• 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!

US coal output forecast to fall despite Trump revival efforts

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
53,022
Reaction score
14,649
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From The Financial Times

US coal output forecast to fall despite Trump revival efforts

US coal production is expected to fall even faster than if the Obama administration’s climate policy had taken effect, according to official projections, underlining the difficulties facing President Donald Trump in his aspirations to revive the industry. The government’s Energy Information Administration projected in its latest annual outlook that US coal production would drop 21 per cent over the next 20 years.

That is an even steeper decline than the 18 per cent drop that it forecast two years ago, under the assumption that Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan would come into force.

Concerns about the long-term outlook for coal have added to the financial pressures on US mining companies. Westmoreland Coal filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last October, and shares in Cloud Peak Energy have lost more than 90 per cent of their value over the past year.

The coal producers that have been through bankruptcy in the past five years, shedding most of their debts and re-emerging on to the stock market, have fared better. But since August shares in Peabody Energy have fallen by 15 per cent and in Contura Energy by 16 per cent.

COMMENT:-

Who would have thought that "Beautiful Clean Coal" would be so complicated?​
 

Common Sense 1

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
17,571
Reaction score
12,284
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Hope and Change in an Alabama Coal Mine

Buoyed by President Trump’s support for the industry, a veteran miner is putting his cash on the line and reopening his business.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/trump-coal-alabama/566282/

'He Has Our Back': Coal Miner Praises Trump for Ending Obama's War on Coal
New EPA rules to be released this week.
https://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/20/trump-ending-obama-war-coal-west-virginia-miner-praises-new-plan

Trump, Coal Miners Celebrate Resurgence in West Virginia
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-coal-miners-celebrate-resurgence-in-west-virginia_2630286.html


If the Obama-era plan for coal was still in effect there would be no new jobs now. Trump has changed that. Coal mining is still decreasing but no where near what it would have been under Obama policies.
Trump has helped that industry.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
53,022
Reaction score
14,649
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Hope and Change in an Alabama Coal Mine

Buoyed by President Trump’s support for the industry, a veteran miner is putting his cash on the line and reopening his business.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/trump-coal-alabama/566282/

'He Has Our Back': Coal Miner Praises Trump for Ending Obama's War on Coal
New EPA rules to be released this week.
https://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/20/trump-ending-obama-war-coal-west-virginia-miner-praises-new-plan

Trump, Coal Miners Celebrate Resurgence in West Virginia
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-coal-miners-celebrate-resurgence-in-west-virginia_2630286.html


If the Obama-era plan for coal was still in effect there would be no new jobs now. Trump has changed that. Coal mining is still decreasing but no where near what it would have been under Obama policies.
Trump has helped that industry.

I agree, losing more slowly is the same thing as winning.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
39,629
Reaction score
13,584
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
From The Financial Times

US coal output forecast to fall despite Trump revival efforts

US coal production is expected to fall even faster than if the Obama administration’s climate policy had taken effect, according to official projections, underlining the difficulties facing President Donald Trump in his aspirations to revive the industry. The government’s Energy Information Administration projected in its latest annual outlook that US coal production would drop 21 per cent over the next 20 years.

That is an even steeper decline than the 18 per cent drop that it forecast two years ago, under the assumption that Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan would come into force.

Concerns about the long-term outlook for coal have added to the financial pressures on US mining companies. Westmoreland Coal filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last October, and shares in Cloud Peak Energy have lost more than 90 per cent of their value over the past year.

The coal producers that have been through bankruptcy in the past five years, shedding most of their debts and re-emerging on to the stock market, have fared better. But since August shares in Peabody Energy have fallen by 15 per cent and in Contura Energy by 16 per cent.

COMMENT:-

Who would have thought that "Beautiful Clean Coal" would be so complicated?​
I have lived near a coal plant, and beautiful and clean are not adjectives that come to mind.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
33,046
Reaction score
32,841
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because no one is paying attention to market dynamics, energy usage trends, and energy source trends.

