Anyone still burn coal?

[bholler]

There isn't 50K people dying from coal each year. Ever wonder how they calculate that?

Setting aside the dubious data the EPA uses let's suppose we perform an experiment and have 10 people jump off a 20 foot ladder and 2 die. From that we can assume that when a population of 10 falls 20 feet 2 will die, extrapolate from there. If 20 people jump off a 10 foot ladder 2 will die... if 40 people jump off a 5 foot ladder 2 will die. When 300 million jump off a infinitesimally small ladder 2 will still die.

In other words some guy that lives hundreds of miles from any coal activity that eats chicken wings all day while smoking a carton of cigarettes and downing it all with a case beer will have a small percentage of his death attributed to coal. The aggregate of that is where the 50K deaths come from.

I am sorry but that is not in any way how they come up with death statistics. I have no problem with people using coal but it does without question have it's problems. And coal ash is in no way clean fill.

I look at what coal exhaust from the power plant near us did to the cars, roofs, siding etc for years before it shut down. There is absolutely no way that isn't effecting people's health.

Why do you think acid rain issues have gone down in correlation with our power plants moving away from coal? The scrubbers on the stacks helped allot but they were far from perfect.

 

[thecoalman]

You example with the ladder is foolish. You also just made up statistics on the spot. Stop trying to act like coal has not killed millions of people over the years.

If you believe it to be foolish I'd suggest directing your complaints to the EPA. That 50K is representative of the exposure to the entire population.it's not individulized. The exposure to the the entire population is the equivalent of jumping off the infintesimally small ladder. The only major difference between my example and EPA is the EPA doesn't have hard data.

 

[bholler]

If you believe it to be foolish I'd suggest directing your complaints to the EPA. That 50K is representative of the exposure to the entire population.it's not individulized. The exposure to the the entire population is the equivalent of jumping off the infintesimally small ladder. The only major difference between my example and EPA is the EPA doesn't have hard data.

The EPA isn't the one compiling that data. And at this point yes the ammout of coal used in this country has reduced the exposure to the entire population to a very small amount. That doesn't mean there are no dangers involved with those who are still exposed.

Oh and btw that 50000 number was the highest estimate and covered deaths related to all power plant emissions not just coal.

 

[clancey]

There were four or five countries that went early to the "most important climate meeting" and they went there early to discuss that they could not get rid of coal in many many years --one I think was India with lots of people, another was Portugal (I could be wrong) and there were a few more that I cannot remember but the bottom line for them is they could not get rid of coal for a long long time and was going to continue to use it for it was "upgrading and modernizing" their whole way of life this was the only thing that they could do at this time unless there was a better way for them...To me this was sad for it was telling a person who was eating a sandwich verses a 15 course dinner meal...and the 15 course meal people telling them what to do..--very insulting---as well as a abused child telling the whole world what to do in the way of energy responses---this child is only abused in the way of not having a childhood and put into the world of politics where she does not belong--I call this child abuse...As much as I dread saying this---in the world of politics and better for the environment (if they are so concerned) lets go nuclear...so we can all die about the same time as the air washes over the earth in due time...Let coal be cleaned and used and stop fighting against this energy way for many many nations and ours in the future has been supported and saved by coal--it is a life saver..You can delivered coal by train to keep warm in the winter time but oil needs some tending to and a whole lot of people who are unskilled cannot keep up with the job of filling each and every household for them to survive bitter winters. Coal they can shovel up from the trains and take home and survive.. Wood they can burn and survive but coal in stoves need less tending to and less amount of work and worry to continue--with the right equipment fill it up and maybe two or three times a day keep it burning and long lasting as well.. We have plenty, We have plenty of oil as well so lets use it and clean it up and clean up our forests and use our extra wood forest products as well...Put nothing out of bounds--just figure out ways to clean it up so you will not have coal dust on your cars..Don't denigrate it but praise it and thank the Lord for it and figure out how to use it safely. Just a old ladys opinion here, clancey

 

[bholler]

There were four or five countries that went early to the "most important climate meeting" and they went there early to discuss that they could not get rid of coal in many many years --one I think was India with lots of people, another was Portugal (I could be wrong) and there were a few more that I cannot remember but the bottom line for them is they could not get rid of coal for a long long time and was going to continue to use it for it was "upgrading and modernizing" their whole way of life this was the only thing that they could do at this time unless there was a better way for them...To me this was sad for it was telling a person who was eating a sandwich verses a 15 course dinner meal...and the 15 course meal people telling them what to do..--very insulting---as well as a abused child telling the whole world what to do in the way of energy responses---this child is only abused in the way of not having a childhood and put into the world of politics where she does not belong--I call this child abuse...As much as I dread saying this---in the world of politics and better for the environment (if they are so concerned) lets go nuclear...so we can all die about the same time as the air washes over the earth in due time...Let coal be cleaned and used and stop fighting against this energy way for many many nations and ours in the future has been supported and saved by coal--it is a life saver..You can delivered coal by train to keep warm in the winter time but oil needs some tending to and a whole lot of people who are unskilled cannot keep up with the job of filling each and every household for them to survive bitter winters. Coal they can shovel up from the trains and take home and survive.. Wood they can burn and survive but coal in stoves need less tending to and less amount of work and worry to continue--with the right equipment fill it up and maybe two or three times a day keep it burning and long lasting as well.. We have plenty, We have plenty of oil as well so lets use it and clean it up and clean up our forests and use our extra wood forest products as well...Put nothing out of bounds--just figure out ways to clean it up so you will not have coal dust on your cars..Don't denigrate it but praise it and thank the Lord for it and figure out how to use it safely. Just a old ladys opinion here, clancey

Even with the best scrubbers available coal power plants still creat acid rain. They still pump massive ammouts of emissions into our atmosphere. Yes some countries are not currently in a position to move away from coal. No one is denying that but the more countries that do the better.

 

[all night moe]

The EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster. I would say, it's safe to bet, there are ways to burn coal cleanly. They just don't want us to know about it. They would be out of a job.

Coal also gives the states independence, and wealth of natural resources.

Edit: I recall reading somewhere a while back, Montana wanted to produce oil from coal. They sit on some large coal deposits. They were denied.

 

[bholler]

The EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster. I would say, it's safe to bet, there are ways to burn coal cleanly. They just don't want us to know about it. They would be out of a job.

Coal also gives the states independence, and wealth of natural resources.

Can you tell us how the EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster with actual examples???

If there was an economically viable option for burning coal cleanly we would be using it.

If coal gives states independence and wealth why why have coal areas been poverty stricken for decades? Long before the "war on coal"

 

[SpaceBus]

The EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster. I would say, it's safe to bet, there are ways to burn coal cleanly. They just don't want us to know about it. They would be out of a job.

Coal also gives the states independence, and wealth of natural resources.

Edit: I recall reading somewhere a while back, Montana wanted to produce oil from coal. They sit on some large coal deposits. They were denied.

Coal to oil only makes sense if you can't get the oil in the first place. You can also make oil from wood and other biomass, it's just cheaper to use oil, or even coal. Unfortunately there are no clean ways to burn coal, as no matter what you do sulfuric acid and heavy metals will be created by the combustion of the coal. It might be possible to remove the sulfur and heavy metals when processing the solid coal into a gas or liquid, but I don't know for sure. Nobody has really done this since WWII as there hasn't been a need.

 

[all night moe]

If coal gives states independence and wealth why why have coal areas been poverty stricken for decades

Because of the oil industry wich took off in the late 1800s and was quickly monopolized. The coal states were wealthy before this. Of course it was dirty but I am betting there are some ways to use it's energy cleaner. I'd bet gasification could be implied here.
I watched a vid of an OWB gasifing tires cut in half with no smoke out the stack. If I can find it..... I will link it.

Can you tell us how the EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster with actual examples??

I'll give you one and it's common sense. They took much of the sulfur out of D2. Sulfur is the BTU energy in oil. At least the highest energy. It is also lubricating diesel engine's injection systems depend on. So now, and I noticed first hand, with low sulfur fuel you have to burn more per gallon for the same energy used. Come 2014 and the EPA requires DPF for the reburn in exhaust. Now we have engines that are further restricted of making efficient power. It costs tax payer moneys to run this 3 letter alphabet organization.

I'm not saying we should be depositing pollutants in the atmosphere. I think every community should be responsible for themselves.
Don't mind me much ..... I've always been a critical thinker.

 

[jatoxico]

The EPA's recommendations are a response to a problem. If industry could come up with a cost effective way of using coal that didn't pollute, they would do it, why wouldn't they?

Better to look at industries attempts to influence legislation to the detriment of all, than to fault those that identify the problem. Car safety, emissions, workplace health and safety etc etc, companies always have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

 

[stoveliker]

Sulfur is NOT the BTU in oil. Unless you have been able to bend the laws of physics and chemistry. In which case I suggest you nominate yourself for the big prizes they give out in October in Stockholm.

 

[bholler]

Because of the oil industry wich took off in the late 1800s and was quickly monopolized. The coal states were wealthy before this. Of course it was dirty but I am betting there are some ways to use it's energy cleaner. I'd bet gasification could be implied here.
I watched a vid of an OWB gasifing tires cut in half with no smoke out the stack. If I can find it..... I will link it.

Lack of visible smoke does not mean clean. Lots of nasty stuff can still be coming out of the stack.

So you are admitting that coal died off long before the EPA regulations etc simply because it couldn't compete with more economic and easier options.

I'll give you one and it's common sense. They took much of the sulfur out of D2. Sulfur is the BTU energy in oil. At least the highest energy. It is also lubricating diesel engine's injection systems depend on. So now, and I noticed first hand, with low sulfur fuel you have to burn more per gallon for the same energy used. Come 2014 and the EPA requires DPF for the reburn in exhaust. Now we have engines that are further restricted of making efficient power. It costs tax payer moneys to run this 3 letter alphabet organization.

I'm not saying we should be depositing pollutants in the atmosphere. I think every community should be responsible for themselves.
Don't mind me much ..... I've always been a critical thinker.

Ok I agree there are some problems with the current diesel fuel standards. But none of that shows that the EPA is a power grabbing industrial monster.

If you are truly a critical thinker just look at air and water quality before and after the EPA. I am by no means saying there aren't issues with the EPA. Far from it but it's existence has made massive positive changes that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

 

[bholler]

Sulfur is NOT the BTU in oil. Unless you have been able to bend the laws of physics and chemistry. In which case I suggest you nominate yourself for the big prizes they give out in October in Stockholm.

Exactly. If it were it would be burnt and not dumped out the exhaust.

 

[all night moe]

Exactly. If it were it would be burnt and not dumped out the exhaust.

I was always under the assumption that sulfur does burn ..... the common match stick? Not being sarcastic if it seems like I'm coming across that way. I'm not saying it burns completely but I'm willing to bet a greater percentage could by possibly building engines to more completely burn it. I can't keep posting currently. My wife is babbling in my ear and I can't hear myself think .....

 

[jatoxico]

just look at air and water quality before and after the EPA. I am by no means saying there aren't issues with the EPA. Far from it but it's existence has made massive positive changes that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Exactly. Everyone is going to be able to find some faults depending on their perspective and personal situation but the improvements should be clear to everyone and we shouldn't be looking to go backwards.

Back to the topic, who would care if we got our energy from coal if it came w/o the downsides?

 

[clancey]

Right now the way I am reading whats happening I do not trust any three letter outfits...It's all corrupt and power money hungry organizations that rule our country. That's my say and I am sticking with it...old clancey

 

[stoveliker]

I was always under the assumption that sulfur does burn ..... the common match stick? Not being sarcastic if it seems like I'm coming across that way. I'm not saying it burns completely but I'm willing to bet a greater percentage could by possibly building engines to more completely burn it. I can't keep posting currently. My wife is babbling in my ear and I can't hear myself think .....

Sulfur that burns (oxidizes) often ends up forming acids. Not good for the environment, and not for your exhaust either.

Yes, "building engines to more completely burn" the fuel is part of what the EPA has instigated (pm 2.5, VOCs etc -> catalyst to burn it more completely). Now if we could do that without dumping problematic stuff in our atmosphere, that'd be great. That is also what the EPA is guiding ICE and fuel mfgs to.

Yes, it's a bureaucratic organization, yes they won't get all calls right the first time or ever, but on balance the EPA is a benefit to this country and beyond. Regardless of that benefit, we should all point at (valid) issues where the EPA does not make the right call. They *are* willing to learn. However, that learning is based on new *data*, and not some opinion of some guy on the tv or the internet.

Same for other such issues, e.g. masks - things (recommendations) are not always perfect the first time around.

 

[stoveliker]

Back to the topic, who would care if we got our energy from coal if it came w/o the downsides?

If coal were clean as natural gas, and CO2 neutral, and not a finite resource, I'd be all for it.

(I think nuclear is the way to go. Death rate is rather small, though visible when it happens. Waste is "strong", but very localized - rather than spreading stuff out in our atmosphere, we could dump it in a cubic mile someplace and keep the rest clean.)

 

[jatoxico]

Me neither, XOM, CVX, CMP and the rest.

 

[bholler]

I was always under the assumption that sulfur does burn ..... the common match stick? Not being sarcastic if it seems like I'm coming across that way. I'm not saying it burns completely but I'm willing to bet a greater percentage could by possibly building engines to more completely burn it. I can't keep posting currently. My wife is babbling in my ear and I can't hear myself think .....

The common match stick is mainly phosphorus. Yes sulphur burns but when it does it produces sulphur dioxide. When exposed to water it creates a form of sulphuric acid. Not good for the environment at all.

 

[bholler]

Right now the way I am reading whats happening I do not trust any three letter outfits...It's all corrupt and power money hungry organizations that rule our country. That's my say and I am sticking with it...old clancey

Try reading what those organizations put out directly and what both sides are saying about it. Not just the interpretation from the side you want to believe.

 

[SpaceBus]

Right now the way I am reading whats happening I do not trust any three letter outfits...It's all corrupt and power money hungry organizations that rule our country. That's my say and I am sticking with it...old clancey

So what about the money hungry organizations that make a profit off of burning fossil fuels? Do you trust them?

 

[thecoalman]

Edit: I recall reading somewhere a while back, Montana wanted to produce oil from coal. They sit on some large coal deposits. They were denied.

This is not a new process, the Germans used it during WW2. Last I checked oil needs to be around $50 to $60 a barrel to be profitable. It's a risky venture especially now with all the oil production in the US. You can certainly profit when oil is high but one good dip in oil prices and you're bankrupt. One thing to be aware of is this only produces diesel, home heating heating oil, jet fuel etc.

 

[thecoalman]

If coal gives states independence and wealth why why have coal areas been poverty stricken for decades? Long before the "war on coal"

Sure if you look at the local scale, the profits an usage has not benefited many local communities. On the other hand it fueled the industrial revolution helping propel the US to world's largest economy and is helping the Chinese do the same thing. Cheap, reliable and accessible domestic energy source is the cornerstone of any economy.

 

[thecoalman]

, and not a finite resource, I'd be all for it.

As practical matter it's infinite at least here in the US. Reserves that are known to exist here in the US and feasible to mine using today's technology can last for over 100 years. Estimated and other known reserves that currently can't be mined feasibly go into the thousands of years.

The reason I say as practical matter is the supply will long outlast it's need. My money is on fusion or geothermal replacing fossil fuels going into the future.