(01-13-2017 02:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 02:02 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Next time,

I'll take that as your concession on the point, since you didn't respond to it.

You are claiming more fake victories than Alabama.

Oh damn

@UofM

(01-13-2017 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But I thought the DJT/GOP was saying that 'regulations are killing Coal?'...Scrubbers are regulation.

You're not so foolish as to argue that 'the right' has argued for no regulation whatsoever, are you?

(01-13-2017 12:48 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:09 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Why can't DJT and America do both? Capitalism... it works every time.

Ok...

The overwhelming majority of coal usage in the USA is for electricity generation. About 90 percent of all coal used in the USA is used for that purpose. If generation moves away from coal, the price will (and has) plummet because there are no real other end users for the product (at scale).

There are regulations on coal production/usage but guess what, there are regulations on nat gas production/usage as well. As I said before, please look at China to see how it works without regulation.

Coal fired plants operate differently than gas fired ones. Coal generally has a longer ramp up / ramp up time. Remember that the voltage in a power grid must be balanced at all times or the system will shut down (like in the Northeast/MidAtlantic a few years back). And you can't really store or 'flare off' power that easily. Basically grid operators are balancing the grid, real time, 24 hours a day. Nat gas can be adjusted much more easy than coal. Natural gas generating plants are FAR superior from a system reliability standpoint. They are also from an internal economic standpoint far superior to coal (for reasons related to responses to peaks in demand), but that's too long to explain here.

So then why do/did anyone use coal? Because coal was significantly cheaper. It isn't anymore, and removing the regulations won't change that.

Basically, the lower the price of nat gas relative to coal, the quicker the changeover will be.

Coal is dying. It is mortally wounded. Cheap, abundant natural gas killed it. And if you support the Keystone pipeline, which will unlock a flood of super cheap Canadian natural gas....you'll pretty much kill it off quicker. It will limp on for a while as companies will continue to operate coal plants until they get older, but yep, coal is dying, and more cheap natural gas will kill it off quicker than not.

DJT (or at least his advisors) know this. CAPITALISM, not regulations, killed Coal.

Did you read that on a wikipedia page?

Coal is still cheaper. Natural gas is getting closer, sure, but there is still a multi-million dollar capital investment in equipment to do a conversion from coal to natural gas, that most energy producers don't want to make. Natural gas will have to be cheaper that Coal, for some time, before you will see a significant change over to natural gas. Or the EPA can regulate it to death, like they have been doing, and force the changeover early.

Grid balancing never was a problem before the "green" energy push.

Coal is pretty reliable, considering its been in use since the 20's.

Coal cannot get you out of the peak power problem and ensure system reliability. You can use coal for baseload, but you can't participate very well in the 1/4 hourly markets and for standby power. These markets are a LOT more significant than you think. Ancillary Services are important too.

And without nat gas or other ramp up/ramp down capabilities (not easy with coal) you get stupid inefficiencies....How do you get a quick ramp up with coal? One way....keep feeding the burners but leaving the turbines still so that IF you need the power quickly, you can ramp up quickly. Does it work? Sure, but you're literally throwing coal away and polluting and not producing power.

Load balancing wasn't as economically efficient before moving to the real time marketplace. The costs were just passed through.

I didn't say coal wasn't cheaper - I said it wasn't significantly cheaper.

If you'd like to argue that real time markets shouldn't be used and that the ICAP/UCAP/Standby/Rampup/Rampdown markets should go away.....you'd find a far more expensive system.

Coal's day is over. All hail king nat gas.

(01-13-2017 03:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But I thought the DJT/GOP was saying that 'regulations are killing Coal?'...Scrubbers are regulation.

You're not so foolish as to argue that 'the right' has argued for no regulation whatsoever, are you?

Actually I'm not, but the implication that some of DJT's Coal folks seem to argue that it is regulation killing coal. I'm simply stating that regulations exist and that they SHOULD exist.

(01-13-2017 01:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The left was against drilling and fracking as well. The whole 'we won' thing is laughable.

And someone SHOULD be questioning the health and environmental risks of fracking.

They have a point and should be listened to.

(01-13-2017 03:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But I thought the DJT/GOP was saying that 'regulations are killing Coal?'...Scrubbers are regulation.

You're not so foolish as to argue that 'the right' has argued for no regulation whatsoever, are you?

Actually I'm not, but the implication that some of DJT's Coal folks seem to argue that it is regulation killing coal. I'm simply stating that regulations exist and that they SHOULD exist.

meaningless regulation, tom.

not ALL regulation.

