• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Coal use growing world wide

Chainsawmassacre said:
You confirm what I said when you said:

"after considering environmental, legal, constraints".


Chainsawmassacre said:
Democrats have made it difficult to mine coal at all in America
Click to expand...


No. My saying "after considering environmental, legal, constraints" did not confirm your claim. It was part and parcel of the evidence of fact that refuted your claim.

You said, as I quoted you, "to(o) difficult", not simply difficult. I gave evidence of fact that environmental, legal and technological constraints are not too difficult because we have the #1 proven extractable (meaning not too difficult to extract) reserves in the world. Not only is your claim unfounded for lack of evidence, only supported by your opinion, I've refuted your claim, meaning your claim has been proven false. As is refuted your claim "...difficult to mine coal at all in America"
 
"difficult to mine coal at all in America" as in overly restrictive environmental regulations which make coal very expensive to use. Add the regulatory cost to the cost of production and coal becomes artificially expensive. Kind of kills the incentive to open and operate mines.
 


So, you've gone from "at all" to "Kind of". Meaning, you yourself have changed your claim. Meaning, your claim original claim is unfounded.

Such as artificially expensive would translate to what is the proven extractable by the evidence of fact I gave. So, whatever may be what you call "artificial" (I guess any regulatory action of any kind. For instance, health reg to prevent black lung disease), does not significantly impact the fact the the US has more extractible coal as is saleable than any other country in the world. You've lost your main claim and now your follow-up claim. Debate close.
 
And he declares himself the winner. LOL
 
Hydro is extremely damaging to the environment. The end of free flowing rivers, salmon runs, millions of acres flooded.
No free lunch.
 
longview said:
I agree, I do not see how we can move to where a point of sustainability energy, without nuclear power filling the gap!
Click to expand...
I'm fervently anti nuke. Waste is piling up and is dangerous for thousands of years. That not a gift I want to leave future generations. The nuke installations themselves are inherently dangerous and I'm a firm believer in Murphy's law. I also think if America ever got in a real war we would provide juicy targets with nuke plants all over America.
We have no shortage of fossil fuels and should put our time and money into burning them and extracting them as clean and green as possible until we find something better.
 

The relative wealth and comfort of mankind realized since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is based on the use and development of Fossil Fuels.

If Fossil Fuels were to be eliminated from use tomorrow, there would be famine and pestilence killing about 6 Billion people over the next few months.

Those unfortunate enough to NOT die immediately following the abrupt end of fossil fuel use would be killed by the roving gangs of plunderers killing for food and power.

Our world would be immediately transported back to the time of feudal despotism and Dark Age plagues. Simply burying or burning the dead would be the all encompassing occupation of the survivors.

Ignoring that undeniable truth of fossil fuels and the unavoidable outcome if they were eliminated immediately, we must acknowledge that Fossil Fuels are a curse on mankind.

So, there's that...
 
I do not think that we will have a choice!
And fossil fuels can only take us so far.
The best option in the near term is to find a way of doing nuclear power safely.
 
Double edged sword like everything else in life
 

Isn't that called "nuclear"? Which has a much, much, much, much, much higher density of energy per kg mass of the fuel.

longview said:
Only when a viable replacement that cost less is available, will the global demand shift!
Click to expand...

Seems like it's already here.
 


No one is [proposing their use be stopped immediately. Fail.
 
mar_cline said:
Isn't that called "nuclear"? Which has a much, much, much, much, much higher density of energy per kg mass of the fuel.



Seems like it's already here.
Click to expand...
Not quite yet, and nuclear power is only portable on a large scale!
 
Manc Skipper said:
No one is [proposing their use be stopped immediately. Fail.
Click to expand...

In the real world, no one is proposing they be ended at all.

The only proposals concern the transfer of money and are entirely unrelated to the reduction of the exploitation of fossil fuels or their wide spread use.

Are you seriously not aware of this?

China and India are expanding the use of Coal and are bringing another coal fired plant online about every week or so.

China and India are not constrained by any international emissions agreement.

This entire hoax is constructed and maintained by Globalists who are interested only in reducing the envy they hold for others who have more cash than they do.

