Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Natural Gas Taking Coal’s Place in the Power Plants

January 1, 2014

WHEELING — Robert Murray said if the U.S....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(45)

oldsteelmaker

Jan-02-14 8:13 PM

Okay, smogger, try this out. Take a pound of the most radioactive and toxic stuff out there, plutonium. Dissolve it in acid so it's a liquid. Mix it in a cubic mile of sea water. Is it still dangerous?

I wouldn't drink some of it, because salt water will mess you up, but for radioactivity, big deal. That dilution factor is a trillion to one.

By comparison the amount of uranium and other radioactive elements in granite is in the parts per million, a million times more concentrated.

The nonsense about ***ushima waste affecting the US is just that, nonsense. You can measure radioactivity hundreds of thousands of times lower than the point it becomes dangerous.

Just like dioxin. "Most toxic waste" ever. Turns out it's present in wood ash. Every fireplace out there is a source of toxic waste.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-02-14 8:01 PM

Is there anyone besides me that thinks it's a hoot that a gang of Greenies, trying to replicate some explorer's century-ago exploration voyage, can't do it because their ship is trapped in the ice?

It's the height of SUMMER in Antarctica!!! A hundred years ago this was open water the first guy sailed through! How does THAT match up with the nonsense the Greenies put out???

Notice the fact it's summer done there is never mentioned in the news broadcasts?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-02-14 7:55 PM

The current fracking method is a more controlled version of the nitro. Fill the well with liquid (water), then pressurize it past the yield strength of the shale, forming zillions of cracks. Mix in something to keep the cracks open once the pressure is released (sand).

The few million gallons of water you used probably contain a lot of bacteria, molds and other living thingies, some of which will thrive in the hot environment down in the well. Since growing things GROW, after a while they will plug up all those tiny cracks you just spent millions to make. So they put in stuff to kill the bugs. Most of the chemicals are basically the same stuff you put in a swimming pool, and for the same reason. Yes, they are toxic. Ever read the label on pool shock additives? Not something to eat for dinner.

The real problem is the Left wants dependency. Cheap energy makes it tougher to achieve. Green is complex and difficult, and fits with their goals.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-02-14 7:46 PM

deb, WHAT devastating effect? Had a well right under my house. Never noticed a thing.

More to the point, no matter if it's a straight well, a slant well or a horizontal well, the critical part is the first thousand feet or so, the end at the surface. Past that, it doesn't matter what you do.

A lot of people have seized on "fracking" as some magical, or evil thing. What nonsense. Wells have been "fracked" for well over a hundred years. Just the methods have changed.

Wells were "fracked" with nitro in the nineteenth century. I read several stories about drilling around Oil City when John D owned the world. Well developed method.

After WWI they started using directed explosives. Caused less damage to the well, allowed casing it and getting better flow from the rocks. It's like a bazooka round, blows a hole in the case and several yards out into the rock formation. Fractures the rock, makes holes and seriously improves productivity.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oldsteelmaker

Jan-02-14 7:31 PM

There are cheap and easy ways to get rid of nuclear waste. Since the government is involved, that means they will not be used.

Two reasons for the boom in CO2 to fuel work. It's one of the few ways to store lousy irregular power like wind and solar. Second is liquid fuel is easier to handle and move than gases. Since transportation is still one of the biggest energy consumers, that makes sense.

But as far as it being really competitive with existing crude-extracted fuels, don't make me laugh. Order of magnitude more expensive to do. Ethanol and biofuel are a lot cheaper.

And anyone that thinks this will make inroads into CO2 emissions is truly hallucinating. We already have a much more effective CO2 capture system in place.

They are called plants.

A few acres of trees will capture far more CO2 than any of these processes will ever use. And you can burn them and start the cycle over again!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Jan-01-14 11:32 PM

geo: why go through all that(co2 manipulation) when coal can just be replaced now with gas or nuke. time to move on out of the 19th century.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Jan-01-14 11:29 PM

id: that is relatively small compared to a Peabody. There is big money in met coal.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jan-01-14 8:52 PM

atoddh: The CO2 thing is done for as soon as genuine news starts getting published. In Germany, right now, Audi is using wind power to convert exhaust gas CO2 into Methane. The Army, Navy and Air Force, under different contracts to the same end, hired the U of So Cal to develop a process of artificial photosynthesis that converts CO2 into substitute natural gas Methane. Panasonic, in Japan, now has extensive artificial photosynthesis CO2-to-Methane technologies. Penn State University has a process for what they call the "high-rate" photo-catalytic conversion of CO2 into Methane. Saudi Arabia has contracted with Germany's Linde Group to build a factory that will convert CO2 into synthetic petroleum. Bayer Corporation is, in Germany, consuming Coal power plant CO2 in the synthesis of plastics. The US Navy has designed a ship that harnesses ocean currents to drive the conversion of CO2 into jet fuel. All easily documented. You're being kept in the dark.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idliketoknow

