Thank you coal!

[HI54UNI]

8/5 - 35 MW - Potential of 17% but only 2.3% of actual load.


Producing 1,183 kW right now out of a potential 11,000 kW. Almost 300 customers can have lights today.

[RavenManiac]

Cool story. I'm sure your grandkids and great-grandkids will appreciate your staunch loyalty to a filthy and outdated energy source.

Probably more than your grand kids who will be sitting in the dark. Filthy? Obviously you don't have a clue. Go read an Obama book... in the dark.

[kalm]

Cool story. I'm sure your grandkids and great-grandkids will appreciate your staunch loyalty to a filthy and outdated energy source.

Probably more than your grand kids who will be sitting in the dark. Filthy? Obviously you don't have a clue. Go read an Obama book... in the dark.

Ha! IN YOUR FACE, GATW!

[AZGrizFan]

Probably more than your grand kids who will be sitting in the dark. Filthy? Obviously you don't have a clue. Go read an Obama book... in the dark.

Ha! IN YOUR FACE, GATW!

Well, you can't make idiotic statements like GATW's and expect to not get called on it. Then again, responding to idiotic statements by GATW would be a full time job on this board.

[HI54UNI]

Ha! IN YOUR FACE, GATW!

Well, you can't make idiotic statements like GATW's and expect to not get called on it. Then again, responding to idiotic statements by GATW would be a full time job on this board.

Real time 8 kW out of 11,000 kW right now. Only two customers out of 20,000 would get power today if it wasn't for coal.

[AZGrizFan]

Well, you can't make idiotic statements like GATW's and expect to not get called on it. Then again, responding to idiotic statements by GATW would be a full time job on this board.

Real time 8 kW out of 11,000 kW right now. Only two customers out of 20,000 would get power today if it wasn't for coal.

Wind is THE answer, 54! Dammit! We just need a giant turbine in every single back yard in America...

[kalm]

Ha! IN YOUR FACE, GATW!

Well, you can't make idiotic statements like GATW's and expect to not get called on it. Then again, responding to idiotic statements by GATW would be a full time job on this board.

Sarcasm detector…you should get one.

[kalm]

Well, you can't make idiotic statements like GATW's and expect to not get called on it. Then again, responding to idiotic statements by GATW would be a full time job on this board.

Real time 8 kW out of 11,000 kW right now. Only two customers out of 20,000 would get power today if it wasn't for coal.

Yeah…it's a level playing field.

[Grizalltheway]

Ha! IN YOUR FACE, GATW!

Well, you can't make idiotic statements like GATW's and expect to not get called on it. Then again, responding to idiotic statements by GATW would be a full time job on this board.

Yep. All is well. Coal is the future of energy.

[AZGrizFan]

Well, you can't make idiotic statements like GATW's and expect to not get called on it. Then again, responding to idiotic statements by GATW would be a full time job on this board.

Yep. All is well. Coal is the future of energy.

No. Coal is the PRESENT of energy. Like it or not. You can WISH all you want that the wind will blow, but that's only from D1B's farts...

[D1B]

Yep. All is well. Coal is the future of energy.

No. Coal is the PRESENT of energy. Like it or not. You can WISH all you want that the wind will blow, but that's only from D1B's farts...

Nice job knee jerking off to Hi5's anomaly.

[AZGrizFan]

No. Coal is the PRESENT of energy. Like it or not. You can WISH all you want that the wind will blow, but that's only from D1B's farts...

Nice job knee jerking off Hi5's anomaly.

I'm sure I have no idea what you're referring to, honey.

[D1B]

Nice job knee jerking off Hi5's anomaly.

I'm sure I have no idea what you're referring to, honey.

4 days of low electric generation.

[Chizzang]

[Grizalltheway]

Yep. All is well. Coal is the future of energy.

No. Coal is the PRESENT of energy. Like it or not.

I've conceded this many times, including in this very thread. Reading is fundamental.

