Obama's war on coal

[RKM]

Gina McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, calls for a “war on coal”. What this calls for is a policy that would slash 500,000 jobs, increase electricity costs by 20 percent, and cause a typical family of four to lose more than $1,000 of income a year. Not to mention coal still produces 37 percent of the nation’s electricity and 41 percent of the world’s electricity. This “war” might be (too) expensive to pursue.

 

[tRidiot]

Not surprising... wasn't it Dennis who posted something a week or so ago talking about how they are upping regulations to the point the nation's power plants are going to be run out of business, kinda like the last primary lead ore smelter in Herculaneum, MO?

All in the name of "the environment", all done by the EPA and Presidential order, none of it done by Congress. It's all an Obama mandate, not a general referendum. Once again, he knows best, and the economy and American people be damned.

 

[B Gordon]

Gina McCarthy, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, calls for a “war on coal”. What this calls for is a policy that would slash 500,000 jobs, increase electricity costs by 20 percent, and cause a typical family of four to lose more than $1,000 of income a year. Not to mention coal still produces 37 percent of the nation’s electricity and 41 percent of the world’s electricity. This “war” might be (too) expensive to pursue.

Be very cynical when you her large sweeping numbers quoted on TV or the internet.

Slash 500,000 jobs?
Hard to believe.
When you switch from coal to natural gas you still have the same workers, just in a cleaner environment.
Are you just talking about coal miners that will be put out of work?
How about the huge numbers of new jobs that are being created due to the shale oil and natural gas production that is happening in parts of the country?
Go to West Texas or North Dakota drilling areas and try to find a motel room or place to rent and see for yourself the bonanza that shale field extraction has actually brought about.

Increase electricity rates by 20%???
How much will the electricity rates increase when keeping the present coal fired facilities?
Long term, coal has a higher repair and upgrade cost than natural gas firing.
I know this because the company I work for does repair work on both types of facilities.
Natural gas facilities just chug along, no mess, no fuss, no problems most of the time.
Coal firing is filthy and very hard of the equipment.
My opinion, just like running catalytic converters on our automobiles, we should require ALL coal generating facilities to switch to natural gas within the next 10 years. Most of the coal specific equipment has to be rebuilt and/or upgraded during that time period anyway so why not switch it over while you are rebuilding it anyway?

The 37% production figure could very well be accurate, I have no idea and it is some number tossed out there because you have to have some verifiable number when you make claims to make the rest of your crap sound more correct.

 

[tRidiot]

My opinion, just like running catalytic converters on our automobiles, we should require ALL coal generating facilities to switch to natural gas within the next 10 years. Most of the coal specific equipment has to be rebuilt and/or upgraded during that time period anyway so why not switch it over while you are rebuilding it anyway?

If it were truly cost-effective and more efficient to just switch like you're saying, wouldn't the free market have shifted that way on its own? People don't stick with coal-burning plants simply for nostalgia... if converting is going to make them more money in the longrun, it's going to happen without being government mandated.

 

[Lurker66]

If it were truly cost-effective and more efficient to just switch like you're saying, wouldn't the free market have shifted that way on its own? People don't stick with coal-burning plants simply for nostalgia... if converting is going to make them more money in the longrun, it's going to happen without being government mandated.

Think of it as pitting one company against another. Both produce the same thing for "maybe" the same cost. One is dirtier than the other. We have an abundance of both sources.

I look at it as a progression of industries. If we wouldnt have ran out of whales, we woulda never moved to coal.

If gas is truely more efficient and cost effective, they will have to overcome a long and powerful Govt lobby.......only to be replaced by a different powerful lobby.

Trust me, whether coal or gas wins out, our electric bill will go up.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

I'm a big fan of nuclear...

 

[calixt0]

its funny to me that he's declared a war on coal. If i remember correctly when he was campaigning for the first elections the touted how much coal we had and how we should get off foreign oil... even that coal was "clean energy" done properly.

 

[tRidiot]

its funny to me that he's declared a war on coal. If i remember correctly when he was campaigning for the first elections the touted how much coal we had and how we should get off foreign oil... even that coal was "clean energy" done properly.

I don't remember that part, but I don't pay attention to most of the BS spouted by politicians. I need to look and see if there's any archives of this.

 

[B Gordon]

If it were truly cost-effective and more efficient to just switch like you're saying, wouldn't the free market have shifted that way on its own? People don't stick with coal-burning plants simply for nostalgia... if converting is going to make them more money in the longrun, it's going to happen without being government mandated.

