Obama policies hammered following coal-mine closings, layoffs

[Vel]

Obama policies hammered following coal-mine closings, layoffs
y Joseph Weber
Energy In America
Published September 19, 2012
FoxNews.com

The announcement that 1,200 coal-mining jobs have been eliminated across central Appalachia has sparked renewed cries that Obama administration policies are crippling domestic-energy production and jobs -- and is already factoring into the 2012 presidential race.
Alpha Natural Resources announced Tuesday its plan to cut the positions and scale back coal production by 16 million tons annually -- which would result in eight mine closings in Virginia, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Four-hundred workers will be laid off immediately, though the company reportedly may try to re-hire some of the 1,200.
Kevin Crutchfield, the company’s chief executive officer, said the lay-offs and the closings of the non-union mines are the result a difficult market in which power plants are switching to abundant, less-expensive natural gas and "a regulatory environment that's aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal."


However, elected officials and business groups have been less oblique in their analysis, saying Alpha employees are victims of President Obama’s so-called "War on Coal."
The Mitt Romney campaign is among the most recent to put the blame squarely on the president, releasing a TV ad Wednesday that reminds voters about what Obama said in 2008.
“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them,” the president said, in a quote interpreted by critics as a campaign promise that coal would have no future in an Obama White House.


Obama policies hammered following coal-mine closings, layoffs | Fox News

 

[Jroc]

Crisis in coal country

 

[OKTexas]

Funny, didn't Maobama carry those States in 08, I guess the old saying be careful what you wish for still holds true. Ya think they might reconsider this time?

 

[tinydancer]

He promised he would eliminate coal with heavy duty regulations. And I've no doubt though, good union dems still voted for him in 2008.

How stupid are people? Don't answer. I know I know. He carried those states that will now lose jobs.

 

[Avatar4321]

This is going to hurt Obama. There are alot of coal states that could turn.

 

[tinydancer]

This is going to hurt Obama. There are alot of coal states that could turn.

Interesting electoral map vs coal states layout from red state.

If the Obama administration keeps up their War on Coal (literally: they consider coal more dangerous than terrorism), quite possibly. And it may be at least partially because of coal.

The basic framework for this argument is this map:

…which shows the top sixteen coal-producing states in the USA. There’s a total of 182 Electoral Votes at stake, there – and in 2008 there were 180.

Obama actually won coal-producing states in 2008, 100 to 80; and if no states flip in November, he’ll win them, 96 to 86. Except that… states are going to flip. Indiana’s already gone; and of the remaining six Obama states only New Mexico and Illinois are not considered toss-ups.

The administration’s relentless hostility towards coal production and use may have already contributed to Democratic electoral disaster: since Obama took office the state governments and legislatures of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all been taken over by Republicans; in Colorado we flipped the House of Representatives; and in New Mexico we captured the governorship.

Heck, we even gained seats in the Illinois legislature, and came very close to winning the governorship.

More at link:

Electoral implications of the Obama Administration’s War on Coal. | RedState

 

[Mr. H.]

1,200 jobs.

It's laughable that there is a thread about Siemens laying off 400 with the blame placed on Republicans for allowing a wind generation tax credit to expire.

Clean coal technology exists and it's proven. Is it expensive? Hell yes, but it works.

So rather than promote it and finance it, Obama chooses to bury the coal industry. Same for oil and gas. Bury it and be done with it to make way for alternatives/renewables.

 

[Seawytch]

The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis

Exposing the Myth of Clean Coal Power

Mountaintop Mining Consequences

 

[Claudette]

Funny, didn't Maobama carry those States in 08, I guess the old saying be careful what you wish for still holds true. Ya think they might reconsider this time?

Oh. I think they just might.

I think Barrys green bs is gonna cost him at the polls.

Who will vote for a guy who thinks how you earn a living should disappear??

I'm sure no ones to happy about the 500 million wasted on Solyndra, the green bs, either.

 

[Vel]

This is going to hurt Obama. There are alot of coal states that could turn.

Interesting electoral map vs coal states layout from red state.

If the Obama administration keeps up their War on Coal (literally: they consider coal more dangerous than terrorism), quite possibly. And it may be at least partially because of coal.

The basic framework for this argument is this map:

…which shows the top sixteen coal-producing states in the USA. There’s a total of 182 Electoral Votes at stake, there – and in 2008 there were 180.

Obama actually won coal-producing states in 2008, 100 to 80; and if no states flip in November, he’ll win them, 96 to 86. Except that… states are going to flip. Indiana’s already gone; and of the remaining six Obama states only New Mexico and Illinois are not considered toss-ups.

The administration’s relentless hostility towards coal production and use may have already contributed to Democratic electoral disaster: since Obama took office the state governments and legislatures of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all been taken over by Republicans; in Colorado we flipped the House of Representatives; and in New Mexico we captured the governorship.

