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.
U.S. President Barack Obama may be engaging in a “war on coal” with carbon regulations intended to shrink coal’s share of energy production, but worldwide, coal is in its strongest position in decades. In 2013, enough coal was burned to meet 30.1 percent of the world’s energy demands -- its highest share since 1970, according to new data from BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy.
...
In 2013, coal consumption increased by 3 percent, making it the fastest growing fossil fuel. A large reason for its success is its low cost – coal markets have experienced several years of declines in prices. Also, coal is relatively abundant and found around the world.
...
For now, coal remains behind oil in terms of its share of global energy demand, capturing 30.1 percent compared to oil’s 32.9 percent. But that could change. In a December 2012 report, the International Energy Agency predicted that by 2017, coal would become the world’s top source of energy.
Now this is curious to me.
There is a well publicized war on coal in this country, and Europe. However, coal use is up - and is predicted to continue to rise because of it's low cost of production.
Years ago, I remember Al Gore was all into the green energy fad, yet he owned stock in big oil. It would not surprise me if you read the ledger of investments of these green energy leaders - that coal companies are in their investment portfolio.
Whatever that case may be - Obama is not taking out coal. He is making it more expensive to produce - and in the process weeding out some smaller companies so the industry may be easier to control in dealing with a few big players only.
Coal use is up - interested to hear some other thoughts on this.
Are you conflating World Coal use with US coal use?
Obama is about taxing the companies on their carbon .. the cost will be passed to us the consumer.
A carbon tax approaches the issues from a different perspective. In that system, the “right to emit” is not limited by capping the amount of GHGs that are emitted. Instead, anyone who wishes to emit must pay a tax. Since it will be more expensive to emit than before, GHGs will decline, albeit by an unknown amount: The higher the tax, the more the emissions will decline. Many environmentalists prefer the cap-and-trade system because the cap ensures that the environmental purposes of the act are met.
Each of these mechanisms is effectively a tax, or fee, on emitting GHGs. To create momentum for its passage, proponents of cap-and-trade argued to conservatives that it would do less damage to the economy than EPA regulation would. Now others are saying that a carbon tax could be better still. But as one scholar at the American Enterprise Institute put it, “Carbon taxes might be ‘better’ than cap-and-trade or regulations, but then, in a train-wreck, losing a hand is better than losing a forearm, which is better than losing an entire arm. Most would rather skip the wreck.” [13] Congress seems closer to stopping EPA regulation [14] than it does to adopting a carbon tax, especially considering that conservatives successfully attacked cap-and-trade by calling it an energy tax. A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment | POWER Magazine
There is a well publicized war on coal in this country, and Europe. However, coal use is up - and is predicted to continue to rise because of it's low cost of production.
Years ago, I remember Al Gore was all into the green energy fad, yet he owned stock in big oil. It would not surprise me if you read the ledger of investments of these green energy leaders - that coal companies are in their investment portfolio.
Whatever that case may be - Obama is not taking out coal. He is making it more expensive to produce - and in the process weeding out some smaller companies so the industry may be easier to control in dealing with a few big players only.
Coal use is up - interested to hear some other thoughts on this.
This has been the standard mode o operation for the president's administrative regulatory agencies, they create draconian regulations which drive out small businesses, leaving the deep pocket crony corporations with a larger share of the market.
Unfortunately they leave middle income Americans to pay ever increasing prices for everything, while median family income falls.
Coal is still one of the most abundant and cheapest fuels worldwide. It will be used until the cost of alternatives become substantially less.
There are no alternatives to coal-fired power plants, unless you mean natural gas and nuclear. But not every country has the ability to supply enough gas, and the environmentalists despise natural gas and hate nuclear power.
They are citing worldwide figures and it only shows the futility of attempting to curb CO2 emissions, if we were to decrease usage by 10% and China increases it just 2% it wipes out the decrease here.
The use of coal has steadily dropped here in the US since Obama took office but the effects of what they are doing now will not happen overnight. Old plants colsed by new mercury regulations that will decrease deposition rates here the US 1 to 10% are being replaced by natural gas not becsue of cost but because of concerns over CO2 regulations being proposed now and into the future.
At the moment no because of the existing fleet of plants however those will be replaced by other fuels and for some of them that might be 40 or 50 years from now.
40% of our electric is produced by coal. We will have to pay higher prices when the coal companies can't meet the EPA standards put in place by Obama. The emissions will be taxed and the price of electricity will go up for the consumer.
The coal companies will have the right to emit carbon but will be taxed for going over the standard set by Obama. The cost will have to go up if a new tax is placed on coal emissions.
We will have to pay higher prices when the coal companies can't meet the EPA standards put in place by Obama. The emissions will be taxed and the price of electricity will go up for the consumer.
The coal companies will have the right to emit carbon but will be taxed for going over the standard set by Obama. The cost will have to go up if a new tax is placed on coal emissions
They are turning to NG however there is some legitimate concerns that NG may be the same as coal because of the methane and other greenhouse gases produced during extraction and processing.
There are no alternatives to coal-fired power plants, unless you mean natural gas and nuclear. But not every country has the ability to supply enough gas, and the environmentalists despise natural gas and hate nuclear power.
No alternatives?
All our power is supplied by Hydro.
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.