The numbers from the EIA do not quite line up to the article highlights (that I can see being a subscription service - Financial Times) but it does suggest there is a real decline in Coal use despite the applicable regulation changes that Trump reversed. Everyone bought the campaign hype from really both sides, but the writing was on the wall on what to do once trends changed enough.

In coal total output for 2016 and 2017 (2018 numbers not quite finalized) we are producing somewhere around the 1975 - 1980 numbers, well off our high in the early and mid 2000's. However Coal still represents some 17% ('ish) of our energy source for this nation as of 2017.

Sure, the damage was done to companies dependent on coal production but overall once those trends took hold there was no real economic or market reason to invest enough to get those organizations back up and running. Some may make a go of it in the coming years given what Coal still means to US energy use but as an investment there is still more room in areas like Natural Gas (that is very inexpensive) and of course renewables that have no where to go but up in usage mainly due to political interests.

Too little too late for Trump and supporters with all this "beautiful clean coal" nonsense, there never was such a thing nor will there ever be such a thing. The primary principle of using any fossil fuel extreme heat with a waste output... might as well be out there trying to pimp the health benefits of a McDonald's Big Mac.

Sources:
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec6_3.pdf
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home
 

Common Sense 1

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
17,571
Reaction score
12,284
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I agree, losing more slowly is the same thing as winning.

To the miners who now have a job..... it's a big win for them!! They would not have a job under the Obama plan.
Of course it has to be bad because president Trump is involved!
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
53,022
Reaction score
14,649
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have lived near a coal plant, and beautiful and clean are not adjectives that come to mind.

I'd ask you which ones do, but a whole post that consists of 90+% of asterisks wouldn't do me much good.

PS - I have it on reasonably good authority that the emissions from coal fired power plants don't bother Mr. Trump at all where he lives.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
53,022
Reaction score
14,649
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
To the miners who now have a job..... it's a big win for them!! They would not have a job under the Obama plan.
Of course it has to be bad because president Trump is involved!

And all the new hires at the AKME Buggy Whip factory thought that it was a big win for them when they got their jobs too.

I mean they wouldn't have a job if those stupid horseless carriages were allowed on the roads.
 

Praxas

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
22,399
Reaction score
11,863
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From The Financial Times

US coal output forecast to fall despite Trump revival efforts

US coal production is expected to fall even faster than if the Obama administration’s climate policy had taken effect, according to official projections, underlining the difficulties facing President Donald Trump in his aspirations to revive the industry. The government’s Energy Information Administration projected in its latest annual outlook that US coal production would drop 21 per cent over the next 20 years.

That is an even steeper decline than the 18 per cent drop that it forecast two years ago, under the assumption that Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan would come into force.

Concerns about the long-term outlook for coal have added to the financial pressures on US mining companies. Westmoreland Coal filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last October, and shares in Cloud Peak Energy have lost more than 90 per cent of their value over the past year.

The coal producers that have been through bankruptcy in the past five years, shedding most of their debts and re-emerging on to the stock market, have fared better. But since August shares in Peabody Energy have fallen by 15 per cent and in Contura Energy by 16 per cent.

COMMENT:-

Who would have thought that "Beautiful Clean Coal" would be so complicated?​

And in other breaking news the horse buggy manufacturing numbers continue to decline.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
39,629
Reaction score
13,584
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd ask you which ones do, but a whole post that consists of 90+% of asterisks wouldn't do me much good.

PS - I have it on reasonably good authority that the emissions from coal fired power plants don't bother Mr. Trump at all where he lives.
I lived near the Smithers lake plant for a few years,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WA_Parish_Generating_Station
Here is the key factor,
The Powder River Basin supplies three 115-car trainloads worth of low-sulfur coal to units 5-8 or 36,000 tons daily
That is a lot of coal per day.
I do think they have improved the plant since the early 80's when I lived there, but that is still a lot of coal.
 

