 1.22 tty
Exposure to low levels of chlorine can result in nose, throat, and eye irritation. At higher levels, breathing chlorine gas may result in changes in breathing rate and coughing, and damage to the lungs.

Naphthalene, 0.15 tty (300 lbs/year)
DHHS considers determined that it is reasonable to assume naphthalene is a carcinogen.

Toluene, 1.42
May affect the nervous system. Low to moderate levles can cause tiredness, confusion, weakness, drunken-type actions, memory loss, nausea, loss of appetite, and hearing and color vision loss.

Styrene, 2.94 tty
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that styrene is a possible human carcinogen.

SO2, 38.64 tty
According to the EPA, long term exposure to SO2 causes respiratory illness and aggravates heart disease.

Acetaldehyde 1.28 tty
Can reasonably be considered a carcinogen.

Total Hazardous Air Pollutants, 16.92 tty
For comparison's sake, let's list the "pollutants" that are emitted by a coal-fired power plant:
I don't know, Al. Can we at least talk about this?

* Yes, this group qualifies as being the nuts described above.
** For the record, I favor nuclear, coal, hydro and ... woody biomass electricity generation.

Quote of the Day

From George Will:
Washington mandates that Detroit must build cars for which there is much less demand than Washington demands that there be. Then Washington tries to manufacture demand with a $7,500 tax credit for purchasers of the electric Chevrolet Volt, supposedly GM's salvation. So, GM is to be saved by a product people will not buy without a cash incentive larger than the income tax paid by 83.4 percent of America's families.

Washington's "rescue" of GM began because GM is "too big to fail," and bankruptcy is (well, was) "unthinkable." Big? GM's market capitalization, $375.8 million on Wednesday, is about the size of California Pizza Kitchen's ($340 million) -- is it too big to fail? -- and one-eleventh that of Harley-Davidson ($4.3 billion). Fail? If GM has not already failed, New Coke was a success.
"Have We Got a Deal for You," Washington Post, June 7, 2009

So Typical

This passes in liberal circles as the appropriate compromise for the Israelis and Palestinians to come to. It's provided by the geniuses at the Washington Post:
A good compromise is achievable. [Israel] should publicly acknowledge that the peace process will lead to Palestinian statehood, and [lIsrael] should adopt a series of measures curtailing settlements. [Israel] should quickly dismantle those deemed illegal, [Israel should] end all government subsidies, [Israel should] prohibit the territorial expansion of all settlements, [Israel should] stop new construction in those outside Israel's West Bank fence and [Israel should] agree to a monitoring mechanism that will prevent cheating. Mr. Obama can reasonably accept that as a freeze, while not requiring that not a single brick be laid in any of the more than 120 West Bank communities. Then he can turn to the equally important task of pressing Palestinian leaders and Arab states for measures that match Israel's actions. [link] [emphasis mine]
What "measures," one might wonder. That list, according to the Post, consists of ...


As Well They Should

This is appropriate:

Democrats Focus on Northern Virginia

They haven't a prayer anywhere else in the state.

Someone Help Me Understand This

Obama says we need universal health care in order to save us a tremendous amount of money.

The New York Times tells us that universal health care will cost us a tremendous amount of money.

And the New York Times supports Obama's health care initiative.


Is Irony The Right Word?

The most infamous abortion doctor in the country is remembered as being "a family man."

Warped seems to be more appropriate.

Lord, Please

I don't understand this:

Mexico Day Care Fire Kills 38 Children


Yeah, whatever

Obama paid tribute to America's D-Day heroes yesterday.

Then he went on to more important matters.

Don't Let Them Fool You

As I mentioned yesterday, the Obama cheerleading squad - otherwise known as the mainstream press - is trying to skew the news that the unemployment picture continues to worsen.

New York Times: "Hints of Hope ..."

Washington Post: "... Pace of Losses Slows"

Here's the truth of the matter, provided by Innocent Bystanders. The lines on the graph below represent the Obama administration's estimate of what unemployment will look like based on whether his stimulus passed or not. The dots represent actual numbers as reported by the Department of Labor.

If there's a reason for optimism here, I don't see it.

I also don't see how the Obama administration - and his sycophantic media - could be taken seriously in the future.

Click on the image to enlarge it.

They're Doomed

This does not bode well for Government Motors:

Rasmussen: 26% Applaud GM Bailout But 17% Favor Boycott

Here's the problem: The 26% represent Obama supporters who wouldn't be caught dead in an American-made car.

