16 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

I'm reluctant to even post this link but I do so because it shows the "likes" of this
horrible website of liars about clean coal at 264,000+ people on Facebook.
Their Twitter followers are almost 8,000.
http://behindtheplug...CFcpdTAodlkMAHg

They spout about the "jobs", but what good is a job if you spend a large amount of your salary on
healthcare and funeral arrangements?
I suppose killing the planet's eco systems and miners is worth it to these folks, they don't care.

"The House Subcommittee on Energy and Power is holding a field hearing in Abingdon, Virginia to examine the impact of the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions.  This costly regulation
(OMG-the EPA wants clean air for Americans? What a horrible thought.)
would require new coal plants to meet emissions standards equivalent to natural gas fueled power plants.
This will be costly for customers, but more importantly, these regulations are already costing our fragile economy."
(Yeah right, like they give a rat's butt about the us or the economy.)

[Phil]

Like it or not, jobs mean prosperity and green conversion requires prosperity.   It's very noble to think about fifty years from now with a full belly.  When  you have to struggle for your next meal it's quite a different story.

It would be a wonderful world if we could have our cake and eat it too.  That is rare indeed.  If we want to change the world in a booming economy that's one thing.  Now is not the time to put even more people out of work.

[Mouse]

I agree with both Phil and Shortpoet! I suppose that makes me either fickle or objective. Obviously jobs are important, but then I also see that the website isn't going to scream about the environmental impact are they?! If they do, it will probably be about how great they are, how little they damage the land unlike other companies or previous years. It's all just spin.

It feels like the jobs angle has been done to death though, they need to get some new ideas from their facebook fans. Plus the people actually hauling the coal out of the planet are right at the bottom of the system and by definition probably the least valued by the company, and possibly paid accordingly in comparison to other positions within the company.

The thing is, we all know coal is finite. I suppose miners are too. Eventually there won't be ANY jobs, not facing up to it and leading people along 'the 'clean' coal is wonderful and you need it' route isn't the way to go, I don't think.

Is it better to have a dangerous job that may or may not damage ecosystems, or no job at all? Hmm.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

More jobs for the living to fill in the gaps for those that have died from coal mining; that's true.
It's a job creator.
Undertakers love coal too.

http://frankwarner.t...al_mining_.html

And how many people around the world have died from the effects of climate change-droughts, wildfires,
floods, tornadoes, skin cancers, hurricanes?
But a "job" is worth all that death, right?  
Culling the herd for somebody's 9 to 5.

[ACSAPA]

Coal mining is a ridiculously dangerous job for so many reasons including cave ins that crush miners. I saw a tour of a coal mine on Dirty Jobs and instantly felt claustrophobic. That job is almost cruel and I wish it was illegal. No one should have to do a job where you breathe dust all day and a cave ceiling can fall on your head and kill you. There have to be other alternatives to coal. This whole story breaks my heart.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

ACSAPA, on 13 August 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Coal mining is a ridiculously dangerous job for so many reasons including cave ins that crush miners. I saw a tour of a coal mine on Dirty Jobs and instantly felt claustrophobic. That job is almost cruel and I wish it was illegal. No one should have to do a job where you breathe dust all day and a cave ceiling can fall on your head and kill you. There have to be other alternatives to coal. This whole story breaks my heart.

Poor people are expendable. It's been that way since day one.

[ErnestDalbero]

If they have a big enough budget for marketing companies can make us believe whatever they want... I know it does not sound nice, but people are dumb. I'm not saying this with offensive purpose, I'm just stating the truth. Not everyone has the time to search for the truth... And those who don't know the truth are likely to believe in lies.
Clean coal sounds like an oximoron to me... It's just impossibile...

[StevesWeb]

Mouse, on 13 August 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Is it better to have a dangerous job that may or may not damage ecosystems, or no job at all? Hmm.

This might be a false dichotomy.  It is not necessarily the case that if they no longer worked in coal mines they would have no jobs.  

It is possible existing coal miners could find other jobs, this is what we should be promoting, better jobs for coal miners.

Tennessee is sometimes associated with coal mining, but it is not the only industry in the state.  For example we have 78 solar panels that were manufactured  in Tennessee.

Imagine giving people who used to work in coal mines a job building solar panels instead.  Sound like progress?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

ErnestDalbero, on 25 October 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

If they have a big enough budget for marketing companies can make us believe whatever they want... I know it does not sound nice, but people are dumb. I'm not saying this with offensive purpose, I'm just stating the truth. Not everyone has the time to search for the truth... And those who don't know the truth are likely to believe in lies.
Clean coal sounds like an oximoron to me... It's just impossibile...

It's not offensive. It is the truth. Too many are dumb as rocks or my favorite; a bag of hammers.
They don't know, don't care, don't care to know.

(And that's also why sites like ours are so critical. We have to spread the word, but only if factual and accurate.
We don't want to speak rumors or lies like so many other sites do.)

Otherwise, why are programs like the voice, dancing with the stars and american family (or whatever it's called)
so popular?

People don't read books, newspapers, magazines like Time and Life, or Newsweek anymore. They go on facebook
and talk about shoes. (I'm assuming there, I'm not on facebook.)
Our collective laziness has made us morons.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

StevesWeb, on 25 October 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

This might be a false dichotomy.  It is not necessarily the case that if they no longer worked in coal mines they would have no jobs.  

It is possible existing coal miners could find other jobs, this is what we should be promoting, better jobs for coal miners.

Tennessee is sometimes associated with coal mining, but it is not the only industry in the state.  For example we have 78 solar panels that were manufactured  in Tennessee.

Imagine giving people who used to work in coal mines a job building solar panels instead.  Sound like progress?

I hear ya, and I don't mean to sound harsh but so what if they lose their jobs?

No one was crying when all the manufacturing plants shut down. Where did those workers go? Were they retrained?
What about all the robots that take over thousands of jobs for the past several years?
No big out cry there either.

What about the auto industry? Sure, it was saved from the brink and it's coming back but because of advanced
technology, some of those positions will never come back.

What about all the jobs shipped overseas? Yes, people are ticked off about that in general, but not about
the specific industry.
Why is the coal industry so special?

[still learning]

ErnestDalbero, on 25 October 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Clean coal sounds like an oximoron to me... It's just impossibile...

Is it?

One of the major problems with the phrase "clean coal" is that different people mean different things.

For some, "clean coal" means some infinitesimal improvement over the current state of coal production and consumption.
For some it means CCS, carbon capture and sequesteration along with adhering to other modern pollution standards.
Or anything in between.
Apparently, in some cases anyway, just means bringing things up to minimum current EPA standards but excluding CO2 control.

Because different people mean different things, by itself "clean coal" is meaningless.  Just pledging to move to "clean coal" is just about meaningless.  Politician speak.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

I know it's costly (and I'm not being a smart alec here-just asking) but some places are using the emissions
from burning trash as fuel.
It's all captured.
Why can't they do that with coal?
We can design a rocket that sends and lands folks on the moon; it can't be that difficult.
Capture all the emissions as it burns.

[StevesWeb]

Instead of considering the negative effects of declining use of fossil fuels we should be focusing on how we can use positive reinforcement and economic incentives to help transition our economy.

Case in point, we expect to receive a very large tax return this year consisting of 30% of the cost of installing 78 solar panels.  The US government is offering sizable rebates to those who install solarPV systems.  Our panels were made in Tennessee, USA.

Carrots work better than sticks.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 31 October 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

......but some places are using the emissions
from burning trash as fuel.
It's all captured.
Why can't they do that with coal?.....

Capturing all emissions from burning trash for fuel?  You are contending that is actually done somewhere?

Where?

We've read of proposals to utilize some trash as fuel, often using pyrolysis as a method of converting some kinds of solid waste into gasses (such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen) that are collected for use as fuel.  Then burn (or use somehow) the hydrogen and carbon monoxide.  That produces water vapor and carbon dioxide, both greenhouse gasses   The water isn't troublesome since it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere (rains) but the carbon dioxide does accumulate.  Could do CCS, carbon capture and sequesteration, but is it done?  Will it be done?

I don't get the "rocket to the moon" argument.  That was cost-no-object. OK for just a few trips to the moon.  CCS would add  25% to the cost of coal generated electricity, by some estimates.  Nobody has thought of a cost-free way of doing CCS, and it'd be unreasonable (in my view) to expect such a thing.  The increased coat would matter to some.   While I wouldn't object tp electricity that cost 25% more, or even 100% more if it were CO2 emissions-free, some would.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

still learning, on 01 November 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

Capturing all emissions from burning trash for fuel?  You are contending that is actually done somewhere?

Where?

We've read of proposals to utilize some trash as fuel, often using pyrolysis as a method of converting some kinds of solid waste into gasses (such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen) that are collected for use as fuel.  Then burn (or use somehow) the hydrogen and carbon monoxide.  That produces water vapor and carbon dioxide, both greenhouse gasses   The water isn't troublesome since it doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere (rains) but the carbon dioxide does accumulate.  Could do CCS, carbon capture and sequesteration, but is it done?  Will it be done?

I'll have to look but they reported it on PBS on that series they had; Making Stuff.
http://www.pbs.org/w...stuff&x=17&y=15

[aerieth]

Phil, on 13 August 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

Like it or not, jobs mean prosperity and green conversion requires prosperity.   It's very noble to think about fifty years from now with a full belly.  When  you have to struggle for your next meal it's quite a different story.

It would be a wonderful world if we could have our cake and eat it too.  That is rare indeed.  If we want to change the world in a booming economy that's one thing.  Now is not the time to put even more people out of work.

I disagree with you a bit. "Clean coal" to me is a short sighted solution to our short term economic problems. If we want to put people to work why not put them to work installing wind turbines and solar panels or farming crops for biofuels? That's why I voted for Jill Stein in this past election even though I knew she had no shot of winning. Her plan for a "Green New Deal" is exactly what we need in this country. Green infrastructure jobs can't be outsourced and investing in new industries leads to innovation which is what we are missing in this economy.