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,312
Reaction score
6,248
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
From The Financial Times

US coal output forecast to fall despite Trump revival efforts

US coal production is expected to fall even faster than if the Obama administration’s climate policy had taken effect, according to official projections, underlining the difficulties facing President Donald Trump in his aspirations to revive the industry. The government’s Energy Information Administration projected in its latest annual outlook that US coal production would drop 21 per cent over the next 20 years.

That is an even steeper decline than the 18 per cent drop that it forecast two years ago, under the assumption that Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan would come into force.
COMMENT:-

Who would have thought that "Beautiful Clean Coal" would be so complicated?​

So, Obama's plan was a complete waste of time.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
95,092
Reaction score
47,467
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Whaling jobs took a big hit a while back too. Don’t conservatives care about those jobs?
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
17,506
Reaction score
5,032
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Whaling jobs took a big hit a while back too. Don’t conservatives care about those jobs?

The concern about the loss of coal plants goes beyond just saving jobs.

1) From a production standpoint, the concern is that plants are being taken off line faster than new capacity is added, especially with increases in demand factored in. This could easily lead to shortages or an uneven distribution. Slowing the retirement would give time to make adjustments and build additional capacity.

2) From a national security standpoint, coal power plants (and nuclear) are very secure, because they store fuel on site. You can interrupt the flow of material to a plant for a period of time, and not have your power impacted. Wind, solar, and tidal are subject to the whims of weather. A natural gas plant could be cut off from its fuel source by accident, mechanical failure, or terrorism. Slowing the retirement of the newer, very reliable, coal plants would give tome to harden these energy sources and make the supply more reliable.

Everyone expects these to be gradually phased out, but the concern is the pace.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
53,022
Reaction score
14,649
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
So, Obama's plan was a complete waste of time.

Mr. Obama's plan was to deal with a decline in coal usage.

Mr. Trump's plan is to pretend that there will not be a decline in coal usage. Well, it's either that or to simply keep the mines going full blast and let the mined coal for which there is no market pile up in some sort of "government coal reserve" just in case someone wants to use it someday.

Since the second possibility is the one that will ensure that the coal mine owners will reap the highest profits and that the coal miners will continue to vote for Mr. Trump, I suspect that the second possibility is actually the operative one. After all, that "plan" won't actually cost people anything since it would end up being paid for with "government money" - right?
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
53,022
Reaction score
14,649
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Whaling jobs took a big hit a while back too. Don’t conservatives care about those jobs?

Sure they do. Haven't you seen the bumper stickers



SAVE THE WHALES!
(For American Whalers)
Stop Japanese Whaling.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
53,022
Reaction score
14,649
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The concern about the loss of coal plants goes beyond just saving jobs.

1) From a production standpoint, the concern is that plants are being taken off line faster than new capacity is added, especially with increases in demand factored in. This could easily lead to shortages or an uneven distribution. Slowing the retirement would give time to make adjustments and build additional capacity.

2) From a national security standpoint, coal power plants (and nuclear) are very secure, because they store fuel on site. You can interrupt the flow of material to a plant for a period of time, and not have your power impacted. Wind, solar, and tidal are subject to the whims of weather. A natural gas plant could be cut off from its fuel source by accident, mechanical failure, or terrorism. Slowing the retirement of the newer, very reliable, coal plants would give tome to harden these energy sources and make the supply more reliable.

Everyone expects these to be gradually phased out, but the concern is the pace.

It isn't the "newer, very reliable, (and cost/effective [in terms of corporate dictated levels of ROI]) coal fired plants" that are being shut down, it is the "older, less reliable, (and no longer cost/effective [in terms of corporate dictated levels of ROI]) coal fired plants" ones that are being shut down.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
13,406
Reaction score
8,258
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The concern about the loss of coal plants goes beyond just saving jobs.

1) From a production standpoint, the concern is that plants are being taken off line faster than new capacity is added, especially with increases in demand factored in. This could easily lead to shortages or an uneven distribution. Slowing the retirement would give time to make adjustments and build additional capacity.

