Coal, it's clean, right? (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

Right!

More of that!

She pours a glass of water from her kitchen tap and lets it rest on a table. It has a strange smell and a sticky texture and within minutes begins to turn dark orange. A layer of black sediment soon sinks to the bottom of the glass.

"This is what we have to live with," Casey says. "We don't bathe in the water and we don't cook with it. It stains our fingernails, our knuckles, and our clothes. It's really, really difficult living like this."

 

[jonessed]

Mining in general isn’t clean.  We export the mining of cobalt, neodymium, copper, etc. to countries with lowers safety standards so we can avoid the expense.  Is that better?  I guess it is for us.  It impacts more people, but screw them right?  We use this stuff to make “clean” energy.

 

[msommer]

Mining in general isn’t clean.  We export the mining of cobalt, neodymium, copper, etc. to countries with lowers safety standards so we can avoid the expense.  Is that better?  I guess it is for us.  It impacts more people, but screw them right?  We use this stuff to make “clean” energy.

So, we ahould destroy large swathes of America in solidarity with other countries?

Interesting take

 

[Dedfin]

If there was a true free market this would happen, amiright?

 

[jonessed]

So, we ahould destroy large swathes of America in solidarity with other countries?

Interesting take

No.  Clearly we should go back to the Archimedes Screw, block and tackle, wedges, levers, and mill wheels.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Mining in general isn’t clean.  We export the mining of cobalt, neodymium, copper, etc. to countries with lowers safety standards so we can avoid the expense.  Is that better?  I guess it is for us.  It impacts more people, but screw them right?  We use this stuff to make “clean” energy.




2

Mining is dirty, just give up!

LOL! 

 

[msommer]

Mining is dirty, just give up!

LOL! 

A truly compassionately take as well.

 

[Snorkelson]

Coal mines keep closing despite trumps promise to bolster the industry. The reason? There are cheaper, cleaner, safer alternatives. Democrats didn’t kill coal, it has become obsolete. 

Mining in general isn’t clean.  We export the mining of cobalt, neodymium, copper, etc. to countries with lowers safety standards so we can avoid the expense.  Is that better?  I guess it is for us.  It impacts more people, but screw them right?  We use this stuff to make “clean” energy.

We mine all of these minerals in the US. Cobalt is often a by product of other mining operations like copper, although DR Congo is the worlds biggest supplier. We are the worlds 2nd biggest producer of REE. We have copper mines but not near as many as Canada. So unless you can cite something you have made an invalid point. 

Actually it’s a valid point, we shouldn’t just outsource our dirty mining to developing countries, but that isn’t happening they way you put it. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Coal mines keep closing despite trumps promise to bolster the industry. The reason? There are cheaper, cleaner, safer alternatives. Democrats didn’t kill coal, it has become obsolete. 

We mine all of these minerals in the US. Cobalt is often a by product of other mining operations like copper, although DR Congo is the worlds biggest supplier. We are the worlds 2nd biggest producer of REE. We have copper mines but not near as many as Canada. So unless you can cite something you have made an invalid point. 

Actually it’s a valid point, we shouldn’t just outsource our dirty mining to developing countries, but that isn’t happening they way you put it. 

Really? I thought we were actually down a lot further. 

 

[jonessed]

Coal mines keep closing despite trumps promise to bolster the industry. The reason? There are cheaper, cleaner, safer alternatives. Democrats didn’t kill coal, it has become obsolete. 

We mine all of these minerals in the US. Cobalt is often a by product of other mining operations like copper, although DR Congo is the worlds biggest supplier. We are the worlds 2nd biggest producer of REE. We have copper mines but not near as many as Canada. So unless you can cite something you have made an invalid point. 

Actually it’s a valid point, we shouldn’t just outsource our dirty mining to developing countries, but that isn’t happening they way you put it. 

We don’t mine any of those raw materials anywhere near our usage rates.  We are highly dependent on imports.

We get most of our copper and copper ore associated REE from Chili.

 

[jonessed]

Really? I thought we were actually down a lot further. 

We are.  Around 10 I believe.

 

[supermike80]

Coal mines keep closing despite trumps promise to bolster the industry. The reason? There are cheaper, cleaner, safer alternatives. Democrats didn’t kill coal, it has become obsolete. 

We mine all of these minerals in the US. Cobalt is often a by product of other mining operations like copper, although DR Congo is the worlds biggest supplier. We are the worlds 2nd biggest producer of REE. We have copper mines but not near as many as Canada. So unless you can cite something you have made an invalid point. 

