The US is alone.

[Kulindahr]

No, I strongly dislike allowing foreign countries power to impose limitations on the US. I want to preserve our democracy and economic freedom. Other countries are our economic rivals and Russia and China are major powers who would not miss a chance to hurt us economically. It is easily predictable that they will attempt to impose more onerous restrictions and obligations upon us than themselves. It does not help that it was imposed by authoritarian dictate by Obama, intentionally avoiding the democratic process. Again, we can conform to the accords without surrendering our democracy.

The ignorance, it hurts.

China is imposing "more onerous restrictions" on itself than the Paris accords. They have stopped building new coal plants are are striving to plant enough trees to offset their entire carbon emissions (though admittedly the original motivation was to stop the giant dust storms getting continually worse due to global warming). They've even finally realized that pouring more concrete in a decade than the U.S. has in the last century isn't a good idea, either, because of the environmental costs of making concrete and its impact once poured.

With Russia you have a reasonable concern, though it is mitigated somewhat by the fact that they do have to pay some attention to their European neighbors.


BTW, nothing "was imposed by authoritarian dictate", since there is nothing legally binding in the whole thing, so there was nothing legally binding on U.S. citizens from President Obama signing us on. Signing was a way of agreeing we all need to work together on this -- and Trump pulling out is a way of saying "Fuck you" to every country that did join in ... and oh, yeah, that's the entire world.

 

[Kulindahr]

Apparently he plans on attending the next accord conference to push American coal.

Absolute insanity, especially considering that China has adopted a policy of getting off coal: they have decided to build no new plants, and as fast as they can replace the power by solar or wind, they will be shutting down existing ones, starting with the oldest -- and in fact I heard on the radio that they're looking for ideas of what to do with a coal plant once it's no longer used to generate power.

 

[Benvolio]

The ignorance, it hurts.

China is imposing "more onerous restrictions" on itself than the Paris accords. They have stopped building new coal plants are are striving to plant enough trees to offset their entire carbon emissions (though admittedly the original motivation was to stop the giant dust storms getting continually worse due to global warming). They've even finally realized that pouring more concrete in a decade than the U.S. has in the last century isn't a good idea, either, because of the environmental costs of making concrete and its impact once poured.

With Russia you have a reasonable concern, though it is mitigated somewhat by the fact that they do have to pay some attention to their European neighbors.


BTW, nothing "was imposed by authoritarian dictate", since there is nothing legally binding in the whole thing, so there was nothing legally binding on U.S. citizens from President Obama signing us on. Signing was a way of agreeing we all need to work together on this -- and Trump pulling out is a way of saying "Fuck you" to every country that did join in ... and oh, yeah, that's the entire world.

It is the first step on a slippery slope and an unecessary risk. We can cut our emissions without it.

 

[rareboy]

No, I strongly dislike allowing foreign countries power to impose limitations on the US. I want to preserve our democracy and economic freedom. Other countries are our economic rivals and Russia and China are major powers who would not miss a chance to hurt us economically. It is easily predictable that they will attempt to impose more onerous restrictions and obligations upon us than themselves. It does not help that it was imposed by authoritarian dictate by Obama, intentionally avoiding the democratic process. Again, we can conform to the accords without surrendering our democracy.

It is amazing to see you display the depths of your ignorance about the Paris Accord.

It is voluntary compliance with an aspirational treaty designed to literally save the planet.

The US can't even rise to that level now.

 

[gsdx]

It is the first step on a slippery slope and an unecessary risk. We can cut our emissions without it.

Yes, you can, but Trump wants to increase them by going back to one of the most harmful fossil fuels on Earth. And it won't create new jobs. It all done by machinery these days. Gas engines can't get black lung disease and there's no huge emergency rescue effort in case of a fire, explosion, or cave in. Just lots and lots of dirt and pollution.

Backing out of the Accord accomplishes nothing except to show the world that the United States doesn't give a shit about the future and that money is more important human safety and survival.

 

[ballcaphair]

It is the first step on a slippery slope and an unecessary risk. We can cut our emissions without it.

I think we all know this and I believe it is the very ethic of the Accord. I am deeply concerned that putting coal on the table is a bit counter-productive to developing high tech solutions to the future. In the real world, we've taken a step backwards. We can cut emissions, but from the Heart of New Mexico, there is mining dust in the air.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is the first step on a slippery slope and an unecessary risk. We can cut our emissions without it.

So an actual statesman would have said so, something like "We will do better than the accords ask! We will show the world how to make our air great again!"

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, you can, but Trump wants to increase them by going back to one of the most harmful fossil fuels on Earth. And it won't create new jobs. It all done by machinery these days. Gas engines can't get black lung disease and there's no huge emergency rescue effort in case of a fire, explosion, or cave in. Just lots and lots of dirt and pollution.

To be fair, in Trump's view going more to coal won't increase pollution. Do you remember his remarks about "clean coal"? He's counting on "really clean coal", which strongly suggests he doesn't understand the concept, apparently thinking that coal gets cleaned up before it gets burned, when in fact what "clean coal" refers to is the scrubbers that take on the order of nine-tenths of the bad crap out after burning, i.e. on the way out the stacks.

Though there's a tiny bit of truth in that "really clean coal" idea, since there are new technologies coming on line that would raise the cleaning ratio substantially, removing not just the larger molecules including methane but also most of the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and even most of the water vapor. A couple of them may even turn out to be profitable, but that's probably a dozen years down the line (my favorite is using the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] to manufacture limestone sand, which could be sold as an ingredient for concrete).

Backing out of the Accord accomplishes nothing except to show the world that the United States doesn't give a shit about the future and that money is more important human safety and survival.

And/or that we have a president who isn't exactly in touch with reality.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think we all know this and I believe it is the very ethic of the Accord. I am deeply concerned that putting coal on the table is a bit counter-productive to developing high tech solutions to the future. In the real world, we've taken a step backwards. We can cut emissions, but from the Heart of New Mexico, there is mining dust in the air.

Is that dust from coal mines? If so, how old are they? The technology has existed since the 80s to virtually eliminate dust even from open pit mines, though I can understand it not being used in "the Heart of New Mexico" since it uses quite a lot of water.

 

[TX-Beau]

Is that dust from coal mines? If so, how old are they? The technology has existed since the 80s to virtually eliminate dust even from open pit mines, though I can understand it not being used in "the Heart of New Mexico" since it uses quite a lot of water.

Peabody Coal used to slurry coal from open pit mines on Reservation lands using artesian well water from deep, clean, aquifers deep under the desert. Whatever the technology that exists, that is no guarantee it will be used. It's been a long time since I paid attention to that part of the world, but basically companies exploiting minerals on Southwest Reservations under suspiciously generous lease from the U.S. government, weren't subject to any kind of regulation whatsoever. There are lots and lot of legal squabbles over this.

Toxic levels of radiation from uranium mining on the Navajo Reservation is still killing people and the companies that extracted it have walked away without even a cursory attempt to clean up the mess. There are lawsuits about that as well.

Unfortunately the record of tribes successfully getting corporations to act responsibly is woefully lacking. Mostly because the Fed acting in loco parentis for the tribes, has no motivation for punishing companies with lobbies to protect the tribes, they aren't exactly trustworthy from a tribal perspective either. As of the mid 2000's there was 19 BILLION dollars missing from tribal lease revenues held in trust by the Fed, that simply seemed to vanish into the ether,vthe S.C. actually ordered the Fed to make public it's records IIRC, and the Fed just ignored the order.

 

[Kulindahr]

Peabody Coal used to slurry coal from open pit mines on Reservation lands using artesian well water from deep, clean, aquifers deep under the desert. Whatever the technology that exists, that is no guarantee it will be used. It's been a long time since I paid attention to that part of the world, but basically companies exploiting minerals on Southwest Reservations under suspiciously generous lease from the U.S. government, weren't subject to any kind of regulation whatsoever. There are lots and lot of legal squabbles over this.

Toxic levels of radiation from uranium mining on the Navajo Reservation is still killing people and the companies that extracted it have walked away without even a cursory attempt to clean up the mess. There are lawsuits about that as well.

Unfortunately the record of tribes successfully getting corporations to act responsibly is woefully lacking. Mostly because the Fed acting in loco parentis for the tribes, has no motivation for punishing companies with lobbies to protect the tribes, they aren't exactly trustworthy from a tribal perspective either. As of the mid 2000's there was 19 BILLION dollars missing from tribal lease revenues held in trust by the Fed, that simply seemed to vanish into the ether,vthe S.C. actually ordered the Fed to make public it's records IIRC, and the Fed just ignored the order.

That last was one of many reasons Ron Paul wanted the Fed audited.

 

[72-Jay]

TrumpCo. apparently intend on turning up at the next Paris Accord Summit with an intent to try to sell coal.

wait...
he plans on on going to a anti pollution thing...
to sell something that generates a ton of pollution ?
WTF.
has the man lost his mind?

No, I strongly dislike allowing foreign countries power to impose limitations on the US

Same for me.

 

[Kulindahr]

wait...
he plans on on going to a anti pollution thing...
to sell something that generates a ton of pollution ?
WTF.
has the man lost his mind?

See my post above -- he believes in "really clean coal".

If we're lucky, the technology being worked on to use emissions from coal plants to manufacture limestone. I mentioned making limestone sand, which wouldn't be too hard, but there's also a company looking at making solid limestone suitable for building with. Either way is a sort of ultimate sequestration, turning CO[SUB]2[/SUB] into stone. But by the time that's achieved China will already be reducing the number of coal-burning plants, and the tech will be used for any system that emits CO[SUB]2[/SUB].

 

[ballcaphair]

^ We live south and east of the Navajo and Ute Reservations. In the direction of copper, coal, uranium, and everything else that we found while looking for gold. We live within the plumes of history, literally. Scrubbers came along to convert exhausts into toxic ponds of tailings. This is no path to the future, but let the new EPA lead the way.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ We live south and east of the Navajo and Ute Reservations. In the direction of copper, coal, uranium, and everything else that we found while looking for gold. We live within the plumes of history, literally. Scrubbers came along to convert exhausts into toxic ponds of tailings. This is no path to the future, but let the new EPA lead the way.

It's intriguing that coal originated as massive amounts of biomass yet contains high levels of a number of metals including cadmium and barium. Thus suggests that in the era when those plants grew, the biosphere was far more tolerant of what are now poisons.

And that in turn suggests that if we look in the right places, e.g. sulfurous hot springs and such, we ought to be able to find bacteria, algae, and other small organisms capable of living in the waste and converting it into something less toxic or at the very least trapping it in place better than just letting it sit on ponds.


Another approach I heard about clear back in the nineties was to take dry coal and scrubber ash and add it to sand to make glass. The proposal actually came from nuclear engineers looking at turning nuclear waste into glass globes that could be handled far more safely than the barrels, thus neutralizing two sets of poisons with one process. I cannot, however, find anything about that approach currently.

What I have found is that coal ash, including from scrubbers, is being used to make all sorts of things, including concrete for slab or fill purposes (generally not for structural uses since the inclusion of the ash makes the final material strength less certain), ceramics (for industrial uses), and even (from the right kind of coal) a soil additive. More interestingly, an approach from Iceland shows promise of using the ash for capturing CO2 in a process that turns it all to rock.

I was shocked to find how little regulation there is of disposal of coal ash in the U.S. -- it's almost non-existent, despite the fact that letting it sit and settle in ponds ranges from moderately polluting to extremely dangerous (especially in places prone to earthquakes and/or floods).

 

[frankfrank]

Though there's a tiny bit of truth in that "really clean coal" idea, since there are new technologies coming on line that would raise the cleaning ratio substantially, removing not just the larger molecules including methane but also most of the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] and even most of the water vapor.

He hates this planet so much that I would almost expect him to issue an Executive Order to make it illegal to try to "clean up" coal.

This is no path to the future, but let the new EPA lead the way.

New EPA? The "new EPA" = no EPA at all, or at least that's what they're striving for. "Fuck and planet and everything that lives on it, because we need more profit" is the supreme betrayal of humanity.

 

[gsdx]

"Fuck [the] planet and everything that lives on it, because we need more profit"

We have a winner folks.

 

[72-Jay]

See my post above -- he believes in "really clean coal".
If we're lucky, the technology being worked on to use emissions from coal plants to manufacture limestone.

Somehow I missed that post..
But interesting.. be good If they actually get it to work.
(ofcourse there's still all the other toxins...but I guess looking at your later post they may be working on those issues too)

Now lets say they made those things work (and more)...so coal was actually clean: would the cost be so high that it'd prohibitively expensive to continue to operate a coal-fired powerplant anyway?

--------

He hates this planet so much that I would almost expect him to issue an Executive Order to make it illegal to try to "clean up" coal.

I don't think he 'hates this planet' so much as he 'loves his money' ... some of which is obviously coming from these industries?

 

[Kulindahr]

Somehow I missed that post..
But interesting.. be good If they actually get it to work.
(ofcourse there's still all the other toxins...but I guess looking at your later post they may be working on those issues too)

Now lets say they made those things work (and more)...so coal was actually clean: would the cost be so high that it'd prohibitively expensive to continue to operate a coal-fired powerplant anyway?

For the processes that turn coal ash to other uses, profits from a coal plant could actually increase.

For the ones aimed at CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions, at present they'd make it more expensive (the big problem is that making limestone from the emissions requires calcite in a form that is not common, and turning the more common form into a useful one in quantity sufficient to clean the emissions would require something like 30% of the plant's output).

The process from Iceland is promising because it doesn't require special calcite, just basalt with the right minerals and porosity -- pump in the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] under high pressure, and it turns to limestone naturally. I couldn't find any cost figures on that, but I suspect it would raise costs though substantially less than the process of making limestone.

The real issue, though, is that for distributed power networks solar is already cheaper than coal for generating electricity. Coal is only cheaper when you're pumping the power into a huge grid that has to distribute it over hundreds or thousands of miles. Something that needs to be considered on that matter is national security: the higher the proportion of localized power production, the less vulnerable to attack the system is. So when national security is considered as a cost, coal is bad for us.

 

[72-Jay]

Well the more they can do the better...coal & natural gas are still gonna be around
Though I also think solar (and wind) power are only going to grow & in the long term be the slow death of coal...
...I never thought about it making things less vulnerable though. That's actually a good point.


----
I could actually see the day come when its just a 'normal' thing that any houses built will simply have solar panels installed (especially in states with sunny/dry climates - some places it probably wouldn't be cost effective)