2) From a national security standpoint, coal power plants (and nuclear) are very secure, because they store fuel on site. You can interrupt the flow of material to a plant for a period of time, and not have your power impacted. Wind, solar, and tidal are subject to the whims of weather. A natural gas plant could be cut off from its fuel source by accident, mechanical failure, or terrorism. Slowing the retirement of the newer, very reliable, coal plants would give tome to harden these energy sources and make the supply more reliable.

Everyone expects these to be gradually phased out, but the concern is the pace.

LMAO did you copy this straight from Rick Perry's memo? Regarding the second point, fuel on hand plants offer pretty much no incremental grid resilience, despite Perry's claim (and he, by the way, is the only person that claims this). Coal plants are among the most unreliable with downtimes in the range of 10-15%. Look no further than Perry's home state of Texas in 2011, when they had rolling blackouts due to coal facility maintenance downtime, major incidents like burst pipes, and frozen fuel on hand (literally on-site coal piles that weren't usable) that all contributed to the opposite of "grid resiliency".

Utilities are already required to have risk mitigation plans in place that account for all kinds of issues, including potential disruption to the fuel supply. Having additional fuel on site doesn't necessarily mitigate the risk any more than alternative risk mitigation plans. And if you don't believe me, you can just read FERC's rejection of Perry's stupid claims.

Regarding your first point, coal is being replaced with natural gas so that's not even a valid concern.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
17,506
Reaction score
5,032
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It isn't the "newer, very reliable, (and cost/effective [in terms of corporate dictated levels of ROI]) coal fired plants" that are being shut down, it is the "older, less reliable, (and no longer cost/effective [in terms of corporate dictated levels of ROI]) coal fired plants" ones that are being shut down.

They are older, but newer than the generations of power plants that have already been retired.
 

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
20,312
Reaction score
6,248
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Mr. Obama's plan was to deal with a decline in coal usage.

Mr. Trump's plan is to pretend that there will not be a decline in coal usage. Well, it's either that or to simply keep the mines going full blast and let the mined coal for which there is no market pile up in some sort of "government coal reserve" just in case someone wants to use it someday.

Since the second possibility is the one that will ensure that the coal mine owners will reap the highest profits and that the coal miners will continue to vote for Mr. Trump, I suspect that the second possibility is actually the operative one. After all, that "plan" won't actually cost people anything since it would end up being paid for with "government money" - right?

Mr. Obama's plan was to bankrupt coal companies with taxes, as he himself said. He wanted prices to "skyrocket", I believe was the word he used. I don't want the government shoving other energy sources down my throat by making current ones to expensive or driven out of business. Most things work best with the least amount of government involvement.
 

MTAtech

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
33,317
Reaction score
29,503
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Who would have thunk that coal production would be down. It proves that the decline of coal, which has been falling for a generation, wasn't because of liberal environmental polices.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
95,092
Reaction score
47,467
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The concern about the loss of coal plants goes beyond just saving jobs.

1) From a production standpoint, the concern is that plants are being taken off line faster than new capacity is added, especially with increases in demand factored in. This could easily lead to shortages or an uneven distribution. Slowing the retirement would give time to make adjustments and build additional capacity.
This concern is laughable.

2) From a national security standpoint, coal power plants (and nuclear) are very secure, because they store fuel on site. You can interrupt the flow of material to a plant for a period of time, and not have your power impacted. Wind, solar, and tidal are subject to the whims of weather. A natural gas plant could be cut off from its fuel source by accident, mechanical failure, or terrorism. Slowing the retirement of the newer, very reliable, coal plants would give tome to harden these energy sources and make the supply more reliable.

Everyone expects these to be gradually phased out, but the concern is the pace.

You can't interrupt shipments of wind or sunlight.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
103,729
Reaction score
60,254
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It was downright immoral to shine those coal miners on about a future in coal mining AND to attempt to prolong our use of filthy, non-renewable coal.

Of course it's a fail.
 

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
29,570
Reaction score
19,897
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I have lived near a coal plant, and beautiful and clean are not adjectives that come to mind.

And that is the cleanest part of the whole process. The mining of it is the most ecologically damaging activity humanity has ever engaged in.
 
Top Bottom