Carrollton Free Press Standard Letter...

Carrollton Free Press Standard Letters to the Editor | Randy Miller

There are 37 comments on the Carrollton Free Press Standard story from Jun 12, 2014, titled Carrollton Free Press Standard Letters to the Editor | Randy Miller. In it, Carrollton Free Press Standard reports that:

The new requirement is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent of 2005 levels.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Carrollton Free Press Standard.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Info

Canton, OH

#1 Jun 13, 2014
Randy, link the site you used for your information. We do not get 70% from coal, and your cost per kwh numbers don't look correct either.
Randy Miller

Dover, OH

#2 Jun 13, 2014
Easy to find on the internet. Still if my figures are off they're not by much and they will still show the vast differences in the cost of electricity. Point is we will be paying a lot more for electricity and that's the rub.
mot

Islamorada, FL

#3 Jun 13, 2014
Randy Miller wrote:
Easy to find on the internet. Still if my figures are off they're not by much and they will still show the vast differences in the cost of electricity. Point is we will be paying a lot more for electricity and that's the rub.
If it's on the internet it must be true!
Hope this helps

Canton, OH

#4 Jun 13, 2014
As of 2013 we are only getting 37% of our energy from coal and it is creating 80% of the pollution. Your numbers on the cost are also very wrong. Of course my info is from a government energy site so I know you wouldn't trust that.
litesong

Everett, WA

#5 Jun 14, 2014
randy muffed wrote:
if my figures are off they're not by much
Silly goose & muffed up. Your quote of wind turbine prices must be 30 years old & ain't no quarter of a buck per kilowatt-hr. Modern wind turbine power generation has collapsed prices, still collapsing & caused durability to extend wll beyond several decades. The miracles of the strongly tallest(well taller than the Seattle space needle), & efficient gearless rotors have silenced power generating critics, except for sleazy slimy steenking toxic topix AGW denier liars. With the newly developed & very efficient rotors, older turbines will also be upgraded to reduce cost of generated power.
Randy Miller

Dover, OH

#6 Jun 14, 2014
If you people listened to radio and watched broadcast news they were saying this would cripple the economy and raise the electrical cost three times what we are paying now. So just keep your heads in the sand.
Randy Miller

Dover, OH

#7 Jun 14, 2014
I have triple checked sources and have found one error. Ohio uses coal as 70% of its power, the nation is 45%. Still the difference between the cost of natural gas and coal to produce a kilowatt of electricity remains huge, anywhere from twice to four times the cost. Wind and solar are even larger.
Think

Canton, OH

#8 Jun 14, 2014
I remember when I bought a VCR 30 years ago when they first came out, it was around $300. Now you can get a DVD player for $30. When we start using the new technologies more and mass producing their parts it will become much cheaper and then also have the benefit of being cleaner. It will not kill the economy, it will just kill coal and oil, there will be new jobs created around the new technologies. The definition of the term economy is...how people satisfy their wants and needs. The word is like religion or government, they are all ideologies. We can choose to have/believe in whatever one WE want. We don't have to choose coal and oil just because they want us to, we deserve the opportunity to use something that we know will be better in the long term. As a parent, I have learned over the years that sometimes this life requires a lot of sacrifices so that our children's lives can be better. Why would I want short term benefits for me at this point, if I know that if I just sacrifice a little once again, we can do something that will show the world that it can be done and that we are still a great country. I gets me frustrated when people act like those of us that want progress are UnAmerican. What a load of crap. To me it seems UnAmerican to not be leading the world into the future of newer better technologies, some country is going to do it, and I believe it should be us.
archie bunker

United States

#9 Jun 15, 2014
yes think , on that logic you have me to believe 30 years ago gas was 400 plus a gallon? wow , glad it is "old" tech today.
Wow

Athens, OH

#10 Jun 15, 2014
Archie, that was wasted time for you to type and for us to read...that is not a correct comparison and you know it, I hope. New tech is always expensive and then gets cheaper as it is mass produced, consumable products are based on supply and demand, or controlled by consortiums. Luckily most people know this, now maybe you do.
Kevin Brantch

Athens, OH

#11 Jun 15, 2014
so, basically your argument here is "polluting is fine as long as other countries are doing it too." You may be interested in on of my mother's favorite phrases; "two wrongs don't make a right."
A Choice

Dover, OH

#12 Jun 15, 2014
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. A made up villain.
Randy Miller

Dover, OH

#13 Jun 15, 2014
What is the cost of wind power per kilowatt hour litesong? I bet it's not under 3 cents. Why is it that California has closed hydroelectric dams in their state? Why don't we build pollution free dams? Is it that the EPA has restricted it? When the wind stops there is no power generated litesong unlike hydroelectric. I'm for more hydroelectric power but for some asinine reason no one is building any new ones.
litesong

Everett, WA

#14 Jun 16, 2014
randy err by miler wrote:
What is the cost of wind power per kilowatt hour litesong? I bet it's not under 3 cents.
From a quarter per kilowatt-hr to 3 cents.......almost a magnitude difference. You're very accurate, aren't you. So far, you're words are randy & wander around, a mile in error.

