Trump and coal mines

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by pErvinalia » Sat Jul 01, 2017 1:40 am

Coal is so clean. Renewables bad. So bad.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by Tero » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:50 pm

After getting votes, there was nothing to be done. Even eliminating EPA rules was no help.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/coal ... 00400.html

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Trump and energy

Post by Tero » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:32 pm

The coal thing is limping along. Clean coal turned out to be syn gas. That makes the same CO2. Unless you use it for fracking.

Now Trump is after uranium.
https://www.dcreport.org/2017/07/04/tru ... to-miners/

I'd like to see the healthcare plan for uranium miners. Bring back the coal!

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:22 pm

Tero wrote:With no lump of coal in hand:
Trump said the US had an “extraordinary energy abundance”, including “more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal”. This bounty had been neglected due to Obama-imposed restrictions, the president said, adding that sweeping away various regulations would bring about “American energy dominance”.

“We will be dominant,” said Trump, whose administration has lifted a ban on new coal mining on public land, crafted an executive order calling for more offshore drilling and approved the controversial Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines.
The pros of coal are:

1. It's just about the cheapest source of energy, cheaper than nuclear, gas, and oil. Coal provides over 50% of the energy for electricity in the US. That's officially known as a fuck-ton. Given the size of the US and its energy demands, we cannot really function without coal.
2. Given the US's domestic supply, it provides greater stability because we don't have to look to foreign sources for the energy.
3. Solar energy is impractical because it cannot feasibly provide the amount of energy needed.
4. It can provide abundant energy to allow the US time to convert to other sources without dramatic impact on the economy and lives of citizens.

The key to the use of coal is the lack of feasible alternatives in the offing. Solar is not a feasible alternative at this time. The amount of land area needed to power, say, 1/2 of the US's electricity is staggering, and add to that the cost of all the materials and equipment, plus the precious and rare metal quantities needed to produce the solar panels, and infrastructure needed to store and transport the electricity, etc. It's monumental. Similarly, the territory needed and blight caused by wind turbines make wind unfeasible, given its unreliability and other downsides.

When one looks at the numbers, it's difficult to see anything to but nuclear getting us past the fossil fuel age. Nuclear at least can do the job, even if right now it's more expensive.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by Hermit » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:04 pm

Forty Two wrote:It's just about the cheapest source of energy, cheaper than nuclear, gas, and oil.
In 2015 the levelised cost of electricity via coal was $95.10/ MWh. In the same year that cost was $73.60 via onshore wind turbines and $125.30 via photovoltaic solar. Given the plummeting costs of PV electricity generation it won't be long before it too will be cheaper than coal.
Forty Two wrote:Coal provides over 50% of the energy for electricity in the US. That's officially known as a fuck-ton. Given the size of the US and its energy demands, we cannot really function without coal.
Meaning what? Forget about electricity generation via non-fossil means?
Forty Two wrote:Given the US's domestic supply, it provides greater stability because we don't have to look to foreign sources for the energy.
Newsflash: Neither wind nor solar sources are foreign owned.
Forty Two wrote:Solar energy is impractical because it cannot feasibly provide the amount of energy needed.
If all the sunlight energy striking the Earth's surface in Texas alone could be converted to electricity, it would be up to 300 times the total power output of all the power plants in the world. Institute of Agriculture, The University of Tennessee With some more progress with the technology needed to store that energy for when the sun does not shine, this seems like a practical project.
Forty Two wrote:It can provide abundant energy to allow the US time to convert to other sources without dramatic impact on the economy and lives of citizens.
We know that. The problem is the fossil fuel industry sabotaging efforts to convert to other sources, chiefly by financing climate change deniers. Trump opinion that global warming is just a Chinese conspiracy is not particularly helpful either.
Forty Two wrote:The key to the use of coal is the lack of feasible alternatives in the offing.
Solar and wind are two feasible options. Nobody argues that they need to replace coal, oil and gas immediately and overnight.
Forty Two wrote:Solar is not a feasible alternative at this time.
At this time. See above.
Forty Two wrote:The amount of land area needed to power, say, 1/2 of the US's electricity is staggering
Care to quote some figures on that? I suggest you start with the area occupied by wind turbines for their exclusive use, then give us an analysis of how many square miles of territory photovoltaic panels will need for their exclusive use for the balance of electricity generation needs.
Forty Two wrote:the precious and rare metal quantities needed to produce the solar panels, and infrastructure needed to store and transport the electricity, etc. It's monumental.
Again, numbers please.
Forty Two wrote:Similarly, the territory needed and blight caused by wind turbines make wind unfeasible, given its unreliability and other downsides.
Now you're just repeating unsupported claims while engaging in frantic hand waving.
Forty Two wrote:When one looks at the numbers, it's difficult to see anything to but nuclear getting us past the fossil fuel age.
This would be true if at least half of the assertions you made above were true.
Forty Two wrote:Nuclear at least can do the job, even if right now it's more expensive.
While I regard nuclear energy historically as a safer and cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, I don't see a trend of it becoming cheaper, and I don't think there is any prospect of such a trend.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:58 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tero wrote:With no lump of coal in hand:
Trump said the US had an “extraordinary energy abundance”, including “more than 250 years’ worth of clean, beautiful coal”. This bounty had been neglected due to Obama-imposed restrictions, the president said, adding that sweeping away various regulations would bring about “American energy dominance”.