[LeadBolt]

Natural gas produces 48% of the carbon emissions of coal. We are burning it off at the well heads due to low market demand and inability to move it to market because of lack of sufficient pipeline capacity and holding up of pipeline permitting. Thus increasing the environmental damage without benefit.

Building of nuclear power plants in this country fell off the cliff 25+ years ago and with a few minor exceptions has never recovered because rather than holding utilities to safe standards in building plants, we have just about made it virtually impossible to build them.

Coal still is the leading fuel in electric generation in the US (down from 50+% to about 33%) because of the environmentalists opposition to proven, economical alternatives while they deem of covering the land with windmills (even though there are vast portions of the country with insufficient wind to be practical), solar panels (which are not economically viable without subsidies), or flooding of vast amounts of farmland.

Thank you coal for being there while the enviro-nazis shutdown the currently economically viable alternatives.

[houndawg]

No. Coal is the PRESENT of energy. Like it or not.

I've conceded this many times, including in this very thread. Reading is fundamental.

He's a financial guy, G, they're known for living in the moment.

[houndawg]

Natural gas produces 48% of the carbon emissions of coal. We are burning it off at the well heads due to low market demand and inability to move it to market because of lack of sufficient pipeline capacity and holding up of pipeline permitting. Thus increasing the environmental damage without benefit.

Building of nuclear power plants in this country fell off the cliff 25+ years ago and with a few minor exceptions has never recovered because rather than holding utilities to safe standards in building plants, we have just about made it virtually impossible to build them.

Coal still is the leading fuel in electric generation in the US (down from 50+% to about 33%) because of the environmentalists opposition to proven, economical alternatives while they deem of covering the land with windmills (even though there are vast portions of the country with insufficient wind to be practical), solar panels (which are not economically viable without subsidies), or flooding of vast amounts of farmland.

Thank you coal for being there while the enviro-nazis shutdown the currently economically viable alternatives.

Yeah, it's all the tree-huggers fault, they have so much political clout.

Energy companies are making record profits with things just the way they are. Why mess it up by adding more supply and risk prices falling?

[kalm]

Natural gas produces 48% of the carbon emissions of coal. We are burning it off at the well heads due to low market demand and inability to move it to market because of lack of sufficient pipeline capacity and holding up of pipeline permitting. Thus increasing the environmental damage without benefit.

Building of nuclear power plants in this country fell off the cliff 25+ years ago and with a few minor exceptions has never recovered because rather than holding utilities to safe standards in building plants, we have just about made it virtually impossible to build them.

Coal still is the leading fuel in electric generation in the US (down from 50+% to about 33%) because of the environmentalists opposition to proven, economical alternatives while they deem of covering the land with windmills (even though there are vast portions of the country with insufficient wind to be practical), solar panels (which are not economically viable without subsidies), or flooding of vast amounts of farmland.

Thank you coal for being there while the enviro-nazis shutdown the currently economically viable alternatives.

According to research by GigaOm analyst Adam Lesser, buried in a 2011 report from the International Energy Agency is the fact that fossil fuels currently receive subsidies via "at least 250 mechanisms."[1]
In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.[2]
External Costs

