Waging War in Appalachia
- Thread starter spklbuk
- Start date
Maybe so but there are only so many natural gas power plants and it will take years to bring more on line.
Not nearly enough to make a huge difference in the near future.
The technology is here now to burn coal cleanly. Just need Big Brother to cut the red tape and make it happen.
Not nearly enough to make a huge difference in the near future.
The technology is here now to burn coal cleanly. Just need Big Brother to cut the red tape and make it happen.
Not so fast...Scoop47501 said:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/01/clean-coal-confrontation/
But of all the nation’s coal-fired power plants (there were 616 of them as of 2006), none can be labeled "clean," which, these days, is defined as being free (or nearly so) of carbon dioxide emissions. Globally, the CO2 that comes from the burning of coal, mainly to generate electricity, accounts for about 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, coal-fired electric utilities in the U.S. put out close to two billion tons of CO2 each year.
Figuring out how to burn this easily available source of energy without causing major CO2 pollution is similar in some ways to the acid rain problem of decades past. Most coal-fired plants in the U.S. now scrub much of the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from their flue gases, rather than letting the chemicals escape to react with other substances in the atmosphere and lead to severe damage to forests and other living things. Carbon, though, is a tougher problem.
The main problem is this...
The world appetite for energy is getting extreme. And the appetite is accelerating like a reflashed S10 in first gear.
So there are lot's of conundrums. It's like a bunch of drug addicts tearing the cupboards apart looking for more drugs. Pretty soon we are smoking the old raoches in the jar and crushing up headache tablets just to get by.
The last time Australia used shale as a source of oil was in 1950 because it was way too expensive compared to that lovely honey coloured stuff flowing from the ground a great rates. Now we are back to shale but with expensive clever technologies, coal is found by blowing mountains up etc.
Now there is one good rule in this world that has served us well. "Necessity is the mother of invention" but right now we are moving to rule two
"Desperation is the mother of innovation"
Whether you spell that mother or MUTHA depends on your personal viewpoint I suppose.
The world appetite for energy is getting extreme. And the appetite is accelerating like a reflashed S10 in first gear.
So there are lot's of conundrums. It's like a bunch of drug addicts tearing the cupboards apart looking for more drugs. Pretty soon we are smoking the old raoches in the jar and crushing up headache tablets just to get by.
The last time Australia used shale as a source of oil was in 1950 because it was way too expensive compared to that lovely honey coloured stuff flowing from the ground a great rates. Now we are back to shale but with expensive clever technologies, coal is found by blowing mountains up etc.
Now there is one good rule in this world that has served us well. "Necessity is the mother of invention" but right now we are moving to rule two
"Desperation is the mother of innovation"
Whether you spell that mother or MUTHA depends on your personal viewpoint I suppose.
Coal River, WV number 9 in the top most threatened rivers in the U. S. for the 3rd time:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/potomac-coal-rivers-make-annual-list-of-top-10-most-endangered-us-waterways/2012/05/15/gIQAJOW0QU_story.html
Wonder what could possibly be the threat?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/potomac-coal-rivers-make-annual-list-of-top-10-most-endangered-us-waterways/2012/05/15/gIQAJOW0QU_story.html
Wonder what could possibly be the threat?
"Not so fast..."
A little rude but whatever.
Twenty miles from my home is a new coal gasifcation plant and this is the technology I was referring to. The current administration is holding up the process because they don't want any fossil fuels .
At this point I will bow out of this thread and go back to riding.
Scooper
A little rude but whatever.
Twenty miles from my home is a new coal gasifcation plant and this is the technology I was referring to. The current administration is holding up the process because they don't want any fossil fuels .
At this point I will bow out of this thread and go back to riding.
Scooper
Sorry, wasn't meant to be.Scoop47501 said:
Just wanted to point out things are not so clear cut. IF "clean coal" was real, the technology viable and affordable, then there would be no problem. I'm not sure how you can say the administration is against "fossil fuels" when Obama was actually talking up clean coal leading up to his election. It seems like the technology isn't there yet so they are pushing renewables - they also need work to make viable, but it's hard to believe that anyone would think it's a bad idea. Whereas coal, even if it is burned as "clean coal", causes a lot of damage in its extraction.
The reality is that ALL options need to be on the table - nuclear, oil, gas, coal, renewables and... this is a tough one for a lot of Americans... conservation. But that's what it's coming to. And if you add global climate change into the equation, coal drops even further down the list of preferred energy sources.
You might find this interesting..dcstrom said:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/
This guy approaches it from a dry as a bone in the desert mathematical political free zone perspective, and yes we need all options on the table. Seems many people in your adopted country and mine are missing out on the benefits of the "need" to mine stuff and have to cop all the downsides, while some are getting the benefits and all the upsides, but I totally agree that the situation requires all options on the table and preferably without politics involved.
It's like riding, when you are starting to ride too fast for the conditions you either slow down or your chances of a bad ending climb fast.
All we can say for certain is we are trying to go faster with deteriorating road conditions.
One thing that always bugged me though is with all the energy use growth in the world, ALL energy producing activities should be very busy and welcomed.
The problem is always cost. Society has been used to ever increasing efficiencies lowering the cost of things for decades but as we ramp up the use the side effects become more apparent to those want to look.
Seen any rivers burning lately?
How about sewage in the streets?
Anyone live on a trash heap?
How's the town water? Still brown?
Found any maggots in your meat lately?
This is just the next phase and it is going to add a bit of cost to things. No one stopped driving cars, or eating meat or going to the toilet or drinking or riding bikes.
I am sure I heard a bunch of people telling me we were all rooooned because of those new fangled Electronic ignition modules. And those new EFI thingamagigs were going to be the end of us and ABS is just dangerous.
I can guarabtee you that if the world population was 500 milliion none of this would be even an issue. The earth would cope, the rivers would still be pretty clean and it wouldn't really matter that you had a smoky exhaust. The fossil fuels would be expected to last for millenia and there would be huge areas to ride in that were pristine.
But we kept bonking and consuming. So at some point we have to start paying for what nature can't provide for free anymore, because poor old mum Nature is just about run ragged trying to keep up with all her kids. At some point we will have to do our own washing, cooking, darning and take out the trash ourselves.
Then we may start to realize that the less cooking, darning, washing and trash creation, the better.
Of course the wealthy will still hire help and continue to make "reality" TV shows.