Thoughts on coal? I thought that was a dying industry

[babylonsister]

because of pollution. I'm not savvy and need an edumication! 'Specially when coal could be part of the wave of the future.

[evlbstrd]

1. It's a killer industry.

Not just the pollution and resulting acid rain.
Miners die down there.
If the mine doesn't get 'em, black lung will.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. If the employees use their OSHA mandated

and Employer supplied Personal protective equipment (respirators) there should not be much increased risk for lunch problems.

Respirators when sized appropriately for the worker and used properly and consistently filter 99.99 of the incoming air.

The company should be doing spot inspections to ensure the employees are using their equipment. This may be an OSHA requirement, but I'm not sure.

[whistle]

2. For about 200 years it can be, 13% of the U.S. land has deposits

...of coal beneath it and massive highly productive ways of extracting the coal. It is widely used in electrical generation and it takes 21 lbs of coal to produce, I thought I heard 1000 kilowatts of electricity, but don't hold me on that number.

It's just very toxic, acid rain, sulfur, dust and dirt, very unhealthy for the environment. But we have a lot of coal and should find clean ways to use it.

[Conservativesux]

24. 19/20 th century: Coal to Oil. And now a return to Coal again.

With the world oil supply running low, nothing else will do for now.

I hope we can clean it up or acid rain will return in spades.

[Lexingtonian]

3. Nope

When petroleum runs out, the cheapest and easiest way to make liquid hydrocarbon fuels- we're not giving up them, they're too practical- is to "hydrate" coal. It was done on pretty massive scale in Germany during WW2.

[iconoclastNYC]

20. bio diesel holds out great promise

biodisel made with algae from human and farming waste as feedstock may be able to replace all oil imports for auto use, i read an article that estimated it might take 300 billion in setup and 80 billion a year to produce the needed amount of biodeisel.

all we'd need to do is transform the fleet to diesel cars. no other infastcuture would need to change.

i'll post the article some time soon.

[Conservativesux]

26. This Bio-diesel sounds great, but I'll believe it when I see it.

BTW, how are emissons using bio-diesel?

[MadHound]

27. Very low emissions

Like ten percent of the emissions created using dino diesel.

[XemaSab]

35. The beauty of bio diesel

is that there's no net increase of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unlike coal and dino juice.

The carbon generated with burning the fuel gets reabsorbed by the growing algae.

[Conservativesux]

37. Sounds great to me!

[jmowreader]

41. Oxides of nitrogen are increased over petroleum diesel

Otherwise, biodiesel is good.

Also, there's nothing stopping you from putting a NOx-eating catalytic converter on a biodiesel engine.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Coal is big...

you can make stuff from it, like you can from oil, and you can burn it. For at least 75 years people have been trying to liquify it to use it as a synfuel replacement for oil.

And there's a couple hundred years of it lying around, and many electric plants are designed to use either coal or gas depending on the price.

It burns dirtier than oil or gas, though, and much of it has a really high sulfur content. Also ash, lead, mercury, and other nasties. It is also extremely environmentally destructive the way it's mined now. Open pit or strip mining is an extraordinary sight, but the destruction is incredible. They can, and do, carve the top off a mountain and dump the waste over the side into a river.

And, burning it is like burning anything else-- a lot of carbon dioxide released. Actually, since it's not a hydrocarbon like oil or gas, it is pure carbon dioxide (and nasty pollutants) and doesn't have water as a combustion byproduct like oil does.

[MADem]

5. Yeah , it is dying all right, it's killing us in the northeast nt

[Coastie for Truth]

6. Some major problems

Coal has some impurities --

---"the" sulfur (cause of acid rain),
---some mercury (organic mercury - which is toxic and builds up in nerve tissue and fatty tissue - especially of children) and
---even less uranium (radiation is reported to be less then the natural background level of radiation from the earth's molten core and from outer space - but I am not going to get into a peeing contest on this issue)

The technology has been around to clean this stuff up - but the coal mining companies (and the coal burning electric utilities) are very politically powerful -- I am originally from Pennsylvania, right on the PA-WV border in "coal mining country" - take my word on that one -- they are very powerful politically --- so the coal mining companies and the coal burning electric utilities have never had to do much about either sulfur or mercury.

It was a major political battle just to get some reductions in acid rain and acid mine drainage. (Acid mine drainage is the cause of the ugly red soil you see as you take off from PIT and fly to the south west, a few minutes SW of the air port).

The technology exists - but not the political will - to control the sulfur and the mercury.

