Trump says "coal is back," but use of the rock at a 41-year low

[schism666]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-says-coal-is-back-coal-consumption-just-hit-a-41-year-low/

but, but, but THE MINERS!

 

[chillywilly2]

Its back in China, not developed countries. Trump is wrong...again

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Its back in China, not developed countries. Trump is wrong...again

China isn't developed?
And coal was never gone there. They're massive coal users and have been for a long time.

 

[spacekowboy]

You all misheard him. He said "Coal is black!"


So yeah, I guess he's right.

 

[zipman]

China isn't developed?
And coal was never gone there. They're massive coal users and have been for a long time.

Actually China is investing a ton in solar power.

They are far more forward thinking that the dolts in this administration.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Actually China is investing a ton in solar power.

They are far more forward thinking that the dolts in this administration.

That doesn't change the fact that they're the biggest producers and users of coal on the planet. Have been for a long time.

 

[DMBFFF]

Am I going to have to cite sources, particularly WP, on:

total production and use of coal and alt-sources of both China and Western countries since the Industrial Revolution, the past few decades (say since WWII), and Deng's "Four Moderns?"

On the issues on coal and global warming, the conservative positions, while somewhat defend-able at times, are weakly presented, and Trump is a fucking idiot on them—and a few other issues.

 

[doowdniw]

It's back and it's indestructible. Bwahahahahaha

 

[someoneyouknow]

Actually China is investing a ton in solar power.

They are far more forward thinking that the dolts in this administration.

In the U.S., more people are employed by the solar energy industry than in coal, natural gas and oil, combined.

 

[colddiesel]

China is by far the largest producer, user and importer of coal in the world. However, its coal dependency for energy production has dropped from 80% to 60%.

China's coal is produced in the far north transported by road and rail to the coast then shipped south to southern based industries. China's east/west rivers and poor rail bridges add to transport costs and mean that it's cheaper for China to import steaming coal fom Indonesia (worlds largest exporter by volume) and metallurgical coal from Australia (largest exporter by value)

This article is a fair summary, and an indication of the size of the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China

 

[CandiCame]

You all misheard him. He said "Coal is black!"


So yeah, I guess he's right.

I legit did misread it and for a brief second I thought that the heavens had parted and the goddamn president was right about basic shit and then I was immediately disappointed and honestly it serves me right for thinking the dude who thought the moon was part of mars could have had a brain cell fire off correctly.

Lord help us.

I did, however, find somebody selling it for $80 a ton on the swap shop so I'm kinda thinking about going to get it and putting it back for my gramps for winter.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-says-coal-is-back-coal-consumption-just-hit-a-41-year-low/

but, but, but THE MINERS!

All False statements involving Donald Trump
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

 

[schism666]

coal is at an all-time low.

 

[Cubantripod]

Actually China is investing a ton in solar power.

They are far more forward thinking that the dolts in this administration.

So have we. The technology isn't there yet, although its coming along. Wouldn't it be better to just let the market decide? The market has already essentially killed coal in favor of natural gas.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Wouldn't it be better to just let the market decide? The market has already essentially killed coal in favor of natural gas.

The "market" never killed coal. For that to be true, you would have needed people to refuse to purchase electricity from coal fired generators. So do you even have an idea of what plants supply the electricity to your abode? Doubtful, which means you have never complained or heaped praise on your type of electrical generator plant.

The above statement from you never happened, what did happen was, countries have enacted "clean air" regulations, ( acid rain etc for over 30 years now), and new regulations to eliminate Greenhouse Gas emission.

The regulations came from Government(s) and enacted to prevent damage to the planet. That is why coal generation has begun to disappear.

Do you really understand "market", because you seem to promote a "free market" one in which business operates with little to no Government involvement.

 

[nowisthetime]

Investing in green energy is the way to go. Coal is a nonrenewable energy source, and usage is down in America.

He's nothing but a liar and a conman. He thinks his followers are stupid, and he's right, they are pretty dumb and gullible.

 

[jaF0]

coal is at an all-time low.

This is like the 4th multi year old thread you've bumped today. People have been made spam lovers for less.

 

[Cubantripod]

The "market" never killed coal. For that to be true, you would have needed people to refuse to purchase electricity from coal fired generators. So do you even have an idea of what plants supply the electricity to your abode? Doubtful, which means you have never complained or heaped praise on your type of electrical generator plant.

The above statement from you never happened, what did happen was, countries have enacted "clean air" regulations, ( acid rain etc for over 30 years now), and new regulations to eliminate Greenhouse Gas emission.

The regulations came from Government(s) and enacted to prevent damage to the planet. That is why coal generation has begun to disappear.

Do you really understand "market", because you seem to promote a "free market" one in which business operates with little to no Government involvement.

If you like big government regulations that's your business, but you need to try harder to justify your position.

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/05/07/natural-gas-and-wind-energy-killed-coal-not-war-coal

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If you like big government regulations that's your business, but you need to try harder to justify your position.

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/05/07/natural-gas-and-wind-energy-killed-coal-not-war-coal

Ummm no, sorry, you need to do your research a bit better.

Coal was/is one of the least expensive $/Mw producers of electricity. The figures are a bit dated, but at the time of relevance coal ran at 3.7 cents per Kw without scrubbing. With scrubbing the cost was about 12 cents per Kw produced.

Wind at that time was running 15 cents per Kw. Yet Wind is becoming more and more prevalent as a source of power.

Why?