In economics, an external cost, or externality, is a negative effect of an economic activity on a third party. When coal is mined and used to generate power, external costs include the impacts of water pollution, solid waste streams, and especially air pollution on human health, and the long-term damage to natural systems and human society caused by global warming. These can end up as federal subsidies if taxpayers have to pay the costs of these harms, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up, as well as the loss or degradation of valuable ecosystem and community services.
External costs of coal mining and power generation include the following:[11]
Reduction in life expectancy (particulates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, heavy metal, benzene, radionuclides, etc.)
Respiratory hospital admissions (particulates, ozone, sulfur dioxide)
Congrestive heart failure (particulates and carbon monoxide)
Non-fatal cancer, osteroporosia, ataxia, renal dysfunction (benzene, radionuclines, heavy metal, etc.)
Chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, etc. (particulates, ozone)
Loss of IQ (mercury)
Degradation and soiling of buildings (sulfur dioxide, acid deposition, particulates)
Reduction of crop yields (NOx, sulfur dioxide, ozone, acid deposition); some emissions may also have a fertilizing effect (nitrogen and sulfur deposition)
Global warming (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)
Ecosystem loss and degradation
2009 National Research Council Report on External Costs
In 2009 the National Research Council released a report on “external effects” caused by various energy sources over their entire life cycle, from extraction to production to use and emissions, effects not factored into the market cost of the fuels. The report Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use was released in October 2009. Requested by Congress, the report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. Putting together a diverse committee of experts including scientists, economists, and geologists, the committee estimated the use of fossil fuels had a hidden cost to the U.S. public of $120 billion in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. The estimate was derived from monetizing the damage of major air pollutants -- sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter – on human health, grain crops and timber yields, buildings, and recreation.
The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize.
The committee also separately derived a range of values for damages from climate change, and found that each ton of CO2 emissions will be far worse in 2030 than now: “even if the total amount of annual emissions remains steady, the damages caused by each ton would increase 50 percent to 80 percent.”
External Costs of Coal Plants
According to the National Research Council report, in 2005 the total annual external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants (which produce 95 percent of the nation's coal-generated electricity), were about $62 billion. A relatively small number of plants -- 10 percent of the total number -- accounted for 43 percent of the damages. Further, coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., emitting on average about a ton of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced, creating climate-related monetary damages range from 0.1 cents to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, based on modeling studies.
The report also found that burning natural gas generated far less damage than coal, although still significant: a sample of 498 natural gas fueled plants (71 percent of gas-generated electricity) produced $740 million in total nonclimate damages in 2005. The life-cycle damages of wind power, which produces just over 1 percent of U.S. electricity, were found to be small when compared with those from coal and natural gas.
2010 report: Most coal mine reclamation funds paid by taxpayers
In January 2010, the AP Press reported that $395 million was available for abandoned coal mine reclamation funds provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Recipients can apply to the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement for funding for specific projects. Part of the money - $150 million - comes from fees based on U.S. coal production. The remaining $245 million comes from the U.S. Treasury, or taxpayers. Since 1977, the program has provided more than $7 billion to clean up more than 285,000 acres.[12]
2011 Harvard report: external costs of coal up to $500 billion annually
A Feb. 2011 report by associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School Dr. Paul Epstein, "Mining Coal, Mounting Costs: the Life Cycle Consequences of Coal", found that accounting for the full costs of coal would double to triple its price. The study, to be released in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, tallies the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion - and estimates the costs to be between $175 billion to $500 billion dollars annually, costs that are directly passed on to the public.[13]
In terms of human health, the report estimates $74.6 billion a year in public health burdens in Appalachian communities, with a majority of the impact resulting from increased healthcare costs, injury and death. Emissions of air pollution and coal account for $187.5 billion, mercury impacts as high as $29.3 billion, and climate contributions from combustion between $61.7 and $205.8 billion. Heavy metal toxins and carcinogens released during processing pollute water and food sources and are linked to long-term health problems. Mining, transportation, and combustion of coal contribute to poor air quality and respiratory disease, while the risky nature of mining coal results in death and injury for workers.[13]
The study concluded: "Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public." The average residential price of electricity at the time of the report is 12¢/kWh.[13]
The study notes that even these numbers are certainly underestimates of the full cost of coal:[13]
"Still these figures do not represent the full societal and environmental burden of coal. In quantifying the damages, we have omitted the impacts of toxic chemicals and heavy metals on ecological systems and diverse plants and animals; some ill-health endpoints (morbidity) aside from mortality related to air pollutants released through coal combustion that are still not captured; the direct risks and hazards posed by coal sludge, coal slurry, and coal waste impoundments; the full contributions of nitrogen deposition to eutrophication of fresh and coastal sea water; the prolonged impacts of acid rain and acid mine drainage; many of the long-term impacts on the physical and mental health of those living in coal-field regions and nearby MTR sites; some of the health impacts and climate forcing due to increased tropospheric ozone formation; and the full assessment of impacts due to an increasingly unstable climate."[13]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... rnal_Costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Back to you, LB.... how 'bout them fossil fuel subsidies?

