Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Socialist propaganda site...cleantechnica.com And their facts don't add up with USDOE data.. leftwits making shit up to push their agenda... Priceless
Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas
Looks like capitalism will bring the swing to solar and wind.
Why do you lie and make it appear as if the name plate value is what it will produce day and night? Why don't you do a little research and tell us what it actually makes - REALIZED OUTPUTS! And realized costs to maintain..That is a lot of electricity
Bitter Regressive MutantsClean coal is coal that stays where it is; in the ground. Mining it causes problems. Shipping it causes problems. Burning it causes problems. Getting rid of the residue causes problems.
Wood burning is not equivalent at all, for once a tree has grown the exact same ash and CO2 will be released whether it decomposes over the necessary number of years or is burned in a wood stove. Any pollution is in relation to short term, local impacts, but the net impact on 'the environment' is the same. Wood, used this way, is merely a form of stored solar energy.
This is not to suggest wood energy should be used on large scales. It is merely a statement about burning and pollution. The coal in the ground isn't changing (at less than the eons of time level). Trees are here and now.
We simply have to be creative enough to tap effectively the prodigious quantities of solar energy that comes free and constantly to earth.
If we somehow need to use some coal to get to that point, that's fine.
LOL Fellow, obviously you need to move to Bejing. And, really, you should smoke three packs a day, just to insure your health. LOLWhoever Controls Language Controls Thought
The word "pollution" is a biased term and should be replaced by byproducts. "Clean" air is the most toxic of all. It is full of killer microbes and insects, both of which "pollution" kills. Up to a certain level, pollution is antiseptic.
It is the difference between driving down a rocky "polluted" road and a Clean Air road where bystanders are throwing rocks at you.
The Spanish Influenza, which killed 100 million people, was the last plague free to flourish; all others have been wiped out by increased auto emissions.
We don't shoot ourselves in the foot by killing our economy.. We lead by example.. which we are doing.Great idea, Billy Bob, but how do we "force" China (or any other country) to do our bidding? It's about like insisting foreign countries not build nuclear arsenals. We know how that's working.Ok idiot.. Force China to use known technology to stop this. we've been using it here for 20 years or so.. 98% off all coal fired plants in the US have zero emissions of heavy metals, acids, or particulates.About a quarter of the airborne mercury in Oregon originates in China. So you have a very good point, Old Lady.
Slicing our throats because someone else is stupid, Is f'ing stupid!
I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."
Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.
Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.
But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?
In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.
It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.
Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?
We don't shoot ourselves in the foot by killing our economy.. We lead by example.. which we are doing.Great idea, Billy Bob, but how do we "force" China (or any other country) to do our bidding? It's about like insisting foreign countries not build nuclear arsenals. We know how that's working.Ok idiot.. Force China to use known technology to stop this. we've been using it here for 20 years or so.. 98% off all coal fired plants in the US have zero emissions of heavy metals, acids, or particulates.About a quarter of the airborne mercury in Oregon originates in China. So you have a very good point, Old Lady.
Slicing our throats because someone else is stupid, Is f'ing stupid!
The thing I hate about coal mining is the destruction of the Earth that occurs in the mining process. Over 500 mountains have been destroyed. Over 2,000 miles of fresh water streams have been buried, the water down stream from the destroyed mountains are polluted with high levels of sulfate and selenium. Mountaintop removal has destroyed 1.4 million acres of Appalachian forest. And the ecological effect on wildlife is a disaster.
There are other ways to develop energy that don't destroy the Earth. Why people are so dead against using renewable energy. We have an abundance of natural gas.
The Bible is loaded with verses that tell us we are to take are of God's Earth. I think God is very, very serious. All those verses urging us to take care of Earth and then the Bible's last verse discussing the earth tells us that God will "destroy those who destroy the earth" (Revelations 11:18).
Choosing money over God's will is going to make the after life, hell.
Very, very expensive electricity.I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."
Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.
Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.
But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?
In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.
It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.
Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?
We may never find out. Because if a company invests in UPDATING it's pollution controls for REAL pollution -- they won't get a permit for the operation unless they reduce CO2 (which contrary to the EPA is NOT a pollutant) at the same time.
