THE FUTURE OF ENERGY IS STILL . . . COAL

Powerline ^ | 8/29/2017

[Liberty7732]

Turns out if you look close you find out two things. First, in 1990, 88 percent of the world’s energy came from fossil fuels. After more than 25 years and over a trillion dollars in subsidies for “renewable” energy, in 2015 the world’s share of energy from fossil fuels was . . . 86 percent. (See figure immediately below.) At this rate, it will take 150 years to get fossil fuel energy down to 75 percent of the world’s total energy supply. I’m sure just $200 trillion in subsidies will do the trick.

[FatherofFive]

Natural Gas seems to have a competitive advantage. It is cleaner, and pipelines are cheaper than rail cars

[colorado tanker]

We have plentiful natural gas reserves in America, but even here it can’t replace coal. And you have states like New York who are run by insane liberals who won’t allow fracking to get to the reserves.

[RayChuang88]

Correct. Because natural gas burns very cleanly, the cost of emission controls at a gas-fired power plant is a tiny fraction of a coal-fired power plant, which require very expensive systems to remove particulates, heavy metals, sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen from the exhaust stream before it goes out the exhaust stack.

That's why New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's decision to not allow fracking for natural gas in upper New York state (that part of New York state sits on the gas-rich Marcellus Shale) is bad for that state. The state could have gotten a clean source of energy, and upper New York state would right now enjoy an economic boom as natural gas wells and pipelines are built to feed New York City.

[robroys woman]

Here in KY a LOT of coal fired power plants are being replaced with Natural Gas. It’s just a lot cheaper.

FWIW, it’s where I work.

[RayChuang88]

The fact you need WAY less expensive emission controls at a natural gas-fired power plant explains why many new ones are coming online in recent years across the USA.

[robroys woman]

That may be part of the reason it is cheaper. It’s kinda funny when you tour a plant as they explain how little of the facility actually generates power and how much of it is there to make sure its emissions are clean.

[Paulie]

I have nothing whatsoever against hydrocarbons (nor do I buy into the ‘global warming’ nonsense), but...

Thorium is the only way to go.

[DuncanWaring]

FWIW, it’s where I work.

FWIW, IWIW.

[JimRed]

Natural Gas seems to have a competitive advantage. It is cleaner, and pipelines are cheaper than rail cars

And the coal ain't goin' anywhere. It'll still be there when needed, when technology renders it acceptably clean.

[RayChuang88]

Thorium is more a long-term solution. I expect within 35 years power generation will be mostly natural gas, solar panels (in the parts of the world where solar power is actually financially viable like the southwestern quarter of the continental USA), and thorium-based molten salt reactor power plants. Sorry, nuclear fusion is still a long way away given current knowledge.

[JimRed]

That's why New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's decision to not allow fracking for natural gas in upper New York state (that part of New York state sits on the gas-rich Marcellus Shale) is bad for that state.

Has anyone checked Coo-moe's* portfolio for the presence of coal mining stocks and futures?

*Jesse Jackson says it that way, so it would be racist to say Cwo-moe.

[cicero2k]

Diversity in electric generation fuel supply is a good thing.

Coal and natural gas are usually supplied by different entities, each with unique regulatory burden, labor agreements, land use footprint etc.

For example, coal plants have more than a month supply of fuel on-site, natural gas can’t do that.

[Thibodeaux]

yes but....... as the amount of gas is used increases at some point the cost will rise and the difference between gas and coal will diminish.

[robroys woman]

Sure, assuming the supply and demand ration changes.

[Doulos1]

China gets a pass from our media.
“The top 10 coal-consuming countries consumed 85% of the world’s coal in 2012. Eight of the 10 largest producers are among the top 10 consumers. China is the largest coal consumer, accounting for 49% of the world’s total coal. The next largest, the United States, consumed 11% of the world’s total. China’s coal consumption increased by more than 2.3 billion tons over the past 10 years, accounting for 83% of the global increase in coal consumption.”

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=16271

[TRY ONE]

Too bad Nuks aren’t carrying ~ 40% of the electrical load instead of less than 19%.

[Paulie]

I am referring only to TMSR.

It probably is a long way off, but not because it has to be.

Politics, the public’s apprehension of uranium reactors, and the Pentagon have put the ‘kibash’ on it decades ago because it doesn’t produce weapons-grade plutonium.

In addition, big oil, big natural gas, and coal would all but go out of business if Th energy use was widespread.

The Pentagon and large corporations are significant headwinds to be sure. However, I believe there are a handful of other countries actively pursuing this source of energy, and we risk being left behind.

And the bonus? - we’ll never have to listen to those Al Gore/climate change/Paris Accord nutjobs’ BS again!

[CatOwner]

And the coal ain't goin' anywhere. It'll still be there when needed, when technology renders it acceptably clean.

And that should be the goal. Have enough reasonably clean energy sources to give the middle finger to the Middle East.

[RockyTx]

coal and electric cars

everybody wins