Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 1, 2013
Casualties of the war on coal
A war on coal is underway, instigated by a few opposition groups with powerful voices. The World Bank’s announcement to oppose the financing of coal plants overseas is only the latest development in the ongoing debate, which recently found its way onto the editorial page of The Washington Times. Unfortunately, coal opponents regularly overlook the bigger economic picture: Coal provides a reliable energy resource for developing countries that is essential for public health and economic development.
According to the World Coal Association, about one-fifth of today’s global population — an estimated 1.2 billion people — lives without access to a stable energy source. Their businesses can’t operate after dusk, their schools lack power for learning, and they cannot meet basic human needs. The lack of power limits their opportunities, keeping communities unnecessarily impoverished. In fact, the World Coal Association estimates that more than two-fifths of the world’s population — around 2.8 billion people — still rely on solid fuel such as wood, charcoal and manure for cooking and heating, resulting in 3.5 million deaths every year from the effects of indoor air pollution.
This quality of life is simply unacceptable. Given this situation, we have two choices: We either abandon coal as an energy resource and as a result, undermine the economic growth of developing countries, or we encourage this growth through building energy grids and exporting our commodity.
It is abundantly clear that coal opponents would choose to undermine any and all coal use — regardless of the consequences. Reliable and affordable energy grids are essential to provide for human needs, and eventually, provide a foundation for economic growth. Without this, underprivileged countries will not have the resources to develop sustainable economies. Opposition groups rarely propose any viable alternatives — even if this means regions of the world remain in abject poverty.
Given this context, there’s clearly a role for coal as an economic catalyst for growth. Developing countries in particular need access to affordable, modern energy — electricity — to improve their quality of life. Electricity improves a country’s economy, lowers mortality and, ultimately, leads to more environmentally capable populations as basic subsistence needs are met. The World Bank’s announcement undermines this development, but there are other ways to help.
The Pacific Northwest is currently reviewing three proposed export expansions — the Gateway Pacific Terminal in Cherry Point, Wash.; the Millennium Bulk Terminals in Longview, Wash.; and Morrow Pacific Terminal in Morrow, Ore. — which would aid bulk commodity industries, like agriculture, timber and coal. Once completed, such expansion would lead to increased jobs and tax revenue for the Pacific Northwest region, while aiding the economic growth of developing regions. Additionally, the coal to be exported through these facilities would come from the Powder River Basin, which means that it is more compact with less sulphur, creating a cleaner commodity for energy use. Powder River Basin coal is superior by any metric to coal from other potential sources in Asia, and definitely superior to burning biomass, kerosene or rain-forest products. However, those unhealthy and unreliable energy forms will be used more if the export terminals are delayed.
Abandoning coal is a shortsighted policy that would undermine a major domestic industry, while restricting burgeoning markets. Coal opponents who take an all-or-nothing approach toward the commodity only have one goal: eliminating it from the conversation. In reality, halting these job-producing projects and refusing to send U.S.-mined coal overseas would actually harm the environment here and globally.
Modern society’s appetite for electrical power is huge and still growing, while the developing world’s electricity appetite is growing even faster. We have the capabilities to provide for Third World countries while aiding America’s economic recovery. Instead, a select few are trying to implement an anti-coal policy — much to the detriment of ourselves and others. It’s time we rethink this ill-advised coal policy.
13 Comments on "Casualties of the war on coal"
TIKIMAN on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 11:38 am
“Casualties of the war on coal”
You mean lost jobs, less stable energy and higher prices for energy?
If I were a liberal I’d say those are good things!
Mike999 on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 1:01 pm
These dead industries should have long ago plowed 50% of profits into Solar and Wind projects. Bad management, denial of reality, global warming reality, and lack of management knowledge into how to innovate are the issues.
Green jobs will vastly displace coal jobs, and workers will make more money and be healthier.
Also, notice the always wrong “right wing” has no knowledge of “negative externalities” of coal. In an age of Peak Water, Polluting billions of gallons of water for Coal Processing is the stupidest thing you could do.
China has already lost 33% of it’s stream and rivers to Global Warming.
It’s now Water for Coal or Water for Food.
Take your pick.
And this is the difference between Liberals, who research issues, and Dumbbell’s who listen to Radio Dumbasses.
If your still a Republican, and can’t vote for the black man, then just Don’t Vote. Because they’re SCREWING you into the ground.
rollin on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 1:22 pm
More mercury, more acid rain, more smog, more global warming. The kindly coal industry is giving the world so many benefits while they propagandize for increased profits. When the US has little coal left, they can’t get it back from the countries that bought it and burned it.
Those poor people the article speaks of who can’t afford much, certainly can’t afford to import coal and pay for electricity. So who is really getting the coal to burn?
TIKIMAN on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 1:53 pm
Mike999 –
“China has already lost 33% of it’s stream and rivers to Global Warming”
Pretty sure you should cite the source of that claim so people do not think you’re reaching up your rear end.
By “dead industries” I assume you mean coal or other fossil fuel energy industries? Pretty hard to call them dead when those ‘evil’ sources make up 68% of the electricity in the US. I’ll even cite that for you: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Solar and wind combined make up 3.57%
Solar is .11% and companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on solar to get that tiny percentage.
Thanks for reminding us that every republican is a racist, and hate that “black man” incharge. Just remember him when you pay $4 a gallon for gas.
Kenz300 on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 1:55 pm
Climate change is real… no matter what the coal industry, the oil companies and the Koch brothers say……..
If the world is to have any hope of dealing with Climate Change there needs to be an end to building any more coal fired power plants.
Wind and solar are safer, cleaner and if you include the cost of environmental damage they are cheaper.
TIKIMAN on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 2:15 pm
“Wind and solar are safer, cleaner and if you include the cost of environmental damage they are cheaper.”
No argument there.
But you can’t blame companies for investments in energy thst will make money and cost less. Solar and wind are much more expensive than coal, even with the subsidies, and not as reliable.
PrestonSturges on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 2:44 pm
This story needs to be in a museum of propaganda. The only people that buy into this stuff are people in the poorest most conservative parts of America. It used to be that they were willing to fight and die to unionize and gain some protection from the murderous coal companies. Now they believe that it’s the mysterious “liberals” that have kept them in poverty for generations.
DC on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 5:16 pm
Like all WB\IMF\Coal propaganda, this piece of tripe would have you believe that coal is intended to actually help people in the third world, presumably, by giving them a 1st world lifestyle, you know, the one thats poisoning the entire world.
The real reason however, is far less noble. These power plants are intended to provide steady power, just not to the ‘people’, much less poor ones. These power plants are intended to power mines, factories, ports, airports rail systems and so on, in order to facilitate the transfer of raw materials from ‘them’ to ‘us’.
actioncjackson on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 5:20 pm
When the coal supply eventually becomes strained they’ll move to the next best sources of energy, biomass, kerosene, rain forest products (according to the article), and so on until they burn everything. Just look at commercial fishing as one example. Species are fished to extinction and then the next best thing takes center stage until that’s gone. There are many examples though. It’s never going to stop until we make ourselves extinct. I see us as a bunch of primates playing with sticks, because with regards to eternity and the big picture, our actions are no more meaningful.
Mike999 on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 10:42 pm
The WORLD drying up is not hard info to find:
Here for example is a list of rapidly shrinking body’s of water:
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/03/drying-lakes-rivers/
http://www.suprememastertv.com/sos-global-warming/Drying-Rivers-Lakes-and-Reservoirs.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/31/china-freshwater-lake-dries-up
http://www.china.org.cn/english/TR-e/36656.htm
This is why when we hear a “Republican” talk about the “Global Warming Hoax” we see them now as SENILE. The SENILE party has to die. We have to Destroy the Party to Save It.
Mike999 on Thu, 1st Aug 2013 10:46 pm
Solar becomes cheap and saves your utility, and therefore You, a fortune during PEAK Hours. Gee, why isn’t this on Fox News? Because Solar displaces Price Gouging by Coal and Natural Gas plants. It effectively caps the Highest Price you can charge for Coal Energy, saving you a fortune.
This is why coal hates Solar. It’s saving you money now, coal plants can’t Double the Price of Energy during the Noon to 4PM peak usage hours. That alone gives your utility incentive to go at least 20% to Solar.
Germany is having No Problems producing energy with a 50% solar mix, and some days 100% solar.
Kenz300 on Fri, 2nd Aug 2013 1:53 pm
Cost-competitive Renewable Energy
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/06/from-the-editor-1
Harquebus on Sun, 4th Aug 2013 8:11 am
More coal for the survivors. Simple.