Heck, we even gained seats in the Illinois legislature, and came very close to winning the governorship.

More at link:

Electoral implications of the Obama Administration’s War on Coal. | RedState

Just wait until the pink slips from Obama's failure to specify budget cuts start hitting a few days before the election. Thousands are expected to get their layoff notices due to automatic cuts.

 

[Bfgrn]

1,200 jobs.

It's laughable that there is a thread about Siemens laying off 400 with the blame placed on Republicans for allowing a wind generation tax credit to expire.

Clean coal technology exists and it's proven. Is it expensive? Hell yes, but it works.

So rather than promote it and finance it, Obama chooses to bury the coal industry. Same for oil and gas. Bury it and be done with it to make way for alternatives/renewables.

WHO is making the decision to close down coal mines? There is no edict from the government. It is a market driven corporate decision by Alpha Natural Resources.

Alpha Natural Resources agrees with you... Clean coal technology exists and it's proven. Is it expensive?

The President called for investing in clean coal technology. He didn't say it was FREE.

 

[Mr. H.]

The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis

Exposing the Myth of Clean Coal Power

Mountaintop Mining Consequences

Thanks for supporting my statements. BTW that 3rd link is subscription based.

Are there hurdles to overcome? Sure. Why is Obama running away from the challenge?
For all the money he throws at worthless "clean" endeavors (Solyndra) he could be creating real jobs.

Carbon storage center unveiled

 

[Bfgrn]

The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis

Exposing the Myth of Clean Coal Power

Mountaintop Mining Consequences

Thanks for supporting my statements. BTW that 3rd link is subscription based.

Are there hurdles to overcome? Sure. Why is Obama running away from the challenge?
For all the money he throws at worthless "clean" endeavors (Solyndra) he could be creating real jobs.

Carbon storage center unveiled

You couldn't have read the first link. It spells out all the problems of clean-ER coal, and the exorbitant costs.

 

[Mr. H.]

The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis

Exposing the Myth of Clean Coal Power

Mountaintop Mining Consequences

Thanks for supporting my statements. BTW that 3rd link is subscription based.

Are there hurdles to overcome? Sure. Why is Obama running away from the challenge?
For all the money he throws at worthless "clean" endeavors (Solyndra) he could be creating real jobs.

Carbon storage center unveiled

You couldn't have read the first link. It spells out all the problems of clean-ER coal, and the exorbitant costs.

Problems and costs the solutions for which are being ignored.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks for supporting my statements. BTW that 3rd link is subscription based.

Are there hurdles to overcome? Sure. Why is Obama running away from the challenge?
For all the money he throws at worthless "clean" endeavors (Solyndra) he could be creating real jobs.

Carbon storage center unveiled

You couldn't have read the first link. It spells out all the problems of clean-ER coal, and the exorbitant costs.

Problems and costs the solutions for which are being ignored.

The only solutions are either extremely expensive and never done before, or environmentally destructive.

 

[Mr. H.]

"Extremely expensive" never stopped this administration.

And I posted a link to a carbon seqestration project.

The Illinois State Geological Survey is leading the Illinois Basin Decatur Project, which last year started injecting 1,000 metric tons per day of carbon dioxide from the Archer Daniels Midland Co. ethanol plant to store about 7,000 feet underground. So far, 271,000 metric tons has been injected with the goal of reaching about a third of a million metric tons in its first year, Finley said.

“Every indication is the project has been safe,” Finley said. “We expect it to continue as such. We couldn’t be happier as far as the outcome.”

 

[Bfgrn]

"Extremely expensive" never stopped this administration.

And I posted a link to a carbon seqestration project.

The Illinois State Geological Survey is leading the Illinois Basin Decatur Project, which last year started injecting 1,000 metric tons per day of carbon dioxide from the Archer Daniels Midland Co. ethanol plant to store about 7,000 feet underground. So far, 271,000 metric tons has been injected with the goal of reaching about a third of a million metric tons in its first year, Finley said.

“Every indication is the project has been safe,” Finley said. “We expect it to continue as such. We couldn’t be happier as far as the outcome.”

Bull. This administration has not been fiscally irresponsible. And the article you refuse to read addresses that very topic.

Coal will never be clean. It is possible to make coal emissions cleaner. In fact, we've come a long way since the '70s in finding ways to reduce sulfur--dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions, and more progress can be made. But the nut of the clean-coal sales pitch is that we can also bottle up the CO2 produced when coal is burned, most likely by burying it deep in the earth. That may be possible in theory, but it's devilishly difficult in practice.