Well it sure is not the cost. Coal being cheaper to produce the same amount of energy over Wind.

From an pure economic model, coal is cheaper to producer, so it has a market advantage, and offers greater profitability. Both great attributes from a profit perspective. ( I could get into the technical reasons why coal also has major advantages over wind, but why bother, I suspect it is beyond your area of expertise).

No coals demise is from regulation, not from market influence. You best go back and hand in that BA of yours, I don't think you earned it.

 

[Cubantripod]

Ummm no, sorry, you need to do your research a bit better.

Coal was/is one of the least expensive $/Mw producers of electricity. The figures are a bit dated, but at the time of relevance coal ran at 3.7 cents per Kw without scrubbing. With scrubbing the cost was about 12 cents per Kw produced.

Wind at that time was running 15 cents per Kw. Yet Wind is becoming more and more prevalent as a source of power.

Why?

Well it sure is not the cost. Coal being cheaper to produce the same amount of energy over Wind.

From an pure economic model, coal is cheaper to producer, so it has a market advantage, and offers greater profitability. Both great attributes from a profit perspective. ( I could get into the technical reasons why coal also has major advantages over wind, but why bother, I suspect it is beyond your area of expertise).

No coals demise is from regulation, not from market influence. You best go back and hand in that BA of yours, I don't think you earned it.

Instead of simply dismissing a link in which an economics professor says it, perhaps you can take your own advice and post some data that supports your position. All you did is reiterate your position with nothing to back it up.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Prudent leadership would do all they can to encourage the use of alternative energy, especially in light of the incontrovertible evidence of climate change and pollution. However, it is not necessarily economically viable to simply "shut off the spigot" of coal and fossil fuels. There needs to be a transition, where the country slowly weans itself from coal and oil, as opposed to suddenly shutting it off. This will allow the economy to transition to alternative energy without threatening our energy independence, or our energy supply.

When one side wants to simply defund alternative energy altogether, deny the problems with pollution and global warming and go full-bore accellerated development of fossil fuels, while the other side simply wants to suddenly shut off the oil spigot, shutter the coal mines overnight- BOTH sides are way out of whack. Neither side makes for sound energy policy.

With that said, It would be sound strategy to continue coal and oil production when viable- while at the same time, investing as much technology and resource possible with the long-term goal to eventually supplant those sources with cleaner energy. At the same time, develop CO2-scrubbing technology, carbon-capture technology, emission controls, etc- to make the "Dirty" fuels much cleaner than in the past. There could be yet a "third way" that would involve capturing and removing atmospheric CO2 from coal or gas plants, making them ultimately as carbon neutral as other fuel sources.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Instead of simply dismissing a link in which an economics professor says it, perhaps you can take your own advice and post some data that supports your position. All you did is reiterate your position with nothing to back it up.

Back it up with what?

What would you like to see?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/index.php?tg=spot prices

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44636

The one below is a good link, it shows the loss of plants closed do to not upgrading age facilities to meet new clean air regulations.

https://www.epa.gov/mats/cleaner-power-plants


https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/facility-level-comparisons

https://www.c2es.org/content/regulating-power-sector-carbon-emissions/


As I pointed out, you claimed coal was a diminishing producer of electricity due to Market conditions. I said no, it is diminishing due to the Government regulations ( world wide) being imposed on the plants emission, as well as the increased cost of mining the fuel.

Wouldn't it be better to just let the market decide? The market has already essentially killed coal in favor of natural gas.

Then you pivot and say this is backed up by an economist? All you need to do is look at how many regulations have come into play by governments all over the world, trying to clean up one of the most noxious air pollution emitters.

Coal plants are closing because A: it is not cost effective to upgrade old plants to reduce emissions. B: New plants built to the new emission standards cost more than a Natural Gas plant of the same name plate generation. As well the coal plants now have a higher production cost due to the regulations.

Last of the four primary types of Coal, only Lignite must now be used in the most efficient burning modern coal plants. Which means Bituminous coal, the most common form used in the old past plants is now a redundant fuel. The same applies with Subbituminous coal as the source fuel, although not to the same extent. It can be blended with Lignite, but off hand I am not sure of the percentage.

Now I am not sure what else you would like to see, which directly connects the decline in Coal fire plants with regulations, so maybe do some reading on the links I listed, and get back to me. I will gladly supply you with more information.

 

[schism666]

This is like the 4th multi year old thread you've bumped today. People have been made spam lovers for less.

thanks for the bump.

 

[OldJourno]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-says-coal-is-back-coal-consumption-just-hit-a-41-year-low/

but, but, but THE MINERS!

I can understand your indifference to people who no longer have jobs. As long as it's not your community being ruined, no harm, eh?
I live in a community with a coal-fired power plant about 15 miles away. About 300 people live there.
Not sure how much power it generates, but I do know when you drive by the smokestacks, or whatever they call them these days, since no smoke comes out,
it sure seems a lot less intrusive than hundreds of tree-killing wind turbines that produce a fraction of the power.

 

[ll74]

I can understand your indifference to people who no longer have jobs. As long as it's not your community being ruined, no harm, eh?
I live in a community with a coal-fired power plant about 15 miles away. About 300 people live there.
Not sure how much power it generates, but I do know when you drive by the smokestacks, or whatever they call them these days, since no smoke comes out,
it sure seems a lot less intrusive than hundreds of tree-killing wind turbines that produce a fraction of the power.

"tree-killing wind turbines" ?? - () . o