America's Power Archives - Oakland News Now Blog

Oakland From A Distance – In the ongoing debate against and legal challenges to the Insight Terminal Solutions Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, there are two one constant refrains heard. One is that the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal (where Insight Terminal Solutions is a Zennie62Media content client) is a coal terminal, when it’s not, and is designed to be a true bulk terminal that can facilitate the transport of commodities like iron ore and coal. The other is that coal can be replaced by renewables, and indeed, will be – so why bother maintaining a coal industry at all (as if it will just go away)?

The first question has been addressed so many times that those who once called the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal a “coal terminal” have now stopped doing so. For the second question, I decided to go right to the people who would best know the answer to it: coal miners.

To that end, I joined the Facebook Group Coal Mining 101, which has 12,800 members, and entered this YouTube video post from Oakland News Now:

What did the coal miners write? Well, without revealing names, here are the entries:

1. What a big ol load of bullshit.
2. Yes it can. If they like black outs.
3. Can one make steel from renewable?
4. Well turn your power off !!!
5. You can’t melt steel without coal. Steel that builds our cars, military, sky scrappers. You people are crazy.
6. Worked in a forge plant…any electricity will melt steel…coal in steel is like flour in a biscuit…part of the recipe.
7. No substitute for coking coal .. worked it for years…all that is left here.
8. Windmills. Takes a lot of steel and coal to make one.
9. Wonder why CA is having major blackouts. They shut down their coal fired powerplants in 95 but yet bought electricity off of New Mexico
10. Screw California the whole west coast fall off the US. Wonder of the Demonrats can swim.
11. Stop sending coal power to California
12. One day these tree huggers will regret their decisions to go away from coal! It made us the superpower we are today!
13. It will take one good winter which we haven’t had in a while and theyl turn a certain grid off to keep their cities burning but rural will be without and then they’ll say well coal wasn’t so bad after all. 6 years ago AEP in Eastern, KY came 4 kilowatts of loosing their power grid during the bug snow we had. It will happen and they’ll be sorry
14. Hi I would want to ask this way: Why do you want to do away with coal?
15. If you don’t need coal. Then turn your ELC and see how much you miss it. Then think about all the work that goes into being able to warm your coffee up in the morning. Trust me u really need coal miners and COAL.
16. They are full of crap.
17. I suppose we could burn our forest up in power plants that way between that and burning down our cities we could look just like West Africa.
18. Do they know about products made from coal?
19. Make up from coal steel electricy computer components gas desiel plastic carbon fiber cement home and unlike gas it heats whey longer whit just as btu’s

Overall, the sentiment is that those in Oakland who believe that renewables can replace coal just don’t understand the basics of electric power produced from coal. America’s Power, the coal industry lobby, asked “What would it look like if we actually replaced Indiana’s coal generation with renewable generation in 2018?” and determined that it could not be done.

In 2015 Wharton asked “Can the World Run on Renewable Energy?” Then, it struggles to provide a convincing argument that resoundingly says “Yes!” The Wharton Report says “The global picture is complex. Although coal production internationally is still increasing robustly, and the International Energy Agency sees demand growth of 2.1% annually through 2019,employment — at seven million jobs worldwide — has seen some losses.” And then it gives in and admits that “China’s reliance on coal remains a formidable obstacle. Coal produces 70% of China’s energy, and almost four billion tons were burned there in 2012 — a major reason that China has become the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. From 2005 to 2011, China (with vast natural coal reserves) added the equivalent of two 600-megawatt plants every week, and from 2010 through 2013, it added coal plants roughly equal to half of all U.S. generation. (At the same time, China is committed to renewable energy — with hydropower included, it’s already at 20%, compared to 13% in the U.S. But demand is rising and so is production: China is planning to double its power-generating capacity by 2030.)”

The truth is that China’s trend is toward a mix of energy production types, and is working to make energy derived from coal use “cleaner”. Indeed, it must be asserted that China and Japan are far ahead of the United States in advancements in coal industry technology with respect to climate change.

My question is this: why can’t America establish a top-priority plan to make traditional energy cleaner and not throw coal miners out of their jobs, with empty promises of employment in industries damaged by The Pandemic? It’s a question that deserves an answer.

Another question that deserves an answer is this: when will Oakland climate change activists start actually reading The Limits To Growth and the research that points to population growth as the real cause of climate change?

Indeed, Population Matters, the UK-based charity which campaigns to achieve a sustainable human population, to protect the natural world and improve people’s lives, reports:

The effects of global warming are already bringing harm to human communities and the natural world. Further temperature rises will have a devastating impact and more action on greenhouse gas emissions is urgently required. Population and climate change are inextricably linked. Every additional person increases carbon emissions — the rich far more than the poor — and increases the number of climate change victims – the poor far more than the rich.

Stay tuned.

The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet in the decades to come will be global climate disruption due to the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People around the world are beginning to address the problem by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology. But unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm those efforts, leading us to conclude that we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet.

– The Center For Biological Diversity

Oakland, Utah, Wyoming, and other parts of America involved in the debate over coal need a wake up call. In the ongoing policy debate about the Insight Terminal Solutions’ Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, the words of America’s Power President Michelle Bloodworth are a sober reminder of the need to maintain the reliable and affordable source of energy provided by coal.

In The Washington Times (sad that Michelle has to go to a conservative publication to address a problem that should not be a political issue), she wrote:

Policymakers know that our nation’s fleet of coal-fired power plants play an indispensable role in powering our lives, helping ensure that the electricity grid is both reliable and resilient. The coal fleet contributes to the nation’s fuel security and diversity, and serves as an insurance policy against electricity shortages and price spikes.

These are the functions of critical infrastructure during the best of times. In the face of the current, unprecedented crisis, the role of the coal sector assumes even greater importance.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has jurisdiction over the criteria that most of these policymakers rely upon to determine which segments of our economy represent essential enterprises, listed coal power as “uniquely critical” in guidance issued in March. Essential critical infrastructure like coal, DHS said, is “imperative during the response to the COVID-19 emergency for both public health and safety and community well-being.”

And while the nation’s power grid is diverse, no fuel source is more resilient than coal in the face of unexpected or extreme events. During the Bomb Cyclone of 2018, for example, more than 60 percent of incremental electricity demand was met by coal, while natural gas, wind and solar power faced outages.

Today, our fleet of coal power plants are playing an essential role in our nation’s response to the pandemic.

The Real Climate Change Problem Is Not Energy But World Population Growth

What is bothersome right now is that mob rule has come to have some say over America and the World’s energy future. What the mob should pay attention to is the very growth of, well, the mob. And by that, I mean world population control.

The simple fact is that climate change is due to a large and increasing Earth population density. Few want to pay attention to the real truth: we have to control future population growth. That has not been done, or pushed – reducing coal production and dreaming of a shift from traditional energy will not solve the problem; population growth control will. Calling for the “end of coal” is a silly pipe dream advanced by those who fear to see the real truth.

Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the environmental groups that addresses the link between population and climate change in its work, said: “If we don’t address population growth, our efforts to reduce that pressure on the climate and habitat and water resources will always be an uphill battle.”

And the report called “Why PoPulation Matters to Climate Change” by Population Action International, had this to add to the discussion:

Areas of high population growth and high vulnerability to climate change impacts overlap. Evidence suggests that the poorest countries and poorest groups within a population are most vulnerable to climate-related hazards such as floods, droughts, and landslides.2 Many developing countries are currently experiencing rapid population growth, increasing the number of people who will be exposed to projected impacts of climate change. Other demographic trends, such as urbanization in coastal areas and encroachment of populations into ecologically marginal areas, such as hillsides or degraded land, can exacerbate climate risks.

Zennie62Media is proud to have been commissioned by Insight Terminal Solutions to use its vast media platform and technology to get out the truth about climate change, and de-politicize energy economic development so we can maintain an affordable and safe standard of living. Further, I am personally committed to an effort to change the argument to save the World. The current over-politicized energy policy environment dooms the World to an uncertain energy future amid constant climate change, completely undisrupted by decline in the use of transitional energy sources.

It’s possible to have what we are already creating: a cleaner traditional energy industry. But killing traditional energy will not solve the climate change problem – population control will. Any claim to the contrary is baseless. The simple fact that a room gets warmer with more people in it is all of the model evidence one needs to show the larger global problem. We have to stop dooming traditional energy jobs and start saving them via improving the plant and equipment used.

In closing, if you have never seen the 1973 movie Soylent Green starring Charlton Heston, that film provides a more realistic model of a future we don’t want than any other popular culture has provided:

Soylent Green is a 1973 American science fiction film directed by Richard Fleischer and starring Charlton Heston and, in his final film, Edward G. Robinson. The film overlays the police procedural and science fiction genres as it depicts the investigation into the murder of a wealthy businessman in a dystopian future suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources, poverty, dying oceans, and a hot climate due to the greenhouse effect. Much of the population survives on processed food rations, including “soylent green”.