urbanSTL

America's energy policy should be an "All of the Above" approach as we naturally transition to renewables. People need to weigh global warming with the impact that the coal industry has on communities. Areas like Southern Illinois depend on the coal industry. Many people (particularly in those communities) see the benefits of those jobs as outweighing whatever impact carbon emissions have on the environment. As renewable energy gets more advanced and cheaper to produce, I think the market will eventually transition from fossil fuels by itself.

There is still a huge export market for coal. That was the push-back during the climate summit in Paris from developing nations. Countries like India pushed back against the West's demands to limit carbon emissions because they saw the West's demands as being hypocritical since the West was able to industrialize using fossil fuels. Now that those developing countries are doing the same, the West shouldn't sweep in and limit their resources for industrialization (as the argument goes).

The trouble then for St. Louis becomes competing with the West Virginia coal fields (of course, this competition is nothing new). My current city of Newport News initially developed because it was a convenient location to ship the West Virginian coal to for export overseas. Today I can drive down to the Newport News Terminal of the Port of Virginia and there are massive, 6-story high mountains of coal waiting to be loaded onto a ship. (I also remember something about West Virginia coal being cleaner than Illinois coal, but I'm fuzzy on the specifics).

^Good info. My mistake in assuming that Peabody was primarily invested in the Illinois Basin mines, when the correct statement would be that the Illinois Basin mines are primarily owned by Peabody.

So that raises a question to me of how entrenched is Peabody in St. Louis? Before if the company was split between their eastern mines and their western mines then St. Louis was a natural location for a headquarters. However, with an increased focus and dependence on their western mines and with them selling off their eastern mines, is their any danger of them moving out west? Looking at the other top coal produces, Cloud Peak operates only western mines and is headquartered in Wyoming. Alpha Natural Energy locates Appalachian mines and Wyoming mines (with Appalachian production slightly outpacing western production) and is headquartered in Appalachian Virginia. Edit: Arch operates more eastern than western (though larger mines in the west), and as we know, went bankrupt.

Obviously, proximity isn't a must since Peabody owns mines all over the world, but it's a question at first glance since their top competitors are located in the general region of their primary operations (obviously, I'm more familiar with the coal mining heritage in southern Illinois than I am with its corporate workings). This from Peabody's website was encouraging, though:

The company operates multiple underground and surface mines throughout the Illinois Basin, the fastest-growing coal-producing region in the United States.

Opened in 2010, Peabody’s Bear Run Mine in Sullivan County, Ind., is the largest surface mine in the eastern United States, with an 8 million-ton annual production capacity.

Also in Indiana is Wild Boar Mine, the underground Francisco Mine and the Somerville Mine Complex located in Gibson County. The Somerville Mine Complex consists of three surface mines: Somerville North, Somerville South and Somerville Central.

In Illinois, Peabody operates the underground Gateway Mine and Wildcat Hills Mine, as well as the surface Cottage Grove Mine.

I'm doing some google research on the coal industry, and yeah, going bankrupt seems to be the new standard in the industry.

Apparently, along with tighter regulations, the big problem is that there's a huge glut of coal: http://www.dailynewsx.com/news/science- ... 12019.html

Alpha Natural Resources Inc., Walter Energy Inc., Patriot Coal Corp., James River and Arch Coal Inc. have sought bankruptcy protection since April 2014.

shimmy wrote:The trouble then for St. Louis becomes competing with the West Virginia coal fields.

We shouldn't kill the industries we have, but we shouldn't baby them either. We can't sit here and compete with West Virginia for an industry with a weak future. Algae might have a future. Maybe.

SunEdison is about the only thing forward looking we have. Mircogrid too I guess.

It is strange how little skin St. Louis has in the green jobs game. We do a little scrap dealing, but we're not great recyclers. The only slightly green energy that interests us is biofuels and only the not ready for market kind which the Danforth center thinks will be great in tropical locations and deserts (not here).

At least we have the Pure Power program which Ameren uses to buy from elsewhere rather than to build locally.

I think I should post these for Shimmy. Yet again an oil spill in the Mississippi. It happens every six months or so that I notice, and I'm not exactly looking for it. Not the kind of river city I personally want to live in.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... a512f.html

CarexCurator wrote:I think I should post these for Shimmy. Yet again an oil spill in the Mississippi. It happens every six months or so that I notice, and I'm not exactly looking for it. Not the kind of river city I personally want to live in.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... a512f.html

I don't get the argument. Should we stop industry on the river because we want a nice place to have picnics? And this isn't just directed towards you, Carex. For the better part of a decade I've seen the same argument on this board. Of course the city can do more to improve the riverfront and connect the city to the river, but I think the Mississippi is what it is. St. Louis isn't situated on a scenic, recreational portion of the river. It grew because of industry tied to the river. And when you have thousands of boats passing through, sometimes stuff like this is going to happen just like it does with cars, planes, and trains.

The river tied to our energy sector, to get this back on track, should be strengthened as a major asset, not a liability.