Coal isn't great again...yet another Trump failure

So positive returns are just fluctuations. Negative returns due to overregulation are ...


Coal will die out naturally when other markets transition to other energy products like the US has. The US has an abundance of cheap NG. So domestic plants that have to revitalize are naturally going to look at conversion instead of simply upgrading. That's natural market movement. Many other countries are paying twice as much for NG. That conversion is less likely there in the immediate future. Over-regulation to kill coal production is not natural market movement.

Whether US coal gets back to peak production will depend on foreign energy markets. Trump does not control foreign energy markets. All he has done is take the handcuffs off the industry that was driven into mass bankruptcies by the previous administration's policies. Automation and strip-mining require fewer workers, so output will continue to outpace job growth.

Considering the slew of coal bankruptcies in 2015, I'd say >7% job growth is a solid number. Certainly since it is concentrated in a limited number of communities, it will have an impact there. Is the country going to make a mass move toward coal when there are other cheaper energy options out there? Obviously not unless this or another administration artificially tinkers with the prices/demand as the last one did.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Very well put. Obama's policies were less important overall than the coal industry's failure to invest in R&D. Carbon is the chief ingredient in the super materials of the 21st century. Instead of developing ways of manufacturing graphene, they tried to bring the days of the iron horse back.

a reply to: DJW001


Just so I’m clear: are you asserting the coal industry could have used coal as an intermediary good to produce graphene as a final good, as opposed to electric power as a final good and been a viable industry? Talk about vertical integration.

As noted ad nauseam, the American coal industry is export-dependent and the great things going for it are China and India. Power generation using coal as a feedstock is, effectively, dead in America.

a reply to: RadioRobert

You are not MAGA. Use government mandates to force coal to be used. In order to MAGA, subsidise coal. Pick winners and losers. It is the MAGA way.

You are not of the body!
/s

a reply to: gariac

Use government mandates to force coal to be used. In order to MAGA, subsidise coal. Pick winners and losers.

The irony of that statement is completely lost on you, I'm sure.

About 3 years ago, Warren Buffet bought a coal mine along with all of it's trains and tracks.
Possible it has nothing to do with mainstream energy production.

a reply to: charlyv

Hmmm, that’s interesting....I did not know of that. Definitely an indicator of something...thanks for the info

I remember when the oracle of Omaha bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway in 2009, it stands to reason he’d continuing buying rail...did he buy just for the railway, or did he bet on coal exports and double down on rail? Again, coal production in America is projected to increase in a direct relationship to world-wide demand...that’s why tariffs are the single most inefficient tax.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Just so I’m clear: are you asserting the coal industry could have used coal as an intermediary good to produce graphene as a final good, as opposed to electric power as a final good and been a viable industry? Talk about vertical integration.

"Feedstock" means the raw material used to create plastic. The first plastics were created using coal tar as a feedstock. Petroleum turned out to be a more efficient feedstock as usable materials were a natural byproduct of the refining process used to create transportation fuel. Coal can be made into neoteric products like carbon microtubules using any number of non-polluting processes. The coal industry just couldn't wrap its greedy little head around that.

As noted ad nauseam, the American coal industry is export-dependent and the great things going for it are China and India. Power generation using coal as a feedstock is, effectively, dead in America.

Coal power is dead in America and the industry is dependent on exports to China, the country with which Trump has picked a trade war. Ironically, Trump may have just done more to kill the coal industry than eight years of Obama.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Just so I’m clear: are you asserting the coal industry could have used coal as an intermediary good to produce graphene as a final good, as opposed to electric power as a final good and been a viable industry? Talk about vertical integration.

"Feedstock" means the raw material used to create plastic. The first plastics were created using coal tar as a feedstock. Petroleum turned out to be a more efficient feedstock as usable materials were a natural byproduct of the refining process used to create transportation fuel. Coal can be made into neoteric products like carbon microtubules using any number of non-polluting processes. The coal industry just couldn't wrap its greedy little head around that.

As noted ad nauseam, the American coal industry is export-dependent and the great things going for it are China and India. Power generation using coal as a feedstock is, effectively, dead in America.

Coal power is dead in America and the industry is dependent on exports to China, the country with which Trump has picked a trade war. Ironically, Trump may have just done more to kill the coal industry than eight years of Obama.

Coal exports to China is only c3.5% of total exports.
It's even lower than 3.5% if you include steam coal exports.
India , South Korea and Japan are the key export markets in Asia for US coal.
You need to brush up on your knowledge.

a reply to: DJW001

There is already industry for coke coal production. Is it heavily underserviced? Why would mining companies delve into an already stable market? As opposed to, you know, mining and distribution...

And I have no idea how you think you'll create coke in an environmentally friendly process, but by all means, demonstrate.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: DJW001

There is already industry for coke coal production. Is it heavily underserviced? Why would mining companies delve into an already stable market? As opposed to, you know, mining and distribution...

And I have no idea how you think you'll create coke in an environmentally friendly process, but by all means, demonstrate.

I am not talking about coke. The met coal industry will continue so long as steel continues to be used. We are using less steel, relative to the economy, because other materials are replacing it. In 1950, the only parts of the average automobile that were not steel were the tires, windshield, and upholstery. Now the only part of an automobile that uses steel is the engine; everything else is aluminum alloy and carbon fiber. As these new materials are used more, the demand for met coal will fall.

a reply to: UKTruth

Coal exports to China is only c3.5% of total exports.
It's even lower than 3.5% if you include steam coal exports.
India , South Korea and Japan are the key export markets in Asia for US coal.
You need to brush up on your knowledge.

Exports to China increased 225% over the past year. It has been a significant growth market, especially important now that the EU, its largest market, has made reducing its use of coal a climate change goal.

