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 don't understand what popularity in a public predominantly undereducted on the subject has to do with anything.
Sorry I attributed that to the wrong poster, I though you posted it. That quote is from the results of a poll another poster mentioned at the start of this thread. They cherry picked one result and left the rest out:
When they poll climatologists, what they are asking them whether, as individuals, based on the scientific evidence that exists, they are convinced humans are having an impact on the climate, 97% say yes.
I'm assuming you are using the other poll that has also been shown to be flawed, I beleive I already pointed out why, pointless to continue if you want to continue to use that as resource.
I realize you're attached to coal, but this isn't an environmental issue. It's an economic issue and the next great economy is renewable energy. We can create TONS of jobs, but government has to grease the wheels with legislation and incentives to do so in order to level the playing field and make it cost effective for private companies to jump in.
Read that yourself and you may actually find how ridiculous you sound.
The Internet if you really want to go back was started as a military project. Just like the Space Program many innovations have come from military research and invention. It wasn't until the mid 80's or so when they lifted commercial restrictions that is was allowed to flourish into what we have today. Last I checked there is no limitations on renewables and in fact there is already many incentives in place as the industry is heavily subsidized at this point now.
As far as cars go the roadways evolved before/during/after use became common place. You can dig down in the road in front of my house if you want and find bricks under the blacktop put their long before the car arrived. They evolved as demand increased and produced an enormous economic impact increasing commerce on scale not seen before. You had a demand and most importantly a need for them.
The only demand for renewable energy because of it's enormous cost would be through legislation for dubious reasons at best which is the reason it will never cause the success the evolution of those two technologies created. Let me ask you this... do you think the car would have evolved as fast if they taxed the horse and buggy owners? Certainly not, innovation would have stalled, why improve something if you don't have too. THAT is the fundamental flaw with cap and trade. You're artificially creating a market for something where one does not exist. There is no demand for it.
Most scientists around the globe believe in global warming. Again, the GOP and it's conspiracy theory kooks are in the minority. There is this thing called scientific method and core sampling, try reading more.
Are you refering to the ice core samples that suggest the CO2 level was many times higher during ice ages?
During the late Ordovician Period CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today's CO2 level, but Earth went into a long Ice Age period.
Read that yourself and you may actually find how ridiculous you sound.
Look. You clearly have an agenda, "coal man". Your ability to assess these matters objectively is very difficult. I know you mean well, but your objective is to prove sustainable energy is bad for us, so approach your arguments from that perspective.
Quote:
The Internet if you really want to go back was started as a military project. Just like the Space Program many innovations have come from military research and invention. It wasn't until the mid 80's or so when they lifted commercial restrictions that is was allowed to flourish into what we have today. Last I checked there is no limitations on renewables and in fact there is already many incentives in place as the industry is heavily subsidized at this point now.
Thank you for proving my point that the Internet launched due to the government. You are absolutely correct.
Quote:
As far as cars go the roadways evolved before/during/after use became common place. You can dig down in the road in front of my house if you want and find bricks under the blacktop put their long before the car arrived. They evolved as demand increased and produced an enormous economic impact increasing commerce on scale not seen before. You had a demand and most importantly a need for them.
There's a difference between roadways which go back thousands of years and a massive interstate infrastructure to force people to depend on their automobiles to simply function on a daily basis.
Without Eisenhower's Interstate system, there is no fleeing to the suburbs, emptying of cities, and proliferation of the automobile culture in the United States. Just look at Europe as a contrast.
Quote:
The only demand for renewable energy because of it's enormous cost would be through legislation for dubious reasons at best which is the reason it will never cause the success the evolution of those two technologies created. Let me ask you this... do you think the car would have evolved as fast if they taxed the horse and buggy owners? Certainly not, innovation would have stalled, why improve something if you don't have too. THAT is the fundamental flaw with cap and trade. You're artificially creating a market for something where one does not exist. There is no demand for it.
False. There is extrarordinary demand for renewables. What sensible person wants to keep polluting if we don't have to?
The cards are stacked against renewables today due to the entrenched oil and coal industries, so it takes some cajoling incentives to push them along and balance the playing field a little so they stand a chance.
Where there is a will, there is a way. The future is clean and only a primitive society would depend upon fossil fuels any longer than it has to.
Onward and upward! The progress of mankind awaits our ingenuity and fortitude!!!
Look. You clearly have an agenda, "coal man". Your ability to assess these matters objectively is very difficult. I know you mean well, but your objective is to prove sustainable energy is bad for us, so approach your arguments from that perspective.
First of all I've gone over this before, I was a "Coal Man" before Global warming hit the stage and that goes back to My Great Grandfather who did it with a horse and wagon. I no longer run that business and my only financial interest in coal at this point is my forum. Either is going to benefit substantially from this legislation as people seek other sources of energy to keep themselves warm. As I said before I should be cheering it on, believe me or not that's your prerogative.
