Replacing ‘Clean Power’ with Coal
From today’s Los Angeles Times:
President Trump is expected to head to West Virginia coal country today to drum up support for a draft replacement for the federal Clean Power Plan.The proposal would rewrite Obama-era emissions rules for power plants and, in the administration’s terminology, end “the war on coal.” It would also encourage the use of energy that contributes to global warming, smog and soot. Though the Trump plan would give a new lease on life to heavily polluting coal plants, market forces are pushing utilities toward natural gas and, to a lesser extent, solar and wind.
This is the ultimate no-brainer for Trump, as it accomplishes four objections all in one smooth motion. It:
• Upsets Trump’s enemies, i.e., those who concern themselves with the health and well-being of all people on Earth and who would like to leave a habitable planet to our children.
• Consolidates Trump’s base, i.e., people who are generally unconcerned with the issues above and who are incapable of understanding that coal is a dying industry, regardless of efforts to subsidize it back into existence, and that it’s dwarfed in size, in terms of jobs, by solar and wind.
• Reverses an important element of progress made by the Obama administration.
• Distracts public attention, albeit momentarily, from the process of removing Trump from office.
As usual, there is nothing whatsoever in this for the American people, but there is everything in it for one man, the president of the United States.
Craig,
You are fully entitled to your opinion of President Trump, no one is denying your constitutional right to support whatever political leader you choose, but why dissemble and lie?
Why all the silly, and irresponsible deceptions?
The President is not “replacing ‘clean power’ with coal” !
That headline is just a deliberate untruth, a canard. Coal fired power can be replaced. Coal represents 32-4 percent of US electricity and a larger percent of US heavy “on demand” industrial usage.
Coal provides reliable baseload power. In addition, US coal is an important strategic export commodity for the US.
There is no alternative “clean power’ alternative, at the best the only replacement is another fossil fuel, Natural Gas, which is actually dirtier to use than the newest coal technology. The cost and supply of natural gas is unlikely to compete with coal global demand for LPG grows in Europe and Asia creating shortages.
Your comments are cruel and offensive to the millions of your fellow Americans coal whose livelihoods, prosperity and communities depend on the US Coal Industry, an industry you smugly refuse to learn anything about while sanctimoniously ensconced in Santa Barbara.
Could the truth be you just hate the President more than you love the environment. The environment needs clean coal technology.
There is no “process of removing Trump from office” , just a pathetic fantasy maintained by ‘Never Trumpers’, and sore losers.
Even the claim, “dwarfed in size, in terms of jobs, by solar and wind” is rubbish. More than 40% of the world electricity is generated from Coal while less than 4% is generated by Wind and Solar.
While “clean coal technology is beginning to emerge with dramatic effect, doubts and concerns are emerging about the value and wisdom of solar and wind technology.
Recent large scale studies in Europe and China have started to cast doubt on the viability of Turbine technology, while the problems, limitations and toxic pollution created by solar are also beginning to emerge.
The massive subsidies poured into the Wind and Solar industries have only produced an insignificant amount of generation, whereas ‘clean coal technology’ pays for itself while create huge new industries.
Craig, I don’t write these facts to be a “professional troll” as you so unkindly describe me, but to try and bring you to your senses.
The “green” movement is over-burdened with one-eyed advocates peering through rose-tinted spectacles (or monocles). I don’t ask anyone to simply take my word for a bunch of claims lacking in objectivity. Nor do I believe I possess any special powers of prediction.
My comments are the result of careful, diligent analysis and open minded objective research which I’m always happy to supply.
Which is why I implore you to at least research both the pro’s and con’s, objectively, not just one sided propaganda.
I believe in your enthusiasm you have fallen into the trap of seeing the world in a black-and-white, us-vs-them, all-or-nothing mindset. You apply this to your favorite political candidate, environmental cause do jour, or energy solution.
I hope you realize I try to avoid just cursing or abusing those with whom I disagree, instead I advance evidence to refute inaccurate or misleading claims. When I dispute or disagree, I try not to be emotional, but objective, relying on rational and well researched information.
IMO the obligation to validate a claim, is the duty of the person advancing the claim. Simply brushing of dissent with a lordly, condescending, ” I don’t waste my time on fools”, I believe only reveals the advocates lack of knowledge and facts to back his claims.
Over the last year or so, I’ve cited information from my own experience in storing US and global coal and steel areas, in addition to a wide range of published information from independent sources.
What I’ve learned and witnessed on my personal “Odyssey” was both heart-breaking and inspirational. The journey wasn’t just academic, but allowed me to understand the people and the context involved to an extent where I hope I gained a comprehensive understanding of the issues.
I recommend you do the same. Start in Wyoming, or with the brilliant young scientists and engineers in Canadian concrete research, but for the human dimension see the enthusiasm of those involved in reclaiming and rejuvenating old coal sites, before visiting the older coal communities.
You many find, as I did, all your preconceptions are inaccurate and inadequate. I was humble by the warmth, courage, inspiration and intelligence I discovered among these Americans. I was also deeply moved by their humour and generous hospitality.
You may not come away convinced of the environmental benefits of clean coal technology, but at least you will have gained the knowledge to make an informed opinion.
Trouble is Marcopolo that clean coal technology does not exist as a commercially feasible entity. At best, coal will emit around 600 to 700 grams of CO2 per kWh with the highest available efficiency supercritical steam turbine. You then need expensive treatment to meet any reasonable air quality standard, and before you could call the coal fired plant clean, would need to add carbon capture and storage at huge additional cost. Even then, you would have emissions of around 100g/kWh even with CCS. The capital and Oxford O&M cost of such a plant would make it uncompetitive in almost any market place, and still it would not have the operational flexibility to be a swing producer quickly ramping output up and down as is increasingly needed in many markets to complement wind and solar power.
In my view, Trump will discover you can’t buck the market, and his new policy will only very slightly slow the displacement of coal withe a mix of gas and renewable sources.
The market will not be affected too negatively by Trump. It’s like rolling a snowball down a mountain of snow, while Trump is trying to stop it once it has reached almost twice his size. Trump does not understand how things work in the real world and is not capable of running such a large country. If we want to fix what he has done, we need to elect a new leader in 2020!