Jan-01-14 8:00 PM

atoddh, from Forbes: "The American coal industry is in the doldrums, but there’s one bright spot: billionaire Chris Cline and Foresight Energy. As other coal miners go under, Foresight is rolling, with $130 million in 2012 net income on sales of 15 million tons of coal"

Not a major? I guess you're right and Forbes is wrong.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Jan-01-14 7:56 PM

geo: The more recent information on warming is getting the attention of all countries. Everyone is being affected in a negative way. Coal will be out for power.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Jan-01-14 7:48 PM

wvu: Russia will discontinue their weapons program in 2014.Uranium prices will rebound. The Chinese are purchasing uranium in Africa now. They also have a prefab reactor close to completion. Japan will probably revert back to all nuclear soon.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Jan-01-14 7:44 PM

id: none of the majors; eg Peabody.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jan-01-14 7:13 PM

China, just a few years ago, haven't seen recent figures, was adding one new coal-fired power plant per month, and is a significant global importer of Coal, just inked a big deal with Peabody, even though they have lots of their own. They're conserving their domestic coal, treating it like a strategic resource.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-01-14 7:08 PM

The other problem on Nuke is WASTE. With the ***ed-up government we have, they can develop a plan for disposing of the waster because the best place is Nevada BUT Hairy Weed has too much political clout to get it past him.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jan-01-14 7:08 PM

LogHog: Ditto. And for the Chernobylians and for the Three Mile Islanders. We're currently exiled in Pennsylvania; and, personal reports from local travelers have it that the dandelions growing around the area of TMI sprout leaves a yard long.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Jan-01-14 7:06 PM

atoddh, nuclear is as dead as Mandela for new power.

yeah, I like it but a plant costs 10 times as much to build as coal and SOURCES for fuel are extremely limited.

Sure, it doesn't TAKE much but you don't but refined uranium on Ebay.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Jan-01-14 7:03 PM

One of the few things Barry didn't lie about. Power rates shall skyrocket if I'm elected.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LogHog

Jan-01-14 7:00 PM

ato, that nuke plant worked out well for the Japs didn't it?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idliketoknow

Jan-01-14 5:54 PM

"No one else wanted them; including Consol."

There were three bidders: Murray, Statler, and Cline. Not sure where you got your information from.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Jan-01-14 5:45 PM

btw folks: nuclear-not coal- is the cheapest way to make electricity and is co2 free.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

atoddh

Jan-01-14 5:44 PM

rox: Murray probably acquired the mines with borrowed money. No one else wanted them; including Consol. He will have to deunionize them and get out from under the pensions. Look for a downsize blamed on Obama.

It is probable China and India will turn to more nuclear going forward; away from coal.

Global warming/pollution is a global problem. It is escalating.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

dyingov

Jan-01-14 12:14 PM

hoopie, "Supply and demand will be coals demise." Is the light bulb burning?

World Coal consumption 2005-6.4 billion short tons; World Coal consumption 2011-8.1 billion short tons!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Donaldo

Jan-01-14 12:05 PM

Who is Robert Murray?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVUGEO

Jan-01-14 12:03 PM

CTMountaineer: A sad, but accurate, analysis and summary.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CTMountaineer

Jan-01-14 11:57 AM

That coal is going to be sold. It is just a matter of where will it be used to create jobs. If the super rich want to use it here, it will be perfectly acceptable in the media and every place else due to sudden technological advances.

If they want to use it in cheap labor countries, where it will create even more "global" pollution because use will be with far fewer controls, it will be banned by our government due to "global warming".

They simply use their control of the media and the liberal aspects of higher education to promote their own agendas. The sheeple will believe anything they are told, because it would be next to impossible to get any opposing views out in the public forum. Money talks... absolutely.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 45 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: