(01-13-2017 02:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 02:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 02:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Shutting down a coal fired plant in the US doesn't mean that we can't export it to China.

China doesn't want it. They're getting rid of coal-fired plants faster than we are!

But they still have them and they need more power. Many African nations do as well and they too need more power. Coal is cheap and so are their power plants. China is shutting the old, dirty, inefficient/under-sized ones.

Stop arguing meaningless minutia.

Coal miners voted against Hillary as much as 'for' Trump. If he does nothing to help them at all, they're still better off than if progressives were in charge. They hope Trump will improve things. They KNOW Hillary and progressives would make things worse.

You act like Hillary was 'benign' on coal.

Quote:

(01-13-2017 02:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  what they care about is that they keep their jobs and/or get other ones.

Believe it or not, I proposed that the government pay coal miners to mine the coal ... and then simply dump it in a pit.

It was roundly shot down here. I tried. But conservatives won't be satisfied unless they can sit on a beach chair with a marshmallow on a stick, watching the coal be burned into greenhouse gases.

Not true. I (and other conservatives) suggested dozens of other similar uses for coal.

Quote:

(01-13-2017 02:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If all Trump does is 'tread water' with coal

coal-fired plants die, and therefore coal mining dies.

Trump will be a liar, and they will punish him for it in four years.

By electing a progressive who promises to speed the process? Keep dreaming.

Hillary got 27% of the vote in West Virginia, a state that had gone Republican only 3 times (Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower each won 1 of 2 times) from the Great Depression until W. won in 2000.

(01-14-2017 12:42 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(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.

Yep. If a power company can burn low sulfur coal and clean it enough and that is still cheaper energy than wind or solar, we as a country would be foolish discard it.

Our whole goal as a country should be to make energy abundant enough that we are not beholden to that cesspool of radicalism that is the Middle East.

Coal is a double edged sword. Open the mines, let the miners back in that know what they are doing, and they will still be killing themselves in the process. Chronic inhalation of coal dust kills. But maybe that is better than watching those communities die from heroin.

And if DJT really wanted to help American workers, he wouldn't give Exxon permission to help Putin compete with American oil workers by lifting the sanctions.

(01-13-2017 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Coal exists because it is far cheaper than those options.

But its costs (air pollution) are far greater. Total costs.

Proven right because China is investing in the alternatives to coal. Don't really see how you have a leg to stand on ... they're already investing in coal alternatives.

(01-13-2017 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No reason why new, clean energy would locate itself into coal country.

Perfectly good and correct reason: govt incentives. The govt would owe coal country in exchange for killing off coal.

Works all the time.

(01-13-2017 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The ones i recall mentioning were water filtration and making carbon-fiber products. since alternatives like steel and concrete and plastics ALSO require releasing greenhouse gasses or other air pollution, it's a relative, not absolute question/issue.

The costs of workplace risk to the miners also has to be considered. But within reason, sure I'd be open to them. But highly doubt the scale of the coal demand would be anywhere near the same, so most coal miners would still lose their coal jobs.

(01-13-2017 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You might install some, but you aren't installing many solar panels in PA mining country.

Why does it have to be solar??

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

Does not compute. I'm struggling to even eek out a logically valid point from this.

Banning coal mining in the US would not decrease global demand, so coal prices soar. Thus increasing investment and decreasing timetables for conversion projects to natural gas and clean energy.

And that would be a huge benefit to Chinese citizens, as they start the process to reverse their terrible air pollution.

(01-13-2017 08:01 PM)banker Wrote:  You think they really want to shut that down and turn around and build new gas fired plants?

In that specific situation, perhaps not for a while.

But as was the point of this thread (read the OP), many other situations have resulted in shutting down coal plants in favor of natural gas plants! Which is good.

What we need to do with coal is push forward on coal liquefaction and gasification technology so that we can transport it and burn it in cleaner ways. There is a viable process now, that the Germans used to overcome their lack of oil and gas during WWII, but it has one problem in that it produces CO2 as a side product. But we are already working on CO2 capture and disposal/quarantine technology, and in this case that would be a much easier process because the CO2 comes from one source and is therefore already captured. There is at least on lab process that converts CO2 to carbon (which is useful) and water, and it that could be upscaled then that would solve the problem.

Doubt gas from coal is feasible price wise. Probably akin to desalination of ocean water out west: would work just fine, but too expensive.

Seems like it might be the same for the coal=carbon + O2 process. If it was feasible, why isn't it already being done?

(01-14-2017 09:08 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Yep. If a power company can burn low sulfur coal and clean it enough and that is still cheaper energy than wind or solar, we as a country would be foolish discard it.

Our whole goal as a country should be to make energy abundant enough that we are not beholden to that cesspool of radicalism that is the Middle East.

