In fact, in 5-10 minutes of specifically looking at the topic I still don't see why you're mocking the concept.
We get energy from coal by burning it then extracting some of the heat. The waste products are basically carbon dioxide and heat.
Clean coal is about capturing that carbon dioxide, which means spending energy to separate the CO2 from other gasses, then liquefy it.
This sequestration process costs about 30% of the energy originally extracted from the coal.
I fully support clean coal since it increases the price of coal fired electricity, meaning coal plants will become uneconomical sooner.
Whether that's a commercially viable amount or not, I have no idea. And your last point, I agree with. We should certainly make the coal industry include externalities in their price as much as feasible, making for a (more) fair energy market.
No, we should mock people for entertaining the idea and being unable to muster enough knowledge and reason to start being very skeptical. It's basically the same sort of estimation that happens when watching Shark Tank and wondering, "Well, that's a nifty product. What are the margins?" Basic Thermodynamics isn't too far off from accounting. There's a big difference between "works technically, in theory" and "would it work in the real world?" Essentially, you're saying it's okay that people can spout basic science, but still can't apply it in their actual lives in a market economy. Shouldn't that be the lower bar?
I'm saying that the idea is completely compatible with science, and at a cursory inspection seems like a completely viable solution. There's no education problem involved in at least discussing it.
Is coal at ~70% efficiency a better solution than nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc.? I'm not sure, but that is sure as hell not snake oil.
If it takes you 30% of the initial energy to get to the heat->electricity phase, then the heat->electricity phase receives 70% of the initial energy. From that point, a 35% efficient transfer means 24.5% efficiency from the initial energy.
http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/2010/blog-section/blog-posts...?
My issue with the coal industry is they pushed back on any sort of regulation for 30yrs instead of innovating.
Imagine what they could have done if they had invested in clean coal technology in the mining areas of the US.
Instead, they are now complaining because they got lazy and solar and wind capitalized on their inability to get the job done.
Liquid CO2 boils away (solid CO2, i.e. "dry ice" sublimates) as it cools, so it'll still be released into the atmosphere.
Until you get into the particulars of burning coal and CO2 capture with feasible equipment (which aren't simple), for all you know the loss is 0.1%
The only way that Clean Coal will work is by applying massive subsidies.
I, for one, support these massive subsidies as long as they are applied by MWh produced and are available to all producers, not just the coal burners.
This tells me nothing about economic viability - for a while the solar panel efficiency was rated in single digit percentages, and even today it's low double digits.
With that 30% waste incorporated what is my final cost of a kWh produced by an electric plant that's running 100% on clean coal?
But the real problem is the carbon, which when burned produces CO2. If you take the carbon out of coal, you don't have coal anymore.
"The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...
Also in the first few lines of wikipedia you will see that C02 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. This small percentage has huge effects.
The average US citizen probably knows that burning carbon-based fuels re-forms molecular bonds, in such a way that the resulting stuff (CO2 and water) embodies much lower energy. Just start applying that concept to the notion of capturing that carbon. The result is that you're going to wind up with a lot less usable energy, or that the stuff you wind up combining the carbon with embodies even less energy than the oxygen. But since coal is already one of the cheapest chemical fuels around, what in the world will that be?
In other words: Basic Thermodynamics. Unfortunately it's true: The average US citizen doesn't know enough basic thermodynamics to rule out obvious boondoggles. That's about the level of gullibility of a 19th century person who buys snake oil.
> the result is you're going to wind up with a lot less usable energy
Nothing in those "basic thermodynamics" conclusions, which I agree are obviously true, implies that it's commercially nonviable. Yes, it will by necessity be more expensive than dirty coal. Will it be more expensive than anything else? I'm not sure. It would require advanced knowledge of sequestering methods and the energy market. Certainly more than basic thermodynamics.
To be honest, you're the one making the mistake here by assigning "clean coal" to being snake oil with only basic thermodynamics in play. Without more knowledge than that, there's no reason it couldn't be the most viable clean energy option.
The late Professor McKay (whose book on information theory and ML is neat by the way) published a great book full of climate back of the envelope calculations, Whithout the Hot Air, which is available online[1]. He clearly disagrees with this statement, as seen in the recap figure on page 103[2].
"This theoretical potential represents more energy striking the earth’s surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)."
Not back of envelope. Energy calculations worked through.
Asking for a friend.
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-solar-panels-to-pow...
EDIT: Solar is a better investment than the S&P500. If US corporations were looking for some place to invest those trillions of dollars they won't repatriate [1], seems like renewables would be a perfect fit.
