Coal Company Shuts Down 8 Mines - 1,200 Miners Get Pinkslips (healthcare, solution, dollars)
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.
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.
Is the new CO2 proposal going to completely destroy the coal industry? I highly doubt that.
There will be no new coal plant built in the next few years, perhaps as many as fifteen or so years. Then new technology will emerge to satisfy the regulation and new plants will be built. Meanwhile, the existing plants will continue to operate.
From an efficient market's perspective, there is nothing to be alarmed here. Other energy source is more than capable of filling in the gaps left by coal.
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.
My specialty is hard coal which is primarily used by consumers for heating and for other purposes like water filtration <gasp>. Having said that yes I know this topic better than most.
I think at this point in time especially with the recent mercury standards there is more than enough regulation on the emission end. If there is any environmental focus it should be on the mining end.
There will be no new coal plant built in the next few years, perhaps as many as fifteen or so years. Then new technology will emerge to satisfy the regulation and new plants will be built. Meanwhile, the existing plants will continue to operate.
That's assuming they don't apply the cap to existing plants in the future and there is the other issue of them continuing to ratchet up the standards. That's been the trend hasn't it? Why would that stop now. From what I have read from some EPA documentation some NG plants built in the earlier part of the last decade can't meet these goals. The new proposal won't apply to them at the moment but that doesn't mean it won't in the future.
I will again point out the issues being pushed by the Sieera Club suggesting NG is worse than coal for CO2 emissions which no one wants to seem to touch with a ten foot pole.
That's the conspiracy that the radical right always bring up. Obama is taking guns away. Obama is implementing jihad. Obama is pushing everyone to wind and solar. Oh Please.
As powerful as the POTUS is, he can't dictate the market. Sorry. The market dictates the market.
Not if government regulations are so stiff nobody can breathe. That's the world 0bama wants.
First off, what does this have to do with elections?
Crutchfield can complain about regulations all he wants, but the truth is that the dive in demand for thermal coal is pretty much market driven. Thermal Coal Losses Out - Market Watch From teh artical,
Burning coal for electricity generation is a dirty and inefficient process that is being supplanted by less expensive natural gas and renewables. There will always be a need for coal in metals manufacturing, but making power within it should have been left behind in the 20th century. Hopefully those getting laid off can receive help and job training to reenter the workforce better prepared for this changing market.
Coal has not been "dirty" for many, many years. What the EPA considers "dirty" and a pollutant is CO2, which is needed by plants, and occurs naturally. Calling CO2 a pollutant is ridiculous.
Sencondly, shutting down coal fired plants with nothing to replace them with (new plants must be built) drives up the cost of electricity.
This is yet another example of the failed energy policy of this President, and I submit that it is an election issue.
The Sierra Club is apparently suffering from collective brain damage if they think Natrual Gas produces more CO2 per BTU than coal. check the oxidation chemestry to see what actually happens.
The Sierra Club is apparently suffering from collective brain damage if they think Natrual Gas produces more CO2 per BTU than coal. check the oxidation chemestry to see what actually happens.
Greg they are focusing on the total cycle, apparently there is lot of CO2 emissions involved with extraction and actually getting it to market. They are practically in my back yard, in a recent news article they had one environmentalist listing CO2 along with other hazardous emissions. He didn't come right out and say it but the implication I got was he was trying to equate CO2 as an imminent danger to the local public.
Rather than provide government support and subsidy for an industry which largely contaminates our air and causes countless deaths as a result and which endangers the lives of the people hired to do the dirty work the extremists ought to be congratulating federal agencies who have been attempting to protect U.S. citizens and at the same time they should be supporting clean energy projects. They're not intelligent enough to understand the differences, however.
There are 311 million, 591 thousand, 917 people in the US according to google.
Over thirty years, it has cost you a little more than $3/year for these subsidies, or approximately 80% of 1 penny every day. This has added up to about $93 over 30 years, assuming an equitable distribution of taxation, which is nonsense of course but much easier.
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.
Having said that yes I know this topic better than most. 
