• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Top Trump aide: Coal doesn't make 'much sense anymore'

You are sounding like a dem with the federal funding for retraining programs and whatnot.

Any other people at any other time doing any other work... they are generally faced with the GOP saying, "Well if there are no jobs where you are at, then move". But when it comes to coal, we need to do something for them. I find this inconsistency interesting.

Why do you think I am a Republican? :confused:

Just because I don't buy into Progressive-Left ideas, and voted for Trump this past election?

I don't belong to any Party.

I voted for Obama, Gore, Carter, and Clinton when they ran for office.

I voted for Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Ron Paul until I found out he was against Pro-Choice.

I also voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Trump.

Does that mix sound like I am a Republican to you?
 
Why do you think I am a Republican? :confused:

Just because I don't buy into Progressive-Left ideas, and voted for Trump this past election?

I voted for Obama, Gore, Carter, and Clinton when they ran for office.

I voted for Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and Ron Paul until I found out he was against Pro-Choice.

I also voted for Nixon, Reagan, and Trump.

Does that mix sound like I am a Republican to you?

No. It deoesn't. Or didn't. The past is the past. Your modern day activities here are mostly strickly from the GOP right. Do you deny that?
 
Wind and solar is not a consistent source with the needed allocated energy to fuel the capitalist demands of a Chicago or Pittsburgh. The United States would economically collapse.

The building codes in the USA should be updated though making it mandatory all new construction of residential and commercial building be wired with fiber optics.
 
No. It deoesn't. Or didn't. The past is the past. Your modern day activities here are mostly strickly from the GOP right. Do you deny that?

My "modern day" political activities are based on my ideals and goals, as always. I won't allow anyone to place me in a box. :no:

I could allege your "modern activities" remind me of Stalin, Lenin, or Khruschev; with a sprinkling of Goebbels and von Ribbentrop, for all it matters. :coffeepap:
 
My "modern day" political activities are based on my ideals and goals, as always. I won't allow anyone to place me in a box. :no:

I could allege your "modern activities" remind me of Stalin, Lenin, or Khruschev; with a sprinkling of Goebbels and von Ribbentrop, for all it matters. :coffeepap:

Ok.. if you'd like to get all godwin for no reason. So you contend you aren't in the GOP camp these days?
 
No, it seems you have a problem with what we call 'life'.

There are winners and loser no matter what happens, and it has nothing to do whatsoever with 'utopian ideals'.

Coal is dirty and not renewable. Those who stake their futures on it aren't likely to have much of one.


Coal is dirty to work with for the employees. Which is a legitimate problem. But in terms of the smoke coal powered electrical plants could produce cleaning systems called "scrubbers" can take (and do take) a lot of the very pollutant chemicals out.



It is easy to say New York City, Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Atlanta, LA ought be powered by wind mills and solar cells but that requires consistent wind at certain speeds, consistent sun shine, and the available landmass to fix enough wind mills and solar cells to capture and transfer out enough energy to business 24/7 and homes on top of that--as well as hospitals that demand reliable supplies of electricity, otherwise patients hooked up to machines die.
 
Coal is dirty to work with for the employees. Which is a legitimate problem. But in terms of the smoke coal powered electrical plants could produce cleaning systems called "scrubbers" can take (and do take) a lot of the very pollutant chemicals out.



It is easy to say New York City, Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Atlanta, LA ought be powered by wind mills and solar cells but that requires consistent wind at certain speeds, consistent sun shine, and the available landmass to fix enough wind mills and solar cells to capture and transfer out enough energy to business 24/7 and homes on top of that--as well as hospitals that demand reliable supplies of electricity, otherwise patients hooked up to machines die.


1. No one is saying all energy should be solar and wind
2. Smart grid tech helps with energy peak surges and sloughs.
3. Why are you focusing on just those two renewables? There's more renewable sources than just solar and wind.
4. Coal is still filthy as hell even with scrubbers... which republicans oppose as an intrustive government regulation anyways.

This is the tech I wanna see invested in.



200MW chimney that runs on hot air rising. simple concept. No fuels needed. just trap warmer air and channel it towards the chimney and as it rises it pushes turbines.
 
