U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-24-2019, 07:07 PM
 
Location: IN
20,765 posts, read 35,742,329 times
Reputation: 13172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
I grew up right next to a coal fired plant.
Close enough I could watch people walking on the catwalks on the plant.
Close enough that, twice, crusher house explosions cracked my windows.

Coal could eventually be replaced by something else, but as "blisterpeanuts" said:
"But it should happen gradually and organically instead of by arbitrary fiat that throws thousands out of work for capricious reasons."

And not for political reasons, either.
And utilities are not going to invest in coal power plants that are already 35-50 years old because that is an extreme case of the law of diminishing returns relative to other cheaper sources that are ALREADY coming online in very close geographical proximity. Regarding the jobs lost at the obsolete coal plants, they are generally reassigned to other openings by the utility itself. Some do take early retirement as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2019, 06:59 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,927 posts, read 22,160,026 times
Reputation: 9009
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
No, it's backed by meaningless publications.


In fact, in 2013, only ~1300 people were reported in the US to have acute exposure to Hg and only 24 of them got sick from it. NOBODY got sick from any chronic environmental exposures. https://www.medscape.com/answers/117...80257-overview


Your first reference is a meaningless account of how much Hg is expressed from coal plants each year. NO CONTROL info from yrs before coal burning plants is given for comparison. I have to laugh at their number of "58,000 lb of Hg are emitted each yea- detectable over a 1500 mile radius around the plant." What is that, something like one effing molecule per sq yd?


Please note that any Hg in coal, the remains of once living plants, was picked up from the environment in the first place by those plants. Those ancient plants did not manufacture it. We can therefore deduce that currently living plants are also picking up the same amount of naturally occurring Hg in the environment-- a point my previous post made obvious.


Also note that any recommendations made about safe levels of Hg in fish are arbitrary. There is simply no evidence supporting the numbers. The bureaucrats used the same methods to determine the safe levels here that they do in making auto exhaust emission goals: they pick the numbers out of their collective a--- um, thin air. No science to support it.
There are different forms of mercury. There is some mercury natural present in the earth of course, it's something that has been mined in the past (cinnabar for example was the primary ore sought). Methylmercury is the most dangerous and is what we get from these coal plants as mercury is deposited into waterways and bacteria processes it. Methylmercury biomagnifies through the food chain. Analysis of sediment cores from lakes shows 3-5 times more mercury contamination in the water today than pre-industrial times. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1995/fs216-95/

There's more in coal than just dead plants. It's why some sources of coal for example have more mercury than others, some have more sulfur than others.

People being treated is one thing but low levels of mercury in the body for long periods of time have impacts on health. There are probably thousands of people living with impacts from mercury with no idea they have it but it will quite possibly shorten their lives.

You're very eager to dismiss all the science behind the problems with coal but millions of us are not and want an end to coal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2019, 07:58 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
2,711 posts, read 899,321 times
Reputation: 2755
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
The debate is over guys. New wind and solar are so cheap that even those who love dirty coal plants are shutting them down. Take the loss guys. Pv < C
Most of the installations I have seen work out to Pv being anywhere from 5 to 17 times the current commercial electric rates, meaning the more of them we build, the more expensive electricity gets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2019, 08:00 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
2,711 posts, read 899,321 times
Reputation: 2755
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
And utilities are not going to invest in coal power plants that are already 35-50 years old because that is an extreme case of the law of diminishing returns relative to other cheaper sources that are ALREADY coming online in very close geographical proximity. Regarding the jobs lost at the obsolete coal plants, they are generally reassigned to other openings by the utility itself. Some do take early retirement as well.
I really don't have a problem with coal diminishing, as long as it is for economic reasons, but currently it is being pushed out to satisfy mentally deficient environmental wackos. And that is not right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2019, 08:07 AM
 
Location: IN
20,765 posts, read 35,742,329 times
Reputation: 13172
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
I really don't have a problem with coal diminishing, as long as it is for economic reasons, but currently it is being pushed out to satisfy mentally deficient environmental wackos. And that is not right.
Coal is diminishing in states like Indiana because most power plants are very old and polluting. They are replaced by natural gas and wind. Utilities have a long-range time horizon for investment, and the writing is on the wall for coal. Transmission line infrastructure projects, and efficiency improvements also lead to far less in the way of demand growth. In addition, Illinois wind is being sent east to metropolitan areas, that didn't even exist as recently as 10 years ago. So, utilities like NIPSCO have done the economics and run all the numbers and have come to the conclusion that coal is too expensive to continue on a business as usual approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2019, 08:22 AM
Status: "Nevertheless, America's baseball team -- Roar, Tigers, ROAR!" (set 11 days ago)
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,270 posts, read 7,416,756 times
Reputation: 15831
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post

You're very eager to dismiss all the science behind the problems with coal but millions of us are not and want an end to coal.

