[flagged]
Imagine saying this with a serious face...
Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
31–40 of 155 posts
Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is, putting it gently, not a majority opinion in the US and especially not in Texas.
> This is, putting it gently, not a majority opinion in the US and especially not in Texas. Texas is the largest producer of renewable energy in the country.
Indirect side effect of the fact that you can build things in Texas.
Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
BUT NUKES! All jokes aside, yes, we should invest massively in nuclear.
No we shouldn't. Nuclear waste is not and will never be solved. Nuclear meltdowns are real. Also, nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar.
Nuclear waste isn't a problem. It takes up a tiny amount of space, and can be reprocessed if necessary.
Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#34Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#35It's possibly worth noting that the source for this is an application for a
permit
>GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States
Immediately following that is the text
"It’s worth noting that companies rarely emit as much as their permits allow"
It's also worth noting that the headline turns "largest single source" of CO2 to "top source" of climate pollution. They say pollution in the text, but context would suggest they are talking about CO2. To say otherwise would be a much stronger claim which I don't think you can assume unless they clearly assert it.
I'm not sure if it is possible to quantify scale of climate impact between different types of pollution, but it seems like a stretch to unilaterally declare that the single top producer of CO2 is the top environmental impact. It may be, but they are making claims beyond what were made in their sources.
I was under the impression that there were a few chemicals that had an outsize effect on climate pollution.
Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#36Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#37[flagged]
> {THING_I_WISH_DID_NOT_EXIST} Judas H. Priest there is no such thing.
Forget newspeak, get out of your bubble and find actual facts from contrasting sources, make your own informed conclusion. Fact finding is not a dirty word. I mean, two words.
Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#38It's possibly worth noting that the source for this is an application for a permit > GW Ranch received a permit from the state of Texas allowing the gas power plant to emit 33 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If the project emitted that much CO2, it would be the largest single source of pollution in the United States Immediately following that is the text "It’s worth noting that companies rarely em…
You're right--it's probably fine. Why focus on this one source of pollution when there are others?
Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#39[flagged]
Re: Amazon backs power plant that may become top source of US climate pollution
#40It seems strange for this article to word this as a new or unusual source of pollution, natural gas is the primary source of energy in the US, adding 10% to existing thermal fleet in ERCOT https://www.ercot.com/gridmktinfo/dashboards is not a huge deal and its disingenuous to say this one plant will become a "top source of US pollution". Solar generation buildout in ERCOT is also proceeding very quickly, the new Tesl…
The article says "could become the largest single source of climate pollution in the United States".