For All the Carbon Talk....When $$$ is on the Line Europe Burns Coal at 6 Year High

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-02/europe-burns-coal-fastest-since-2006-in-boost-for-u-dot-s-dot-energy

Kyoto, Carbon Taxes, Green Energy.....Blah Blah Blah......Lip service and Politicians buying Votes

BTW my company also exports to Europe....looking forward to an extra bonus thanks to the EU this year !!

 

Euros eating crow!

 

Just heard on NPR this weekend that the U.S is burning less coal and have already surpassed the Kyto accords.

Natural gas is cheaper, produces less CO2, less nitrus oxide, no mercury, and no sulphur dioxide.

 

The U.S. is phasing out coal.

 

It is cheaper because they have used fracking to markedly increase natural gas output. Fracking is under attack for environmental issues. No fracking, more coal is burned.

Lets assume both global warming and fracking are environmental problems. Which environment is more important?

 

Assuming you are interested in a serious discussion:
IMO, global warming is currently more of a concern but research of possible problems caused by fracking must continue. Should environmental damage from fracking be shown to be more extensive than currently thought, I might change my view. IMO, environmental impacts should be re-considered on a periodic basis, say, )picking a number out of the air,) every 10 years.
I would still prefer wind and solar, even with their environmental impacts, and hope that cheap natural gas does not stop their development.

 

I am interested in a serious discussion (and agree with your "trade off" plan).

Solutions require discussion, "talking points" are designed to eliminate any middle ground for discussion.

Natural gas provides a quick shift to less CO2, using existing infrastructure, without increasing cost (it is cheaper than coal), and without pushing us back into the stone age (eliminating any technical solutions).

I would like to see us shift to methane ice, a renewable form of natural gas, that is currently a nightmare to harvest (but, I already saw my first movie where harvesting methane ice cause huge earthquakes - geez).

Technology is working the issue (even without government funding):

Energy efficiency is improving, and with graphene (super strong, 1/40 the resistance of copper, etc., will change the world, once the price is acceptable), will make another a significant step.

Alternative energy** collection, increased efficiency in solar panels, stirling engine based solar power, genitically modified algae for transportation fuel, more effective energy storage (graphene flywheels, batteries, capacitors, etc.).

**There are only 3 source of energy, solar, nuclear, and tidal.

No matter what direction we go, there will be trade offs. If we can't even agree on trade offs, we have fallen victim to the "talking points".

 

Trade-offs must be based on research, not on political or corporate pressure. I also do not want us locked in to any one type of energy, as been the case for 100 years. The more choices, the less chance of political control.
IMO, the "cost" of any type of energy, must include environmental and health costs, even if those costs are estimated. Coal mining destroys a mountaintop; how much will it co$t, to fix it. Coal miners get black lung disease, how much will it co$t to treat it. Wind power kills birds, how much will it co$t to prevent a species extinction; what is an acceptable death rate.
I supported nuclear power more in the 70s than I do now. In the 70s, nuclear power was our only alternative to ffs; now it is not.

With more choices of types energy comes more choices for citizens to choose which they support. If Texans want coal for their energy needs rather than solar, fine; as long as the price they pay for coal is total cost, not just co$t.

I think I will government funding / subsidies for another thread or a later time. I am guessing we are going to disagree on that point.

 

is this one of those(lets see if I get this cliche right) out of the fire and into the frying pan situations?

my wife attended a financial seminar with a the VP of a Fracking company in discussions she asked him if the controversy in regards to fracking were true, it was all nonsense he told her they were only injecting water underground...that lie all by itself tells me we really need to be concerned about the threats to underground aquifers...

 

What is more important, global warming or fracking?

 

"...must include environmental and health costs, even if those costs are estimated."

Taxcutter asks: Who makes that estimate, and what downside do they have if they are wrong?

 

Good question. Depends on the industry.
From my examples, the coal company that destroyed the mountain would have to "fix" it so they are responsible for determining the cost.
The employer of the miner with black lung disease would be responsible for the cost of treatment, so they would have to determine the cost.

 

the coal company that destroyed the mountain would have to "fix" it

Manny ol bud...you need to come to West Virginia and see what it is you are talking about. Our job is to get the coal and LEAVE the mountain with a flat top.....essentially to create a mesa. This has a huge economic benefit in that the people earn very high wages removing the top and the coal, and then, Walmart comes in and builds a shopping center (usually with a Lowes) where the mountain top was so the people can spend their money !!

AND there is an environmental benefit. If you have been to WVa you will know that 99% of the terrain is on at least a 30 degree incline. As a result evolution is crippling the deer, and other wildlife as they are evolving legs in one side shorter than the other (to maintain a level stance you see). As a result the whitetail population is splitting into two subspecies: clockwise deer and counterclockwise deer. These poor deer have a severe survival handicap as they can only walk around the mountains in one direction or the other. The thousand acres of flat land we leave after mining (properly reclaimed and seeded of course) is helping to get these poor creatures back on a level footing---so to speak----

 

Very commendable. But I never stated otherwise. TC asked who should be responsible for determining cost (environmental in this case) and I stated the coal company.

 

Actually the real estate market would adjudicate the value of the new flat property. Since the flat land is of higher value than the old mountain peak, the cost is negative - that is the "cost" actually adds wealth.

All the airports in that region are located on flattened-off mountain tops.

 

So this is an "environmental improvement"



Nice legacy for the kids......................

 

Ok, so you are showing us a picture of an ACTIVE mining operation. Show us pictures a few years after they shut down and we'll see the overall impact. If they are anything like the other closed mining operations, it will be just as lush, green and healthy as it was before the operation began.

 

Okay, let me get this straight. You take the top off a mountain destroying the natural habitat, sell the land to Wal Mart and claim you are helping the poor deer walk erect on four legs.

Funny...deer have been walking on the land for at least thousands of years and surviving quite well in the mountains and woodlands.

Tell me another one...this stuff is funny!

 

Clearly, Bowerbird does not know an active mining site from the picture.

 

So instead of just complaining about bowerbird's image, why do you not show us an image of a recovered mining site? Why make her do all the work?

 

Can I show some pictures of creeks full of orange crap that will burn you like battery acid if you touch it?

That's the legacy of coal mining. A century later after the mines are gone, the pollution is still there. Some of these conservative cultists need to step away from the computer and see what the actual world looks like.

Oh, that reclaimed land is crap. The trees won't properly grow on it, and it's worth far less than the land was in its original condition. "Lush green and healthy" is pure BS, as the native forest there is permanently destroyed.

 

I am not getting the point. Let's imagine the mining Co has left it like it is on the pic.


1. And? What is the problem? Why sould I worry?

2. Can I come into ownership of it for $1 plus legal procedural expenses?

3. Does Chicago look prettier for saviors of Gia?

 

It could like like Detroit.

 

The pictures change nothing. The Oh!-so-green Euros are burning more coal. They've got Fukushima hysteria and wind/solar won't fill the shortfall.

 

Most of the land that is "recovered" in the south is planted with "quick grow" yellow pine. In 15 to 20 years the land can be clearcut and the timber sold for plywood and paper. There is little diversity. About the only things that grow in a loblolly pine forest is sawbriars , honeysuckle, and pine.

The only reason the land is "recovered" at all is because of government regulation.

A better way would be to save the topsoil (what little there is of it) and put it back after the operation is complete. A lot of seed from native flora would still be viable in the soil. Native trees besides just pine need to be planted...such as chestnut, hickory, sweetgum, etc. And runoff needs to be checked (if it isn't already) for heavy metals and other pollutants.

To take a mountain for strip mining and converting it into a tree farm for profit and calling it reclamation is just wrong.