Goodbye To US Coal Plants?

Hot topic! Many replies, but I saw little on fast neutron nuclear as a replacement for coal--and other power sources too. It doesn't produce CO2. The IFR is sodium cooled, so doesn't use water. Fuel sources will last a very long time. The current thermal reactor "waste" can be reprocessed to use as fuel. The current generating equipment can be kept, and the heat source changed from coal or gas to nuclear. In general a good energy source that we need to go to. Get the book Plentiful Energy by Till & Chang.

Won't happen.

Japan's reactor meltdowns have pretty well put the lid on all prospects for nuclear power for a long time to come.

That pervasive "feeling" may not be soundly rooted in logic, but the emotional stigma of Japan's meltdowns and subsequent cleanup has left a deep negative scar in the minds of the populace and politicians alike.

Even Germany has run from the nuclear genie and is now phasing out all of its nuclear power plants and signing contracts with Russia to fill the power gap.

Nuclear power wares the same nefarious cloak as coal, as neither is better than the other in the eyes of the EPA.

However, we can help fight the good fight. Just remember to check and inflate your tires.

...and get a tune up.

I'm sure China is laughing. We've now got the EPA writing law on their own; people with liberal arts degrees, that might as well be working for Greenpeace, who only envision a harmonious world with no pollution, and birds chirping happily away while playing with baby deer.

The rest of the world will keep chugging along on nuclear, coal, and everything else...it just won't be happening in the US.

Might be a good time to take up basket weaving.

Indiana will be hit the hardest; they've already got 18 closures slated to happen by 2015.

I've also got an odd fascination with all of this...

Kind of like driving by a grisly car wreck, and not being able to look away.

I've heard that China is increasing their own regulation of coal power emissions due to air pollution and some acknowledgement of global warming.

True, but don't expect China to take the lead in this roll.

China's first concern is maintaing GDP growth.

Agreed. My point is they're not laughing as K said.

More like OH S***! how do we maintain growth without destroying ourselves in the process. We should be enjoying an "I told you so" moment. Except no one really did tell them with any conviction.

China is experiencing a slow down in economic growth, but even at its worst it is twice the growth rate we have experienced on our best quarter over the last 6 years.

People in Washington should be doing the OH S***! instead of pivoting around and around, which is a good indication that they are lost.

Unfortunately people in Washington today don't go Oh S***! unless they see a threat to their re-election, never mind providing any real solutions, good or bad, to anything. In my mind they are not lost, just more afraid of losing their job than losing the nation to chaos (hyperbole, I know).

We're getting off topic.

I may be wrong, but I thought it was only in Beijing and other cities, where the people literally can't breath.

'...where the people literally can't breath.....'

.

There are numerous places people literally cannot breathe without special equipment (at least repeatedly). In fact, the sum total of those places is far larger than the places people literally can breathe without special equipment.

But we love everyone, and only care about people, and saving the planet.

Why in the hell would we export coal to places where we know it will be burned dirty?

... perhaps psychological egoism and existential myopia have joined forces to bring us new and terrible things....?

.

....ya know, literally.

Yeah. I also liked your theory, that we were exporting it to introduce particulates into the air and cool the planet.

Positively devious.

Trouble is, their emotional response is based on their knowledge/experience (inflated by the media!) about the thermal reactor and their next-to-nothing knowledge of the fast reactor. Among its other benefits, the IFR will shut itself down with no damage, all this with no human intervention or automatic scram if something goes wrong.

Abandoning nuclear power is one the most stupid things that we are doing.

One thing that the idiots in Washington, and at the EPA, don't understand, is that once coal and nuclear plants have been effectively eliminated, there is no reason for anyone to continue research on how to make them cleaner, more efficient, how to recycle nuclear waste, etc.

There is no doubt in my mind, that a way will emerge, to reuse nuclear fuel to the point that it is almost as harmless as the dirt in your yard...creating much needed energy along the way.

Nobody will be working on those solutions in the US. There will be no point.

We're not to the point of nuclear waste being like dirt, but the Integral Fast Reactor can recycle the waste (used fuel) from the thermal reactors. The end product waste is a much smaller volume and much less radioactivity. This requires storage not for hundreds of thousands of years, but for several hundred which is within our experience to be able to do.

On a serious note and i don't know much about this, yet! But, why can't Yellow Stone Park geyser be tapped for thermal energy, or the heat from volcanoes be tapped for heat to run a boiler or gen sets. If the volcano watchers know where the magma rivers are flowing, surely the rivers can be tapped for a heat energy source.

It may also relieve the volcanoes of some activity and make them less prone to erupting. I also understand that they are not all situated conveniently for a power station, however, we export electricity all over the world by sub sea cable.

12.5 Hz Frequency and we can run higher currents over three three longer distance.

May be off the wall thinking, but, it is a great source of energy and heat and possibly less pollution. Looking forward to any thoughts on this idea.

Well, for one thing, a power generating plant in the middle of a national park, probably wouldn't go over very well. People travel hundreds, or even thousands of miles to watch hot water shoot out of the ground.

But yes, geothermal is alive and well.

I'm afraid that, to avoid public outrage, and to keep the money flowing into the utility companies and government, power sources must always maintain the appearance of being very expensive.

Anything that's dirt cheap to produce, will eventually lead to those low costs being passed onto the consumer. They won't allow that to happen.

'....we export electricity all over the world by sub sea cable....'

.

.

'We' who, exactly?

.

.

....and what did you mean when you wrote:

.

'...12.5 Hz Frequency and we can run higher currents over three three longer distance....'

??

Iceland does it. They generate roughly 66% of their power by Geothermal.It didn't stop Grimsvotn from blowing off in 2011 and disrupting all the flights between Europe.

See http://www.nea.is/geothermal/

This has been posted on here several times over the years, and I think it's brilliant.

It seems like solar could easily be utilized to run this system, with no need to boil water.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4245896

I already have very cold well water, and lots of sunny days. A very small closed loop sytem, with minimal backup storage, could easily run my home, with extra electricity to spare.

I didn't read the whole article on the Alaska refrigerant turbine system (because I think I already read it). I think they use low yield geothermal as a heat source and low ambient air for a heat sink.

You could do something similar using the sun (hot water solar systems) and geothermal cooling. If you have sufficient constant flow from your well you could use that but most people dont use their well constantly. So you could sink some recirculation wells that you pump water down into to cool it, problem is you are depositing heat into the ground, it will warm up (and take a long time to cool back off) so you might have to use a few wells that would cycle to the coolest source.

Drew K

This is the most important part of the article.

A binary system just requires a heat source and sink: 165 F water can produce electricity if the ambient air or surface water temperature is at least 100 degrees lower.

I'm not positive, but I think the water in my well is flowing. It runs cold, and is over 200' down, under rock. If it is flowing, I could just run an aluminum/copper coil to the bottom of my well, set up a solar heated unit to bring the refrigerant up to 165 degrees on the top side... It wouldn't be quite that simple, but I think it could be done. We're talking a pretty tiny turbine to run my house.

I knew a guy near Cambridge (UK) who had a small gas turbine that only put out about 50 lb of thrust was about 50cm long and 25/30 cm around...not that it is much help because you really want one that produces no thrust and is balanced with two stages. Perhaps an auto turbine or supercharger would work.

If you make it work, let me know so I can build one too!

Drew K

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/hydropower-geothermal/4331401

May be of some value to you. Note that the home units does not generate electricity, seems only the industrial one does. I wonder why one cannot generate ones own electric. Hmmm!

3. It generates electricity. Industrial-scale geothermal power plants can generate electricity. Home systems don't--but they do save electricity (or fuel) by replacing conventional home heating and cooling with more efficient equipment.

Exactamundo! They could, but they don't. Do whatever you want, but if you threaten to cut the umbilical cord, or worse yet, enable millions of people to do it....we will come looking for you.

Geothermal is used extensively in the Nordic countries in every home. They have no volcanoes, (with the exception of Iceland). It works very well, saves a fortune on electricity bills. So in short, if the magma rivers are plotted, (which I understand they are, from reading up on it), these magma rivers can be tapped without building a power plant in a tourist attraction area, (remote areas where flow is accessable and useable). It does not have to be harness right in the middle of a volcano

We have gas wells heads, oil well heads all over the place. If they can tap oil, gas, why not some thermal from magma flows. We don't need huge buildings to house massive boilers. With your stations possibly now NOT running on coal, they can be decommissioned, demolished, recycled, trading one for a more economical, efficient thermal boiler, fed with a energy source that is constant, free and available.

I read recently that the cavern underneath Yellow Stone is bigger than the previously calculated and thought. I also know that there are methane fields scattered about from decaying vegetation and this methane could be harness and used for energy generation. I agree, not every country has these resources to hand, but those countries who have them should perhaps utilise them and take some pressure of coal, oil, gas, nuclear.

