Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump promised to bring back coal jobs. That promise ‘will not be kept,’ experts say.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • III Corps
    replied
    Originally posted by Persephone View Post
    ...we made them a promise...
    Who is "we" and what was "promised"?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    From what I have read China and India are the biggest consumers of coal, China has been build a lot of nuclear power plants and gas fired generators systems.
    Yes we are a fraction of the world but we have an enormous supply of coal. We also have an enormous amount of natural gas that has not been developed because as of now there isn't enough demand to make it profitable.
    One might also note that pollution in China has become an issue that they are now trying to deal with... Now because their economy has room to bear the costs of environmental clean up. India's will to as the population's affluence grows.

    What the environmentalists in the West want is no longer an economically viable approach to pollution, but rather a politically based set of solutions they have set as their personal agenda. It doesn't matter that their choices may wreck the lives of millions or hurt the economy overall, because they don't see it hurting them personally. It has become self-righteous narcissism on the part of affluent Progressives to push an environmentalist agenda in the West. As George Carlin put it, "they want a clean place to live."

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    What guys? Imperialists AND Marxists both ?
    ...and environmentalists

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    There is a theory that this was the intended result, the actual goal of all those treaties; To hold the 3rd world down, and keep it down under the atavistic thumb of the remnants of Imperial Colonialism.
    What kind of mind could conceive of such a travesty?
    The kind that believes that wealth is finite, and must be taken from someone else.
    You know, the kind of philosophy that is rooted in Marxist class-envy.
    Yeah, those guys.
    What guys? Imperialists AND Marxists both ?

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    One of the experts cited by the WP is Paul Bledsoe,labelled by Politico as an independent energy and climate consultant,but who worked for Clinton at the White House and who said in may 2016 in the WP that the Climate Change issue would help Hillary .

    Thus the ecpected Democratic leftwing expert .

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by Admiral View Post
    Geez, the USA is not but a tiny fraction of the rest of the planet. And upcoming nations don't have the cash to pay for such - currently - high costs per BTU power as the leading nations are willing to expend due to ridiculous treaties & regulation they have essentially been forced or coerced into. The upcoming nations simply can't even afford to pay the costs added to a source of power (that they can afford) just because of some seriously stupid environmental treaties.

    Until the high cost per BTU of newer technologies falls dramatically, coal is not gonna disappear as a source of energy in most of our lifetimes, at the very least. Coal can be exported, too. Nobody really expects coal to return to anything remotely what it once was, but it is a loooong way from dead as peeps keep inplyin, or outright sayin.

    There is a theory that this was the intended result, the actual goal of all those treaties; To hold the 3rd world down, and keep it down under the atavistic thumb of the remnants of Imperial Colonialism.
    What kind of mind could conceive of such a travesty?
    The kind that believes that wealth is finite, and must be taken from someone else.
    You know, the kind of philosophy that is rooted in Marxist class-envy.
    Yeah, those guys.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    From the US Energy Information Administration:

    Major energy sources and percent shares of total US electricity generation in 2015

    COAL 33

    Natural gas 33

    Nuclear 20

    Hydropower 6

    Other renewables 7

    Petroleum 1

    Other gases > 1

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-experts-say/

    I don't know enough to about the energy business so hopefully The Doctor will have some insights to the claims of this article.

    I know enough about the Washington Post to doubt the seriousness and even the existence of these experts .

    Leave a comment:


  • Persephone
    replied
    Bringing back coal jobs is right up there with saving the pensions of approx 23,000 retired coal miners....we made them a promise....KEEP IT damn it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pruitt
    replied
    Much of the call for using coal in power generating plants was because it seems natural gas was a finite resource and we had plenty of coal. Fracking has proved the scarcity of natural gas was wrong.

    There is a large generating plant West of Westlake, Louisiana called the Nelson Coal Plant. I worked there while they were building the coal fired plant. Before they were bringing oil in by barge. Oil barges are nasty and leak a lot! Some of the worst environmental damage in Calcasieu Parish was done by shipping oil in using leaky transport. They are now bringing in Wyoming Brown Coal that is low Sulphur. I could see them building a new unit using gas because the coal plant was only designed to be used for twenty years. It has now been going for more than thirty years. The expanding limit was because they found a use for the coal ash produced.

    Pruitt

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-experts-say/

    I don't know enough to about the energy business so hopefully The Doctor will have some insights to the claims of this article.
    An acquaintance of mine is an engineer for a large energy company (and works at the second largest (at least when it was built) coal plant in the country (now zero emissions), and all the talk there is of expanding into gas. Personally, I am against that as it certainly means much higher home heating bills, but the "Company" is all gaga over it. They also a built a large wind farm in the Thumb and wish they hadn't. It's been a nightmare of maintenance issues (including deaths and field fires). There is some interest in solar power, but only as an adjunct. But to return to the subject, coal is seen as passe.

    That said, there are other uses for coal than just power generation.

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    From what I have read China and India are the biggest consumers of coal, China has been build a lot of nuclear power plants and gas fired generators systems.
    Yes we are a fraction of the world but we have an enormous supply of coal. We also have an enormous amount of natural gas that has not been developed because as of now there isn't enough demand to make it profitable.

    Leave a comment:


  • Admiral
    replied
    Geez, the USA is not but a tiny fraction of the rest of the planet. And upcoming nations don't have the cash to pay for such - currently - high costs per BTU power as the leading nations are willing to expend due to ridiculous treaties & regulation they have essentially been forced or coerced into. The upcoming nations simply can't even afford to pay the costs added to a source of power (that they can afford) just because of some seriously stupid environmental treaties.

    Until the high cost per BTU of newer technologies falls dramatically, coal is not gonna disappear as a source of energy in most of our lifetimes, at the very least. Coal can be exported, too. Nobody really expects coal to return to anything remotely what it once was, but it is a loooong way from dead as peeps keep inplyin, or outright sayin.

    Last edited by Admiral; 29 Mar 17, 20:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    By now, most people are aware of President Obama’s 2008 campaign promise to bankrupt the coal industry—which he acknowledged would “necessarily” cause electricity to skyrocket. Seven years later, that is a campaign promise he is keeping.


    Since moving into the White House, Obama has used bureaucratic weapons and administrative agencies to assault America’s coal industry. Between 2008 and 2012, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports 50,000 coal jobs were lost—that number would certainly be much greater today. West Virginia has been hit particularly hard with unemployment rates in double digits. Addressing the job losses, the Charleston Gazette-Mail blames the “liberal environmental policies that have accelerated coal’s decline”—which it says have left “hard working men and women” jobless.

    In addition to the job losses, Obama’s policies—such as the Regional Haze rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, and the Clean Power Plan—have “helped spur the closing of dozens of coal plants across the country,” according to Politico. The November 2015 report states: “More than one in five coal-related jobs have disappeared during Obama’s presidency, and several major U.S. coal mining companies have announced this year that they would or may soon seek bankruptcy protection.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...n-an-industry/

    Leave a comment:


  • ThoseDeafMutes
    replied
    Both production and consumption of coal had already been declining for years prior to anything Obama had done. The decline in jobs was inevitable alongside declines in productivity and resource availability. Reversing any policy decisions he made therefore can only partially stem the decline, not reverse it.

    It was a smart tactical decision to promise that he could do it, though. Hillary's statements about not being able to bring the jobs back and about how the clean energy future would continue to diminish coal mining industries was a small relational disaster, despite being true. Making vague promises that she would be trying to look after these communities as jobs shrunk did not resonate at all, while Trump's bold pronouncements that he would make the jobs come back was an extremely seductive idea.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X