[Baldy]

Natural gas produces 48% of the carbon emissions of coal. We are burning it off at the well heads due to low market demand and inability to move it to market because of lack of sufficient pipeline capacity and holding up of pipeline permitting. Thus increasing the environmental damage without benefit.

Building of nuclear power plants in this country fell off the cliff 25+ years ago and with a few minor exceptions has never recovered because rather than holding utilities to safe standards in building plants, we have just about made it virtually impossible to build them.

Coal still is the leading fuel in electric generation in the US (down from 50+% to about 33%) because of the environmentalists opposition to proven, economical alternatives while they deem of covering the land with windmills (even though there are vast portions of the country with insufficient wind to be practical), solar panels (which are not economically viable without subsidies), or flooding of vast amounts of farmland.

Thank you coal for being there while the enviro-nazis shutdown the currently economically viable alternatives.

According to research by GigaOm analyst Adam Lesser, buried in a 2011 report from the International Energy Agency is the fact that fossil fuels currently receive subsidies via "at least 250 mechanisms."[1]
In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.[2]
External Costs

In economics, an external cost, or externality, is a negative effect of an economic activity on a third party. When coal is mined and used to generate power, external costs include the impacts of water pollution, solid waste streams, and especially air pollution on human health, and the long-term damage to natural systems and human society caused by global warming. These can end up as federal subsidies if taxpayers have to pay the costs of these harms, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up, as well as the loss or degradation of valuable ecosystem and community services.
External costs of coal mining and power generation include the following:[11]
Reduction in life expectancy (particulates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, heavy metal, benzene, radionuclides, etc.)
Respiratory hospital admissions (particulates, ozone, sulfur dioxide)
Congrestive heart failure (particulates and carbon monoxide)
Non-fatal cancer, osteroporosia, ataxia, renal dysfunction (benzene, radionuclines, heavy metal, etc.)
Chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, etc. (particulates, ozone)
Loss of IQ (mercury)
Degradation and soiling of buildings (sulfur dioxide, acid deposition, particulates)
Reduction of crop yields (NOx, sulfur dioxide, ozone, acid deposition); some emissions may also have a fertilizing effect (nitrogen and sulfur deposition)
Global warming (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)
Ecosystem loss and degradation
2009 National Research Council Report on External Costs
In 2009 the National Research Council released a report on “external effects” caused by various energy sources over their entire life cycle, from extraction to production to use and emissions, effects not factored into the market cost of the fuels. The report Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use was released in October 2009. Requested by Congress, the report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. Putting together a diverse committee of experts including scientists, economists, and geologists, the committee estimated the use of fossil fuels had a hidden cost to the U.S. public of $120 billion in 2005, a number that reflects primarily health damages from air pollution associated with electricity generation and motor vehicle transportation. The estimate was derived from monetizing the damage of major air pollutants -- sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter – on human health, grain crops and timber yields, buildings, and recreation.
The figure does not include damages from climate change, harm to ecosystems, effects of some air pollutants such as mercury, and risks to national security, which the report examines but does not monetize.
The committee also separately derived a range of values for damages from climate change, and found that each ton of CO2 emissions will be far worse in 2030 than now: “even if the total amount of annual emissions remains steady, the damages caused by each ton would increase 50 percent to 80 percent.”
External Costs of Coal Plants
According to the National Research Council report, in 2005 the total annual external damages from sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter created by burning coal at 406 coal-fired power plants (which produce 95 percent of the nation's coal-generated electricity), were about $62 billion. A relatively small number of plants -- 10 percent of the total number -- accounted for 43 percent of the damages. Further, coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., emitting on average about a ton of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced, creating climate-related monetary damages range from 0.1 cents to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, based on modeling studies.