Last edited:
1. No one is saying all energy should be solar and wind
2. Smart grid tech helps with energy peak surges and sloughs.
3. Why are you focusing on just those two renewables? There's more renewable sources than just solar and wind.
4. Coal is still filthy as hell even with scrubbers... which republicans oppose as an intrustive government regulation anyways.

I'm not against other sources of energy. I was just pointing out something about a challenge with trying to get consistent x levels of energy from solar cells and wind.

About 10% of American homes I think receive electricity from nuclear power plants. I have good a bad feelings about nuclear power plants for electricity. If they are attacked in war or by terrorist with sufficient explosives they can become a real radioactive problem. That is a downside for me.

Of course, nuclear plants isn't the only other option for energy.
 
I'm not against other sources of energy. I was just pointing out something about a challenge with trying to get consistent x levels of energy from solar cells and wind.

About 10% of American homes I think receive electricity from nuclear power plants. I have good a bad feelings about nuclear power plants for electricity. If they are attacked in war or by terrorist with sufficient explosives they can become a real radioactive problem. That is a downside for me.

Of course, nuclear plants isn't the only other option for energy.

geothermal is rather consistent output if you are looking for stable release from green energy. I also consider hydro dams green with consideration to output but I understand their ecological damage could be rather steep in distruption to habitats. But it's a stable output form of clean energy as well. But like I said in my last post (which I edited in a video)... just capting rising hot air to turn a turbine seems like a good way to go.
 
Coal is dirty to work with for the employees. Which is a legitimate problem. But in terms of the smoke coal powered electrical plants could produce cleaning systems called "scrubbers" can take (and do take) a lot of the very pollutant chemicals out.



It is easy to say New York City, Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Atlanta, LA ought be powered by wind mills and solar cells but that requires consistent wind at certain speeds, consistent sun shine, and the available landmass to fix enough wind mills and solar cells to capture and transfer out enough energy to business 24/7 and homes on top of that--as well as hospitals that demand reliable supplies of electricity, otherwise patients hooked up to machines die.


Some things that are very important in that video. The inefficiency resulting from the scrubber, never mind the cost. I am not saying it is not worth the use, I am saying it is a contributing factor to inefficiency and greater cost to coal energy production.

This was a regulated, not a free market decision as well. So saying that the free market is affecting coal is only part of the issue.
 
Some things that are very important in that video. The inefficiency resulting from the scrubber, never mind the cost. I am not saying it is not worth the use, I am saying it is a contributing factor to inefficiency and greater cost to coal energy production.

This was a regulated, not a free market decision as well. So saying that the free market is affecting coal is only part of the issue.

Toldja FastPace. From my post at #32

poweRob said:
4. Coal is still filthy as hell even with scrubbers... which republicans oppose as an intrustive government regulation anyways.
 
Toldja FastPace. From my post at #32

I am saying don't talk out of both sides of your face. Coal cost is currently being affected by both regulation and the market. Tell me how loud you would be screeching if they were given tax incentives to make the changes instead of regulatory penalties.
 
I am saying don't talk out of both sides of your face. Coal cost is currently being affected by both regulation and the market. Tell me how loud you would be screeching if they were given tax incentives to make the changes instead of regulatory penalties.

So coal doesn't have enough tax breaks you say?

 
Wind and solar is not a consistent source with the needed allocated energy to fuel the capitalist demands of a Chicago or Pittsburgh. The United States would economically collapse.

The building codes in the USA should be updated though making it mandatory all new construction of residential and commercial building be wired with fiber optics.

We have a long way to go, before we need to worry about such things. We won't need to worry about this in our lifetime. Wind provides 7% of the US Electricity, up from less than 1% just 8 years ago. When the time comes for storage needs, PUMPED WATER STORAGE, is very efficient, at 85% efficiency. The electrical generation technology is used extensively today - hydroelectric power.
 
There are 65,000 coal workers and 600,000 solar workers. Last month we lost 60,000 retail jobs. There is an over-emphasis on the importance of coal. The U.S. can afford to just pay the coal workers a set amount for life and move off of coal being a policy setting issue.


I love this non-sense. 65,000 coal workers who live in a VERY specific area. In areas where Free Trade deals killed the other jobs, you know the Rust Belt. The same area that switched Democrat in 2016 to vote for Trump in 2016. You know states like Ohio, PA, and Michigan.

