The "war on coal"

T

tommyjo

New Member
If there is a “war on coal,” as Donald Trump and Sen. Mitch McConnell allege, it has been under way for a very long time. In Mr. McConnell’s home state of Kentucky, coal mine employment peaked at 75,633 in 1948. It fell by two-thirds to about 25,000 in the late 1960s, before doubling to more than 50,000 in the late 1970s. It has since fallen virtually without interruption and now stands at 6,465.

Much the same is true for West Virginia, the epicenter of Appalachian angst. The state’s coal industry employed close to 120,000 workers in 1950. By the time John F. Kennedy campaigned against Hubert Humphrey in the state’s 1960 primary, the total stood at less than 50,000. After a temporary recovery in the 1970s and another in the first decade of the current century, about 15,000 remain.

Many forces have combined to decimate coal jobs since their mid-20th century peak. According to a 2014 official report from the state government of Kentucky, the principal culprit has been the “automation and mechanization of mining processes, which have improved mining productivity.” Another factor is “diminishing reserves of thick and easily accessible coal seams.” What remains is “more difficult, labor-intensive, and costly to mine.” A 2012 report from the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, a think tank in Charleston, W.Va., offers much the same account.

As a result, coal faces intensified competitive pressure from natural gas produced through hydraulic fracturing. The U.S. Energy and Information Administration expects this to persist over the next decade.

Both state reports also cite an additional factor: recent federal regulations of greenhouse gases and mercury. But neither regards these policies as a primary cause of coal’s decline. That argument would be absurd on its face, because nearly all the reduction in mining employment occurred before the federal government even began trying to reduce the environmental impact of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hard-truths-for-trumps-america-1473808938
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Then why would Hillary - and others - claim they'd end it, if they have absolutely no power to influence it?

Additionally, if coal's primary competition comes from gas acquired by hydraulic fracturing - the left wants to end THAT too.
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
Then why would Hillary - and others - claim they'd end it, if they have absolutely no power to influence it?

Additionally, if coal's primary competition comes from gas acquired by hydraulic fracturing - the left wants to end THAT too.
Click to expand...

On balance I think most would prefer "green" energy if it were also cheap energy. Just as most coal miners would probably prefer to be installing panels on roofs or building windmills.

I don't have anything against research into new forms of energy, even subsidizing it a bit to help it get off the ground. But at some point things have to compete on cost, accessibility, suitability.

So maybe one day we will all be getting limitless energy from wave capture and solar sails, but today its coal and fracking.

Honestly, Nuclear is the ticket but we still have too many NIMBYs in this country. I believe I have read that recent designs use lesser grade material (literally the discard output from old reactors), produce very little waste, and cannot "melt-down" or have a runaway reaction even if all coolant is stopped. Safe and relatively cheap, but too scary apparently.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Clem72 said:
On balance I think most would prefer "green" energy if it were also cheap energy. Just as most coal miners would probably prefer to be installing panels on roofs or building windmills.

I don't have anything against research into new forms of energy, even subsidizing it a bit to help it get off the ground. But at some point things have to compete on cost, accessibility, suitability.

So maybe one day we will all be getting limitless energy from wave capture and solar sails, but today its coal and fracking.

Honestly, Nuclear is the ticket but we still have too many NIMBYs in this country. I believe I have read that recent designs use lesser grade material (literally the discard output from old reactors), produce very little waste, and cannot "melt-down" or have a runaway reaction even if all coolant is stopped. Safe and relatively cheap, but too scary apparently.
Click to expand...

Those would be the "LFTRs" - liquid flouride thorium reactors. Or "molten salt". They have a few advantages in that -

They can't melt down - they have to be intentionally heated to put out energy, so you just turn it down. It can't get out of control.
They don't produce fissionable material - this was actually part of the reason the technology was NOT pursued fifty years ago. We wanted to make weapons. (The downside is, the waste CAN be reprocessed - at expense - into weapons grade).
Thorium is plentiful. It's actually one of the most plentiful elements on the planet. It's about as common as lead.
By products are not anywhere near as toxic or radioactive.

There are cons as well, but the biggest one seems to be - it's late in the game. Technology has been abandoned for decades.
 
Larry Gude

Larry Gude

Strung Out
SamSpade said:
There are cons as well, but the biggest one seems to be - it's late in the game. Technology has been abandoned for decades.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the con be 'not enough jobs/votes' to be created?

We can have all the cheap, easy. safe electricity we want. We just don't want it.
 
N

nutz

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
Those would be the "LFTRs" - liquid flouride thorium reactors. Or "molten salt". They have a few advantages in that -

They can't melt down - they have to be intentionally heated to put out energy, so you just turn it down. It can't get out of control.
They don't produce fissionable material - this was actually part of the reason the technology was NOT pursued fifty years ago. We wanted to make weapons. (The downside is, the waste CAN be reprocessed - at expense - into weapons grade).
Thorium is plentiful. It's actually one of the most plentiful elements on the planet. It's about as common as lead.
By products are not anywhere near as toxic or radioactive.

There are cons as well, but the biggest one seems to be - it's late in the game. Technology has been abandoned for decades.
Click to expand...

The market is alive, but .....DOE keeps funding and the NRC hurdles get bigger. The NRC licensing process is way too cumbersome and expensive. Getting an older facility relicensed is an almost impossible task. The NRC will give extensions rather freely. Some sites are going on twenty years for renewal and are considered "timely" by the NRC. Waste disposal is a huge problem because DOE won't take it. So, on-site waste storage has to be bigger and bigger.
http://www.gen4energy.com/news_item/gen4-energy-team-completes-doe-advanced-reactor-rd-project-2/
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR/Overview
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/nuscale.html
http://energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors
 
N

nutz

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
nutz said:
Waste disposal is a huge problem because DOE won't take it. So, on-site waste storage has to be bigger and bigger.
Click to expand...



France reprocesses 96% of there Fuel Rods with 4% 'waste'

it is high time the 70's Era Carter Regulations are done away with
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Larry Gude said:
Add to that home model solar charged batteries that mean for $10-20k or so, you'll soon be able to go off grid.

But, we won't want that, either. :lol:
Click to expand...


I keep looking at long term savings with solar - and without subsidies, it always loses money (for me - over the lifetime of the panels).
And I look at all options - lease, buy and so forth. They all lose money over 20-30 years.

Unless the technology changes radically, I don't see solar as ever being more than a whimsy of government to tell themselves they're being "green".
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
I keep looking at long term savings with solar - and without subsidies, it always loses money (for me - over the lifetime of the panels).
And I look at all options - lease, buy and so forth. They all lose money over 20-30 years.

Unless the technology changes radically, I don't see solar as ever being more than a whimsy of government to tell themselves they're being "green".
Click to expand...

There are certainly applications where solar makes sense. I helped a friend setup a hunting cabin with panels (about 1.2KW of panels, a string inverter, charge controller, battery box + batteries, and an 8 amp 110 inverter). Total cost was around $2500, and it runs lighting/well/fridge (peltier style)/ AC all weekend from the charge it gets during the week. Sure, a generator setup might have run half as much but it would require lugging fuel, running the noisy generator when power is needed, building an enclosure, occasional tune-ups, etc.
 
GWguy

GWguy

*
Clem72 said:
There are certainly applications where solar makes sense. I helped a friend setup a hunting cabin with panels (about 1.2KW of panels, a string inverter, charge controller, battery box + batteries, and an 8 amp 110 inverter). Total cost was around $2500, and it runs lighting/well/fridge (peltier style)/ AC all weekend from the charge it gets during the week. Sure, a generator setup might have run half as much but it would require lugging fuel, running the noisy generator when power is needed, building an enclosure, occasional tune-ups, etc.
Click to expand...
That's probably the only application that makes sense, where no other form of electric is readily available.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
GWguy said:
That's the primary reason I don't support solar. Second reason is the very poor ROI by the time you have to perform maintenance and replace batteries.
Click to expand...

About the only case I'd think of is if:

I were buying a NEW house in the Southwest - say, Arizona where the sun is always going to be pretty damned bright.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
SamSpade said:
Those would be the "LFTRs" - liquid flouride thorium reactors. Or "molten salt". They have a few advantages in that -

They can't melt down - they have to be intentionally heated to put out energy, so you just turn it down. It can't get out of control.
They don't produce fissionable material - this was actually part of the reason the technology was NOT pursued fifty years ago. We wanted to make weapons. (The downside is, the waste CAN be reprocessed - at expense - into weapons grade).
Thorium is plentiful. It's actually one of the most plentiful elements on the planet. It's about as common as lead.
By products are not anywhere near as toxic or radioactive.

There are cons as well, but the biggest one seems to be - it's late in the game. Technology has been abandoned for decades.
Click to expand...

I see a lot of houses with those really ugly solar panels on them. I have a question. What happens if your roof starts leaking, or your roof goes bad while they are on there.. Also how long do they last and does the cost of installation actually save you anything if they need replacement. How many years do they have to be there for you to get your investment back?
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Hijinx said:
I see a lot of houses with those really ugly solar panels on them. I have a question. What happens if your roof starts leaking, or your roof goes bad while they are on there.. Also how long do they last and does the cost of installation actually save you anything if they need replacement. How many years do they have to be there for you to get your investment back?
Click to expand...

I spoke with a friend who's having them installed, she said they do assume the responsibility for damages. I asked a lot of the same types of questions.

I think the nail in the coffin was using SMECO's own solar calculator - they present three types of options you'd use, and not a single one resulted in savings over the life of the panels.
The ONLY way they work is if :

a) I use a LOT less electricity or
b) the price of solar panels somehow comes down a LOT

And the thing about #1 is, if I use a LOT less electricity - then I'm already saving money, so why bother?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top