Absolutely. I see energy independence as a national security issue. I see exporting energy as the means to impact 'clean earth' issues. You can't control what you don't control.

(01-15-2017 12:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Coal exists because it is far cheaper than those options.

But its costs (air pollution) are far greater. Total costs.

Proven right because China is investing in the alternatives to coal. Don't really see how you have a leg to stand on ... they're already investing in coal alternatives.

You don't see how I don't have a leg to stand on because you don't understand economic.

China isn't the only place where power demands are rising exponentially. Africa isn't investing in alternatives, because they have few investment dollars. That money comes from (mostly) us. China is investing in new power because they're stealing our solar technology and selling it back to us generating tons of investment dollars... meaning our money.... but more importantly, they're engaging in self preservation. They are investing in technology we created decades ago, using our money.

Quote:

(01-13-2017 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  No reason why new, clean energy would locate itself into coal country.

Perfectly good and correct reason: govt incentives. The govt would owe coal country in exchange for killing off coal.

Works all the time.

Government subsidies can't make the sun shine or the wind blow... and that's not what they do. What they do is take jobs from places where they don't care about votes, and give the jobs to places where they do. Happens all the time.

Quote:

(01-13-2017 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The ones i recall mentioning were water filtration and making carbon-fiber products. since alternatives like steel and concrete and plastics ALSO require releasing greenhouse gasses or other air pollution, it's a relative, not absolute question/issue.

The costs of workplace risk to the miners also has to be considered. But within reason, sure I'd be open to them. But highly doubt the scale of the coal demand would be anywhere near the same, so most coal miners would still lose their coal jobs.

Non-sequiter. You said you made a suggestion and people laughed it off. I demonstrated that we didn't. In fact, we 'added on' to your suggestions. NOW you're suggesting that our additions to your suggestions need to solve the problem all by themselves? Get a grip.

Quote:

(01-13-2017 03:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  You might install some, but you aren't installing many solar panels in PA mining country.

Why does it have to be solar??

It doesn't... but you can't make oil and gas appear where it doesn't, or wind or sun where it doesn't. If you're saying we're going to put cold fusion research in West Va... I think a lot of Universities that would be far more appropriate... and WVU isn't likely to employ or admit a lot of 40+ year old former coal miners.

You're the one making the proposal... What 'new energy' jobs are you going to offer in Appalachians?

Quote:

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

Does not compute. I'm struggling to even eek out a logically valid point from this.

As I said, you don't understand economics. I can't teach you 25+ years of global finance.

Quote:Banning coal mining in the US would not decrease global demand, so coal prices soar. Thus increasing investment and decreasing timetables for conversion projects to natural gas and clean energy.

First, I didn't say banning mining. Mining isn't the primary driver of greenhouse emissions. Burning is....
But let's go with your hypothetical. Surely you aren't suggesting that we would ban mining, but now become IMPORTERS of coal for our remaining coal plants?

That demand gets filled overseas.... by overseas suppliers.... and thus THEY get the money and jobs, not us. How do WE get the money to invest in these clean energy options? You think China and Africa and Russia are as interested in ending global warming as we and Europe are? Or are they interested in China and Africa and Russia?

I laid out a plan to do just that... and you can't make heads or tails of it.

Quote:And that would be a huge benefit to Chinese citizens, as they start the process to reverse their terrible air pollution.

You don't understand their problem. They are barely industrialized with tens of millions of people still with no power or cars etc. Clean coal is far cheaper, more abundant and more accessible than all of these alternatives... and far cleaner than what they've got now. They can power 1000 people with 'new' energy or 100,000 people with 'existing' energy.

Quote:

(01-13-2017 08:01 PM)banker Wrote:  You think they really want to shut that down and turn around and build new gas fired plants?

In that specific situation, perhaps not for a while.

But as was the point of this thread (read the OP), many other situations have resulted in shutting down coal plants in favor of natural gas plants! Which is good.

Shutting down dirty coal plants and replacing them with clean coal plants is also good... and provides money and jobs in THIS country where we can use the tax revenue and reduction in assistance to invest in clean energy... as opposed to in China and africa and other places where they're just investing in 'the most' energy they can at the best cost.

(01-15-2017 01:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Doubt gas from coal is feasible price wise. Probably akin to desalination of ocean water out west: would work just fine, but too expensive.
Seems like it might be the same for the coal=carbon + O2 process. If it was feasible, why isn't it already being done?

It's more the scale problem that always affects any new technology. There's a considerable amount of work to bring it up to commercial feasibility, even after the fact that the technology works has been proved in the lab. Because we have abundant coal supplies in the US, it would be prudent for us to explore ways to use that coal energy in cleaner fashion.

Wind works, solar works, but there are still significant scale issues involved in both. We should be pushing forward on all fronts, because we cannot predict with certainty where the major breakthroughs will occur. All we can really be relatively certain of is that if we keep pushing forward on all fronts, major breakthroughs will occur on one or more of them. Because that's what has always happened, and pretty certainly always will.

