June 01, 2017
Coal Must be Part of the American Energy Future
Timothy Birdnow
Writing in The Hill, Rick Manning argues for a continuing role for coal. In the piece he points out that certain members of the Trump Administration are wildcatting on this issue.{/link]
From the article:
"President Donald Trump needs to remind those who work for his administration who is in charge. The repeated on and off the record comments that contradict his policies by those who surround him are undermining his ability to not only accomplish his promises but even to credibly set his Administration's agenda.
The latest distraction was offered by former Goldman Sachs CEO Gary Cohn, who the President allows to serve as his Director of the National Economic Council.
Cohn met with reporters on the flight to the G-7 meeting which includes the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and the European Union, where the issue of the Paris Climate Treaty was a hot topic.
Trump's assistant denigrated the President's position with respect to energy development with his attack on coal as a viable energy source saying, "Coal doesn't even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock."
[...]
The national security implications of natural gas supply disruptions without having a large amount of our nation's electricity grid fueled by reliable and available coal or nuclear power are frightening given its interconnectivity and stretched capacity.
As a globalist traveling in Europe, Cohn must have noticed the vulnerability of what was once known as Western Europe to disruptions of natural gas pipelines from Russia. As Ukraine remains a hot spot between Russia and NATO countries, many in Europe worry that their dependency on Russian natural gas makes them vulnerable to energy blackmail.
Yet, Europe itself ignores the energy beneath its own feet in a willful blindness. Germany is rich with coal and the economic certainty it provides. Yet, Germany would rather import most of the limited coal they use, and is in the process of ending its nuclear power generation capability by 2022 increasing their dependency on Russian natural gas, even as they intellectualize the potentially devastating effects of that dependency.
In the United States, President Trump made it clear on the campaign trail last year that the war on coal was over in his administration, and many of his actions have demonstrated his commitment to coal and nuclear as a large and expanded part of our national energy security plan. "
End excerpts.
From a strategic perspective the U.S. should be hot on coal; we hold the world's largest coal reserve and as such we can not only fuel our own industry but can sell it to other nations at a dandy profit. The essence of business is to provide a good that others want and don't have, and that's where we stand. The only reason anyone can possibly offer for restricting coal is Global Warming, a fake news item if there ever was one.
Now, it is believed there are 3.9 TRILLION short tons of coal in the U.S. reserve. That is a staggering amount of coal, and a valuable resource that should not simply be ignored. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:
What are international coal reserves?
As of December 31, 2014, estimates of total world proved recoverable reserves of coal were about 1,237 billion short tons, (or 1.2 trillion short tons).
Five countries had about 75% of the world's coal reserves:
China—23%
United States—21%
Russia—14%
Australia—9%
India—8%
End excerpt.
Why is China showing more coal than the U.S.? Because this calculates only the "recoverable" coal; our easily obtained coal has been depleted and now we are working on new ways to get the harder to reach coal. But does that make it not worth reaching? Certainly, had we followed the prescription of the "Limits to Growth" report back in the "70's we would have simply written off oil as a bad bet and fracking would not have turned the U.S. into one of the world's largest oil producers. In fact, most leftists and environmentalists wanted just that. The U.S. was swimming in oil but political forces wanted us out of it. They almost succeeded, too. Had the warming trend of the '80's and '90's not ended we would have seen the imposition of draconian treaties that would have suppressed oil and coal forever. It was not only unnecessary (as the warming was a natural occurrence) but it would have been very harmful to the poor and middle classes, not just in America. When the world's economic landscape is poor the poorest countries suffer terribly. They can't make the things they need for themselves but have to purchase them from wealthier countries, and when the economy is ailing the prices go up. Climate change amelioration was guaranteed to starve the Third World poor.
But what of natural gas? According to the government link=https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8]we have a 93 year reserve based on current rates of consumption.
"The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that as of January 1, 2014, there were about 2,474 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable resources of dry natural gas in the United States. At the rate of U.S. dry natural gas consumption in 2014 of about 26.6 Tcf per year, the United States has enough natural gas to last about 93 years. The actual number of years will depend on the amount of natural gas consumed each year, natural gas imports and exports, and additions to natural gas reserves.
Technically recoverable reserves consist of proved reserves and unproved resources. Proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas are the estimated volumes expected to be produced, with reasonable certainty, under existing economic and operating conditions. Unproved resources of crude oil and natural gas are additional volumes estimated to be technically recoverable without consideration of economics or operating conditions, based on the application of current technology."
End excerpt.
But energy usage is not going to remain stable, especially as the U.S. population climbs (and it has climbed considerably thanks to unrestrained immigration; there are 60 million immigrants in the U.S., a number that would make a respectable country in it's own right, and all of these immigrants use energy at the rate of other Americans.) even assuming zero population growth (which would quickly lead to labor shortages and thus higher prices) we must assume increased energy usage as the high tech revolution continues to suck up power with ever-increasing complexity in our tools and gadgets. That power has to come from somewhere, and the Gang Green has done everything in it's power to kill nuclear, one of the better options for clean energy. They also resist building new hydroelectric plants as that requires damming rivers and thus upsetting ecological systems. They also resist fracking as an earthquake hazard. That leaves us with just natural gas and coal. We have lots and lots of coal.
