Coal jobs! Yea baby

[sledderj]

48 minutes ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Not the case in Ontario where it made sense and then the stupid got involved. 

 

You guys paid a billion dollars to not build a power plant.   

 

 

[Ez ryder]

40 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

I couldn't find a better example if you gave me a week.

Yep, been doing that for some years now.  I wear my Duratracs down to about 25-35% left then stickem on Craigs.  Usually get about $100 for them.  It's like a $100 off coupon toward my next set!  On 5th set now.

if u went to discount tire and bought the insurance U will only by 1 set  for the truck.

they keep selling me tires with insurance even when I get at least 1 nail a yr with in the replacement zone .

[Zambroski]

6 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

if u went to discount tire and bought the insurance U will only by 1 set  for the truck.

they keep selling me tires with insurance even when I get at least 1 nail a yr with in the replacement zone .

Really?  Damn.  That's where I had my last ones put on too. 

[Ez ryder]

38 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Really?  Damn.  That's where I had my last ones put on too. 

I have used them on last 4 trucks . some how I get a nail with in the replacement zone at least 1 a yr. they charge u for a new insurance certificate . 20 bucks foe a 230 buck tire sold .hey I am in construction there are nails every place

[f7ben]

Just now, Ez ryder said:

I have used them on last 4 trucks . some how I get a nail with in the replacement zone at least 1 a yr. they charge u for a new insurance certificate . 20 bucks foe a 230 buck tire sold .hey I am in construction there are nails every place

sounds like something a nigger would do

[Ez ryder]

10 hours ago, Snoslinger said:

ok. thought it was something bigger....

hey I legit get at lest 2 tires a yr . they also give u new 1 with any more than 3 patches . real ez to do with a few trips to the dump

[Momorider]

Coal is big in cement kilns, there is going to be billions of cubic yards of concrete poured under Trumps infrastructure plan so a lot of fucking coal is needed  

[ICEMAN!]

15 hours ago, 02sled said:

They just analyze the data the metrics and the FACTS. Too bad the FACTS don't align with your LIBTURD thoughts on this one. When are you trading your vehicle in on an electric one, changing your home heating to electricity and giving up your pollution spewing snowmobile or is that too far left for your convenience.

You are too stupid to realize that your Fraser Institute study doesn't even prove the point you were trying to make.

[02sled]

19 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

You are too stupid to realize that your Fraser Institute study doesn't even prove the point you were trying to make.

Here we go again. Iceman how can you be such a mental midget ALL the time.  What it states is that the increase in air quality is negligible, that the alternative of installing air scrubbers on the exhaust would have been far less costly than shutting them down and given the same air quality results. The building of new sources of electricity to replace the lost coal fired capacity has contributed significantly and neelessly to the rising cost of electricity in Ontario. In short a waste of money all done because of the stupid Libturd green agenda regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

You must be one of the few morons happy with the cost of electricity and the BS Wynnebag tries to sell people daily. Thankfully most everyone but you and the diehard Libturds are waking up and realizing it's a bunch of BS they are spewing.

Remind me again how your US chart of retirement savings you kept trotting out over and over was at all applicable to Canada. That's right it wasn't but as usual you ignore CANADIAN FACTS and seek anything even if irrelevant that supports your delusions.

Edited February 20, 2017 by 02sled

[ICEMAN!]

19 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Here we go again. Iceman how can you be such a mental midget ALL the time.  What it states is that the increase in air quality is negligible, that the alternative of installing air scrubbers on the exhaust would have been far less costly than shutting them down and given the same air quality results. The building of new sources of electricity to replace the lost coal fired capacity has contributed significantly and neelessly to the rising cost of electricity in Ontario. In short a waste of money all done because of the stupid Libturd green agenda regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

You must be one of the few morons happy with the cost of electricity and the BS Wynnebag tries to sell people daily. Thankfully most everyone but you and the diehard Libturds are waking up and realizing it's a bunch of BS they are spewing.

Remind me again how your US chart of retirement savings you kept trotting out over and over was at all applicable to Canada. That's right it wasn't but as usual you ignore CANADIAN FACTS and seek anything even if irrelevant that supports your delusions.

I didn't read this post, but your original point was that natural gas production vs coal didn't reduce the cost of electricity in Ontario and there is a reason for that.  Do you know what it is?

 

[02sled]

10 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

I didn't read this post, but your original point was that natural gas production vs coal didn't reduce the cost of electricity in Ontario and there is a reason for that.  Do you know what it is?

 

Your stupidity continues to shine through in abundance. Don't lie, you read it. You just can't counter it so saying you didn't is your easy way to avoid proving your stupidity more than usual.

My original point was very simple. The coal plants didn't need to be shut down and new sources built to replace them. Air quality improvements from shutting down the coal fire plants could have been achieved by simply installing new air scrubbers to the exhaust stacks at a fraction of the cost and not raising hydro costs in Ontario.

