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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2017, 07:14 PM
 
31,909 posts, read 26,979,379 times
Reputation: 24815

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Our local coal plant had such a small staff it was a joke. They are employing a lot more people building a solar field at the same site.

But this is a great question because the coal that is currently the most popular for burning is from the west - and requires almost NO WORKERS to harvest by the thousands of tons.

So the debate and/or the statements about coal are being delivered in a confused fashion. The real story is that - no matter what - human employment in the coal sector has been on the decline (steep) and this will continue.

Given that - I can't imagine what attachment people have to black rocks. As the numbers show, there is virtually zero new coal generation in the US in 2016.

Oh, I have also been in the energy sector for 35+ years (including selling coal heaters) and my daughter is responsible for shutting down the dirty ones (an attorney).

There comes a time to move on and we are here. The comparison with IC engines is a good one although this is happening quicker. Coal is the fuel of yesterday....it was great that we had it to build civilization with - but we are smarter now, so why poison our children?


I'll say it again; coal has been on a decline in the USA ever since railroads and ships moved to oil for steam power, then all together over to diesel, nuclear or pure electric power. Next hit came from the post war period onwards as oil and gas (natural or propane) largely replaced coal for domestic heating.


This largely left power generation and now we are seeing the decline of the met coal market as well. If the USA were Germany or any of the other European countries that lack other natural resources (oil) but had plenty of coal, then things *might* be different. But of course we aren't and the fracking boom as resulted in a glut of natural gas.


A decade or so ago when natural gas supplies were tight and prices high, then burning coal made economic sense. That is no longer the case and if winters in the north east continue to be mild on average, the glut of natural gas (or oil) isn't going down anytime soon.


Younger generations who will be the ones that have to deal with the environment after most of us are gone want cleaner energy sources. Question then become how to get there with the least economic and other misery.


https://www.theguardian.com/environm...gy-china-india


Up in Smoke: The Future of Coal in Northwest Colorado | Steamboat Magazine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2017, 07:18 PM
 
5,722 posts, read 5,800,250 times
Reputation: 4381
^^^ Colorado still gets around 60 percent of its power from coal.

Coal is declining but not at the rate the lefties try and say it is. South Africa is still building coal plants as well.

Like I said coal country has oil and gas now anyway so they're milking both cows. The Marcellus Shale is underneath 90 pct of WV it's just that a certain portion of it is protected land and state parks, and national forests.

Last edited by wanderlust76; 03-21-2017 at 07:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2017, 08:58 PM
 
21,430 posts, read 7,456,856 times
Reputation: 13233
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76 View Post
Colorado still gets around 60 percent of its power from coal.
Western coal is lower in sulfur, I think most of it is mined in Wyoming and shipped far and wide.

It comes from open pits with some amazingly large machines, very labor efficient. Those Appalachian shaft mines with their dirty coal can not really compete with western coal unless the shipping cost is too great.



Now we have natural gas in play and it is displacing coal at a very quick pace in many states.

Wind power is responsible for over 20,00 jobs in Texas alone. It is coming on strong in many places across the country.


I suppose coal is used in Colorado because of the close proximity to those mines in Wyoming. It makes sense. Is Colorado windy?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2017, 02:40 PM
 
13,005 posts, read 18,908,288 times
Reputation: 9252
It's tough to change the laws of economics. Natural gas is cheaper in many places than coal. Renewables, while more expensive, are also taking market share. Many consumers are willing to pay more for "green" energy, but not for coal.

Last edited by pvande55; 03-25-2017 at 02:40 PM.. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2017, 02:09 PM
 
3,562 posts, read 4,395,705 times
Reputation: 6270
Trump signs order undoing Obama climate change policies - BBC News


!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2017, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Florida
23,795 posts, read 13,261,787 times
Reputation: 19952
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal View Post
Two Ohio plants are shutting down permanently:
Two Ohio coal-burning power plants bite the dust - CBS News

One in Kentucky:
https://wfpl.org/after-more-than-a-c...coal-entirely/

But don't worry, His Orangeness is going to "save" coal jobs!

The Latest: Trump takes shot at quarterback Kaepernick | Politics | bozemandailychronicle.com

Coal has a pulse, but it is faint, and even DT's latest efforts to date have not changed the grim prognosis:
Coal has a pulse, but prospects for jobs are weak
Who is investing in the mines and mining jobs? Banks won't even lend money. Is Trump going to hit up Deutsche Bank?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2017, 02:19 PM
 
45,676 posts, read 24,012,426 times
Reputation: 15559
In 2015 coal represented 33% of power source -- that means that there was 67% of other sources. Natural gas is 33 percent as well.

I think eliminating all the restrictions on pollution to keep coal as a viable industry is not the wisest thing to do but I like clean air and water.

I also am one of those nerdy people that would love the USA to take the leadership role in cleaner, more efficient energies. Innovation is how you move forward. We just seem to be going back to old school ways to try and boost our place in the world, and jobs.

War, coal, manufacturing...really that's the best we can do....sigh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2017, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Lake Grove
2,752 posts, read 2,760,834 times
Reputation: 4494
Quote:
Originally Posted by chacho_keva View Post
Coal is the dirtiest fuel requiring the greatest amount of processing prior to combustion.

How do I know this? Because I've worked in Power Generation for 32 years. At one point, I worked at a power plant which utilized sub-bituminous crushed coal as its fuel source. It was the dirtiest fuel I ever worked with when compared to petroleum based fuels, gaseous fuels, and even domestic/industrial solid waste. Anyone who claims otherwise is delusional. Worse yet, anyone who believes in the "Clean-Coal" fallacy is heavily intoxicated on pro-coal rhetoric.

The good news is that coal's appeal as a fuel source appears to be diminishing, possibly on a global scale. Again, this is by far the dirtiest fuel I ever worked with. Glad I will never have to deal with one coal briquette again.
Would you say coal is dirtier than 6 oil? Did your plant have adequate electrostatic precipitators?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2017, 02:35 PM
 
5,722 posts, read 5,800,250 times
Reputation: 4381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zen88 View Post
Would you say coal is dirtier than 6 oil? Did your plant have adequate electrostatic precipitators?
Natural gas shills always try to say coal is bad they're in it for the money and royalties, and the people that work in the industry are in it for the commission they get from land leases. I know tons of people involved in the industry I live in the Marcellus Shale region... they want coal to die and it has nothing to do with the environment it's totally due to personal financial reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-28-2017, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,569 posts, read 15,274,757 times
Reputation: 14591
Quote:
Originally Posted by videobruce View Post
Coal is as outdated as the internal combustion engine.
That's a funny way of shooting down your own argument. Outdated? Checked sales figures lately?
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:26 PM.

© 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