Word: coal
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Overall, the package seemed well designed to wend its way past the broadest political hazards. It appeases some conservatives by letting oil and gas prices rise?but does not offend liberals by removing controls completely or allowing the producers to reap higher profits. It encourages coal production and conversion, as well as a speedier expansion of nuclear power plants, without lifting environmental safeguards...
Finally, what are the implications for the technological society? Carter likened the present need for energy conservation to earlier shifts from burning wood to coal, then later from coal to oil and natural gas. Columbia University Historian Henry Graff sees the current crisis more grandly, calling it "the Pearl Harbor of the Industrial Revolution." He is not certain that Americans, more than people anywhere else, are ready to meet the challenge. "Heroic periods are easier to read about than to live through," he notes...
...been contemplated earlier), Carter's program remained true to the details that had already been reported (TIME cover, April 25) and previewed in his Monday night speech. In essence, the President hopes to arrest growing U.S. fuel demand through conservation, and to rely on plentiful coal and conventional nuclear energy to stretch out supplies of oil and natural gas until new forms of energy (solar, geothermal and thermonuclear fusion) become the nation's major power resources in the next century...
CONVERTING TO COAL. A 10% tax credit on the cost of new equipment would be granted to factories that switch from oil and natural gas to coal-fired systems. Industrial users of oil who fail to switch will be hit with a 900-per-bbl. penalty tax that will rise to $3 by 1985. Money collected from such levies would be channeled into a development fund for accelerating the conversion of plants to coal. Factories and utilities would be flatly forbidden to burn oil or gas under new boilers unless they could demonstrate that for some special reason they could...
...would save consumers money. A statement issued Friday night contended that without the program the average family's energy bill in 1985 would be $1,367; Carter's proposals would cut that figure 16%, to $1,145. That contention is highly debatable: it assumes that conversion to coal would free "old" and inexpensive natural gas now burned by industry to flow to homeowners, and that families will save heavily by insulating their houses. The White House estimate also appears not to count price increases on myriad products that might be forced by higher industrial fuel bills...