Here we go backwards -
Clean Power Plan Rule, from Obama to cut back pollution from coal powered power plants. Trump to kill that tomorrow.
Right or wrong, the Trump administration is looking at all of this from the perspective of a business CEO. Although, I highly question whether the government can be run like a business. Some of the cuts are simply being made so that reorganization and restructuring can occur to enhance efficiency,...that is the good. However, the scientific community is 97+ % convinced there is a human fingerprint on the climate changes that are occurring,...something that the Trump administration would rather cherry-pick the relatively few specific examples that may suggest otherwise, in order to push the agenda. If I were a CEO of a business and 97+% of the experts in the field suggested that investments be made in a particular area or else the business would be put at a disadvantage,...I would listen to that advice. Trump pandered to his constituents in "coal country",...understandable, but even the CEOs of coal companies are quite aware that their days are numbered as natural gas, wind, solar, etc. are providing power at much cheaper prices per kWh. Selling the coal overseas will be futile, as well, as most developing countries are going directly to renewables and/or shutting down their own coal-fired plants. The larger issue is that the "Clean Power" act had provisions that allowed the individual states to make some of their own regulations,...which is important due to the diverse and sometimes unique geological and ecological conditions in each state. Without the "Clean Power" act, it severely limits individual states to regulate their own specific environment,...which is sort of counter to most Republican ideals. Plenty of other issues and certainly a "hot topic" for many.
NOTHING good comes from the donald. NOTHING.
Heh heh, utter coal to a room full of investors. Now watch how many remain.
And Trump's appointment of Elaine Chao (Mitch McConnell's wife) as Transportation Secretary is a conflict of interest with her family transporting coal on ships to various countries. Trump's administration is full of conflicts of interest, which is bad for Americans.
Impeach the clown for his Russian connection
Trump is such an ass clown, it's a wonder how he 'succeeded' in his biz.
@redshift. By screwing others. And I mean that literally and figuratively
Hey Redshift, speaking of investors and coal - check out George Soros.
This link is approp.https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03-30/heres-new-climate-change-reality-...
I meant this link.
Coal cannot compete with gas or renewables, regardless of the regulatory changes. And those will be fought for years by the states. Trump surely knows this but is trying to make his base happy.
I agree, this is just to say he kept his promise to West Virginia but in the end coal is pretty much dead already. Not certain how many other uses coal has but as a fuel source it is now too expensive.
Some of Trumps cabinet.
They are opening a new mine locally to produce carbon fiber. Coal is super cheap--the transportation costs are about ten times the cost of the coal itself.
@Bighorn,...It is good to see that someone has a progressive, forward-thinking approach to coal. Instead of using coal for burning and "dirty" energy,...use it for materials. Carbon fiber is being used increasingly in every aspect of our lives. The biggest application could be in the form of our highway system and bridge building. All that iron bar that we currently use for structural support,...can be replaced with carbon fiber. Iron expands when it rusts, cracking roadways, creating pot holes, etc. The engineering lab at Lawrence Tech in Southfield, MI is doing quite a bit of work on this for the department of transportation in Michigan. In the energy sector, carbon could be used for the mass production of graphene supercapacitors for energy storage for our entire utility grid, EVs, portable electronic devices, etc. Create the market and at the correct price point.
Is the process used to make carbon fiber from coal as clean as other methods? If so, this could be good.
Very little is being said about it so far. I found some recent research out of Utah. It obviously sequesters some of the carbon, but I don't know how much.
My gut instinct is that it will be dirtier. There is no free lunch.
Dirtier than burning it into atmosphere? I don't think so. For starter you may need to separate other ingredients from carbon. And burning can't really be a method, because it will burn carbon first. You can't burn carbon though. You need it for fiber.
What I gathered is that it's not burned but cooked to create pitch as a raw material. Unclear what byproducts are created.
I am not a chemist, but the information so far is quite promising. Coal has very high proportion of carbon, the dirtiest - 80% or more. The cleanest up to 96%. That doesn't leave much space for byproducts.
The so called impurities such as sulfur, mercury etc. they become dangerous if they can get into atmosphere and water and then into animals and humans. But that's oxygen (burning process) that takes them there.
Also the current method is making carbon fiber from oil and is far from being clean.
Not sad news at all. It only means that the cost of electricity will remain relatively cheap. Which means cheap fuel for our Teslas!
Mitch - "Not sad news at all. It only means that the cost of electricity will remain relatively cheap. Which means cheap fuel for our Teslas!"
And more money for us to help cover the higher medical costs due to the higher pollution. Excellent!
CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it, life would perish. Please allow Dr. William Happer explain to you what air pollution is.
Like most things, too much of something can be a bad thing.
But I'm not talking about CO2 as a pollutant. I'm talking about the other crap that comes from fossil fuels and goes into the air. If you were to take the exhaust output from burning of fossil fuels and pump it into a close room, how long do you think you would last?
I don't understand why this has to be explained.
Mitch. Are you still going on about CO2. CO2 is necessary for life I agree. It is the fuel for photosynthesis. However we are creating excess amounts. That's why levels are rising. If it were truly optimal it would be creating more life and levels would not rise to the point where they acidify our oceans and add to our greenhouse layer. So please stop repeating this drivel and do a basic science course to help you understand. And indeed we do have other pollutants