Moderator cut: From the sticky: Only respectful discussions related to a specific aspect of these topics, as they relate to Green Living, will be allowed on this forum. Posts that deviate from the aspect under discussion will be deleted as off-topic,the thread may be moved or closed, and infractions issued as appropriate.

Debates on the validity of theories or research as a whole (i.e sweeping generalizations or broad statements) will NOT be tolerated. Such posts will be deleted and/or the thread closed, and infractions issued as appropriate.

Discussions and debates regarding a specific study, questioning the credibility of a specific theory or source, or questioning a specific business practice continue to be welcome and encouraged as long as they remain civil, on topic, and quoted/paraphrased sources are properly cited.

This is not the appropriate forum for political opinion or political debates. Courteous discussions regarding general government interventions as they pertain to Green Living issues are welcome, vilifying a specific politician or political party/affiliation will not be tolerated.

Respectful posts from various perspectives remain fully endorsed; however bashing and bullying of any sort will NOT be tolerated. Such posts will be deleted and/or the thread closed, and infractions issued as appropriate.

Repeated violations will be considered trolling, and may result in temporary or permanent loss of posting privileges.

Last edited by harry chickpea; 04-25-2019 at 11:38 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2019, 08:53 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,927 posts, read 22,160,026 times
Reputation: 9009
Moderator cut: quoted deleted post not relevant

There is no logical reason at all to use coal anymore. It's the most polluting source of energy with the highest cost in terms of health impacts and loss of life.

And it's a well established legal doctrine that one person's rights end when they impact another's. No one has a right to pollute my air and water.

Last edited by harry chickpea; 04-25-2019 at 11:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2019, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Southern Oregon
2,892 posts, read 4,179,849 times
Reputation: 3097
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
There is no logical reason at all to use coal anymore. It's the most polluting source of energy with the highest cost in terms of health impacts and loss of life.

And it's a well established legal doctrine that one person's rights end when they impact another's. No one has a right to pollute my air and water.
The technology developed today for coal fired power plants are very clean, around 97% clean. What you see coming from the stacks of new coal fired plants is water vapor. Wind and Solar can not replace fossil fuel energy supply because they are not reliable and battery storage technology isn't there yet.

Here is a good article about Airport Solar Power Corp installation of the largest solar array in Oregon, you decide if it was worth the cost.

https://www.larslarson.com/wp-conten...olar-Power.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2019, 11:47 AM
 
Location: DC
6,495 posts, read 6,406,493 times
Reputation: 3095
Moderator cut: deleted quoted post removed.

It's important to recognize that you have no right to pollute. As soon as something leaves your property, and in many cases as soon as it is formed, it becomes the business of government regulation. Coal stack emissions, ash ponds, thermal discharge, etc are all subject to absolute government control. It is not a property right.

We are going through with coal plants what we went through with tobacco smoke some years ago. "I do mind if your smoke" means you cannot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2019, 02:04 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,927 posts, read 22,160,026 times
Reputation: 9009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj View Post
The technology developed today for coal fired power plants are very clean, around 97% clean. What you see coming from the stacks of new coal fired plants is water vapor. Wind and Solar can not replace fossil fuel energy supply because they are not reliable and battery storage technology isn't there yet.

Here is a good article about Airport Solar Power Corp installation of the largest solar array in Oregon, you decide if it was worth the cost.

https://www.larslarson.com/wp-conten...olar-Power.pdf
Whenever I hear the phrase clean coal I'm reminded of the Graymont Rexton project in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. This Canadian mining company acquired the mineral rights under 10,000 acres of state and federal forest lands and plans to strip mine it. To produce limestone for coal plant stack scrubbers. 10,000 acres of beautiful productive timberland gone forever to squeeze out a little more time for a dying coal industry. When that along with the mining of the coal itself is considered, even if the emissions could be dropped to the equivalent of natural gas, the widespread damage to the land which will last forever makes it anything but clean.

There is certainly more than steam coming from those coal smokestacks. Mercury is still being emitted. Particulates as well. Why would the industry be fighting restrictions on mercury emissions if they're only emitting steam?

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/28/67912...-not-necessary

My own state, VT, gets no electricity from coal. We get a lot from hydro power. Some from natural gas. We don't need coal. Even if fossil fuels remain part of the mix for electricity production in the U.S., coal can be entirely eliminated without a problem. It's the dirtiest fossil fuel.

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VT#tabs-2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top