Disappearing Industry

[layoutshooter]

"Mining is dangerous, and 'big coal' hasn't got a great track record at protecting miners from dying while doing their jobs, either."

Mining is dangerous, I know, my grandfather was killed in a mine in 1962. Having said that, it is no where near as dangerous as driving a truck is. In fact, it does not even make the cut of the 15 most dangerous jobs in the country, trucking is #8.

As it stands now we need coal for power. There is just, at least not yet, a total replacement for it. As to the danger, everyone who goes into a mine knows that danger, and take the chance. As do everyone who does dangerous jobs. That is a part of life. If no one did dangerous jobs the nation would shut down tomorrow.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2013/11/12/the-15-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/

 

[cheri1122]

'Need' is a subjective concept, it varies according to whom you ask: there are teenagers who need an iPhone, right?
What power we need can be supplied via other means, because the need for clean air and water is greater, IMO. 'Mother nature' can clean up after us to some degree, but when we go too far, there's no going back - it can't be undone.
As for the danger, it is magnified by 'big coal', the owners & shareholders who cut corners and neglect to follow safety recommendations, because the repercussions are negligible. Unless it's your loved one who didn't survive a cave in, of course.

 

[layoutshooter]

'Need' is a subjective concept, it varies according to whom you ask: there are teenagers who need an iPhone, right?
What power we need can be supplied via other means, because the need for clean air and water is greater, IMO. 'Mother nature' can clean up after us to some degree, but when we go too far, there's no going back - it can't be undone.
As for the danger, it is magnified by 'big coal', the owners & shareholders who cut corners and neglect to follow safety recommendations, because the repercussions are negligible. Unless it's your loved one who didn't survive a cave in, of course.

As I said, my grandfather was killed at Robena Mine, in PA, on Dec 6, 1962. He was the last of 36 found that were killed there. I am the oldest of the males of my generation and the first to have never worked in a coal mine. My dad was a miner, coal and salt, for most of his working life. My great grandfathers all were miners. My other grand father was a miner for years. I have been around miners my entire life and STILL have relatives and friends in coal mines. They make good money and are able to support their families. They know the risk, they CHOSE to take that risk. As I did when I fought fire and ran ambulance.

The fact remains that, for the time being, we still do not have a total replacement for coal in electricity generation. We will some day, not yet.

The fact still remains that mining is NOT even one of the top 15 most dangerous jobs in the country, trucking is.

The fact still remains that without people who are willing to do dangerous jobs in this country, we will have to shut the country down. That includes farming, police work, fire fighters, roofers, all more dangerous than mining.

Don't want people doing dangerous jobs? Don't go to Red Lobster. Commercial fishing is FAR more dangerous than mining, AND, does as much or more damage to the environment as coal is. It is putting multiple species in danger of extinction as we speak.

Reality is what it is. Life is dangerous. People have to do dangerous jobs. ALL forms of energy production damage the environment. There is no free ride.


http://www.usmra.com/saxsewell/robena.htm

 

[cheri1122]

I do not dispute that mining is less dangerous than trucking, but the difference is that the owners of trucking companies [and drivers] that increase the danger by cutting corners are shut down, while the mine owners get a gentle slap on the wrist.
Yes, the workers understand and choose to risk the dangers, just as we do, but the dangers could be much less, if the owners and shareholders didn't 'need' to increase profits by saving on safety.
If we need to replace coal for power, then we need to work harder at reducing demand while creating alternatives. That's what America used to be pretty good at: ingenuity. We've pretty much traded that for making profits, IMO.

 

[layoutshooter]

I do not dispute that mining is less dangerous than trucking, but the difference is that the owners of trucking companies [and drivers] that increase the danger by cutting corners are shut down, while the mine owners get a gentle slap on the wrist.
Yes, the workers understand and choose to risk the dangers, just as we do, but the dangers could be much less, if the owners and shareholders didn't 'need' to increase profits by saving on safety.
If we need to replace coal for power, then we need to work harder at reducing demand while creating alternatives. That's what America used to be pretty good at: ingenuity. We've pretty much traded that for making profits, IMO.

Mining is safer now than it has ever been in this country. Just like trucking. That is true for many reasons, just as it is in trucking.

We are not reducing demand for electricity, we are increasing it and reducing our ability to generate it. Coal will someday be replaced, right now, there is no total replacement out there. Then again, coal would be a GREAT addition to our supply of diesel fuel, cutting our dependence on Canadian oil.

It is not the need for profit that is inhibiting innovation in this country, it is excessive taxes and regulation. In other words, government.

You will find my grandfathers name here. Alex Marra.

Coal Miners Memorial Robena Mine, Monongahela Twp., Greene Co., PA, U.S.A.

 

[LDB]

What power we need can be supplied via other means

What are they?

 

[Turtle]

I do not dispute that mining is less dangerous than trucking, but the difference is that the owners of trucking companies [and drivers] that increase the danger by cutting corners are shut down, while the mine owners get a gentle slap on the wrist.

Not really. For one, very few trucking companies are actually shut down for safety violations. The very few that are, however, are shut down because they present a danger to the public, not to their own drivers. Two, coal companies get more than just a slap on the wrist. You remember the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in 2010, where 29 of the 31 miners at the West Virginia site were killed in a coal dust explosion? That one resulted in 369 separate citations totaling $10.8 million in fines, plus another $209 million settlement with the Justice Department. Criminal liability investigations are still continuing, with one former superintendent, Gary May, pleading guilty in March 2012 and confessing "to conspiring to 'impede the Mine Safety and Health Administration's enforcement efforts'". As part of that plea deal, the mine is being permanently closed.

Here's the list of the fines for the 10 largest coal mining companies for 2000-2009. It ain't chump change.

Yes, the workers understand and choose to risk the dangers, just as we do, but the dangers could be much less, if the owners and shareholders didn't 'need' to increase profits by saving on safety.

The same can be said for every industry other industry. Still, coal mining in the US is insanely more safe than in other countries, comparatively speaking. The US has the best coal mining record of any country which produces coal. In the above list there are a few deaths, not really all that many considering how dangerous coal mining is. Yet they were almost all preventable, and resulted from mine owner's ignoring safety. But as a comparison, in 2007, for example, in the US there were 0.04 deaths per 1 million tons of coal mined, whereas China had 1.458 deaths per 1 million tons of coal. The actual number of deaths for the US in 2007 was 34, which is a lot, but when you compare it to China's 3,786 deaths, it puts into a whole different perspective.

The US coal mining track record isn't nearly as bad as people may think.

US Coal Mining Deaths
1980: 133 deaths
1990: 66 deaths
1991: 61 deaths
1992: 55 deaths
1993: 47 deaths
1994: 45 deaths
1995: 47 deaths
1996: 39 deaths
1997: 30 deaths
1998: 29 deaths
1999: 35 deaths
2000: 38 deaths
2001: 42 deaths
2002: 27 deaths
2003: 30 deaths
2004: 28 deaths
2005: 23 deaths
2006: 47 deaths
2007: 34 deaths
2008: 30 deaths
2009: 18 deaths
2010: 48 deaths
2011: 21 deaths

China Coal Mining Deaths
2000: 5,300 deaths.
2001: 5,670 deaths.
2002: 5,791 deaths.
2003: 7,200 deaths.
2004: 6,027 deaths.
2005: 5,986 deaths.
2006: 4,746 deaths.
2007: 3,786 deaths.
2008: 3,215 deaths.
2009: 2,631 deaths.
2010: 2,433 deaths.
2011: 2,760 deaths

If we need to replace coal for power, then we need to work harder at reducing demand while creating alternatives. That's what America used to be pretty good at: ingenuity. We've pretty much traded that for making profits, IMO.

Other than reducing the number of people who use electricity, the only way to reduce demand by any appreciable level is to charge customers based on the true price of the utilities at a given time. If consumers could be charged less for using electricity during off-peak hours, and more during peak hours, then supply and demand would encourage the consumer to use less electricity during peak hours, thereby achieving the main goal of demand side management of reducing demand.

The power we need cannot simply be supplied by other means at all, much less do so where it's not cost prohibitive. If we shut down all fossil plants right now, nuclear power, hydroelectric, wind, and solar would only cover about 16% of the country's power needs. Spain is being hailed by Greenies as the showpiece for renewable energy, as they just in 2013 because the first country on the planet to use more wind energy (20.9%) than any other energy source (nuclear was a close second at 20.8%). But, Spain's wind and other renewables are heavily, heavily subsidized, and now Spain is ridiculously in debt over the subsidies. When the subsidies go away, no one will be able to afford the wind energy they are producing now, much less in the future.

 

[layoutshooter]

The stats don't tell the entire story either. I would be willing to guess that a rather large percentage of the injuries and deaths, in coal mines and all other industries, are due to carelessness or negligence on the part of the workers themselves. Not every thing can be blamed on the need for profit and the "greedy" companies.

Are there bad companies? You can bet your boots there are. Is that the sole cause for problems? No possible way. There is plenty of blame to go around. Sometimes, things just happen. There is no way to eliminate all danger to people in jobs, without first not having people working

 

[skyraider]

I guess coal in America is going the way of the steam locomotive. It is a old fashion way of heating and generating electrical power. I was privileged to have shoveled coal into the stoker at my grandmother's house in the 50s and 60s. It was fun ,and the furnace worked well. Now days, I would guess you cannot even buy a load of coal or a bag of coal. I have not seen any in years. The last coal trucks I saw were in the early 70s when they hauled it from Palmer , tn to the river barges . Coal mine is closed now.

C and S railroad has lost a high percentage of their coal load in Tennessee and its a big deal. TVA plants are converting to natural gas here .

 

[layoutshooter]

I guess coal in America is going the way of the steam locomotive. It is a old fashion way of heating and generating electrical power. I was privileged to have shoveled coal into the stoker at my grandmother's house in the 50s and 60s. It was fun ,and the furnace worked well. Now days, I would guess you cannot even buy a load of coal or a bag of coal. I have not seen any in years. The last coal trucks I saw were in the early 70s when they hauled it from Palmer , tn to the river barges . Coal mine is closed now.

C and S railroad has lost a high percentage of their coal load in Tennessee and its a big deal. TVA plants are converting to natural gas here .

A present there is still a lot of coal fired electricity plants in use and, unless forced out by regulation, will have to remain in operation for a long while yet. The plant in Trenton, Michigan, that is being shut down is not being converted into a gas fired plant. All those jobs will be lost and there will be no replacement in near future for the lost generation capacity. Not good considering the demand for electricity continues to grow.

There are still a lot of houses in PA that heat with coal. The highest numbers are in the anthracite region, of PA. Anthracite, hard coal, is much cleaner burning than bituminous, soft coal, is.

We can use coal cleanly. It is a viable, and needed, fuel source for the near future. We have ample supplies. Turning the coal into liquid fuels is the key to day. It can be made into a high quality, clean diesel fuel, and can be used in oil fired electricity plants.

We need all energy sources. The best way to get rid of fossil fuel use for electricity is nukes plants. The thorium reactors they are looking at show great promise.

Our biggest problem is a government that is controlling in industry. They are regulating what they want to see happen and not allowing real, effective alternatives to be developed.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

You also need batteries to store the electricity. Storage batteries are made up of lead plates. Lead lives in the ground, which requires mining and then smelting. The Greenies think solar power is magic and comes free with no environmental consequences attached.

Those batteries last upwards of 10 years. Of course there's an environmental cost. Their argument is that it's not as big a cost as something like coal, and I tend to agree. Trouble is, solar power is, IMO, not made to benefit the masses. It's the answer to one's living off the grid, if they can afford to.

 

[layoutshooter]

Those batteries last upwards of 10 years. Of course there's an environmental cost. Their argument is that it's not as big a cost as something like coal, and I tend to agree. Trouble is, solar power is, IMO, not made to benefit the masses. It's the answer to one's living off the grid, if they can afford to.

The only real remaining damage from the "oil boom" days is in the few areas that acid was spilled. IF we put lots of batteries into the system the chances of spills will increase. Then there is the lead smelting process, something the government is already messing with.

What I am getting at is that there is no "silver bullet" that is going to "save us". At least not right now. Years down the road? Maybe. You can bet their are people looking at it. There would be more if industry was turned loose. Right now, industry is being "restrained" by government policy.

 

[Maverick]

The only real remaining damage from the "oil boom" days is in the few areas that acid was spilled. IF we put lots of batteries into the system the chances of spills will increase. Then there is the lead smelting process, something the government is already messing with.

What I am getting at is that there is no "silver bullet" that is going to "save us". At least not right now. Years down the road? Maybe. You can bet their are people looking at it. There would be more if industry was turned loose. Right now, industry is being "restrained" by government policy.

And there you have it.

Model A Ford from early 1900 got around 20MPG. 100 years later....still 20MPG considering PU trucks, vans, and a decent HP car. But a simple laptop will now compute huge amounts of data, vs the original mainframe computer.

What's holding most of the new technology down, are the ones who have a monopoly grip on the moving forward aspect. And who's protecting and supporting those people with tax breaks, offshore accounts, and legislation? LOS just gave more than a hint.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

And there you have it.

Model A Ford from early 1900 got around 20MPG. 100 years later....still 20MPG considering PU trucks, vans, and a decent HP car. But a simple laptop will now compute huge amounts of data, vs the original mainframe computer.

What's holding most of the new technology down, are the ones who have a monopoly grip on the moving forward aspect. And who's protecting and supporting those people with tax breaks, offshore accounts, and legislation? LOS just gave more than a hint.

Government is not the only entity that benefits from low MPG. Big oil does too. And I'd bet moreso, that it's the latter that has made a deal with the auto companies to keep that technology away from the consumer.

 

[layoutshooter]

Government is not the only entity that benefits from low MPG. Big oil does too. And I'd bet moreso, that it's the latter that has made a deal with the auto companies to keep that technology away from the consumer.

I don't know how much is "deals" and how much is that people don't really want cars that get really good mileage. Most people want performance. They don't want to have to run through a ton of gears to get up to speed. I also don't know how battery stuff is being held back. Just think how much the person/company would make that invents the battery that can hold a zillion amp hours, charges in an instant, discharges slowly and evenly, and weighs 5 pounds.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

The only real remaining damage from the "oil boom" days is in the few areas that acid was spilled. IF we put lots of batteries into the system the chances of spills will increase. Then there is the lead smelting process, something the government is already messing with.

What I am getting at is that there is no "silver bullet" that is going to "save us". At least not right now. Years down the road? Maybe. You can bet their are people looking at it. There would be more if industry was turned loose. Right now, industry is being "restrained" by government policy.

I don't know a heckuva lot about batteries. But I do know they recycle them. Come to think about it, we have one in every running car to date, so I don't know why they're such a 'new' issue. I think their time will come, as we continue to use our resources. Wind, water, and solar, are the only things that give us continuous opportunity to power our stuff.

So I agree that government restraining industry from making renewable energy feasible, is what we're looking at. Afterall, how can you tax something that comes naturally on any given day? All you can do is stall that scenario until we're out of oil. If it's one thing I know the government hates, is that people can fend for themselves. It's called liberty.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

I don't know how much is "deals" and how much is that people don't really want cars that get really good mileage. Most people want performance. They don't want to have to run through a ton of gears to get up to speed. I also don't know how battery stuff is being held back. Just think how much the person/company would make that invents the battery that can hold a zillion amp hours, charges in an instant, discharges slowly and evenly, and weighs 5 pounds.

I do know of the inventor of the H2O car. He was poisoned the day after signing a contract with the Pentagon, or so they say. Money can only be made on a car like that once, as compared to a car that fills up with gas every three days. A super high performance battery has likely been invented. However, something like that is not feasible to make money off the consumer. The government profits when you use stuff, then throw it away.

 

[layoutshooter]

No power is free of environmental damage. Hydro dams destroys most of the rivers they are placed on. Are causing the extinction of multiple fish species that we depend on as food sources, such as salmon. Wind has yet to be proven to be cost effective, anywhere, and wind turbines are known to kill raptors. So much so that the Obama administration has "exempted" wind farms from regulations against killing raptor. Wind in many areas guts mountain tops, destroys wildlife habitat and involves the use of large amounts of toxic herbicides. Solar pannels, at least right now, is very dirty to produce. They are getting better. They would work best on individual homes, with batteries. The key is the battery and it is just not there, yet. Some dude in his back yard will come up with it. Today's batteries just don't cut it.

 

[Turtle]

The vast majority of lead in lead acid batteries comes from recycled lead from lead acid batteries. Recycled lead is exactly as pure as virgin lead.

As for the conspiracy of keeping the MPG down on vehicles, there is none. The physics of the internal combustion engine, and of the energy stored inside fuel, cannot be changed. If it could, and it was physically possible to get a gazillion miles per gallon in a vehicle, then some rabble rouser rebel outside the control of Big Oil and The Big Three like China, Russia, The Netherlands or Djibouti would have done it already. They would simply do an end run around all this stifling control and just do it.

Same with the super high performance battery. There are people all over the world working on new battery technology. They day something new is invented it won't be consumer-ready, but then again neither was the Li-Ion battery technology when it was first invented, which is the technology that powers your cell phone, laptop, and the Tesla.

 

[layoutshooter]

If it was out there we would have it. FAR too much money to be made