Screw the legalities and regulations -- let's look at a couple things.
1) Multiple labs are working on nanostructure converters that actually produce ethanol from CO2. Basic premise had been confirmed. Small scale trials in a couple years. Imagine turning CO2 into a actual stored fuel for reuse.
2) Carbon Sequestration -- is the process of channeling CO2 from the exhaust back into the deep ground. Essentially in form of "Club Soda" within rock vaults. Could do it -- kinda expensive.
3) Scrubber technology for the REAL pollution -- not CO2 --- is much better than what's installed. So you could reduce those SOx, NOx, heavy metal, particulants, pollutants considerably. But with the permit snafu because of CO2 regs, the age of plants and the hostile political environment, you'd have to moron to put money into upgrading OLD plants.
When in doubt -- commission a "demonstration plant". Seek all those newer technologies, and start a process to test drive one. With a less hostile political environment -- we might end up SELLING them all over the world as well as here.
Personally I'd prefer to junk coal technology or export it. And instead build out 80 3rd gen nuclear plants. 40 to replace the old ones and 40 new ones. No CO2 issue either.
They don't enforce the regs because the energy corporations lobby for and get exemptions from those regs. Exemptions bought and paid for. And if they don't get cooperation from the person in a legislatve seat, they will spend a great deal to see that person is replace. Kind of a political plata o plomo choice.We don't shoot ourselves in the foot by killing our economy.. We lead by example.. which we are doing.Great idea, Billy Bob, but how do we "force" China (or any other country) to do our bidding? It's about like insisting foreign countries not build nuclear arsenals. We know how that's working.Ok idiot.. Force China to use known technology to stop this. we've been using it here for 20 years or so.. 98% off all coal fired plants in the US have zero emissions of heavy metals, acids, or particulates.About a quarter of the airborne mercury in Oregon originates in China. So you have a very good point, Old Lady.
Slicing our throats because someone else is stupid, Is f'ing stupid!
The thing I hate about coal mining is the destruction of the Earth that occurs in the mining process. Over 500 mountains have been destroyed. Over 2,000 miles of fresh water streams have been buried, the water down stream from the destroyed mountains are polluted with high levels of sulfate and selenium. Mountaintop removal has destroyed 1.4 million acres of Appalachian forest. And the ecological effect on wildlife is a disaster.
There are other ways to develop energy that don't destroy the Earth. Why people are so dead against using renewable energy. We have an abundance of natural gas.
The Bible is loaded with verses that tell us we are to take are of God's Earth. I think God is very, very serious. All those verses urging us to take care of Earth and then the Bible's last verse discussing the earth tells us that God will "destroy those who destroy the earth" (Revelations 11:18).
Choosing money over God's will is going to make the after life, hell.
None of that NEED be permanent;. The restoration is relatively cheap and fast. Problem IS -- the govt LOVES to show people those pictures and statistics of enviro destruction. Very USEFUL to kill the industry --- so they don't enforce EXISTING regs that require restoration when the mining is complete.
Very, very expensive electricity.I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."
Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.
Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.
But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?
In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.
It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.
Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?
We may never find out. Because if a company invests in UPDATING it's pollution controls for REAL pollution -- they won't get a permit for the operation unless they reduce CO2 (which contrary to the EPA is NOT a pollutant) at the same time.
Screw the legalities and regulations -- let's look at a couple things.
1) Multiple labs are working on nanostructure converters that actually produce ethanol from CO2. Basic premise had been confirmed. Small scale trials in a couple years. Imagine turning CO2 into a actual stored fuel for reuse.
2) Carbon Sequestration -- is the process of channeling CO2 from the exhaust back into the deep ground. Essentially in form of "Club Soda" within rock vaults. Could do it -- kinda expensive.
3) Scrubber technology for the REAL pollution -- not CO2 --- is much better than what's installed. So you could reduce those SOx, NOx, heavy metal, particulants, pollutants considerably. But with the permit snafu because of CO2 regs, the age of plants and the hostile political environment, you'd have to moron to put money into upgrading OLD plants.