"Eight of the biggest U.S. technology companies added a combined $69 billion to their stockpiled offshore profits over the past year, even as some corporations in other industries felt pressure to bring cash back home.
Microsoft Corp., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and five other tech firms now account for more than a fifth of the $2.10 trillion in profits that U.S. companies are holding overseas, according to a Bloomberg News review of the securities filings of 304 corporations. The total amount held outside the U.S. by the companies was up 8 percent from the previous year, though 58 companies reported smaller stockpiles."
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-04/u-s-compan...
The average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year. 174,000 coal workers in the US @ $31,668k/year (the max SS benefit permitted) = $5.5 billion/year. This is not expensive, nor in perpetuity, only the years from now until they would've hit their full retirement age regardless, not to mention the cost savings from drug addiction and other social negatives currently occurring from the industry collapsing (please, please, please take the 2 minutes to read this footnote) [1].
People should not be harmed by our transition to renewables, and it is laughable that we can't afford to take care of those no longer employed within the economy.
This is not unprecedented. The shipping industry used redundancy payments to transition longshoremen out of the workforce when containerization exploded, funded by profits from the efficiency gains of containerization. I'm simply arguing for the formalization of the process, and administration through the Social Security Administration (one of the most efficient orgs in the US government).
To be clear: I am essentially advocating a bridge basic income for these workers. Not subsidies, not incentives. You quit your job at the coal mine or coal generator today, and you're retired from the coal industry.
EDIT: @derekdahmer & @ArkyBeagle: I'm not requiring someone to retire if they don't want to. I'm simply ensuring they don't fall into poverty. What more can be done when your job is destroying the environment? Allow it to continue? That is unacceptable. I'm not proposing welfare, I'm proposing financial freedom to explore other options to find purpose and self actualize.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/07/us/drug-overdo...
It's about identity. Free money can keep you fed but it can't give you a sense of pride and self worth.
That right there is pretty much the issue. We could take china's approach and specifically limit the use of heavy equipment to X hours per day, requiring everything else to be done by hand. But that's stupid pointless makework, that takes longer and costs more.
With free money, maybe some people learn a trade, start a band, write a book. Send people to school and maybe we get some value back in 5-10 years.
I understand that people want to take a job on the line at the plant, just like dad did. Well, tough. The world isn't like that anymore.
Policies might "encourage" Apple to do it's manufacturing in the U.S. A U.S. iphone factory would employ about 15 people. the security team that keeps people away from the machines.
The way to stop feeling useless is to stop being useless. Don't want money to help figure out what you can do? Well, ok, best of luck.
edit
This may come off as mean, bitter, heartless, uncaring, vile , reprehensible and whatever other adjectives you want to throw in.
Small towns are dying because there's not much reason to be there. We can subsidize them in a bunch of ways, but it's still just welfare.
Rural areas are coping with exploding rates of meth, heroin, and opioid abuse, and a lot of that is directly caused by the absolutely shit quality of life they all have.
You're far from the first liberal to regard rural people with contempt, and that's a big part of why we now have President Trump to contend with.
Maybe it's time to start taking other people's problems a little more seriously.
As an adult, I find it really difficult to care about their problems at all. However, the fact is, unless we do show compassion and take their issues seriously, the current situation will only get worse.
But the writing was on the wall back then. There's like 4 jobs in the country where horseback riding is useful. It's nothing more than an expensive hobby for the well off.
> The obvious rebuttal to this is that those small towns now control the government.
No, not even remotely. A billionaire city slicker controls the government.
> Maybe it's time to start taking other people's problems a little more seriously.
Eh, maybe. I don't think we need to make it so damn hard for people to get ahead, or even have a chance. But, of course, my guy lost. But maybe not. No election coming up, all there is for me to do is figure out how big my tax cut is going to be, and figure out where that goes in the IRA.
No tariff is going to make my home town thrive. There are no jobs there.
I can't help but think of the duke:
Devlin: I don't know what to say. Never begged before. Turned my stomach. I suppose I should have been grateful that you gave me the job.
McLintock: Gave? Boy, you've got it all wrong. I don't give jobs I hire men.
Drago: You intend to give this man a full day's work, don'tcha boy?
Devlin Warren: You mean you're still hirin' me? Well, yes, sir, I certainly deliver a fair day's work.
McLintock: And for that I'll pay you a fair day's wage. You won't give me anything and I won't give you anything. We both hold up our heads.
But when i tell old friends from high school to come where the work is, they just shake their heads.
