People who built this world to what it is even thought it was tough so they made people slaves to get the coal. What we have today is by choice to work on what we get.
You get dirty from working with coal, what we have today you do not.
Coal has a smell that you can not control, we phone up who ever supplies us with gas to fix a gas leak if we have one.
Working with coal can be unsafe, what we have today can save you from having burn scars.
Coal would cost more than what we have today.
Overall, no I do not regret missing out on anything to with coal.
I’m not sure of the point of your question. Of course no one regrets this. The root concern is cost, cost, and cost. I could care less where my power comes from – I’d put a turbine in my backyard if I knew it were cost effective. But it’s not, not even close.
You seem to castigate coal because you assume it has to be dirty and dangerous. The reality is we have plenty of it and we have current technology to make it safely mined, clean and significantly more efficient and cost effective than in the past, possibly more so than that dirty ‘ol fracked gas you hate. Some of the newer mining technology is done much more safely and even robotically.
Will CO2 always be an output? Will coal seam fires continue? Yeah, probably.
But until you understand the magnitude of energy required and what is supplied by coal, and the fact we can’t just switch on wind turbine and the like, please stop pretending
Coal isn’t just good, it rocks!
I'm not sure how to get through to you. Most intelligent people do things for a purpose and reason, for me the reasons have to be sound and logical. There is no problem developing alternative energy to better the lives of people by being able to provide cheaper and more sustainable energy for our present and future. When you add in OH, and we have to save the planet, you've just added an unachievable goal with really no way to measure success. You've also added a additional requirements when developing alternative energy (must include planet saving measures) and an urgency that is going to require a global effort. Neither are bad if the crisis really exist and some people might believe you given the unprecedented stupidity spouted during some weather reports but we all know most people don't believe in AGW and further don't believe if it were real that the solution is to increase the cost of fossil fuels until alternative energies can compete.
I don't do things unless the reason is sound and logical because it starts adding unnecessary requirements. Take for example a guy trying to sell me a steam cleaner, because it sanatizes the deep fat fryer that operates at 350 degrees. He was doing great when he showed me how it cleaned, told me about how we can limit our use of cleaning supplies, and then he throws in some irrelivent comment about sanatizing. Now this fool has just added a sanatization requirement where there was none.
There are automatic coal feeders. So your question I moot. But it does identify a problem with greenie logic. Your side has gone to great lengths to get rid of coal with disastrous results. President Obama is still shutting down coal mines. Coal fired power plants have had to go through great lengths and expenses to put scrubbers on their chimneys. Now you say those aerosols that your side mandated to be removed are a good thing for our environment.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO REALIZE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE COMMUNICATING ABOUT! You obviously don't have a clue as to how the Earth works and yet go around making mankind do inane actions.
EDIT: < And obsolete coal plants are shut down when new power plants, which may be more modern and efficient coal plants replace them.> Which coal plants replaced the 4 in West Virginia which were shut down this last year?
Well my home personally is hot 100% of the time.
I don't need a heater or coal to keep warm. If i did that, it would easily be above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in my room right now.
I heat with wood. Coal would be a significant labor savings.
The way the US uses coal, it's as good as any other energy source.
I do use coal and quite simply a roaring fire of logs and coal is great, works well and looks great.
I specifically fitted a real fireplace in my living room as a safeguard against fuel scarcity and rising energy costs. it costs nothing to get wood from my garden with a chain saw.
I also have oil heating, there is no gas where I live because it's rural.
I am 63 and remember feeding a coal furnace for my grandmother, the kind that was free standing in the room. I remember the filth on the walls and ceiling from the coal and the dust on the floor. Granted that is far cry from a power plant burning coal to deliver electricity to our homes and businesses
Coal is the worst polluter we have and has been causing respiratory disorders for those in the mines and anyone within a gentle breeze of a coal fired turbine
With China on a marathon coal fueled power plant building spur, there will be a market for US coal so the coal business isn't lost
No coal burnt in power stations is okay because all of their emission controls, but burning coal in household grates killed thousands (remember London smog) and the clean air act was a good thing.
I have a diesel car, because it is economical, the engines are reliable and long lasting, and it is not too complicated, I can maintain it myself.
As long as I don't have to shovel it myself and James Hansen doesn't find out about, sure why not?
By the way, even though the Union of Concerned Scientists is politically slanted and even worse, funded by Exxon and Phillip Morris, I still read your link and found it informative.
One obvious question for "skeptics" is why would switching to new energy sources be a bad thing, even if global warming were wrong? Would people actually miss coal plants or putting gas, rather than hydrogen, in their cars?
Based on the fact that coal produces aerosols which cool Earth, it could be argued that coal is good and that switching from coal to natural gas and electricity to heat our homes was a bad thing?
OK! It's unlikely that the fact that we no longer have to shovel coal to heat our homes is bad? But is the idea far fetched? Maybe not.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html
So, who would like to go back to shoveling coal to heat their homes?
Thank you for this information. It just goes to show that God has provided natural resources and we need to get back to doing things God's way.
I'll use whatever is the cheapest and most efficient.
Not I.
And, I see Sagebrush is unclear on the concept of "tradeoffs"...
Given all the nasty crap in coal, I don't think the small beneficial side effect of masking warming by producing aerosols is even remotely worth the harm caused by coal...