Wind turbine technology continues, knocking the hell out of "green" electric generation prices. Coal advocates said less than ten years ago, there was no power in wind power. Then, they said wind power was a boon-doggle. Now, you reduce the price of wind turbine power by nearly 10 times, in a few days. You really are worthless......... & "randy err by miler".
Randy Miller

Dover, OH

#15 Jun 17, 2014
Now wind no power, not hard to figure out. This source is unreliable. Wind turbines and solar take up a huge amount of real estate compared to hydroelectric, nuclear and coal power plants.
A Choice

Dover, OH

#16 Jun 17, 2014
Science is suppose to be absolute but why you can't find this in the global warming theory. Cause and effect are the rule. Cause - additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the greenhouse effect and increase the temperature. Effect - no additional warming.
Reality - we have had a large increase in carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere by human activity but the worldwide temperature has not increased over the last 14 years.

The evidence of carbon dioxide causing the earth to rise in temperature is not there.

So the attack on coal, that releases carbon dioxide into the air, has no effect on world temperatures.
SpaceBlues

United States

#17 Jun 17, 2014
A Choice wrote:
Science is suppose to be absolute but why you can't find this in the global warming theory. Cause and effect are the rule. Cause - additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the greenhouse effect and increase the temperature. Effect - no additional warming.
Reality - we have had a large increase in carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere by human activity but the worldwide temperature has not increased over the last 14 years.
The evidence of carbon dioxide causing the earth to rise in temperature is not there.
So the attack on coal, that releases carbon dioxide into the air, has no effect on world temperatures.
Science informs while your type denies the truth because you have no science.

Learn about the greenhouse gas and effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effec...
A Choice

Dover, OH

#18 Jun 17, 2014
Junk science you mean. Carbon dioxide is 0.038 % of the atmospheric gases, of that human activity is only 4%. Insignificant wouldn't you say? If you track the temperature you will find carbon dioxide levels rise ONLY after the temperature does. So where is the evidence that carbon dioxide raises temperature?

We have deniers due to the fact that it can't be proven. Many times science has been proved wrong.

There is a gain for this fraud at a tune of $7 billion annually, ie environmental groups and government for political reasons.

Where is the proof? Winter temperatures are getting colder, this was not predicted 15 years ago so what went wrong? Fewer hurricanes and tornados, what went wrong? More ice in Antarctica, what went wrong?

The weatherman cannot tell us what the temperature will be a year from now so how can these scientists tell us what it will be 10, 20, 50, or 100 years?

Accurate predictions of the future temperature of the earth cannot be done, there are too many variables.

Obviously Russia, China, India, Brazil and others don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
SpaceBlues

United States

#19 Jun 17, 2014
A Choice wrote:
Junk science you mean. Carbon dioxide is 0.038 % of the atmospheric gases, of that human activity is only 4%. Insignificant wouldn't you say? If you track the temperature you will find carbon dioxide levels rise ONLY after the temperature does. So where is the evidence that carbon dioxide raises temperature?
We have deniers due to the fact that it can't be proven. Many times science has been proved wrong.
There is a gain for this fraud at a tune of $7 billion annually, ie environmental groups and government for political reasons.
Where is the proof? Winter temperatures are getting colder, this was not predicted 15 years ago so what went wrong? Fewer hurricanes and tornados, what went wrong? More ice in Antarctica, what went wrong?
The weatherman cannot tell us what the temperature will be a year from now so how can these scientists tell us what it will be 10, 20, 50, or 100 years?
Accurate predictions of the future temperature of the earth cannot be done, there are too many variables.
Obviously Russia, China, India, Brazil and others don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant.
blah blah you are WRONG!

skepticalscience.com
SpaceBlues

United States

#20 Jun 17, 2014
Hey, under changes in global climate, weather predictions are impossible. Think a little.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Opinion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Diagnosing Trump: Did America elect a madman? 1 hr Trumpenstein 319
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Rose_NoHo 14,009
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) 4 hr wikileaks 10,008
News LETTER: Are gypsies Israel's lost tribes? (Sep '12) 7 hr Piggy 12
News Samuel Stanley brings impressive resume to Ston... (Apr '09) 11 hr unhappy tax payer 7
News Comment: Balfour Declaration is just the beginning Thu The Bible Student 3
News Arresting the homeless isn't the answer (Jul '12) Wed Christie Taylor 3
Best Adult Hookup Sites Online (May '17) Nov 21 righteoushustleent 37
More from around the web