My friends that are too fucking hard headed to figure out something better than drinking and bellyaching. Go back to school? Learn a new trade? fuck no.
I'll help people learn to be useful, but i'm not interested in paying someone to make saddles. Sure, it's fun. Turns out they're just not good enough at it to earn a living doing it. Do fucking something else, and make saddles as a fucking hobby. Be a goddamn grownup.
As a, as you put it, "liberal that regards rural people with contempt", i think these three things would improve things for lots of people.
1. Pay police well. Like, double it, and hold police to very high standards. 2. Pay teachers well. Like, double it, and hold teachers to very high standards. 3. Tie tax rates for businesses to local economies. The worse the economy, the bigger the break, the smaller the business, the bigger the break.
But again, i'm a contemptuous liberal that just got told i'm full of shit.
So, seriously, what the fuck am i supposed to do? "take problems seriously?" that's a bullshit rhetorical jab that contains zero useful information.
When the going gets tough, the tough get going. And they vote for someone who is going to give them a job.
"Tough" doesn't (didn't) cut it.
If someone's job is their identity, and their job harms others, what are some other possible solutions? (Retraining runs into similar issues as you mentioned -- coal miners don't want to become keyboard jockeys, they want their sense of pride and self worth for doing the profession they trained for.)
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/from-coal...
They just want to grandstand about it.
People LOVE welfare as long as you don't call it welfare or give it to someone else. It's those other people that don't deserve it.
and it is laughable that we can't afford to take care of those no longer employed within the economy
e: the salary info wasn't in the comment when I replied.
Social security safety net is better than 0, which is where coal is going to regardless, no matter how much we attempt to prop it up. Can't compete against fuels with zero marginal cost. Every coal company in the US is currently bankrupt.
I am open to better ideas if you have them. My proposal removes coal-fired generation and provides for workers at the same time, affordably.
Your solution doesn't provide for the workers. I'm sure you're sincere, but a handout from the government is not perceived as a substitute for challenging, meaningful, and respectable work. Basic income proposals don't generally seem to consider pride, other than what I see as nebulous handwaving about how one would be free to pursue their dreams. What dreams are there in coal country when there is no coal? I don't see BI alone as helping to sustain or resurrect a community and associated way of life whose primary industry is one you've eliminated.
FWIW, this is how Trump voters are made. And at least in the U.S., the coal industry looks done.
Even if we doubled or tripled coal production, local economies in coal country would still be limping. It’s not like executives/stockholders of coal companies are dumping all their profits back into the local economy.
As a country/world we’d be better off paying former coal workers a living wage indefinitely, no strings attached, for nothing in return but keeping the coal in the ground.
The US already employs more people in the solar industry than the coal industry. We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever.
And the paychecks it generates aren't really enough to justify even just the local impacts to health and the environment.
Same story with the steel industry, auto industry, textile industry, etc., in other parts of the country.
And of course the coal companies are still willing to throw lots of money at lobbying, which buys a lot of influence among local politicians.
You can't discount pride. You can't discount being trained and good at a difficult job, and proud at being the one who does it. Money from the government doesn't replace that in the hierarchy of needs. And job retraining is tough when you're 40+.
> We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever
I wonder if the renewables need the labor? If so, I can see that working. If not, then really the only problem is how to handle political dissatisfaction in the short term, and (perhaps) thus our election today.
I guess from many perspectives that is a lot of jobs, but it isn't that many jobs.
1) Coal was already in decline in the 90s. This isn't a government problem. This is a supply & demand problem. The demand for coal has declined. 2) Automation has drastically reduced the number of miners needed to actually operate a single mine. The # of jobs needed simply will not materialize. 3) Coal is losing the competition to alternative energy sources. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-s... ) 4) China has been operating at excess production capacity already (http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coal-plant-binge-deepens-... )
This is a problem of a group of people failing to come to terms with the harsh realities of a capitalistic system. While their local and national leaders (I'm looking at you, McConnell) continually tell them that coal can be 'brought back'. It can't. Many of the same leaders know the truth, but to lie to the people is politically advantageous for them.
Four years from now Appalachian coal towns will be in worse shape, and even more pissed off. They need leaders that actually respect them to tell them the truth.
That said, I don't have any illusion that the future isn't bleak in coal country. My extended family has become substantially poorer over the last two decades -- from middle class to poverty. Still, we're working with what we've got. Every job created changes a life. At the very least it can be a bridge toward more opportunity -- that McConnell funded job was for me.
Our people will probably never become well off, but I still hold out hope that we might be able to get by without deracinating.
