Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes regulations that cost 10's or 100's of billions of dollars or in some cases the proposals for CO2 regualtions that are unattainable no matter how much money you throw at it have nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Certainly the lower cost of natural gas is a factor but it's not the only factor and to think otherwise is being naive. FYI it's only last year at this time when comparing BTU to BTU that the cost of NG has gone lower than coal, there is bottom to this and it will rebound. To think otherwise is being naive.
What's your plan now when coal is no longer around to provide a competitive market and the full force of the environazis set their sites on NG?
Where is the coal going to? I imagine the coal will wait there in the ground till it's cost effective extract it. Your problem is you can't except that fact it's worse on air quality than other carbon fuels. And you badmouth clean energy. Get another line of work if you don't like it.
Why are CO2 emissions at a 20 year low in the USA? Because we don't burn as much dirty coal.
In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.
Take your worn out racist obama hating tripe somewhere else.
Bitter because they lost their entitlement. Uppity brown people competing for good paying jobs.
Obama is a Muslim! Obama is a Kenyan!....LOL
Roys you're a looking at the last election were anybody will give a damn about the "white vote". only 72% of this electorate will be white, down from 92% in 1980.
Good riddance. Maybe we call all see we are in the same boat now.
Where is the coal going to? I imagine the coal will wait there in the ground till it's cost effective extract it. Your problem is you can't except that fact it's worse on air quality than other carbon fuels. And you badmouth clean energy. Get another line of work if you don't like it.
The issue is not about whether it's cost effective to extract, it's the cost of utilizing it. It's absolutely fabulous we have this new found supply of energy but this just the honeymoon. When the market stabilizes and production numbers are more realistic compared to demand the cost of NG is gong to rise. If coal is no longer cost effective because of ineffectual regulations you're going to pay for it through increased prices.
FYI it's not be bad mouthing the natural gas industry, what's your thoughts on the Sierra Clubs opinions who have fanatically fought the coal industry? You libs all love the Sierra Club for their environmental work against coal, yes?
What about recent studies that suggest that the extraction and burning of natural gas has a bigger impact on climate change than coal does?
They're alarming. Studies in places like the Marcellus Shale and Colorado have shown that the greenhouse emissions from natural gas are much, much worse than originally thought. Unfortunately, there isn't yet a comprehensive empirical analysis of the full carbon footprint of gas. So the Sierra Club—along with almost every other environmental group—is calling for a full study that documents those emissions and the extent to which they can be controlled or avoided altogether. What about the natural gas industry's plan to build 250-plus gas-fired power plants in the United States?
That's a huge problem. Over the past 10 years, the Sierra Club and our grassroots partners have done some of the best work in the history of the environmental movement in stopping a rapid expansion of new coal-fired power plants across the country. In the wake of that, it would be tragic if we then invested in 250 new gas plants. We are determined to stop the expansion of fossil-fuel production, and we're going to be a leading force to make sure that those plants aren't built.
Seems if you are the supporter of natural gas you have problem.
Yes regulations that cost 10's or 100's of billions of dollars or in some cases the proposals for CO2 regualtions that are unattainable no matter how much money you throw at it have nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Certainly the lower cost of natural gas is a factor but it's not the only factor and to think otherwise is being naive. FYI it's only last year at this time when comparing BTU to BTU that the cost of NG has gone lower than coal, there is bottom to this and it will rebound. To think otherwise is being naive.
What's your plan now when coal is no longer around to provide a competitive market and the full force of the environazis set their sites on NG?
It's like what Mark Twain said:
The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
I don't expect coal to die. It better not, I own CLF stocks. It will not be the same as before but it will not be wiped out. The strong ones will survive and then strive when the weaker ones get driven out of the market.
The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
I don't expect coal to die. It better not, I own CLF stocks. It will not be the same as before but it will not be wiped out. The strong ones will survive and then strive when the weaker ones get driven out of the market.
You don't seem to get it, the new CO2 proposals will effectively prevent new coal plants from being built unless they have carbon capture. Any plant started 12 months from last March will fall under this rule if it's becomes law. That tech does not exist in a production environment and due to the enormous challenges and expenses of storing it is unlikely to ever to be used.
Now consider the Sierra Clubs issues surrounding NG creating more CO2 than coal, there is actually some validity to this. It's the extraction process where the concern is.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,463,520 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
You don't seem to get it, the new CO2 proposals will effectively prevent new coal plants from being built unless they have carbon capture. Any plant started 12 months from last March will fall under this rule if it's becomes law. That tech does not exist in a production environment and due to the enormous challenges and expenses of storing it is unlikely to ever to be used.
Now consider the Sierra Clubs issues surrounding NG creating more CO2 than coal, there is actually some validity to this. It's the extraction process where the concern is.
Since you're obviously pretty knowledgeable on this subject, and pro-coal, am curious what your basic take is. So do you think coal can ever be economically competitive with other fuels without compromising the environment, or is coal always gonna be a relatively "dirtier" fuel, no matter how much it's "scrubbed"? BTW, understood that some coal is dirtier, has lower BTUs, higher shipping costs, etc. than others.
Bitter because they lost their entitlement. Uppity brown people competing for good paying jobs.
Obama is a Muslim! Obama is a Kenyan!....LOL
Roys you're a looking at the last election were anybody will give a damn about the "white vote". only 72% of this electorate will be white, down from 92% in 1980.
Good riddance. Maybe we call all see we are in the same boat now.
What are you jabbering about now?? This thread is about coal plants being shut down.
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) -- Coal producer Alpha Natural Resources said Tuesday it was cutting production by 16 million tons and eliminating 1,200 jobs companywide, laying off 400 workers immediately by closing mines in Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The mine shutdowns start Tuesday, while the rest of the layoffs will be completed by the end of the first quarter after Alpha fulfills current sales obligations, Chief Executive Officer Kevin Crutchfield said. In all, the layoffs amount to nearly a tenth of Alpha's 13,000-person workforce.
Alpha said it was closing four mines in West Virginia, three in Virginia and one in Pennsylvania. They are a mix of deep and surface mines, and all are non-union operations.
.............
Crutchfield said the shutdowns and layoffs are a necessary part of ensuring Alpha survives in what has become a difficult U.S. market, where coal companies face a dual challenge: Power plants are shifting to cheap, abundant natural gas, while companies like his face "a regulatory environment that's aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal."
Thank you Barry the job killer.
If Obama is re-elected, I wonder if anyone in the US will have a job anymore at the end of his second term.
If Obama is re-elected, I wonder if anyone in the US will have a job anymore at the end of his second term.
All the folks he is making legal bypassing congress will have jobs. Somebody's gotta work and pay taxes. Obama is creating his own slave labor force.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
