[mikema63]

It is failing, if we got none of our energy from coal it would be a failed industry. Every year we use less coal for electricity, which causes business for coal companies to contract, which is what a failing Industry looks like.

[Vlerchan]

In 2015, the United States generated about 4 trillion kilowatthours of electricity.1 About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).

You forgot the other half of that statistic .



Here's some very long-run trends. Examine that of natural gas and nonhydro renewable energy sources in particular. The former increased it's share about 300% in the last decade, whilst the last increased it's share 800% in the last decade. The share of coal, on the other hand, has almost halved. This trend, on the basis of current projections, will probably only intensify.



The trend lines are nastier in other countries, too.

So liberals would like to replace this 33% from coal with billions if not trillions of hamsters spinning around in their little turbine wheels in their little cages generating electricity to make up for the difference? Yes, this hamster comment is silly, but just as silly as calling 33% of our electricity generation a "failing industry."

This is basically just conservative virtue signalling; it certainly isn't a reasonable response to the issue at hand.

Even the most cursory glance at the data on the issue should lead you to agree that coal is failing.

[stephen50right]

It is failing, if we got none of our energy from coal it would be a failed industry. Every year we use less coal for electricity, which causes business for coal companies to contract, which is what a failing Industry looks like.

It may be contracting, but it is certainly not failing by any reasonable understanding of the word failing.

Frankly, it is the Democratic Party which threw away countless billions of American taxpayer dollars at crony capitalism green energy projects owned and operated by their liberal friends, which in reality had no chance to succeed - now THAT is a failure.

[mikema63]

It's being replaced by natural gas, not solar energy.

[stephen50right]

Good thing that we didn't all follow the example of Obama and the Democratic Party, and replace coal with Solyndra type operations. Some of us might be back to reading newspapers instead of posting on the internet.

[Decky]

And the Democrats wonder why they lost. Even the fucking republicunts, a party for billionaires that is openly run by a rich bastard who has never worked care more for working class people than you do. Jesus Christ how low can you sink to hate working class people even more than the republican party?

[Perkwunos]

If there was no demand for coal, the miners wouldn't have jobs. A lot of the coal is bought by other countries, it is not just used domestically. Coal is also useful for things besides energy production since it's basically a solid fossil fuel which means it can't "spill" in the same way and other things.

Coal itself can't spill in the way that oil can, but creating a coal slurry gives it the advantage of mobility—and the disadvantage of gaining the possibility of spilling.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states ... one-county

It can be pretty nasty stuff.

[Perkwunos]

Good thing that we didn't all follow the example of Obama and the Democratic Party, and replace coal with Solyndra type operations. Some of us might be back to reading newspapers instead of posting on the internet.

I don't think alternative energy sources are entirely ready to replace fossil fuels, far from the case. But I would note that energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for some of these sources already compares very favorably to the fairly dismal EROEI of ~3 for tar sands, a more marginal source of energy than the big "elephant" fields were in their prime, which the world is now forced to exploit because of insatiable demand for oil. But, by comparison, wind EROEI can exceed 10.

[quetzalcoatl]

So liberals would like to replace this 33% from coal with billions if not trillions of hamsters spinning around in their little turbine wheels in their little cages generating electricity to make up for the difference? Yes, this hamster comment is silly, but just as silly as calling 33% of our electricity generation a "failing industry."

The average age of US coal-fired generators is now 45+ years. Even with re-vamping and intensive maintenance, these plants are nearing the end of their useful lives.

What will these plants be replaced by? There are a number of alternatives, and coal will be at the bottom of the list for purely economic reasons. It is indeed a failing industry, despite the legacy of ancient coal-fired plants. That legacy is facing extinction.

They will be replaced by natural gas plants, for the most part. Solar, for all the solyndra tears you shed, is now price competitive with NG and will capture an increasing share of the market. Again, for purely economic reasons.

[Perkwunos]

The major component of natural gas, methane, also at least has the advantage of producing less CO2 when burned because of how it reacts with oxygen to give off energy.

And even those who don't acknowledge anthropogenic climate change will have to admit that coal can be a pretty nasty local contaminant.

[Hong Wu]

https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal -- main uses of coal are not just energy production, but also the creation of steel and concrete which have heat applied to them directly. Although like someone posted, it is apparently 33% of the US' power supply and this makes sense because it's a domestically produced power source.

My usual argument is that if you want less coal burned, use less electricity. Hating on coal miners does not speed up the production of miracle alternative energy technologies at all. For example, the suppression of the economy reduces tax revenue that could be used for research; not saying that it is but it could be. There is a false equivalence between hating on these people and getting a solution that doesn't require you to change your first world lifestyle.

[AFAIK]

You think this is about identity politics, Hong Wu?

Tells us how much you love sending young men to work in the dark covered in coal dust. Until they get black lung and are cast aside. Anyway your advice doesn't work. Utility companies buy electricity from the cheapest source first and the most expensive last so if we use less electricity nuclear power stations will suffer a reduction in revenue since it's the most expensive. Coal will be the last to suffer because it's so cheap.