It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama didn't kill Coal, Economics did.

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman
I still wanna know what clean coal is.


Various processes that use the carbon in coal in more efficient manner while reducing emissions. Gasifying the coal followed by combustion in turbines with more efficient use of heat at every stage and including scrubbing the gas between stages. When the Obama administration declared CO2 a toxic gas and the EPA tried to put limits on it designed to eliminate coal plants, CO2 capture and sequestration was added to the Clean Coal designs at the time. There is technology available to capture CO2 from any source but there is no good place to sequester it and the costs are high, ensuring that coal plants would not be economical. This concept is based on the premise that control of anthropogenic CO2 will somehow abate climate change.
It is easy to change numbers and make anything look uneconomical. For example, it has been estimated that anywhere from 5 to 10% of methane is leaked during pipeline transfer. Methane has 25 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO2, so penalizing the gas industry could readily show that coal was far less expensive than gas. Including rare earth mining and processing environmental effects would show that making the rare earth magnets used in wind generators would make them more environmentally damaging than most people think they are.

edit on 12/22/2018 by pteridine because: typo correction




posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

You're getting very specific here. People who man the drills and operate machinery are niche jobs usually done by senior members of a crew. What I was getting at is if you took the coal miners and gave them jobs in other fields they would most likely excel over say someone who has been driving a long haul for ten years or an auto mechanic.
The type of people who work these jobs do what they do and are good at it, because it's the environment they know and understand. Industrial mechanics and millwrights are perfect examples of people who would typically jump on these jobs because they enjoy that type of work.

My main argument is that coal used for the means of energy and electricity is inefficient, and coal should be mined for other purposes. You need coal to manufacture steel, so why burn it up? If we want sustainability then the US should be in it for the long haul, trickle some coal in for the energy sector for high density industrial areas as it burns hot and fast (why china loves to use it) and then control the rest for what it actually excels at. Ramp up production in other fields, and no jobs will be lost.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

See my first post.

To deny that Obama tanked the coal industry is "ignorance performance art".



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: angeldoll

See my first post.

To deny that Obama tanked the coal industry is "ignorance performance art".



Please brief me. What does this have to do with my actual comment? You're as good as Trump's lil peeps in not answering questions.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Maybe because your question was confusing.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: pteridine

You're getting very specific here. People who man the drills and operate machinery are niche jobs usually done by senior members of a crew. What I was getting at is if you took the coal miners and gave them jobs in other fields they would most likely excel over say someone who has been driving a long haul for ten years or an auto mechanic.
The type of people who work these jobs do what they do and are good at it, because it's the environment they know and understand. Industrial mechanics and millwrights are perfect examples of people who would typically jump on these jobs because they enjoy that type of work.

My main argument is that coal used for the means of energy and electricity is inefficient, and coal should be mined for other purposes. You need coal to manufacture steel, so why burn it up? If we want sustainability then the US should be in it for the long haul, trickle some coal in for the energy sector for high density industrial areas as it burns hot and fast (why china loves to use it) and then control the rest for what it actually excels at. Ramp up production in other fields, and no jobs will be lost.


That would depend on what they did in the mine. What you are saying is "retrain the miners to do other jobs" with maybe a "start them on the bottom rung." The skillsets of millwrights are such that they would be able to do the jobs but would more likely be the ones building the power plants and doing jobs that very few others can do. I have a red millwright level which is good for 5/10,000" over 10" when being level and plumb is really important. It was used building a power plant, a rolling mill, and before that a plate glass plant.
Historically, the coal used to manufacture steel is called met coal and is used to make coke. It is much more expensive than steam coal and is not nearly in as great a supply. See "Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel: Steelmaking and Refining Volume" 11th (eleventh) Edition – January 1, 1988 by Richard J. Fruehan (Editor) AISE Staff (Author) for details on coking coals and characteristics. Blends of up to 20 coals are sometimes used in coke ovens.
What else is coal good for? Chemicals, of course, but that is well known. Coking produces tars and chemicals when byproducts are recovered and not all used as fuel for the pyrolysis.