The report also found that burning natural gas generated far less damage than coal, although still significant: a sample of 498 natural gas fueled plants (71 percent of gas-generated electricity) produced $740 million in total nonclimate damages in 2005. The life-cycle damages of wind power, which produces just over 1 percent of U.S. electricity, were found to be small when compared with those from coal and natural gas.
2010 report: Most coal mine reclamation funds paid by taxpayers
In January 2010, the AP Press reported that $395 million was available for abandoned coal mine reclamation funds provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Recipients can apply to the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement for funding for specific projects. Part of the money - $150 million - comes from fees based on U.S. coal production. The remaining $245 million comes from the U.S. Treasury, or taxpayers. Since 1977, the program has provided more than $7 billion to clean up more than 285,000 acres.[12]
2011 Harvard report: external costs of coal up to $500 billion annually
A Feb. 2011 report by associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School Dr. Paul Epstein, "Mining Coal, Mounting Costs: the Life Cycle Consequences of Coal", found that accounting for the full costs of coal would double to triple its price. The study, to be released in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, tallies the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion - and estimates the costs to be between $175 billion to $500 billion dollars annually, costs that are directly passed on to the public.[13]
In terms of human health, the report estimates $74.6 billion a year in public health burdens in Appalachian communities, with a majority of the impact resulting from increased healthcare costs, injury and death. Emissions of air pollution and coal account for $187.5 billion, mercury impacts as high as $29.3 billion, and climate contributions from combustion between $61.7 and $205.8 billion. Heavy metal toxins and carcinogens released during processing pollute water and food sources and are linked to long-term health problems. Mining, transportation, and combustion of coal contribute to poor air quality and respiratory disease, while the risky nature of mining coal results in death and injury for workers.[13]
The study concluded: "Our comprehensive review finds that the best estimate for the total economically quantifiable costs, based on a conservative weighting of many of the study findings, amount to some $345.3 billion, adding close to 17.8¢/kWh of electricity generated from coal. The low estimate is $175 billion, or over 9¢/kWh, while the true monetizable costs could be as much as the upper bounds of $523.3 billion, adding close to 26.89¢/kWh. These and the more difficult to quantify externalities are borne by the general public." The average residential price of electricity at the time of the report is 12¢/kWh.[13]
The study notes that even these numbers are certainly underestimates of the full cost of coal:[13]
"Still these figures do not represent the full societal and environmental burden of coal. In quantifying the damages, we have omitted the impacts of toxic chemicals and heavy metals on ecological systems and diverse plants and animals; some ill-health endpoints (morbidity) aside from mortality related to air pollutants released through coal combustion that are still not captured; the direct risks and hazards posed by coal sludge, coal slurry, and coal waste impoundments; the full contributions of nitrogen deposition to eutrophication of fresh and coastal sea water; the prolonged impacts of acid rain and acid mine drainage; many of the long-term impacts on the physical and mental health of those living in coal-field regions and nearby MTR sites; some of the health impacts and climate forcing due to increased tropospheric ozone formation; and the full assessment of impacts due to an increasingly unstable climate."[13]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... rnal_Costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"SourceWatch"

What's wrong kalm? Couldn't find anything from Think "Progress", CAP, HuffPoop or Donk Underground?

For you to complain about someone using the Heartland Institute, Heritage, or God forbid, Fox News as a reference, and then for you to turn around and use "SourceWatch"?
You must have fallen out of the hypocrisy tree and hit every limb on the way down.

Oh and for the 10,000th time, "Big Oil" and the like does not receive one penny in subsidies from the federal government.

[kalm]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... rnal_Costs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"SourceWatch"

What's wrong kalm? Couldn't find anything from Think "Progress", CAP, HuffPoop or Donk Underground?

For you to complain about someone using the Heartland Institute, Heritage, or God forbid, Fox News as a reference, and then for you to turn around and use "SourceWatch"?
You must have fallen out of the hypocrisy tree and hit every limb on the way down.

Oh and for the 10,000th time, "Big Oil" and the like does not receive one penny in subsidies from the federal government.

Sure it leans left, but everything is linked to agencies like the US Treasury, the DOE, etc. You might not like the outcome, but it's all right there in front of you.

Heartland was specifically created to fabricate. It's not even close.

And yes, we've already had the subsidy discussion and you're still wrong. But please, provide your source to that notion.

[AZGrizFan]

"SourceWatch"

What's wrong kalm? Couldn't find anything from Think "Progress", CAP, HuffPoop or Donk Underground?

For you to complain about someone using the Heartland Institute, Heritage, or God forbid, Fox News as a reference, and then for you to turn around and use "SourceWatch"?
You must have fallen out of the hypocrisy tree and hit every limb on the way down.

Oh and for the 10,000th time, "Big Oil" and the like does not receive one penny in subsidies from the federal government.

Sure it leans left, but everything is linked to agencies like the US Treasury, the DOE, etc. You might not like the outcome, but it's all right there in front of you.

Heartland was specifically created to fabricate. It's not even close.

And yes, we've already had the subsidy discussion and you're still wrong. But please, provide your source to that notion.

That's great. Doesn't work on the flip side though, so it ain't gonna fly for you.

[Baldy]

"SourceWatch"

What's wrong kalm? Couldn't find anything from Think "Progress", CAP, HuffPoop or Donk Underground?

For you to complain about someone using the Heartland Institute, Heritage, or God forbid, Fox News as a reference, and then for you to turn around and use "SourceWatch"?
You must have fallen out of the hypocrisy tree and hit every limb on the way down.

Oh and for the 10,000th time, "Big Oil" and the like does not receive one penny in subsidies from the federal government.

Sure it leans left, but everything is linked to agencies like the US Treasury, the DOE, etc. You might not like the outcome, but it's all right there in front of you.

Heartland was specifically created to fabricate. It's not even close.

And yes, we've already had the subsidy discussion and you're still wrong. But please, provide your source to that notion.

"Leans left", Just like George Soros (one of it's major benefactors) "leans left".

Everything is not linked to agencies like the Treasury or the Dept. of Education. Much of it is linked to extreme left-wing groups like Think Progress, Environmental Law Foundation, Citizens for Tax Justice, and Climate Progress, as well as, many many others.

SourceWatch was created to lie, period. It presents viewpoints from extremists and tries to shape and spin it into the mainstream as legitimate "news".

As has been said before (without you providing any proof to the contrary), please show us the "subsidies" that Big Oil receives that other companies like Google or Apple don't. Besides, if "Big Oil" receives so much money from the feds, it should be easily traceable in the Federal Budget. Please go look and show us what you find. I just can't wait to see it.

[kalm]

Sure it leans left, but everything is linked to agencies like the US Treasury, the DOE, etc. You might not like the outcome, but it's all right there in front of you.

Heartland was specifically created to fabricate. It's not even close.

And yes, we've already had the subsidy discussion and you're still wrong. But please, provide your source to that notion.

"Leans left", Just like George Soros (one of it's major benefactors) "leans left".

Everything is not linked to agencies like the Treasury or the Dept. of Education. Much of it is linked to extreme left-wing groups like Think Progress, Environmental Law Foundation, Citizens for Tax Justice, and Climate Progress, as well as, many many others.

SourceWatch was created to lie, period. It presents viewpoints from extremists and tries to shape and spin it into the mainstream as legitimate "news".

As has been said before (without you providing any proof to the contrary), please show us the "subsidies" that Big Oil receives that other companies like Google or Apple don't. Besides, if "Big Oil" receives so much money from the feds, it should be easily traceable in the Federal Budget. Please go look and show us what you find. I just can't wait to see it.

Well we were talking about coal in this thread and my original point was to Leadbolt regarding his complaint about clean energy subsidies.

So here's a link straight from the sourcewatch article to the Dep. of Energy regarding a report on coal subsidies.

I'm sure big oil doesn't get any, not that Google or Apple have anything to do with it.

Why are you in favor of government picking winners and losers.