America's Dirtiest Coal Power Plants Given Exemptions from Pollution Rules to Help Power AI (msn.com) 124
Somewhere in Montana sits the only coal-fired power plant in America that hasn't installed modern pollution controls to limit particulate matter, according to the Environmental Protecction Agency. Mining.com notes that it has the highest emission rate of fine particulate matter out of any U.S. coal-burning power plant.
When inhaled, the finest particles are able to penetrate deep into the lungs and even potentially the bloodstream, exacerbating heart and lung disease, causing asthma attacks and even sometimes leading to premature death.
Yet America's dirtiest coal-fired power plant — and dozens of others — "are being exempted from stringent air pollution mandates," reports Bloomberg, "as part of US. President Donald Trump's bid to revitalize the industry: Talen Energy Corp.'s Colstrip in Montana is among 47 plants receiving two-year waivers from rules to control mercury and other pollutants as part of a White House effort to ease regulation on coal-fired sites, according to a list seen by Bloomberg News. The exemptions were among a slew of actions announced by the White House Tuesday to expand the mining and use of coal. The Trump administration has argued coal is a vital part of the mix to ensure sufficient energy supply to meet booming demand for AI data centers. The carve-out, which begins in July 2027, lasts until July 2029, according to the proclamation.
In an email to Bloomberg, a White House spokesperson said the move meant that America "will produce beautiful, clean coal" while addressing "necessary electrical demand from emerging technologies such as AI."
Yet America's dirtiest coal-fired power plant — and dozens of others — "are being exempted from stringent air pollution mandates," reports Bloomberg, "as part of US. President Donald Trump's bid to revitalize the industry: Talen Energy Corp.'s Colstrip in Montana is among 47 plants receiving two-year waivers from rules to control mercury and other pollutants as part of a White House effort to ease regulation on coal-fired sites, according to a list seen by Bloomberg News. The exemptions were among a slew of actions announced by the White House Tuesday to expand the mining and use of coal. The Trump administration has argued coal is a vital part of the mix to ensure sufficient energy supply to meet booming demand for AI data centers. The carve-out, which begins in July 2027, lasts until July 2029, according to the proclamation.
In an email to Bloomberg, a White House spokesperson said the move meant that America "will produce beautiful, clean coal" while addressing "necessary electrical demand from emerging technologies such as AI."
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
If you just don't believe any of those things are actual issues then yeah, coal is cheap and abundant. Externalities aren't real anymore.
"Here is a lot of data from everywhere showing harms"
"No it doesn't"
Welp can't argue with that logic I suppose.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
The fear of China among the broligarchs is such that their administration is ready to burn anything to alleviate it.
Coal is by far the least problematic of the thing that will be burning soon.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
When it's time for the rules to be bent, sure, they are our only bastion against the yellow peril; but when they want to have a go at that juicy looking market the downsides never seem to dissuade them; and if they can fill the DC for less no problem that QCT is stuffing boards in Chongqing.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is by far the least problematic of the thing that will be burning soon.
I imagine The Constitution will make good kindling ... (sigh)
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
Did you see that interview with Steve Bannon. I'm not sure how much influence he has on the whitehouse in 2025 but the sheer contempt he seems to have for the constitution is absolutely shocking. He's insistent trump will get a third term regardless of what the constitition says.
Combined with the actual whitehouses constant sneering and defiance of the constitutional limits placed on presidential power points to a very disturbing reality that the constitutional republic might be in very big danger.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution and our government are designed to be run by people of good moral/ethical character who will abide by the spirit of the laws and not take advantage of any limitations in the letter of the laws. Sadly, those types of people aren't currently in charge, and the people who elected them don't seem to care or actually want this -- naively thinking it won't affect them.
Re: (Score:2)
The same weakness was found in British democracy, and we haven't fixed it either. We don't have a written constitution, but we do have a lot of conventions and a base assumption that the people in power will act with a certain amount of honour and fair play.
Democracy needs to be more robust than that. While we are at it we should end the two party system as well, and move to proper PR.
Re: (Score:2)
Pro-Trump people, from what I have observed, seem to fall into two categories: (1) females who are horrible judges of character, confusing narcissism with confidence and Machiavellianism with leadership. (2) men who score high in sociopathic/narcissistic traits, much like the president.
And funny enough, group #1 often gets into abusive relationships with group #2.