Old coal mines may become very important in the future when we are piping water all over the country as they would be important reservoirs. Dig a hole in the ground and it will fill up with water, eventually. The water in old mines is on the order of the volume of the great lakes and doesn't evaporate readily.

edit on 12/22/2018 by pteridine because: typo



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Currently I get a pretty good divedend from all the coal stock I bought during the Obama years. I did so because I know that most of the energy in the US is from coal plants. Obama (and Hillary) were indeed trying to put them out of business. !00% they were. And for you to say they weren't is a total joke. They had slapped such bizarre EPA rules on coal fired energy plants by X date that many of them were planning to shut down. This would have meant brown outs on a constant basis as well as doubling the average americans electricity bill.

People like you make me ill. You really do.

Anyway, since I knew eventually people would be disgusted with people like you and what you think I thought ahead and bought as heavy as I could into coal stocks. And I am glad I did. They paid for half of my xmas gifts this year.

Merry Christmas libtard!



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   
You are a brave person for saying anything about Obama which isn't negative here on ATS.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: angeldoll

Maybe because your question was confusing.










posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
The coal generation plants are pretty efficient and when considering output and long term costs comparisons, they are cheaper than the same bigger amount of energy produced by natural gas engine plants. Longlivity of the steam plants is the reason. Now the percussion natural gas plants lifespan and maintenance is higher and lifespan shorter. A combination of coal and natural gas engines would be good, excess electricity can be sold to the grid when consumption is low.

I would back nuclear but do not feel I should since we are not taking care of properly processing the waste produced, it is just being stored. Our kids will be dealing with that, it was a mistake right from the start.

The graphs do not depict everything and the regulations Obama put into place governing the power plants was too high, they should have just brought things up to spec and required big cities to lower some of the polution more because of the smog there. Natural gas is not going to remain cheap, once they up the people using it, it will go up. That is a historical trait in stuff like gas and oil. For a little while there is lots of natural gas but that will not be the case in ten years or so.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   
What "killed" the coal industry was the strikes in the 1950s.

The big railroads were immobilized by the coal strikes. So they switched to diesel, with multiple producers and multiple supply points.

The economics of coal are overwhelming, and explain why it's still "a thing," even after Obama's war on coal.

1). The United States is "the Saudi Arabia of Coal." of the earth's proven coal reserves, 25% are in the United States. China would dearly love to import US coal, but American EPA law forbids it. There was an electrical generation station in Corpus Christi Texas that was built to burn clean coal and capture carbon as well. It was built in the 21st century. But it never went online, because EPA. so the owner inked a deal to use the facility to load ships to sell the coal in china. EPA nixed that deal as well; it could hurt the gulf waters (but not like BP deep horizons, right?)

2). The cheapest way to move bulk freight in the US is by barges on the Great Lakes/Mississippi system. Rail cannot even begin to compete with barge rates per ton; so grain is railroaded from the plains to ports like Kansas City and barged to international ports like New Orleans and Houston. Same is true of coal. If you remove government controls, the cheapest way to to move energy is by coal barges.


of course, a wood burning stove with a catalytic converter burns cleaner than any of the fossil fuels, and doesn't need government subsidies like wind and commercial solar. But not even a conspiracy website can admit that truth.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: DBCowboy

Dont waste your time.
The cult of gore is stong......


It's just funny and illustrates the mindset.

"Economics" killed the coal industry.

Just like a "gun" shoots someone.

Never any talk about who pulls the trigger.



The thing is that the domestic coal market is (slowly) dying off naturally anyway. So, the OP is sort of correct. The existence of domestic mining will rely almost completely on foreign markets. Various forms of NG/LNG is just ridiculously cheap here (about a third of the price of the same in Europe). Coal fired plants are naturally opting to convert when time comes for major plant maintenance, refits, etc.

But you can't ignore the effects of Obama's policies and pretend what was happening under his administration was purely natural market forces, either. The fact that coal immediately bounced back when the regulations died despite the US's own move away from coal shows that. The strength of the industry here moving forward is going to depend on the international market. Coal-fired plants here will continue to shutter with out the punitive sanctions on the industry. On the international market coal remains king. Prices for alternatives are still high and there is virtually no existing infrastructure for LNG, for example. As long as the world price points stay high for alternatives, there is no reason for them to convert or build LNG plants for energy production.

