This land is your land, these are your people

Beeman · #21 01/20/11, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian knight

No not all of them do 65% of the country gets their electricity from Coal Fired Power plants. So 35% get their electricity from other methods. But wind power is not the way to go. And Solar is so Inefficient that needs to improve greatly before solar is a viable option. Depending on your situation solar panels can range from 5% to 15%, And no more.
We are at the very least looking at 20 to 40 years before alternative methods are perfective enough to make a difference.

Few realize the waste from a coal fired plant is a big problem. Any question google coal ash spill Harriman,TN. I live near the next coal ash spill waiting to happen. They are now building a natural gas fired powerplant to take over from the coal powerplant, TVA John Sevier Fossil Fuel powerplant.

City Bound · #22 01/21/11, 05:38 PM

all the problems with coal are problems we just have to deal with until we can find a better way to make energy.

Nuke plants are not an option, period. They are too distructive for the long terms and without corperate welfare they could never afford to run.

Coal is cheap and abundant. If it is used more maturely it can be used with less polution.

greg273 · #23 01/21/11, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian knight

No not all of them do 65% of the country gets their electricity from Coal Fired Power plants. So 35% get their electricity from other methods. But wind power is not the way to go. And Solar is so Inefficient that needs to improve greatly before solar is a viable option. Depending on your situation solar panels can range from 5% to 15%, And no more.
We are at the very least looking at 20 to 40 years before alternative methods are perfective enough to make a difference.

I have to disagree on your dismissal of photovoltaics based on 'efficiency'.... When the FUEL is FREE, 'efficiency' isnt nearly as critical. And the efficiency of modern cells is closer to 20%. Some are even past 50%!
With a solar panel, it takes 2 years to recover ALL the energy it took to make it. After that, they produce power year after year with NO pollution,NO moving parts, and very little maintenence. And they will last 20+ years or more. Some of the first ones produced are still making significant power some 40 years later.
I dont see why the resistance to renewable energy. Just because its not a cure-all? It definitely needs to be a larger part of our energy infrastructure.

Stephen in SOKY · #24 01/21/11, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by City Bound

Coal is cheap and abundant. If it is used more maturely it can be used with less polution.

19 degrees outside, 74 degress inside and I'm burning "Dirty" bituminous coal:

This land is your land, these are your people - Homesteading Questions

arabian knight · #25 01/21/11, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen in SOKY

19 degrees outside, 74 degrees inside and I'm burning "Dirty" bituminous coal:

This land is your land, these are your people - Homesteading Questions

Yuppers coal is where its at, for the future anyways. Till they get way more efficient at other alternatives. Coal for producing electricity, is going to stay. We have a huge amount of coal right here in the States. No importing anything. And as far as oil goes we also have plenty of that too, harder to get at? Yes but ww have plenty.

City Bound · #26 01/21/11, 07:08 PM

A little coal, a little oil, a little wood, a little wind, and a little solar panels.
A little here, a little there, all adds up. Why latch onto one resource and milk it dry.

kirkmcquest · #27 01/21/11, 07:09 PM

Hey go for it, just don't tell me that my wood burner is bad for the environment while your using electricity from a coal burning power plant.

Tell you what, you heat your house your way and I'll heat mine my way until they come up with a readily available alternative that is pollution free. Deal?

arabian knight · #28 01/21/11, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkmcquest

Hey go for it, just don't tell me that my wood burner is bad for the environment while your using electricity from a coal burning power plant.

Tell you what, you heat your house your way and I'll heat mine my way until they come up with a readily available alternative that is pollution free. Deal?

Post of the Day.. Very well said. And keep the government out of things.

greg273 · #29 01/21/11, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian knight

Yuppers coal is where its at, for the future anyways. Till they get way more efficient at other alternatives. Coal for producing electricity, is going to stay. We have a huge amount of coal right here in the States. No importing anything. And as far as oil goes we also have plenty of that too, harder to get at? Yes but ww have plenty.

We've got plenty of sunshine also. And the know-how to turn it into electricity. And its free once you set up the means to harvest it.
Of course we're gonna burn coal for a good long time. The infrastructure is already there. Do we need to be building MORE coal plants....Perhaps. Newer ones are much more efficient, although there is still a lot of waste associated with them. But when that last mountain is leveled, and the coal is gone, the sun is still gonna be there shining.
Funny how you 'dont want to go back to the dark ages' in farming, but you want to go back the dark ages in energy production.

Nevada · #30 01/21/11, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kirkmcquest

Hey go for it, just don't tell me that my wood burner is bad for the environment while your using electricity from a coal burning power plant.

Tell you what, you heat your house your way and I'll heat mine my way until they come up with a readily available alternative that is pollution free. Deal?

You'll never see a soot trail or any particulate matter to speak of at all coming out of a coal-burning power plant. They have economy of scale, so they can do things to clean their waste gas that you could never afford to do.

But coding-out wood burning stoves isn't the way to go, and won't be necessary anyway. I believe those numbers, but it's the consumer who is turning it's back to wood stoves, not regulators. The problem is installation & insurance. Class A chimney pipe requirements are making wood-burning stoves cost prohibitive to install, then insurance rates are making wood-burning stoves prohibitively expensive to own on an ongoing basis.

next1 · #31 01/21/11, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

You'll never see a soot trail or any particulate matter to speak of at all coming out of a coal-burning power plant. They have economy of scale, so they can do things to clean their waste gas that you could never afford to do.

But coding-out wood burning stoves isn't the way to go, and won't be necessary anyway. I believe those numbers, but it's the consumer who is turning it's back to wood stoves, not regulators. The problem is installation & insurance. Class A chimney pipe requirements are making wood-burning stoves cost prohibitive to install, then insurance rates are making wood-burning stoves prohibitively expensive to own on an ongoing basis.

This is a different aspect: the abundance of shale gas in US had a knock down effect on the price of gas throughout the world. The tankers that transported liquid gas to the US are sitting unused. The price of gas for the consumer is very high. Why?
Are the new regulation something to prepare us for the loss revenue that the gas companies will probably experience in the future?
Are the new regulations initiated to generate more revenue for government and the ones that put them in that position?
BBC has an interesting article about the shale gas: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12242840
We look at the immediate regulations but in there, it's a strategy for the long term, that will affect all of us.