[ICEMAN!]

On 2017-02-20 at 9:33 AM, 02sled said:

Your stupidity continues to shine through in abundance. Don't lie, you read it. You just can't counter it so saying you didn't is your easy way to avoid proving your stupidity more than usual.

My original point was very simple. The coal plants didn't need to be shut down and new sources built to replace them. Air quality improvements from shutting down the coal fire plants could have been achieved by simply installing new air scrubbers to the exhaust stacks at a fraction of the cost and not raising hydro costs in Ontario.

No, your original point was that electricity costs didn't decline in Ontario by shutting down coal plants and replacing them with natural gas plants- which is what the discussion was about.  Now there is a reason why electricity costs didn't go down when that happened in Ontario.  Why?

[02sled]

54 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

No, your original point was that electricity costs didn't decline in Ontario by shutting down coal plants and replacing them with natural gas plants- which is what the discussion was about.  Now there is a reason why electricity costs didn't go down when that happened in Ontario.  Why?

You're an idiot as usual. I never said that. Matter of fact the shut down of the coal plants drove the cost of electricity higher when the shut down didn't need to happen. Can you be so stupid as to ask such an insane question, of course you can. There's a huge cost associated with shutting down and demolishing a coal plant and building a new plant to replace the electricity generating capacity. Emphasis on huge. That gets passed on to the consumer. But of course your fellow Libturd idiot Wynnebag says, We'll pay just a LITTLE BIT more now but save in the long run. You and her are both idiots as well as the rest of the Libturd government, in particular the Minister of Energy that said electricity pricing was too complex for the auditor general to understand.

So much for costs going up a little bit. I use 19% less electricity now than I did in 2009 but I pay 93% more. That's just a little bit huh.

 

[ICEMAN!]

10 minutes ago, 02sled said:

You're an idiot as usual. I never said that. Matter of fact the shut down of the coal plants drove the cost of electricity higher when the shut down didn't need to happen. Can you be so stupid as to ask such an insane question, of course you can. There's a huge cost associated with shutting down and demolishing a coal plant and building a new plant to replace the electricity generating capacity. Emphasis on huge. That gets passed on to the consumer. But of course your fellow Libturd idiot Wynnebag says, We'll pay just a LITTLE BIT more now but save in the long run. You and her are both idiots as well as the rest of the Libturd government, in particular the Minister of Energy that said electricity pricing was too complex for the auditor general to understand.

So much for costs going up a little bit. I use 19% less electricity now than I did in 2009 but I pay 93% more. That's just a little bit huh.

 

Okay, you aren't even willing to admit what your first question was about before you went down the rabbit hole, so I'm done with you.

[ICEMAN!]

Oh, and 02sled, just like I said, your Fraser Report study is garbage.

http://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/climate-watch/on-coal-closures-and-straw-men-why-shutting-down-ontarios-coal-plants-wasnt-a-waste-of-money

ipolitics has a similar dissection of it but you have to subscribe to be able to read it.

[02sled]

14 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

Okay, you aren't even willing to admit what your first question was about before you went down the rabbit hole, so I'm done with you.

The moron crushedice stikes again. What I posted was that shutting down coal plants in Ontario didn't work out so well and provided an article that referenced a Fraser Institute report that spoke to there being no need to shut down the coal plants and the improvements in air quality could have been achieved by simply adding air scrubbers to the existing plants.

Too bad your too stupid to figure that out. Did you even graduate high school?

[ICEMAN!]

8 minutes ago, 02sled said:

The moron crushedice stikes again. What I posted was that shutting down coal plants in Ontario didn't work out so well and provided an article that referenced a Fraser Institute report that spoke to there being no need to shut down the coal plants and the improvements in air quality could have been achieved by simply adding air scrubbers to the existing plants.

Too bad your too stupid to figure that out. Did you even graduate high school?

Yea except the article is crap and you're too stupid to figure that out for yourself.  

[02sled]

6 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

Yea except the article is crap and you're too stupid to figure that out for yourself.  

Got it... the moron crushedice calls a report from a group of people a WHOLE LOT SMARTER THAN HIM (Fraser Institute)... which includes just about everybody on the planet crap because it doesn't align with his moronic perceptions. Obscure US data based reports on economics are much more relevant in Canada than EXCEPTIONALLY RELIABLE CANADIAN reports on Canadian economics because the US data based report supports your concept.

In short if you agree with a report it's gold if you don't it's crap regardless of the credibility of the source of the report.

[Boered]

On ‎2017‎-‎02‎-‎19 at 5:30 PM, 02sled said:

They just analyze the data the metrics and the FACTS. Too bad the FACTS don't align with your LIBTURD thoughts on this one. When are you trading your vehicle in on an eleHe is stctric one, changing your home heating to electricity and giving up your pollution spewing snowmobile or is that too far left for your convenience.