Coal is VERY important there. It's also cheaper then any "green energy" out there except for Nuclear per Kw/h. Reality is.. coal is used for making of steel, concrete and paper industries use it as well.

So you are gonna pay about $4.9b a year (assuming $75,000 avg salary) for the next 20 or 30 years?
 
Many of you are completely missing the point. Even my dog knows that coal is getting it's ass kicked due to cleaner and cheaper forms of producing energy. The point was Trump promised the coal miners he'd get their jobs back and they voted for him for it. Now he's changed his position 180 degrees like he has on many things, and could care less about the miners.

Nothing is cheaper then coal when it comes to energy. NIMBY crowd killed Nuclear power. Everything else is Subsidized massively.. Solar and Wind get close to $11b between the both.. Coal got $1b.
 
Well, I am all for the environment...but what to do about those 65,000 coal miners located around the USA, nearly 40,000 of them located in West Virginia and the Appalachia region?

https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/pdf/table14.pdf

See, my problem with utopian ideas is that some people make it and some people lose out.

For instance, we get cheaper goods from trade agreements...at the cost of manufacturing jobs here in the USA and sweat shop, near slave labor overseas. But hey, we love those little plastic items and "cheap" clothes right?

Too bad there is no alternative employment for our growing population.

What if we could retrain those miners into green jobs....oh wait that was Hillary's idea and she is the devil. Never mind. We can just cut the miners wages so they are more competitive with other energy..and cut their health care too. That is too expensive.
It easy to figure out the Trump/Conservative way...you just think "What would a dick do?"
 
Last edited:
Nothing is cheaper then coal when it comes to energy. NIMBY crowd killed Nuclear power. Everything else is Subsidized massively.. Solar and Wind get close to $11b between the both.. Coal got $1b.

Shale gas has replaced coal as the #1 energy source and the trend is irreversible.

That historic reversal in fuel sources for electric power will continue indefinitely and suggests that coal's demise has more to do with an upheaval in energy markets than the consequences of any government energy policy. Champions of renewable energy like to boast that coal's collapse is the result of dramatic reductions in the cost of wind turbines and solar arrays, but the real cause lies elsewhere – natural gas. Coal is at the mercy of the shale revolution and the nation's abundant, affordable supply of natural gas.

Ironically, those most outspoken about the threat of climate change never thought a switch to natural gas would be such an environmental blessing. In fact, even as cheap natural gas is powering our economy, carbon emissions from electricity production are at their lowest level since the early 1990s. Simply put, the carbon intensity of the electricity sector has dropped dramatically.

As U.S. natural gas output surged over the past decade, turning the nation into the world's largest producer, utilities recognized this vast supply of natural gas for exactly what it is – the clean energy tool they can use to reduce emissions while holding down, or even reducing, electricity rates.
85
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2017-03-09/abundant-cheap-natural-gas-is-the-real-reason-for-the-demise-of-coal
 
Is this a part of the "Art of the Deal?"


Top Trump aide: Coal doesn't make 'much sense anymore'

"For those miners, get ready because you're going to be working your asses off," Trump said in a May 2016 speech in front of a crowd holding up "Trump digs coal" signs.

"Coal doesn't even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock," Gary Cohn said, aboard Air Force One on Thursday, referring to raw materials that get converted into a fuel.
Cohn, who serves as director of the White House National Economic Council, instead praised natural gas as "such a cleaner fuel" -- and one that America has become an "abundant producer of."

While Trump rarely talks up the potential of renewable energy, Cohn sounds like a fan.

"If you think about how solar and how much wind power we've created in the United States, we can be a manufacturing powerhouse and still be environmentally friendly," Cohn said.​

Renewables you say? Coal makes no sense anymore you say?

Lets see the solar manufacturing in action.

So far most of the manufacting is in europe and china

When are greenies going to start making the stuff in America?
 
Do you really want to take away amortization and R&D tax breaks away from coal specifically? Because I doubt you will get that to pass constitutional muster. That makes up the majority of their tax breaks.

Yes, if they haven't figured out how to burn coal yet, then it's not worth it. Get rid of these subsidies.
 
I love this non-sense. 65,000 coal workers who live in a VERY specific area. In areas where Free Trade deals killed the other jobs, you know the Rust Belt. The same area that switched Democrat in 2016 to vote for Trump in 2016. You know states like Ohio, PA, and Michigan.

