Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a scientist interested in environmental matters but I will never be an "environmentalist".
Coal is not considered "green" because of the mess made and/or left behind during mining, transporting, burning and disposing of the ash. It is only cost competitive if no attempt is made to resurface and drain the exhausted mines, reduce the dust from the coal trains, the sulfur pollutants made in the fire and the copious quantities of ash also produced in the fire.
Interestingly coal fly ash (ash light enough to fly away from the stack unless filtered out) from some coal sources contains am almost recoverable amount to Uranium. If we decide to switch from coal to modern nuclear fission we may have already mined and pre processed the nuclear fuel we will need.
Coal burned in a modern generating plant is about as clean as anything. The pictures of coal generating plants that folks have in their heads are of smoke stacks from 50-100 years ago. They're not like that any longer, but of course they still emit CO-2, as does anything that burns, breathes, rots or rusts, and a few years ago the Supreme Court decided the EPA could consider any CO-2 emissions as pollution. Don't be too surprised if one of these days you need an EPA permit to take a dump, or worse, to exhale.
I used to consider myself an environmentalist. I haven't changed my views on nature and polluting, but I'd never call myself an environmentalist today. They've gone way overboard in attempts to stifle industry of any kind other than their own. Even if their cause makes no sense, the goal is to slow down progress by tying it up in the courts by any means possible. Today I'd be ashamed to be linked with the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or any other environmental groups. It's a shame, because I'm all for preserving the planet, but they all go too far. Even the "local" groups that have reasonable goals in the beginning get sucked in with the wackos after time.
This is just wrong. First the coal plants built 50-60 years ago that have no environmental equipment installed are still operating so claiming it's all cleaned up is just flat wrong. Second a modern scrubbed and bagged coal plant still produces more harmful emissions by far than any other generation technology in use. Third phasing out coals fired plant will not "stifle" the electric utility industry. There are more than enough resources available to phase out coal over a 20 year period. Nor will phasing out filthy coal plants cause huge jumps in the retail cost of electricity. Modern wholesale markets are not priced based upon coal fired generation.
Interestingly coal fly ash (ash light enough to fly away from the stack unless filtered out) from some coal sources contains am almost recoverable amount to Uranium. If we decide to switch from coal to modern nuclear fission we may have already mined and pre processed the nuclear fuel we will need.
Greg I'm no expert here but you's still have the burn the product anyway? Seems there would be better sources if that was your goal.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2): Coal plants are the United States’ leading source of SO2 pollution, which takes a major toll on public health, including by contributing to the formation of small acidic particulates that can penetrate into human lungs and be absorbed by the bloodstream. SO2 also causes acid rain, which damages crops, forests, and soils, and acidifies lakes and streams. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 14,100 tons of SO2 per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including flue gas desulfurization (smokestack scrubbers), emits 7,000 tons of SO2 per year.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx): NOx pollution causes ground level ozone, or smog, which can burn lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. A typical uncontrolled coal plant emits 10,300 tons of NOx per year. A typical coal plant with emissions controls, including selective catalytic reduction technology, emits 3,300 tons of NOx per year.
Particulate matter: Particulate matter (also referred to as soot or fly ash) can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility. A typical uncontrolled plan emits 500 tons of small airborne particles each year. Baghouses installed inside coal plant smokestacks can capture as much as 99 percent of the particulates.
Mercury: Coal plants are responsible for more than half of the U.S. human-caused emissions of mercury, a toxic heavy metal that causes brain damage and heart problems. Just 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat. A typical uncontrolled coal plants emits approximately 170 pounds of mercury each year. Activated carbon injection technology can reduce mercury emissions by up to 90 percent when combined with baghouses. ACI technology is currently found on just 8 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.
Other harmful pollutants emitted annually from a typical, uncontrolled coal plant include approximately:
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent3.
720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
Thanks! That's a good explanation for me! Sometimes I want a technical answer to an obvious question!
Why would you think that the existing storage system limits the long term supply of gas, which is just one of several long term resources we will use to replace coal.
Why would you think that the existing storage system limits the long term supply of gas, which is just one of several long term resources we will use to replace coal.
It has everything to do with the cost, that suplus last year was the result of numerous companies tripping over themselves to get the product to market. The surplus drove the price down making it competitive with coal, that supply will stabilize over the next year or two. A lot of the drilling operations in this area ground to a halt last year becsue of that surplus, they weren't making enough money off of it. Prices will come back up for NG as the supply comes more inline with demand, certainly they will be lower than in the past but not as low as they are now. Only time will tell where the prices will settle but it certainly isn't going to be where they are now.
It has everything to do with the cost, that suplus last year was the result of numerous companies tripping over themselves to get the product to market. The surplus drove the price down making it competitive with coal, that supply will stabilize over the next year or two. A lot of the drilling operations in this area ground to a halt last year becsue of that surplus, they weren't making enough money off of it. Prices will come back up for NG as the supply comes more inline with demand, certainly they will be lower than in the past but not as low as they are now. Only time will tell where the prices will settle but it certainly isn't going to be where they are now.
Once closed those coal-fired plants are not going to reopen. We've barely scratched the potential of shale gas. Coal fired plants are going the way of the buggy whip.
The problem with an old coal plant is in the firebox/boiler combination. The turbine generator and electrical parts of the facility are working fine. So why not just replace the firebox/boiler part of the plant with one generating the proper amount and quality steam to feed the existing turbine generator units?
That would save money but utilites are about making money by spending money and saving rate payers money is never part of their plan.
Greg, who in their right mind is going to invest in improvements in this political environment? We've seen a plethora of new regulations that are never ending. If you've made these upgrades now you're going to face a CO2 cap that may be unattainable?
Years ago on one of those news shows they featured a coop in in Florida that wanted to make some upgrades but the EPA regs dictated if they did A they had to B. A was cost effective but B was not. They ended up doing nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