The question I think is more important is not whether jobs will be good for Appalachia though (obviously they will do some direct good), it is whether the good that comes out of those jobs is at all in proportion with the harm from expanding our use of coal. It likely is not, the harm will be much greater.
The important thing is: dollar-for-dollar, retrofitting is more effective than replacing.
Now, certain people might be able to sidle into energy but it'll be pretty rough going.
I was simply trying to buck up '80s-'90s era control systems to stop breaking things and this was perceived as "they're takin' 'er jerbs." Nothing was understood. My interpretation is that there is considerable willful ignorance of how technology might be used in that sector that will never be broken. You're threatening people's identity if you do.
Just thorough testing ( at least to my lights what is thorough - I have 30+ years safety-and-life-crticial realtime embedded experience) was seen with a jaundiced eye. A "real oil guy" does it on a laptop on the jobsite.
The rest of your post is spot on. However, at least natural gas will be deadly cheap for the forseeable future. We had one project to try to capture flare gas, but it cost (much) more than the captured gas will ever be worth.
I don't think it only affects the existing members of the energy sector. Given the necessary financial motivation, there is a realistic opportunity for new competition in the renewable energy market rather than only relying on existing stablished companies to shift focus. Even if a group wants to move in to the renewable energy market on principal, funding will be a lot harder to come by with super cheap fossil fuel prices since investors (who are also motivated by money) won't see as much potential for short term profits.
I don't know if that's inherent to that market or just a temporary phenomenon. If it is inherent, then that makes for a barrier to entry.
Even without subsidies or other incentives, I just can't see where the demand comes from to drive significant oil supply increases. I'm genuinely curious what the restrictions are that are throttling our energy industry.
"Environmental regulation". Who needs clean air or water. Superfunds Sites are cheap to clean up right?
Very interesting thought regarding local regulations; hadn't considered something like that at a federal level. It does also occur to me that this could just be a convenient way to make the opening up of large amounts of protected lands more palatable to the general public.
The problem is that we HAD energy independence when we discovered oil in the Bakken Peninsula and what happened? Our fearless leaders who wanted to be energy independent had a great chance to tell OPEC to go screw themselves and what happened?
They let them go to war with OPEC. We lost jobs, oil companies shut down in droves as the race to the bottom happened. OPEC said it wanted to put them out of business and for the most part, the people in Washington talking big about energy independence let it happen.
I have no faith they will ever keep their word. We had a wonderful opportunity and they let OPEC drive our companies out of business and cost that region thousands of jobs. And in the process, drive up the cost of oil as well.
Unless of course you want to play some other game altogether.
We might as well have a nice economy while the world burns. There is no stopping this train.
Not if the tax is on removing it from the ground to begin with. And we could issue sanctions on anyone who doesn't impose the same tax in their own country.
There are two ways out of tragedy of the commons. The first is that everyone recognizes we're all better off not destroying the world with CO2 and everyone stops burning coal. That works perfectly fine if that's what everyone does.
But if you'll notice the comment I was responding to was arguing that not everybody would. Which is possible. In which case only the second option works, which is for the victims of harm to exert power until the perpetrators submit. And that can lead to war -- which is why everyone should stop burning coal now.
The attack on Pearl Harbor wasn't unprovoked, but failing to do anything would likely have ended up with the U.S. being attacked by a stronger set of allied opponents.
> THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
Is scariest to me given a Republican controlled Congress. The one sided control makes me nervous.
Of course, doing that is a much, much bigger job than I think Trump realizes.
0. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI0OTg
are the 2 most scary things on that first page. I really like his limitations on lobbying though. I hope they aren't too ham-fisted and easy to get around.
Subsequent generations will have to pay back the principal on this loan, with interest. And we will lose our opportunity to carve out a leadership position in the energy technologies of the 21st century, as well.
Does it have to be US investment? Some other countries (China, Israel, South Korea) have a greater urgency to diversify into clean energy. Why can't the US ride the coattails of that research the way other countries benefit from cheap solar panels and affordable electric cars developed and produced elsewhere?
This is what I have the biggest problem with. The ONLY WAY we are going to continue making progress towards widespread clean renewable energy is if it is financially beneficial for corporations to continue investing in R&D. Sure, there are some outliers that will stick with it on principal, but the majority will go where the money is. Cheaper fossil fuels == less investment in renewable energy. Period. This is bad timing given the critical point we are at (so far as we know) regarding climate change.
This is pure short-sightedness motivated by the desire to deliver on his promise of creating jobs.