Coal jobs on the comeback since 2016

[ClimateSanity]

From your source:

Notice the projection for Appalachian coal to decrease. So even the most optimistic projections don't see an increase in coal production in Appalachia. Those miners are being sold a fantasy.

So coal production decreases and yet there is an increase in coal fired production?

That doesn't compute.

 

[ClimateSanity]

That's the one wild card out there. If clean coal energy becomes a reality, look for lots of mining going on. But making it feasible is not the same thing as making it economical. We should all hope that it comes true, but it could be a long time in coming.

There is still more power generated per dollar in clean coal than in wind power when subsidies are considered.

 

[kmoney]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/uk-coal_us_58fa3b63e4b018a9ce5ae357 Britain Is About To Go A Full Day Without Coal For The First Time Since 1882 WASHINGTON ― In 1952, London’s coal-fired factories and power plants spewed out so much pollution, a dense, acrid smog settled over the British capital, killing as many as 4,000 people. Sixty-five years later, the United Kingdom is poised to complete its first full day without burning any coal to generate electricity, according to National Grid, the utility that operates the British power grid. The last coal-fired plant stopped running at 11 p.m. local time the day before, making Friday the country’s first day without coal since 1882.

 

[ok doser]

coal has been largely supplanted by natural gas, a cleaner-burning fossil fuel extracted through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The controversial technique ― which ruptures bedrock with highly pressured, sand- and chemical-laced water deep underground, freeing the gas beneath ― has been met with fierce protests in the U.K. Public support for fracking fell to 37.3 percent last year, down from 58 percent in 2013, according to a YouGov poll for the University of Nottingham, which was released in October 2016. Fracking sites usually leak methane, a greenhouse gas 40 times as potent as carbon dioxide, and the toxic chemicals used in the drilling process have been found in groundwater.

:mock:dopey brits

 

[The Barbarian]

There is still more power generated per dollar in clean coal than in wind power when subsidies are considered.

Seems unlikely. Iowa, for example, has about 28% of its electricity from wind power, and Iowans have the 2nd cheapest electricity in the nation. Even without factoring in the costs of pollution, it seems like a pretty good deal.

Surprisingly, fossil fuel subsidies are much larger than for wind:

A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

 

[The Barbarian]

Fracking sites usually leak methane, a greenhouse gas 40 times as potent as carbon dioxide, and the toxic chemicals used in the drilling process have been found in groundwater.

Actually, natural gas is methane. And you're right that fracking has some environmental issues. But Trump really doesn't care; he just wants more natural gas.

The bottom line is, that hurts jobs for coal miners.

 

[The Barbarian]

So coal production decreases and yet there is an increase in coal fired production?

No. Coal production is projected to be flat, if environmental regulations are scrapped. And notice that the same projection is for coal consumption.

That doesn't compute.

I don't see how it could be otherwise. Why mine it, if no one was going to use it?

 

[ok doser]

Actually, natural gas is methane.

well, no

Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, but commonly including varying amounts of other higher alkanes, and sometimes a small percentage of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or helium.[2]

natural gas extraction is the primary source of helium

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian points out:
Actually, natural gas is methane.

well, no

Actually, natural gas is about 75% methane. There was a good reason you shouldn't have slept through chemistry class.

But none of that really has much to do with the grim picture for coal, absent some breakthrough in clean coal usage.

 

[rexlunae]

There is still more power generated per dollar in clean coal than in wind power when subsidies are considered.

That can't possibly be true. There is no such thing as clean coal.

 

[The Barbarian]

You can make any fuel environmentally safe. The question is whether or not you can make it economically so.

 

[kmoney]

Coal gasification can help revive the industry. People just want coal to die on here in my estimation.

https://energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-coal-gasification

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

I want coal to die because I want clean energy, it's not as if I am out to get the workers and want them to be unemployed. If there is a way to incorporate into a clean energy plan then fine. Ultimately I'd like to move toward renewable sources but fossil fuels aren't going away quickly.

 

[ok doser]

Actually, natural gas is methane.

barbie hastily moves the goalposts:

Actually, natural gas is about 75% methane.

:darwinsm:

 

[ok doser]

I want coal to die because I want clean energy ...

there's an environmental cost to any energy source, kmo

There is no such thing as clean coal.

there's no such thing as clean hydro, or clean wind, or clean solar, or clean nuclear

 

[rexlunae]

You can make any fuel environmentally safe. The question is whether or not you can make it economically so.

I'm kinda assuming that it has to be economicly via to count, but even if not, I'm not sure how you could make coal safe. You'd have to lock up the carbon dioxide in a form as stable as the coal you're burning. What would that form be? Calcium carbonate?

 

[jgarden]

Coal jobs on the comeback since 2016

It will take more than Trump repealing a few environmental regulations to revive the coal industry!

Investors can read the writing on the wall, knowing that Trump is out of touch with reality and that these regulations can be just as easily reversed by the next president!

 

[ok doser]

I'm kinda assuming that it has to be economicly via to count, but even if not, I'm not sure how you could make coal safe. You'd have to lock up the carbon dioxide in a form as stable as the coal you're burning. What would that form be? Calcium carbonate?

rex, that's true for any carbon based fuel - as long as we're burning carbon (to heat water, to generate steam, to spin turbines, to spin generators, to make electricity) that's gonna be an issue - whether it's coal, or fracked natural gas, or oil, or biomass


ideally, the best form to put it into would be one that had demand - can you imagine re-engineering the world of plastics manufacture to make it economically viable with CO2 as the primary feedstock? :think:


and as far as calcium carbonate goes, you're talking about cement and gravel, both of which have demand

but where are you planning to source the calcium from?

 

[Angel4Truth]

there's an environmental cost to any energy source, kmo





there's no such thing as clean hydro, or clean wind, or clean solar, or clean nuclear

Im waiting to see a response to this...

 

[ClimateSanity]

Me too. The environmental damage that comes from the manufacture of hybrid car batteries is enormous.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Me too. The environmental damage that comes from the manufacture of hybrid car batteries is enormous.

Its like the hair brain idea to switch from paper (biodegradable) to plastic...

and how ethanol is good for your car...