It's like America is going through some kind of Dumb Girl phase in its history.
Re: (Score:3)
"No it doesn't" isn't the argument anymore, it's now "put that guy in prison".
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that sucking ill-filtered coal smoke is bad for you isn't exactly an esoteric point of cutting edge science; but they know it won't be them breathing it.
Coal is bad, where it is US or Chinese (Score:2)
I'm not sure we are dealing with people who merely don't believe in externalities; but with ones who range from not caring what happens to people who don't matter to being actively excited about the prospect. The fact that sucking ill-filtered coal smoke is bad for you isn't exactly an esoteric point of cutting edge science; but they know it won't be them breathing it.
You're right, coal usage is terrible policy. At the very least a less polluting fossil fuel should be used, for example natural gas.
But all this talk of not believing in externalities is ridiculous. We ALREADY do not believe in externalities, we GREENWASH our economy by knowingly exporting the pollution to China and pat ourselves on the back for reducing US and EU based emissions. We create environmental accords that are farces, allowing China to increase pollution unit 2030. Which they do by continuing
Re: (Score:2)
How can / should we the United States stop China from burning coal?
Re: (Score:2)
How can / should we the United States stop China from burning coal?
The first step is to acknowledge the problem. Educate the public, let consumers factor this in to their purchasing decisions.
The next step is to end the farcical environmental accords that allow increased pollution and coal use until 2030. That give "developing nations" an exceptions emissions, or at least not let China falsely represent itself as a developing nation. Replace these with real environmental accords, are we approaching a global tipping point or are we not? If we are then act like it.
Chin
Re: (Score:2)
So, public outreach and multilateral accords, I assume you want those to be binding as the Paris Agreement was not binding. Let's see how Trump the Master Negotiator gets on with that. It's almost like if the agreement was binding or had specific pushes to China specifically they would t sign on and we could pound sand. International agreements are hard. Also we pulled from Paris Agreement so why are you even bringing it up. The current Admin put that to rest so now instead of a weak pledge we have... N
Re: (Score:1)
So, public outreach and multilateral accords, I assume you want those to be binding as the Paris Agreement was not binding.
The US left the accord, and continued to reduce its emissions. Those continued reductions had a lot to do with consumer preferences and voter preferences.
Meanwhile China continued to increase emissions, as permitted by the accord.
The US exited a farce and continued to improve none the less.
Re: (Score:2)
So you agree with policies that continue to reduce America's carbon load and bring more manufacturing back to the United States (the type we excel at which is not mass scale consumer goods) such as the Inflation Reduction Act, Chips Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure bill, what are we arguing about then? We should just do more of that stuff. Get the TPP back as a trade agreement.
I think we mostly agree in principle here but "China burn coal so we burn coal" isn't really compelling to me as anything but
Re: (Score:1)
So you agree with policies that continue to reduce America's carbon load ...
I agree with a cleaner environment in many respects, that's just one.
.... and bring more manufacturing back to the United States (the type we excel at which is not mass scale consumer goods) ...
For products where it makes sense. And using modern technology. And for strategic industries (military, health and safety).
And more generally than just manufacturing, but to promote the trades. Vocational education being just as important as 4-year schools. We've erred downplaying the latter. We need manufacturing jobs, we need people trained for trades jobs, we need more vocational certifications and apprenticeships, we need more 2-year
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree with the trades take, my head-canon college plan is just let community colleges give 4-years and technical schools have accreditation and anyone can go to school for free to those. Service economy needs trades, just how it works.
Biden seemed to increase US manufacturing via taxpayer spending. Trump seems to increase US manufacturing via corporate spending. They both seek the same goal
Well I would say one works, or at the very least we have track records of which ones works better than the other. I would couple this with all the other actions Trump is taking that might bring back some manufacturing but at greater economic cost, needless economic co
Re: (Score:1)
I fully agree with the trades take, my head-canon college plan is just let community colleges give 4-years and technical schools have accreditation and anyone can go to school for free to those.