When in doubt -- commission a "demonstration plant". Seek all those newer technologies, and start a process to test drive one. With a less hostile political environment -- we might end up SELLING them all over the world as well as here.
Personally I'd prefer to junk coal technology or export it. And instead build out 80 3rd gen nuclear plants. 40 to replace the old ones and 40 new ones. No CO2 issue either.
Third and Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors
Third and Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors
Third generation nuclear power reactors, which are replacing the older second generation reactors, have safety factors which operate automatically instead of relying on human action and have standard designs so the approval process is shorter. Like the second generation reactors, they produce nuclear waste which lasts hundreds of thousands of years. Both second and third generation reactors use water to cool the reactor core.
Currently scientists in many countries are working on fourth generation reactors which would use new technologies. Their design uses a variety of methods to enhance safety, to minimize radioactive waste by recycling and using waste in the generation process, and to eliminate proliferation of weapons grade materials. The aim is to have a reactor which produces very little radioactive waste which has a much shorter life span, a few centuries. The United States has research groups working on a sodium cooled fast reactor and on a very high temperature reactor. China, the USA, the UK, France, Japan, Canada, Argentina, South Korea, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, and Brazil, are leading the development of the fourth generation reactors. They hope to have designs certified for commercial use by 2030. The lead laboratory for the U.S. is the Idaho National Laboratory. For further information, see the Department of Energy's Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
By 2030, we can have a grid entirely from wind and solar, using grid scale batteries to make those sources of power 24/7. Without the inevitable cost overruns of the nukes.
You Wont give up on this lie.. Its like listening to a broken record over and over again.Very, very expensive electricity.I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."
Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.
Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.
But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?
In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.
It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.
Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?
We may never find out. Because if a company invests in UPDATING it's pollution controls for REAL pollution -- they won't get a permit for the operation unless they reduce CO2 (which contrary to the EPA is NOT a pollutant) at the same time.
Screw the legalities and regulations -- let's look at a couple things.
1) Multiple labs are working on nanostructure converters that actually produce ethanol from CO2. Basic premise had been confirmed. Small scale trials in a couple years. Imagine turning CO2 into a actual stored fuel for reuse.
2) Carbon Sequestration -- is the process of channeling CO2 from the exhaust back into the deep ground. Essentially in form of "Club Soda" within rock vaults. Could do it -- kinda expensive.
3) Scrubber technology for the REAL pollution -- not CO2 --- is much better than what's installed. So you could reduce those SOx, NOx, heavy metal, particulants, pollutants considerably. But with the permit snafu because of CO2 regs, the age of plants and the hostile political environment, you'd have to moron to put money into upgrading OLD plants.
When in doubt -- commission a "demonstration plant". Seek all those newer technologies, and start a process to test drive one. With a less hostile political environment -- we might end up SELLING them all over the world as well as here.
Personally I'd prefer to junk coal technology or export it. And instead build out 80 3rd gen nuclear plants. 40 to replace the old ones and 40 new ones. No CO2 issue either.
Third and Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors
Third and Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors
Third generation nuclear power reactors, which are replacing the older second generation reactors, have safety factors which operate automatically instead of relying on human action and have standard designs so the approval process is shorter. Like the second generation reactors, they produce nuclear waste which lasts hundreds of thousands of years. Both second and third generation reactors use water to cool the reactor core.
Currently scientists in many countries are working on fourth generation reactors which would use new technologies. Their design uses a variety of methods to enhance safety, to minimize radioactive waste by recycling and using waste in the generation process, and to eliminate proliferation of weapons grade materials. The aim is to have a reactor which produces very little radioactive waste which has a much shorter life span, a few centuries. The United States has research groups working on a sodium cooled fast reactor and on a very high temperature reactor. China, the USA, the UK, France, Japan, Canada, Argentina, South Korea, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, and Brazil, are leading the development of the fourth generation reactors. They hope to have designs certified for commercial use by 2030. The lead laboratory for the U.S. is the Idaho National Laboratory. For further information, see the Department of Energy's Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
By 2030, we can have a grid entirely from wind and solar, using grid scale batteries to make those sources of power 24/7. Without the inevitable cost overruns of the nukes.