Carbon dioxide is not some minor byproduct of coal combustion. Remember your high school chemistry: When coal burns, oxygen from the air combines with the carbon in the coal in an exothermic (heat-releasing) reaction. Because of the addition of oxygen, the resulting CO2 weighs more than the carbon alone--which means that each pound of coal produces about 2.5 pounds of CO2. Keeping that CO2 out of the atmos-phere requires a process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). It works by forcing the exhaust from a power plant through a liquid solvent that absorbs the carbon dioxide. Later, the solvent is heated to liberate the gas, much the way a bottle of soda releases its dissolved CO2 when opened. The CO2 is then compressed to about 100 times normal atmospheric pressure and sent away for storage.

So far, so good. But CCS has two major hurdles. First, it consumes energy--a lot of it. While estimates vary, a coal-fired power plant would have to burn roughly 25 percent more coal to handle carbon sequestration while producing the same amount of electricity. That would mean a vast expansion in mining, transportation costs and byproducts such as fly ash.

But that's the easy part. The harder challenge would be transporting and burying all of this high-pressure CO2. American Electric Power recently began a CCS project at its Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia. The operation captures a few hundred tons of CO2 a day. That's a start--but a typical 500-megawatt power plant produces about 10,000 tons daily. Collectively, America's coal-fired power plants generate 1.5 billion tons per year. Capturing that would mean filling 30 million barrels with liquid CO2 every single day--about one and a half times the volume of crude oil the country consumes. It took roughly a century to build the infrastructure we use to distribute petroleum products. Could we build an even bigger CCS infrastructure of pumps, pipelines and wells quickly enough to hit the ambitious targets the climate bill envisions? Serious plans to engineer--much less finance--such a vast project aren't even on the table.

Here's a final problem: We don't know if the gas will stay buried. We could easily spend hundreds of billions injecting CO2 into the earth only to have it start leaking out again in a few decades. None of this means that CCS is impossible to achieve. But it is a dangerous gamble to assume that it will become technically and economically feasible any time soon.

At the moment, the Senate's climate bill is on the back burner. And many Americans remain dubious about both the causes and the appropriate solutions for global warming. (Recent revelations that several climate scientists apparently tried to squelch legitimate debate certainly don't inspire confidence.) But concern over greenhouse gas emissions will continue, and the pressure to regu-late them is growing. Wouldn't it be a shame if we created a policy that burdens American consumers with higher energy prices and yet does virtually nothing to reduce our CO2 emissions? By embracing the clean-coal myth, that lose-lose scenario may be exactly what we stand to achieve.

Sadly, although it might make little economic or scientific sense, the political logic behind clean coal is overwhelming. Coal is mined in some politically potent states--Illinois, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming--and the coal industry spends millions on lobbying. The end result of the debate is all too likely to resemble Congress's corn-based ethanol mandates: legislation that employs appealing buzzwords to justify subsidies to a politically favored constituency--while actually worsening the problem it seeks to solve.

The focus on mythical clean coal is particularly frustrating because practical, cost-effective alternatives do exist--and I don't mean just wind and solar power. Natural gas is plentiful in the U.S., and gas-fired power plants produce only about half as much CO2 as coal. Not only that, but once it's ready, the CCS technology envisioned for coal plants would be even more effective if used with natural gas

Read more: The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis - Popular Mechanics

 

[Mr. H.]

"Extremely expensive" never stopped this administration.

And I posted a link to a carbon seqestration project.

The Illinois State Geological Survey is leading the Illinois Basin Decatur Project, which last year started injecting 1,000 metric tons per day of carbon dioxide from the Archer Daniels Midland Co. ethanol plant to store about 7,000 feet underground. So far, 271,000 metric tons has been injected with the goal of reaching about a third of a million metric tons in its first year, Finley said.

“Every indication is the project has been safe,” Finley said. “We expect it to continue as such. We couldn’t be happier as far as the outcome.”

Bull. This administration has not been fiscally irresponsible. And the article you refuse to read addresses that very topic.

Coal will never be clean. It is possible to make coal emissions cleaner. In fact, we've come a long way since the '70s in finding ways to reduce sulfur--dioxide and nitrogen-oxide emissions, and more progress can be made. But the nut of the clean-coal sales pitch is that we can also bottle up the CO2 produced when coal is burned, most likely by burying it deep in the earth. That may be possible in theory, but it's devilishly difficult in practice.

Carbon dioxide is not some minor byproduct of coal combustion. Remember your high school chemistry: When coal burns, oxygen from the air combines with the carbon in the coal in an exothermic (heat-releasing) reaction. Because of the addition of oxygen, the resulting CO2 weighs more than the carbon alone--which means that each pound of coal produces about 2.5 pounds of CO2. Keeping that CO2 out of the atmos-phere requires a process known as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). It works by forcing the exhaust from a power plant through a liquid solvent that absorbs the carbon dioxide. Later, the solvent is heated to liberate the gas, much the way a bottle of soda releases its dissolved CO2 when opened. The CO2 is then compressed to about 100 times normal atmospheric pressure and sent away for storage.