Perhaps it varies with region, but the US states I am familiar with the community colleges have two missions. (1) Prepare students to transfer to a 4-year school. (2) Provide vocational training. This could include getting a 2-year degree in nursing, accounting, etc or getting certificates in HVAC, mechanics (ex large commercial diesel engines), etc. They do a pretty good job at both these missions. However they are completely unequipped for the 4-year. They have some general ed and some of the applied lowe
Re: (Score:2)
EV chargers. Lets compare gov vs Tesla. :-)
Not at all fair when the program was not allowed to finish on the timeline it had set. Same for all those programs you call "promises". It's the same old Solyndra story. Yeah a company went down with a big lump of cash but the entire clean energy loan program was a great success with a default rate of like 2% and the thing ended up turning a small profit in the long run. We pass programs, they take years to get rolling and implemented but right at the 20% mark we kneecap them and then call it failures.
O
Re: (Score:2)
EV chargers. Lets compare gov vs Tesla. :-)
Not at all fair when the program was not allowed to finish on the timeline it had set.
Untrue. The states and localities were complaining they could not find qualified contractors due to all the strings the Biden admin put on sub contracting. These bills were not clean. In addition to the White House staffer's bright ideas all sorts of congress critters got to toss in their little additions.
Same for all those programs you call "promises". It's the same old Solyndra story. Yeah a company went down with a big lump of cash but the entire clean energy loan program was a great success with a default rate of like 2% and the thing ended up turning a small profit in the long run.
Eventually turning a profit is not the metric here. Its how much more efficient things would have been if the government did no give companies taxpayer money, rather convinced or incentivized the company t
Re: (Score:2)
The states and localities were complaining they could not find qualified contractors due to all the strings the Biden admin put on sub contracting.
Yeah, that's part of the process. Instead of coming up with excuses to pre-disqualify it just let the program play out and then judge it.
Also my point is not the fact it made a profit, I agree it shouldn't be the goal but it's the counter the false narrative that these are all failures when in my example, it was quite a sucess! I notice you are not discounting the "taxpapyer program" was a success!
It's possible to entice them without taxpayers paying for the whole thing.
It's possible but not always as efficient *as getting to the goal we want*. Also a tax cut or incentive is th
Re: (Score:2)
The states and localities were complaining they could not find qualified contractors due to all the strings the Biden admin put on sub contracting.
Yeah, that's part of the process.
That's part of the inherent inefficiency of the gov't approach.
false narrative that these are all failures
The point I was trying to make was one of efficiency. That some things are better left to corporation. Gov't can come up with an idea or direction but its probably best to let the corporation implement things in their respective niches.
Consider, what if Biden had decided to ofter a tax credit for each working and maintained public EV charger. Maybe have a cap per highway segment to spread out the construction to encourage a nationwide network
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of the inherent inefficiency of the gov't approach.
That's just lazy, "it's inefficient because it's inefficient", doesnt say anything.
Again, image any gas station with more than 4 fuel pumps replacing one with an EV charger. If the dollars funding the charger program had instead been directed to tax credits for such conversations, how many chargers do you think we would have today?
Government subsidy just the same, I don't have an issue with your directive, it's still subsidizing key areas with clear goals. Give me a concrete plan on how that work and I might agree with it but details matter. I would also say just do both! You are apparently afraid to allow a counterfactual to that case so we better shut it down before it might work!
No, solyndra was not a winner. It was just another startup. It was picked to be a winner, poorly. Did it ultimately come out that it had connections?
The default rate on that loan program was 2.2%, can you evidence me t
Re: (Score:2)
That's just lazy, "it's inefficient because it's inefficient", doesnt say anything.
Actually I mentioned states complaining about federal strings interfering with construction.
You countered that these gov programs have to be measured over a decade.
I'd say both of those indicated inefficiency.
Again, image any gas station with more than 4 fuel pumps replacing one with an EV charger. If the dollars funding the charger program had instead been directed to tax credits for such conversations, how many chargers do you think we would have today?
Government subsidy just the same, I don't have an issue with your directive, it's still subsidizing key areas with clear goals.
But it's doing it far more efficiently by going outside the government, to the private sector for the work. A tax credit is not a government run program. Its a credit for a private corporation run effort.
\Give me a concrete plan on how that work and I might agree with it but details matter.
Think about it. There is no new land to acquire. Zoning should already allow it. No lawsuits to p
Re: (Score:2)
1. Again, just saying "i think a decade is too long" isnt an argument, thats just your opinion. Some states complaining during procurement proces... and then completing the process means its working, and you have yet to prove that the private market has done this better since outside Tesla, who has?
2. Again, you just saying "more efficiently" does not prove the point. Where are the chargers? Tax credits arent the government? WHO COLLECTS TAXES TO CREDIT THEM? Holy fuck.