And we are sitting on the world's largest stockpiles of the cleanest, most efficient particular sort of the most efficient means to produce electricity. We could/should dominate coal. We are sitting on more proven, surveyed, accesible btu's of energy in the form of known coal reserves than we have in oil/gas. And we are a top worldwide producer of oil/gas. We are bigger in coal than OPEC is in oil. And coal is roughly a third of all energy production in the world. On par with oil and gas taken individually. We should be crushing the world market, not deliberately bankrupting production.

There is zero reason to deliberately bankrupt coal producers (including our largest producers, and something like 40% of US production was/is in bankruptcy) unless you're trying to hurt the US and global economy.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Graysen

Great post. I hadn't made it two page two yet. You would have saved me a lot of time typing that out if you'd been earlier in the thread.




posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DigginFoTroof


I'd really like to know if existing nuclear is actually more expensive than renewables or if it is the corporations which own and manage these facilities, these corporations which seem to demand higher profit levels every year, that make nuclear uncompetitive. I have a feeling that if nuclear were run as a state utility (without normal government bloat) that it would be VERY competitive and probably much cheaper than renewables.


Well-run and larger nuclear power stations have extremely low marginal costs, so once built they deliver electricity that is indeed extremely cheap. It is usually uneconomical to build new renewables to compete with these plants (as shown in OP), but renewable subsidies can change that. The cost of generating electricity with existing nuclear plants (i.e. excluding financing and building them which is the killer) is on the order of 2-3 c/kWh (see both sources in OP).

However the issue is that many nuclear power stations are not as well run and often they are small and single unit. These power stations are often approaching the end of their lives and require upgrades to continue operating (steam generator replacements for example). Combined with cheap gas and cheap renewables they don't have much of a future. All of the early MK1 BWR's in the US are already gone for example.

Asdie: Early BWR's with the MK1 containment structure were the type involved in Fukushima. They are known to have a weak containment so I'm glad they're gone. However I prefer Nuclear over Coal and Gas for environmental reasons.


When I looked into buying commercial energy from nuclear plants in my state, which is something like > 1MwH per day (usually many to 10's of MwH's) the price was less than $.01 per KwH. So when you compare that to residential rates which were about $.09-.14 /KwH which is > 900-1400% greater than the bulk commercial rate.


No already-built nuclear power station is going to be economic selling electricity at less than 1 c/kWh. 2-3 c/kWh is required to break-even.

New nuclear is uneconomic and has very little future. See V.C Summer and Vogtle.

Under capitalism, it wouldn't surprise me if they are gaming the system either by closing nuclear power stations to reap higher profits.
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz

When Every Aspect of our Present Civilization is Finally GONE , COAL Will Still RULE The Energy World for Eternity .........



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: C0bzz
The reason why coal miners are losing their jobs is very simple. It has nothing to do with environmentalists, regulations, Obama, big government, or all the other boogie-men. The reason is simple. Economics.

- Natural Gas is cheap, albeit there are concerns about fracking which is banned in my state.

- Renewables are cheap. So cheap that a new wind turbine or solar panel can displace already built coal or nuclear power stations.

Here is the evidence:





Source: Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy V12.0

US Energy Information Administration. Levelized Cost and And Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2018 comes to similar figures but only includes Clean Coal.

The evidence for what this does to power prices is very simple. In my country:


On a national basis, residential electricity prices and bills are expected to decrease in the period from 2017-18 to 2020-21. This trend is primarily driven by wholesale costs reducing in South East Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. The reduction is driven by the estimated entry of 9,732 MW of accredited, committed or expected new generation and battery storage. The downward pressure this generation creates on wholesale prices more than offsets expected increases in gas and coal fuel prices over the period.

The 9,732 MW of new generation and battery storage that is expected to enter the NEM over the analysis period is comprised of:

8,961 MW of new large-scale intermittent generation.

566 MW of new thermal generation and upgraded capacity of existing generators

205 MW of battery storage, supported by jurisdictional programs.



Source: Australian Energy Market Commission

The point I am trying to make is this:

Economics do not care about your job or the family that it supports.

