Coal jobs on the comeback since 2016

[rexlunae]

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

Agreed in part. Any time you burn hydrocarbons, you inherently are generating CO2, and therefore any burning of any hydrocarbon is harmful to some extent. However, there are a few caveats and exceptions.

- If there is a full-cycle with atmospheric carbon dioxide, you could potentially reduce the net impact. So, biomass burning could be cleaner if the carbon in the biomass is significantly taken in the first place from the atmosphere.
- The type of carbon matters. Methane, CH4, is one carbon with four hydrogen bonds, making it the simplest possible organic molecule. When you burn it, you get one molecule of carbon dioxide and two molecules of water vapor, and you release the energy of four bonds. Gasoline and oil and coal are mostly longer-chained organic molecules. So, while you get a lot of energy from the various types of carbon-carbon bonds, a larger proportion of your energy is coming from releasing carbon dioxide. Therefore, while it's true that there's no such thing as clean natural gas, it can still be cleaner relative to using coal and oil.

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:

Sounds expensive. How would you generate the energy to do that?

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?

No idea.

 

[rexlunae]

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

Ok. How does that compare to the impact of burning carbon?

 

[rexlunae]

Im waiting to see a response to this...

And I'm still waiting for a response to my post establishing that the OP is a big pile of lies. But we don't always get what we want.

 

[kmoney]

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

Here is an article that talks about that topic.
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/22/doe...ironmental-costs-yes-but-not-as-much_partner/

There are a number of available low-carbon technologies to generate electricity. But are they really better than fossil fuels and nuclear power? The Conversation

To answer that question, one needs to compare not just the emissions of different power sources but also the health benefits and the threats to ecosystems of green energy.

Production of electricity is responsible for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and demand is poised to rise as underserved populations connect to the grid, and electronics and electric vehicles proliferate. So stopping global warming will require a transformation of electricity production.

But it is important to avoid various environmental pitfalls in this transition, such as disrupting ecosystems and wildlife or causing air pollution.

In a research paper, we analyzed the impact of electricity generation from renewable sources, nuclear fission power plants and fossil fuels, with and without CO₂ capture and storage (CCS) technology for separating CO₂ and storing it underground. We accounted for the environmental effects associated with the production, operation and dismantling of facilities, as well as the production, transport and combustion of fuels. We then compared a baseline scenario to a low-carbon electricity scenario that would prevent global average temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2050 – the point climate scientists say will avoid dangerous climate change.

Our study emphatically confirms that fossil fuels — mainly coal — place a heavy burden on the environment and that most renewable power projects have lower pollution-related impacts on ecosystems and human health. Nonetheless, no energy source is without adverse environmental side effects. Power plant siting, project design and technology choice are critical issues that investors and governments should consider very carefully.

 

[The Barbarian]

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?

Scientists working at the Hellisheidi geothermal power plant near Reykjavik, Iceland, were able to pump the plant’s carbon dioxide-rich volcanic gases into deep underground basalt formations, mix them with water and chemically solidify the carbon dioxide.

When basalt — a volcanic rock that makes up roughly 70 percent of the earth’s surface — is exposed to carbon dioxide and water, a chemical reaction occurs, converting the gas to a chalk-like solid material. Scientists previously thought it wasn’t possible to capture and store carbon this way because earlier studies suggested it could take thousands of years for large amounts of carbon dioxide to be converted to chalk.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-turn-carbon-dioxide-emissions-to-stone-20425

Basalt is a fairly common substance; the oceanic crust is mostly made of it.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Here is an article that talks about that topic.
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/22/doe...ironmental-costs-yes-but-not-as-much_partner/

No energy source is cheaper than fossil fuels. As long as cleaner sources cause economic pain, fossil fuels should dominate.

 

[ClimateSanity]

https://youtu.be/0_a9RP0J7PA

McKibben and Epstein debate fossil fuels

 

[rexlunae]

No energy source is cheaper than fossil fuels. As long as cleaner sources cause economic pain, fossil fuels should dominate.

Natural gas is far cheaper than coal. On that logic alone, coal is dead, and it ought to be.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Natural gas is far cheaper than coal. On that logic alone, coal is dead, and it ought to be.