So you ARE arguing exactly what you said you weren't.

Example... Regulation that makes it expensive to export low sulfur coal to china or 'clean coal' technology to them, which is put in place in an effort to make coal less financially advantageous or make say solar more attractive in the US... is meaningless to China because THEY can burn high sulfur coal even cheaper. It actually INCREASED the amount of greenhouse gasses they produce... meanwhile the money we collect from US coal users that subsidizes solar technology then creates jobs in China, not the US as they dump their cheap panels on our markets.

So we don't reduce greenhouse emissions...
we spend money that doesn't create jobs in the us...
we push up usage of dirty coal in China by
creating jobs there building solar panels for us...
and then we put our coal miners out of work...

It's a 'for instance' as I know that neither of us are experts on coal... but I've seen it in enough areas where I DO have some expertise to know that it isn't at all far fetched.

(01-13-2017 04:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But I thought the DJT/GOP was saying that 'regulations are killing Coal?'...Scrubbers are regulation.

You're not so foolish as to argue that 'the right' has argued for no regulation whatsoever, are you?

Actually I'm not, but the implication that some of DJT's Coal folks seem to argue that it is regulation killing coal. I'm simply stating that regulations exist and that they SHOULD exist.

meaningless regulation, tom.

not ALL regulation.

So you ARE arguing exactly what you said you weren't.

Example... Regulation that makes it expensive to export low sulfur coal to china or 'clean coal' technology to them, which is put in place in an effort to make coal less financially advantageous or make say solar more attractive in the US... is meaningless to China because THEY can burn high sulfur coal even cheaper. It actually INCREASED the amount of greenhouse gasses they produce... meanwhile the money we collect from US coal users that subsidizes solar technology then creates jobs in China, not the US as they dump their cheap panels on our markets.

So we don't reduce greenhouse emissions...
we spend money that doesn't create jobs in the us...
we push up usage of dirty coal in China by
creating jobs there building solar panels for us...
and then we put our coal miners out of work...

It's a 'for instance' as I know that neither of us are experts on coal... but I've seen it in enough areas where I DO have some expertise to know that it isn't at all far fetched.

You might have a point there....but my guess is that there's a LOT more going on.

However, I'm not sure that selling low sulfur coal to China would result in a chance in China's energy mix to such an extent that it would result in more jobs other than for a specific mine.

----

And even if we did send them coal, the same dynamic destroying coal in the USA also exists in China. Why bother? There's no such thing as clean coal.

(01-13-2017 04:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But I thought the DJT/GOP was saying that 'regulations are killing Coal?'...Scrubbers are regulation.

You're not so foolish as to argue that 'the right' has argued for no regulation whatsoever, are you?

Actually I'm not, but the implication that some of DJT's Coal folks seem to argue that it is regulation killing coal. I'm simply stating that regulations exist and that they SHOULD exist.

meaningless regulation, tom.

not ALL regulation.

So you ARE arguing exactly what you said you weren't.

Example... Regulation that makes it expensive to export low sulfur coal to china or 'clean coal' technology to them, which is put in place in an effort to make coal less financially advantageous or make say solar more attractive in the US... is meaningless to China because THEY can burn high sulfur coal even cheaper. It actually INCREASED the amount of greenhouse gasses they produce... meanwhile the money we collect from US coal users that subsidizes solar technology then creates jobs in China, not the US as they dump their cheap panels on our markets.

So we don't reduce greenhouse emissions...
we spend money that doesn't create jobs in the us...
we push up usage of dirty coal in China by
creating jobs there building solar panels for us...
and then we put our coal miners out of work...

It's a 'for instance' as I know that neither of us are experts on coal... but I've seen it in enough areas where I DO have some expertise to know that it isn't at all far fetched.

You might have a point there....but my guess is that there's a LOT more going on.

However, I'm not sure that selling low sulfur coal to China would result in a chance in China's energy mix to such an extent that it would result in more jobs other than for a specific mine.

----

And even if we did send them coal, the same dynamic destroying coal in the USA also exists in China.

Doesn't need to do much more than that.... though i'm not sure the coal in PA is meaningfully different from WVa. Maybe it is, but selling more is selling more... even if only one area is selling more.

As for the dynamics, no doubt. Change is inevitable. The difference is whether you're using our position as an economic and technological super-power for the betterment of the US, and vicariously the world... or whether you're sacrificing our position as an economic and technological super-power, ceding that power to others by focusing on what's best for 'the world', even if its bad for us.

GOOD regulation can see the forest AND the trees.

(01-13-2017 12:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Just another example of what was already happening --- and what will continue to happen --- regardless of whatever Trump does to EPA regulations.

http://www.startribune.com/legislators-p...410578955/

Quote:The Minneapolis-based utility wants to build a 786-megawatt natural gas-fired plant in Becker, Minn., to partly replace the power lost when it shutters two big coal-fired plants there.

Also saw where Michigan is going to be shutting down a bunch of coal-fired plants, for new natural gas plants.



Dirty coal needs to die. I'll take natural gas, even from fracking, if we can completely kill dirty coal. One step at a time, towards completely clean power for all.

Good riddance, dirty coal.

This...DJT can't be FOR Keystone and FOR Coal Country at the same time. And everyone with half a brain knows it.

Anybody who knows anything knows that the Obama administration has made rules to try to force coal plants out of business.

Whether you think it is necessary or not, to deny that the decline is primarily due to government regulations is just ridiculous.

Coal is still cheap and plentiful.

In a plentiful energy scenario, energy sourcing is largely a zero sum game. Use one and you don't need the other.

So does DJT hurt Coal Country or restrict growth in the nat gas fields?

----

If you think massive power generation powered by coal with no regulation is a good idea, might I suggest you go to China. Bring a mask.

I think that a trip to Beijing or Chengdu or even Shanghai (on the coast) will convince anyone that "coal is a problem - and unregulated coal emissions would be a disaster"

Which is why no one not named Wang or Chen has ever proposed such a thing.

And even if the coal mined here isn't burned here, it's still gonna be mined. Increasingly so. Which is why the so called environmentalists are their typical counter productive selves when they'd rather have it burned without regulation in some far flung part of the world after burning a million gallons to transport it over there.


It's all one planet, we're just shifting whatever negative impact there may be to a far higher negative.

As usual, stupid things to do but it makes some feeeeeeel better. Short-sighted Nimby-ism, yet again.

(01-13-2017 04:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:23 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:54 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You're not so foolish as to argue that 'the right' has argued for no regulation whatsoever, are you?

Actually I'm not, but the implication that some of DJT's Coal folks seem to argue that it is regulation killing coal. I'm simply stating that regulations exist and that they SHOULD exist.

meaningless regulation, tom.

not ALL regulation.

So you ARE arguing exactly what you said you weren't.

Example... Regulation that makes it expensive to export low sulfur coal to china or 'clean coal' technology to them, which is put in place in an effort to make coal less financially advantageous or make say solar more attractive in the US... is meaningless to China because THEY can burn high sulfur coal even cheaper. It actually INCREASED the amount of greenhouse gasses they produce... meanwhile the money we collect from US coal users that subsidizes solar technology then creates jobs in China, not the US as they dump their cheap panels on our markets.

So we don't reduce greenhouse emissions...
we spend money that doesn't create jobs in the us...
we push up usage of dirty coal in China by
creating jobs there building solar panels for us...
and then we put our coal miners out of work...

It's a 'for instance' as I know that neither of us are experts on coal... but I've seen it in enough areas where I DO have some expertise to know that it isn't at all far fetched.

You might have a point there....but my guess is that there's a LOT more going on.

However, I'm not sure that selling low sulfur coal to China would result in a chance in China's energy mix to such an extent that it would result in more jobs other than for a specific mine.

----

And even if we did send them coal, the same dynamic destroying coal in the USA also exists in China.

Doesn't need to do much more than that.... though i'm not sure the coal in PA is meaningfully different from WVa. Maybe it is, but selling more is selling more... even if only one area is selling more.

As for the dynamics, no doubt. Change is inevitable. The difference is whether you're using our position as an economic and technological super-power for the betterment of the US, and vicariously the world... or whether you're sacrificing our position as an economic and technological super-power, ceding that power to others by focusing on what's best for 'the world', even if its bad for us.

GOOD regulation can see the forest AND the trees.

I just don't see the point of investing in a dying, dirty industry for the benefit of China. I see it more as 'kicking the inevitable down the road'.

That coal is bad for us (globally). Much worse than nat gas.

Assume the regs are lifted. What happens? Who is going to invest in a dying industry, with negative growth prospects, and a client that has a stated policy of moving away from you that product?

And that's assuming that you can just throw LS coal into a HS coal plant without a capital investment required on the part of the end user (possible). If generation facilities need to be retrofitted, then the likelihood of any significant new demand is much lower.

And does China even WANT our coal? Is there even a reliable market for it.

Kyoto isn't going away forever, Trump or no Trump.

(01-13-2017 01:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 11:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  Whether you think it is necessary or not, to deny that the decline is primarily due to government regulations is just ridiculous.

Works for me.

You could probably say the same thing for smallpox outbreaks.

(01-13-2017 12:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think that a trip to Beijing or Chengdu or even Shanghai (on the coast) will convince anyone that "coal is a problem - and unregulated coal emissions would be a disaster"

Yeah, China is falling over itself to get away from coal.

Coal is just a filthy, disgusting form of energy.

Yea, they are indeed.

That's why they have hundreds of new coal plants under construction and open a new mine, on the order of something like one every day.

All their dams, big asss fans, solar panels etc COMBINED account for something like 8% or less (not looking) of their energy consumption.

Their emissions from coal alone are more than generated by all the gas, oil, and coal used in the entire US of A.

China coal is dead...

Love the coal and natural gas.... Hate leftist globalist types. A sovereign nation should utilize each and every asset to the fullest. End of story. Go America.

Now build the wall!

(01-13-2017 01:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Exactly who has said they have a problem with this trend?

Trump, when he lied, and the coal workers who elected him.

(01-13-2017 01:33 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Were you not *JUST* saying this was not a "we / you" "won / lost" issue?

"We won" means the planet, public health, the betterment of human kind, etc.

I'll take "What are zero things Bison gives a f**k about" for $800, Alex.

(01-13-2017 02:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 02:02 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Next time,

I'll take that as I'm wrong and you're right.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Bison.

(01-13-2017 04:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I just don't see the point of investing in a dying, dirty industry for the benefit of China. I see it more as 'kicking the inevitable down the road'.

That coal is bad for us (globally). Much worse than nat gas.

Assume the regs are lifted. What happens? Who is going to invest in a dying industry, with negative growth prospects, and a client that has a stated policy of moving away from you that product?

And that's assuming that you can just throw LS coal into a HS coal plant without a capital investment required on the part of the end user (possible). If generation facilities need to be retrofitted, then the likelihood of any significant new demand is much lower.

And does China even WANT our coal? Is there even a reliable market for it.

Kyoto isn't going away forever, Trump or no Trump.

Nobody is suggesting that Tom.... In fact the opposite.

Try and follow.

If we eliminate coal in the US... just pass a law banning it... that only lowers the cost (by lowering the demand) and discourages the use of solar and such things (without a massive subsidy FROM us TO them) in places like Africa and China. THAT Is the benefit to China. They either get cheaper coal, OR they get subsidies for alternatives from us. Either way, they're better off... and the truth is that even with subsidies, high sulfur coal is cheaper.

The alternative is that we continue to mine low sulfur coal and we sell it to China at a level competitive with their high sulfur variety, especially in combination with our technology, which is ALSO a 'sale' to them, AND it creates a cleaner alternative than their coal. Not as clean as Solar, but still, cleaner.

Meanwhile, we use all of those sales and business profits to increase our alternative fuels and research.

Said differently... CHina is US 1900. I'm suggesting that selling them our 2000 technology is better from both a business AND an environmental standpoint than to let THEM sell us solar panels... using at least SOME 1900's tech, and us have less money to invest on 2020 technology.

The money to subsidize research has to come from somewhere. China isn't going to fund it without getting MORE in return.

(01-13-2017 06:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I just don't see the point of investing in a dying, dirty industry for the benefit of China. I see it more as 'kicking the inevitable down the road'.

That coal is bad for us (globally). Much worse than nat gas.

Assume the regs are lifted. What happens? Who is going to invest in a dying industry, with negative growth prospects, and a client that has a stated policy of moving away from you that product?

And that's assuming that you can just throw LS coal into a HS coal plant without a capital investment required on the part of the end user (possible). If generation facilities need to be retrofitted, then the likelihood of any significant new demand is much lower.

And does China even WANT our coal? Is there even a reliable market for it.

Kyoto isn't going away forever, Trump or no Trump.

Nobody is suggesting that Tom.... In fact the opposite.

Try and follow.

If we eliminate coal in the US... just pass a law banning it... that only lowers the cost (by lowering the demand) and discourages the use of solar and such things (without a massive subsidy FROM us TO them) in places like Africa and China. THAT Is the benefit to China. They either get cheaper coal, OR they get subsidies for alternatives from us. Either way, they're better off... and the truth is that even with subsidies, high sulfur coal is cheaper.

The alternative is that we continue to mine low sulfur coal and we sell it to China at a level competitive with their high sulfur variety, especially in combination with our technology, which is ALSO a 'sale' to them, AND it creates a cleaner alternative than their coal. Not as clean as Solar, but still, cleaner.

Meanwhile, we use all of those sales and business profits to increase our alternative fuels and research.

Said differently... CHina is US 1900. I'm suggesting that selling them our 2000 technology is better from both a business AND an environmental standpoint than to let THEM sell us solar panels... using at least SOME 1900's tech, and us have less money to invest on 2020 technology.

The money to subsidize research has to come from somewhere. China isn't going to fund it without getting MORE in return.

Come on, my friend. You know leftists don't understand market forces.

(01-13-2017 06:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I just don't see the point of investing in a dying, dirty industry for the benefit of China. I see it more as 'kicking the inevitable down the road'.

That coal is bad for us (globally). Much worse than nat gas.

Assume the regs are lifted. What happens? Who is going to invest in a dying industry, with negative growth prospects, and a client that has a stated policy of moving away from you that product?

And that's assuming that you can just throw LS coal into a HS coal plant without a capital investment required on the part of the end user (possible). If generation facilities need to be retrofitted, then the likelihood of any significant new demand is much lower.

And does China even WANT our coal? Is there even a reliable market for it.

Kyoto isn't going away forever, Trump or no Trump.

Nobody is suggesting that Tom.... In fact the opposite.

Try and follow.

If we eliminate coal in the US... just pass a law banning it... that only lowers the cost (by lowering the demand) and discourages the use of solar and such things (without a massive subsidy FROM us TO them) in places like Africa and China. THAT Is the benefit to China. They either get cheaper coal, OR they get subsidies for alternatives from us. Either way, they're better off... and the truth is that even with subsidies, high sulfur coal is cheaper.

The alternative is that we continue to mine low sulfur coal and we sell it to China at a level competitive with their high sulfur variety, especially in combination with our technology, which is ALSO a 'sale' to them, AND it creates a cleaner alternative than their coal. Not as clean as Solar, but still, cleaner.

Meanwhile, we use all of those sales and business profits to increase our alternative fuels and research.

Said differently... CHina is US 1900. I'm suggesting that selling them our 2000 technology is better from both a business AND an environmental standpoint than to let THEM sell us solar panels... using at least SOME 1900's tech, and us have less money to invest on 2020 technology.

The money to subsidize research has to come from somewhere. China isn't going to fund it without getting MORE in return.

That's a logical, very strong case for clean coal!

(01-13-2017 01:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:20 PM)banker Wrote:  China is a hugely invalid comparison, but one I would expect from someone who knows nothing of coal. China burns a lot of high sulfur, high ash coal in plants without scrubbers. We haven't done that in the US in decades, and didn't really do it to much before that. Appalachian coal, which was the primary source for power generation until the 1980s, is just fundamentally (actually metallurgically) better coal than Illinois or Powder River coal. The latter two burn much dirtier which necessitated the installation of scrubbers to be burned in a more environmentally favorable way. Also, the issue in China is much like the one in LA, it's more about population density in the major cities and the number of vehicles. Why is LA the smoggiest city in the US yet they have no coal power plants?

Go sit outside on any US coal plant and just stare at the stacks. You will see nothing but a white steam plume coming out. Look at the surrounding area and you will see no haze. You really need to investigate this stuff yourself.

An admirable attempt, for a West Virginia coal lobbyist such as yourself.

But the market has spoken. Energy companies aren't going to waste their money and time building "clean"-coal plants, when natural gas plants so superior.

just because I know a little something about coal doesn't make me a lobbyist. Oh, I live in Ohio, not WV.

Actually, energy companies already have the coal plants, it's the gas plants they are having to build, or should I say, were having to build. For example, AEP spent over a billion dollars about 7 years ago modernizing their main plant in Louisville so that they could burn Powder River Basin coal there. You think they really want to shut that down and turn around and build new gas fired plants?

(01-13-2017 05:02 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Love the coal and natural gas.... Hate leftist globalist types. A sovereign nation should utilize each and every asset to the fullest. End of story. Go America.

Now build the wall!

About a decade ago, emissions were more strictly regulated and coal-fired plants needed to expend significant capital to run flue-gas desulfurization processes at each site. The footprint of these systems was almost as large as the power plant itself. Enter Obama, who in typical arrogant fashion remarked that one could build a coal-plant, but they would go broke in running it. This is one promise that Dear Leader actually fulfilled, as continued regulation tightened the profit window for such facilities.

THis is where reasonable minds might want to evaluate the regulations imposed versus the abundance of natural resource available and make a different regulatory decision that honors environmental concerns but considers domestic economical ones, as well.

There is a middle ground, and we should find it.