Coal is VERY important there. It's also cheaper then any "green energy" out there except for Nuclear per Kw/h. Reality is.. coal is used for making of steel, concrete and paper industries use it as well.

So you are gonna pay about $4.9b a year (assuming $75,000 avg salary) for the next 20 or 30 years?

Nuclear is the most expensive of all. Plus it takes an entire federal government department to oversee it (the NRC). Plus future maintenance costs for high level wastes, which have to be stored effectively for hundreds of thousands of years, are not factored in. Who will pay for this maintenance? The latest technological containment is only rated for 200 years. The future generations stand to gain NOTHING from these tons and tons of waste, but will be required to maintain it.

The Cost of Nuclear Power | Union of Concerned Scientists

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.
 
MTAtech said:
There are 65,000 coal workers and 600,000 solar workers. Last month we lost 60,000 retail jobs. There is an over-emphasis on the importance of coal. The U.S. can afford to just pay the coal workers a set amount for life and move off of coal being a policy setting issue.
I love this non-sense. 65,000 coal workers who live in a VERY specific area. In areas where Free Trade deals killed the other jobs, you know the Rust Belt. The same area that switched Democrat in 2016 to vote for Trump in 2016. You know states like Ohio, PA, and Michigan.

Coal is VERY important there. It's also cheaper then any "green energy" out there except for Nuclear per Kw/h. Reality is.. coal is used for making of steel, concrete and paper industries use it as well.

So you are gonna pay about $4.9b a year (assuming $75,000 avg salary) for the next 20 or 30 years?
What I love is someone whose profile says they are a libertarian, and therefore believes in the free market, wanting the government to intervene when the market fails.

When we debate we need to establish certain common facts. While you assert that free trade is responsible for killing jobs in the Rust Belt, that's not really true. As Thomas Friedman wrote,
His [Trump's] policies won’t help them. Trump promises to bring their jobs back. But most of their jobs didn’t go to a Mexican. They went to a microchip.

The idea that large numbers of manual factory jobs can be returned to America if we put up a wall with Mexico or renegotiate our trade deals is a fantasy. Trump ignores the fact that manufacturing is still by far the largest sector of the U.S. economy. Indeed, our factories now produce twice what they did in 1984 — but with one-third fewer workers.

Automation in the auto industry allows auto companies to make the same number of cars as they did in 1980 with 5,000 workers instead of 25,000 workers.
The same is true for coal, Paul Krugman brings us this observation:
Coal employment’s plunge began decades ago, driven mainly by the switch to strip mining and mountaintop removal. A partial revival after the oil crises of the 70s was followed by a renewed downturn (under Reagan!), with fracking and cheap gas mainly delivering the final blow. Giving coal companies new freedom to pollute streams and utilities freedom to destroy the planet won’t make any noticeable dent in the trend.

030117krugman1-tmagArticle.png


But here’s the question: why are people so fixated on coal jobs anyway?

Even in the heart of coal country, the industry hasn’t really been a major source of employment for a very long time. Compare mining with occupations that basically are some form of healthcare in West Virginia, as percentages of total employment:

030117krugman2-tmagArticle.png
I also dispute your simplistic estimate of how much it would cost to pay coal workers. You simply multiplied $75,000 X 60,000 and arrived at $4.9 billion, without accounting for mortality. But even $4.9 billion would be a small cost to pay out over decades to put this sad political football to rest.
 
Is this a part of the "Art of the Deal?"


Top Trump aide: Coal doesn't make 'much sense anymore'

"For those miners, get ready because you're going to be working your asses off," Trump said in a May 2016 speech in front of a crowd holding up "Trump digs coal" signs.

"Coal doesn't even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock," Gary Cohn said, aboard Air Force One on Thursday, referring to raw materials that get converted into a fuel.
Cohn, who serves as director of the White House National Economic Council, instead praised natural gas as "such a cleaner fuel" -- and one that America has become an "abundant producer of."

While Trump rarely talks up the potential of renewable energy, Cohn sounds like a fan.

"If you think about how solar and how much wind power we've created in the United States, we can be a manufacturing powerhouse and still be environmentally friendly," Cohn said.​

Renewables you say? Coal makes no sense anymore you say?

No, I didn't say it.
 
Back
Top Bottom