MidlandMikeI can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces.
Or all electric (ie, commercial), but that power has to come from somewhere.
Even solar and wind have come under fire for various reasons. People fight wind in this area.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
AnthonyVOver the long haul, policy makers want to move toward a combustion-free society. Municipalities are banning natural gas in new housing developments and during full remodels. Here is a link to a story about this. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-are-banning-natural-gas-in-new-homes-because-of-climate-change/
I can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces. I suppose in those Californis cities mentioned, that heating is not a large expense, but in colder climates it would be a major expense. It might drive people to propane, which would be a worse CO2 generator.
A little more progress on the fusion side of nuclear energy. MIT is ready to build the next expermental fusion reactor that will theoretically produce twice as much power as you put into it.
https://news.mit.edu/2020/physics-fusion-studies-0929
AnthonyV BaltACD Changing to natural gas is only marginally less disruptive to the enviornment than coal is - they both put CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural gas produces about 45 percent less CO2 than coal per unit of energy. The logic of switching to natural gas was to reduce CO2 emissions while renewables were being developed and energy efficiency was increased. Over the long haul, policy makers want to move toward a combustion-free society. Municipalities are banning natural gas in new housing developments and during full remodels. Here is a link to a story about this. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-are-banning-natural-gas-in-new-homes-because-of-climate-change/
BaltACD Changing to natural gas is only marginally less disruptive to the enviornment than coal is - they both put CO2 into the atmosphere.
Changing to natural gas is only marginally less disruptive to the enviornment than coal is - they both put CO2 into the atmosphere.
Natural gas produces about 45 percent less CO2 than coal per unit of energy. The logic of switching to natural gas was to reduce CO2 emissions while renewables were being developed and energy efficiency was increased.
Over the long haul, policy makers want to move toward a combustion-free society. Municipalities are banning natural gas in new housing developments and during full remodels. Here is a link to a story about this.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-are-banning-natural-gas-in-new-homes-because-of-climate-change/
45% is still marginal - now if we come up with a process that uses CO2 as the power source for the majority of our power needs, then we will have something.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Obviously several serious accidents plus the problems with spent fuel created a negative situation.
However, it seems to me as an amateur that new developments such as mini reactors and improved safety seem to make nuclear an essential component in reducing CO2 emissions. But convincing others is not easy.
AnthonyV The move away from coal happened at least thirty years ago. I wrote of this in another thread a while back. My first job was with a world-wide consulting firm in 1990. In July 1990, the head of the EPA Global Change Division gave a company-wide presentation about global warming. As I wrote in that post, I expected the effort to focus on nuclear power. Instead, the plan was to shift from coal to natural gas, increase energy efficiency, and to increase renewables. Nuclear power was relegated to a mere footnote. I cannot remember the details of how each of these would be achieved, but I was flabbergastered that nuclear wasn't the primary means of reducing CO2 emmisions. I still feel the same in 2020.
The move away from coal happened at least thirty years ago. I wrote of this in another thread a while back. My first job was with a world-wide consulting firm in 1990. In July 1990, the head of the EPA Global Change Division gave a company-wide presentation about global warming. As I wrote in that post, I expected the effort to focus on nuclear power. Instead, the plan was to shift from coal to natural gas, increase energy efficiency, and to increase renewables. Nuclear power was relegated to a mere footnote. I cannot remember the details of how each of these would be achieved, but I was flabbergastered that nuclear wasn't the primary means of reducing CO2 emmisions. I still feel the same in 2020.
Years ago, in another life, I was trained as a Radiation Safety Officer. It wasn't a graduate level course by any means, but what I learned had me, and still has me, firmly with you. While the prospect of radiation accidents are daunting for various reasons, the long term requirements of humanity mean that a direct pipe from the sun, or nuclear generation here on Earth, are the future of our existence. Only kidding about the former.
Coal can't 'rebound', it can't even bounce! When coal hits something solid it shatters.
I pretty much feel the same way about nuclear with respect to CO2 reduction, requires a lot less resources per effective kW of capacity that almost all of non-fossil fuel alternatives.
charlie hebdoMike is an expert on the carbon-based industries.
Thanks, I was a career geologist in the oil & gas industry, but my knowledge of coal is only cross-professional interest. The interest actually came about as much so as a railfan.
Euclid MidlandMike Euclid Without the poltical promise to end coal by the rasing the cost of new regulations, coal would have been less expensive. So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal. If there are government incentives to cut back on coal fired generation, then market forces of lower demand will drive down the price of coal. How can a President’s promise to force coal out of business by razing its price-- then have the effect of lowering the price? That makes no sense. The move kills the coal industry. Once that happens, there is no price. Where is your evidence of coal prices being driven down, as you say? Natural falling demand will lower prices, but killing demand by regulation will not lower the price. It just makes the price moot. The President even said that the new regulations will raise the cost of coal, and thus making it unattractive for investment, and thus destroying the coal industry. So then coal is destroyed by its rising cost of production. This government interference overrides any natural economic market force that normally raises demand as its price falls. For example, if government were to ban coal, the demand for coal would soar, but that would not lead to the prosperity of the coal industry as rising demand normally does in a free market. There can be no natural economic prosperity in a business that has been banned by government. A falling price of coal is moot if the product has been banned.
MidlandMike Euclid Without the poltical promise to end coal by the rasing the cost of new regulations, coal would have been less expensive. So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal. If there are government incentives to cut back on coal fired generation, then market forces of lower demand will drive down the price of coal.
Euclid Without the poltical promise to end coal by the rasing the cost of new regulations, coal would have been less expensive. So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal.
If there are government incentives to cut back on coal fired generation, then market forces of lower demand will drive down the price of coal.
How can a President’s promise to force coal out of business by razing its price-- then have the effect of lowering the price? That makes no sense. The move kills the coal industry. Once that happens, there is no price.
Where is your evidence of coal prices being driven down, as you say?
Natural falling demand will lower prices, but killing demand by regulation will not lower the price. It just makes the price moot. The President even said that the new regulations will raise the cost of coal, and thus making it unattractive for investment, and thus destroying the coal industry. So then coal is destroyed by its rising cost of production. This government interference overrides any natural economic market force that normally raises demand as its price falls.
For example, if government were to ban coal, the demand for coal would soar, but that would not lead to the prosperity of the coal industry as rising demand normally does in a free market. There can be no natural economic prosperity in a business that has been banned by government. A falling price of coal is moot if the product has been banned.
As best as I can tell, you seem to have been conflating the price of coal (eg. at the minehead) with the costs of burning coal for power generation, including things like stack scrubbers. The cost of coal production has been affected for decades by mine safety and environmental regulations. If you know of something from the Obama era that increased the cost of production more than incremntally, please reference it.
I do remember proposed regulations that were a jump in air quality standards for power plants. This would certainly be a disincentive to burn coal. My recollection also is that these regulations were rolled back in the Trump era, but it has not stemed the tide of coal fired plant shut-downs.
charlie hebdoElectroliner worked in the electric industry for many years and is also expert.
AH. I can't be an expert. I am not that far from the office.
rrnut282 charlie hebdo Midland Mike: That settles the economic and technological questions. Really? This is the same, lame, arguement used to support climate change. Two people agree with you, so no more information is needed.
charlie hebdo Midland Mike: That settles the economic and technological questions.
Midland Mike: That settles the economic and technological questions.
Really? This is the same, lame, arguement used to support climate change. Two people agree with you, so no more information is needed.
Mike is an expert on the carbon-based industries. Electroliner worked in the electric industry for many years and is also expert. Are you?
Thousands of researchers in climatological sciences and our militaries accept AGW as fact. What are your creds?
As a retired employee of an electric utility, I concur with what JPS1 has said. It (the utility) started out with coal generation. The plants were small and local and then over time grew bigger and bigger. Coal to the plants came in cuts (10-30) 40 ton cars. Then we got to unit trains (110 cars) and then we built a mine mouth plant (It was less costly to send the energy by transmission line). But the coal we had been burning was high sulphur. Rather than install scrubbers, it was less expensive to change to western low sulphur (Wyoming) coal. Also, as electric load is variable, a daily cycle with low demand at night with it increasing in the morning and peaking in the afternoon. It also has seasonal cycles (some areas are summer peaking [air conditioning]and others are winter peaking [heating] and this influences the generation mix. Older coal plants are less efficient than newer larger units. So the bigger efficient units run as base load and and the older units are brought on line as the load increases And bigger units are harder to vary their output to follow load. So utilities need a mix of units to generate the power to follow the load. Gas as noted in previous posts had higher costs and the supply was limited. I remember when there were gas post lamps at houses and then there was a gas shortage. They got removed fairly quickly. There have been oil shortages also. The utility where I worked installed gas units that were low initial cost but high fuel cost. So they were used for the peak load days when people would turn the airconditioner on. Fracking has created a glut of gas available and it has caused a deep drop in gas price. Supply and demand is very evident in the cost of fuels. I have seen gluts and shortages and it will be interesting to see where this current cycle goes.
