Mississippi Power Plant Halts Its 'Clean Coal' Project

[i am herdman]

Sorry fellas.

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/mississippi-power-plant-clean-coal

A Mississippi power plant that was hoped to be the first-ever "clean coal" plant in the nation halted its plans Wednesday.

The Atlanta-based Southern Company and Mississippi Power said they are “immediately suspending start-up and operations activities” for the coal gasification unit at Mississippi Power's Kemper plant near Dekalb.

The companies said the action is being taken to preserve the safety and health of the workforce, as well as the safety of the facility.

“We are committed to ensuring the ongoing focus and safety of employees while we consider the future of the project, including any possible actions that may be taken by the [Mississippi Public Service] Commission,” Southern Company Chairman, President and CEO Thomas A. Fanning said in a statement. “We believe this decision is in the best interests of our employees, customers, investors and all other stakeholders.”

The move is seen as a major blow to proponents of “clean coal” technology.

The project was to use a “gasifier” to turn a cheap and common grade of coal known as lignite into fuel that would churn out roughly the same carbon emissions as a power plant burning natural gas.

Earlier this month, Southern told investors that key machinery used for the coal-powered section of the plant had started leaking. Repairs, they said, would take 18 to 24 months to repair.

Plans for the Kemper project were first announced in 2006, with an estimated $1.8 billion price tag. After more than a decade and $7.5 billion spent, the plant is still not doing what it was intended to do. With its massive price tag, the facility became the most expensive power plant per megawatt ever built in the U.S.

Earlier this month, Mississippi officials made it clear that they weren't buying the notion of “clean coal" anymore.

“Mississippians don’t want to pay for a ticket on a plane that isn’t going to fly,” Paul Patterson, a utilities investment analyst, told the Wall Street Journal.

In its announcement, Southern said while the “clean coal” portion of the plant is suspended, Kemper will continue running on natural gas.

The move comes as Southern faces a similar financial fiasco with its controversial Vogtle Nuclear expansion in Georgia.

The Weather Company’s primary journalistic mission is to report on breaking weather news, the environment and the importance of science to our lives. This story does not necessarily represent the position of our parent company, IBM.

 

[wisemaniac]

My understanding is this type of processing is only economical when oil goes above $125 a barrel. I think right now it's about $46 a barrel.

 

[GK4Herd]

This is an economic decision wrapped by a statement of concern for the safety of their employees. If it was a money maker that concern would mysteriously disappear.

 

[i am herdman]

This is an economic decision wrapped by a statement of concern for the safety of their employees. If it was a money maker that concern would mysteriously disappear.

Oh I agree.

No money in trying to make coal clean because of the Global Warming hoax.

 

[GK4Herd]

Oh I agree.

No money in trying to make coal clean because of the Global Warming hoax.

Or...let's obfuscate the issue of Global Warming against overwhelming evidence and worldwide scientific consensus. This article you linked is a perfect example. This company makes a purely economic decision and then tries to convince everyone that the reason was for safety of its workers. Everyone knows the coal industry has a stellar history of worker safety. Lol.

If you don't believe these big companies aren't doing the same thing with the GW issue like they did with tobacco, DDT, second hand smoke, and fluorocarbons you're naive. Hell...they used many of the same people to fight the fight for them. The same scientist that tried to convince us there was no evidence that smoking was harmful, DDT didn't affect our environment, that second hand smoke wasn't harmful, are/were the same ones leading the charge against GW.

Yet you ignore all of the evidence in order to believe in some fantastical conspiracy that supposedly encompasses nearly the entirety of the scientific world and crosses hundreds of international borders in order to believe the hype being created by the very people who think smoking doesn't hurt you.

 

[Walden Pond]

Where's the evidence that these high priced "solutions" will actually solve the problem?

You're asking people to spend a lot of money without showing them that they're not just wasting it. You've got to do better at selling your product.

Even as stubborn as I am, if you could clearly show me that yeah if we do x, y, and z we will be able to save x amount of the planet, lower the temperature x degrees, etc., then I'd consider it.

It's not there. It's "cut down and hope" or "waste millions of dollars and hope." It's all hope. You're not going to the store laying down a $20 bill hoping they give you some food.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

With its massive price tag, the facility became the most expensive power plant per megawatt ever built in the U.S.

And there's your reason. Now let's say oil and NG suddenly jump way up in price...this plant will come out of the mothballs then. And let's not forget that Powder River Basin coal is cheaper than Appalachian coal. The Appalachian coal fields are not coming back.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

And there's your reason. Now let's say oil and NG suddenly jump way up in price...this plant will come out of the mothballs then. And let's not forget that Powder River Basin coal is cheaper than Appalachian coal. The Appalachian coal fields are not coming back.

Never will. Way too much cheap coal in other areas till fill the small remaining need until it is finally put to bed. But sisters knows of a job.

 

[i am herdman]

So if the Obama administration would have kept issuing permits during his tenure coal would have suffered the last 8 years anyway? Funny how is was at least a decent industry in 2008 and by 2017 it was basically dead Nobody said there wasn't cheaper coal, alternatives, or other places had coal, but funny how it went from at leas viable to on life support. Why is that?

 

[HerdBuckeye]

So if the Obama administration would have kept issuing permits during his tenure coal would have suffered the last 8 years anyway? Funny how is was at least a decent industry in 2008 and by 2017 it was basically dead Nobody said there wasn't cheaper coal, alternatives, or other places had coal, but funny how it went from at leas viable to on life support. Why is that?

Coal has been on life support since the 60s and 70s. Just look at the employment charts. 8 years of Obama did not destroy or even seal the fate of coal. It was done decades ago.

 

[murox]

Coal has been on life support since the 60s and 70s. Just look at the employment charts. 8 years of Obama did not destroy or even seal the fate of coal. It was done decades ago.

What do "employment charts" have to do with coal "being on life support since the '60s and '70s"?

You are retarded. Coal's biggest boom was during the '80s.

 

[herdit44]

 

[murox]

Or...let's obfuscate the issue of Global Warming against overwhelming evidence and worldwide scientific consensus. This article you linked is a perfect example. This company makes a purely economic decision and then tries to convince everyone that the reason was for safety of its workers. Everyone knows the coal industry has a stellar history of worker safety. Lol.

If you don't believe these big companies aren't doing the same thing with the GW issue like they did with tobacco, DDT, second hand smoke, and fluorocarbons you're naive. Hell...they used many of the same people to fight the fight for them. The same scientist that tried to convince us there was no evidence that smoking was harmful, DDT didn't affect our environment, that second hand smoke wasn't harmful, are/were the same ones leading the charge against GW.

Yet you ignore all of the evidence in order to believe in some fantastical conspiracy that supposedly encompasses nearly the entirety of the scientific world and crosses hundreds of international borders in order to believe the hype being created by the very people who think smoking doesn't hurt you.

There's a big difference. For one, the people warning about cigarette smoke weren't telling people not to smoke while they have cigarette in their mouth. That's exactly what the global warming hysterics do: they tell everyone about the dangers of global warming while having a carbon footprint 10x the size of the average Joe.

Two, there are a lot of smart people who disagree about the so-called "consensus."

Three, even those who agree with the "consensus" can't agree on what should be done, or what can be done to combat warming other than higher taxes, more regulation and less capitalism.

Climate Change is about control. If scientists and other warmists actually believed it was as dire as they claim, their lifestyles would reflect it.

 

[i am herdman]

Coal has been on life support since the 60s and 70s. Just look at the employment charts. 8 years of Obama did not destroy or even seal the fate of coal. It was done decades ago.

You are not following my question.

or are ignoring it. if Obama would have let the permits continue as they were the year before he was elected would coal country in Appalachia be totally devastated as it is now? Why didn't he just let the market play out if it was doomed anyway?

 

[murox]

He said that coal had been on life support since the '60s, which is asinine. The number of people employed in the coal mining industry has nothing to do with whether the entire industry is in good or bad shape.

 

[herdit44]

He said that coal had been on life support since the '60s, which is asinine. The number of people employed in the coal mining industry has nothing to do with whether the entire industry is in good or bad shape.

i didn't argue one way or the other, just posted stats.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

So if the Obama administration would have kept issuing permits during his tenure coal would have suffered the last 8 years anyway? Funny how is was at least a decent industry in 2008 and by 2017 it was basically dead Nobody said there wasn't cheaper coal, alternatives, or other places had coal, but funny how it went from at leas viable to on life support. Why is that?

Powder River Basin coal was always a big threat. Wyoming became the #1 producer of coal in 1998. They produce more than twice as much as WV. They have twice as much coal and cheaper coal. 2008 was also the beginning of the Marcellus Shale gas boom, and new technologies and methods to get to it and other gas basins. Add in that many coal plants are at the end of their life cycles and gas plants are cheaper to build...and yeah, Don Blankenship could have been President and the Appalachian coal industry would still be declining.

 

[i am herdman]

Powder River Basin coal was always a big threat. Wyoming became the #1 producer of coal in 1998. They produce more than twice as much as WV. They have twice as much coal and cheaper coal. 2008 was also the beginning of the Marcellus Shale gas boom, and new technologies and methods to get to it and other gas basins. Add in that many coal plants are at the end of their life cycles and gas plants are cheaper to build...and yeah, Don Blankenship could have been President and the Appalachian coal industry would still be declining.

Then why were permits delayed and stopped? Nobody argues that it was not declining. But, Obama put into a death spiral.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

I rest my case.

 

[i am herdman]

I rest my case.

what case

are you denying obama went after the coal in Appalachia? Hell, it was a stated goal?

 

[Walden Pond]

Climate Change is about control. If scientists and other warmists actually believed it was as dire as they claim, their lifestyles would reflect it.

Yep, now wait for this to be conveniently glossed over.

I mean, 97% of scientists. It's kind of like the cabinet maker's minimum wage argument. He'll raise his workers' wages after the government forces everyone else. Until then, greed away.

Same with this. This guy's on here wanting the government to force us all into this so he doesn't just reduce his lifestyle while the rest of us don't. Wants us all in that ditch with him.

"Just worry about it."

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Then why were permits delayed and stopped?

Because coal companies do not want to act in a responsible manner. They want to squeeze every last cent out of the land and people before leaving them both to rot. And if they cannot, they say fvck it. When Peabody filed for bankruptcy they mostly blamed changing market conditions. I just outlined to you how the market changed.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

what case

are you denying obama went after the coal in Appalachia? Hell, it was a stated goal?

Only in Appalachia? Come on man. Wv always the victim.

 

[murox]

I rest my case.

What case? That you are wrong? Tell me how the coal industry has been "on life support" since the '60s? Do you know how fvcking stupid that statement is? Do you know what has mostly powered the nation's electrical grid for the past half century?

 

[sistersville]

Never will. Way too much cheap coal in other areas till fill the small remaining need until it is finally put to bed. But sisters knows of a job.

Coal is not coming back. I know of 5 jobs. When i was working for smaller companies as were many miners there where maybe 45 to 50 jobs. I hoped they could burn coal cleaner and let this area the saudia arabia of coal
Guys we have the best coal in the world here.I want to clear something up. Coal out west is no where near the btu's of our coal but but they have 100 ft. seams of coal. Here maybe a 10' seam is huge. Game over. Coal the first casulty of global warming. I was very lucky to spend most of my life mining coal. Dream im on a job about every other night. Young miners need to go back to school or learn a trade. I was very lucky to always have work.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I hoped they could burn coal cleaner and let this area the saudia arabia of coal

Instead the US turned out to be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. And we now out-produce Saudi Arabia in oil. In fact we are the #1 producer in oil and natural gas, and number two in coal behind China (although China is by far the world leader in coal) We are the world's top energy producer, and this happened while people were claiming Obama was anti-fossil fuel.

I think around 2050 we will see fusion power. All the economies reliant on fossil fuel better have a plan long before then. This is why Arab nations are starting to turn to banking and finance...and because their oil won't last forever anyway.

 

[HerdBuckeye]

Instead the US turned out to be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. And we now out-produce Saudi Arabia in oil. In fact we are the #1 producer in oil and natural gas, and number two in coal behind China (although China is by far the world leader in coal) We are the world's top energy producer, and this happened while people were claiming Obama was anti-fossil fuel.

I think around 2050 we will see fusion power. All the economies reliant on fossil fuel better have a plan long before then. This is why Arab nations are starting to turn to banking and finance...and because their oil won't last forever anyway.

Say it isnt so. You really mean we are the worlds number one energy producer we just shifted from coal to gas. This is something that is fundamentally very difficult for the trump clowns on here to grasp.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Instead the US turned out to be the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. And we now out-produce Saudi Arabia in oil. In fact we are the #1 producer in oil and natural gas, and number two in coal behind China (although China is by far the world leader in coal) We are the world's top energy producer, and this happened while people were claiming Obama was anti-fossil fuel.

The ground work for this swing in production was laid long before Obummer took office. Damn GWB and D. Cheney. Bush's fault.

 

[murox]

Say it isnt so. You really mean we are the worlds number one energy producer we just shifted from coal to gas. This is something that is fundamentally very difficult for the trump clowns on here to grasp.

You continue to ignore my rebuttal of your ignorant statement . . .

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Do you know what has mostly powered the nation's electrical grid for the past half century?

Do you know what won't be for the next half century?

 

[GK4Herd]

There's a big difference. For one, the people warning about cigarette smoke weren't telling people not to smoke while they have cigarette in their mouth. That's exactly what the global warming hysterics do: they tell everyone about the dangers of global warming while having a carbon footprint 10x the size of the average Joe.

Two, there are a lot of smart people who disagree about the so-called "consensus."

Three, even those who agree with the "consensus" can't agree on what should be done, or what can be done to combat warming other than higher taxes, more regulation and less capitalism.

Climate Change is about control. If scientists and other warmists actually believed it was as dire as they claim, their lifestyles would reflect it.

First...I apologize in advance for the length of my post. I have a lot to say. Lol. Secondly, I hope you take this in the spirit of discussion. I've known you for several years and I enjoy having you posting again.

Let's say you're right about the people preaching Global Warming being hypocrites. Other than Al Gore being called out on it, I've seen very little evidence to support your assertion that the Global Warming proponents have a larger carbon foot print. It probably hasn't been studied, but if you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to read it. Just my intuition tells me this isn't true. But again, I welcome anything you have. Not chaining myself to an ideology allows me to not be invested in the outcome. I couldn't care less whether evidence supports a conservative or liberal point of view. I'd join you in showing outrage if Global Warming proponents are outpacing the world in carbon emissions. But I suspect that this simply isn't true or hasn't been studied. Using Al Gore or some celebrity as an example would be anecdotal and not evidence enough to support your position.

But even if you could prove hypocrisy, that doesn't change the facts about global warming. It doesn't even address it. There have been several studies addressing the whole consensus issue. These studies validate that there is a major consensus. Read through this...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm


Here's the thing Nick...this issue has become ideological. You have almost always supported the scientific view of things. You support science when it doesn't agree with religion. You aren't conservative in a lot of ways but you despise liberals. Don't you think that this might be influencing your thoughts on the issue? Not wanting to give a perceived victory to a supposed liberal cause?

The problem is...as a capitalist, you are for the pursuit of making money. Me too. This whole global warming thing pontentially throws a cog in the energy sector. As a capitalist you can't be for that. But does that mean we should invest ourselves in taking a contrarian view of overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence?

I made a decision several years ago to look into global warming in depth. I was a skeptic because I was conservative. I went into it hoping to validate my held position that man isn't capable of screwing up the environment. After 5 or 6 books and countless reading of both supportive and contrarian views I become overwhelmingly sold that we are screwing the pooch.

You talked about smart guys on the other side of the issue. One of the contrarian talking points is that scientist are tied to funding and they skew the studies to promote more funding. In other words they support global warming for the money.That's absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion, for a whole bunch of reasons. These guys are educated intelligent people who could fend better in the private sector financially. Scientist, for the most part aren't highly paid. If they're doing this for the money they could certainly make more elsewhere. Also, there is no precedence for scientist blindly supporting the findings of other scientist. That's not how peer review works. That's not how science works. Scientist can be extremely brutal when it comes to validating others work. They aren't rewarded and recognized for confirming the mainstream view...they're recognized for definitive groundbreaking contributions that goes against mainstream thinking. Einstein and Newton aren't revered for validating the status quo...they're famous for overturning conventional wisdom. The thought that overwhelming consensus by the entire world (again...entire world) scientific community tells us how solid the evidence is. Thinking that there is some kind of anti capitalist movement that encompasses a world community of scientist who operate under hundreds of different governments with differing agenda and motivations is simply the stretch to beat all stretches. All of this anti capitalistic movement also escapes detection and evidence and uncovered paper trails as well. This would have to be the greatest hidden conspiracy of all times.

What I have discovered though is that most of the "smart guys" on the other side of the issue do have a very detectable trail that leads directly to the purse strings of energy companies or conservative think tanks. What I have discovered is that the contrarian point of view in many instances have been orchestrated by the same people using the same strategy as was successfully used to obfuscate the known science of the harms of tobacco. Tobacco's health risks were first uncovered by Germany in the 1930s and 40s. In 1952 Reader's Digest had an article about how harmful tobacco is. These tobacco companies hired a public relations firm that immediately went out and recruited some of those "smart guys"... Fred Seitz and Fred Singer. One worked on the Manhattan Project and the other put satellites in space for NASA. They were credible. Problem is, these guys were on the payroll of big tobacco and waged a campaign of obfuscation that lasted over 40 years. They did the same with DDT, fluorocarbons, and second hand smoke. These same two (one has died) were also on the front end of global warming denying back in the 90s using the same strategies they used with the other items. Stuff we know now is definitive science was confused in the media and influenced presidential policy.

Almost every single time I read some contrarian viewpoint I can easily trace it to influence by oil money or a conservative think tank that receives funding from oil companies. Read the book Merchants of Doubt with an open mind. I'll buy it and buy you lunch when I deliver it.

 

[raleighherdfan]

First...I apologize in advance for the length of my post. I have a lot to say. Lol. Secondly, I hope you take this in the spirit of discussion. I've known you for several years and I enjoy having you posting again.

Let's say you're right about the people preaching Global Warming being hypocrites. Other than Al Gore being called out on it, I've seen very little evidence to support your assertion that the Global Warming proponents have a larger carbon foot print. It probably hasn't been studied, but if you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to read it. Just my intuition tells me this isn't true. But again, I welcome anything you have. Not chaining myself to an ideology allows me to not be invested in the outcome. I couldn't care less whether evidence supports a conservative or liberal point of view. I'd join you in showing outrage if Global Warming proponents are outpacing the world in carbon emissions. But I suspect that this simply isn't true or hasn't been studied. Using Al Gore or some celebrity as an example would be anecdotal and not evidence enough to support your position.

But even if you could prove hypocrisy, that doesn't change the facts about global warming. It doesn't even address it. There have been several studies addressing the whole consensus issue. These studies validate that there is a major consensus. Read through this...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm


Here's the thing Nick...this issue has become ideological. You have almost always supported the scientific view of things. You support science when it doesn't agree with religion. You aren't conservative in a lot of ways but you despise liberals. Don't you think that this might be influencing your thoughts on the issue? Not wanting to give a perceived victory to a supposed liberal cause?