So far, so good. But CCS has two major hurdles. First, it consumes energy--a lot of it. While estimates vary, a coal-fired power plant would have to burn roughly 25 percent more coal to handle carbon sequestration while producing the same amount of electricity. That would mean a vast expansion in mining, transportation costs and byproducts such as fly ash.

But that's the easy part. The harder challenge would be transporting and burying all of this high-pressure CO2. American Electric Power recently began a CCS project at its Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia. The operation captures a few hundred tons of CO2 a day. That's a start--but a typical 500-megawatt power plant produces about 10,000 tons daily. Collectively, America's coal-fired power plants generate 1.5 billion tons per year. Capturing that would mean filling 30 million barrels with liquid CO2 every single day--about one and a half times the volume of crude oil the country consumes. It took roughly a century to build the infrastructure we use to distribute petroleum products. Could we build an even bigger CCS infrastructure of pumps, pipelines and wells quickly enough to hit the ambitious targets the climate bill envisions? Serious plans to engineer--much less finance--such a vast project aren't even on the table.

Here's a final problem: We don't know if the gas will stay buried. We could easily spend hundreds of billions injecting CO2 into the earth only to have it start leaking out again in a few decades. None of this means that CCS is impossible to achieve. But it is a dangerous gamble to assume that it will become technically and economically feasible any time soon.

At the moment, the Senate's climate bill is on the back burner. And many Americans remain dubious about both the causes and the appropriate solutions for global warming. (Recent revelations that several climate scientists apparently tried to squelch legitimate debate certainly don't inspire confidence.) But concern over greenhouse gas emissions will continue, and the pressure to regu-late them is growing. Wouldn't it be a shame if we created a policy that burdens American consumers with higher energy prices and yet does virtually nothing to reduce our CO2 emissions? By embracing the clean-coal myth, that lose-lose scenario may be exactly what we stand to achieve.

Sadly, although it might make little economic or scientific sense, the political logic behind clean coal is overwhelming. Coal is mined in some politically potent states--Illinois, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming--and the coal industry spends millions on lobbying. The end result of the debate is all too likely to resemble Congress's corn-based ethanol mandates: legislation that employs appealing buzzwords to justify subsidies to a politically favored constituency--while actually worsening the problem it seeks to solve.

The focus on mythical clean coal is particularly frustrating because practical, cost-effective alternatives do exist--and I don't mean just wind and solar power. Natural gas is plentiful in the U.S., and gas-fired power plants produce only about half as much CO2 as coal. Not only that, but once it's ready, the CCS technology envisioned for coal plants would be even more effective if used with natural gas

Read more: The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis - Popular Mechanics

Just to make you happy, I read it again.
And I'll stand by my posts.

(As does Poopular Mechanics)

 

[buckeye45_73]

1,200 jobs.

It's laughable that there is a thread about Siemens laying off 400 with the blame placed on Republicans for allowing a wind generation tax credit to expire.

Clean coal technology exists and it's proven. Is it expensive? Hell yes, but it works.

So rather than promote it and finance it, Obama chooses to bury the coal industry. Same for oil and gas. Bury it and be done with it to make way for alternatives/renewables.

WHO is making the decision to close down coal mines? There is no edict from the government. It is a market driven corporate decision by Alpha Natural Resources.

Alpha Natural Resources agrees with you... Clean coal technology exists and it's proven. Is it expensive?

The President called for investing in clean coal technology. He didn't say it was FREE.

It's called regulation, make it expensive to run a buisness and voila no buisness...hence our recovery, lots of regulation, few jobs....it's not that hard.

 

[Bfgrn]

1,200 jobs.

It's laughable that there is a thread about Siemens laying off 400 with the blame placed on Republicans for allowing a wind generation tax credit to expire.

Clean coal technology exists and it's proven. Is it expensive? Hell yes, but it works.

So rather than promote it and finance it, Obama chooses to bury the coal industry. Same for oil and gas. Bury it and be done with it to make way for alternatives/renewables.

WHO is making the decision to close down coal mines? There is no edict from the government. It is a market driven corporate decision by Alpha Natural Resources.

Alpha Natural Resources agrees with you... Clean coal technology exists and it's proven. Is it expensive?

The President called for investing in clean coal technology. He didn't say it was FREE.

It's called regulation, make it expensive to run a buisness and voila no buisness...hence our recovery, lots of regulation, few jobs....it's not that hard.

Come on, you can raise your thinking above that childish propaganda. Speed limits are a 'regulation', are they implemented to stop people from driving, or is there a REAL reason for speed limits? There is nothing radical about the idea of clean air and clean water for our children.

All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.

Environmental regulations are based on core conservative values. Personal responsibility.

Let's see if I can get you to see what I mean by example...

If this was your son or daughter's bedroom, and they said YOU should clean up their room, what would you say to that child?