Coal use growing world wide

[bluesmoke]

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

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"

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

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.

 

[bluesmoke]

"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.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

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

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

Hydro is cheaper, solar and wind are getting closer. Add in the environmental costs and they are much cheaper. In 2014, many northern Chinese cities had extremely high levels of particulates in the air. You could not see across the street because of the pollution. Generally from coal being burned to provide heat ( steam for radiant heating

Hydro is extremely damaging to the environment. The end of free flowing rivers, salmon runs, millions of acres flooded.
No free lunch.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

I agree, I do not see how we can move to where a point of sustainability energy, without nuclear power filling the gap!

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.

 

[code1211]

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?

"China, the world’s top coal consumer, is in dire need of more supply and is willing to pay any price — a move that threatens to leave less fuel for energy-starved rivals.
With winter on the way for the northern hemisphere and natural gas prices at record levels, economies across the globe are competing for a finite supply of coal. At the center of the scramble is China, where stockpiles are low and demand is at an all-time high.

The dirtiest fossil fuel, which was struggling against cleaner energy sources, is now seeing its biggest comeback ever, complicating international climate talks set to begin in just a few weeks.
China will expand coal procurement at "any price to ensure heating and power generation in winter,” the China Electricity Council said in a statement Monday. While more than 90% of the fuel the country uses is mined locally, it’s difficult to raise local output at short notice.
European coal has risen to a 13-year high, and Australian Newcastle coal has surged by 250% from last September to within range of the record set in 2008. Chinese thermal coal futures on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange rose as much as 3.6% Wednesday to reach an intraday record for a third straight session."

Coal prices rising worldwide as China struggles to meet its growing demand

The dirtiest fossil fuel, which was struggling against cleaner energy sources, is now seeing its biggest comeback ever, complicating climate talks just weeks away.

www.japantimes.co.jp

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...

 

[longview]

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.

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.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

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...

Double edged sword like everything else in life

 

[mar_cline]

If a problem exist with extra CO2, the only way to solve it is to address the cause of the emissions!
We emit CO2 because of our demand for energy.
Until we have a way to carry energy in a package equal or better than the energy density we get from fossil fuels, and for lower costs!

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

Only when a viable replacement that cost less is available, will the global demand shift!

Seems like it's already here.

 

[Manc Skipper]

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...

No one is [proposing their use be stopped immediately. Fail.

 

[longview]

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.

Not quite yet, and nuclear power is only portable on a large scale!

 

[code1211]

No one is [proposing their use be stopped immediately. Fail.

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

 

[mar_cline]

Not quite yet, and nuclear power is only portable on a large scale!

Given that coal has largely the same limitation and that electric vehicles exist. portability is not really an issue at this time

 

[longview]

Given that coal has largely the same limitation and that electric vehicles exist. portability is not really an issue at this time

Battery electric cars, batteries are a long way from viable airlines, ships, and long haul trucks!

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

Coal isn’t going away soon

Climate change: Why Australia refuses to give up coal - BBC News

Australia is the only rich nation still wedded to coal, despite urgent calls to stop its use.

www.bbc.com

 

[code1211]

Coal isn’t going away soon

Climate change: Why Australia refuses to give up coal - BBC News

Australia is the only rich nation still wedded to coal, despite urgent calls to stop its use.

www.bbc.com

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.

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

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.

 

[bluesmoke]

And he declares himself the winner. LOL

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.

 

[Glitch]

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?

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.

"China, the world’s top coal consumer, is in dire need of more supply and is willing to pay any price — a move that threatens to leave less fuel for energy-starved rivals.
With winter on the way for the northern hemisphere and natural gas prices at record levels, economies across the globe are competing for a finite supply of coal. At the center of the scramble is China, where stockpiles are low and demand is at an all-time high.

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.

The dirtiest fossil fuel, which was struggling against cleaner energy sources, is now seeing its biggest comeback ever, complicating international climate talks set to begin in just a few weeks.
China will expand coal procurement at "any price to ensure heating and power generation in winter,” the China Electricity Council said in a statement Monday. While more than 90% of the fuel the country uses is mined locally, it’s difficult to raise local output at short notice.
European coal has risen to a 13-year high, and Australian Newcastle coal has surged by 250% from last September to within range of the record set in 2008. Chinese thermal coal futures on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange rose as much as 3.6% Wednesday to reach an intraday record for a third straight session."

Coal prices rising worldwide as China struggles to meet its growing demand

The dirtiest fossil fuel, which was struggling against cleaner energy sources, is now seeing its biggest comeback ever, complicating climate talks just weeks away.

www.japantimes.co.jp

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.

 

[mar_cline]

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.

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.

Coal can be burned rather cleanly and efficiently these days.

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.

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.

We do have nuclear.

 

[Deuce]

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?

For the sake of argument can we assume that America is not the only nation that reduces carbon emissions?

 

[Deuce]

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.

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?

 

[Chainsawmassacre]

For the sake of argument can we assume that America is not the only nation that reduces carbon emissions?

What we can assume and in fact know with certainty is as we reduce our carbon emissions others will increase theirs.

 

[Deuce]

What we can assume and in fact know with certainty is as we reduce our carbon emissions others will increase theirs.

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

OP rejected.