Whitehaven Coal sees higher prices on disruptions
The company's Blackwater and Daunia mines in Queensland, which it recently purchased from BHP, produced 4.8 million tonnes.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said coal is no longer marketable with alternatives like cleaner natural gas and energy efficiency.
McCarthy made the comments at the Paris climate talks, a multi-day summit where countries from around the world hope to hammer out a climate deal to reduce green house gas emissions.
McCarthy talked about coal and other issues at the Facebook booth, a live video chat where viewers submit questions:
One viewer asked McCarthy how come China uses five times as much coal as the US?
Well I think China has a growing population and they have been trying to move people out of poverty and into the middle class. Coal is a resource that was readily available to them. They have moved and developed their power system around it. If you look at where the US used to be, you will see we were heavily invested in coal. We now know as China does that is not necessarily the path to the future. We know in the US we are transitioning away from coal because coal is no longer marketable. We have cleaner natural gas and we have opportunities for low carbon sources like renewables and using energy efficiency.
McCarthy was appointed the head of the EPA in July 2013 after a long confirmation fight.
Hat tip, The Hill
9 Comments
Glen Hokanson
“No longer marketable” because the current administration has seen to it that coal is made the enemy. SMH
Altaf
In future the energy needs will be divided based on users.
The energy sources like Solar, Wind, Hydro will cater to cities where people live and the mix can be switched easily. Example Solar and wind will power day requirements while Hydro and wind will power the night requirements.
For industry like Aluminum smelters and Steel plants which require intense energy will come from Coal. Both the mills and coal power plants which can not be switched on and off easily have a perfect harmony.
More over coal producing and consuming countries like China and India should focus on pit head power plants in comparison to near to user. The pollution caused by coal power plant is same in both cases but at least from health point of view, pit head plants are better as they will be situated near nature and the forests near the power plants can soak up most of the Co2 more readily, quickly.
Mike Eiselein
Our national power grid system doesn’t work like that. All power generation plugs into the distribution grid and feeds the whole country, not individual cities and factories. Otherwise, you’d see rolling black-outs and brown-outs as the lovely wind and solar sources waxed and waned. Renewables can’t even supply a fraction of our industrial nor metropolitan power demands. At this point, I think the system needs to collapse in order for the uneducated masses and politicians to learn the folly of their idealism.
Wayne G
It is all well and good to debunk coal, but the fact is in countries like India and China it has a long way to go before it will even be considered as a phase out options – read many decades. So going by the EPA logic, it is better to burn ‘dirty coal’ than ‘clean’ coal which in effect shutting down the coal industry in Australia would achieve, thus increasing the pollution…and people wonder why our country is in trouble, with idiots like this it is obvious. The EPA seems to be almost evangelistic on one side of the climate change argument championing a bad outcome for Australia and the end users of coal…
Restless Boomers
Powerful forces behind the EPA prematurely sent coal to the grave because of extreme political agendas that have nothing to due with ‘climate change’. A bumpy ride is ahead as mankind pushes back against the New World Order’s attempt to control and enslave humanity.
idamann
In other “news” the sun rose this morning, which came as a surprise to nobody. Anyone paying attention knows that coal fired electricity is on a terminal slide for many reasons, but primarily economics. It will take 20 years or so in the US, and maybe a couple of decades longer in the rest of the world, so take heart, there is time to adjust.
patentbs
Natgas fired generators start at $1million per megawatt. (cheap) build fast and are new so require little major maintenance. Natgas is plentiful today. Good reasons to use natgas. BUT you are burning fossil fuel and not eliminating what the politicos view as the problem – CO2.
To eliminate co2 you must get away from combustion. So for base load it’s a nuke. then you can have the wind and PV solar take over. Nukes cost money and are not on the green lover list.
So what now? Nobody cares just as long as we kill coal!
I personally believe we can clean stacks, pre or post combustion if we do the research. Again that costs money.
jonboy3345
Coal could easily become our #1 export to China and offset or negative balance of trade.
Mark Stevens
Shutting down coal powered power plants won’t help pollution. They only supply power to the factory’s, chemical plants, oil refinery’s that cause the pollution. Them switching to natural gas power plants doesn’t stop that. Apparently no one pays attention to the fires lighting up the night sky burning off excess gas and oil that’s being pumped. A lot of good workers and people have lost or are losing their jobs in the coal industry.