You are correct in that it is NOT that simple and actually the government is partially the culprit (like that is a surprise).
There are probably other factors but two that I know about are;

government regulations concerning "new" construction -vs- maintenance.
and
difficulties to get government approval for new pipelines as well as landowner right of way issues.

A facility that utilizes the volume of natural gas that a gas fired facility does requires a decent size gas pipeline. Don't forget that a lot of the coal fired facilities are in parts of the country where natural gas pipelines are not as common as they are in Oklahoma and Texas. The Keystone oil pipeline is an example of the government red tape that it takes to build a pipeline. Coal gets freighted in by rail car and has been for at least 100 years. East of the Mississippi where the population density is higher overall it is way tougher to get right of way to run natural gas pipelines because power generation facilities are normally near a good water source and a population center. No way would any company build a new facility without the feed stock being squared away before hand.

The cost effective way to do a natural gas fired power generation facility is to simply build a new one next to an existing coal fired facility and keep running the old coal fired unit right up until you are forced to shut it down by either regulation of maintenance expenses. Sort of like buying a new car for the wife to drive but still driving the old car till it is not cost effective to pay for repairs. The problem with that good idea is that government red tape for "new construction" is unbelievably complicated and convoluted, which forces the facilities to try to switch over the existing units, costing huge amounts of down time and additional expense.

What we really have is the government declaring war on 100 years of government regulation and red tape.

 

[crrcboatz]

Sorry but the below statement is clearly made by someone that does not know much about electricity generated by coal. Both my sons are mining engineers for large coal companies. Each has over 15 yrs in the business. Each has well defined and experienced knowledge in the generation of power using coal. One is in charge of 3 coal mines and a power plant. The other runs the largest surface coal mine east of the Mississippi. That said here is some information for you to cut your teeth on sir.

1. For each mega watt( I believe that is the term) of power it takes $4.80 to $6 of natural gas to generate it. For the same amount of coal it takes $1.18 Do the math and you will see what the public is facing. Now jump ahead to 10 yrs from now when natural gas could easily be $9 vs the 4.80 or so while the same coal contracts are still $1.18. Do the math. Consumers will take a hit like nothing they have ever seen.
2. The railroad industry will take a powerful hit when coal is replaced. My oldest son states the drop in revenue for them could easily reach 40% when the dust settles. Now the effects of it to Caterpillar, trucking which transports about 16% of the coal, support industries of all the mines that is currently contracted out, mineral rights to land owners, etc. The list goes on, and on.
3. Natural gas plants do emit co2 gasses. My oldest son is a member of the National Mining Institute's advisory counsel. They meet 4 times a yr in Washington with lobbyists. He will tell you this entire anti coal was "fueled" by Aubry Mc Clendon. He has poured multi millions into anti coal. He simply wants his empty pockets lined at any cost. You and I will surely do that. Our own governor in Oklahoma signed a directive closing the Oologah coal fired plant by 2020. The first boilers will close beginning 2016. She is in the back pocket of Mc Clendon. I can provide just about any information you want on Coal generated Electricity. Let me know what you need to know and my son can get it for you. Just please don't make uninformed statements about an industry you obviously know little about. I will be glad to help.

Be very cynical when you her large sweeping numbers quoted on TV or the internet.

Slash 500,000 jobs?
Hard to believe.
When you switch from coal to natural gas you still have the same workers, just in a cleaner environment.
Are you just talking about coal miners that will be put out of work?
How about the huge numbers of new jobs that are being created due to the shale oil and natural gas production that is happening in parts of the country?
Go to West Texas or North Dakota drilling areas and try to find a motel room or place to rent and see for yourself the bonanza that shale field extraction has actually brought about.

Increase electricity rates by 20%???
How much will the electricity rates increase when keeping the present coal fired facilities?
Long term, coal has a higher repair and upgrade cost than natural gas firing.
I know this because the company I work for does repair work on both types of facilities.
Natural gas facilities just chug along, no mess, no fuss, no problems most of the time.
Coal firing is filthy and very hard of the equipment.
My opinion, just like running catalytic converters on our automobiles, we should require ALL coal generating facilities to switch to natural gas within the next 10 years. Most of the coal specific equipment has to be rebuilt and/or upgraded during that time period anyway so why not switch it over while you are rebuilding it anyway?

The 37% production figure could very well be accurate, I have no idea and it is some number tossed out there because you have to have some verifiable number when you make claims to make the rest of your crap sound more correct.