The growth in the Chinese market exports makes up just 6% of the overall export growth for US coal - and even lower if steam coal exports are included.
Again, do some research and stop reading headlines designed to make people like you jump on forums and social media to proclaim that the US coal industry is dependent on China and that the 'trade war' means Trump is killing coal. It's a narrative designed to catch out fools.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

Just so I’m clear: are you asserting the coal industry could have used coal as an intermediary good to produce graphene as a final good, as opposed to electric power as a final good and been a viable industry? Talk about vertical integration.

"Feedstock" means the raw material used to create plastic. The first plastics were created using coal tar as a feedstock. Petroleum turned out to be a more efficient feedstock as usable materials were a natural byproduct of the refining process used to create transportation fuel. Coal can be made into neoteric products like carbon microtubules using any number of non-polluting processes. The coal industry just couldn't wrap its greedy little head around that.

As noted ad nauseam, the American coal industry is export-dependent and the great things going for it are China and India. Power generation using coal as a feedstock is, effectively, dead in America.

Coal power is dead in America and the industry is dependent on exports to China, the country with which Trump has picked a trade war. Ironically, Trump may have just done more to kill the coal industry than eight years of Obama.

Meh. Feedstock can be any number of things. For instance, corn stover is a feedstock in ethanol production; soybeans are a feedstock for bio-diesel production; rap seed is a feedstock in vegetable oil production; and so on and on...forgive me for allowing my professional jargon to be misrepresented.

I’m not here to argue: I’ve littered this thread with AEO projections and several references to the SO2 program — I am simply pointing out (with facts) the true history of coal powered electricity production over last 25 years in the US and the present landscape of worldwide coal demand.

By all means, go and review the remainder of my thread posts and point out anything factually inaccurate/incorrect, but it doesn’t further the discussion playing semantics, when you know/knew — maybe I’m naive and you had no clue — exactly what I was representing.

a reply to: DJW001

I am not talking about coke.

Silly me, I thought you suggested they make carbon nanotubes or microtubes from coal.

Coal can be made into neoteric products like carbon microtubules using any number of non-polluting processes. The coal industry just couldn't wrap its greedy little head around that. 

Since the most efficient way to get carbon from a substance is from a coke, I assumed you must mean coke coal production. Coke coal is nearly pure carbon. Please tell me the revolutionary (and environmentally friendly) way in which you proposed to turn coal into carbon that doesn't use coal heated in an airless environment (coke coal).

a reply to: RadioRobert

I remember when first learning of coke...the class discussion somehow drifted to charcoal...that day I found out the “ford” in Kingsford wasn’t a reference to Henry Ford, but his business partner, Ed Kingsford. I knew Henry Ford was the first to mass produce charcoal from wood ‘waste’...I found that lil piece of useless knowledge as interesting, and I would have argued with someone till I was blue in the face that the “ford” in Kingsford Charcoal ©️ was a nod to Henry Ford. I don’t know everything, I just argue on a CT forum like I do

At any rate, solid points you raise and I appreciate your input and the discussion.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Since the most efficient way to get carbon from a substance is from a coke, I assumed you must mean coke coal production. Coke coal is nearly pure carbon. Please tell me the revolutionary (and environmentally friendly) way in which you proposed to turn coal into carbon that doesn't use coal heated in an airless environment (coke coal).

That's what the coal industry needs to be figuring out.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: RadioRobert

Since the most efficient way to get carbon from a substance is from a coke, I assumed you must mean coke coal production. Coke coal is nearly pure carbon. Please tell me the revolutionary (and environmentally friendly) way in which you proposed to turn coal into carbon that doesn't use coal heated in an airless environment (coke coal).

That's what the coal industry needs to be figuring out.

You just said it can be done in a number of ways.

Coal can be made into neoteric products like carbon microtubules using any number of non-polluting processes.

Id like to know how you propose it be done. Just one of the number of ways would be sufficient to impress me.



Further, as noted, we already have coke coal (essentially pure carbon) production, and that industry shows no sign of being underserviced. So why are struggling coal mining companies going to invest in inventing entirely new processes to produce something already being produced in the most efficient way possible in quantities sufficient for demand?

It sounds like a BS green talking point that somebody didn't think through.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Id like to know how you propose it be done. Just one of the number of ways would be sufficient to impress me.

The impurities can be siphoned off and used as feedstock for other processes.

Further, as noted, we already have coke coal (essentially pure carbon) production, and that industry shows no sign of being underserviced. So why are struggling coal mining companies going to invest in inventing entirely new processes to produce something already being produced in the most efficient way possible in quantities sufficient for demand?

To continue demand as the demand in the energy sector contracts. When the EU goes off coal, Asia will be the principal market. Sounds like someone is making excuses for coal executives.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: charlyv

Hmmm, that’s interesting....I did not know of that. Definitely an indicator of something...thanks for the info

I remember when the oracle of Omaha bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway in 2009, it stands to reason he’d continuing buying rail...did he buy just for the railway, or did he bet on coal exports and double down on rail? Again, coal production in America is projected to increase in a direct relationship to world-wide demand...that’s why tariffs are the single most inefficient tax.

The promise that Graphene will replace almost all of our Li Ion batteries in the near future could possibly be one of the more obscure reasons to invest in coal. Not just any coal, but pure strains (as pure as you can get to save processing costs).

Coal, which is abundant and has an incompact structure, is a good candidate to replace graphite as the raw material for the production of graphene. Here, a new solution phase technique for the preparation of graphene from coal has been developed.

Coal -> Graphite -> Graphene

It is hard to figure out what to really invest in if we want to get in on a massive Graphene revelation. There are a lot of players.