“We will be dominant,” said Trump, whose administration has lifted a ban on new coal mining on public land, crafted an executive order calling for more offshore drilling and approved the controversial Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines.
The pros of coal are:

1. It's just about the cheapest source of energy, cheaper than nuclear, gas, and oil. Coal provides over 50% of the energy for electricity in the US. That's officially known as a fuck-ton. Given the size of the US and its energy demands, we cannot really function without coal.
It's only cheap within certain constraints. I came across a good article a week or two back breaking down the different requirements of an energy source for a national electricity grid. It ranked solar, wind, hydro, black coal, brown coal and natural gas for a number of the different requirements. Unfortunately I can't remember the full specific requirements and the exact rankings, but coal fell short of wind and solar on a couple, and natural gas on others. Some of the requirements were: general baseload supply; how rapidly the supply tap can be turned on in demand spikes (maintaining grid frequency); cost per MWh; and overall environmental effects. One of solar or wind is already cheaper per MWh, with prices rapidly falling. Gas was better for either the baseload supply or the grid frequency. And while coal was still cheaper than wind and solar when you factor in requirements for baseload supply, it was only just if the particular renewable used pumped hydro for it's storage (therefore maintaining baseload supply). And hydro in general was the best for grid frequency (that is, ramping up power output as fast as possible).

And that report didn't include in the analysis the subsidies that coal receives. I.e. Coal is in reality more expensive than noted in the report. The reality is that with rapidly falling prices of wind and solar, they are going to replace a lot of coal MWh. Natural gas, which is less environmentally damaging (if we exclude potential negatives of fracking), will steadily replace coal for baseload power. And as better battery storage solutions and more pumped hydro storage comes online, renewables are very soon going to be cheaper than coal for baseload power (as well as better for frequency maintenance). If you took all the subsidies away from coal (and factored in all the externalities), renewables with pumped hydro storage are already cheaper than coal. And of course a fuckload better for the environment.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by JimC » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:08 pm

Hermit wrote:

Care to quote some figures on that? I suggest you start with the area occupied by wind turbines for their exclusive use, then give us an analysis of how many square miles of territory photovoltaic panels will need for their exclusive use for the balance of electricity generation needs.
And it's even better than that. Certainly with wind turbines, there is no need to have exclusive land use at all - normal agricultural use can and does happen on land covered by wind turbines (as well as natural, low scrub ecosystems...). Allowing for a small shadowing effect, one could alternatively have arrays of solar panels under the turbines - with night-time or overcast windy weather, plus a certain amount of the new, large battery arrays, you would've a very consistent power source...

And offshore wind turbines, once in place, would not be affecting ocean ecosystems - in fact, given that it would be difficult to have commercial trawling etc. around them, they could act as a useful fish sanctuary/breeding area, helping to preserve fish stocks...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by Brian Peacock » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:24 pm

Don't forget geo-thermal and ground source heat exchange Jim!
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by JimC » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:49 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:Don't forget geo-thermal and ground source heat exchange Jim!
And the relatively simple solution of increasing the number of homes with their own solar panels (plus solar hot water if possible), with a certain amount of battery storage (like the new Tesla units). This (particularly with the evening-out effect of batteries) can take a lot of strain of the electricity supply network of any country...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:23 am

JimC wrote:
Hermit wrote:

Care to quote some figures on that? I suggest you start with the area occupied by wind turbines for their exclusive use, then give us an analysis of how many square miles of territory photovoltaic panels will need for their exclusive use for the balance of electricity generation needs.
And it's even better than that. Certainly with wind turbines, there is no need to have exclusive land use at all - normal agricultural use can and does happen on land covered by wind turbines (as well as natural, low scrub ecosystems...).
I reckon Hermit knows that and was literally referring to the small footprint of the wind turbine pole. Outside of that footprint, the land can be used for any number of purposes, as you mentioned.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by Hermit » Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:24 am

pErvin wrote:
JimC wrote:
Hermit wrote:Care to quote some figures on that? I suggest you start with the area occupied by wind turbines for their exclusive use, then give us an analysis of how many square miles of territory photovoltaic panels will need for their exclusive use for the balance of electricity generation needs.
And it's even better than that. Certainly with wind turbines, there is no need to have exclusive land use at all - normal agricultural use can and does happen on land covered by wind turbines (as well as natural, low scrub ecosystems...).
I reckon Hermit knows that and was literally referring to the small footprint of the wind turbine pole. Outside of that footprint, the land can be used for any number of purposes, as you mentioned.
Yes. I mentioned that about a month ago, complete with pretty pictures of pasture, sea and windmills in this post.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by Scot Dutchy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:14 am

Heat pumps are very effective. My office was heated by one. It was so efficient that we were able to put power back into the grid.
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by Tero » Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:53 am

https://thinkprogress.org/clean-coal-is ... a3e2841060
“Carbon capture and sequestration does not work. It’s a pseudonym for ‘no coal,’” the CEO of Murray Energy, the country’s largest privately held coal-mining company, told E&E News.
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), also called carbon capture and storage, is the process of trapping carbon dioxide from a power plant (during or after burning a hydrocarbon like coal) and then storing it permanently, usually underground.
It’s a technically challenging and expensive process — especially problematic in an era of cheap natural gas and renewable energy. Mississippi pulled the plug on one of the country’s biggest CCS efforts last month after the company spent billions on trying, and failing, to make it work.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by pErvinalia » Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:55 am

Coal execs (and scientists) here in Australia have said largely the same thing. It's a pipe dream that it will ever be economically feasible.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6326
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: Trump and coal mines

Post by Tyrannical » Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:01 am

Trump plans on jump starting the US steel industry, and you need coal to make steel.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests