White House Reportedly Exploring Wartime Rule To Help Coal, Nuclear (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: According to reports from Bloomberg and E&E News, the Trump Administration has been exploring another way to help coal and nuclear generators: the Defense Production Act of 1950. The Act was passed under President Truman. Motivated by the Korean War, it allows the president broad authority to boost U.S. industries that are considered a priority for national security. On Thursday, E&E News cited sources that said "an interagency process is underway" at the White House to examine possible application of the act to the energy industry. The goal would be to give some form of preference to coal and nuclear plants that are struggling to compete with cheap natural gas.

If the DOE decides not to invoke Section 202(c), the president may turn to the Defense Production Act. According to a 2014 summary report (PDF) from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the act would allow the president to "demand priority for defense-related products," "provide incentives to develop, modernize, and expand defense productive capacity," and establish "a voluntary reserve of trained private sector executives available for emergency federal employment," among other powers. (Some even more permissive applications of the Act were terminated in 1957.) Using the Act to protect coal and nuclear facilities would almost certainly be more controversial, as the link between national defense and keeping uneconomic coal generators running is not well-established. The Administration could apply the Act to "provide or guarantee loans to industry" for material-specific deliveries and production. "The president may also authorize the purchase of 'industrial items or technologies for installation in government or private industrial facilities,'" reports Ars.

Comments

And here we thought only sustainable was bankrupt

[AutodidactLabrat]

Seems that the fabled fossil fuel industries must be carefully fed taxpayer dollars just to stay afloat.
So who's the leech here, oil barons?
Solar? Wind? Geothermal? Biomass?
Nope, it's YOU fools.

What about us?

[Anonymous Coward]

The horseshoers of America have been having a tough time as of late since the Army isn't using as many warhorses as they used to. #MakeAmericaShodAgain

Re: What about us?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to nag but there are too many neighsayers for that to work.

Re: What about us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it may not provide a stable income like in its hayday, but ponying up the money should reign in those complaining they've been saddled with a raw deal. It's only a few bucks.

Re: What about us?

[wyHunter]

quit horsing around.

Mythological war on coal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Because of fracking in the USA and Russian natural gas producers and others World wide, the price of Natural Gas plummeted to where is was much cheaper than coal. Power plants that had no legal reason to do so, switched to NG because it was cheaper.

The Free Market in action.

But it hurt the coal miners. And they paid off certain Senators like, Mitch McConnell and Orin Hatch to lie and say the Obama administration started a "war on coal." (He backtracked after Trump was elected.)

Hannity and Limbaugh (both liars themselves) propagated the lie among their gullible listeners as well as Trolls on facecbook and other places.

Bit as we see, it was all the coal miners bribing Republican Senators to keep their outdated business profitable for themselves.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans are all about subsidizing broken, obsolete or flawed ideas. It's their entire platform, while pretending to be against big deficit spending (for a few years)

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[plopez]

The Koch family empire was built on coal.

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[jellomizer]

Not the miners, the executives who take all the money.

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[careysub]

The Koch family empire was built on oil. Fred Koch's founding business was an oil refinery, and the present day Kochs run a diversified petrochemical business.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[gtall]

I don't think the coal industry has enough money to make big contributions to Republicans. Rather, I think the Republicans are playing on the notion that coal will save the states where there are enough fools in those states to think coal could do this.

As for the Republicans blaming Obama for a "war on coal", in some sense it doesn't matter what Obama did, they'd have picked on something else. They needed an "issue" and the "war on coal" guaranteed them Republican voters. Those states never bought into the whole Environment Degradation issue that is central to Democrats. The voters in those states more or less have a Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to coal. Coal can foul their air and their water, but they understand coal, they do not understand Env. Deg. E. D. doesn't provide jobs. The whole fact that coal doesn't provide many jobs and what jobs it does are being automated away is lost on the voters in those states.

Nothing the White House can do on coal will save it, natural gas will eat the part of the lunch it hasn't already eaten. I'm unsure about nuclear. If the W.H. were serious about nuclear, they'd solve the waste issue first...but they aren't serious, and solving it would be unglamorous, take a lot of time, require far reaching policy decisions...in short, just what the Republicans are no good at.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[youngone]

So you're arguing socialized medicine and Public services/state-subsidized education are a bad thing? Wow.
Where I live we call it civilization.

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah he's fine with being someone else's pawn. Doesn't care that tax cuts to the rich limit his ability to succeed while preserving their elite position for no other reason than they already occupy that position. Doesn't care that the debt that is drawn as a result of the tax cuts is then bought by wealthy foreign nationals and the very same people who got the tax cut allowing them to not only invest more but then get further benefits in long term stable bond interest rates - essentially his tax pays them interest. He's fine with that.

Meanwhile China is getting rich from this very system and investing the profits in huge state funded developments which mean that their internal transport economy is massively improved, their ability to move their military internally is much more efficient and their population has 65 million empty homes to grow into.

One empire is heading towards a new golden age. The other is crumbling. But you know, pets not actually stop to think about why it's crumbling.

There is proof in economic theory that stimulating the bottom end of the economy actually generates the most growth. Not this trickle down deflationary bullshit.

But then again who would expect programmers who are good at maths to actually understand the macroeconomic implications of this usury. No one cares that a peasant in the 1400s had access and right through commons to more natural resources than the average working class citizen today. That resources that belonged to you and everyone were sold without your implicit permission in a way that you saw no benefit to allow generations of certain privileged families to feast on the cream of your crop.

Unless you're a billionaire you're a nieve moron if you don't understand that you would be better off under some kind of socialism. It's not like democratic capitalist countries have a proven track record of limiting the human rights abuses so often used to juxtapose capitalism and communism. When the leaders of the free world have directly authorised the most aggressive behaviour both militarily and financially. It is under these regimes that water is no longer your human right.

These very fossil fuel industries can't wait for their byproduct of foul air to allow a market to sell your canned air. You should be thankful you're alive peasant. It is by the grace of the glorious elite that you are even allowed to live. It is by their invention and means of production that you even survive. They own it. Not you. Even if it should have been yours, and everyone else's all along.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[WindBourne]

And yet, we continue to see more and more of this BECAUSE we do not have a decent minimum wage.
OTOH, if we had a decent minimum wage AND would solve the illegal issue, then we would likely see all of this public spending go away. Sadly, you fascists want to keep supporting companies in this fashion.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[WindBourne]

GOP are bigger on it, but if anybody thinks that is the only way, they are kidding themselves.
Dems support of Hollywood and Silicon Valley comes quickly to mind.
Clinton publicly promised to kill off H1B, and the privately promised to increase it from 50K yearly to 500K yearly.
Not much difference between her and Trump/top GOP.

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[WindBourne]

ROFL.
What jobs will Americans NOT do? We do them all, just not at below minimum wage.
And the illegals are actually bankrupting companies. The reason is that most are paid less than minimum, but more than their own nations pay (hence why they are here). It is the same issue for Europe and even China now.
BUT, the fact is, that illegals have taken many high paying jobs. For example, construction used to pay good money. Back in early 80s, I was paid $8-12 / hr for doing labor and $13-20/hr for carpenter work. Now, illegals are making the same amount of money, but not paying taxes.

BUT, if they go home, then our military vets can get paid decently, and we can automate a lot. Same as what is seen in other nations all over the world.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[mikael]

So if they can modernize the coal stations so that they don't emit carbon soot that would be a good thing. There are systems to scrub and collect all those gases and pollutants. Same with nuclear power. The old slashdot joke states that the nuclear industry wanted to decommission old plants and build new ones. The environmentalists wanted no more new plants and to decommission the old ones. So they compromised. Keep the old plants running and don't build any new plants.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[rtb61]

Here's a does of fiscal reality. Coal is fucked, they know it, dirty to mine, dirty to use and high cost to extract, store and transport. So why pump up coal. Easy shit current share price, make all sorts of promise to protect industry, up goes the share price. Insiders dump their shares when the price is high. Then of course, meh, coal industry to hard to preserve, doesn't make sense, won't do it. BOOM, down crashes share price, helped along with shorts by the insiders who sold high based upon empty promises, made money on the way up and on the way down to bankruptcy, woo hoo. Coal is over, only possible future, drill holes into coal seams, fill with bacteria to much the coal and release gas, really problematic as the gas is likely to come out all over the place not just the hole you drilled (so pot of gold at end of rainbow for people scammed into buying coal shares based upon empty promises.

Trust no one in financial circles, not ever. Goldman 'psychopaths are us' Sachs, not just them of course. An industry designed for psychopaths by psychopaths, to parasite on the rest of us. Coal talk, all pump and dump, it's the pension funds who will get burned, not the coal.

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[crimson tsunami]

These for starters, you will find out the rest when the business themselves close down as they are no longer profitable.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[AmiMoJo]

Coal is something that Trump understands and can do something about by gutting the EPA, introducing tariffs and funnelling them federal money.

Republicans care much more about Obamacare, but are too dumb to do anything about it. Who knew healthcare was so complex?

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[AmiMoJo]

The problem is that the scrubbers cost a lot of money and are not 100% effective. So if you have a finite amount of money to invest in power generation you have to choose between cleaning up coal, gambling on nuclear or putting it into rapidly growing renewables.

Even if you don't care about the environment it's clear that renewables and energy storage are the better investment and the general direction in which everything is moving.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[Type44Q]

it was all the coal miners

This isn't hard; repeat after me: "Coal Mining Companies." Coal miners are just folks desperate enough to feed their families that they're willing to endure [what for most Westerners] are dangerous, unhealthy and unimaginably unpleasant working conditions.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[jeff4747]

Clinton publicly promised to kill off H1B

Citation required.

Clinton claimed H1B holders taking jobs from citizens was "Heartbreaking", but did not promise to do anything about it.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[jeff4747]

There are systems to scrub and collect all those gases and pollutants.

There are theoretical systems to scrub and collect all those gases. In practice, gassification systems like that are far too expensive because natural gas is cheap and can be throttled easily.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[tlhIngan]

Republicans are all about subsidizing broken, obsolete or flawed ideas. It's their entire platform, while pretending to be against big deficit spending (for a few years)

Or is it old money versus new money? Republicans are "conservative" and thus things should stay the same. You used coal for energy - none of these newfangled "gas" or "solar" or "wind" or whatever. We used coal and we will always use coal.

Ditto oil for cars - cars have always used gasoline* and thus we will always use oil. No fancy "bio" crap or "electric". These are cars, and we want big heavy "we own the road" cars, not dinky electric golf carts getting in our way.

That's how the old money made their money. Republicans simply reflect the fact that the old money made their money in those industries and thus will keep those industries alive. Old money has always frowned on new money and thus those newfangled industries need to die.

* - actually, the early cars were powered by steam, electricity or other method. Gas was actually not a preferred fuel (too much nasty exhaust fumes compared to coal/steam or electricity). And given how bad battery technology was in the 19th century, this was an achievement.

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[wyHunter]

If you want to say 'hydrocarbon' business, I'd agree, as gas is a great feedstock for many things they do, too.

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[WindBourne]

I watch, listen and read a great deal.
Sadly, far too many of you far left ACs that make wild claims about CHina and believe their lies are just as dangerous as those on the far right.

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[WindBourne]

Red Tide,
You obviously did not read the article. Please take up an english class and learn to READ prior to commenting.

Re:Mythological war on coal.

[AutodidactLabrat]

Socialism? You mean Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark?

Re: Mythological war on coal.

[crimson tsunami]

So just 1 more data point agreeing with that study that showed fox viewers knew less than people who watched no news at all.

Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal is not clean at all. It causes lots of air pollution, especially in the form of carbon. The carbon dioxide is causing global temperatures to rapidly warm and is threatening mass extinctions. Yet you right wing nutjobs are obsessed with coal. Your obsession with coal is helping to destroy the Earth, along with your obsession with huge SUVs that waste gasoline. Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

They don't hate the Earth, They love power at any cost. Evil is not about I think I'll pollute the earth today because I'm evil. Evil is about not giving a fuck about polluting the Earth because by helping this group they can help keep their power to do other things.

It is power and control at any cost. Some of their coalition no doubt even care about certain issues and so the Faustian bargain continues because they must have power to advance those issues, so will turn a blind eye to everything else and what is more they will rationalize _anything_ for their people because they advance their key issues.

Many of them truly believe in their moral cause, and that is what is so scary. Even now Trump has a really good approval rating among republicans, and no amount of corruption is going to change it, because they truly see it as the lesser evil.

Hell the one and only saving grace about Trump is he seems to care about nothing but his own brand. If he was a zealot of some kind we might be in three more wars by now. That doesn't mean he isn't doing enormous damage to our country and our planet and to simple standards of human decency. He is. It just means it could be worse.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[Alain Williams]

Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

The big effects of climate change are several decades into the future, propping up coal wins votes in 3 years time.

Re: Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Coal is not clean at all."

Flase! That is why we need "clean coal" to make murrica great again.

When you take a scrub brush and some dish soap and clean off the surface, then you get environment friendly "clean coal."

And despite all the negative lies and PR, when mixed with the secret ingredient covfefe before being burned, then it creates more energy and jobs.

Private Exchange email servers, Benghazi, and trumped up trickle down crookedness is just pathetic. Sad!

Re: Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[reanjr]

Sure, we'll just spin up a test planet in a lab and do experiments on that. Simple. Science isn't religion. Once you learn that science includes more than just faith and doctrine, you'll understand why your statement is one of scientific illiteracy.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[TomGreenhaw]

Start reading here: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-...

If that's not enough, read all the good science referenced here: http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...

If you've gotten this far and still are unconvinced, you must not believe in the scientific method of thought or are in the extreme minority, more here on that topic: https://climate.nasa.gov/scien...

One does not have to be a scientist to know that something is terribly wrong.

Happy earth day.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[vux984]

"Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect."

Please cite at least one that doesn't.

"Find one original experimental study which shows a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase."

Right after you find me a couple hundred identical planets, to use as test and control groups to come up with a statistically valid experiment to your satisfaction; right after you give me the technology to control and vary climate composition levels directly.

"Ten years ago, I tried and I failed. Blown my mind at the time."

It blew your mind that climate science, the study of a global scale phenomena of which we have exactly one to study, and of which we have very little direct control isn't awash in studies which show direct causative links between A and B ? Really?

"I can now freely admit that I was a clueless fucking librtard."

I don't know about libtard, but 'fucking clueless' is apt.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[Sique]

Here: John Tyndall: Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat, London 1872.

Lets put it that way: The Greenhouse Effect is a wellknown phenomenon since at least 150 years (hey, we build greenhouses for some reason!). And of course every material that has different absorbtion properties at different frequencies comes with a greenhouse effect, because it is transparent to some frequencies and absorbs energy at other frequencies. Thus energy that at one frequency passes the layer gets trapped at other frequencies. Glass for instance is very transparent for electromagnetic waves from the visual spectrum, but is not for frequencies of the thermal spectrum. That's why we build greenhouses with glass roofs. Because of Ludwig Boltzmann's, Josef Stefan's and Gustav Kirchhoff's work, we know the distribution of the frequency of a Black Body's radiation, and we know, that Earth at a surface temperature of 290 K on average radiates its thermal energy at frequencies (Kirchhoff's Law, Planck's Law) where carbon dioxide, vapor and methane are absorbing electromagnetic waves. On the other hand, the Sun (with a surface temperature of 5700 K) emits its energy at much higher frequencies, for which most atmospheric gases are transparent. The Sun's energy enters the Earth's atmosphere at frequencies close to the visual spectrum, the light gets absorbed at the Earth's surface and heats it up to 255 K (on average). Then the Earth radiates the energy, but the atmosphere is intransparent at thermal frequencies due to the presence of vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Only if Earth gets heated up due to the trapped energy to 290 K, it radiates enough energy to get into a thermal equilibrium.

That's the greenhouse effect on Earth. We have greenhouse effects at the other planets too, if they have an atmosphere. Venus is famous for its strong greenhouse effect which causes Venus's surface to have temperatures above 700 K. Mars has a greenhouse effect too, but because of the thin atmosphere, it's quite small and increases the surface temperature about 20 K above the Black Body temperature.

The current greenhouse effect of Earth is about 35 K, but it is highly dependent on the actual atmospheric composition. Changing the makeup of the atmosphere changes the strength of the greenhouse effect.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[shilly]

Ouch! That's gotta hurt...elegantly put

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[PPH]

Coal is not clean at all. It causes lots of air pollution

This, exactly.

It's time to double down on nuclear plant construction.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Are you telling me that people denying global warming are ignorant illiterates that don't understand high school level physics*. I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!!

* I understand that US high schools do not teach much physics, I am referring to the level of the material not the location of the school?

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[pesho]

Let's do a brain test on you. Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect.

Here you go (the second hit in the search is a good one, and as you keep going down the list you should be able to get at least a hundred more):

https://scholar.google.com/sch...

This search doesn't even include the basic physics behind the phenomenon which were established back in the 19th century.

Ten years ago, I tried and I failed. Blown my mind at the time.

Are you sure that you had a mind to blow? Based on your post it seems you had a void where you brain should be that suffered implosion rather than explosion event.

I can now freely admit that I was a clueless fucking librtard. Let's see if you can be equally honest now.

You are still fucking clueless. Not sure what librtard means. Please define.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[DanielRavenNest]

> "Find one original experimental study which shows a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase."

The temperature of Venus (863 F) is much higher than can be accounted for by being closer to the Sun. It gets 91% more sunlight, and basic thermodynamics says the equilibrium temperature should be 17.6% higher on the Kelvin scale, so 353 K = 80 C = 175 F. Therefore early science fiction stories assumed it was cloudy because it was hot and steamy, but people might be able to live near the poles. The first probes that got there found this was not at all right. The surface pressure is 90.8 times Earth's, and it is 96.5% CO2. Carbon Dioxide being a greenhouse gas, it traps infrared heat, warming the planet to the temperature I noted.

Mercury is much closer to the Sun, and gets 3.5 times as much sunlight, but is airless, and therefore is somewhat cooler than Venus, even at equatorial noon when it is hottest.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[gtall]

Re Trump and his approval rating among Republicans. It is possible that the Republicans have chased a fair number of the normal people out of the Party that simply cannot stomach him. So his approval rating would remain high in the left over dregs.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[pesho]

Let me restate the original question in simpler terms: where does it say anything about the causative role of CO2 in global warming?

Maybe, for once, you libtards could stop assuming that your opponents are stupid brainless hilter trump russia nazis?

Oh no Sunshine, I am not assuming anything. I am basing my conclusion that you are an ignorant idiot (stupid and brainless apply too) on the fact that you did not read past the abstract of the first article. Have you read further you would have found that "The greenhouse effect of doubling CO2 is 4 W m-2 and that of human activities during the past century is ~2 W m-2.". Again, I fail to understand some aspects of your last sentence. Please define the following terms: "libtards" and "hilter trump russia nazis". Some of them may apply to you too, but I don't want to jump to conclusions without knowing what you mean by these terms.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[WindBourne]

and likely no KY for him.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[Anonymous Coward]

try svante arrhenius from 1896 http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Find one original experimental study which shows a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase.

You know what's great about science? You can do it yourself!

Here you'll find one of many youtube videos that demonstrates a simple experiment that you can perform using commonly available materials in your own home to show a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase, just as you've asked.

Hopefully your mind will be equally blown this time around.

Also, your google-fu sucks. Seriously. That video took me all of 10 seconds to find, and the experiment it describes could be performed by a kid in grammar school.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[ceoyoyo]

"Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect."

That's going to be tough. The reflectivity of CO2 to infrared, and thus the greenhouse effect, was discovered a long time ago, so you'd have to go quite a ways back. It's a pretty common high school science fair experiment though, so you could check out one of those.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[chadenright]

I wish that were more true but unfortunately, there's still enough people that can stomach Trump to elect him and his cronies all over again. America's dangerously close to a tipping point.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[chadenright]

How about this one? http://www.climatechangenews.c... That appears to be a news report on this study: https://www.nature.com/article...

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[chadenright]

Shills like AC are too busy pointing fingers to realize that it doesn't matter if global warming is our fault or not, it's still going to kill people and could literally send us back into the dark ages.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[riverat1]

Let's do a brain test on you. Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect.

Here's one:

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

Abstract (emphasis mine):

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m2 per decade and ±0.07 W m2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[riverat1]

Coal is not clean at all. It causes lots of air pollution

This, exactly.

It's time to double down on nuclear plant construction.

Double down on nuclear power and double up on your power bill. Ask the folks in Georgia who've been paying about $100/year extra for the Vogtle nuclear plants since 2011. That's over $2 billion Georgia Power has collected so far. And so far those plants are $4+ billion over budget and 3 years behind schedule. Do you really like paying extra for your power so you can get nuclear?

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[jbengt]

It depends on the type of glass. Glass is generally transparent to near-infrared, but not to the longer wavelengths.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[PPH]

Ask the folks in Georgia who've been paying about $100/year extra

But that's a small price to pay to protect the environment. I mean Global Warming, Think of the Fishes, etc.

Why are green power subsidies OK when they go to Al Gore's tree fund but not General Electric?

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[ebvwfbw]

YOU prefer Jimmy Carter? Oh man, I'd love to sit down and talk to you for a few hours. I'd really like to know why in the world you would prefer him.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[fatwilbur]

Temperatures are only rising "rapidly" on geological timescales. On the timescale of generations of even some of the longest living organisms on this planet (us), it is barely perceptible over an entire generation.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[wyHunter]

As opposed to the left wing nutjobs who strip mine entire countries for material to make their batteries. Oh yes, don't forget that the energy to make wind turbines is enormous. No human activity leaves no footprint.

Re:Why do you right wing nutjobs hate the Earth?

[wyHunter]

Interestingly enough, you can say exactly the same thing about the left.

Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[Ayano]

Even if you cut renewables out, Natural Gas is cheaper to extract, requires fewer workers, and is safer both to burn and acquire. This isn't propping up fossil fuels, this is preferring an industry whose workforce doesn't want to adapt or change.

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[taiwanjohn]

preferring an industry whose workforce doesn't want to adapt or change

More to the point, it's about preferring any policy option that will make liberals cry. If they actually gave a crap about reality, they'd be pushing investment in infrastructure and human capital to accelerate the transition to a sustainable economy (kinda like China is doing). But no, this is just pure, spiteful politics to gin-up their base and ass-kiss their donors. Not much to see here...

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[skids]

Politically, yes, it's pretty much just hippie punching, though aimed at currying support from the brain-addled Trump base, rather than centrists. There is almost definitely a financial layer to it, given that the whole administration is a giant shakedown.

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[serviscope_minor]

Even if you cut renewables out, Natural Gas is cheaper to extract, requires fewer workers,

I don't think that's often the case any more. A lot of coal is done with huge strip mining operations now, which have vast diggers and trucks and takes much fewer people to operate than an underground operation. The big mining companies prefer that because it's cheaper. The sad thing is of course that the miners voted for pro coal politicians, but they support the companies which are reducing the workforce anyway.

They will largely remain unemployed with or without coal mining which sucks, and the politicans in power won't lift a finger to help which sucks more.

Re: Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=19&t=3 and click on table 8.4. you'll see natural gas has been cheaper than coal the last 2 years at least.

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[Carewolf]

Even if you cut renewables out, Natural Gas is cheaper to extract, requires fewer workers, and is safer both to burn and acquire. This isn't propping up fossil fuels, this is preferring an industry whose workforce doesn't want to adapt or change.

And "natural" gas IS a fossil fuel. It is a marketing name the fossil gas industry came up with to make it sound friendlier.

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[ceoyoyo]

Natural gas was called that long before "natural" came to mean "good" to hippies.

It's called that because it is, well, naturally occurring and seeps out of the ground in gaseous form. The Chinese were capturing it and piping it around for heating stuff up in 500 BC.

It's also a fossil fuel. Virtually all fossil fuels are naturally occurring.

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[Carewolf]

Natural gas was called that long before "natural" came to mean "good" to hippies.

It's called that because it is, well, naturally occurring and seeps out of the ground in gaseous form. The Chinese were capturing it and piping it around for heating stuff up in 500 BC.

It's also a fossil fuel. Virtually all fossil fuels are naturally occurring.

It wasn't called natural gas originally though. Because it predates non-natural gas by a millenia or more.

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[riverat1]

Virtually all fossil fuels are naturally occurring.

I think that's kind of implied by using the word "fossil".

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[ceoyoyo]

You'd think. And yet a Slashdotter managed to make a snide remark about the way people use "natural" as a synonym for "good" AND implied that fossil fuels aren't natural (because they're "bad", presumably), in the same sentence!

Re:Coal is dead, and Natural Gas killed it.

[Carewolf]

You'd think. And yet a Slashdotter managed to make a snide remark about the way people use "natural" as a synonym for "good" AND implied that fossil fuels aren't natural (because they're "bad", presumably), in the same sentence!

I like your thinking. Let's call fossil oil for bio-oil, as it all comes from natural plant sources.

Then again. We unfortunately have to live with how people use words, even if they use them wrong.

No national security reasons?!

[DNS-and-BIND]

Seriously, we have been at war in the Middle East for decades for one reason: energy. It's why we had Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and so many others. Fun fact, did you know the reason we refuse to withdraw from Syria despite the fact that ISIS has been defeated is energy? Yup. A proposed pipeline to supply from Qatar to Europe would weaken Russian influence. That's why we can't stop making war there. So let's not trot out the fiction that energy has nothing to do with national security, because it absolutely does.

Re:No national security reasons?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, we have been at war in the Middle East for decades for one reason: energy... Yup. A proposed pipeline to supply from Qatar to Europe...

Yes, there is no doubt, Europe's security (and dependence) is our security. We are basically the musclemen for what really is British foreign policy in the middle east. We keep the empire on its feet, and on firm ground. They are far more dependent on that oil than we are. It's only logical that we help them (and France) out in their time of need, and history backs that up.

Also, as an empire in competition with Russia and China, we don't want to let them get fat off our leftover garbage, so we have to 'poison the well' (salt the earth?) so to speak. Thus what all this 'instability' is for, to scare off the competing money. Here, you have to admit, the democrats (Hillary) did very well. Never lose track. Keep your eyes on the prize. Everything else, the political theater, all of it, is just a means of getting there.

Re:No national security reasons?!

[Ol Olsoc]

You misunderstand. It's not that energy isn't vital to national security. It's that the continued profitability of Trump's butt-buddies' businesses isn't.

I know I surely misunderstand. Helping out nuclear power generation would surely be the kiss of death for Coal power in a quasi-sane world. Perhaps we will build some North Korean type empty cities and power them with 100 percent government subsidized coal power plants.

Anyhow - good to see that the Republicans are sticking to their free market no regulation model, except when they model themselvelves after early 20th century Soviet system Expect the five year plan to come out soon.

Re:No national security reasons?!

[Ol Olsoc]

Seriously, we have been at war in the Middle East for decades for one reason: energy. It's why we had Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and so many others. Fun fact, did you know the reason we refuse to withdraw from Syria despite the fact that ISIS has been defeated is energy? Yup. A proposed pipeline to supply from Qatar to Europe would weaken Russian influence. That's why we can't stop making war there. So let's not trot out the fiction that energy has nothing to do with national security, because it absolutely does.

And what does that have to do with promoting domestically produced Coal and Nuclear over domestically produced Natural Gas and renewables?

Grandpa like to rant about things now and again. He's been like this since they elected that chocolate guy from Kenya. Just nod your head and say "Damn liberals anyhow!"

Re:No national security reasons?!

[fustakrakich]

Guess which one Assad approved?

The one that came with an offer he can't refuse

Re:No national security reasons?!

[greenwow]

If that's true about Iraq, then why didn't we take their oil after we invaded?

Re:No national security reasons?!

[thomst]

DNS-and-BIND blithered:

Before the Syrian civil war, two pipelines were proposed by Qatar to get gas to Europe. Going through Syria. Now, don't forget, Qatar are (were) major Clinton Foundation donors. Iran, a Russian ally, also proposed a pipeline. It also went through Syria. Guess which one Assad approved?

Oh, for pity's sake!

The Clinton Foundation's relationship with Qatar had NOTHING to do with Assad's decision. Instead, as is the case with Middle Eastern politics in general, Islamic sectarianism was the deciding factor.