Actually it’s a valid point, we shouldn’t just outsource our dirty mining to developing countries, but that isn’t happening they way you put it. 

What are the cheaper, cleaner and safer alternatives to coal?  And if they exist, why wouldn't we use them if they are cleaner safer and cheaper?  I ask this because I can't get the quote out of my head  "an electric car is a coal car".   

I don't think solar or wind are sufficient to get the same amount of energy.  Cleaner? You betcha.  Safer?  Maybe.  Cheaper...not by a long shot.  Nuclear?  Cheaper...By leaps and bounds...Cleaner?   to use yes, to dispose of no.   Safer?  Well that can be argued each way.  

I would think if there were a source that was all of those things, we would be using it.   I'm curious what that energy source is.

 

[joffer]

What are the cheaper, cleaner and safer alternatives to coal?  And if they exist, why wouldn't we use them if they are cleaner safer and cheaper?  I ask this because I can't get the quote out of my head  "an electric car is a coal car".   

I don't think solar or wind are sufficient to get the same amount of energy.  Cleaner? You betcha.  Safer?  Maybe.  Cheaper...not by a long shot.  Nuclear?  Cheaper...By leaps and bounds...Cleaner?   to use yes, to dispose of no.   Safer?  Well that can be argued each way.  

I would think if there were a source that was all of those things, we would be using it.   I'm curious what that energy source is.

that's a really bad quote

 

[supermike80]

that's a really bad quote

That really doesn't answer my question though.  Anyone?

 

[msommer]

I don't think solar or wind are sufficient to get the same amount of energy.  Cleaner? You betcha.  Safer?  Maybe.  Cheaper...not by a long shot.

1. WEF 2016

2. WEF 2018 about 2017

3. Who's going for clean energy? More WEF

Suffice to say, WEF begs to differ - by a lot

 

[msommer]

That really doesn't answer my question though.  Anyone?

 

[supermike80]

1. WEF 2016

2. WEF 2018 about 2017

3. Who's going for clean energy? More WEF

Suffice to say, WEF begs to differ - by a lot

Ok I should add a measurable.   Cheaper and able to deliver the needs.  I wouldn;t argue that solar is cheaper, but can it provide enough energy?

 

[msommer]

Ok I should add a measurable.   Cheaper and able to deliver the needs.  I wouldn;t argue that solar is cheaper, but can it provide enough energy?

Yes it can. Recently some scientished published an article saying that covering Sahara with solar panels as we know them today would generate more energy than we currently use. It would also make the climate in Sahara change to be milder, with more rain. Sahara is about 6% of the Earth land and is currently empty

I'll see if I can find it again.

Four times the Earth's energy needs....

 

[General Malaise]

Mining in general isn’t clean.  We export the mining of cobalt, neodymium, copper, etc. to countries with lowers safety standards so we can avoid the expense.  Is that better?  I guess it is for us.  It impacts more people, but screw them right?  We use this stuff to make “clean” energy.

We what?

 

[msommer]

We what?

His point is that the cobalt used by the US is mined elsewhere and as atonement it's ok that waterways are polluted by coal in the US.

Yeah, it doesn't make more sense when paraphrased

 

[joffer]

Ok I should add a measurable.   Cheaper and able to deliver the needs.  I wouldn;t argue that solar is cheaper, but can it provide enough energy?

it certain areas, it can, along with wind.  in other areas it's not there yet, however nuclear and natural gas can and are cleaner.  there are very few places left in the US where coal is "needed".

 

[supermike80]

Yes it can. Recently some scientished published an article saying that covering Sahara with solar panels as we know them today would generate more energy than we currently use. It would also make the climate in Sahara change to be milder, with more rain. Sahara is about 6% of the Earth land and is currently empty

I'll see if I can find it again.

Four times the Earth's energy needs....

Interesting but this article doesn't discuss the cost to do something of this magnitude.   Or how much it would cost to maintain it.  And how we would get the power from the eSahara to the places that use it.  And the cost and maintenance of that.

Maybe it did...but I didn't see it there.  I mean we may as well say we could build a gigantic laser beam that pulls energy directly from the sun

 

[supermike80]

it certain areas, it can, along with wind.  in other areas it's not there yet, however nuclear and natural gas can and are cleaner.  there are very few places left in the US where coal is "needed".

If that's true, why are we still using coal?  PLEASE don't say it's because of the powerful coal lobby or something else as ridiculous.   Why are we using coal if we don't need it.  What possible reason could there be?