He is waiting for his mail ordered MAGNA COASTER to arrive.

[ICEMAN!]

7 minutes ago, 02sled said:

Got it... the moron crushedice calls a report from a group of people a WHOLE LOT SMARTER THAN HIM (Fraser Institute)... which includes just about everybody on the planet crap because it doesn't align with his moronic perceptions. Obscure US data based reports on economics are much more relevant in Canada than EXCEPTIONALLY RELIABLE CANADIAN reports on Canadian economics because the US data based report supports your concept.

In short if you agree with a report it's gold if you don't it's crap regardless of the credibility of the source of the report.

No mention of CO2 or mercury in the Fraser Report.  Also no mention of smog days?  How many have we had in recent years?

Like I said before, the Fraser Institute is suspect and biased as is anything put out by Ross McKitrick.  Sorry if the truth hurts bud.  Just because it's published doesn't make it good or unbiased.

[02sled]

14 minutes ago, ICEMAN! said:

No mention of CO2 or mercury in the Fraser Report.  Also no mention of smog days?  How many have we had in recent years?

Like I said before, the Fraser Institute is suspect and biased as is anything put out by Ross McKitrick.  Sorry if the truth hurts bud.  Just because it's published doesn't make it good or unbiased.

Dumb as a stump as usual... you selectively skim over what you believe to be relevant. Did you bother to go looking for and read the actual full report from the Fraser Institute? Don't bother to answer. I KNOW YOU DIDN'T EVEN THOUGH YOUR PSYCHIC ABILITY LETS YOU KNOW THE FULL CONTENT OF THE REPORT. What I posted was a news article that referred to the report by the Fraser Institute. The article didn't contain the very lengthy detailed report that you didn't read but what else is new.

As for published making it true you rely on that all the time even from the lamest of sources as long as it agrees with your lame Libturd concepts. Motley Fool is such a reliable source.  Of course it is because it supported your ideology,

[ArcticCrusher]

I believe Wynnebag recently admitted it was wrong to shut down the coal fire power plants too early in Ontario.

[Ez ryder]

3 hours ago, ICEMAN! said:

No mention of CO2 or mercury in the Fraser Report.  Also no mention of smog days?  How many have we had in recent years?

Like I said before, the Fraser Institute is suspect and biased as is anything put out by Ross McKitrick.  Sorry if the truth hurts bud.  Just because it's published doesn't make it good or unbiased.

U said WE

are u really another Canadian butt hurt over politics that have nothing to do with U . if so U are so much more fucking pathetic than I thought

[Woodtick]

On February 19, 2017 at 7:01 PM, f7ben said:

sounds like something a nigger would do

A nigger with a nail gun.

[ICEMAN!]

4 hours ago, 02sled said:

Dumb as a stump as usual... you selectively skim over what you believe to be relevant. Did you bother to go looking for and read the actual full report from the Fraser Institute? Don't bother to answer. I KNOW YOU DIDN'T EVEN THOUGH YOUR PSYCHIC ABILITY LETS YOU KNOW THE FULL CONTENT OF THE REPORT. What I posted was a news article that referred to the report by the Fraser Institute. The article didn't contain the very lengthy detailed report that you didn't read but what else is new.

As for published making it true you rely on that all the time even from the lamest of sources as long as it agrees with your lame Libturd concepts. Motley Fool is such a reliable source.  Of course it is because it supported your ideology,

The report is crap.  I choose not to pay much attention to Fraser Institute reports because they have a history of severe bias and receive funding from the fossil fuel industry.  I look at all kinds of information from many sources.  One thing beaten into me at school was to always "look at the source" of information and the Fraser Institute is not a reliable, objective source.

The coal plants were major polluters.  Nanticoke was Canada's largest emitter of CO2.  You can't cherry pick one or two pollutants like they did and come up with a meaningful report.  Why haven't there been any smog days the last few summers?  Why has the air quality been improving for years in conjunction with emissions standards and reduction in output from the coal plants?

Hmmm?

Find me more reliable reports that corroborate the Fraser Report's findings and you may be on to something, but when this report co-incides with Alberta's musings to close their coal fired plants it's rather suspicious.

"One wonders why the Fraser Institute would even bother pursuing discussions about the Ontario coal phase out. After all even if one argues that it was a bad idea, it’s done now. There is no going back. But all is revealed in the closing comments of their paper. The real target of the concern is not Ontario but the possibility of coal plant closures in Alberta based on the need for CO2 emission reductions to meet their climate change mitigation goals. Not everyone supports that initiative. Perhaps the analysis was undertaken to divert the discussion from greenhouse gases to the health impacts of smog and then, to debunk that."

 

 

1 hour ago, Ez ryder said:

U said WE

are u really another Canadian butt hurt over politics that have nothing to do with U . if so U are so much more fucking pathetic than I thought

WTF are you babbling about?