Qatar is and, since the expansion of Islam beyond what are now the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, has always been ruled and principally inhabited by Sunni muslims. Syria is (and has been, ever since the Assad clan and its associated Ba'ath Party came to power) a Sunni-majority "nation" (if you're unclear why I put that term in quotes, go look up the Balfour Declaration for background on why "national" borders across the Middle East are arbitrary constructs that exist because of British arrogance, rather than naturally-derived nations that emerged from the traditional tribal and sectarian divisions in the region), ruled by an authoritarian, Shia-minority government that exerts control over the Sunni majority via oppression and terror. (In effect, it's a mirror image of the Iraqi power structure under Saddam Hussein, where a Sunni minority ruled a Shia majority via the same strategy.)

The Assad clan chose the Iranian pipeline proposal because it has, ever since Iran's (Shia) Islamic Revolution of 1979, ALWAYS been an Iranian client state (as is the Hezboll'ah quasi-state in the Bekaa Valley region of Lebanon, which both Syria and Iran support with money and arms) and ally. There was never any serious possibility that the Assads would accept the Qatari proposals, because that would have obligated them to Sunni bankers - and, in the Middle East, such obligations always come with unpublicized, but very real political strings.

Not to mention such an arrangement would have publicly humiliated the Iranian mullahs - which would have been unwise for an authoritarian state that depended heavily on arms and oil money from Iran to maintain its control over its own people and its supply pipline to its Hezboll'ah co-clients.

This kind of myopic, USA-centric, profound misunderstanding of Middle Eastern politics, and its concomittant ignorance of how power actually works in the Islamic world is why we had no business whatsoever invading Iraq, why our experiment in enforced regime change in Libya backfired so spectacularly, and why allowing ourselves to be drawn into the developing quagmire in Syria is such a Really Bad Idea. We have NO idea what the fuck we're doing there, and our accumulated previous experience should have (but clearly has not) taught us that thrusting our military dick into the Middle East without a Waterford-clear idea of what we're trying to accomplish, precisely how we propose to accomplish it, exactly who the other players are (and what their respective power bases and goals are), and a precisely-defined exit strategy in hand, is arrogant foolishness of the very highest order.

And it's essentially begging to be taught that lesson yet again, in the most humiliating and expensive way possible ...

Re: No national security reasons?!

[Bing Tsher E]

No, the situation is that the US and western interests want to build a natural gas pipeline across Syria to transfer oil for sale to Europe.

Russia wants to continue to control European countries' access to natural gas that they sell.

So the US is on the side of the companies that want to sell the natural gas, and Russia is defending their control of the natural gas market in parts of Europe.

The 'freedom' of the Syrians and the 'regime change' proposed by neocons and 'globalists' like the people who were backing Hillary and who seem to be attaining more influence over Trump recently, is sort of a farce. Those interests want their pipeline and Assad isn't giving it to them. Classic imperialism at play.

Re: No national security reasons?!

[Bing Tsher E]

correction: "across Syria to transfer gas for sale to Europe"

Re:No national security reasons?!

[DarthVain]

Because in essence you did.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h...

The spice must flow. The empire doesn't need to occupy the source, only install someone that will make sure to produce. Should they fail, install someone else.

The Trump regime is plundering the country

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a conman and he's doing what he knows.

What about the free market?

[Gravis Zero]

I keep hearing all this bullshit from one side of the aisle about the "free market" being the best thing ever but then when the free market stops promoting their favorite industries then they suddenly need to swoop in and bail them out. What's worse is that they are rapidly expending shared capital: our uncontaminated environment.

The truth of the matter is that goods (including energy generation) should have to pay for the pollution caused by their production. That money can then in turn be used to remove said pollution from the environment. This is how the free market should really be and it would be utterly devastating to regressive industries that pay no mind to the damage they do to our environment.

Unleash the free market and destroy those who are hellbent on destroying the planet.

Re:What about the free market?

[CanadianMacFan]

Well for years they went on and on about how important it was to cut the deficit (and debt) too but as soon as they could they increased both by a massive amount in order to bring in a massive tax cut to the rich and to companies.

Re:What about the free market?

[riverat1]

I was going to say "Wow, I want some of what you've been smoking!" But I really don't if it takes you that far from reality. As others here have observed coal's biggest problem (economically) is cheap natural gas.

Coal production versus manpower productivity

[Elfich47]

A big issue is this: Coal has been steadily automating its mining systems. In 1950 underground mining was at the rate of 0.68 tons per man hour and surface mining was at the rate of 1.9 tons/manhour. By 2011 underground mining was at the rate of 2.76 tons/man hour and surface mining was at 8.8 tons/man hour. There were productivity peaks in 2003 of 4.04 and 10.75 tons/man hour.

So assuming coal had maintained the same level of production between 1950 and 2011, the coal industry would have shed 75% of its manpower due to automation and has proven it can get to 80% reduction if it needs to. Then add in the reduction in coal consumption and it is a no-brainer as to why no one is being hired to work in the mines.

So it Trump tries to boost coal consumption (which is the goal of his actions here); more coal may get produced and purchased, but very few additional workers will be hired. If anything, the mine owners will buy more automated equipment.

Its not like any local town is going to build a coal power plant. Those take years of planning, approvals, oversight, and construction. Power plant planning and construction can easily take five to ten years, beginning to end. So any of this "make people buy more coal" rhetoric is not going to produce more jobs in any of the coal towns that are out there.

Cited Reference:
https://www.eia.gov/totalenerg...

Re:Coal production versus manpower productivity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the crux of the situation. No companies really want to take the long term risk of building new coal or nuclear plants. I mean they tried to build some in Texas and Kansas and couldn't get past the regulatory stuff, and those are two states it should be easy to do so.

Coal and nuclear as they are today are dead. Those plants are going to be shut down eventually no matter what Trump says or does. Future nuclear technology may prove beneficial, or clean coal might work eventually, but for today natural gas and wind are what investors care about, with solar gathering more interest (except, Trump will hammer solar and wind due to tariffs, so NG is the current technology to beat)

Re:Coal production versus manpower productivity

[Ol Olsoc]

A big issue is this: Coal has been steadily automating its mining systems. In 1950 underground mining was at the rate of 0.68 tons per man hour and surface mining was at the rate of 1.9 tons/manhour. By 2011 underground mining was at the rate of 2.76 tons/man hour and surface mining was at 8.8 tons/man hour. There were productivity peaks in 2003 of 4.04 and 10.75 tons/man hour.

Pretty much this. It is nothing short of amazing how quickly a few men can tear a mountain apart to extract the coal in it. I had a lot of relatives that worked in coal back in the day. Now, not one. Even jobs you would think were safe have been eliminated by just making the machines bigger. Like this http://www.mining.com/belaz-la...

A mere 450 tonne payload, twin turbo diesels, and 65 Km/Hr speed. These trucks can be filled by the likes of "Big Muskie" (no longer in service) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which could do 220 cubic yards per scoop. We can build 'em as big as you want - in fact bigger than most mines will ever need

The only way that the Trumpian/Miner coal jobs wet dream will ever materialize is by returning to the good old days of this: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/af/2... , this, https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DAHJ... and this https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

Gains in employment will be obtained by using mules in the mines, making the use of steam drills and jumbos and road headers illegal, just human and mule power, picks and shovels.

Otherwise, as you point out, coal mining is pretty darn automated. This is yet another "jerbs, Jerbs, JERBS! event, where people who might not think out the whole situation are promised jerbs, and are pursuaded to vote for people who have no intention of making jobs for them, or perhaps aren't thinking either.

The math is simply not there.

Re:Coal production versus manpower productivity

[careysub]

A big issue is this: Coal has been steadily automating its mining systems. In 1950 underground mining was at the rate of 0.68 tons per man hour and surface mining was at the rate of 1.9 tons/manhour. By 2011 underground mining was at the rate of 2.76 tons/man hour and surface mining was at 8.8 tons/man hour. There were productivity peaks in 2003 of 4.04 and 10.75 tons/man hour.

Furthermore underground coal is only about 1/3 of U.S. production, and it is steadily declining. As the market for coal shrinks those high-labor cost underground mines are going to close first.

Coal production is down by 25% of the last few years, and no one expects the trend-line to change, least of all coal companies who have not bid for one new lease in the last few years. The have instead been abandon leases they have already sunk some money into.

Re:Coal production versus manpower productivity

[dohzer]

So it Trump tries to boost coal consumption (which is the goal of his actions here); more coal may get produced and purchased, but very few additional workers will be hired. If anything, the mine owners will buy more automated equipment.

And what... you think Trump cares about getting people jobs?

Re:Coal production versus manpower productivity

[tbannist]

And what... you think Trump cares about getting people jobs?

No, of course not, Trump just wants to credit for getting people jobs. Whether the people or the jobs actually exist isn't nearly as important as the credit.

What nuclear really needs..

[somepunk]

Is more R&D into advanced GenIV designs like MSR, VHTR, or small modular reactors, and a less punishing regulatory review process. We are abdicating our leadership to China, India, and Europe.

Re:What nuclear really needs..

[Knightman]

The funny thing about MSR is that the US had experimental reactors running and had tons of knowledge about them, but it was more or less deep sixed since LWR was the way to go so the military could get their fissionables for atomic weapons.

All meltdowns to date (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl & Fukushima) has been LWR's. Due to how LWR's function they are all accidents waiting to happen if their cooling breaks down.

China is busy trying to get Thorium MSR's up and running since they are better in all aspects compared to LWR, and Thorium is a much more abundant ore than Uranium.

Re:What nuclear really needs..

[Ol Olsoc]

Is more R&D into advanced GenIV designs like MSR, VHTR, or small modular reactors, and a less punishing regulatory review process. We are abdicating our leadership to China, India, and Europe.

We don't need that research becaus Nuclear is perfectly safe already. We need laws forcing building plants before any other power source is considered. Except for coal. Coal needs plants built before nuc except where nuc plants are built before coal.

While that might sound sarcastic, it is the basic premise of Trump's concept.

By the way - if we declare that coal and it's mining is a critical defense need, what happens to the 88 million metric tons that we exported in 2017? https://www.platts.com/latest-... What the hell kind of country exports that much of a critical strategic product? Sounds like aiding and abetting possible enemies of our country. This must end and end now! America's future is at stake.

Re:What nuclear really needs..

[careysub]

The funny thing about MSR is that the US had experimental reactors running and had tons of knowledge about them, but it was more or less deep sixed since LWR was the way to go so the military could get their fissionables for atomic weapons.

No country has ever produced "fissionables" for atomic weapons with a LWR.

Re:What nuclear really needs..

[careysub]

There are a lot of countries with the technology to build nuclear power reactors, if they choose to. Most of France's electrical power comes from nuclear power.

Now. Provide a list of every molten salt power reactor operating in the world.

Heck how many are currently under construction? Planned? Proposed?

Let me make is super-easy. Here is a list of every operating, under construction, planned, and proposed power reactor in the entire world- 447 of them. Which ones are molten salt reactors?

Even easier, here is a database of every power reactor ever built in the entire world, which includes a breakdown by type Now how many molten salt reactors are on this list?

Well, consulting the reactor type menu - that option does not exist. Not one has ever been built. Not one is under construction. Not one is planned. Not one is proposed.

If molten salt reactors are "the silver bullet that we desperately need" why is no one anywhere in the world even proposing building one? And without a single operating unit, how can one conclude they have properties - including cost - superior to every existing design?

The fact of the matter is this type of reactor has become a hobby-horse of nerd-dom based on theoretical advantages, but ignoring the enormous list of real, practical obstacles of building a successful commercial model. A good place to start is do materials that will withstand 40 years of the corrosive effects of molten salt even exist? How much do candidate materials cost? If you look into these issues, the reasons no one wants to build one becomes clear.

Re:What nuclear really needs..

[Knightman]

Yes they have, it's just that they are unusable until they are separated and enriched from the spent fuel.

Voters gave him that much power, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm impressed!

And I am confident that the voters will correct this problem in November by replacing all the incumbents with honest independents, right?

If you don't Sweep the House, then fuck you! You deserve Trump, and all the other corruption you vote for.

Doing it wrong?

[Tablizer]

I agree it's best to be prepared if enemies or wars clog up energy sources, but I'm not convinced the Administration is preparing correctly or just misusing the law to hand out political favors.

Re:Doing it wrong?

[Ol Olsoc]

I agree it's best to be prepared if enemies or wars clog up energy sources, but I'm not convinced the Administration is preparing correctly or just misusing the law to hand out political favors.

Reading the act the Koch brothers will approve greatly.

peaking plants

[goombah99]

Natural gas is not merely cheap, it also has a relatively low time to spool up for on-demand loads. Coal has a much harder time. Solar and wind have both problems with intermittency and peak loads. While grids can smooth that a bit there's no solution for that in the power source itself. Someday we will have flow batteries to handle surges and bridge short intermittencies, but even when those become technologically mature it's not likely they will have capacities in the giga-joule hour range. So that means some sort of base production with reasonably fast spin up times.

Germany perversely solves this problem by burning coal (cause it's cheaper there than gas, and nukes are out). They solve the spin up time problem by just running the plants all the time whether power is needed or not, then selling the power they don't need to their neighbors over the grid. Sometimes they even sell at a loss. It makes sense to sell at a loss since some money is better than no money if you were going to produce the power anyhow. So ironically the more they deploy solar the more coal they burn.

But if we do have things like flow batteries working for us, it's not just good for solar. It's also good for nuclear power too. These have slower spin up times than gas, but they may be cheaper (depending on how you factor in the externalities of waste and CO2 pollution and mining and fracking). So having stored energy like a battery also helps these become a reliable power source too.

Thus it seems like the future ideal power mix is Nuke+Solar/wind+battery and some off line gas plants for emergencies.

Re:peaking plants

[Cyberax]

Coal is down to 40% in the energy mix compared to 40% in 2008. Wait, what?

Re:peaking plants

[ShanghaiBill]

it's not likely they will have capacities in the giga-joule hour range.

A giga-joule/hour is 277 kW. A single modern wind turbine generates ten times that much.

Re:peaking plants

[careysub]

They solve the spin up time problem by just running the plants all the time whether power is needed or not, then selling the power they don't need to their neighbors over the grid. That is nonsense. We have no strange spin up times where coal can not handle it.

Coal plants have lots of issues with starting up quickly. 23% of all coal plant cold start-up events fail (produce no electricity). These failed start-ups persist for a median of 4 hours before being retried, though the average is 8 hours (i.e. a substantial number persist much longer). Of the start-ups that succeed the average start-up time from the beginning of combustion to producing power is about 8 hours.

Coal plants are strictly base load plants, unable to deal with load fluctuation on a scale significantly shorter than a day.

OTOH, natural gas peaking plants start-up in a matter of minutes.

And: coal is down ot 40% of our power mix.

And: we still produce 10%-12% of oir power by nuclear.

Eh? No. In 2017 it coal power production was 30%, nuclear was 20%.

Get a damn clue and stop spreading FUD.

Maybe you should start looking up actual data and providing citations.

Re:peaking plants

[DanielRavenNest]

> Wait, what?

The grandparent post is somewhat confused.

Prior to the mid-2000's, coal represented 50% of US electricity production. It is now 30%, a reduction of 40% from what it was, or 20% of total electric production. Three-quarters of the shift was due to cheap Natural Gas, and one quarter due to new solar and wind. Nuclear and hydroelectric have been steady at 20 and ~6% of US electricity, because we haven't built or retired much of either the last decade. Hydro is somewhat variable by year because it depends on rainfall to till the reservoirs. The California drought, for example, cut into what they could produce.

Half a dozen midwest coal plants are expected to shut down in the next year. They continue to lose to Natural Gas, solar, and wind, which are all substantially cheaper these days. The change isn't all at once, because it takes time and money to replace half the US's generating capacity. If prices stay where they are, in another 15 years, coal will be gone. This naturally upsets people in the coal mining and coal burning industries. So they are doing everything they can to prevent it, including bribes, um, I mean, campaign contributions, to certain politicians.

Re: peaking plants

[rommy4706]

Just from watching interviews with people that work in coal mines, they sound pretty entitled. They know their industry is dying but choose not to train into another Industry, and believe because they "built the country" that we owe it to them to keep them employed in coal mines. I get it. It's your livelyhood. But at a certain point you need to move on.

Re:peaking plants

[dev-in-seattle]

... Someday we will have flow batteries to handle surges and bridge short intermittencies, but even when those become technologically mature it's not likely they will have capacities in the giga-joule hour range. So that means some sort of base production with reasonably fast spin up times.

there are already flow batteries in the form of lithium battery systems created by tesla in use in 100s of locations around the world, including the for some reason much talked about system in australia. then there are the older 'storage' systems that pumped water up above reservoirs in the night. Or were you talking about something else?

Re:peaking plants

[goombah99]

Yes but they are not really great ones yet. They are not hitting efficiency and cost marks. Hydro storage has very restricted places it can work, and it often causes evaporation.

Re:peaking plants

[bidule]

it's not likely they will have capacities in the giga-joule hour range.

A giga-joule/hour is 277 kW. A single modern wind turbine generates ten times that much.

That answer has nothing to do with "Someday we will have flow batteries".

At least you weren't alone to miss the point.

Re:peaking plants

[WindBourne]

Don't forget to add geo-thermal in that mix, but you have to 100% otherwise.

Re:peaking plants

[WindBourne]

almost spot-on. We actually were at 60% coal at one time. Yeah, we are below 30% now, and dropping. However, I will have to say that Trump did NOT worry me because it would take massive amounts of subsidies beyond the subsidies that we have to keep coal growing again. I just KNEW that was not possible. Yet, it appears that they have found something that MIGHT make a difference. This is one item I will be watching carefully. This is about the only place that the idiot could actually set America back on our CO2.

BTW, pay attention to Navajo power plant. That is one of our largest and by far, the dirtiest (it is on the reservation and therefore they pollute like they are in China). Assuming that Trump does not win this item, then Navajo will close down in 2 years. BUT, trump can get massive subsidies than the tribe will continue to run it.
This plant is well known in the Air pollution community. The Rockies are monitored for pollution and about 50% of Colorado's Rockies pollution (particles, mercury, etc) come from the navajo plant. Interestingly, since the late 80s-early 90s, the group has detected that about 5% of the pollution there was coming from China and increasing every year. But, it still does not compare to Navajo. If we shut it down, that will radically change the pollution in my state.

Re:peaking plants

[WindBourne]

Bill, minor mistake; 1 gigajoule = 277 kwh.
Otherwise, yeah, you are spot on. These new 8-10 MW wind generators are taller and in much better wind. Those are working at typically 50-60% of the time.

Re:peaking plants

[drinkypoo]

Geothermal is poor at electricity generation. It's expensive because the environment it's in makes it require upkeep. It's great for direct thermal uses, though, like getting heat via a heat pipe. Those are cheap enough to where it's worth it if you have to replace them occasionally.

Re: peaking plants

[drinkypoo]

Fuck you and your anti China lies.

Chinese troll detected.

Virtually NO coal plant in America would pass Chinese regulations,

Go on, pull the other one.

Re: peaking plants

[WindBourne]

America has not built a new coal plant in over 5 years, and it is doubtful that we will do ANY new ones. Now, our new nat gas plants, are so many times cleaner than the best that China has to offer. However, more than 80% of our new plants are wind/solar, not nat gas.
Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.

Hopefully, once you folks have your nuke reactors going, you will build those instead.

Re: peaking plants

[Anonymous Coward]

Your refusal to accept reality you don't like doesn't actually affect said reality.
Deny it all you like,hide under your blanket,stick you head in the sand,close your eyes put your hands over your ears and shout I hate China I hate China. But it won't change the fact China is using less coal more efficiently and cleanly.

Re: peaking plants

[Anonymous Coward]

You just refuse to understand don't you. America could almost double it's coal use without building a single new plant. It could just double the use of it's very old very dirty existing plants.
You just don't understand, or are paid to not understand how this works.
China could and does use much newer much cleaner much more efficient plants,and can produce more power with less coal than previously.

Re: peaking plants

[Mirvnillith]

I think heâ(TM)s talking about Germany.

Re: peaking plants

[CaffeinatedBacon]

America has not built a new coal plant in over 5 years, and it is doubtful that we will do ANY new ones.

As others have previously told you, it's not the number of coal plants that matters but how much coal they burn and how efficiently they do it.
So what if you aren't building any new ones, it just means you are using the dirtier old ones built in the 70's for longer and at higher utilization.

Now, our new nat gas plants, are so many times cleaner than the best that China has to offer. However, more than 80% of our new plants are wind/solar, not nat gas.

Renewables didn't quite break 50% utility scale capacity, andn remember capacity doesn't equal production especially for wind and solar.
And 80% are wind/solar, seems strange since CO2 from electricity generation is expected to rise in the US in 2018. (Transport is also going up by the way) Maybe you need to show your work instead of just pulling numbers from your ass again.
Many times cleaner than China's best? Care to show some evidence? Maybe try less obvious lies

Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.

You must be sick of people constantly pointing out to you that China is replacing inefficient coal with more efficient coal and using less coal to produce more electricity than before. Though still not enough times to get inside your bubble of ignorance yet.

Hopefully, once you folks have your nuke reactors going, you will build those instead.

They seem like practical people who are concerned about pollution so no doubt they will.

Re: peaking plants

[jeff4747]

Move on to what?

West Virginia has coal and.....not much else. There's some tourism and other relatively small industries there, but those could never come close to employing all the people coal did.

It's also really unlikely that they'll get some new, coal-sized industry there. The mountains that make the coal easy to mine also make logistics more difficult. So why build your factory in WV instead of, say, Alabama?

The way they could "move on" is to move to another state. Which is why they feel like their cities and towns are dying - their cities and towns are dying as people move away looking for work. That's rough on the people who are staying, and that's who's complaining about coal dying.

Re:peaking plants

[Carewolf]

Bill, minor mistake; 1 gigajoule = 277 kwh.

1 gigajoule = 277 kwh. 1 gigajoule/hour = 277 kW

Which is what the GP said.

Re: peaking plants

[aquacrayfish]

Lower taxes to attempt to bring in new businesses? Fund education/training for your residents to get jobs? Yes, easy just mention, but... if you want to fight for your citizens it's a whole lot better than waiting for a government bailout.

Re: peaking plants

[dyslexicbunny]

In many ways they did. Their efforts powered the country as it grew towards what it is today. The problem for them is we've kept growing and grown past them.

Honestly, I'm surprised no one has bother to put solar or wind manufacturing/assembly in West Virginia. It easily appeals to their entitlement of powering the country and now you have another state caring about green energy that otherwise didn't.

Others you could put to work cleaning up the environmental impact of coal mining. Not as any sort of punishment or anything. But to help clean up everything we've done before.

Re: peaking plants

[WindBourne]

Gads, you continue to push lie after lie after lie.
There is absolutely NO coal plant on this planet that is able to burn coal EFFICIENTLY. It can be MORE EFFICIENT the previous coal plants, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to burn coal CLEANLY. The best coal plant is dirtier than the WORST nat gas plant. So, yes, adding more fucking coal plants makes things worse not better. That esp true when these plants are burning more coal than the old ones did, which IS the case.
You need to get out of your communist poly sci background and pick up a degree in REAL SCIENCE.

Renewables didn't quite break 50% utility scale capacity, and remember capacity doesn't equal production especially for wind and solar. And 80% are wind/solar, seems strange since CO2 from electricity generation is expected to rise [electrek.co] in the US in 2018. (Transport is also going up by the way) Maybe you need to show your work instead of just pulling numbers from your ass again [slashdot.org]. Many times cleaner than China's best? Care to show some evidence? Maybe try less obvious lies

What a moron and a liar combined.
You post GUESSES from EIA who has a LONG history of not getting a SINGLE PREDICTION CORRECT. If they were CORRECT, then right now, America's electricity would be near 100% coal as would CHina.
Now, as to emissions, since you obviously do not have a chemistry or any science background, and I am not going to take forever to explain to you why this is, let me show you where OTHER scientists tell you the situation.
Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant A new nat gas plant will emit less than 50% of new coal plants. The simply fact is, that methane, CH4, is cleaner than coal, which is variations of (CH[12])x(CH[123])2, combined with missing H2 (i.e. CH2-Ch2-CH2 in oil will cross-link in coal and become CH2-CH1-(CH2) and the middle CH1 will then double bond with another chain from elsewhere ) This means that the amount of hydrogen in coal is but a fraction of the H in nat gas which is almost pure methane.
IOW, it is physically impossible for coal to even come close to the cleanness of methane.

With that said, nat gas is even being looked at for being able to separate the CO2 DIRECTLY and use the PURE CO2 for plants, chemical processing (such as Concrete, Steel or sugar manufacturing), or simply burying it in the ground (personally, I oppose this one; far too easy for mass escape).
And again, only an idiot would use EIA for ESTIMATES which is what you did on the future transportation. America is moving in a big way todays hybrids and shortly EVs. At this time, China moving towards EVs will actually pollute the air WORSE, not make it better. Why? Because even the new coal plants do not have enough pollution controls so they are putting out large particles.

Unlike China where you constantly put up MORE new coal plants than you do AE.

You must be sick of people constantly pointing out to you that China is replacing inefficient coal with more efficient coal and using less coal to produce more electricity than before. Though still not enough times to get inside your bubble of ignorance yet.

Again, you continue your lies and to ignore facts.
When China halted plans for more than 100 new coal-fired power plants this year, even as President Trump vowed to “bring back coal” in America, the contrast seemed to confirm Beijing’s new role as a leader in the fight against climate change. ... But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China

Re: peaking plants

[jeff4747]

Lower taxes to attempt to bring in new businesses?

Other states will happily meet their low taxes.

Also, low taxes do not actually do all that well at bringing new businesses, because the low taxes cripple your state's ability to build the infrastructure those businesses need or want.

For example, if your schools are absolute shit because you can't afford to pay for them, not many businesses will want to move there. First, they'll have a hard time finding decent employees. Second, the people involved in making the decision to move would have to send their kids to those schools.

Also, you're going to have a hard time trucking in materials and trucking out product if the roads are falling apart.

Fund education/training for your residents to get jobs?

Uh....did you just forget about your first suggestion? Low taxes mean you can't fund anything. And if you think an employer is going to fund that, one only needs to look at all the companies shouting "shortage of workers!!" in IT who won't train people to fill that shortage. Not gonna happen.

if you want to fight for your citizens it's a whole lot better than waiting for a government bailout.

Who, specifically, are you expecting to fight for those citizens if not "the government"? State and local governments are government too.

Re: peaking plants

[crimson tsunami]

You post GUESSES from EIA who has a LONG history of not getting a SINGLE PREDICTION CORRECT.

A PREDICTION from EIA is surely more valuable than numbers you pull from your ASS.

Re: peaking plants

[CaffeinatedBacon]

I can type MORE EFFICIENT in all caps too, but you will notice I already told you 'more efficient' numerous times. Never said it was clean. So strawman #1.

Adding more coal plants that are more efficient, does not mean more coal. Even if the old dirty ones aren't closed (which they are) more efficient means more efficient. Either less coal or more power or both.

You are still confused about capacity. If I burn a thimble of coal it will produce x amount of CO2. If I tip that thimble of coal into a big bucket first (much higher capacity) and then burn it, guess what still x amount of CO2. But China is not even doing just that, the new bucket is new technology and is much more efficient.

And here we go with strawman #2. You said American nat gas plants are so many times cleaner than the best China has to offer. And now for some reason instead of backing up your claim, you are trying to compare US gas to China coal.

So you don't like EIA estimates, show some estimates from sources you do like. Instead of these made up numbers you are so fond of using.

China has been, is, and will move to EV faster than the US. Your assertion that EV's in China produce more than the cars/busses they replace is just not credible. Peak coal is years in the past and renewables are increasing faster and faster.
The standards for new Chinese coal is European levels (better than the US). So again your assertion is not credible.

Again you are confusing capacity with use. America is closing old plants, not to be environmentally friendly, just because they are too old. Capacity will go down. But use of the remaining plants will increase. Number of plants is meaningless. China will have more newer much higher efficiency plants and will use the old dirty ones less. Much much more capacity, but only slightly more use/and falling coal consumption.

OK looking at your map, did you not notice all the cancelled retired and shelved? Compare that to construction and the red is tiny. Announced and pre-permit may never be built.
Just comparing cancelled and construction there is clearly more green, zoom all the way out to make it more obvious.
Also obvious if you do that and look at permitted and construction, is that there are nowhere near 700 plants but only 319. Yet you still claim 700 in every post.
You are also clearly bullshitting about most being 1+GW. Constructed and permitted total capacity is about 142GW according to that site, but remember there are 319 plants so only 0.45 on average.
Again though, whats the point in mentioning the size or number when only the amount of coal burned is relevant.
It's clear Science and English are not your forte, but simple addition shouldn't be too hard. Is 1+1+1+1+1 small plants burning 5T worse than a huge plant burning 5T ? The first is FIVE NEW PLANTS !! but the second is HUGE !!! you must be so confused.
Just for reference, your site mentions 296GW were cancelled 2010-2017 and 425GW was shelved.

I thought you were a reader? Did you not get to the bottom of your own link? The one that says

The astounding numbers go against the trend that has been happening throughout the year in China, where dangerously high pollution levels have forced the closure of hundreds of coal mines and a curtailment of steel mill output. Examples of China's domestic aversion to coal include:

Two days ago Taiyuan, the capital of China’s northern province of Shanxi, which is known for its coal production, banned the sale, transport and use

We're at war with Eurasia

[amorsen]

We've always been at war with Eurasia.

Re:We're at war with Eurasia

[careysub]

Eastasia.

The depth of this mans stupidity

[fredrated]

is revealed more each day and it is staggering.

The Irony abounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who has ever taken a Constitutional Law course has to have a chuckle at the fact that the Republicans and business interests who so strenuously resisted the DPA in Youngstown Steel and other cases now are working to use it to enable corporate welfare to prop up failing industries during peacetime.

is this about vote buying for 2020?

[idji]

nt.

A law from 1950

[93 Escort Wagon]

The time period seems quite in line with Trump’s thinking on most things.

Re:A law from 1950

[suman28]

The only problem with this is that whether you believe Trump is smart or not, he cannot recall / recite an arcane law from the 1950s. So, this must be the work of one of his minions.

Re:A law from 1950

[ebvwfbw]

I'm sure you're right. He's not a lawyer. They always have a guy that is like a walking encyclopedia. He probably said something like is there a way to do this... and that guy said - sure. Here's the law. Even Obama did things like that.

Winners & Losers

[jomcty]

Talk about picking winners & losers. What happened to the "free market" working its magic?

Who wouldn't exploit a rich brat?

[bussdriver]

MOST people would take advantage of a rich arrogant ignoramus who thinks they are better than everybody else and entitled to everything they were born into? The EU is doing just fine and will continue to do so whether or not the USA continues to play the fool.

Shale oil is lousy stuff and it's not that cost effective; the current situation is a result of Obama's regulations forcing the use of oil permits coupled with the now repealed Pelosi law forbidding export of US oil/gas. One can expect the market now to rise prices way before supplies dwindle. Nobody in their right mind makes serious national policy plans on shale; go educate yourself.

Re:America doesn't like their bitch Europe being..

[gDLL]

A lot better us being America's b*** than being Asia's b*** (this includes Russia ofc). Freedom to choose one's master is still a form of freedom.

Re:Democrats are really to blame

[Wild_dog!]

"Democrats are the ones who pushed the narrative that we are at war with Russia"

They did?

Re:Crony capitalism is why we need to end the fed

[Wild_dog!]

The "Peopel's" money is insignificant when compared with corporate wealth.
That is why multinational oligarchies control big governmental entities in our world. No amount of throwing it back to states will help that because oligarchies control them as well.

Re:Dont think with your brain, think with your hea

[Bing Tsher E]

How do we mitigate a Yellowstone eruption? By giving the grizzly bears soft slippers to wear when they're tramping around? Giant asbestos blankets over Old Faithful?

Sorry for the silliness above, but exactly what can be done to stop a Yellowstone eruption, if one is immanent?

Re: Dont think with your brain, think with your he

[Anonymous Coward]

I think grizzlies already count as having soft, furry slippers. Maybe you think they'd be better off not going around bear foot?

Re:Dont think with your brain, think with your hea

[dgatwood]

Sorry for the silliness above, but exactly what can be done to stop a Yellowstone eruption, if one is immanent?

If by imminent, you mean in a year or less, there's nothing we can do but evacuate half the country. If you mean in a hundred years, quite a bit. We can:

• Use drills and sonar to map the faults and figure out where parts of the ground above magma pockets are about to fail, so that we can determine which magma pockets are most at risk of exploding violently, thus allowing us to avoid building significant numbers of buildings on top of them.
• Measure the magma pressure by continuously monitoring those pockets to see if they are expanding (and, consequently, if the rock around them is getting compressed) to determine when those pockets are likely to explode violently, so that we can warn people to evacuate even before the earth starts shaking.
• Use boring machines to dig pressure relief tunnels to within a few hundred feet of those magma pockets so that the spot that is most likely to fail explosively is one in which the magma will flow harmlessly through an open channel to some largely unpopulated valley or even all the way to the ocean itself.
• We can put explosives in those tunnels so that if things go wrong and some other spot fails first, we can blow up the rock walls between the tunnels and the magna pockets to ensure that most of the magma flows harmlessly through a safe channel.

There are probably many more mitigation strategies that I haven't thought of. Those are just the first four off the top of my head.

Coal, Nuclear or... flaky, fragile natural gas

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Once upon a time, not long ago, I was generally headed for Vermont and was prepared to encourage my children to settle there also. As a place of natural beauty it ranks highly with many other places, but in uncertain times I felt drawn there for another reason, one in keeping with my technical interests and survivalist tendency.

You see, I wanted to join the folks at Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee was the greatest jewel mankind had yet produced: a nuclear power plant connected by direct and exclusive feeder to a nearby hydro station with the capacity to black-start it. This duo (by happenstance) was our grid's most disaster resilient corner, a shining light of engineering. In any scenario without copious liquid hydrocarbons or gas infrastructure damaged beyond repair, these two would have lit an area sufficiently large to empower enough people to successfully defend the region -- for years -- and achieve stable governance. And that region would serve as a beacon of hope to surrounding areas during reconstruction.

But Vermont Yankee has been destroyed by corporate vandals and clueless politics. Now if the worst comes to pass in that area there will be only the ~35MW output of the Vernon Hydro plant. This is sufficient to support a totalitarian feudal barony right around the dam that quickly evolves into an item of tribal conquest with a 'shoot on sight' policy for outsiders. A great place to stay away from.

My June 2017 letter to Energy Secretary Perry was focused on the vulnerability of US natural gas. It is a great pain to state the obvious, but necessary because utility wind and solar has made faux-environmentalists into useful idiot 'crypto-advocates' of gas grid generation. We are on the cusp where a coordinated attack on the gas distribution network in a few places would trigger cascading grid failure, as distant gas plants operating directly from the pipelines drop offline and stay offline for days or weeks. This sentiment has since taken shape as the Trump Administration proposes ways to protect utilities able to stockpile 90 days of fuel on site, and encourages them to do so. It is plain common sense. It comes down to a simple question: Can you supply a compelling reason why the United States electric grid should fail completely within hours of a relatively simple attack?

This letter of mine has been in Donald Trump's possession since May 2, 2016 . If you read it you may discover why I considered Trump the only candidate worthy of such a message. In his pronouncement to pursue energy self-sufficiency in general and consider nuclear an essential part of the mix, there is hope. The others offer nothing but more years of bad road and an obscenely stupid fixation on base load irredeemables (wind and solar). Trump is literally the only one with the courage to stand up to the tripe.

Re:Coal, Nuclear or... flaky, fragile natural gas

[eclectro]

You need to remember that Vermont Yankee had a design lifetime of 40 years, which it met with reasonable success. I always worry about what the thoughtful engineers of old were thinking when they said that the plant would last that long. There are a couple of aspects to this.

First and foremost, Nuclear power in its present state is completely unforgiving. While there are newer designs that overcome many of the problems, the fact remains Vermont was an aging nuclear plant. One of the cooling towers collapsed in itself near the end because of rusted bolts. While this per se was not a part of the critical area where the plant operated, it still highlights the type of problems that aging equipment faces. As good as plant operations may have been, this cooling tower failure was completely unanticipated.

This is actually the exact same type of failure that Fukushima fell victim too. No one predicted that there would be a Tsunami capable of taking out power to the plants which lead to the cascading failures (otherwise they would have caught the sea incursion flaw of the sea being able to get into the plant).

I suspect this was some of the thinking that the early engineers had. That the plant could become subject to failures that they could not predict because of aging equipment *or* an aging design like Fukushima (which had some of the same era Mark 1 designs that Vermont Yankee has). If Fukishima was a modern design, it perhaps could have withstood a complete loss of power like what happened there.

Clearly (imho) the way forward is with smaller, more contained nuclear plants and not relying on large monolithic plants that when they fail, they hurt the entire surrounding society.

I otherwise agree with your points. It's just that people need to realize that equipment does have limited timelines that it can reliably work. Vermont Yankee did meet what the original engineers intended. I submit that it needs to be replaced with another reactor that is a smaller, modern, and a safer design - rather than lament it's absence.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Lumping nuclear and coal...

[GuB-42]

Nuclear and coal are almost opposite when it comes to power generation
Coal: Cheap upfront, expensive fuel, lots of CO2, widespread pollution, low potential for disaster
Nuclear: Expensive upfront, cheap fuel, almost no CO2, highly localized pollution, possibility of disasters

FTA

[AndyKron]

Don't forget the oil industry, they need our tax money too!

great if applied to nuke power

[WindBourne]

However, I suspect that he will use it for coal as well, which is stupid and foolish.
First, we already subsidize coal WAY TOO MUCH.
Secondly, we are on the right path in that our coal plants have been being shut down. We need to continue this.
Artificially changing the economics for coal is just plain stupid.

With nukes, it makes sense, since they are clean and more importantly, if we push SMR tech, it is 100% safe.
Likewise, we can burn up most of our nuke waste while converting to energy and ideally, desalinating water for free.

Re: great if applied to nuke power

[WindBourne]

EiA, who has never had a correct prediction, agrees with you. BTW, they have ALWAYS predicted that Fossil fuels will continue to grow except recently.
However, experts in the coal field of montana
Other Americans continue to point to coal rapid closing.
Here is the massive navajo plant that will most certainly close down. Note that this is America's single dirtiest plant going.
Nice article about the continuing closings of coal plants (assuming that Trump is not allowed to subsidize coal anymore than we currently do)

Finally, here is a partial list of coming US coal plants closures.

Re:I beg to differ

[WindBourne]

good posting. Most ppl miss the fact that the lowest emissions are coming from nations large amounts of base-load power and not with intermittent like wind and solar. Nukes, Geo-thermal, and Hydro are the main sources of REAL clean.
In fact, if America wants to really clean up, we simply need to tap yellowstone. That alone can provide 25-33% of America's electricity and that is without harming the park. Add nukes, more geo-thermal in America and we would be cleaner than all but Sweden/Iceland/Costa Rica/Indonesia.

Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll. Troll, trolling, troller!

Democrats never "pushed the narrative that we are at war with Russia." That is a blatant lie; I've literally never heard anyone say that.

You know what I have heard people say? Russia is ruled by an autocrat. Russia suppresses freedom of expression. Russia supports Syria, Georgia, Kazahkstan, and multiple other authoritarian regimes. Russia uses chemical weapons against dissidents, and supports chemical weapons use in Syria. Russia destabilizes neighboring countries (Ukraine) and intimidates others (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia).

So, identifying Russia as a "problem" is pretty easy. Yet you take your marching orders from the Big Giant Head, and that means that autocrats are Perfectly A-OK! Nothing to see here, look away!

Re:Troll

[superwiz]

Democrats never "pushed the narrative that we are at war with Russia." That is a blatant lie; I've literally never heard anyone say that.

Oh? I am not going to cut and past my comment above. Just link it. https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:I beg to differ

[drinkypoo]

Add nukes, more geo-thermal in America and we would be cleaner than all but Sweden/Iceland/Costa

Please study the history of the power plant at The Geysers, California before you weigh in on whether adding geothermal would make America's power cleaner. I give to you the Geothermal Inc Butts Canyon Road Facility. They pressure-wash the turbine blades over a concrete pit. In the past they would put the slurry into drums and then throw the drums into a field on Butts Canyon Rd. which I drive past occasionally on my way to Napa. This field has a cyclone fence, and occasionally a white truck with federal plates parked next to it. There were cows being born with two heads and shit, so they dug up the drums and reburied them (and the surrounding soil) between some rubber liners. Someday the liners will fail and become a problem all over again. The area is known for seismic activity and for wildfires. These days they don't put the slurry into drums. They just build the wall higher around the stuff and put a concrete cap on it. They're building a toxic layer cake at The Geysers.

Small government

[The Evil Atheist]

Is this the famed small government I keep hearing about?

Re:Democrats are really to blame

[superwiz]

Ronald Reagan was not anti-Russia. He was anti Soviet Block because he was anti-socialism (at home and abroad). USSR hasn't existed since 1991. Ronald Reagan was validated when it fell apart. Democrats are against Russia for the same reason they were against Reagan. They are against a right-leaning regime.

Re:Democrats are really to blame

[superwiz]

What the hell do you mean "nope"? here. Who should I believe? Your bullshit or my lying eyes?

Re:Democrats are really to blame

[superwiz]

at 1:50

Re:Democrats are really to blame

[superwiz]

Do you not see that to prove that Democrats are not the ones beating the drums of war against Russia you are using "Russian" as an insult to act out against someone accusing Democrats of something? You are proving what I claimed: that Democrats are driving the narrative that only a Russian would be against Democrats. This is a Big Lie about having just perpetrated a Big Lie. I hope you are just having fun with it. Because if you actually have enough IQ points to learn how to type and you still don't see the irony of what you are doing... if you actually believe what you are spewing... damn, that's just another proof of what I've been saying for along time. Eloquent (even mildly eloquent like you) idiots are more dangerous than in-eloquent enemies.

Re:Democrats are really to blame

[superwiz]

ok, then.

Re:And here we thought only sustainable was bankru

[butzwonker]

Nuclear is very powerful! Listen carefully to what the President of the United States of America has to say about that:

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.

Re:I beg to differ

[WindBourne]

Drinky,
I think that it is fair to say that we BOTH differ on this. The fact is, that you have experience with 1 geo-thermal set-up which had environmental isues, yet, ignore the fact that most others, esp in Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Costa Rica, etc do not have these issues. The reason is that they clean up.
BUT, let me point this out in a different fashion. These waters coming up, are 'polluted'. What do they contain? Arsenic. Lead. Mercury, etc. BUT, they also contain Thorium, Uranium, Iron, Gold, Silver, Li, Cobalt. etc. Many of these elements are one that we do not need NOW. Others are hard to separate, but are used today.
There is a simple solution to this. Pull up these minerals and separate economically what you can, and then store the rest. We have large number of retired mines in our nation that can be lined and then these minerals stored in them. Seriously. By putting these CONCENTRATED elements back in the ground and then doing R&D on how to get them out economically, we can later on use these. Ideally, we would be able to pull out Li and return the other elements totally separated so that when needed, we can use them cheaply.
We need to start being smart about this.

Re:Beyond stupidity

[tbannist]

It'll take DECADES to fix everything this son of a bitch is doing to us once he's removed from office.

And the Republicans will blame the Democrats for the damage and attempt to obstruct any attempt to fix the damage.

Heat Buildings With Coal

[cozytom]

If coal is such a good idea, why don't people use coal to heat Condo's in New York.

Money where your mouth is.

Re:Beyond stupidity

[Rick Schumann]

Let me make a prediction: In the coming years the Democrats will come to control both the Senate and the House, and there will be a Democrat in the Whitehouse again. It's inevitable. Not only has it happened before, but between Trump and the GOP fucking everything up, not even dyed-in-the-wool, fingers-in-their-ears going LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! with blinders on Trump supporters will be able to stop it. Then for a while the needle on the socio-political meter will swing back to the center for a while. Then it'll start slamming up against the left again, and the whole process will happen as above, but with the Parties reversed. Rinse, repeat ad infinitum, until we either experience an extinction-level event as a species, or we manage to finally fucking grow up as a species and stop acting like idiots.

Re:Democrats are really to blame

[jbengt]

Democrats are the ones who pushed the narrative that we are at war with Russia.

Where have you been the last 70 years? Until Trump, it has been more the Republicans pushing Russia / the USSR as the enemy ever since I can remember, except for a brief respite after the USSR broke up.

How about...

[martinfb]

How about bailing out coal industries via education for renewable resource applications?!

Re:I beg to differ

[drinkypoo]

We need to start being smart about this.

This is the USA. Think again.

Re:America doesn't like their bitch Europe being..

[wyHunter]

Remember, the Europeans brought us WWI and WWII - conflagrations that killed, literally, tens of millions.

Re:Democrats are really to blame

[wyHunter]

Except, of course, for Harry S Truman, JFK, LBJ, Jimmy Carter all of whom were Democrats and advanced military action more or less against the USSR.

Re:I beg to differ

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes,
Germany has trouble to reach the self set goals to reduce CO2.
Nevertheless the electric energy production is nice example of goals reached.
Why don't you simply google for reliable numbers instead of posting nonsense links?

The carbon emissions are rising in relation to historical low points we had before.
In no way are they rising verus our historical high points.

You drove 20,000 miles last year, for odd reasons you have to drive 25,000 miles this year.
Obviously your emissions are rising ... but that has nothing to do with your emissions from
4 or 10 years ago where you were driving between 50,000 and 60,000 miles.

I'm quite tired about people who have so few clue about the topic that they are not even
able to use a search engine properly.

Conclusion: Germany is not lowering its CO2 leves as quickly as we hoped 20 years ago.
Sad. But you conclude we emitt more than 20 years ago: plain stupid.

Re:I beg to differ

[angel'o'sphere]

You could power 100% of americas power from yellowstone.
No idea why people always throw in random numbers.
You probably would not like to: a) it is simply to hot. b) it is seismic active. c) you might not want long power lines.

Re:America doesn't like their bitch Europe being..

[Zontar The Mindless]

If by "us", you mean the US, then wasn't it the Japanese who brought WWII to us?

Re:I beg to differ

[WindBourne]

No,you can NOT power America 100% from yellowstone. That has been shown through multiple studies.
BOTH MIT and NASA say that if develop ALL of the geo-thermal available by 2050, we could power about 1/3 to 1/2 of America. And that would be the destruction of yellowstone as well.
Here is a forbes article that you likely read, but read wrong. The problem with this is that it speaks of powering the earth twice over, but for only a short time.
And here
And here is MIT

One item missing out of BOTH NASA and MIT report, is that with magma that close, combined with heated water, it will be carrying LOTS of minerals. That is lots of minerals that can be mined. In fact, by adding various additives to the injected water, it should be possible to grab different types of minerals and then later pull them out.

Like nuclear SMRs, this is such a missed opportunity for America.

Re:I beg to differ

[angel'o'sphere]

Yellowstone is probably the biggest hot spot on the planet.
You can power the whole planet's electric needs several times over by it.

And to grasp that you don't need a PhD

BTW: forbes is not a reliable site for science

Re:America doesn't like their bitch Europe being..

[wyHunter]

OK Europe and Japan, then.

Re:Libtards crying wolf again

[TomGreenhaw]

Al Gore didn't predict the end of the world by that date. He predicted that if we didn't do anything back then, we would pass a tipping point where the consequences of global warming would be unavoidable. Although its not scientific, it seems clear that bad things are happening to the environment we live in.

It's not too late too save humanity, but its clearly too late for many species that are going extinct.

You must be ashamed of your opinion Anonymous Coward.