The World and Canada Go To War Against Trump And Coal

“The UK and Canada have launched a global alliance of 20 countries committed to phasing out coal for energy production.
Members including France, Finland and Mexico, say they will end the use of coal before 2030.
Ministers hope to have 50 countries signed up by the time of the next major UN conference in Poland next year.”
See UK and Canada lead alliance against coal
Good for Canada! Burning coal to release energy captured by life millions of years ago is a silly thing in the face of global warming. Trump will not be around forever and even USA will see the light. USA has been weaning itself off coal just based on the price of natural gas. When USA’s coal markets shrink the decline of coal mining will be even faster. Trump’s rants and empty promises are just a tempest in a teapot. This is one war Trump will lose despite all his might and fury.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The World and Canada Go To War Against Trump And Coal

  1. oiaohm says:
    Grece if all the Sea Buoy the USA maintains for navigation was converted to wave generation that is a good 10% of the USA power need.

    Thing to be aware of is floating wind turbine currently don’t include wave technology they could so increasing generation per location. So Wave and Wind is something that can be effectively used in combination.

    Grece building a modern day as safe as possible Coal power plant takes longer to build than a nuclear plants. So time of construction is not something that coal save you. Natural Gas plants can be built faster. The time frame to build new Coal power plants is a problem the Australian government is running into with different Coal power plants going end of life.–aemo-report.html
    Its why there is looking at extending life of coal plants. Coal has so many levels of complexity attempting to clean up emissions.

    It takes between 3-5 years to build and bring a nuclear power plant on line. A fairly clean gas power plant 1 to 3 years. Dirty coal without all the modern emission cleaning systems 1 to 2 years. Coal with the modern emission cleaning systems 4 to 6 years.

    Grece no power plant takes decades to build. Nuclear power plants time to build is not the problem its the clean up at end of life. Shocking reality
    You technically need to treat a end of life coal power plant as a nuclear waste dump. So both Nuclear and Coal have lot of clean up at end of plant life of radio active materials. If you have not worked out the better the emissions are cleaned from a coal power plant the more radioactive the site is. So over the 50 years life of a Coal power plant sections of the emissions cleaning system can be more radioactive than handling spent fuel rods from a Nuclear reactor. Yet people working around Nuclear reactors wear tags tracking their exposure yet those working around Coal power plants don’t.

    Yes Coal has a very high health cost to personal not just emission but from radiation exposure.

    Its the radiation level that makes refitting some old coal power plants impossible. Lot of people have not asked why a Coal power plant gets end of life then sits not used for decades before being disassembled. This is so the radiation level drops before disassembly.

    Wind, solar, wave the materials in them can be recycled without issue at end of life. Most of gas turbines can be recycled as well without major radiation issue. Nuclear and Coal both need nuclear waste dumps for sections of the end of life plant.

    Yes due to the radioactive mess emission cleaned coal power plants are you can only build them in the same geological stable locations as you need for Nuclear power plants.

    Also the other thing to consider is Nuclear might take 3-5 years to build but has a operation life these days of at-least 70 years. Most emission cleaned coal is really pushing limits at 50 years old and the better emissions are cleaned the shorter the life the coal power plants are getting.

    Grece I am not saying getting off Coal is going to be easy. The reality it something we just have to do some how. It will most likely be a mixture of solutions. This include wind, solar, wave, hydro and gas with possible nuclear.

    Grece reality you can check all the figures if you like they are right. Coal is becoming on longer viable from health and safety point of view or from a cost point of view when building new plants..

  2. Grece says:

    Wind/Solar is a joke.

    Nuclear plants take decades to build.

    Wave power? are you kidding me? That is not going to provide 65% of the needed power necessary to power the country Robert!

  3. Grece wrote, “Robert thinks it is a great idea to get rid of all “fossil fuels”; where’s that 65% slack going to be recouped Robert?”

    Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear… USA even has a possible 2640TWh/a wave power. USA uses only 4000 TWh/a these days. If Trump really wants to build walls…

  4. oiaohm wrote, “We need to stop using coal for anything that does not require it. Like making steel we most likely still need to use some coal.”

    Coal is used as a fuel and reducing agent in making steel. Hydrogen and aluminium could be used as reducers but hydrogen makes steel brittle and aluminium is expensive.

    Not all land is created equal. Relatively barren lands make good places for wind/solar farms. Even in built-up areas roofs, walls and windows could convert solar power. It’s likely the tops of cars will hold solar panels to provide some power.

  5. oiaohm says:
    Grece there are a few problems here. Coal burning is not healthy even if you ignore the other environmental issues.

    Burning natural gas and petroleum is cleaner than burning coal with less health effects.

    Latest generation natural gas vs latest generation coal plant result is scary bad the coal is putting out twice as much CO2 as the natural gas for the same power production and producing lot more toxic by products on top. You see the same numbers out of coal vs petroleum. So basically coal is one of the worst fuel sources for power. Also gas and petroleum are more compact to transport.

    If 65% of your comes from natural gas and petroleum this would be better than 65% from natural gas, coal and petroleum in both lower CO2 emissions and lower toxic chemical releases that cause medical cost.

    We need to stop using coal for anything that does not require it. Like making steel we most likely still need to use some coal. Power generation there is really no good reason to be using coal. Fossil fuels are not created equal.

    Of course for Australia giving up coal is going to be down right hard. Thinking that over 70 percent of our power generation is Coal. Yes the medical data on coal is it is now how to deal with the problem.

    Please note Coal is not just harmful when it burnt is coal dust and other things from transporting and handling it. Correctly transported natural gas and petroleum don’t have these issues.

  6. Grece says:

    While coal usage is decreasing, natural gas is increasing to make up the shortage. I’d like to know where all these countries are going to source power from with no coal use.

    About 65% of utility-scale electricity generation in the United States is produced from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources.

    Robert thinks it is a great idea to get rid of all “fossil fuels”; where’s that 65% slack going to be recouped Robert?

Leave a Reply