Every idea is crazy until it is accomplished, then it is a technological breakthrough!

http://www.livescience.com/28699-old-faithful-hidden-cavern.html

I completely agree, and I was being a bit sarcastic on the national park comment.

I'm reaching the conclusion, that in the US, all energy sources, (by default), must include the movement of massive amounts of money, and must involve keeping the population tied to the grid.

Case in point...

According to our president, the single greatest threat to humanity is global warming, and we must to everything we can to curb it.

Well, considering that we already let the Chinese get away with murder, in regard to our trade, cheap solar panels would be a welcome advance in the battle against global warming...right?

Not really. I was thinking of buying some for my roof; but alas, the one time this administration really put it's foot down, was when it came to an easy and affordable way for the masses to fight global warming.

http://grist.org/news/obama-administration-slaps-higher-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels/

Coincidence?

I think not.

The same happened in Australia, Mass move to solar panels then the government cut the feed in tarrif to just about nothing. It was costing the utilities provider too much money so they issued credits which no one would ever use. But, the feed in does cause massive instability on the grid. However, people are still installing panels for their own use. I know of a small shop and business unit in Albany who installed panels and has no grid connection at all. The owners generates his own power and consumes what he needs for the cafe, car repair shop and two offices. In the UK people install small turbines on the sides of their homes and it too, saves a fortune. Shopping stores such as Sainsbury's install them, (cleverly), to run fridges in the supermarket.

I agree they want people dependent on the grid, if everyone installed solar or turbines, the grid utility looses money, hence profit. Electric cars? Dependent on the grid, but if you installed your own system, you save money. Make a simple solution expensive for the consumer and they will rely on a utility who then profits and disappoints the consumer.

There is huge profits in selling electricity at peak demand times. Most control rooms I have been working in have the prices up on screens and woa-be-tide the station or sub has an outage. Assumed millions ($), get lost in down time. And the utilities cry loudly. Savings and profits are only for the elite few it seems.

You forgot to mention the taxes that government collects, for doing nothing but existing.

Certainly there must be a way to stabilize the feed in from home solar panels.

Seems to me that the smart meters that we already have been forced to use, could regulate the feed from each individual home, and keep the entire grid within certain parameters.

Think about the gasoline tax...

If, over the next several months, every US driver went and bought a plug in car, you would see utter panic coming out of Washington. Their heads would explode.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24225901

Maybe.

Is it just me, or does it just sound odd, that one of the exciting new uses for sequestered CO2, will be to use it in fracking operations, to push more oil out of the ground?

Anonymous Hero, our elected officials are mostly used car salesmen with law degrees. Those skills are great for making worthless big bloated laws. None have ever suggested to treat the government as a business. There is a science how to cut costs in business and still maintain your out put. In many cases the cost reduction improves output by removing the rotten apples. The trick is to have the outside consultants to all be brilliant otherwise the process does not work very well.

Elected officials at the top level of government are not idiots (even if they seem so from our vantage point) nor to be underestimated. They are not only salesman, but well versed in the game of politics. Their goals are power and control and they wield those tools they have deftly for those purposes.

This is interesting. Considering the source, it's a well written piece.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/09/315845/natural-gas-switching-from-coal-to-gas-increases-warming-for-decades/

They aren't able to comprehend that there is no way, (at present), to eliminate fossil fuels, but they make a good case for the continuation of coal in the US.

I didn't read the whole piece. Do they realize that burning coal puts a lot of uranium and thorium into the atmosphere? I have the numbers elsewhere, but it seems like it is 7 tons of U and 5 tons of Th per year per 1000 MWe. Yes, that's tons. Of course fast nuclear releases no CO2, no U, and no Th,

The technology is now developed to eliminate fossil fuels. It is politics and people's not understanding that is keeping it from starting. Even when started, it will take a while to happen--a couple of decades I think it was.

If you scroll down to the comment section of the link, these people are vehemently against anything nuclear, and all fossil fuels. They honestly think that we can install enough windmills and solar panels to replace everything, and still live as we are living now.

It would be bad enough if these were just internet comments, but these same people go to work in politics, the UN, and all the way up to president of the US.

Due to fear mongering, all energy sources in the US, that even have the word "nuclear" in them, will be eliminated from the energy equation.

In addition to the energy sources, how many of those "against all nuclear" folks have had the MRI medical test? When I was in college it was called NMR, which was the acronym for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.

Lehman57,

Yes, it is the same technology but with a very different way of collecting and handling the data as well as a greatly increased amount of data. If you worked with NMR (as I did), you would know that it has NOTHING to do with radioactivity or fission or fusion.

Your post is waving a semantics red flag, not a real one. So the "penalty" I offer you is delay of game and obfuscation.

John M.

Lehman's point is not lost however.

A rational person would say that, due to the disaster in Japan, we know that tsunamis are are both unpredictable and dangerous, and should be taken into consideration when planning future nuclear plants.

Unfortunately, we've got millions of people that say, " The Japanese tsunami is proof positive, that all nuclear power must be eliminated."

Kramarat,

NMR/MRI has nothing to do with nuclear power. If Lehman's point is people's association of the word "Nuclear" with radioactivity/fear/disaster, then our job is education and rational response to irrational association of two topics that have only a single word in common.

Regarding the view that all nuclear power must be eliminated, I tend toward that side of the middle. Not because of the potential for disaster but because of the fact that we are unable to safely handle the radioactive waste products from these plants. We are feeding our apparently insatiable greed for energy now, by creating debts of byproducts that cannot be handled now or in the future lives of many generations to follow us. That is insanity, and we are the creators of it and participants in it.

I am aware of the views by proponents of fast breeder reactors, who are also participating in this 'blog. Unfortunately, all reactors create radioactively-contaminated equipment, by-products from fuel recycling, tools, etc. The volume and quantity of these may be less with the FBR technology, but it still is more than we have the means to handle (and more than we can project future generations' ability to handle either). Proposals have been made repeatedly for places to store/dump this material, but every one has been found to be unreliable for even a small fraction of the geological time period required. No government in the history of humans on this earth has existed for even a modest portion of the time such waste products are going to be "too hot to handle".

--John M.

I'm still optimistic that people will find a way to make nuclear increasingly safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation#Reasoning_behind_transmutation

The thing that really frustrates me, is not our sources of energy, but the huge amount that we waste, while doing stupid things like mandating CFL bulbs.

I work in the residential sector, and the 8' ceilings that used to be common, have been completely replaced with high ceilings in every home built. I also mentioned in another thread, that many of these homes are built with wonderful gas log fireplaces, that burn fairly large pilot lights 24/7/365, and almost all are equiped with massive garden tubs with jets.

That's just one example of our waste, and the list is endless. If we don't wise up on how we use of our resources, we will certainly use them all up.

There small efforts underway that are making living in small homes "cool". I wish I had a nickle for every client that I've worked for, that lives in an opulent mcmansion, and believes that they are saving the planet by buying a big hybrid SUV, and using CFL bulbs. They even buy bumper stickers that say "I care". It's disgusting.

Bah. The average garden tub probably never get used more than 10 times in its life. People buy them because they seem awesome and it gives them bragging power, but quickly tire of them.

As far as 8' ceilings go, I am tired of living in what is essentially a shoe box. I only have two rooms that do not have vaulted ceilings and I would not want to go back.

High ceilings actually make more sense in Fla, where you're running AC most of the year.

My sister has the grand entry and high ceilings throughout, and her electric bill is typically around $400 per month, all year long. Mine can hit close to $200 while I'm running AC for three months, but the rest of the year, it's usually lower than $60. Just sayin'.

Kramarat,

I read the two referenced articles and see nothing in them that would lead to reduced irradiated byproducts. Transmutation has been a goal for a long time, but does not work effectively outside the laboratory. Thnks for the opportunity for further education.

--John M.

Right. I offered the two links as proof that we are working on better ways to utilize nuclear power, not that we were there yet. But I think it will come.

Yes. I posted this article a while back about making nuclear power "greener."

Came across this article, it may be interesting to some.

The cost of operating conventional power plants as back-up to renewable energy sources like wind and solar represents just 2% of the savings from not turning fossil fuels.

The variability of renewable energy sources like solar and wind has raised concerns about how well the US electrical grid could tolerate high levels of them. Some of the early estimates suggested that the grid couldn't handle having more than 20 percent of its electricity coming from intermittent sources without needing a major overhaul. But thanks to improved practices and a bit of experience, several states are already pushing that 20 percent limit well in advance of having a smart grid in place.

Adjusting for intermittent power sources primarily comes from cycling traditional fossil fuel plants on and off to match supply with demand. And that cycling has a cost in terms of wear and tear to equipment and fuel burned without producing electricity. So the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) produced a series of studies to look at these costs and how they compared to the savings in fuel that doesn't get burned. The answer: the cost is a tiny fraction of the ultimate savings.

Solar and wind power have very distinct profiles. Solar varies the most over the course of a day, but the general outline of solar production is very predictable even if the total power delivered varies a bit with cloud cover. Wind tends to be steadier, but the total amount being produced can change at any time of day.

Thank you for linking to the study. It is a lot of info to digest.

.

I haven't gotten through it all, but at first blush, it seems like the study team is trying to paint a more rosy picture of the burden imposed by cycling that what should be conservatively estimated.

Members of the study team have no shortage of motive to that end, being: a major player in the wind and solar industry, two renewable energy consultants, and the National Renewable Energy Lab.

.

.

Again, I have not had time to go through this thoroughly, but the effort to minimize the cost of cycling and the probable amount of cycling doesn't even seem that subtle.

.

Below are examples of a few of the things that caught my eye:

.

.

- Using the EPA's 2009 Continuous Emissions Monitoring data which is reported hourly, to calculate expected emission rates for power transients that are analyzed on a time resolution of one minute. Not only is the effect of a transient (like ramping) on emissions likely to be diluted by significant periods of fairly stable power during a measured hour, but also the magnitude of the transients in 2009 is likely far smaller than could be the case if far greater wind and solar were exacerbating the transients.

.

.

-After creating a data set with a one minute time resolution out of a data set with a ten minute time resolution ^{(which had smoothed by "slicing data from unaffected days to affected seams" to cure excessive variability noticed after aggregating the results)} by constructing a spline model and adding some noise, a set of interpolated data is arrived at and a graph is provided with the following comment:

.

".....the simulated data was

more uniform and less in magnitude than that of the actual data, in general the simulated data did

resemble the actual data....."

.

.

- additional minor effects that wouldn't really bother me very much if the direction of the created bias weren't so uniform:

.

...what appears to be disregarding of numerous outliers exclusively in the high range of the lower-bound cost estimate of various power transients. Especially when coupled with the total unavailability of any individual upper-bound data (claimed to be proprietary).

.

...a disclosure that "...high

-impact, low-probability events such as a generator failure were

not included in these wear-and-tear costs...."

.

.

.

I'll probably take a close look later. It would be nice if what I suspect is just an illusions.

Title of proposed regulation: "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Power Plants" The proposal started in 2011 and ratified by Congress it is now in its comment phase so if you want to make any you can. The law covers new power plants so the meet existing limits in state like PA CO NY CA etc. It requires states to setup limits to reduce SOxNOxCOxPM2.5PM10 and 84 other HAPs like Hg and Pb. The actual regulation info can be found on. WWW.EPs.gov/mats/actions.HTML

I really don't want to embarrass you.

This thread, and the new EPA mandate, deals specifically with CO2 emissions...only.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but future coal powered plants are now expected to come very close to NG powered plants, in terms of CO2 output.

I'll look it all up and post it again...if I must.

Working in the industry, certainly you must have heard of this. Hint: It was last week.

No embarrassment here. Not the one who started an op based on a web site article and did not bother reading the actual regulation. Hey I wouldn't won't to either if it wasn't part of my job. This is the only regulation EPA has come out with for coal plants in the last 4 years so not sure what your talking about all the articles you have been showing are to this one. It covers a wide variety of pollutants including COx. Check it out on WWW.epa.gov that's where epa has all there regulation and explains how they come about. PS it covers all fire boilers powerplants including oil and natural gas also.

What system will you use to achieve 1100 lbs of CO2 per megawatt hr, and remain profitable?

I'm assuming you won't be subsidized by the state of CA, and they won't be jacking up the rates on customers.

Once again. Have you read the proposed regulation? Better yet have you been to EPA website? Another question do you even understand the process to make a regulation? This regulation is about year or two away from being presented to congress for ratification. Then it usual takes another year or two to fully implement. Then in the body of the regulation another 4 years to meet all the limits not only COx. They gives them another at least another 6-8 years to improve existing technology. Mean while what is built now to that point in time will be grandfathered. But of cource the industry both power and coal are being the squeaky wheels and are doing all sorts of complaining. Sorry don't feel sorry for them feel sorry for the individuals in the public that just don't understand our regulation system.

Congress passes laws, and the EPA is allowed to interpret, administer, or abuse them in any way they see fit. Congress is not involved in the day to day decision making at the EPA. It is run by a cabinet level administrator that answers to the president...not congress.

http://www.troutmansanders.com/biosupport/glaser_trendsarticle.pdf

From where I'm sitting, and from my understanding, regulations were implemented in 2012, that were tough, but doable...and last week, they moved the goal posts.

I guess you're correct though; this was not only planned, but promised. The entire plan is outlined here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw

Here's an excellent explanation of the ramifications of allowing the EPA to make rules willy nilly, all by themselves.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/epa-mandated-co2-reductions-will-lower-us-industries-return-on-equity

Here we go.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/20/223817507/epa-wants-to-limit-greenhouse-gases-from-new-coal-power-plants

If this goes through, (and it may already have), and your plant isn't already up and running, you will have to comply.

How will you do it?

The technology, (barely), exists, but it is not economically feasible.

The technology has been around a while and they will have another 6-8 years to improve it. Did you notice all the company that are complaining are in states with little or no air limit regulations nothing from the companies that have been putting the technology in place? Something to think about.

• Abundant supply: The availability of low-priced natural gas in the United States has made coal a less competitive fuel for domestic power generation. As a result, favorably priced U.S. exports of coal have been an attractive alternative to natural gas for Europeans.
• Anybody that thinks that this latest EPA move is going to result in a net reduction in global coal burning, is fooling themselves. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail/2013-09-27/multiple-factors-push-western-europe-use-less-natural-gas-and-more I also found a piece in the Sierra Club site, that the world bank has created shell organizations, that funnel money to third world countries, for the express purpose of building coal fired plants...more places for us to export to. I'd post it, but I can't find it again.

To me the EPA has gone far beyond usefulness. They fell that must continue to make new regulations. Even though they may improve our environment I doubt that they improve our lives. We get diminished returns at great cost. I know a decision maker and have carefully probed whether they think they should worry about the cost of the new regulations. The response was what cost?

I think Japan proves you can't put a reactor on any coast that could be vulnerable to earth quakes or their products. I remember Jackson Browne getting arrested for blocking the construction sight where they were building a reactor on a fault line. Granted, it wasn't active but soooo! They were arresting the wrong persons! This type of foolishness and the waste problems are the real dangers of nuclear power.

Since we know for a fact that our coal exports have been, and will continue to grow, as coal becomes cheaper, and overseas demand grows...one has to wonder if this is really about limiting emissions, or is it about limiting the ability of the US to compete in the global marketplace, and exporting our coal to help developing countries?

I think it's a valid question.

What in the world is going on?

I posted the eia link, and it has disappeared.

http://www.eia.gov/404r.cfm?v=http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail/2013-09-27/multiple-factors-push-western-europe-use-less-natural-gas-and-more

What's even stranger...is that when I open my yahoo home page, the eia symbol is in the tab next to att.net, (which is my start page). This just started this morning.

Excuse me while I address whatever government agency is behind this...

What is wrong with you people!!!!!

I'm a painter. Are you honestly, so paranoid, that you're going to remove pages from government websites, because I link to them????!!!!!

This is freaking ridiculous. If what you are doing is GOOD, then you should be proud of it...not removing web pages.

To the CR4 gang:

Sorry guys. I'm not trying to assign some kind of importance to myself, nor do I want this kind of attention; but I can't think of any other explanation. This is BS!

IT IS ALL A CONSPIRACY. Next they will send you a pencil in the post, then you know the writings on the wall!

Something is going on.

Here's first link from my OP. Shut down.

Here's the eia link about Europe using more coal. Shut down within an hour of me posting it.

...and now I have an eia symbol on my homepage tab.

It's very odd.

I'll tell ya one thing...if people in government are scared of little ole me, and my posts; we've all got a reason to worry.

I'm trying to convince myself that this is a fluke, but I can't see how it can be.

If it's not, we've got the thought police way further down the ladder than I ever imagined.

Sure it wasn't Anonymous?

I don't know what it is.

I still don't know why the eia symbol is on my home tab, but I just heard on the radio, that internet info pages on obamacare are being altered or scrubbed altogether, if they reveal lies that have been told, or paint it in a bad light. These are government pages.

Once in a while, the truth slips through by accident. I will make sure to take a screenshot of any more pages that may cast a less than flattering light on the current administration.