Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-20-2017, 11:19 AM
 
72,874 posts, read 62,362,868 times
Reputation: 21820

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbdowndemocrats View Post
You can't use natural gas to mix with iron ore to make steel you need coal turned into coke to mix with iron ore to make steel.As the coke heats up it removes the oxygen in the iron ore turning it into metal. New steel plants use electric furnaces now instead of the firebrick lined blast furnaces.Sorry coal turned into coke will always be used in making steel for the carbon.
U.S. Steel: Natural gas process will soon replace coke
U.S. Steel making play to reduce coke consumption, use natural gas | Northwest Indiana Business Headlines | nwitimes.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2017, 11:23 AM
 
72,874 posts, read 62,362,868 times
Reputation: 21820
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
After a lot of whining, drugs, and helping to elect a liar/swindler, they will either keep scrambling to get on Disability benefits (and good luck with that when Republicans control government purse strings) or get off their rumbled rumps and go get some marketable job skills.

I realize it's no fair they have to give up their shot at black-lung disease to move somewhere there are jobs, but that's been the way of the world for centuries.

Starve where you are or move yourself to a spot with more opportunities.

Life rolls on.
The Appalachia region has long struggled with drugs and unemployment. Truth is, most parts of Appalachia aren't practical for living in. Moving would be the best option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 12:12 PM
 
51,618 posts, read 25,681,640 times
Reputation: 37801
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
The Appalachia region has long struggled with drugs and unemployment. Truth is, most parts of Appalachia aren't practical for living in. Moving would be the best option.
Appalachia was settled by people who moved there for better opportunities.

But the opportunities have moved elsewhere. It's sad because the place is gorgeous and I can understand why people would want to remain amidst family and what they've always known.

But life rolls on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 12:25 PM
 
72,874 posts, read 62,362,868 times
Reputation: 21820
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould View Post
Appalachia was settled by people who moved there for better opportunities.

But the opportunities have moved elsewhere. It's sad because the place is gorgeous and I can understand why people would want to remain amidst family and what they've always known.

But life rolls on.
Alot of that area is remote. It might have been the place to live in 1800. Today, it isn't all that practical. Look at the western USA. Ghost towns in many places. When certain resources dried up, people had to move on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Planet earth
3,617 posts, read 1,816,610 times
Reputation: 1258
I find it laughable that the OP thinks coal absolutely cannot make a rebound as a usable fuel. These folks from the left are disingenuously throwing any and every talking point they can at the issue, demanding THEIR position is right and the only possibility.

How about we wait and see what happens. I for one am in the camp that the EPA's war on energy via coal and other burned fossil fuels has just come to a screeching halt and that coal WILL make somewhat of a comeback. I believe coal WILL fuel some new electric generation as it only makes sense since clean coal is the least expensive of all fuels when ALL costs are considered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 01:53 PM
 
Location: USA
18,461 posts, read 9,106,258 times
Reputation: 8495
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee View Post
I for one am in the camp that the EPA's war on energy via coal and other burned fossil fuels has just come to a screeching halt and that coal WILL make somewhat of a comeback. I believe coal WILL fuel some new electric generation as it only makes sense since clean coal is the least expensive of all fuels when ALL costs are considered.
Coal will come back a few decades from now, once we've burned through our "abundant" natural gas reserves. The Greens will oppose any new nuclear plants, so coal looks like a good long-term bet.

There's the minor side effect of cooking the grandkids...but whatever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 05:13 PM
 
31,745 posts, read 26,706,619 times
Reputation: 24619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
HUndreds of coal miners in Arizona, mostly Navajo natives, were told recently that they would be out of work as the mines keeping the Navajo generating station fueled would be closing. The decision has been made to convert the plant to natural gas for economic reasons.

In case anyone wants to read:


https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/20...pi-close-2019/


Interesting thing is that according to article above Native Americans could continue to operate the plant and mine coal on their own, but that would go against their being "good stewards of land" beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2017, 05:29 PM
 
10,920 posts, read 6,888,584 times
Reputation: 4942
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
Lets put politics aside and figure which clean energy can replace over 40% of the coal-produced electricity in the US. What is the clean-energy you are referring too? Look: every one of us in this forum is using electricity that results from burning petroleum, coal, natural gas (which is present in the oil fields), and nuclear. Also, a very small percentage of hydro, solar, and wind power. The later is not sufficient to replace petroleum, coal, and nuclear.

Blaming Obama, or Trump won't provide clean energy.
I'm so glad you asked because you're right, this isn't about politics. It's about the future of our species.

How to replace coal (and all fossil fuels, for that matter) in our energy production systems depends largely on which state or country you're talking about.

These guys have done a great job of breaking down how we can get off of fossil fuels in each state/country (by 2050): The Solutions Project - 100% Renewable Energy

Here's a breakdown for your great state of Alaska (I love your state, by the way!): http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ak

Where I live in CA, we'd have a different breakdown: http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ca



I've long thought that instead of running on a platform of bringing back coal (and other jobs that are not coming back, for many reasons), a politician should have run on the platform of re-purposing our great manufacturing centers of the Midwest into the center of innovation, research, and production for the various sustainable energy industries.

An example: my father, who used to work for a large glass company in Toledo, OH (the "Glass City"), worked with a company to re-purpose one of the old glass plants into a solar panel manufacturing plant. More stuff like this!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 07:26 AM
 
5,756 posts, read 3,988,985 times
Reputation: 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
Alot of that area is remote. It might have been the place to live in 1800. Today, it isn't all that practical. Look at the western USA. Ghost towns in many places. When certain resources dried up, people had to move on.
So now you have told my Appalachian brothers and I what jobs we should have now where we should live.I'm glad I was a part of a company that gave back and reclaimed land in an area where they re-introduced elk and other wildlife abound.Opening up the area as you said that was all dried up with a regional airport and 4 lane highway in the middle of God's country is because of king coal.We have been waiting for the promise of jobs and opportunity many times before ever since LBJ we have had this job re-education many times before for jobs that never really came or went overseas.I lived and worked in Columbus Ohio and hated it ... love to visit family friends shop and party there don't need the stress of it to many people.
Not everyone one wants to live in a city or live their lives like a rat race everyday why my grandfather worked at the mill here in my home town but lived,worked on his farm in the county and I bet he even worked in his sleep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 08:59 AM
 
72,874 posts, read 62,362,868 times
Reputation: 21820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbdowndemocrats View Post
So now you have told my Appalachian brothers and I what jobs we should have now where we should live.I'm glad I was a part of a company that gave back and reclaimed land in an area where they re-introduced elk and other wildlife abound.Opening up the area as you said that was all dried up with a regional airport and 4 lane highway in the middle of God's country is because of king coal.We have been waiting for the promise of jobs and opportunity many times before ever since LBJ we have had this job re-education many times before for jobs that never really came or went overseas.I lived and worked in Columbus Ohio and hated it ... love to visit family friends shop and party there don't need the stress of it to many people.
Not everyone one wants to live in a city or live their lives like a rat race everyday why my grandfather worked at the mill here in my home town but lived,worked on his farm in the county and I bet he even worked in his sleep.
I'm not telling anyone where to go. I'm saying given the changes in the coal industry, and the changes in Appalachia, it is not practical to be in most parts of Appalachia. If you want to remain the coal industry, you're better of living in Montana/Wyoming, or other regions in the USA. The coal available in Central Appalachia is harder to get to and more expensive. It also requires mountain top blasting. That isn't good for the environment, and employs fewer people to extract that coal.

I am saying "it is what it is". You can't control the technological changes in the energy industry. You cannot control the changes in the economy. You can only make an adjustment. You either create something where you are. Or if you find it isn't practical to remain in the region, you move.

I know not everyone wants to live in the city. I didn't say "move to the city". I said that at this point, it isn't practical to stay in a place where jobs aren't likely to return.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:51 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top