Everything else is more expensive. Coal should not be dead if you care a whit about the poor in this country and the developing world.

 

[rexlunae]

Everything else is more expensive. Coal should not be dead if you care a whit about the poor in this country and the developing world.

The poor are the most hurt by the pollution from coal plants. And green energy gets cheaper with investment.

 

[jgarden]

Coal jobs on the comeback since 2016

The premier of British Columbia is lobbying the Canadian government to place a ban on coal from the US in response to increased tariffs on softwood lumber.

Given that Canada is America's largest trading partner and that unlike Mexico and China, the value of Canadian imports and exports to America are relatively equal, what purpose is being served by Trump deliberately antagonizing the Canadians over milk and softwood lumber?

 

[ClimateSanity]

But putting emotions aside, in an unexpected and ironic twist, the COP21 presents an opportunity for coal to beat Obama at his own game. And this is exactly what is happening. America’s largest players in the coal and oil industries, including Cloud Peak and Exxon Mobil, have reversed their opposition to the deal and have advised*Trump to remain*within the framework, arguing that it is better to be part of the club and help steer policy rather than excluding oneself from the debate.

Indeed, the Trump White House and American coal producers can use their participation in international talks on the future of the world’s energy mix to*promote the development*of high efficiency, low-emission (HELE) coal-fired power plants and carbon capture storage (CSS) technology. All major international bodies agree on this point: the goals of the COP21 cannot be implemented without upgrading coal plants. As such, implementing the accord could turn the U.S. into a global clean coal leader, save thousands of jobs in the process, and ensure the continuation of an industry worth billions of dollars to the country’s economy.

Like I said, where there is a will, there is a way.



Read more:*http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...esurrecting_american_coal.html#ixzz4fgrQMvwQ*
Follow us:*@AmericanThinker on Twitter*|*AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

[rexlunae]

But putting emotions aside, in an unexpected and ironic twist, the COP21 presents an opportunity for coal to beat Obama at his own game.

I don't know why you think that would be "beating Obama at his own game". He spoke of needing "clean coal". I've pointed out the little detail that there is no such thing, but hey, if you could make coal clean, I'd be all for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpQxPCcSZUU

And this is exactly what is happening. America’s largest players in the coal and oil industries, including Cloud Peak and Exxon Mobil, have reversed their opposition to the deal and have advised*Trump to remain*within the framework, arguing that it is better to be part of the club and help steer policy rather than excluding oneself from the debate.

That's great. I hope they're serious about it. I'm skeptical, given the history, but there's nothing that could be better than if industry got on board.

Indeed, the Trump White House and American coal producers can use their participation in international talks on the future of the world’s energy mix to*promote the development*of high efficiency, low-emission (HELE) coal-fired power plants and carbon capture storage (CSS) technology. All major international bodies agree on this point: the goals of the COP21 cannot be implemented without upgrading coal plants. As such, implementing the accord could turn the U.S. into a global clean coal leader, save thousands of jobs in the process, and ensure the continuation of an industry worth billions of dollars to the country’s economy.

Like I said, where there is a will, there is a way.

If coal could become clean while at the same time being economically viable, that would be great. But, even dirty coal is failing economically right now. They've got a long way to go.

 

[Angel4Truth]

If coal could become clean while at the same time being economically viable, that would be great. But, even dirty coal is failing economically right now. They've got a long way to go.

Excessive EPA Regulations Harming Coal Industry

 

[ClimateSanity]

Excessive EPA Regulations Harming Coal Industry

I hear talk about how economically unfeasible coal power is. Of course it is when you cannot build new plants due to regulations and technology is developing at a snail's pace because the government would rather spend it's research dollars on a fraudulent global warming hypothesis than on researching more efficient and safer ways to extract and burn coal.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I hear talk about how economically unfeasible coal power is. Of course it is when you cannot build new plants due to regulations and technology is developing at a snail's pace because the government would rather spend it's research dollars on a fraudulent global warming hypothesis than on researching more efficient and safer ways to extract and burn coal.

Exactly.