The real promise of coal is two fold--

1) Cheap source of fuel for electric generators - long after we pass "Peak Natural gas"

2) There is a lot of good, solid, reproducible science and engineering on synthesizing motor fuels from coal.

---The best way to find out a lot of stuff on motor fuels from coal is to "Google" and "Yahoo" and "Dialog" "Fischer Tropsch". That is what the Germans used in WW2.
---Fischer Tropsch is a "dirty" process -- and not hyper efficient. It is about as "dirty" as the "coke oven" process for getting metallurgical coal. And for a real horror story about coke oven gas check out
---But it's better then the "Malthusian" apocalypse predicted by such authors as James Howard Kunstler (a little scary "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century") or John Zerzan (really scary, "Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization," "Future Primitive", and "Against Civilization")

But, let me close - the problem is not coal - it is the sheer political power of the coal mining industry and coal burning electric generating industry. Most of the sulfur and mercury problems were solved while I was in college - and I'm in my 60's. And while the uranium proble is raised - I have not seen any credible articles in peer reviewed journals.

[Maple]

7. This would figure

Canada is making a massive move away from coal

[babylonsister]

8. OK, pros and cons of coal here.

If it's making our world dirtier, and has killed people from being around it, maybe not a good idea? And when *the blivet recommends something, I tend to get very wary.

[enigami]

9. Thoughts on coal??????????

apparently you have never thought about it before. Coal is THE most abundant energy source in the USA, probably running your computer right now

[babylonsister]

10. My OP was from the heart.

Don't assume anything. I was asking for some thoughts, and did not want to be chastised. So explain to us how fabulous coal is now.

Edit to add: I hope you have something.

[senaca]

14. coal methane mining

If coal methane mining is so clean then why do they want to make it exempt from the Clean Water Act in the energy bill? This is a key question in western states that are already worried about water. I too would like to know about the effects of the gel used in hydraulic fracturing on ground water. Am I wrong or is benzene a part of the gel? Is this what clean coal technology is about or is there a different process used?

[solinvictus]

11. Hell no it's not dying!

They've gone back and re-opened strip pits here in central Alabama that've been sealed for over 10-15 years. Here's the kicker: most of it's being shipped to China and Japan.

[babylonsister]

12. Holy mackeral! That's why coal was mentioned!

I knew there was a reason. So we're in cahoots w/China and Japan?

[slaveplanet]

16. How else are they going to finance the Debt?

China, Japan and Saudi Arabia are about the only ones keeping the $ afloat. We are completely at their mercy.... too bad all that pollution floats back this way ..huh

[Javaman]

13. Had a friend working on zero coal emissions at U of I, then the gov't...

Pulled it's funding. Funny how that is, huh?

[Coastie for Truth]

33. As the say at Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon, Penn State, WVU, Ohio State

"Same-O, Same-O"

"Been there, done that (okay, had it done to me), bought the T-Shirt"

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Coal has a horrible history, but ....

If there is a will to do it, I have full faith in American science to find a way to burn it cleanly. I have little faith in the public will to make that the law of the land.

So right now ... no coal ... except maybe those nice carved trinkets they make from the last of the anthricite left.

[babylonsister]

17. Strange/surprising answer from you, H2S.

Faith in science to burn it cleanly? WHY? I thought it was nixed because it was so dangerous. What am I missing?

[Stinky The Clown]

32. My faith is in the scientists and engineers

If given the task of solving the problem, there's no doubt they could figure it out.

My faith lags way, way behind in the willingness of the pwers that be to either fund the scientific effort or - most importantly - to pass regulations requring coal burning to be clean.

Not so surprizing from me ... is it?

Faith in science - little faith in politicians - even less faith in the national will of the sheeple.

[rman]

21. burn it cleanly = more expensive = less profits

Science will find a way, but govcorp sets the rules.
Don't you know that environmental laws are a burden to capitalist enterprise?

[brettdale]

18. Coal sucks

Its a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE CAUSE OF POLLUTION, ITS A BAD IDEA.

[sandnsea]

22. clean coal, new technology

But we don't have a President who will force all the coal plants to upgrade. I'm not sure how clean it is anyway. There's also the mining damage from coal, which is as horrific as the air pollution.

I have no clue why we don't go to wind and solar. Clean coal is part of the Dem energy policy too. But they really mean it, as opposed to Bush saying it and not doing it.

[LittleClarkie]

23. How true are the claims that it can be burned more cleanly now

and would it be worth it to spend technology to see if it could be burned more cleanly?

[Stinky The Clown]

36. Claims iz Claims

I've seen any number of claims about clean coal. But I have no idea if we're there, close, not so close.