3. Who said what about acquiring lan
Re: (Score:2)
1. Again, just saying "i think a decade is too long" isnt an argument, thats just your opinion.
It's not just time. It's also money spent. And with reference the Solyndra, I think the wiki article shows you need a different example to make that argument.
Some states complaining during procurement process... and then completing the process means it's working ...
In the Biden EV charger example we don't have anything near completion at the project level, we barely have a start. The fact remains, what help up progress, federal strings accompanying the money, would be absent with a private project.
... and you have yet to prove that the private market has done this better since outside Tesla, who has?
Do I need more than one example to make a point? One example proves it can be done.
Where are the chargers?
That's part of the problem. The B
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that sucking ill-filtered coal smoke is bad for you isn't exactly an esoteric point of cutting edge science; but they know it won't be them breathing it.
What legal reformations would it take to charge the person most in charge of launching this power plant with murder? I mean if we prove beyond shadow of a doubt that this decision kills people (though we can never prove which ones). And if we can prove that a reasonable person would have known that would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to change the law from proof of a specific event to statistical probabilities across an exposed population, and then adjust for the positive effects (there are some!), and it's going to be attempted murder and not murder if you're trying to prevent the deaths rather than waiting a few decades and charging someone well after the damage is done.
So, if starting up that coal plant is going to kill [n] people over the next [y] years, the defense would be that the additional power provided will save [
Re: (Score:2)
If you just don't believe any of those things are actual issues ...
More likely, they don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I am reminded of the scene from Cat Ballou (I know, a movie no one here ever heard of), where the two guys Cat has hired to protect her father are being overly close. He pushes them away, saying, "Let me breathe!"
Which is when the bad guy shoots him.
Ah, the clear, fresh air of Monta
Re: (Score:3)
Why should they? President Musk fired the people who enforce such things and even last year republicans were complaining how the EPA (created by Richard Nixon) was suddenly too powerful.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but Nixon actually was just going with the flow of the time; he was a crook and a traitor (look it up, unlike Russia we were directly fighting Vietnam) but still better than Trump. Actual rivers were catching on fire and the response was so huge no veto could stop it and refusing to do what the new laws demanded might have had him impeached before his idiots screwed up and got him caught; and stopped by Republicans who actually stood for something back in those days. Nixon was just going with the flo
Political Fallout (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the response to this from the conservative/MAGA crowd will be that it is the EPA's fault and it should be de-funded and eliminated. After all if the EPA didn't report this stuff we would never have heard about it and it wouldn't have been a problem.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think so. I suspect most "conservative/MAGA crowd" are well aware that coal is dirty and needs pollution controls. What you are seeing is just an over-correction/reaction. The pendulum swings way too far in one direction and it is being whipped back too far to the other.
Re: (Score:2)
MAGA thinks if China allowed US should be too (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think so. I suspect most "conservative/MAGA crowd" are well aware that coal is dirty and needs pollution controls. What you are seeing is just an over-correction/reaction. The pendulum swings way too far in one direction and it is being whipped back too far to the other.
I think what the MAGA crowd will say is if China is allowed to use coal then so should the USA.
We greenwash our economy by knowingly exporting the pollution to China and pat ourselves on the back for reducing our emissions. We create environmental accords that are farces, allowing China to increase pollution until 2030. Which they do by continuing to increase their use of coal. They are burning it up as fast as they can dig it up or import it. They are not displacing coal with renewables, they are supple
Re: (Score:2)
There is much truth to your posting.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're the MAGA who has been doing it you fool. Chinese are much cleaner than Americans. And you're always the first to lie and complain about it.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. "
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]
"[October 08, 2024] Despite its commitment to "phase down" coal, China recently has been permitting and co
Re: (Score:1)
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023,
Thanks for showing everyone how much cleaner Chinese people are.
4x the people but barely 2x the pollution
Americans are twice as dirty
China produces 2.4x the pollution for 0.6x the GDP (Score:2)
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than 38 percent in the same period. "
Thanks for showing everyone how much cleaner Chinese people are. 4x the people but barely 2x the pollution
Actually it's 2.4x the pollution. But you are wrong in any case. The pollution is almost entirely industrial policy, directly by CCP policy. The people of China have nothing to do with it. Per capita is merely a misleading statistic that hides the truth. The CCP's policies of pollution.
Given that pollution is gov't policy based, not individual citizen based, it would be realistic to look at pollution per GDP rather than per capita. That's where the pollution is going, to industry, to GDP.
China produce
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the response to this from the conservative/MAGA crowd will be that it is the EPA's fault and it should be de-funded and eliminated. After all if the EPA didn't report this stuff we would never have heard about it and it wouldn't have been a problem.
If the EPA actually did their job, no one would be burning coal in the 21st Century.
All this energy technology, and we’re still shoveling black rocks into the fucking furnace like 19th Century idiots.
Enough of the political shit slinging. NO political party has worked hard enough to fix the actual problem. None.
Trump dictated this himself (Score:5, Insightful)
'...the move meant that America "will produce beautiful, clean coal"...'
The move to exempt the filthiest polluters produces "beautiful, clean coal"? First class Trumpism there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The emperor has had no clothes since 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
A nude president. Now there is an image I don’t want in my head.
Re: (Score:2)
'...the move meant that America "will produce beautiful, clean coal"...'
The move to exempt the filthiest polluters produces "beautiful, clean coal"? First class Trumpism there.
This is very easy to do. Simply redefine the threshold for "clean" and suddenly coal is technically clean. Now, the beautiful part, I suppose if one squinted really hard, the oceans of coal ash could be described as "beautiful." Or maybe they're referring to the profits from coal.
Re: Trump dictated this himself (Score:2)
Lame (Score:3)
Natgas is cheaper than coal in nearly every circumstance, even dismissing pollution controls.
Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There is no "eh". Reread the parent's comment, these coal plants are existing meaning they literally have a $500m head start on costs compared to building a new natural gas plant.
Re: (Score:2)
This is especially germane if you are racing to create the end of the economy as we know it. By the time you get a new plant built to run your data center, someone else will have won the race.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.sirgen.com/gasturb... [sirgen.com]
And that's just mothballed turbines, there are likely entire facilities sitting idle or only operating as peakers that could be converted to 24/7 operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Peakers cannot operate 24/7. They are fundamentally different in both design and capacity. The whole point of peakers is by necessity they need to be small so they can vary output quickly as load followers.
Also peakers make money on the peaking model. The same turbine wouldn't be cost effective to run as a base load plant - they have different designs for that. If you did that then your math wouldn't add up anymore and you'll find natural gas more expensive than coal again.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe to build. But with capital costs already sunk, coal is pretty cheap, especially when you don't have to sink additional capital to clean up the plant's emissions.
Well... Not according to this, Reopening closed coal plants makes no economic sense [ieefa.org]
Put simply, restarting coal plants makes no economic sense.
IEEFA’s analysis of the 102 recently closed/converted units, which have a total generating capacity of 36,566 megawatts (MW) and have not operated since the beginning of 2021, found that few are legitimate candidates to be brought back online. IEEFA narrowed its focus to these recently closed units, which were either retired, converted to run on gas or, in one case, fuel oil, because plants closed more than four years ago would almost certainly have even more maintenance requirements and be even more expensive to restart.
IEEFA’s analysis of the 102 units found:
- 24 units have been demolished
- 13 units have been converted to gas
- One unit has been converted to oil
- The units have a median age of 56 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I seems likely that the ones that have been demolished won't be candidates for restarting.
Unless the actual land is still available and a factor in the decision based on the location...
Re: (Score:2)
Natgas is cheaper than coal in nearly every circumstance, even dismissing pollution controls.
I'm sure the US taxpayer will happily subsidise these plants to bring their price per Kwh down to nat-gas levels or even lower. After all, we can't be losing the 'AI arms race' now can we?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? We produce tons of natgas, and it's cheaper. Oil lobbyists are just as active as the coal lobbyists.
You voted for this (Score:5, Interesting)
What’s next, whale oil for illumination?
Re: (Score:2)
What’s next, whale oil for illumination?
RFK, Jr.: Or condiments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Mr President, we must not allow a whale oil gap!
AI, As Implemented, Is a Determent to Humanity (Score:1)
Let's see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck the poor, the schools, the universities, the children, the retirees, the sciences, the vaccines, the air quality, the water, the forests, the national parks, the rest of the world, anybody who actually knows how to run anything... fuck the 401ks, the stock market, the holders of US debt, NATO, the neighbors, anybody that expresses dissent...
Where are my shades? The future is so bright, I'm positively blinded without them. The US is going to be so great again, they'll be tired of being so great.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But, but ... somebody asked me to use different pronouns.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right. That's the only reason why Trump got elected.
Being asked to use different pronouns was the primary reason voters turned on Democrats.
Being ignorant is the primary reason more people didn't act to prevent Trump from getting elected. It doesn't matter what their single issue was, nor indeed if they had multiple issues holding them up from deciding to vote for the status quo, it is undeniable that what is happening now is worse than that in every way.
Therefore the only thing that can actually help with this going forwards is education, but people can only be educated if they are willing to learn. How do you suggest we go about that? It seem
Re:Let's see... (Score:4, Interesting)
Was that a nerve?
It's interesting that you replied to this post, but not to the one above pointing out the very real, very significant damage being done by this administration.
It's almost like you're looking for a way to rationalize your support for someone who is literally sending people to a death camp.
Re: Let's see... (Score:1)
It's almost like you're looking for a way to rationalize your support for someone who is literally sending people to a death camp.
"Literally"?
You know you could just right-click on the word "literally" and realize you are wrong.
Where are these "literal" death camps?
Who was sent to these "literal" death camps?
How were they transported to these "literal" death camp?
People dismiss your warnings when you make false claims...
Re: (Score:3)
Wow.
Just fucking wow.
How are you this clueless? What is your news diet like such that you don't know about this?
The camp is in El Salvador. It is called CECOT.
The El Salvadoran government has repeatedly stated that nobody ever leaves the prison. It is a death camp.
The Trump administration sent 200 people there on March 15, on three chartered flights.
Here is an intro to CECOT. You can google for more:
https://time.com/7269604/el-sa... [time.com]
Let me strongly suggest that you do not try to 'well, actually' this by echo
Re: (Score:3)
Legal residents are being extra judiciously deported to a Central American work prison for thought crimes without due process and denied habeas corpus in violation of both American Laws and in my shared opinion the core of American Values and the Presidential admin is currently sorting out how exactly to violate orders from The Supreme Court in order to continue holding people there.
Is that more accurate?
Re: (Score:2)
Even aside from basic veracity, your objection to the use of the word literal is antiquated. The dictionaries added informal usages of the word over a decade ago. These include "not literal", and are used similarly to the word "virtual".
Say it with me. "Dictionaries don't define language. They track it."
Re: (Score:3)
They’re in El Salvador and Trump appealed all the way to the supreme court because he fucked up and sent the wrong person. https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the poor, the schools, the universities, the children, the retirees, the sciences, the vaccines, the air quality, the water, the forests, the national parks, the rest of the world, anybody who actually knows how to run anything... fuck the 401ks, the stock market, the holders of US debt, NATO, the neighbors, anybody that expresses dissent...
Or, more simply, anyone who is not a rich, old, white guy who can afford his own fenced, gated, guarded, self-sufficient plantation, fortress, estate, or island. /s
Wow, you have that exactly inverted (Score:2)
Like most on the left, you seem to always see what's good for the rich urban jet-set as "good" and ignore completely the impacts on the ACTUAL poor [not the ones on posters and campaign materials] and the middle class. The rich can afford every damned boutique energy source and every bit of emissions you could possibly apply (except of course on their superyachts and jets). It's the poor who most need the cheapest forms of energy, and the cheapest form is COAL.
Get back to us when you find a plentiful power
Re: (Score:1)
The poster was noting that *Trump* was doing all those things, not just this one power plant.
He's just another President...
As noted in other parts of this thread, he is sending people to a labor camp in Central America, without even a hint of due process.
And right now, his DOJ is deliberately ignoring court orders to return someone that even the administration admits was sent there by mistake.
That's not normal. We haven't seen shit like that since Andrew Jackson.
Re: (Score:2)
You put a lot of thought into that. Very narrow in scope... but a lot. So I'll reply in earnest. My post was linked to the topic by two words nestled in a long list. If you insist on isolating it, okay... but acknowledge the list.
You missed my point entirely. But that's fine. But good lord, don't extend the coal argument back in time to make your case. Nobody wants to reintroduce horses en masse to NY city. And you insist on muddying some pretty clear waters with your coal rhetoric. Fine. But I don't need t
Re: (Score:2)
cheapest form is COAL
citation needed
Get back to us when you find a plentiful power source that has both an up-front cost and an operating cost that are cheaper than coal, supplies that are domestic and more plentiful than coal, and therefore will provide the poor and middle class with electricity rates as low as coal can.