Buying Carbon Credits is the most enlightening way to expose the sham for what it is.

What Is Cap and Trade? Policy, Examples, and Effectiveness

Cap and trade is an emissions reduction strategy in which emissions are capped and can be traded amongst firms. Learn about this policy's history.
www.treehugger.com
 
longview said:
Not quite yet, and nuclear power is only portable on a large scale!
Click to expand...

Given that coal has largely the same limitation and that electric vehicles exist. portability is not really an issue at this time
 
mar_cline said:
Given that coal has largely the same limitation and that electric vehicles exist. portability is not really an issue at this time
Click to expand...
Battery electric cars, batteries are a long way from viable airlines, ships, and long haul trucks!
 

The difficulty in making people do things that don't make sense is that people don't like to be made to do things that don't make sense.

When the alternative energy sources make more sense to use than the traditional sources, the alternative sources will be employed and the traditional sources discarded.

No huge government program required. Horse drawn carriages were not mandated away. They were "technologied" away.
 
Excellent point. Mandated away and becoming obsolete are two entirely different things that leftist can’t seem to distinguish from.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
And he declares himself the winner. LOL
Click to expand...


I don't know what you mean. You can't refute a single thing I said. Cite a quote of mine and give evidence against. Your post is a single whip of a wet noodle.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
For the sake of argument lets say mans use of fossil fuel is warming the planet and the results will be catastrophic for humanity. Now lets say Biden and democrats succeed in virtually eliminating fossil fuels in America. Would that change anything?
Click to expand...
Let's not just completely disregard science "for the sake of argument." There are numerous peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate temperature increases precede increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide by 800 ± 200 years. So the increases we are seeing today in atmospheric CO2 are the result of the Medieval Warming Period that occurred between 950 AD and 1250 AD.

That is great news for the Usibelli Coal Mine in Alaska. We've got six operational coal power plants in Alaska, plus UCM already sells coal to Japan, South Korea, Chile, and Taiwan.

Coal can be burned rather cleanly and efficiently these days. These are not the coal power plants built during the 19th century with no controls. With oil and natural gas running out in Cook Inlet and the Matanuska-Sustina Valley, we may have to go back to building more coal power plants because it is the only source of fuel we have left.
 

The MWP may not have been global in extent so you can't really use that as a marker. But, indeed, there's so much peer reviewed science that indicates that the warming we see today is in large part due exactly to human activities.

Glitch said:
Coal can be burned rather cleanly and efficiently these days.
Click to expand...

Not that cleanly. Yes it is much cleaner than earlier days but those means were hard-won. Scrubbers to remove sulfates came about as a function of acid rain which many of the same hired "doubt merchants" currently active fighting against climate change science were hired on to fight against the idea of acid rain. They were wrong then as well. Thankfully we developed a system to work through that despite the calls by denialists to not deal with it.

But those scrubbers aren't cheap. We've accepted the cost now, but it definitely had costs.

There's parts of the coal combustion cycle which cannot be made cleaner. Fly ash still has to be dealt with. And even up-stack emissions are not perfect.

Coal is an exceptionally dirty fuel. It's really neat chemistry but a really nasty fuel.



We do have nuclear.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
For the sake of argument lets say mans use of fossil fuel is warming the planet and the results will be catastrophic for humanity. Now lets say Biden and democrats succeed in virtually eliminating fossil fuels in America. Would that change anything?
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument can we assume that America is not the only nation that reduces carbon emissions?
 
It is laughably, objectively false to claim that humans have not increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

Only someone deliberately engaging in deception could write such a thing. What is your motivation for this?
 
Deuce said:
For the sake of argument can we assume that America is not the only nation that reduces carbon emissions?
Click to expand...
What we can assume and in fact know with certainty is as we reduce our carbon emissions others will increase theirs.
 
Chainsawmassacre said:
What we can assume and in fact know with certainty is as we reduce our carbon emissions others will increase theirs.
Click to expand...

I reject the premise. There's no magic law of physics that prevents carbon emission reductions.

OP rejected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…