The Plight of Coal
Effective February 17, 2017, The Forest Service, part of the US Department of Agriculture, has reversed its initial ruling and will permit, once again, coal mining in the North Fork region of approximately 4.2 million acres of land located within the State of Colorado in Roadless Areas on National Forest System (NFS) lands.
Coincidentally, it was just last night that I was discussing with my mother the direction the Trump Administration will be taking with the environment. She pointed out that the president-elect couldn’t possibly keep his promise to put the coal miners back to work, because it would cause such an uproar. Mom’s so good-natured that she doesn’t mind my kidding her from time to time, so I asked, “How deeply does Trump seem to care what environmentalists think? Out of 126 million votes cast, how many do you think he received from people like me? Six? Eleven? I don’t know, but it wasn’t many.”
Actually, Mom’s right here as usual: Trump will have the devil’s own time keeping this promise, but not because it has anything to do with the health and safety of the 7.4 billion people on this planet; it’s that, for each new coal worker, several oil and gas people will lose their jobs, and this will happen primarily in states that voted Republican.
Coal is on its way out, in the U.S. at least, regardless of our indifference to one another’s well-being.
When big tobacco found the environment here too restrictive they doubled down their efforts in the third world. Coal will likely follow the same playbook. In this case it is ports (and for oil pipelines) that will become the next target.
Hi Breath,
Just thought I’d share this with you.
A coal-fired thermal power station in the southern Indian city of Tuticorinin has developed technology to capture carbon dioxide and turn it into baking soda !
The technology uses a new proprietary solvent to produce 100,000 tonnes of high grade baking soda per year. .
Best of all, the plant operates without any subsidy.
So not all is doom and gloom ! The power plant emits almost no CO2, and produces a valuable by product which usually creates environmental problems in production, so this is a real win-win.
Perhaps a re-think might be in order ?
marcopolo,
The inventor firm for the tech at Tuticorinin, a company called Carbonclean, believes capturing usable CO2 can deal with perhaps 5-10% of the world’s emissions from coal. Not exactly a cure-all.
By the way, the inventors of the new process are two young chemists at the Indian Institute of Technology in Kharagpur – which is a public engineering institution established by the government of India in 1951
Interestingly, the inventors were welcomed by the UK government, which offered grants and the special entrepreneur status.
So… Government to the rescue?
Cameron,
What a bizarrely confused post, displaying the really contorted and conflicted reasoning of an ideologue!
So what if this technology only removes 10% of the world’s carbon emissions from coal ? It works for this coal fired plant !
Other types of carbon sequestration technologies are designed to be retro-fitted to different coal fired plants (Petra Nova carbon capture system etc), also reducing carbon emissions while producing other valuable by products.
Why would you make such a disparaging remark ?
It would appear you’re not really interested in reducing coal-carbon emissions, but far more intent on pursuing some weird abolitionist agenda for political/philosophic reasons.
The nature of your agenda is revealed in your final sentence, when what isn’t praiseworthy suddenly becomes praiseworthy if promoted by government funding !
Clean Technology doesn’t care if it’s invented and promoted by any political philosophy, and nor do I ! If the environment is the winner, who gives a damn whether it’s developed by private enterprise or government funded, as long as it works and furthers the adoption of cleaner technology ?
I say well done to anyone producing environmentally beneficial technology ! I deplore the sort of snide, disparaging remarks by ‘armchair’ critics such as you have just espoused.
Coal continues to be the main source of reliable electricity production, especially for nations like India, where it’s the best hope of reducing appalling poverty and really harmful environmental practices such as burning wood.
Coal fired generation isn’t going to magically disappear !
If carbon sequestration can help reduce carbon emissions while producing valuable by products, it may not be perfect, but it’s a damn sight better than useless utopian moralizing !
marcopolo,
Wow, what an emotional reaction.
You had given the Tuticorinin example as weight to support your suggestion to Breath on the Wind that “a rethink might be in order” regarding coal.
Your example is fine, as far as it goes (which isn’t very far at all) – and I noted with interest that it proceeded from a government founded and funded institution. I’m pleased to see you write that you don’t care of solutions are “invented and promoted by any political philosophy” as this position is newly at variance with your many earlier comments in this forum cheering private industry positions and criticizing government initiatives.
However, as I pointed out to you, the inventors only expect their solution to address 5-10% of the world’s emissions from coal.
Given that information, I had expected it to be obvious to you that such a solution is not therefore generally applicable, and carries little weight to recommend a rethink of coal as anything but a filthy and toxic energy resource – one which must be sunsetted globally as quickly as can be made practical.
In closing, I see no cause for any of your vitriol and personal attacks, but (given your long and rich comment history in this forum) they do not come as a surprise.
Cameron,
Good grief, why do you persist with such selective distortions ?
I never suggested that the sequestration technique developed in India that converts carbon emissions into valuable non-polluting by-product was a global industry wide solution !
In fact, on this same thread I provided examples of other types sequestration technology being developed and successfully deployed for different coal fired plants, including some with retrofitting capacity.
Unlike you, I regard these developments as very positive, good news !
No, it’s not a 100% solution, but a very big improvement. Even if it were only 10%, that’s still a huge improvement. It’s certainly better than none at all !
In fact, carbon sequestration technologies, are becoming a major contributor to lowering carbon emissions from a major source of global emissions, while assisting employment and prosperity.
The only opposition are nay-saying hypocrites with political or ideological agenda.
In your disparagement of these technologies you offer no practical alternatives, just more useless armchair moralizing.
Carbon sequestration technologies which convert otherwise harmful CO2 into valuable by-products are proving to be a rapidly devloping industry, and a valuable weapon for poorer nations to curb CO2 emissions.
What really annoys me, is naysayers like yourself, with no positive or practical solutions of their own, sneering at the efforts of those who are actually finding solutions and improvements.
If you think that’s a personal criticism, well it’s an inevitable the result of a clash between those who do, and those who just whinge and sneer at those who do.
Like you, marcopolo, I’m not impressed by “naysayers.”
However, where we differ is that I’m not impressed by those who disparage or ridicule efforts to transition away from known toxic resource streams, and instead favor spending money (public or private) to preserve and defend those toxic streams – particularly when that money could be spent instead building a viable safe and sustainable alternatives to those toxic resource streams.
Fossil defenders have wasted many yards of print space in this forum engaged in predictable ad hominem attacks, false equivalencies, Hobson’s choices, and straw-man tactics.
I truly do find it amusing when such folk characterize themselves – even while posting anonymously – as principled and engaged, while accusing their targets of fanatical bystanding hypocrisy.
To the extent carbon sequestration techniques genuinely mitigate emissions effectively, efficiently and cheaply, I support them – as long as such techniques are entirely paid for by the polluters, and don’t draw from funds that could be used practically for the crucial transition to sustainable energy resources.
Cameron,
Let’s see if I understand you correctly.
You don’t want any funding (public or private) invested to mitigate or detoxify fossil fuels, in favour of “a crucial transition to sustainable energy resources “.
From your past postings you are evidently and adamantly, opposed to any form of nuclear power. That leaves only Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Hydro.
Geo-thermal and hydro are limited by geography, hydro in particular has little room for expansion.
That leaves only Wind and/or Solar. Both technologies are by nature intermittent power sources, also limited by geography and unsuitable for meeting the needs of “power on demand ” industrial societies.
Fossil fuels still provide approx 70% of global electricity while nuclear provides 11%. The demand for energy, especially from developing countries, is increasing.
You must decide on a priority. There are only two choices for Carbon abatement investment.
You can choose to invest exclusively in “sustainable energy resources “,( meaning wind and solar) which will have only a very small impact on Carbon abatement, or invest in Carbon reduction and mitigation for existing power resources which will produce a substantial reduction. (this option doesn’t prevent some investment in alternate energy)
There just are no other choices.(except nuclear).
So it’s up to you. You can continue to advocate for unattainable utopian purity or practical constructive solutions.
It all comes down to what you want more, atmospheric carbon abatement, or maintaining an impotent hatred of the fossil industry. (possibly as a defacto target for Western capitalist society).
The choice is yours !
Craig,
“indifference to one another’s well-being”
I think that’s probably how coal miners would describe your attitude to them and their communities !
Coal is an old, difficult but still important industry. On the one hand it still provides nearly 12% of the worlds total energy consumption and 42% of the total electricity generation, on the other Coal emits the largest amount of CO2 emissions.
In the US and elsewhere with access to cheap and plentiful natural gas, coal is in decline as an economically competitive fuel.
Coal is essentially an industrial scale energy resource. This may prove to be the industry’s salvation.
After many failures and problems, projects such as the Petra Nova carbon capture system are proving both economically and environmentally practical. These projects have the potential to establish a real market for sequestrated CO2 for industrial usage.
This may bring hope back to many Coal mines and communities by mot only retaining jobs, but actually increasing employment in engineering coal sequestration industry, including export.
The growth of such an industry would have a dramatic effect on communities and States dependent of coal for economic prosperity. Low cost energy also attracts a return of economic activity that moved elsewhere.
Coal provides genuine, reliable, base load “power on demand” generating capacity. If sequestration can be made to work economically, (and it seems it can) the days of ‘King Coal’ may not return, but the Coal industry will remain a valuable industry and major employer.
The argument that increases in Coal will displace oil and gas employment, is a fallacy. Once the mandates, rate-rigging , incentives and subsidies are removed from alternate energy, the losses will be in those sectors. however, there may be no losses among energy providers. Successful Coal sequestration technology could be added as a condition of export sales to the PRC and developing nations.
The expansion of one industry doesn’t always mean the demise of another, especially when increases general economic activity provide higher demand for all technologies.
The political popularity gained by such prosperity, or even the optimism generated by the prospect of such prosperity, would benefit the administration’s ratings for years.
Of course nothing is certain, and this is just an optimistic scenario, and may not come to pass, but I wouldn’t confidently write-off the Coal industry just yet, at least not for for many decades.
In the USA, I do not believe there is any way coal will increase its share of the electricity market. Why? Overall power demand is broadly flat, and likely to drop with widespread adoption of more efficient technologies. Every new wind turbine, solar panel, hydro, or geothermal power plant reduces the market for fossil fuels, and coal being the most problematic to burn will suffer disproportionately. Indeed, I would expect the proportion of natural gas fired power stations to increase eating into coal’s share.
Gary,
Yes indeed, the day of coal increasing it’s market share in countries or regions with abundant natural gas, will not happen.
By 2020 the best US estimates see coal losing it’s position as the number one source for electricity generation and switching percentages with natural gas.
Coal could fall as low as 30% of generation as reserve predictions of Natural Gas still continue to prove underestimates. However, 30 %, or even 25% is still a massive industry.
Economically reliable carbon sequestration technologies may prove the industry can still remain viable in some regions.
Export opportunities may also help the industry to recapitalize and boost economic viability.