The problem is...as a capitalist, you are for the pursuit of making money. Me too. This whole global warming thing pontentially throws a cog in the energy sector. As a capitalist you can't be for that. But does that mean we should invest ourselves in taking a contrarian view of overwhelming scientific consensus and evidence?

I made a decision several years ago to look into global warming in depth. I was a skeptic because I was conservative. I went into it hoping to validate my held position that man isn't capable of screwing up the environment. After 5 or 6 books and countless reading of both supportive and contrarian views I become overwhelmingly sold that we are screwing the pooch.

You talked about smart guys on the other side of the issue. One of the contrarian talking points is that scientist are tied to funding and they skew the studies to promote more funding. In other words they support global warming for the money.That's absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion, for a whole bunch of reasons. These guys are educated intelligent people who could fend better in the private sector financially. Scientist, for the most part aren't highly paid. If they're doing this for the money they could certainly make more elsewhere. Also, there is no precedence for scientist blindly supporting the findings of other scientist. That's not how peer review works. That's not how science works. Scientist can be extremely brutal when it comes to validating others work. They aren't rewarded and recognized for confirming the mainstream view...they're recognized for definitive groundbreaking contributions that goes against mainstream thinking. Einstein and Newton aren't revered for validating the status quo...they're famous for overturning conventional wisdom. The thought that overwhelming consensus by the entire world (again...entire world) scientific community tells us how solid the evidence is. Thinking that there is some kind of anti capitalist movement that encompasses a world community of scientist who operate under hundreds of different governments with differing agenda and motivations is simply the stretch to beat all stretches. All of this anti capitalistic movement also escapes detection and evidence and uncovered paper trails as well. This would have to be the greatest hidden conspiracy of all times.

What I have discovered though is that most of the "smart guys" on the other side of the issue do have a very detectable trail that leads directly to the purse strings of energy companies or conservative think tanks. What I have discovered is that the contrarian point of view in many instances have been orchestrated by the same people using the same strategy as was successfully used to obfuscate the known science of the harms of tobacco. Tobacco's health risks were first uncovered by Germany in the 1930s and 40s. In 1952 Reader's Digest had an article about how harmful tobacco is. These tobacco companies hired a public relations firm that immediately went out and recruited some of those "smart guys"... Fred Seitz and Fred Singer. One worked on the Manhattan Project and the other put satellites in space for NASA. They were credible. Problem is, these guys were on the payroll of big tobacco and waged a campaign of obfuscation that lasted over 40 years. They did the same with DDT, fluorocarbons, and second hand smoke. These same two (one has died) were also on the front end of global warming denying back in the 90s using the same strategies they used with the other items. Stuff we know now is definitive science was confused in the media and influenced presidential policy.

Almost every single time I read some contrarian viewpoint I can easily trace it to influence by oil money or a conservative think tank that receives funding from oil companies. Read the book Merchants of Doubt with an open mind. I'll buy it and buy you lunch when I deliver it.

We can summarize this simply:

"Big Corporations lie, scheme, conspire and cover up.....until they realize how to capitalize on a govt subsidized ruse; then I believe what they say."

Notice I said BIG corporations. Much of this "save the planet" policy has allowed them to consolidate their markets and eliminate much of their smaller competition due to higher costs of operation or startup.

Again. It's not a conspiracy. Its simply the pillars of big govt and big business doing what they do best. It's modern day govt sanctioned monopoly building, serf creation, sold as "protection" from "earth becoming Venus".

 

[raleighherdfan]

Scientist, for the most part aren't highly paid. If they're doing this for the money they could certainly make more elsewhere. Also, there is no precedence for scientist blindly supporting the findings of other scientist. That's not how peer review works.

Where else are the majority of climatologists going to get highly paid work? Shit. If it wasn't for the govt funded man made climate change industry, many would likely be reporting the local 6PM weather.

Yes, there is absolutely a precedence for scientists supporting other scientists. Especially when a much larger % of overall $$ is going into funding the premise that man made climate change is real. No reason to end one's career by going against the trend and current funding cycle.

 

[GK4Herd]

Yes, there is absolutely a precedence for scientists supporting other scientists. Especially when a much larger % of overall $$ is going into funding the premise that man made climate change is real. No reason to end one's career by going against the trend and current funding cycle.

Not even close to reality. Science is no different than any other profession when it comes to human nature. There's a tremendous amount of competitiveness, professional jealousy, vindictiveness, and backbiting among the ranks. There has been since the field emerged. When you look at history you'll find that almost every school of thought was met with opposition and tremendous feuds developed over credit or disagreement over who was right. Darwin vs Owens, Tesla vs Edison, Wegener against the entire petroleum geological field over plate tectonics. Even international feuds and disagreements are common. The research teams from France and the US fought bitterly over credit for discoveries in the HIV field. To believe that there's some kind of lockstep among the scientific community is ignoring overwhelming historical examples. The field of science and peer review can be brutal. The mere fact that the consensus is so strong is something that needs paid attention to.

 

[Walden Pond]

Why does there have to be all that writing to say "I wish Hillary would have won to advance this issue, and I'm upset that Trump won because he won't"?

 

[TwolfHerdfan]

What do "employment charts" have to do with coal "being on life support since the '60s and '70s"?

You are retarded. Coal's biggest boom was during the '80s.

Coal jobs have been declining since the mid 50'S with the onset of more mechanized methods of coal extraction. Making it less expensive to mine and more efficient = more profit for the companies, but bad for WV due to job losses.

 

[Hammond Druthers]

Why does there have to be all that writing to say "I wish Hillary would have won to advance this issue, and I'm upset that Trump won because he won't"?

Are you ever going to address what someone actually says, or are you content with the same tired copy/paste job?

 

[raleighherdfan]

Not even close to reality. Science is no different than any other profession when it comes to human nature. There's a tremendous amount of competitiveness, professional jealousy, vindictiveness, and backbiting among the ranks. There has been since the field emerged. When you look at history you'll find that almost every school of thought was met with opposition and tremendous feuds developed over credit or disagreement over who was right. Darwin vs Owens, Tesla vs Edison, Wegener against the entire petroleum geological field over plate tectonics. Even international feuds and disagreements are common. The research teams from France and the US fought bitterly over credit for discoveries in the HIV field. To believe that there's some kind of lockstep among the scientific community is ignoring overwhelming historical examples. The field of science and peer review can be brutal. The mere fact that the consensus is so strong is something that needs paid attention to.

Historical times when science was....real science. Real discoveries and human progress was on the line. Peer review is becoming as sketchy today as most CNN news articles. Again, who funds the journals that produces these reviews?

Follow today's grant $$$. Govts, and now large corps have a vested interest in keeping the "save us from ourselves" propaganda going. For all the reasons I've pointed out in my previous posts. It's how they stay "in business".

 

[raleighherdfan]

Coal jobs have been declining since the mid 50'S with the onset of more mechanized methods of coal extraction. Making it less expensive to mine and more efficient = more profit for the companies, but bad for WV due to job losses.

So what? No one was arguing otherwise.

Rox was asking a rhetorical question based on another posters assertion that coal has been on life support since the 60s. The production increases shown in the graph demonstrate the "life support" comment to be complete nonsense.

 

[i am herdman]

Coal jobs have been declining since the mid 50'S with the onset of more mechanized methods of coal extraction. Making it less expensive to mine and more efficient = more profit for the companies, but bad for WV due to job losses.

No shit. But, what effect did Obama's stopping the permitting process have on Appalachian coal?

Somebody answer the f'ing question? It certainly was not on life support at all.