 

[General Malaise]

His point is that the cobalt used by the US is mined elsewhere and as atonement it's ok that waterways are polluted by coal in the US.

Yeah, it doesn't make more sense when paraphrased

Snorkelson got to it already, but yeah, cobalt is a byproduct metal.  98% of it comes from either copper or zinc.  There's almost nothing in the way of pure cobalt mines, although there is one in Idaho called eCobalt that has yet to produce anything meaningful and likely never will do so.  

The US isn't exporting it's cobalt mining overseas; it's just not here for the production.  65% of cobalt comes out of the DRC, which is a geographic anomaly and has been resource raped by other countries for centuries.  That raw ore is largely collected by the Chinese who control processing, then ship it off to Korea, Japan and Vietnam to be made into batteries.  There's many players involved between pulling rocks out of the ground and putting the batteries into phones/tablets/EVs.  

 

[joffer]

If that's true, why are we still using coal?  PLEASE don't say it's because of the powerful coal lobby or something else as ridiculous.   Why are we using coal if we don't need it.  What possible reason could there be?

large transitions take time, even longer when special interests are hindering them.  sorry if that bothers you, but if you think the oil and gas industry isn't working against renewables here in TX, you're kidding yourself.

 

[General Malaise]

If that's true, why are we still using coal?  PLEASE don't say it's because of the powerful coal lobby or something else as ridiculous.   Why are we using coal if we don't need it.  What possible reason could there be?

30% of our country is still powered by coal.  If you don't want to use it, who is going to pay for the infrastructure to replace it and what are you going to replace it with?  People don't like to be without power for a day, so you better not have any disruption of service.  What's the plan to move away from coal and how do we fund it?

 

[supermike80]

large transitions take time, even longer when special interests are hindering them.  sorry if that bothers you, but if you think the oil and gas industry isn't working against renewables here in TX, you're kidding yourself.

I don't understand why you would assume anything bothers me.  Did I say that somewhere?  I don't remember bringing any emotions into this.  I'd appreciate if you could just focus on facts, or even opinions, but I don't think a comment on my emotional state is relevant.  

I'm sure the oil and gas industry is working against renewables.  It's no different than the railroads work against the trucking industry.  An entity trying to protect it's stake in an economy isn't new, or necessarily bad.  They do employ hundreds of thousands of people by the way.

And as far as large transitions--totally agree...They take time.  They also take money.  Lots and lots of money.  

Hi I'm DTE Energy.  I would absolutely LOVE to convert my coal fueled electric plant to wind and solar.  In order to make this happen, your electric bill will significantly increase.    That's a reality many cant take.  As much as they would love to have renewable energy, they simply cannot afford it.  

 

[supermike80]

30% of our country is still powered by coal.  If you don't want to use it, who is going to pay for the infrastructure to replace it and what are you going to replace it with?  People don't like to be without power for a day, so you better not have any disruption of service.  What's the plan to move away from coal and how do we fund it?

I was just told that there are few places in the US where coal is needed.   

 

[joffer]

I'm sure the oil and gas industry is working against renewables.  It's no different than the railroads work against the trucking industry.  An entity trying to protect it's stake in an economy isn't new, or necessarily bad.  They do employ hundreds of thousands of people by the way.

And as far as large transitions--totally agree...They take time.  They also take money.  Lots and lots of money.  

Hi I'm DTE Energy.  I would absolutely LOVE to convert my coal fueled electric plant to wind and solar.  In order to make this happen, your electric bill will significantly increase.    That's a reality many cant take.  As much as they would love to have renewable energy, they simply cannot afford it.  

If that's true, why are we still using coal?  PLEASE don't say it's because of the powerful coal lobby or something else as ridiculous.   Why are we using coal if we don't need it.  What possible reason could there be?

so you answered your own question

 

[supermike80]

so you answered your own question

Well yeah...It was kinda rhetorical.    

But back to the question.  It was posed that there are CHEAPER, cleaner, and safer forms of energy out there.  Well solar and wind are NOT Cheaper--at least not today....and conceivably not for along time.   So what's next?

 

[joffer]

I was just told that there are few places in the US where coal is needed.   

"needed" meaning there are alternatives that could replace it at similar costs.

 

[supermike80]

"needed" meaning there are alternatives that could replace it at similar costs.

But not similar.  Where is the $$ going to come from to convert coal fired electric plants to wind and solar?  Where?  Who is gonna pay that cost?