Economics do not care about your country.

Economics do not care about your planet.

Economics do not care about your health.

Do we have any thoughts on how we can fix all four issues here ladies and gentlemen?

(And as a side note, maybe renewables aren't a bad as you think they are).

You are full of crap.
Obama orchestrated the death of base loaded coal units.
No subsidies no wind farms.
Period.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

When Every Aspect of our Present Civilization is Finally GONE , CRAP Will Still RULE The World for Eternity .........



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, “Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”


LMAO.

That quote is from 2008 and the article is from 2012. It's almost 2019!

Cap and trade on CO2 was never implemented. It says this in your own article:


Of course, cap and trade is long dead.

Uttered in 2008, still haunting Obama



President Barack Obama has followed through on his promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry, causing coal use to fall by 29 percent since 2007, according to a chart published Thursday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).


Okay, good, we're using EIA as a source.


One of the main drivers of coal retirements is the price of coal relative to natural gas. Natural gas prices have stayed relatively low since domestic natural gas production began to grow in 2007. This period of sustained, low natural gas prices has kept the cost of generating electricity with natural gas competitive with generation from coal. Other factors such as the age of generators, changes in regional electricity demand, and increased competition from renewables have led to decreasing coal capacity.

Environmental concerns have also played a role in coal retirements. Coal retirements were highest in 2015, driven in part by stricter emissions standards required by the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, which went into effect in April of that year for coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. Instead of investing in emissions control technologies, many smaller power plants that operated at lower capacity factors were retired before the new standards were implemented. Some plants applied for and received one-year extensions, which contributed to retirements in 2016.

www.eia.gov...


Source: U.S. coal consumption in 2018 expected to be the lowest in 39 years (DECEMBER 4, 2018).

Damn those environmentalists and them not wanting toxic air! We should instead privatize the profits and socialize the costs of dirty power generation. Such is capitalism! But anyways, you're right, environmental regulations did help to kill coal.



ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2018

DEAD!

Also this isn't just something that is happening in America. If go worldwide, analysts are saying things like this.


Coal is the biggest loser in this outlook.

Coal will shrink to just 11% of global electricity generation by 2050, from 38% currently.


Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: drewlander


Yeah, funny how coal is making a comeback following the rollback of regulations that make coal unaffordable.


The so called "comeback" is not going to be significant.


Why President Trump’s Coal Comeback Keeps Falling Short
Picking battles in which the odds are stacked against you isn’t smart policy, and it might not be smart politics, either.

That there has nonetheless been a modest uptick in coal-mining employment since 2016 can be chalked up to exports, which have been rising for the past two years and are expected to keep doing so. While the U.S. and other developed countries have been turning away from coal, the developing world has not. U.S. coal exports to India, for example, are up more than tenfold since 2008. But with major coal reserves present all over the world and shipping costs high relative to energy content, coal has its limits as an export commodity. The export gains so far this year haven’t been enough to offset declines in domestic consumption, with estimated 2018 U.S. coal production through Dec. 1 down 1.9 percent from the same period a year before. Given the EIA forecast of an even bigger domestic consumption drop in 2019, and signs of a slowdown in global economic growth, it seems likely that production will fall again next year, and at some point employment will have to follow.


www.bloomberg.com...



I bet those "fines" were redirected to the flop i will never let anyone forget: Solyndra. Over 535 million dollars funneled into that solar garbage, lost forever to capitalists pockets. Thanks, Obama.


It is indeed a shame that Solyndra failed.



posted on Dec, 22 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JBIZZ


Most green energy products like solar panels, wind generators & batteries are manufactured in China in manufacturing plants powered by coal.


Perhaps it is time to invest in clean energy made in America.


These green products are then shipped halfway around the world on super freighter ships which run on dirty bunker oil with no emmisions standards.


We need international regulations to prevent this.


15 superfreighter ships emit more CO2 than all the automobiles in the world combined.


This isn't true.



Light Green is Shipping
Dark Green is Aviation
Blue is Road

Source: AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (Chapter 5)
edit on 22/12/18 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join