This is depressing. I that thought that “clean coal” was commercially non-viable because of the costs to scrub the noxious gases and particulates from the combustion product. Here’s a new perspective. “Clean coal” in this instance means removing impurities from waste coal before it is burned. The combustion products from the coal itself are presumably unaffected. Cleaning the coal before combustion enables the mines to use waste coal that would have been uneconomic in current plants. “It just makes sense to further remove the impurities from coal before burning it,” OMNIS Chairman Simon Hodson said in a statement. “This is truly clean coal production in our view.” And they get a $50 million grant from a new program announced last month by the US Dept. of Energy.
CNX Coal Resources LP and OMNIS Bailey this week announced they will partner to develop “a first-of-a-kind solid energy refinery” that will process waste coal at CONSOL’s Bailey Mine Complex.
The Pennsylvania refinery will ultimately turn waste coal into a clean carbon fuel.
CNX said the project, which began as a pilot earlier this year, aims to generate a clean fuel that can be used to enhance the energy content and performance characteristics of its coal product.
The quest for “clean coal” continues, now by utilizing a process to remove impurities from waste coal that would have been discarded.
I find it hard to argue with this conclusion, but I didn’t see it coming.
” ‘If anyone were to say China is playing a leadership role in the world I would say it’s not China rushing to the front but rather the front runners have stepped back leaving the place to China,’ said Zhang Jun, director general of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s international economics department.”
“Those residents without flood insurance are eligible for up to $33,000 in FEMA individual disaster assistance funds, although most will likely receive less than that, based on payments following other major disasters.“
It’s not clear to me why the government should subsidize home owners who choose not to get flood insurance. They’re home owners. What about tax payers who don’t own homes? Why should they subsidize home owners?
I think Jesus said it best.
For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him.” Matthew 25:29
Source: Louisiana residents without flood insurance face uncertainty
Here’s a great, timely summary of the financial problems in Puerto Rico. It looks like things will get pretty messy before the US government steps in to bail-out the Puerto Rican government. And who will benefit from the bail-out? The holders of Puerto Rico’s bonds, of course.
Q. Who would be crazy enough to invest in Puerto Rican bonds?
A. “a high-income person living in a high-tax state”
I think the best term for describing this fiasco would be “the Puerto Rican Put”, anomalous to the Greenspan Put that led to the 2008 asset bubble in the U.S. Investors were assured that Greenspan would keep interest rates low so they could invest in bonds without worrying about rising interest rates. Another example would be the implicit (but not explicit) backing of FMHA bonds by the US government. When the security behind the bonds (ie home mortgages) tanked the government bailed out the bond holders (not the home owners). It’ll happen again in Puerto Rico.
“What’s this business about Puerto Rican bonds and taxes?All municipal bonds are exempt from federal income taxes. In additional, if you buy municipal bonds issued by the place where you live, those bonds are exempt from state and local income taxes as well. Such bonds are known as triple tax exempt, and they’re a big deal for municipal finance and high tax places like New York and California. But Puerto Rico’s bonds are triple tax exempt regardless of where you live.This is not a huge deal for most Americans, but for a high-income person living in a high-tax state it can be a very big deal and it helped fuel a lot of lending to Puerto Rico that wasn’t necessarily thought through in a very serious way.”
via The Puerto Rico crisis, explained – Vox.
U-turn of the euro could be an exit threat after Greece – The Globe and Mail.
“Roach Motel”? I think columnist Reguly meant “Hotel California”: Call it the Hotel Euro Union.
The beckoning lady with the Mercedes Benz and the pretty boys she calls friends invite the stranger to stay for the night. Such a lovely place. He ignores the voices down the corridor…This could be heaven or this could hell.
You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave.
What a nice surprise. Bring your alibis.
A couple of weeks I ago I thought the Greeks deserved the catastrophe that is approaching them. After all, they’ve brought it upon themselves through decades of living beyond their means and electing irresponsible leaders.
Now that it’s time to settle the accounts, I think the terms that the Germans and French are demanding are too strict; they’re trying to save the Euro and correct decades of mismanagement (in Greece) with some gut-wrenching strictures.
My main concern is with the human suffering that the strictures or Grexit will impose. The EU, the Brits, the US, and Canada should get read to help Greek civilians get access to food and medicine. They won’t be able to afford enough of either if they have to pay with drachmas.
My secondary concern is the potential for civil war/military coup. Human suffering will dramatically increase political unrest and encourage the Colonels and the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party.
My tertiary concern is that if the West doesn’t step in to help the Greeks the Russians will, gladly, in return for cooperation on defense (naval bases) and energy programs (pipelines).
This is a great analysis of the big and growing wealth gap between us Baby Boomers and our kids.
Author Tamsin McMahon attributes this generational wealth gap to a combination of “financial discipline, public policy and good timing”.
- “Good timing”? Better to call it luck, as in winning the “ovarian lottery“.
- “Public policy”? “Turnout among younger voters is notoriously low, so politicians naturally target their campaigns to the seniors who actually show up on election day.”
- “Financial discipline”? With good timing and public policy on our side, we Boomers didn’t need no stinkin’ financial discipline. That was for our parents.
Seniors and the generation spending gap.