I live in Michigan..In the winter its cloudy all the time...that's not an exaggeration.  Wind?  Sure...But you cant count on it daily. What do I do when it's cloudy with no wind?  How big of a battery farm would I need to store enough electricity for a giant city when that happens?  How much damage would THAT do to the earth----mining for all the minerals necessary to make batteries.  I've read those bad boys aren't exactly friends to the environment.  How will we dispose of them?  Can I have coal and wind and solar feeding the same electric system?  I don't know..I suppose anything is possible with enough $$.   

 

[joffer]

But not similar.  Where is the $$ going to come from to convert coal fired electric plants to wind and solar?  Where?  Who is gonna pay that cost?

great question.  lots of ideas out there, I've got my own.  the problem is its difficult to get people to focus on the "how we" instead of the "should we".

 

[Dedfin]

What are the cheaper, cleaner and safer alternatives to coal?  And if they exist, why wouldn't we use them if they are cleaner safer and cheaper?  I ask this because I can't get the quote out of my head  "an electric car is a coal car".   

I don't think solar or wind are sufficient to get the same amount of energy.  Cleaner? You betcha.  Safer?  Maybe.  Cheaper...not by a long shot.  Nuclear?  Cheaper...By leaps and bounds...Cleaner?   to use yes, to dispose of no.   Safer?  Well that can be argued each way.  

I would think if there were a source that was all of those things, we would be using it.   I'm curious what that energy source is.

Our systems for nuclear waste disposal is pretty refined now

 

[supermike80]

great question.  lots of ideas out there, I've got my own.  the problem is its difficult to get people to focus on the "how we" instead of the "should we".

Completely and totally and whole heartily disagree.  I believe we should.  And one of the steps, maybe not the first step but still one of the top three in the "how we" conversation is "how we" pay for it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

But not similar.  Where is the $$ going to come from to convert coal fired electric plants to wind and solar?  Where?  Who is gonna pay that cost?

Who is paying the costs for the damage coal is doing to our environment and to the lives of miners?  It ain’t coal companies. 

 

[supermike80]

Our systems for nuclear waste disposal is pretty refined now

Bring up Chernobyl or three mile island and that will effectively end public support for more nuclear energy.  

Unless you want to force the issue on the populous.  

 

[supermike80]

Who is paying the costs for the damage coal is doing to our environment and to the lives of miners?  It ain’t coal companies. 

I don't know the answer to that question.  Doesn't really help me understand where the $$ for solar and wind will come from though.  

 

[Dedfin]

Bring up Chernobyl or three mile island and that will effectively end public support for more nuclear energy.  

Unless you want to force the issue on the populous.  

Ohh, I know nuclear power is dead because people are afraid of it. That's not really the same thing as it being so terrible.

 

[joffer]

Bring up Chernobyl or three mile island and that will effectively end public support for more nuclear energy.  

Unless you want to force the issue on the populous.  

i'd rather try to educate the public rather than cave to fear and ignorance.  and sometimes, government doing things that are not popular is the right way to go.

 

[TobiasFunke]

"Where will we ever find the money to subsidize renewable energy production?" asks country that just gave a $2 trillion tax break to rich people so they'd donate to Republican campaigns.

 

[joffer]

Completely and totally and whole heartily disagree.  I believe we should.  And one of the steps, maybe not the first step but still one of the top three in the "how we" conversation is "how we" pay for it.

one option

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't know the answer to that question.  Doesn't really help me understand where the $$ for solar and wind will come from though.  

The same place we get money from for wars, stealth bombers that the Pentagon says we don’t need, and billion dollar tax cuts for Mark Zuckerburg.  

 

[General Malaise]

Well yeah...It was kinda rhetorical.    

But back to the question.  It was posed that there are CHEAPER, cleaner, and safer forms of energy out there.  Well solar and wind are NOT Cheaper--at least not today....and conceivably not for along time.   So what's next?

Here's your current snapshot:

Natural Gas:  32%
Coal:  30%
Nuclear: 20%
Renewables:  17%
Other = rest

I think what's next is the bigger challenge we have with wind and solar and that's energy storage.  Generally speaking, when renewable energy is produced, it needs to be fed into the grid and used.  And that's a problem if the wind only blows at night like it does in, say, Texas.  So I think a battery storage for renewable energy is a problem to solve first (and it's getting there) and then we can address replacing coal.  But we're a long way a way from this happening.  Like it or not, the coal lobby isn't going to just lie down and surrender.  People depend on these jobs in Appalachia, even if the jobs are killing them (and they are, you should watch Frontline/NPR's piece on what coal mining has done to generations of workers).  

And, you're right, it's not cheaper.  Not now.  So asking people to voluntarily switch their energy consumption to renewables if given the option better damn well come with a better carrot than 'you're saving the planet'.  I want to save the planet, but I also want to feed my family.  I'm just being honest.  Fortunately, my energy comes from Hydro, so I'm detached from fossil fuels already. 

We should have explored nuclear more as a viable option in this country.  The last nuclear power plant built here was, what, the late 70s?  Safety standards and technology has come a LONG LONG way since then.  Think of what we've done with cars since the 70s.  We can build safer, more efficient nuclear; we just don't want to do it.  You know who does?  China.  They take the task of cleaning their air up seriously and so they continue to build nuclear using the latest/greatest safety and technology available.  

What I see going forward is solar roof tiles/shingles on homes with a battery wall attached to the house.  Homes powering themselves and attached to a grid only if need be.  I think that's probably what my kids will have when they become homeowners.   

 

[supermike80]

one option

Nice idea.  It's a start.  I wonder why it isn't implemented yet?

 

[supermike80]

The same place we get money from for wars, stealth bombers that the Pentagon says we don’t need, and billion dollar tax cuts for Mark Zuckerburg.  

Could that same money be used to for the damage coal is doing to our environment and to the lives of miners as well then?

 

[joffer]

Nice idea.  It's a start.  I wonder why it isn't implemented yet?

no you don't

 

[supermike80]

Here's your current snapshot:

Natural Gas:  32%
Coal:  30%
Nuclear: 20%
Renewables:  17%
Other = rest

I think what's next is the bigger challenge we have with wind and solar and that's energy storage.  Generally speaking, when renewable energy is produced, it needs to be fed into the grid and used.  And that's a problem if the wind only blows at night like it does in, say, Texas.  So I think a battery storage for renewable energy is a problem to solve first (and it's getting there) and then we can address replacing coal.  But we're a long way a way from this happening.  Like it or not, the coal lobby isn't going to just lie down and surrender.  People depend on these jobs in Appalachia, even if the jobs are killing them (and they are, you should watch Frontline/NPR's piece on what coal mining has done to generations of workers).  

And, you're right, it's not cheaper.  Not now.  So asking people to voluntarily switch their energy consumption to renewables if given the option better damn well come with a better carrot than 'you're saving the planet'.  I want to save the planet, but I also want to feed my family.  I'm just being honest.  Fortunately, my energy comes from Hydro, so I'm detached from fossil fuels already. 

We should have explored nuclear more as a viable option in this country.  The last nuclear power plant built here was, what, the late 70s?  Safety standards and technology has come a LONG LONG way since then.  Think of what we've done with cars since the 70s.  We can build safer, more efficient nuclear; we just don't want to do it.  You know who does?  China.  They take the task of cleaning their air up seriously and so they continue to build nuclear using the latest/greatest safety and technology available.  

What I see going forward is solar roof tiles/shingles on homes with a battery wall attached to the house.  Homes powering themselves and attached to a grid only if need be.  I think that's probably what my kids will have when they become homeowners.   

Agree with this a billion percent.  We have MILLIONS in this country that cant afford their electric bills now, and we want to increase that by a % I can't even fathom?  That'll go over real well.

Storage is the issue.  Batteries are very destructive to the environment.  We have to mine the materials for them(hey can we use the coal miners that are out of work?)...they are loaded with carcinogens that we have to dispose of.  And so on and so on.   Will reduce that fossil fuel use though.

Nuclear is a great option......If we can get the public past the fear.  It seems some folks here will just force it on the people---not sure I want to live where i am forced to live near a nuclear plant or a nuclear waste facility, but hey....Russia does it!

 

[supermike80]

no you don't

Youre catching on to me.   

 

[badmojo1006]

What are the cheaper, cleaner and safer alternatives to coal?  And if they exist, why wouldn't we use them if they are cleaner safer and cheaper?  I ask this because I can't get the quote out of my head  "an electric car is a coal car".   

I don't think solar or wind are sufficient to get the same amount of energy.  Cleaner? You betcha.  Safer?  Maybe.  Cheaper...not by a long shot.  Nuclear?  Cheaper...By leaps and bounds...Cleaner?   to use yes, to dispose of no.   Safer?  Well that can be argued each way.  

I would think if there were a source that was all of those things, we would be using it.   I'm curious what that energy source is.

Are you a coal lobbyist?