Coal, If Hillary is elected what will it cost the average consumer?

[owebo]

the blame, according to Arch, was from a rail outage in the Powder River Basin and “geological” problems in Appalachia, which contributed to lower revenues.

Stupid liberal fuck....

 

[pwjohn]

Hillary like Obama wants to kill the coal industry. The following link contains a chart that shows how our electricity is generated here in the KC area. As with every metro area KC has a large poor population and killing coal as Hillary would, would have a dramatic impact on their day to day budgets.

Electricity Generation - KCPL

Do YOU believe coal jobs need to be killed & the use of it restricted or banned?

George Bush and his drill, drill, drill knocked king coal off the top of the hill. Cheap and abundant, nat gas gouged out a huge chunk of big coals customer base. So in the end it was market forces that brought about the decline in big coal.

As a matter of fact, I posted an article from NPR to this board a few years ago speaking of the massive decline big coal suffered as a result of cheap & abundant nat gas.
They went down from fueling just over half of our nations power plants to barely 37 percent.

 

[Old Rocks]

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly

Electric generating facilities expect to add more than 26 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale generating capacity to the power grid during 2016. Most of these additions come from three resources: solar (9.5 GW), natural gas (8.0 GW), and wind (6.8 GW), which together make up 93% of total additions. If actual additions ultimately reflect these plans, 2016 will be the first year in which utility-scale solar additions exceed additions from any other single energy source.

Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

No coal fired plants coming online.

We expand existing cola plant capacity you stupid liberal fuck....Why? Because you fascist Nazi fucks won't approve new plant construction......

In May 2012, the New York Times reported that “Coal and electric utilities, long allied, are starting to split. More than 100 of the 500 or so U.S. coal-burning power plants are expected to be shut down in the next few years. While coal still provides about a third of the nation’s power, just four years ago it was providing nearly half.” According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) there was a nationwide decrease of 22.8% in net electricity generation from coal between April 2011 and April 2012. The reasons given in the press for the decline of U.S. coal consumption include new pollution rules, fuel switching, and environmental pressure.



The unstated, yet requisite, driver of this trend is the dramatically declining demand for energy in the Building Sector due to slower growth in the U.S. building stock and increases in building energy efficiency.


Just Released: U.S. Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2012


The Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO 2012), prepared by the EIA, presents long-term projections of energy demand based on results from EIA’s National Energy Modeling System. AEO 2012 concludes “The rate of growth in energy use slows over the projection period, reflecting moderate population growth, an extended economic recovery, and increasing energy efficiency in end-use applications.” Visualizing AEO Building Sector data in a graphic format clearly illustrates the key drivers of the recent trend in U.S. energy infrastructure planning.

U.S. Coal Consumption in Decline | Architecture 2030

As the wind, gas, and solar continue to decline in price, more and more coal plants are being shut down. By 2030, don't think many will be left. A definate plus for the health of the nation.

 

[owebo]

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly

Electric generating facilities expect to add more than 26 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale generating capacity to the power grid during 2016. Most of these additions come from three resources: solar (9.5 GW), natural gas (8.0 GW), and wind (6.8 GW), which together make up 93% of total additions. If actual additions ultimately reflect these plans, 2016 will be the first year in which utility-scale solar additions exceed additions from any other single energy source.

Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

No coal fired plants coming online.

We expand existing cola plant capacity you stupid liberal fuck....Why? Because you fascist Nazi fucks won't approve new plant construction......

In May 2012, the New York Times reported that “Coal and electric utilities, long allied, are starting to split. More than 100 of the 500 or so U.S. coal-burning power plants are expected to be shut down in the next few years. While coal still provides about a third of the nation’s power, just four years ago it was providing nearly half.” According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) there was a nationwide decrease of 22.8% in net electricity generation from coal between April 2011 and April 2012. The reasons given in the press for the decline of U.S. coal consumption include new pollution rules, fuel switching, and environmental pressure.



The unstated, yet requisite, driver of this trend is the dramatically declining demand for energy in the Building Sector due to slower growth in the U.S. building stock and increases in building energy efficiency.


Just Released: U.S. Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2012


The Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO 2012), prepared by the EIA, presents long-term projections of energy demand based on results from EIA’s National Energy Modeling System. AEO 2012 concludes “The rate of growth in energy use slows over the projection period, reflecting moderate population growth, an extended economic recovery, and increasing energy efficiency in end-use applications.” Visualizing AEO Building Sector data in a graphic format clearly illustrates the key drivers of the recent trend in U.S. energy infrastructure planning.

U.S. Coal Consumption in Decline | Architecture 2030

As the wind, gas, and solar continue to decline in price, more and more coal plants are being shut down. By 2030, don't think many will be left. A definate plus for the health of the nation.

Do you even have a GED?

 

[Old Rocks]

the blame, according to Arch, was from a rail outage in the Powder River Basin and “geological” problems in Appalachia, which contributed to lower revenues.

Stupid liberal fuck....

Poor little silly ass, just cannot face reality. Coal is dying and will soon be dead. A well deserved death.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

What will coal cost in the future? Not much. If you can find any. No demand, cheap price.

There is a huge demand for coal actually.....

didnt they make a movie a long time ago where they made energy out of dead people? or was it a movie about eating people and no one knew they were eating people?

It's people......

oh,,Its people?....no wonder the chicken at the local chinese buffet tastes more like human flesh.

 

[Arianrhod]

Hillary like Obama wants to kill the coal industry. The following link contains a chart that shows how our electricity is generated here in the KC area. As with every metro area KC has a large poor population and killing coal as Hillary would, would have a dramatic impact on their day to day budgets.

Electricity Generation - KCPL

Do YOU believe coal jobs need to be killed & the use of it restricted or banned?

Lead sentence at your link: "Our balanced portfolio is responsive to factors like fuel prices as well as regulatory and legislative initiatives."

And that's a photo of a wind farm, not a coal mine.

What was your question again?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

What will coal cost in the future? Not much. If you can find any. No demand, cheap price.

There is a huge demand for coal actually.....

There's also a huge demand for honesty in this thread but the left have none to offer

Your national average pay is skewed by higher paying jobs in the western states.
For your edification:
| National Review
The White Ghetto

 

[Old Rocks]

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly

Electric generating facilities expect to add more than 26 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale generating capacity to the power grid during 2016. Most of these additions come from three resources: solar (9.5 GW), natural gas (8.0 GW), and wind (6.8 GW), which together make up 93% of total additions. If actual additions ultimately reflect these plans, 2016 will be the first year in which utility-scale solar additions exceed additions from any other single energy source.

Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

No coal fired plants coming online.

We expand existing cola plant capacity you stupid liberal fuck....Why? Because you fascist Nazi fucks won't approve new plant construction......

In May 2012, the New York Times reported that “Coal and electric utilities, long allied, are starting to split. More than 100 of the 500 or so U.S. coal-burning power plants are expected to be shut down in the next few years. While coal still provides about a third of the nation’s power, just four years ago it was providing nearly half.” According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) there was a nationwide decrease of 22.8% in net electricity generation from coal between April 2011 and April 2012. The reasons given in the press for the decline of U.S. coal consumption include new pollution rules, fuel switching, and environmental pressure.



The unstated, yet requisite, driver of this trend is the dramatically declining demand for energy in the Building Sector due to slower growth in the U.S. building stock and increases in building energy efficiency.


Just Released: U.S. Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2012


The Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO 2012), prepared by the EIA, presents long-term projections of energy demand based on results from EIA’s National Energy Modeling System. AEO 2012 concludes “The rate of growth in energy use slows over the projection period, reflecting moderate population growth, an extended economic recovery, and increasing energy efficiency in end-use applications.” Visualizing AEO Building Sector data in a graphic format clearly illustrates the key drivers of the recent trend in U.S. energy infrastructure planning.

U.S. Coal Consumption in Decline | Architecture 2030

As the wind, gas, and solar continue to decline in price, more and more coal plants are being shut down. By 2030, don't think many will be left. A definate plus for the health of the nation.

Do you even have a GED?

No, I have a high school diploma, and about 120 credits toward a degree in Geology. And 50 years experiance as an industrial Millwright. Now, did you ever finish the 3rd grade? Is so, why are you not posting links to back up you point of view?

 

[Siete]

coal is outdated, dirty, and more expensive than its competition .... like republicans.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary like Obama wants to kill the coal industry. The following link contains a chart that shows how our electricity is generated here in the KC area. As with every metro area KC has a large poor population and killing coal as Hillary would, would have a dramatic impact on their day to day budgets.

Electricity Generation - KCPL

Do YOU believe coal jobs need to be killed & the use of it restricted or banned?

George Bush and his drill, drill, drill knocked king coal off the top of the hill. Cheap and abundant, nat gas gouged out a huge chunk of big coals customer base. So in the end it was market forces that brought about the decline in big coal.

As a matter of fact, I posted an article from NPR to this board a few years ago speaking of the massive decline big coal suffered as a result of cheap & abundant nat gas.
They went down from fueling just over half of our nations power plants to barely 37 percent.

The drill drill drill & fracking that the entirety of the left opposed.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary like Obama wants to kill the coal industry. The following link contains a chart that shows how our electricity is generated here in the KC area. As with every metro area KC has a large poor population and killing coal as Hillary would, would have a dramatic impact on their day to day budgets.

Electricity Generation - KCPL

Do YOU believe coal jobs need to be killed & the use of it restricted or banned?

Lead sentence at your link: "Our balanced portfolio is responsive to factors like fuel prices as well as regulatory and legislative initiatives."

And that's a photo of a wind farm, not a coal mine.

What was your question again?

Regulations?

You don't say....

Shocker

 

[pwjohn]

Hillary like Obama wants to kill the coal industry. The following link contains a chart that shows how our electricity is generated here in the KC area. As with every metro area KC has a large poor population and killing coal as Hillary would, would have a dramatic impact on their day to day budgets.

Electricity Generation - KCPL

Do YOU believe coal jobs need to be killed & the use of it restricted or banned?

George Bush and his drill, drill, drill knocked king coal off the top of the hill. Cheap and abundant, nat gas gouged out a huge chunk of big coals customer base. So in the end it was market forces that brought about the decline in big coal.

As a matter of fact, I posted an article from NPR to this board a few years ago speaking of the massive decline big coal suffered as a result of cheap & abundant nat gas.
They went down from fueling just over half of our nations power plants to barely 37 percent.

The drill drill drill & fracking that the entirety of the left opposed.

I thought it was a good idea. Clean burning nat gas in quantities sufficient to serve our needs well into the future makes for an excellent bridge fuel to whatever comes next.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary like Obama wants to kill the coal industry. The following link contains a chart that shows how our electricity is generated here in the KC area. As with every metro area KC has a large poor population and killing coal as Hillary would, would have a dramatic impact on their day to day budgets.

Electricity Generation - KCPL

Do YOU believe coal jobs need to be killed & the use of it restricted or banned?

George Bush and his drill, drill, drill knocked king coal off the top of the hill. Cheap and abundant, nat gas gouged out a huge chunk of big coals customer base. So in the end it was market forces that brought about the decline in big coal.

As a matter of fact, I posted an article from NPR to this board a few years ago speaking of the massive decline big coal suffered as a result of cheap & abundant nat gas.
They went down from fueling just over half of our nations power plants to barely 37 percent.

The drill drill drill & fracking that the entirety of the left opposed.

I thought it was a good idea. Clean burning nat gas in quantities sufficient to serve our needs well into the future makes for an excellent bridge fuel.

It still doesn't address my op. If those changes are FORCED before the renewables mature to the point of affordability what happens to all the consumers, especially the poor ones? With these changes our utility bills have steadily increased not decreased despite the Left's claims that it's cheaper.

 

[Care4all]

Economics will kill coal. As the solar and wind continue to come down in price, and the push for the energy companies to pay for the externalities of their very dirty product, more and more new energy will be renewables. The grid scale batteries coming online at present will make the renewables 24/7. You are standing by the highway, cussing the new fangled automobiles, yelling get a horse. That will work now as well as it worked then.

When that time comes I will welcome it. That time is not now. Renewable sources are not yet economical. If they were companies would switch to save money. That is clearly not the case. What Hillary wants to do is FORCE that switch DESPITE the increase in cost. And that increase will be passed on to the consumer. Which brings us full circle to my op which everyone is trying to avoid.

the rules and regs are already in Place, most for well over 2 decades...they just gave time for electric companies to comply..

And it is the electric companies that are choosing not to buy coal anymore, and not just because of the regulations costing them more in penalties than it would cost them to make their electric plants comply with air standards...and these electric plants reside in the communities that they serve, their employees and families reside in the communities they serve....they have a serious public relations issue with dumping poisons in to the air around them...

Here is a perfect example of an electric company, Tampa Electric, TECO, that was once one of the worst polluters in the State, who was reprimanded and fined for it by the EPA, who then chose the HIGH ROAD, and did the right thing for the entire city and towns surrounding it.


Environmental Record

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2006 identified TECO Energy as the 37th-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with roughly 11 million pounds of toxic chemicals released annually into the air.[9] Major pollutants indicated by the study included hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, chromium compounds, arsenic compounds, and nickel compounds.[10]

In 2000, TECO Energy was fined $3.5 million for making changes to emissions producing facilities without installing new updated pollution controls. This led to the switch from coal to natural gas in one of its plants by 2004 and optimization of pollution controls in another. These changes were enacted to drastically cut harmful emissions, notably sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants.[11]

TECO Energy completed a $330 million emissions control project in 2010, which made one of its power stations one of the cleanest coal-fired power plants in nation. The renovation reduced nitrogen oxide emissions at the plant by approximately 91 percent from levels recorded in 1998.[12]

Since 1998, TECO has invested $1.2 billion in improvements to their systems, including the repowering of one coal-fired station to natural gas and the addition of pollution controls on a second, reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 91 percent and carbon dioxide levels by 20 percent from 1998 levels.[13]

above from wikipedia.org

 

[pwjohn]

Hillary like Obama wants to kill the coal industry. The following link contains a chart that shows how our electricity is generated here in the KC area. As with every metro area KC has a large poor population and killing coal as Hillary would, would have a dramatic impact on their day to day budgets.

Electricity Generation - KCPL

Do YOU believe coal jobs need to be killed & the use of it restricted or banned?

George Bush and his drill, drill, drill knocked king coal off the top of the hill. Cheap and abundant, nat gas gouged out a huge chunk of big coals customer base. So in the end it was market forces that brought about the decline in big coal.

As a matter of fact, I posted an article from NPR to this board a few years ago speaking of the massive decline big coal suffered as a result of cheap & abundant nat gas.
They went down from fueling just over half of our nations power plants to barely 37 percent.

The drill drill drill & fracking that the entirety of the left opposed.

I thought it was a good idea. Clean burning nat gas in quantities sufficient to serve our needs well into the future makes for an excellent bridge fuel.

It still doesn't address my op. If those changes are FORCED before the renewables mature to the point of affordability what happens to all the consumers, especially the poor ones? With these changes our utility bills have steadily increased not decreased despite the Left's claims that it's cheaper.

I don't remember anybody claiming that our power bills were gonna get cheaper!

As for the poor, there are a whole host of programs available to help them keep their power on through the cold winter months.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Economics will kill coal. As the solar and wind continue to come down in price, and the push for the energy companies to pay for the externalities of their very dirty product, more and more new energy will be renewables. The grid scale batteries coming online at present will make the renewables 24/7. You are standing by the highway, cussing the new fangled automobiles, yelling get a horse. That will work now as well as it worked then.

When that time comes I will welcome it. That time is not now. Renewable sources are not yet economical. If they were companies would switch to save money. That is clearly not the case. What Hillary wants to do is FORCE that switch DESPITE the increase in cost. And that increase will be passed on to the consumer. Which brings us full circle to my op which everyone is trying to avoid.

the rules and regs are already in Place, most for well over 2 decades...they just gave time for electric companies to comply..

And it is the electric companies that are choosing not to buy coal anymore, and not just because of the regulations costing them more in penalties than it would cost them to make their electric plants comply with air standards...and these electric plants reside in the communities that they serve, their employees and families reside in the communities they serve....they have a serious public relations issue with dumping poisons in to the air around them...

Here is a perfect example of an electric company, Tampa Electric, TECO, that was once one of the worst polluters in the State, who was reprimanded and fined for it by the EPA, who then chose the HIGH ROAD, and did the right thing for the entire city and towns surrounding it.


Environmental Record

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2006 identified TECO Energy as the 37th-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with roughly 11 million pounds of toxic chemicals released annually into the air.[9] Major pollutants indicated by the study included hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, chromium compounds, arsenic compounds, and nickel compounds.[10]

In 2000, TECO Energy was fined $3.5 million for making changes to emissions producing facilities without installing new updated pollution controls. This led to the switch from coal to natural gas in one of its plants by 2004 and optimization of pollution controls in another. These changes were enacted to drastically cut harmful emissions, notably sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants.[11]

TECO Energy completed a $330 million emissions control project in 2010, which made one of its power stations one of the cleanest coal-fired power plants in nation. The renovation reduced nitrogen oxide emissions at the plant by approximately 91 percent from levels recorded in 1998.[12]

Since 1998, TECO has invested $1.2 billion in improvements to their systems, including the repowering of one coal-fired station to natural gas and the addition of pollution controls on a second, reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 91 percent and carbon dioxide levels by 20 percent from 1998 levels.[13]

above from wikipedia.org

They chose the high road after they were FORCED. That dear, is not a choice, it is reaction to financial & regulatory burdens. Burdens that have been put in place when the infrastructure for the new technologies is still in its infancy

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary like Obama wants to kill the coal industry. The following link contains a chart that shows how our electricity is generated here in the KC area. As with every metro area KC has a large poor population and killing coal as Hillary would, would have a dramatic impact on their day to day budgets.

Electricity Generation - KCPL

Do YOU believe coal jobs need to be killed & the use of it restricted or banned?

George Bush and his drill, drill, drill knocked king coal off the top of the hill. Cheap and abundant, nat gas gouged out a huge chunk of big coals customer base. So in the end it was market forces that brought about the decline in big coal.

As a matter of fact, I posted an article from NPR to this board a few years ago speaking of the massive decline big coal suffered as a result of cheap & abundant nat gas.
They went down from fueling just over half of our nations power plants to barely 37 percent.

The drill drill drill & fracking that the entirety of the left opposed.

I thought it was a good idea. Clean burning nat gas in quantities sufficient to serve our needs well into the future makes for an excellent bridge fuel.

It still doesn't address my op. If those changes are FORCED before the renewables mature to the point of affordability what happens to all the consumers, especially the poor ones? With these changes our utility bills have steadily increased not decreased despite the Left's claims that it's cheaper.

I don't remember anybody claiming that our power bills were gonna get cheaper!

As for the poor, there are a whole host of programs available to help them keep their power on through the cold winter months.

There have been lefties in this very thread talking about how it's cheaper yet that savings is not apparent in the consumers pocket.
My job foremans sister is a millionaire and she just went off the grid with solar. They told her it could take up to two decades for that investment to pay for itself. Then she would see dramatic savings IF the system didn't require major maintenance or updates.

 

[Care4all]

Economics will kill coal. As the solar and wind continue to come down in price, and the push for the energy companies to pay for the externalities of their very dirty product, more and more new energy will be renewables. The grid scale batteries coming online at present will make the renewables 24/7. You are standing by the highway, cussing the new fangled automobiles, yelling get a horse. That will work now as well as it worked then.

When that time comes I will welcome it. That time is not now. Renewable sources are not yet economical. If they were companies would switch to save money. That is clearly not the case. What Hillary wants to do is FORCE that switch DESPITE the increase in cost. And that increase will be passed on to the consumer. Which brings us full circle to my op which everyone is trying to avoid.

the rules and regs are already in Place, most for well over 2 decades...they just gave time for electric companies to comply..

And it is the electric companies that are choosing not to buy coal anymore, and not just because of the regulations costing them more in penalties than it would cost them to make their electric plants comply with air standards...and these electric plants reside in the communities that they serve, their employees and families reside in the communities they serve....they have a serious public relations issue with dumping poisons in to the air around them...

Here is a perfect example of an electric company, Tampa Electric, TECO, that was once one of the worst polluters in the State, who was reprimanded and fined for it by the EPA, who then chose the HIGH ROAD, and did the right thing for the entire city and towns surrounding it.


Environmental Record

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2006 identified TECO Energy as the 37th-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with roughly 11 million pounds of toxic chemicals released annually into the air.[9] Major pollutants indicated by the study included hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, chromium compounds, arsenic compounds, and nickel compounds.[10]

In 2000, TECO Energy was fined $3.5 million for making changes to emissions producing facilities without installing new updated pollution controls. This led to the switch from coal to natural gas in one of its plants by 2004 and optimization of pollution controls in another. These changes were enacted to drastically cut harmful emissions, notably sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollutants.[11]

TECO Energy completed a $330 million emissions control project in 2010, which made one of its power stations one of the cleanest coal-fired power plants in nation. The renovation reduced nitrogen oxide emissions at the plant by approximately 91 percent from levels recorded in 1998.[12]

Since 1998, TECO has invested $1.2 billion in improvements to their systems, including the repowering of one coal-fired station to natural gas and the addition of pollution controls on a second, reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 91 percent and carbon dioxide levels by 20 percent from 1998 levels.[13]

above from wikipedia.org

They chose the high road after they were FORCED. That dear, is not a choice, it is reaction to financial & regulatory burdens. Burdens that have been put in place when the infrastructure for the new technologies is still in its infancy

They are still profitable and growing and they cleaned up the neighborhood in the process.

It can be done...we are a Nation filled with the smartest of the smartest!!!

 

[pwjohn]

George Bush and his drill, drill, drill knocked king coal off the top of the hill. Cheap and abundant, nat gas gouged out a huge chunk of big coals customer base. So in the end it was market forces that brought about the decline in big coal.

As a matter of fact, I posted an article from NPR to this board a few years ago speaking of the massive decline big coal suffered as a result of cheap & abundant nat gas.
They went down from fueling just over half of our nations power plants to barely 37 percent.

The drill drill drill & fracking that the entirety of the left opposed.

I thought it was a good idea. Clean burning nat gas in quantities sufficient to serve our needs well into the future makes for an excellent bridge fuel.

It still doesn't address my op. If those changes are FORCED before the renewables mature to the point of affordability what happens to all the consumers, especially the poor ones? With these changes our utility bills have steadily increased not decreased despite the Left's claims that it's cheaper.

I don't remember anybody claiming that our power bills were gonna get cheaper!

As for the poor, there are a whole host of programs available to help them keep their power on through the cold winter months.

There have been lefties in this very thread talking about how it's cheaper yet that savings is not apparent in the consumers pocket.
My job foremans sister is a millionaire and she just went off the grid with solar. They told her it could take up to two decades for that investment to pay for itself. Then she would see dramatic savings IF the system didn't require major maintenance or updates.

The mistake your friend is making, is looking at it like its some kind of an investment. Your friend just bought a power plant. All Power plants are expensive and have lengthy rates of return on up front costs. Regardless of how the power is generated