So why, in the name of all things Holy, should we restrict its usage? Global Warming is a crock, and if one does not accept it (as China and Russia and India largely do not) one uses whatever resources one has. And given the climate of the times the coal companies, if left to their own resources rather than pushed into public displays of penitence as the Obi Bam Bologna Administration forced on them, will develop cleaner burning systems and find new ways to get the coal out of the ground. Necessity is the mother of invention, and that is precisely why we have an oil boom in the U.S. It WILL happen for coal if the idiot bureaucrats get out of the way.
Which is why people like Cohn should get their heads out of their shorts.
In point of fact Trump should fire Cohn for undermining his policies. Here is the problem; too many of the people who are supposed to be working for the Administration are actually wild cards, freelancing their own policies. Cohn is one such, and a bad egg to boot. Oh, and he's the ultimate insider, a Goldman Sachs guy to the core. I don't know why Trump even considered him when putting together a team that was supposed to be outsiders.
Furthermore, one must ask about the wisdom of an economics adviser telling the President (and everyone else) to simply ignore a vast natural resource because of advances in another area. Should we have ignored heavier than air flight in favor of Zeppelins, since the Germans made huge advances in that technology while the poor airplane was struggling? A lot of things didn't "make sense anymore" and yet finally prevailed; electric lights were invented by Sir Humphrey Davies in 1802 and made practical by Davies in 1806, and yet they wouldn't catch on until Edison; the coming of coal oil (which replaced whale blubber) made electric lights "not make sense' even though the electric lights would eventually prove far superior. Even today, one must ask if it makes sense to use trains or seagoing vessels? We move massive amounts of cargo with both, even though both were once proclaimed dead.
The fact is, we never know which direction will prove ultimately beneficial, so we should never turn our backs on any one thing completely (unless it is truly obsolete, like stone tools.) Today's energy source may be a loser tomorrow, and today’s loser may be the future. Certainly natural gas was considered quaint as we developed nuclear and solar power. Not anymore.
So Cohn should be sacked if for no other reason than a monumental failure of vision.
Yes, there is a future, and a bright one, for coal if the government will just get out of the way.
Writing in The Hill, Rick Manning argues for a continuing role for coal. In the piece he points out that certain members of the Trump Administration are wildcatting on this issue.{/link]
From the article:
"President Donald Trump needs to remind those who work for his administration who is in charge. The repeated on and off the record comments that contradict his policies by those who surround him are undermining his ability to not only accomplish his promises but even to credibly set his Administration's agenda.
The latest distraction was offered by former Goldman Sachs CEO Gary Cohn, who the President allows to serve as his Director of the National Economic Council.
Cohn met with reporters on the flight to the G-7 meeting which includes the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the U.S. and the European Union, where the issue of the Paris Climate Treaty was a hot topic.
Trump's assistant denigrated the President's position with respect to energy development with his attack on coal as a viable energy source saying, "Coal doesn't even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock."
[...]
The national security implications of natural gas supply disruptions without having a large amount of our nation's electricity grid fueled by reliable and available coal or nuclear power are frightening given its interconnectivity and stretched capacity.
As a globalist traveling in Europe, Cohn must have noticed the vulnerability of what was once known as Western Europe to disruptions of natural gas pipelines from Russia. As Ukraine remains a hot spot between Russia and NATO countries, many in Europe worry that their dependency on Russian natural gas makes them vulnerable to energy blackmail.
Yet, Europe itself ignores the energy beneath its own feet in a willful blindness. Germany is rich with coal and the economic certainty it provides. Yet, Germany would rather import most of the limited coal they use, and is in the process of ending its nuclear power generation capability by 2022 increasing their dependency on Russian natural gas, even as they intellectualize the potentially devastating effects of that dependency.
In the United States, President Trump made it clear on the campaign trail last year that the war on coal was over in his administration, and many of his actions have demonstrated his commitment to coal and nuclear as a large and expanded part of our national energy security plan. "
End excerpts.
From a strategic perspective the U.S. should be hot on coal; we hold the world's largest coal reserve and as such we can not only fuel our own industry but can sell it to other nations at a dandy profit. The essence of business is to provide a good that others want and don't have, and that's where we stand. The only reason anyone can possibly offer for restricting coal is Global Warming, a fake news item if there ever was one.
Now, it is believed there are 3.9 TRILLION short tons of coal in the U.S. reserve. That is a staggering amount of coal, and a valuable resource that should not simply be ignored. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:
What are international coal reserves?
As of December 31, 2014, estimates of total world proved recoverable reserves of coal were about 1,237 billion short tons, (or 1.2 trillion short tons).
Five countries had about 75% of the world's coal reserves:
China—23%
United States—21%
Russia—14%
Australia—9%
India—8%
End excerpt.
Why is China showing more coal than the U.S.? Because this calculates only the "recoverable" coal; our easily obtained coal has been depleted and now we are working on new ways to get the harder to reach coal. But does that make it not worth reaching? Certainly, had we followed the prescription of the "Limits to Growth" report back in the "70's we would have simply written off oil as a bad bet and fracking would not have turned the U.S. into one of the world's largest oil producers. In fact, most leftists and environmentalists wanted just that. The U.S. was swimming in oil but political forces wanted us out of it. They almost succeeded, too. Had the warming trend of the '80's and '90's not ended we would have seen the imposition of draconian treaties that would have suppressed oil and coal forever. It was not only unnecessary (as the warming was a natural occurrence) but it would have been very harmful to the poor and middle classes, not just in America. When the world's economic landscape is poor the poorest countries suffer terribly. They can't make the things they need for themselves but have to purchase them from wealthier countries, and when the economy is ailing the prices go up. Climate change amelioration was guaranteed to starve the Third World poor.
But what of natural gas? According to the government link=https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=58&t=8]we have a 93 year reserve based on current rates of consumption.
"The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that as of January 1, 2014, there were about 2,474 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable resources of dry natural gas in the United States. At the rate of U.S. dry natural gas consumption in 2014 of about 26.6 Tcf per year, the United States has enough natural gas to last about 93 years. The actual number of years will depend on the amount of natural gas consumed each year, natural gas imports and exports, and additions to natural gas reserves.
Technically recoverable reserves consist of proved reserves and unproved resources. Proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas are the estimated volumes expected to be produced, with reasonable certainty, under existing economic and operating conditions. Unproved resources of crude oil and natural gas are additional volumes estimated to be technically recoverable without consideration of economics or operating conditions, based on the application of current technology."
End excerpt.
But energy usage is not going to remain stable, especially as the U.S. population climbs (and it has climbed considerably thanks to unrestrained immigration; there are 60 million immigrants in the U.S., a number that would make a respectable country in it's own right, and all of these immigrants use energy at the rate of other Americans.) even assuming zero population growth (which would quickly lead to labor shortages and thus higher prices) we must assume increased energy usage as the high tech revolution continues to suck up power with ever-increasing complexity in our tools and gadgets. That power has to come from somewhere, and the Gang Green has done everything in it's power to kill nuclear, one of the better options for clean energy. They also resist building new hydroelectric plants as that requires damming rivers and thus upsetting ecological systems. They also resist fracking as an earthquake hazard. That leaves us with just natural gas and coal. We have lots and lots of coal.
So why, in the name of all things Holy, should we restrict its usage? Global Warming is a crock, and if one does not accept it (as China and Russia and India largely do not) one uses whatever resources one has. And given the climate of the times the coal companies, if left to their own resources rather than pushed into public displays of penitence as the Obi Bam Bologna Administration forced on them, will develop cleaner burning systems and find new ways to get the coal out of the ground. Necessity is the mother of invention, and that is precisely why we have an oil boom in the U.S. It WILL happen for coal if the idiot bureaucrats get out of the way.
Which is why people like Cohn should get their heads out of their shorts.
In point of fact Trump should fire Cohn for undermining his policies. Here is the problem; too many of the people who are supposed to be working for the Administration are actually wild cards, freelancing their own policies. Cohn is one such, and a bad egg to boot. Oh, and he's the ultimate insider, a Goldman Sachs guy to the core. I don't know why Trump even considered him when putting together a team that was supposed to be outsiders.
Furthermore, one must ask about the wisdom of an economics adviser telling the President (and everyone else) to simply ignore a vast natural resource because of advances in another area. Should we have ignored heavier than air flight in favor of Zeppelins, since the Germans made huge advances in that technology while the poor airplane was struggling? A lot of things didn't "make sense anymore" and yet finally prevailed; electric lights were invented by Sir Humphrey Davies in 1802 and made practical by Davies in 1806, and yet they wouldn't catch on until Edison; the coming of coal oil (which replaced whale blubber) made electric lights "not make sense' even though the electric lights would eventually prove far superior. Even today, one must ask if it makes sense to use trains or seagoing vessels? We move massive amounts of cargo with both, even though both were once proclaimed dead.
The fact is, we never know which direction will prove ultimately beneficial, so we should never turn our backs on any one thing completely (unless it is truly obsolete, like stone tools.) Today's energy source may be a loser tomorrow, and today’s loser may be the future. Certainly natural gas was considered quaint as we developed nuclear and solar power. Not anymore.
So Cohn should be sacked if for no other reason than a monumental failure of vision.
Yes, there is a future, and a bright one, for coal if the government will just get out of the way.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1612 words, total size 10 kb.
31kb generated in CPU 0.1494, elapsed 0.3015 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2901 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.2901 seconds, 182 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