The answer was and still is natural gas. It was what was killing coal before all the stuff like carbon credits came along and will continue to do so. The turbines are pretty much the same tech. What makes the difference is that the boilers are so much easier to maintain, no clinker build up, etc. It fires up quicker and shuts down easier too. The US is still a net oil producer and gas is a constant by-product, there's even a thriving export market for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me again how President Hyena would have cackled enough for you and 300 million other Americans to dismiss another 100 billion in taxpayer money going to fund Ukranian Bidenomics on behalf of The Big Guy.
Tell me again how President Hyena would have “saved” America by sending more than just money to a country so corrupt it hires dishonorably discharged cokeheads to serve on executive energy boards. When the last of the Grandfathers on the Ukranian front lines dies off due to bloody attrition
Nothing like having your groundwater poisoned (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't have to do this. We're going to because thought terminating cliches are incredibly powerful. But we don't have to.
Here's the part where I get three or four responses that contain thought terminating cliches. And I get modded down for pointing out that. But like I keep saying I'm just screaming into the void at this point.
The King says... (Score:1)
"Let them eat coal."
Grok why are my lungs burning? (Score:2)
Coal (Score:1)
My God! Clean? Coal? Must be virtual.!
Do we not even read TFS anymore? (Score:4, Informative)
There's exactly ONE coal plant power plant in America that lacks 'scrubbers':
Somewhere in Montana sits the only coal-fired power plant in America that hasn't installed modern pollution controls to limit particulate matter, according to the Environmental Protecction Agency. Mining.com notes that it has the highest emission rate of fine particulate matter out of any U.S. coal-burning power plant.
"...the only coal-fired power plant in America that hasn't installed modern pollution controls to limit particulate matter, according to the Environmental Protecction Agency."
Talen Energy Corp.'s Colstrip in Montana is among 47 plants receiving two-year waivers from rules to control mercury and other pollutants as part of a White House effort to ease regulation on coal-fired sites, according to a list seen by Bloomberg News. The exemptions were among a slew of actions announced by the White House Tuesday to expand the mining and use of coal. The Trump administration has argued coal is a vital part of the mix to ensure sufficient energy supply to meet booming demand for AI data centers. The carve-out, which begins in July 2027, lasts until July 2029, according to the proclamation.
"The carve-out, which begins in July 2027, lasts until July 2029, according to the proclamation."
Got that? Before Trump acted these coal plants were already exempt, are currently exempt, and will be exempt thru all of 2026 and into 2027, THEN this Trump exception kicks-in...
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for clarifying Trump’s pro pollution administration.
China... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being American this might shock you, but the USA has no jurisdiction over China.
I like it! (Score:2)
Colstrip's an interesting case... (Score:2)
Wow, that's quite an admission (Score:2)
They're admitting that the US only has one coal-fired power plant lacking modern emissions controls.
That's a massive improvement. The nation used to run substantially on coal and back then NONE of the plants had emissions controls.
I think we're not supposed to notice this admission.
MAGPA (Score:2)
Make America the Greatest Polluter Again
Re: MAGPA (Score:2)
America is going backwards (Score:2)
Coal is better than diesel (Score:2)
The XAI cluster in Memphis isn't even using grid power. They are using diesel to power them 24/7. They are polluting the air but few care since its in a generally poor neighborhood.
Re: (Score:2)
It's said to be intrinsic to national security
Who's saying that? Did you ask ChatGPT?
Re: (Score:1)
It's said to be intrinsic to national security
Who's saying that? Did you ask ChatGPT?
Who cares? Do you actually think that you're air conditioning and heating will have a higher priority than the AI data center that's paying a gazillion dollars to the state and local economies and taxes? Your sleep apnea machine, air conditioner, furnace, and the friggin' street lights will all fall to the big business $$$ that is the AI data center. So, do you want that coal power or do you want to spend an hour a day in the dark, maybe more?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually think that you're air conditioning and heating will have a higher priority than the AI data center that's paying a gazillion dollars to the state and local economies and taxes?
Yes. These data centers are cost centers with very small staffs. The profits are all booked in Mountain View or Redmond. Or, more likely, in Ireland.