JPS1 CMStPnP JPS1 As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
CMStPnP JPS1 As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
+1 Beautifully said.
CMStPnP JPS1 As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact. Fly ash by itself is harmful to humans because of arsenic and trace heavy metals.......is it not? I understand it's use is beneficial to concrete but there is also an environmental reason why they mix it with concrete.
JPS1 As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
Fly ash by itself is harmful to humans because of arsenic and trace heavy metals.......is it not? I understand it's use is beneficial to concrete but there is also an environmental reason why they mix it with concrete.
+1 Spot on!
EuclidI read them both. I quoted JPS1, so I read his post very carefully. You have your opinion. I have mine. Midland Mike has his. Cheap gas is a market force, and so is expensive coal. Without the poltical promise to end coal by the rasing the cost of new regulations, coal would have been less expensive. So, yes, the ultimate death of coal was caused by the market forces, but the market foreces were heavily influenced by the promise to destroy the coal market. If you scare away coal investment, it will raise the cost and price of coal.
Gas became cheap because of technological advances in seismics, lateral drilling, and fracking. The oil & gas industry also pervasively regulated.
Coal was already heavily invested when the bottom started falling out. There would be no incentive for further investment when much of their present investment was stranded.
JPS1As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling operation and infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
SD70Dude Did the revenue earned from your ash sales overcome the cost of installing and maintaining the electrostatc precipitators and other ash handling infrastructure?
As noted, I have been retired for 15 years. My memory tells me that the ash sales did not overcome the cost of the handling and required infrastructure. They mitigated the bottom-line impact.
I work at a paper mill in northern Wisconsin. We put in a large gas fired package boiler and a smaller back-up boiler several years ago because CN jacked up the carload prices of delivered coal to the point it was not economical to run our coal cyclone boiler year round.
Management wants to convert our cyclone boiler to gas but our area has a volume constraint issue. We can't run our gas boilers in the winter because they draw more than the combined towns in the area. We are working with our gas supplier to get more volume but it takes a lot of time and money. Due to new EPA regs we're no longer allowed to sell our ash as filler to the local blacktop plant and now have to pay to landfill it.
Having said that, management still wants to convert fully to gas. This will get 24 truckloads off the highway and provide cleaner emssions. CN doesn't want to handle carload traffic and our rail line will either be sold or scrapped.
JPS1As an aside, one of the preceding commentators noted that coal produces a lot of ash, which has to be gotten rid of.
You can see the large ash lagoon north of the plant here:
JPS1 As an aside, one of the preceding commentators noted that coal produces a lot of ash, which has to be gotten rid of. We made money off of it. We were able to sell it to folks that could use it to help make roadway materials and, if I am not mistaken, pressboard.
The power plants out here also sell ash, for use in making concrete. Much of it is shipped by rail, in covered hoppers.
But this was not always the case, and I am not sure if the plants are able to sell 100% of the ash they produce. At least once of the Edmonton-area plants (Sundance, now converted to gas firing) disposed of their ash by dumping it back into old mine pits. An adjacent plant (Keephills, still coal-fired for now) uses a large ash lagoon, whose dike has been slowly collapsing for a number of years, requiring continuous maintenance.
Did the revenue earned from your ash sales overcome the cost of installing and maintaining the electrostatc precipitators and other ash handling infrastructure?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
JPS1 BaltACD Transportation, mine to user, has nearly always been a bigger cost in the use of coal than the cost of the coal itself. That was not true in the case of the lignite coal we mined in east Texas. The power plants were located within spitting distance of the open pit mines. It was the ability to co-locate the power plants and mines that made the lignite coal, sometimes referred to as brown coal, economically feasible. As time when on we opened mines that require movement of the coal to the power plants. To do so we built a railroad at two of our plant sites. But the distances were less than 8 to 10 miles. As an aside, one of the preceding commentators noted that coal produces a lot of ash, which has to be gotten rid of. We made money off of it. We were able to sell it to folks that could use it to help make roadway materials and, if I am not mistaken, pressboard.
BaltACD Transportation, mine to user, has nearly always been a bigger cost in the use of coal than the cost of the coal itself.
That was not true in the case of the lignite coal we mined in east Texas. The power plants were located within spitting distance of the open pit mines. It was the ability to co-locate the power plants and mines that made the lignite coal, sometimes referred to as brown coal, economically feasible.
As I said - nearly always - NOT always. Yes there are ultimate users that are co-located very near the mines that supply the user. In addition to users located a distance from the mines in the USA, there is still a business in the US exporting coal to foreign destinations - for both steam and metallurgical uses.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.