(01-15-2017 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we need to do with coal is push forward on coal liquefaction and gasification technology so that we can transport it and burn it in cleaner ways. There is a viable process now, that the Germans used to overcome their lack of oil and gas during WWII, but it has one problem in that it produces CO2 as a side product. But we are already working on CO2 capture and disposal/quarantine technology, and in this case that would be a much easier process because the CO2 comes from one source and is therefore already captured. There is at least on lab process that converts CO2 to carbon (which is useful) and water, and it that could be upscaled then that would solve the problem.

My God, in a world of 50 dollar a bbl oil (unless Trump destroys the Dollar peg), why would any investment in coal liquefaction technology even be viable from a market perspective?

Cleaner? Sure. As clean as nat gas? Not likely - ever.

You cannot help WV without hurting TX. End of story.

(01-15-2017 04:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we need to do with coal is push forward on coal liquefaction and gasification technology so that we can transport it and burn it in cleaner ways. There is a viable process now, that the Germans used to overcome their lack of oil and gas during WWII, but it has one problem in that it produces CO2 as a side product. But we are already working on CO2 capture and disposal/quarantine technology, and in this case that would be a much easier process because the CO2 comes from one source and is therefore already captured. There is at least on lab process that converts CO2 to carbon (which is useful) and water, and it that could be upscaled then that would solve the problem.

My God, in a world of 50 dollar a bbl oil (unless Trump destroys the Dollar peg), why would any investment in coal liquefaction technology even be viable from a market perspective?

Cleaner? Sure. As clean as nat gas? Not likely - ever.

You cannot help WV without hurting TX. End of story.

If oil were always going to be $50/bbl, you might have an argument. It won't, therefore you don't.

The prudent policy is to have as many tools as possible to deal with whatever may befall.

(01-15-2017 04:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 04:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we need to do with coal is push forward on coal liquefaction and gasification technology so that we can transport it and burn it in cleaner ways. There is a viable process now, that the Germans used to overcome their lack of oil and gas during WWII, but it has one problem in that it produces CO2 as a side product. But we are already working on CO2 capture and disposal/quarantine technology, and in this case that would be a much easier process because the CO2 comes from one source and is therefore already captured. There is at least on lab process that converts CO2 to carbon (which is useful) and water, and it that could be upscaled then that would solve the problem.

My God, in a world of 50 dollar a bbl oil (unless Trump destroys the Dollar peg), why would any investment in coal liquefaction technology even be viable from a market perspective?

Cleaner? Sure. As clean as nat gas? Not likely - ever.

You cannot help WV without hurting TX. End of story.

If oil were always going to be $50/bbl, you might have an argument. It won't, therefore you don't.

The prudent policy is to have as many tools as possible to deal with whatever may befall.

At what cost? How much money do you propose we throw at dirty coal? a trillion or 2? Where are we getting the money for this?

The problem with coal is that the energy source it is contained in has too many inpurities/low energy for mass. All of the money in the world isn't going to change that. Might as well advocate alchemy

Whether or not coal is dying isn't the point, IMO. You can't sit there and be demonstrably happy because people are going to lose their way of life. Even if they're in a part of the country that you'll never go to and you don't relate to them in any way, you can't show them that you are proud that they're going to have nothing in a little while.

Maybe we can throw the same amount of money that was given to Solyndra and others for really no results. Ay?

(01-15-2017 05:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Whether or not coal is dying isn't the point, IMO. You can't sit there and be demonstrably happy because people are going to lose their way of life. Even if they're in a part of the country that you'll never go to and you don't relate to them in any way, you can't show them that you are proud that they're going to have nothing in a little while.

Democrats want them to have nothing. The more on the dole, the more democrat voters.

(01-15-2017 06:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 05:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Whether or not coal is dying isn't the point, IMO. You can't sit there and be demonstrably happy because people are going to lose their way of life. Even if they're in a part of the country that you'll never go to and you don't relate to them in any way, you can't show them that you are proud that they're going to have nothing in a little while.

Democrats want them to have nothing. The more on the dole, the more democrat voters.

between all of the deadbeats and dead people, they should have an insurmountable voting block.

(01-15-2017 05:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Whether or not coal is dying isn't the point, IMO. You can't sit there and be demonstrably happy because people are going to lose their way of life. Even if they're in a part of the country that you'll never go to and you don't relate to them in any way, you can't show them that you are proud that they're going to have nothing in a little while.

There WILL be tradeoffs in any new technology. But you can't stop the tide from coming in. Coal is dangerous, it is dirty, it is harmful.....and it isn't economically advantageous anymore.

A decent social net, combined with aggressive training for the workers is the only solution I have that is viable.

(01-16-2017 09:38 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 05:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Whether or not coal is dying isn't the point, IMO. You can't sit there and be demonstrably happy because people are going to lose their way of life. Even if they're in a part of the country that you'll never go to and you don't relate to them in any way, you can't show them that you are proud that they're going to have nothing in a little while.

There WILL be tradeoffs in any new technology. But you can't stop the tide from coming in. Coal is dangerous, it is dirty, it is harmful.....and it isn't economically advantageous anymore.

A decent social net, combined with aggressive training for the workers is the only solution I have that is viable.

if that was the case, then it was extremely wasteful and stupid of the EPA to try to mandate coal plants out of existence the past 8 years, hurting workers in the process.

if the progress out of coal were to happen, it would happen naturally over time, allowing workers in the field time to transition into other fields. Instead, OBlunderBoy waltzes in, shuts them down, and has a rust belt filled with unemployed miners. And then he's butthurt that they turned on him and voted republican.

(01-16-2017 01:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-16-2017 09:38 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 05:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Whether or not coal is dying isn't the point, IMO. You can't sit there and be demonstrably happy because people are going to lose their way of life. Even if they're in a part of the country that you'll never go to and you don't relate to them in any way, you can't show them that you are proud that they're going to have nothing in a little while.

There WILL be tradeoffs in any new technology. But you can't stop the tide from coming in. Coal is dangerous, it is dirty, it is harmful.....and it isn't economically advantageous anymore.

A decent social net, combined with aggressive training for the workers is the only solution I have that is viable.

if that was the case, then it was extremely wasteful and stupid of the EPA to try to mandate coal plants out of existence the past 8 years, hurting workers in the process.

if the progress out of coal were to happen, it would happen naturally over time, allowing workers in the field time to transition into other fields. Instead, OBlunderBoy waltzes in, shuts them down, and has a rust belt filled with unemployed miners. And then he's butthurt that they turned on him and voted republican.

Unemployed miners have far preceded president Obama. Technology has replaced labor in the coal mining industry at arguably a greater rate than almost any other profession.

Mountain top removal coal mining was detrimental to the mining labor force. Dynamite and heavy earth movers removed the need for hundreds of workers per mine. A mountain top removal mine needs very few workers--I think my cousin told me they have a few dozen employees at the mine he works in.

Even underground, continuous mining machines have gutted the demand for labor.

My family grew up in the mines. Many still work in the mines today. They're constantly in and out of work as mines dry up. Most today work support jobs for mines, but aren't miners themselves because there simply isn't much demand any more. Machines took their jobs. I remember my family talking about how coal mines basically strong armed the government in WV into allowing mountain top removal under the premise of saving coal jobs. They essentially said if mountain top removal wasn't allowed, they'd stop operations entirely...so to a degree it did save jobs, but it also created a form of mining that required far fewer jobs than underground mining.

Clearly the reduction in coal as a fuel source has played a part as well, but the biggest enemy to miners has been technology and extraction techniques.

(01-15-2017 04:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 04:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 04:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-15-2017 01:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we need to do with coal is push forward on coal liquefaction and gasification technology so that we can transport it and burn it in cleaner ways. There is a viable process now, that the Germans used to overcome their lack of oil and gas during WWII, but it has one problem in that it produces CO2 as a side product. But we are already working on CO2 capture and disposal/quarantine technology, and in this case that would be a much easier process because the CO2 comes from one source and is therefore already captured. There is at least on lab process that converts CO2 to carbon (which is useful) and water, and it that could be upscaled then that would solve the problem.

My God, in a world of 50 dollar a bbl oil (unless Trump destroys the Dollar peg), why would any investment in coal liquefaction technology even be viable from a market perspective?

Cleaner? Sure. As clean as nat gas? Not likely - ever.

You cannot help WV without hurting TX. End of story.

If oil were always going to be $50/bbl, you might have an argument. It won't, therefore you don't.

The prudent policy is to have as many tools as possible to deal with whatever may befall.

At what cost? How much money do you propose we throw at dirty coal? a trillion or 2? Where are we getting the money for this?

The problem with coal is that the energy source it is contained in has too many inpurities/low energy for mass. All of the money in the world isn't going to change that. Might as well advocate alchemy

There are 2 components that you need to factor before you proclaim an energy source dead. You have energy density - how much energy per mass - and you have power density - how much energy do you have access to over a volume. For example, NG has a superior energy density over gasoline. However, you need significantly more storage space to dedicate to using CNG as a transportation fuel vs gasoline. So while coal may not do so well on the energy density side, it makes up for it on the volume side in order to make it a realistic fuel source.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that both nuclear fission and fusion would beat the pants off of any other energy source out there from both a density and volume (footprint) consideration. THE perfect fuel to combat global warming due to CO2. Of course, our politicians have zero stomach for it. Weird, isn't it?