1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Coal is NOT the answer

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by calurker, Nov 12, 2016.

  1. calurker

    calurker Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    Messages:
    1,436
    Likes Received:
    495
    You sound like China's state-run media. Pollution is primarily due to people driving and, get this, cooking. Lol! Damn if people ate less fried food, the air would be cleaner!

    Except you see that it's a lie during Chinese New Year when Beijing is deserted and there's still a thick haze of smog covering the city.
     
  2. watashi315

    watashi315 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    236
    I work in the energy industry and I can tell you that, yes it is indeed possible to cut down carbon dioxide emissions by using clean coal but the issue is not which fossil fuel to use, it will be dictated by the market. Right now, natural gas is simply cheaper than coal and with the NG pipeline infrastructure boom of the past five years, I just don't see the market turning back to coal. Further, much of the coal fired power plants are being retired or retrofitted into NG fired power plants.
     
    dmoneybangbang likes this.
  3. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    22,620
    Likes Received:
    14,356
    It's amazing how the infrastructure was being setup to import natural gas about 6 years then got reversed shortly after.
     
  4. watashi315

    watashi315 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    236
    LNG import facilities were built back in the 70s and have mostly sat dormant for the past 40 years. We've been converting them to export facilities. Currently only two LNG facilities are in operation here in the US, one in Alaska and one in Louisiana. Five more are either going through permitting or being retrofitted, so expect a lot more export facilities to come on line during the next 3-5 years. The natural gas boom due to the shale revolution is amazing. Since the 5-6 years I've been in the energy industry, we've completely become energy independent with fuel prices at historic lows due to the surplus in supply.
     
  5. pirc1

    pirc1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,138
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Let's see how president elect bring back more coal jobs against the market.
     
  6. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    22,620
    Likes Received:
    14,356
    Thanks for the info.

    Didn't realize we had 2 already for that long.
     
    watashi315 likes this.
  7. babyicedog

    babyicedog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    88
    Intelligent, lucid, reasoned explanation. HUH?

    Whew- tough to handle. Not used to smart discussion in The Year of The tRUMP.

    You should write column.
     
    watashi315 likes this.
  8. watashi315

    watashi315 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    236
    Thanks! I don't write columns but I do write memos, policies, and analysis on U.S. energy issues for a living. I also work very closely with the energy heavy weights in Houston, especially the ones that own gas and oil pipelines, Kinder Morgan, Spectra, Williams, etc. Obviously we're talking about all this from a very high level as most people find the details very boring. However, feel free to ask me anything if you want to know more. I'd be happy to share my expertise if I can.
     
  9. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    22,620
    Likes Received:
    14,356
    Obviously companies are investing in US shale gas, but where do the big boys see us in the big, global picture? Can the US become a major player with so much competition? It seems the US has a strong technological advantage, but does relative social/political/economic stability compared to many of the major gas exporters count for much? Lastly, with that theme in mind, why don't countries like Japan, S. Korea, and UK sign decade(s) long energy deals? Too much uncertainty?
     
  10. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    31,426
    Likes Received:
    49,295
    Solar, wind, hydro and thermal are the energy sources of the future. Nuclear isn't the answer either IMO.

    I really disliked both candidates, but on something as important as the enviorment and our health, I really wanted Clinton to win.
     
  11. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,077
    Likes Received:
    15,259
    Solar and wind are intermittent, so they either need to be backed up by something that can ramp up and down (like gas or diesel), or by energy storage. Nuclear makes for good baseload, but it's a terrible match to backup intermittent power. Batteries are coming on, but they have environmental impacts of their own and cost may continue to be an obstacle. Of course, Trump would prefer to burn whatever he has on-hand. But a responsible but realistic energy mix is probably renewables, storage, and natural gas. I'm very skeptical of the possibility of dropping all fossil fuels. I'd like to keep a seat at the table for nuclear and coal too, honestly, because I worry about the fuel diversity of a generation stack of renewables + gas, but those are both baseload generation. If you keep them in service, you need to basically run them all the time. At least for coal, I don't want to run it all the time. Nuclear you can perhaps keep around in a minority position, but I wouldn't want to unless we had a responsible solution for the spent fuel. Right now, I'm actually pretty afraid about what we do with it.
     
  12. watashi315

    watashi315 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    236
    Very interesting questions and with the incoming Republican administration, I'm anxious to see what their objectives will be for the big, global picture.

    Social/political/economic stability obviously play roles in terms of energy diplomacy but what makes or breaks the competitiveness for exporting natural gas is "distance". NG is formless and in order to be shipped out, needs to go through a liquification process, thus the name LNG (Liquified Natural Gas). There are certain costs associated with the transportation of LNG and various other unknown factors such as weather, maritime issues, accidents, and natural loss of gas with time. Let's say a country like Japan wants to import NG. Although they are on good relations with the US and we have an abundance of NG, Japan still needs to make sure there is a steady supply of gas to ensure energy stability in their country. Now Japan will do a cost/benefit analysis and see if it makes sense to build an underwater pipeline or get LNG from a country that's closer like China or Russia. These are factors they will consider. For eastern Europe, Russia is the obvious choice since they border on Russia and Russia has a large NG pipeline network that extends into eastern Europe. For western Europe. Norway is a huge source of gas. Right now the top three exporters of NG in the world are: Russia, Qatar, and Norway - all three cover their respective regions pretty well.

    If Trump wants to allow for more exports of US gas, he needs to put more emphasis on nearby countries like Mexico and others in S. America. At the moment, it would be difficult for us to compete with juggernauts like Russia, Qatar, and Norway as they have very extensive pipeline networks in their region. That existing pipeline infrastructure will be hard to compete if all you can offer is LNG.
     
    dmoneybangbang likes this.
  13. pirc1

    pirc1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,138
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    The key is battery technology. Can you imagine if we can create something like the dilithium crystal type energy storage and charge it it up with solar, wind, hydro power? There are plenty of power and we can harvest the power, the problem is we cannot store enough power. Once we have major break through on that front, tons of problems will be solved.
     
  14. watashi315

    watashi315 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2002
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    236
    I'm interested to see how the renewable portfolio will look like with a Republican administration focusing more on fossil fuel. I don't see states moving away from renewables and will continue to offer incentives such as RECs (renewable energy certificates) for installers. Demand response initiatives like energy efficiency and other incentives will probably get slashed a little under the Republicans. As of May/June of 2016, gas surpassed coal for the first time to make up 34% of the U.S. energy portfolio. Coal is now second with about 32-33% and will likely continue to slide despite Trump's promises. Nuclear will stay in the 20s percentile. I don't see those big three categories changing any time soon. Nuclear has a high startup cost, but once built, it's inexpensive to run and is clean and reliable. With most RTOs/ISOs in the US switching to gas as fuel for electric generation, I don't see gas going down any time soon. I've talking with a lot of energy marketers and LDC that procure gas for municipalities and distribution and all I've been hearing is the construction of gas fired power plants. Gas is the future as far as I can tell.
     
  15. pirc1

    pirc1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Messages:
    14,138
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Renewable energy is the future, which ever country that have the major break through first will have a huge advantage in the world. If the USA is going to reduce funding in these areas, there are plenty of other countries that will step in, Germany, China etc.
     
  16. Honey Bear

    Honey Bear Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    5,102
    Likes Received:
    555
    Uh huh, and what happens in 35 years when there's no more oil left to pump?

    Changes in extraction tech don't really matter, you're still sucking the earth dry from the same reserves, depleting a very finite resource. All your $ should go into sustainable or renewable energy, not getting excited over faster extraction methods.
     
    #56 Honey Bear, Nov 17, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2016
  17. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,077
    Likes Received:
    15,259

    There's opportunity there for LNG because being dependent on Russia for gas is a geopolitical risk for Eastern and Western Europe. It's great when the gas is flowing, but if they get crosswise with Putin and they turn the taps off, it'll be very problematic. They need diversity in suppliers and fuels so that no one player has too much control of their energy -- or have the capacity to be energy independent. Concerns about energy dependence has driven so much policy in Europe in and since WWII.
     
  18. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    The federal government is in control of roughly 40% of US coal production. It wasn't until year 7 that Obama ever did anything to curtail production on federal land. Goes to show that his rhetoric is empty.
     
  19. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,077
    Likes Received:
    15,259
    Why would he want to curtail coal production on federal land? Honestly confused. Environmental policies have been focused on reducing pollutants, not on stopping coal production.
     
    dmoneybangbang likes this.
  20. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,946
    Likes Received:
    6,696

Share This Page