4th Generation plants, self scram and require little or no water or outside power to shut down safely. costs are 1/8th of older conventional style plants
Very, very expensive electricity.I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."
Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.
Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.
But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?
In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.
It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.
Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?
We may never find out. Because if a company invests in UPDATING it's pollution controls for REAL pollution -- they won't get a permit for the operation unless they reduce CO2 (which contrary to the EPA is NOT a pollutant) at the same time.
Screw the legalities and regulations -- let's look at a couple things.
1) Multiple labs are working on nanostructure converters that actually produce ethanol from CO2. Basic premise had been confirmed. Small scale trials in a couple years. Imagine turning CO2 into a actual stored fuel for reuse.
2) Carbon Sequestration -- is the process of channeling CO2 from the exhaust back into the deep ground. Essentially in form of "Club Soda" within rock vaults. Could do it -- kinda expensive.
3) Scrubber technology for the REAL pollution -- not CO2 --- is much better than what's installed. So you could reduce those SOx, NOx, heavy metal, particulants, pollutants considerably. But with the permit snafu because of CO2 regs, the age of plants and the hostile political environment, you'd have to moron to put money into upgrading OLD plants.
When in doubt -- commission a "demonstration plant". Seek all those newer technologies, and start a process to test drive one. With a less hostile political environment -- we might end up SELLING them all over the world as well as here.
Personally I'd prefer to junk coal technology or export it. And instead build out 80 3rd gen nuclear plants. 40 to replace the old ones and 40 new ones. No CO2 issue either.
Third and Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors
Third and Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors
Third generation nuclear power reactors, which are replacing the older second generation reactors, have safety factors which operate automatically instead of relying on human action and have standard designs so the approval process is shorter. Like the second generation reactors, they produce nuclear waste which lasts hundreds of thousands of years. Both second and third generation reactors use water to cool the reactor core.
Currently scientists in many countries are working on fourth generation reactors which would use new technologies. Their design uses a variety of methods to enhance safety, to minimize radioactive waste by recycling and using waste in the generation process, and to eliminate proliferation of weapons grade materials. The aim is to have a reactor which produces very little radioactive waste which has a much shorter life span, a few centuries. The United States has research groups working on a sodium cooled fast reactor and on a very high temperature reactor. China, the USA, the UK, France, Japan, Canada, Argentina, South Korea, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, and Brazil, are leading the development of the fourth generation reactors. They hope to have designs certified for commercial use by 2030. The lead laboratory for the U.S. is the Idaho National Laboratory. For further information, see the Department of Energy's Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
By 2030, we can have a grid entirely from wind and solar, using grid scale batteries to make those sources of power 24/7. Without the inevitable cost overruns of the nukes.
Ray......trust me on this......there is a better chance of me being the head of the National Academy of Sciences in 2030. In 2030, we will still be getting our electricity from fossil fuels.......in at least the 70% range.
4th Generation plants, self scram and require little or no water or outside power to shut down safely. costs are 1/8th of older conventional style plants
And yet nobody is building them
That's because they're very expensive vaporware.
If you disagree, you can stick it to us dirty realists by investing in these new miracle reactors and making a fortune. But you won't, as even you know how economically infeasible all nuclear power is.
Nobody is building new coal plants for the same reason. The economics of coal suck. Nobody wants the crap.
So, how much have you pro-coal crazies each invested in coal? If you haven't invested any, you should explain why you won't put your money behind your bullshit.
Ask the folks burning candles in southern australia how reliable windmills are.Old Crock posting up name plate values and not once posting up what they actually produce... all of his posts above produce less than18% and are unreliable.
Cheaper my ass!
All were getting from left wit morons is a hell of a lot of hot air!
You claim to have some technical knowledge. Don't you think there is a relationship between complexity and reliability? Complexity adds points of vulnerability, points of potential failure. A windmill made to the same level of QA is far less likely to fail than is a steam power plant based simply on the number of failure modes. And that ignores the added risks of high temperature and pressure.