All that said, if there's leader who can turn us to it, and if there's **appropriate** and **reliable** and **demonstrably safe** clean coal technology, I'd like to see us move that way. We're sittin' on about 200 years worth of it. That's more supply than oil ever promised. The cost for clean coal may be high now, but over that time span, it has to be cheaper than the alternative (oil).

I'd love to have a leader who challenged the country to develop **truly sustainable** and **truly superior** and **truly safe** alternative energy sources and then fund the research. Imagine a world where the US again leads the technological parade and has available to its citizens a **real** variety of fuel sources all balanced to provide the best and safest technology for each fuel need. I don't know what's the best, but imagine clean coal for electric generation in the populous northeast, solar in the southwest, wind in the central states, bio diesel or hydrogen for cars. Electric cars in urban areas, workable mass transit.

I know that all sounds utopian, but it could also be very economically viable. But it takes a 'big vision' leader who has the country's best interests at heart ... not **just** big business.

So far as I can see, the only one who's come close to this is Al Gore. Of all of the good guys out there, Gore seems to me the one who 'gets it' on the energy score.

Of course ... Gore's a silly old wonk ...... :sarcasm:

[bdot]

25. Pollution is Job #1.

Remember, this president is very pro-pollution.

[MadHound]

28. Quite frankly coal is unneeded and unwanted

Coal is a highly polluting energy option, from extraction to burning it. And the sad thing is that we don't need the coal option anymore. The US DOE reported as far back as 1991 that there is enough harvestable wind energy in North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas to provide the US with its electrical needs through the year 2030.

Sad to say though, since more money can be made for the few off of coal, we will probably stay with that.:eyes:

[scarletlib]

29. I have real trouble supporting expansion of coal industry

Coal is a worse pollutant than oil. It can be cleaned up but it is expensive.

My biggest problem with supporting this industry is that they literally destroy the environment to get at the coal. Strip mining just tears the skin (soil, rocks, etc) off the land. They are supposed to repair but that is questionable

Now they are blowing the tops off of mountains in the Great Smokie Mountains. The result fallout is polluting streams and waterways. There is no cleanup. It all sucks bigtime.

Total devastation to the environment as the industry now functions in this country.

[Blue Diadem]

30. I read recently that there is enough coal in Oh,Ind, Ky and

one other state to equal the amount of oil in all the mid-east. The article was in a small local paper(sorry no links). They said the company, which is trying to get government funding, can make fuel at a manufacturing cost of .80 a gallon using new clean technology.

I had tried at the time to find out more information online but was unable to find anything and unfortunately the paper was tossed.

[Zynx]

38. I can believe those numbers

The US has absolutely enormous amounts of coal.

The trick is finding a clean way to use it.

[megatherium]

31. argument for nuclear power?

A primary argument for nuclear power is "it isn't coal". This argument is actually that there are only four technologies that can be relied upon for baseline generation of electricity: hydroelectric, gas, nuclear and coal. Hydro is pretty much maxed out, there is no more available. Gas is now in short supply, more expensive, and will have to be imported. Coal is a horror show ecologically. So advocates of nuclear power believe they're the only credible option now. They dismiss solar and wind as intermittent or of limited availability. The lack of energy storage technologies prevents solar or wind from being baseline generation of electricity (reliable electricity is needed 24 by 7).

Arguments against nuclear are that it is still dangerous (the risk of an accident is low but the consequences are potentially catastrophic), it produces dangerous waste, and there may be a limit to the availability of its uranium fuel. Some environmentalists have become convinced that nuclear is worthy of consideration (especially if it displaces coal), but many other environmentalists advocate increasing use of solar and wind for peak power generation, while weaning ourselves off of non-renewables in the two or three decades it will take for renewables to become competitive for baseline generation. (E.g., using solar to produce hydrogen, which can be burned in power plants at night.) I used to be pro-nuke but I have lately become convinced that PV solar, as well as wind, are just about there in terms of cost to compete already -- especially if they get enough of a (temporary) subsidy to increase the scale of production to the point where they become relatively inexpensive.

[TrogL]

34. Not around here it ain't

we've still got open strip mines

[Lugnut]

40. Same here

In the anthracite fields. There are still a few remaining operations still working but the coal is deeper and more expensive to extract.

[Capn Sunshine]

39. Hey , yeah ! Coal is great!

They might find a way to BURN it cleaner, but they aren't going to go to any more trouble to MINE it cleaner. Trust me on this one.


Would you eat fish from this water?


It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood