Comments on: Coal Exports and Carbon Consequences II

By: Eric de Place

Eric de Place — Tue, 29 May 2012 17:46:31 +0000

Powder River Basin coal cannot be used to manufacture steel. It’s a much lower-grade and lower-energy coal that can only be used in electricity production.

By: L.W. Brown

L.W. Brown — Mon, 28 May 2012 07:09:14 +0000

Western coal, such as from the Poweder River Basin, is dirtier coal, not cleaner. Cleaner coal comes from the Eastern US, but is in limited supply and is more difficult to extract. Given the hostility to use of Western coal in the US, miners need foreign markets. However the coal is burned, even if well controlled, it will be bad. Shipping it, tho, will be even worse: dirty from the dust as it’s transported by rail, and from the oil, bilge-water, and other pollution of the cargo ships. These proposals add up to an enormous environmental disaster. In addition, history shows that anywhere from 80% to 90% of the costs for extra infrastructure needed to support or live with the export will be paid for by citizens, not the companies getting the profits.

By: Wells

Wells — Sat, 26 May 2012 01:48:46 +0000

The only coal export facility with half a chance are the Port Morrow and Westward. All the others tie up the main railway lines. I’m curious to know if this powder coal is better for manufacturing steel, just in case our corporate masters admit the railway lines need extensive upgrading.

By: Dan J

Dan J — Fri, 25 May 2012 22:38:32 +0000

Eric.
I think your calcs actually understate the CO2.
145 million tons at 70% C would be about 101 million tons C,
which translates to about 376 million tons CO2.

This is a LOT of CO2 and globally important.

Dan J

By: Le'bouf

Le'bouf — Fri, 25 May 2012 21:12:56 +0000

Will exporting coal from the PNW increase global coal consumption?

Level 1 analysis – When supply goes up, prices go down. As prices go down, demand goes up.

Level 2 – When supply goes up “x”, prices go down “y”. As prices go down “y”, demand goes up “z”.

Implying that ‘tonnage exported’ equals a ‘disastrous’ amount of additional/new/global increase of GHGs etc. is an exaggeration.

By: Barry Saxifrage

Barry Saxifrage — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:57:15 +0000

Hey I love America too. But I don’t agree that coal demand doesn’t care about volume of coal supply. Just look at the price of coal after Australia flooding took out a big chunk of the supply from there for awhile.

Wind and solar are already cost-competitive with new coal in many regions. Rising the price of coal by restricting supply is just the kind of thing that will start to favour safer energy sources. At least until we have a global carbon pollution fee that is one of the best options open to those that want to a pass along a nice hospitable climate to our kids.

By: Barry Saxifrage

Barry Saxifrage — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:52:36 +0000

You are correct “Not Fan” that states have limited ability to interfere with interstate commerce directly. However, states also have the right to approve projects inside their borders and one of the criteria they can consider is environmental impacts. So Washington state has every right to deny the construction of a coal port as long as they are not doing it strictly to limit trade. Looked at another way, state ‘A’ can’t force state ‘B’ to just build whatever state ‘A’ wants regardless of state ‘B’ laws. States do have rights.

By: John Bremer

John Bremer — Fri, 25 May 2012 18:25:46 +0000

This is an unfair game. Our government agents sell our corporate agents our coal for $1.00 per ton, which our corporate agents then sell to foreigners for $100.00 per ton. Our corporate agents personally take millions of dollars from this deal, which allows them to fund elections for candidates from local trustees up to the national agents who sell our coal for $1.00. On top of that, our corporate agents impose on us the cost not only of global warming, but also of building and adapting our local infrastructure to their polluting operations. Our local tax money will be used to build sewers, water, overpasses, etc. to accommodate their operations.

By: Gillian

Gillian — Fri, 25 May 2012 05:35:11 +0000

No, it definitely won’t all be burnt. To prevent catastrophic warming, 80% will need to be left in the ground as stranded assets. That is one reason that miners are trying to dig up as much as they can right now.

Smart countries like Ecuador are negotiating to be paid to NOT mine fossil fuel deposits. They are the smart ones.

Discussed here — http://tiny.cc/x1muew

By: Clark Williams-Derry

Clark Williams-Derry — Fri, 25 May 2012 04:24:46 +0000

Yeah, it’s weird. But the C in the oil hooks up with 2 atoms of O in the air, so the CO2 is actually heavier than the oil it comes from.