President-elect Trump wants more coal. Does that make sense?

Coal use is declining, and energy needs have been satisfied. Candidate Trump declared that he would revive the coal industry, saying that the country should begin using more coal than ever. Does this make sense? We understand the liabilities of coal. But as a starting point in the conversation let's examine coal from its starting point -- the mining phase. Should the federal government fund various black lung disability programs as they have been doing for some time? This approach, in effect, subsidizes (billions of dollars) and attempts to offset the most intimate and negative health impacts of the coal industry. I submit that there are safer energy alternatives available that produce far fewer public health problems. Why should we stick to troublesome sources when safer ones are available and deserve more support? I think the transition away from coal that is currently underway should continue.

Coal is good to burn.....just make sure you turn the steaks regularly.

the transition of doing away with liberalism that's underway should continue

Coal is good to burn.....just make sure you turn the steaks regularly. Originally Posted by LexusLover

That's good advise for the libs since it seems they got lots of coal I their " Holiday " stockings back on election day ! They wouldn't want to burn their SOY steaks and have to eat, GOD Forbid ! , CARBON !

40% of U.S. electricity is powered by coal. The price of electricity has increased the last eight years as the coal industry was attacked by Obama and his regulations. 90% of Haiti's energy needs are met with coal. Remember all the "good" work done by the Clintons. The cost of coal for cooking has increased by nearly 150%. The are all kinds of places that could use a liberal supply of coal. FYI, China needs a lot of coal. Can you say trade imbalance?

Gas is cheaper.

Gas is cheaper. Originally Posted by wordup666

Gas is cheaper, cleaner, and plentiful.

Trump should try to develop clean coal technology or just kill coal in favor of natural gas. Fucking Marcellus shale and the Permian Basin have all the natgas we need to generate electricity cleanly.

Also, he should kill windmills and solar - that shit will never work without subsidies.

Natural gas and petroleum products are all we need, and we have it all here in America. Fuck everybody else, including dirty coal.

Gas is cheaper. Originally Posted by wordup666

Once Your Boy has vacated the premises of the People's House ...there will be less gas produced from his mouth!

Once Your Boy has vacated the premises of the People's House ...there will be less gas produced from his mouth! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Mebbe those looney libs out in Mexifornia, starting with Moonbeam Brown, could capture some of those cow farts that have them so worried ( methane emissions, ya know ! ) and run a power plant off of them. But libs will NEVER go for a practical, common sense approach to a problem ! (sigh...)

0zombies want to kill us! http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattves...-warm-n2266017


EPA To Alaskans: We Might Fine You For Burning Wood To Stay Warm

Well, in the Alaskan interior, winters can be brutal. With temperatures dropping below zero, burning wood is the only viable way for Alaskans in these rather desolate areas to stay warm. Yet, government thinks this is a problem concerning small-particle pollution. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency is so concerned that they’re mulling fining people who burn wood to stay warm. John Daniel Davidson, a senior correspondent for The Federalist (and Alaskan native) had more:

Lots of reactionary banter here, but no one has attempted to answer my original question:

...as a starting point in the conversation let's examine coal from its starting point -- the mining phase. Should the federal government fund various black lung disability programs as they have been doing for some time? This approach, in effect, subsidizes (billions of dollars) and attempts to offset the most intimate and negative health impacts of the coal industry.

So, should the federal taxpayers help the coal sector pay for the health problems experienced by front-line workers in their industry?

40% of U.S. electricity is powered by coal. The price of electricity has increased the last eight years as the coal industry was attacked by Obama and his regulations. 90% of Haiti's energy needs are met with coal. Remember all the "good" work done by the Clintons. The cost of coal for cooking has increased by nearly 150%. The are all kinds of places that could use a liberal supply of coal. FYI, China needs a lot of coal. Can you say trade imbalance? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Obama made no bones about putting coal out of business in the US. And Dims are wondering why s/he lost the rust belt.

Gas is cheaper. Originally Posted by wordup666

I have posted about this many times. When Obama was campaigning he put NG in the same category as coal especially from a CO2 perspective. As his Presidency moved along he went from "green" to "clean" and amazingly NG is somehow "clean." Obama flat out lies for political expediency.

Gas is cheaper, cleaner, and plentiful.

Trump should try to develop clean coal technology or just kill coal in favor of natural gas. Fucking Marcellus shale and the Permian Basin have all the natgas we need to generate electricity cleanly.

Also, he should kill windmills and solar - that shit will never work without subsidies.

Natural gas and petroleum products are all we need, and we have it all here in America. Fuck everybody else, including dirty coal. Originally Posted by DSK

Do we have the infrastructure to burn NG instead of coal immediately? Obama was supposed to do that. He was supposed to build pipelines, NG powerplants and smart grids to make that viable.

What happened?

BTW, power generating windmills can kill 4200 bald eagles before they get fined. GE Windmills have killed more bald eagles than DDT ever did.

Lots of reactionary banter here, but no one has attempted to answer my original question:

...as a starting point in the conversation let's examine coal from its starting point -- the mining phase. Should the federal government fund various black lung disability programs as they have been doing for some time? This approach, in effect, subsidizes (billions of dollars) and attempts to offset the most intimate and negative health impacts of the coal industry.

So, should the federal taxpayers help the coal sector pay for the health problems experienced by front-line workers in their industry? Originally Posted by Muy Largo

No, lets start from a common set of facts. Go ahead and link to them and start the debate. Black lung just isn't the problem it was 50 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalwo...pneumoconiosis

We really need to move away from fossil fuels. They are a 19th century resource and it's now the 21st century. Look at all the advances we've made in the last 150 years or so, and we are still using coal fired plants and internal combustion engines? Lots of advances are being made in alternative fuels. We don't need to subsidize them, we need to limit the power of the oil and automobile lobbies in Congress. Once you can power one house with solar, wind or ocean energy, you can power thousands. It's just engineering at this point. Look how fast computing advanced. It was because no one was in the way. We need to clear the way for alternative sources. Big oil currently controls energy policy and propaganda. Clear them out of Washington, and watch what happens.

We really need to move away from fossil fuels. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes ...



... but "we'd" have to find something else to do for fun.



And there's just something "pussy" about electric cars!

Besides, only the rich folks can afford them.

We really need to move away from fossil fuels. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I agree with you, but how the hell is that going to happen in a country that harbors and nurtures a bunch of whining brats, who need coloring books and comfort pets to get over their candidate not winning an election? If they can't quit consuming unmentionable substances to avoid the aches and pains of every day life, get a job, and support themselves without handouts from the TAXPAYERS, how do you expect them to CONSUME LESS FOSSIL FUELS "to move away" and to adapt to a different lifestyle to accommodate the energy resources that don't require burning dead animals for energy?