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.
It's about money. There's no peer reviews that are credible. The AGW science community have been caught numerous times, even colluding, changing the data. The chicken little's only want to hear that the world is ending unless these scientists get enough money to (retire to a private island) FIX IT!
Problem is, there is nothing to fix.
People would prefer to be lied to than be told they are being lied to.
There's a sucker born every minute.
That is true, a suckered is born every minute and we often see that when someone believes a blog without bothering to fact check it just because they want to believe global warming doesn't exist.....
TheCoalman, I'm curious, what's your stance on nuclear fission? It's cleaner than coal, it's base-load like coal, and not subject to the whims of the weather.
Your calculations are outdated, let me know when you have current information, it is that simple.
LOL. The calculation is not outdated, the only thing outdated is the variables. For example this will give you the cost per million BTU for any home heating application. Anything in quotes is a variable.
TheCoalman, I'm curious, what's your stance on nuclear fission? It's cleaner than coal, it's base-load like coal, and not subject to the whims of the weather.
I'm not for or against nuclear, I'm for whatever works based on the market. The only thin I'm going say on that topic is while an accident is unlikely you only need one, they are insured by the taxpayer and it's the taxpayer that will foot the bill in case of a disaster. It's very difficult to calculate what the value of that is and if you were to include it in the cost of a nuclear plant they would never be built.
LOL. The calculation is not outdated, the only thing outdated is the variables. For example this will give you the cost per million BTU for any home heating application. Anything in quotes is a variable.
For example Coal at $200 per ton, 24 million BTU's per ton and efficiency of 80%:
200 / (24,000,000 * (80/100)) * 1000000 = $10.41 per million BTU
It's my job to know these things, my offer stands. Put up or shut up.
Formulas don't change, calculations do because calculations comes from data, and data is changing as technology advances. So let me know when you have current data to go off of, I am happy to wait.
I am not arguing with what your job is, we both know you are a coal man, so I am sure you know the cost of coal.
So let me know when you have current data to go off of, .
Have it and it's guaranteed, offer stands.
Put up or shut up.
Quote:
so I am sure you know the cost of coal.
I'm going to give you bit of advice and perhaps the best advice you will ever get if you ever decide to go into business. That advice is to understand your competition as well as you understand your own business.
I'm going to give you bit of advice and perhaps the best advice you will ever get if you ever decide to go into business. That advice is to understand your competition as well as you understand your own business.
You do realize I am not asking you for statistics on coal, right? If I am not mistaken, you said you have data on solar that proves coal is so much better. I am beginning to think you don't realize that is what I am asking you.....
You do realize I am not asking you for statistics on coal, right? If I am not mistaken, you said you have data on solar that proves coal is so much better. I am beginning to think you don't realize that is what I am asking you.....
You guys have a several page discussion going here that I cannot see getting anywhere. "Better" is an ambiguous term and coalman is pretty much saying that better is defined by cost to the consumer. Using just that metric, I would tend to agree that coal is pretty good. But the reality is, energy now is graded by things that go way beyond financial cost. People look at short and long term environmental costs, health costs to the workers (i.e., miners for coal) and the public, ease and cost of transportation, reliability of the source, longevity (i.e., renewable vs. a finite resource), strategic issues for national security, etc.
Coal has been the standard energy source for 150 years for good reason - it is cheap and plentiful. But when you look at some of the other factors, it racks up high costs in other areas. So really your argument needs to pivot to which factors are the most important when deciding on an energy source going into the future, and then use those factors to assess solar vs. coal.
That is my suggestion.
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.
