Posted on 12/27/2017 11:20:03 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Climate scare must be debunked if coal is to recover
It is very appropriate that President Donald Trump virtually ignored climate change in his National Security Strategy (NSS). Recent climate change has been unremarkable and clearly does not constitute a national security threat in comparison with concerns such as terrorism and inadequate border controls.
What does constitute a threat, however, is a lack of affordable, reliable energy to power the nation and export into world markets. So, as a citizen of Canada, a nation dependent on a prosperous U.S. for our defence and much of our economy, I am very pleased to see that Trump emphasized energy security and, indeed energy dominance, in the NSS.
Coal is not just for burning. Coal gassification and syngas-to-liquid conversion to produce clean diesel fuel is one of the technologies that csn put coal to a good use.
The pollutant byproducts of the processes are a problem that needs to be addressed. The technologies will appear when those processes become economically advantageous.
I don't see how the author of the article can make the case that access to affordable energy is a national security issue, while at the same time suggesting that exporting such energy is a critical U.S. interest.
Is energy a national security asset, or not? If it is, then what do we accomplish when we promote an energy export policy that not only gives this energy to foreign countries, but drives up the cost of that energy here at home?
The technologies are there. I was part of a project in Russia, where they planned to build the unit. They used foreign technologies. You are obviously familiar with this technology. Is it more dirty than coal burning power plants?
Security isuue is energy self-sufficiency. We can sell the surplus to our friends and undermine our enemy.
That’s NOT a valid argument (That you shouldn’t export a strategic asset.)
Exporting energy does NOT drive up the price at home. It increases production at home.
Exporting energy creates a HUGE production capability and puts US in charge of strategic assets for other countries. You don’t start a war with the country that supplies your most critical raw materials. Also it transfers a large amount of dollars from overseas BACK to the US. I’d rather give the Chinese oil and coal instead of property and companies in exchange for the dollars we give them.
Exporting energy does NOT drive up the price at home. It increases production at home.
Tell that to Canadians whose gasoline and natural gas prices have gone through the roof over the last 25 years even as the extraction of oil and gas in Canada has accelerated dramatically.
Exporting energy creates a HUGE production capability and puts US in charge of strategic assets for other countries. You dont start a war with the country that supplies your most critical raw materials.
That would be true if you're talking about exporting energy to potential enemies, but the U.S. actually imposes embargoes against foreign adversaries that explicitly forbid domestic producers from selling to them.
According to the most recent numbers posted by the U.S. Dept. of Energy for September 2017, the largest customers of U.S. petroleum exports are Canada, China, South Korea and Great Britain. China would fit your narrative, but are any of the other three even remotely considered potential adversaries of the U.S.?
My familiarity with the technology is minimal. But I find it hard to believe that coal can’t be burned in a non-polluting (or reduced polluting) manner with technology.
A block from my home is a recreation area paved over with asphalt, containing three basketball courts (I play there a couple of dozen times a year) and a skateboard facility. It is paved over because it is the site of a former coal gasification plant that was closed down long ago, probably in the 40s or 50s. There are toxic pollutants that escape from the soil. There are a few small monitoring wells with brass covers; I assume that they test the levels from time to time. So before committing to that function we need to be sure not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Yes. But right now, with climate change and greenhouse gasses as a main concern, LNG is perhaps the most strategic fuel in the coming years. It is clean burning with a low impact on the environment and therefore regarded highly desirable by many countries.
Power companies have been working toward clean coal for decades. My dad worked at the utility for almost 40 years and we’ve been hearing about progress since the 1970s.
It’s not just selling coal and NG—it’s control of new power plant technology also. There is an electrical energy generation system developed in the U.S. which is now testing in pilot plant form. Captures all pollutants from fuels by their conversion into chemical feed-stocks. Near 60% efficiency for NG, 49% for gasified lignite coal, all while capturing the CO2 at pipeline pressure. Cost for construction priced at about $1000 per megawatt capacity.
http://www.gasification-syngas.org/uploads/eventLibrary/2014_11.2_8_Rivers_Xijia_Lu.pdf
Help me understand. Was Canada's energy prices WAY below world prices then or WAY above them now?
It's interesting how this works when the country you're dealing with is a huge exporter of commodities and has a large trade surplus with its major trading partners. It effectively takes on a lot of the characteristics of a Third World country where it ends up exporting things that are increasingly unaffordable to its own citizens.
I was at a conference a few months ago in Pittsburgh, and they're starting to describe the entire state of Pennsylvania that way.
Thanks Sean_Anthony.
Is energy a national security asset, or not? If it is, then what do we accomplish when we promote an energy export policy that not only gives this energy to foreign countries, but drives up the cost of that energy here at home?
Exporting energy does not drive up the cost of energy. The cost is regulated by the market. Sometimes it makes sense to export some kinds of some energy to some places, other times it does not.
If we are a net exporter of energy we have a surplus of energy production in the nation that can be put to other uses in time of crises, such as war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.