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.
This may interest some of you... nearly 27.000 Mws of coal fired generation is currently under/near construction or being permitted now. While it's less then projected it indicates that we will be burning coal long into the future...... http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
Yeah, both of my sons are boilermakers and one is working for Bechtel on a new unit at Oak Creek Wisconsin. Big job.
Give me break you know as well I do a nuclear plant is not going to appear overnight. Could take 2 decades before completion, all the dam legal hurdles put up by environmentalists could take a decade alone to overcome.
Edit: just to add building a renewable energy plant is a no brainer when someone else is paying the bill namely the American taxpayer.
Nuclear and fossil fuels are more heavily subsidized than renewables.
HMMMM Your numbers are somewhat higher then the Feds
A more accurate number of all types renewable energy resources installed from 2003-2007 is 9707Mw. You will also note that 40,000 mw of non-renewable resources were added during the same period.....
Nuclear and fossil fuels are more heavily subsidized than renewables.
This is why you should read through an entire thread before commenting. Ethanol receives the most subsidy out of any fuel followed by petroleum and then "refined coal" which is not in the same baot as standard coal. Here's a quote from me in from the second page of this thread:
Subsidy and Support per Unit of Production (dollars/megawatthour) : 0.44
Refined Coal
Generation (billion kilowatthours) : 72
Subsidy and Support (million 2007 dollars): 2,156
Subsidy and Support per Unit of Production (dollars/megawatthour) : 29.81
Nuclear
Generation (billion kilowatthours) : 794
Subsidy and Support (million 2007 dollars): 1,267
Subsidy and Support per Unit of Production (dollars/megawatthour) : 1.59
Solar
Generation (billion kilowatthours) : 1
Subsidy and Support (million 2007 dollars): 14
Subsidy and Support per Unit of Production (dollars/megawatthour) : 24.34
Wind
Generation (billion kilowatthours) : 31
Subsidy and Support (million 2007 dollars): 724
Subsidy and Support per Unit of Production (dollars/megawatthour) : 23.37
Coal itself, e.g the coal that turns on your lights receives very little subsidy compared to the amount of electricity it produces. It receives roughly the same amount as wind which produces a very small fraction of the total amount of electricity generated.
The listing for "Refined Coal" is not specifically listed what it is in that document but the requirements for this subsidy can be found here:
This is subsidy for producing lower emissions coal, a proven process. This subsidy for refined coal FYI did not exist in 1999. Having said that being as coal is our most abundant, reliable, proven natural resource it would be foolish to not invest in such technology if you expect to reduce emissions and have the lights go on.
Here's some more interesting information we can extrapolate from that document. I could probably pull a fast one here but I won't, besides it will prove a point. This document is a little confusing as it's structured because the very first table only lists "renewables" and does not itemize the renewable sources and probably purposely. I could for example say:
Coal, Refined Coal, Gas and Oil and Nuclear received 6.7 billion in subsidies combined compared to the 4.8 billion that Renewables received however that does not jive with information I posted in the table above. Note the table above is relationship to electricity. To make it jive we need to look way down the bottom in table ES6 where you'll find where the largest share of all energy subsidies is going. Want to take a guess?
The money spent on ethanol is nearly equivalent to that which is being spent on both coal and refined coal combined. It's triple what is being spent on all the other renewables combined like wind and solar. That's a travesty as even the most greenest environmentalist will certainly agree that is by far the biggest failure of all the renewable energies and can never succeed as it is now and will most likely never succeed. It's probaly even much more than waht is lited here as the corn crop has been subsidized by the government for ages long before ethanol came on the scene.
Now you can argue all you want about the subsidies coal is getting but the fact is the money being sent down the ethanol black hole would certainly be better spent elsewhere. Hell, you might as well spend it on coal, at least it will actually go towards a very viable technology. Your renewable energy money is being sucked up by the corn and farming lobbies.
Now you can point to the large subsidy that refined coal is getting but as this subsidy is diretly going to the reduction of emissions of a proven reliable product I'm sure you can agree its money well spent? Yes, no?
What's your thoughts on the massive subsidy of ethanol? LOL... As I specualted in my original post above that proabaly does not include the subsidy already given to farmers for the corn itself so the subsuidation of ethanol in reality is proabaly much more.
on coal use. i am stunned on the frequent media attacks on alternative fuels. i love the green movement but we have painted ourselves into a corner. making our enemies rich by feeding OPEC 24/7 has got to stop, cheap oil is not cheap. our fears of alternative energies are being used to control us. noteworthy that china syndrome a jane fonda movie was a highly influencial tool in dissuading us from the nuclear program development. unlike france we are utterly dependent on foreign oil. why are the men that france honors, gore, j. carter, kerry, obama, held in such contempt in america.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 01-02-2009 at 09:37 AM..
This is why you should read through an entire thread before commenting. Ethanol receives the most subsidy out of any fuel followed by petroleum and then "refined coal" which is not in the same baot as standard coal. Here's a quote from me in from the second page of this thread:
The DOE numbers are simplistic. One huge example is nuclear. What's the subsidy to the industry of the Price-Anderson Legislation? Where's the subsidy of oil that reflects the US military presence in the Middle East defending our oil interests?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Now you can point to the large subsidy that refined coal is getting but as this subsidy is diretly going to the reduction of emissions of a proven reliable product I'm sure you can agree its money well spent? Yes, no?
No. If you go back to the mid 70s and include all the federal money spent of coal, you'll see a different picture. It's been heavily subsidized. Plus there is a hidden subsidy and that's the premature deaths, illness, and environmental damage caused by the pollution that pours from coal fired plants -- more radiation than a nuke, tons of mercury, acid rain, particulate, etc. There's no such thing as "clean coal"
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
What's your thoughts on the massive subsidy of ethanol? LOL... As I specualted in my original post above that proabaly does not include the subsidy already given to farmers for the corn itself so the subsuidation of ethanol in reality is proabaly much more.
Corn based ethanol is used as a gasoline octane boosting additive. We aren't using corn based ethanol as a fuel per se in any large quantity. When we can make fuels from cellulous we will move to ethanol as a fuel.
True however however misrepresentation of the facts... tons is always a number that make people look up. U.S coal plants account for about ---> 1% <---of the worldwide emissions of mercury. There's three sources of mercury that cause contamination. Mother nature, Industrial Pollution and recontamination cause by sources already present in the environment e.g some one digs a hole somewhere and moves the dirt and its considered new contamination. Those three sources are nearly equally divided, coal accounts for about 1/3 of the 1/3 caused by industry. Mother nature spews more mercury into the environment than coal.
Quote:
Basic Information | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.htm - broken link)
Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent.
You better come up with something better than the typical untruths often spoken by the emviromentalist crowd as I have done my research. I know what the numbers are, you won't win this argument with false statements becuase I'll pick everyone off one by one.
Quote:
Corn based ethanol is used as a gasoline octane boosting additive. We aren't using corn based ethanol as a fuel per se in any large quantity. When we can make fuels from cellulous we will move to ethanol as a fuel.
Corn based ethanol is a joke, even many in the enviromentalist crowd will tell you that. It cost just as much fuel to create it as you are making and some have suggested more for a net loss. That money would be much better spent on wind or solar or a anything else which at least hassome potential.
The corn subsidization is prime example of why we need politicians to get politics out of this. The only reason that money is being provided to ethanol is because of the enormous pressure the farming lobby can apply. It's not based on credibility.
The DOE numbers are simplistic. One huge example is nuclear. What's the subsidy to the industry of the Price-Anderson Legislation? Where's the subsidy of oil that reflects the US military presence in the Middle East defending our oil interests?
No. If you go back to the mid 70s and include all the federal money spent of coal, you'll see a different picture. It's been heavily subsidized. Plus there is a hidden subsidy and that's the premature deaths, illness, and environmental damage caused by the pollution that pours from coal fired plants -- more radiation than a nuke, tons of mercury, acid rain, particulate, etc. There's no such thing as "clean coal"
Corn based ethanol is used as a gasoline octane boosting additive. We aren't using corn based ethanol as a fuel per se in any large quantity. When we can make fuels from cellulous we will move to ethanol as a fuel.
Man you just can't take the truth can you?
FYI E85 is 85% corn ethanol 15% pet based gas. A bit more then an octane booster...........
Man you just can't take the truth can you?
FYI E85 is 85% corn ethanol 15% pet based gas. A bit more then an octane booster...........
There's almost no E85 sold outside of a couple of Midwestern States. The total US consumption of E85 is about 1-2% of the ethanol used in vehicles. E10, where most ethanol goes is an octane booster and oxyenated fuel additive use to reduce air polution.
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.
This document is a little confusing as it's structured because the very first table only lists "renewables" and does not itemize the renewable sources and probably purposely. I could for example say:
