The stupidity of bringing back big Coal

Strange, but I see nothing at all on this thread quoting Hardball.

EDIT:
Sorry, my mistake. I have "Hairball" (not "Hardball") on my ignore list, and I guess the ignore function has changed. In the earlier version of this site, a notification that a post was being ignored was displayed. I guess in this version, it doesn't. Hairball is one of the few posters that I have on Ignore.

 

Here's a test you can perform; buy some coal, bring your BBQ inside of your garage, place the coal in the BBQ and ignite the coal, then close all the doors and windows in your garage...give us a report after some time in this environment about how 'green' and healthy you believe coal is?

Of course, hopefully, you're not so stupid to perform such a test since you have been told the consequences of such a test will be deadly...the results WILL NOT be GREEN...they will be deadly...

 

You ignored the sulfur dioxide (which when combined with the water in the air becomes sulfuric acid) and nitrogen oxide (which when combined with the water in the air becomes nitric acid). Those kill plants and eat metal.

Natural gas burns fairly cleanly with carbon dioxide and water as the main combustion products. It's the future of power plants. Coal is the past.

 

I've burned free coal in my garage many times. It puts out a lot of heat.

 

China and India have a voracious appetite for coal.

 

Natural gas prices have risen making coal attractive again. Coal exports are also up.

 

The 19th century was the century of coal. The 20th century was the century of oil. The 21st century is the century of natural gas. Too soon to know what the 22nd century's primary energy source will be.

 

CEOs of coal mining companies have said they will not be hiring miners and that with the current level of automation, which is extensive, there are fewer injuries and deaths in the industry. And you say they are wrong and will hire miners. LOL!!!!!!

 

Hiring = no hiring. Liberal logic 101.

 

Coal is cheaper then natural gas if you get rid of all the rules/ regulations , the 40 year war on coal...



Only a lefty would think a cheap product cost to much when you tax and regulate it to death >>>>see the price of cigarettes from $12 bucks a pack plus in some blue cities ..


.

 

$13 in NY I hear.

 

That would be your logic, but I don't believe you're a liberal. Liberals are generally smart.

 

If you want Chinese level air pollution, coal is cheaper. We gave up on that in the 1970s.

Also, I'm not a lefty. I'm a conservative Republican. I'm just a realist, and realistically in the U.S. coal is dead. It's old technology.

 

It is immoral to deny third world countries the benefits of inexpensive energy sources available 24/7/365.

The immorality and lack of concern for the health and well being of third world citizens of the globe is on display with their irrational insistence on subsidized green energy sources of the present (btw this process of subsidization effectively delays the development of other alternative and inexpensive technologies which could compete on an economic basis).

And of course we see the preoccupation of the progressive liberal left with the evil Trump. Trump Derangement Syndrome at it's finest.

 

No surprise you refused to answer the question of what happens in a CLOSED environment...

 

Of course they do and why not? The USA burns coal so why not everyone else?

 

Coal and mining, and other dinosaur jobs/industries can have some 'temporary' upside but they are dead in the long term...

 

What closed environment?

 

Explain that to the countries with the highest percentage of renewables and the highest energy costs like Germany. Poor people? Sacrificial for the ideology.

 

Try reading some stuff;

https://thinkprogress.org/germany-s...wer-needs-from-renewable-energy-6ca91febc44e/

 

Same to ya!

FTA:

 

It is good in a way because we have a 400 year supply of coal waiting in the wings.

 

We do



https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gr...blem-with-the-german-energiewende-in-3-charts


The Money Problem With Germany’s Renewable Energy Law in 3 Charts



Graph 3: The bill


Source: Agora Energiewende

While regulators cut the FIT price by half between 2010 and 2012, the huge amount of solar built blew up the EEG-Umlage, the surcharge customers pay to cover the above-market costs of the FIT. It doubled between 2010 and 2013.

The third graph, taken from a new online calculator developed by the group Agora Energiewende, shows the size and components of the surcharge. Solar is gold in the graph, with past installations in shaded gold and expected new installations in solid gold.

The solar portion of the surcharge rose from €3.35 billion in 2010 to €6.84 billion in 2011 and €8.68 billion by 2013. The total Umlage rose to almost €25 billion this year, though €4 billion of that is the “liquidity reserve,” shown in solid red, a fund to cover errors in estimation. This excess will be refunded to consumers, driving down the Umlage for the next few years.

Still, the Umlage will rise as new renewables come on-line, albeit at a more gradual pace as regulators impose “corridors,” or growth targets. The energy ministry expects the EEG surcharge to rise to 7.7 euro cents by 2020, with the Centre for European Economic Research pegging it at 8.3 euro cents. With FIT contracts in effect for twenty years, the surcharge won’t come down to stay anytime soon.

 

Where I live it was required to have 30% of all energy created from green energy sources...the costs to all users has gone down...

 

Why don't we spend our money and hot air scrubbing the CO2 fumes from coal fired power plants? I don't see anything wrong with burning coal as long as we scrub the emissions...