The 17% are - more than likely - libertarian-leaning Republicans who were GM's number 1 SUV demographic. Until now.

So 43% of us won't be buying Obamarators any time in the future.

The rest of us?

Is there a Highly Dubious category?

It Took Me a Minute

Yeah, they look great on some people.
But most of the time those popular low-rise jeans just don't work. And in too many cases, weight being an important variable, a law needs to be passed against them.

I bring that up because it's a topic of discussion over here.

But it's in reading the comments here that I had to pause. From one contributor:
Gasp! Dr. Helen! I hope you aren't sporting a tramp stamp above them. The ass-antlers are the worst. If only women knew how many men are turned off when a girl suddenly arrives and proudly shows her new marks. "Yeah, that's really nice." What else can you say? "Ugh! You've just removed yourself from my dating-interest list? Permanently?” Ever find a man claiming to find a woman unattractive because she doesn't have a tattoo?
Tramp stamp? Ass-Antlers?

It took me a minute. In fact, I didn't have a clue as to what this guy was referring to until the last word in the paragraph. Am I that out of touch?

But it is cute. And a good point.

Now, let's put it all together: Low-rise jeans, excessive tonnage, tramp stamp.

My God.

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

Crazed Lunatics

Sigh. What is it about global warming theory that brings out all the nuts?

The Wall Street Journal:
'Worse Than Fiction'

Global warming alarmists are fond of invoking the authority of experts against the skepticism of supposedly amateur detractors -- a.k.a. "deniers." So when one of those experts says that a recent report on the effects of climate change is "worse than fiction, it is a lie," the alarmists should, well, be alarmed.

The latest contretemps pits former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, now president of the Geneva-based Global Humanitarian Forum, against Roger Pielke, Jr., an expert in disaster trends at the University of Colorado. Mr. Annan's outfit issued a lengthy report late last month warning that climate change-induced disasters, such as droughts and floods, kill 315,000 each year and cost $125 billion, numbers it says will rise to 500,000 dead and $340 billion by 2030. Adding to the gloom, Mr. Annan predicts "mass starvation, mass migration, and mass sickness" unless countries agree to "the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated" at a meeting this year in Copenhagen.

Enter Mr. Pielke, who, we hasten to add, does not speak for us (nor we for him). But given the headlines the Annan report has garnered, his views deserve amplification. Writing in the Prometheus science policy blog, Mr. Pielke calls the report a "methodological embarrassment" and a "poster child for how to lie with statistics" that "does a disservice" to those who take climate change issues seriously. [link]
Read the whole thing. "Climate change" proponents want to tax us into oblivion based on the wildest of predictions and the flimsiest of statistical foundation.

They must not get away with it.

Putting It In Pespective

You may remember Jerry's First Rule Of Public Discourse.

If you say it (or write it), stand by it. If you're not going to stand by it, keep your mouth shut.

Here's a good example of that which plays out when you write something that you're not willing to stand behind, on a Talking Points Memo blog :
Ashamed of myself - a formal retraction and apology about my extremist global warming post

I wrote a post that advocated for the jailing and execution of global warming deniers. If any of you have read my former posts - I may get very angry sometimes - but I truly don't want for anyone to die. I'm vehemently against the death penalty - and do my best to respect all forms of life.

My intention was not to wish imprisonment or execution of global warming skeptics. I am not a trained writer (I hear your collective "no shit sherlock" loud and clear) - and was not able to get my point across. That point is now irrelevant because I did true harm to this site, as well as the cause of global warming research.

The whole post was ill conceived, poorly written - and not representative of who I am. But I did write it - and I take full responsibility for it. [link]
Ill conceived. Poorly written. Not representative.


- - -

TPM has tried to send the original post down the rat hole, but it can still be found. Here's the entry in full:

At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers

June 2, 2009, 9:42PM

What is so frustrating about these fools is that they are the politicians and greedy bastards who don't want a cut in their profits who use bogus science or the lowest scientists in the gene pool who will distort data for a few bucks. The vast majority of the scientific minds in the World agree and understand it's a very serious problem that can do an untold amount of damage to life on Earth.

So when the right wing f...tards have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences and we start seeing end of the World type events - how will we punish those responsible. It will be too late. So shouldn't we start punishing them now?