I never said renewable energy is bad for us, inevitably it's the future but I want cost effective and prudent application of it. What I have said is bad for us is legislation mandating it. If you raise the cost of fossil fuels to make renewable competitive what incentive do they have to truly make it competitive so it can stand on it's own two legs and get off the public tit? There is none and in fact the incentive is now in the fossil fuel energy sector which will ultimately prolong its use. We may achieve a short term goal but the long term goal of total renewable is going to be set back and we're paying much for energy needlessly.
Quote:
False. There is extrarordinary demand for renewables. What sensible person wants to keep polluting if we don't have to?
Well again are we talking about pollution or CO2? they are not one and the same as much as environmentalists try and group them together. CO2 is an essential part of life and this planet would not exist as we know it without it. Other than the Greenhouse effect it's harmless and please don't make the argument about it will kill you large in concentrations as there isn't enough fossil fuels on the planet to even begin to approach a toxic level. Air pollution as the EPA figures show have dropped by more than 50% since 1980, that's quite a significant amount an they are still going down. Pollution can be addressed because you do not have the enormous quantities as you do with CO2.
Quote:
The cards are stacked against renewables today due to the entrenched oil and coal industries, so it takes some cajoling incentives to push them along and balance the playing field a little so they stand a chance.
In 2007 the wind industry was receiving about $24/mwh subsidy, average nationwide rate for electricity was $90/mwh . So that's almost 1/3 of the retail cost. How much more of a level field do we need? In case your wondering the amounts given to coal and wind were about the same but because of the huge difference in generation coal comes out to about $0.40 Another thing to note is the wind subsidies were all direct tax breaks effectively subsidizing production, most of the coal subsidies went to R&D.
The next time you see one of these wind or solar projects listed in the paper first see how much costs and how many people they expect to serve. For example there was a solar plant they are going build near here recently in the news. Total cost was $65 million and they expected to serve 1500 people.... That's $43,000 per household assuming the figure of 1500 is correct and I'll venture to guess they are being optimistic. That's just to build it... We still need to add the cost of maintenance over the life of it and the profits for the investors.
Last edited by thecoalman; 07-25-2009 at 04:38 PM..
I never said renewable energy is bad for us, inevitably it's the future but I want cost effective and prudent application of it. What I have said is bad for us is legislation mandating it. If you raise the cost of fossil fuels to make renewable competitive what incentive do they have to truly make it competitive so it can stand on it's own two legs and get off the public tit? There is none and in fact the incentive is now in the fossil fuel energy sector which will ultimately prolong its use. We may achieve a short term goal but the long term goal of total renewable is going to be set back and we're paying much for energy needlessly.
Well, I agree with you on this point. The problem, however, is that oil is so heavily subsidized (to the point that our military protects private business interests), that the notion that there's a free market regarding energy is laughable at best.
It is, therefore, critical for government to step in in some way to level the field because it has already unleveled the field so significantly.
Quote:
Well again are we talking about pollution or CO2? they are not one and the same as much as environmentalists try and group them together. CO2 is an essential part of life and this planet would not exist as we know it without it. Other than the Greenhouse effect it's harmless and please don't make the argument about it will kill you large in concentrations as there isn't enough fossil fuels on the planet to even begin to approach a toxic level. Air pollution as the EPA figures show have dropped by more than 50% since 1980, that's quite a significant amount an they are still going down. Pollution can be addressed because you do not have the enormous quantities as you do with CO2.
Again, you're talking about in the United States after industrialism moved elsewhere, leaded gasoline was banned, technologies improved, and other regulations were put in place. We need to be talking global numbers. Our consuming habits have only expanded and our demand for cheap products has only increased the level of all greenhouse gases (including CO2) significantly worldwide.
Quote:
In 2007 the wind industry was receiving about $24/mwh subsidy, average nationwide rate for electricity was $90/mwh . So that's almost 1/3 of the retail cost. How much more of a level field do we need? In case your wondering the amounts given to coal and wind were about the same but because of the huge difference in generation coal comes out to about $0.40 Another thing to note is the wind subsidies were all direct tax breaks effectively subsidizing production, most of the coal subsidies went to R&D.
The next time you see one of these wind or solar projects listed in the paper first see how much costs and how many people they expect to serve. For example there was a solar plant they are going build near here recently in the news. Total cost was $65 million and they expected to serve 1500 people.... That's $43,000 per household assuming the figure of 1500 is correct and I'll venture to guess they are being optimistic. That's just to build it... We still need to add the cost of maintenance over the life of it and the profits for the investors.
I never said wind is the answer. I actually think wind and even solar will remain relatively minor players and perhaps at best wey stations along the way. There are far more advanced ways of generating renewable energy.
And, for the record, I have nothing against the use of coal. Especially in the manner in which I have seen you write about it (primarily rural, home-based uses) I think it can fill a strong niche. On a larger scale, I just think we can do better than running our cities off of it.
Well, I agree with you on this point. The problem, however, is that oil is so heavily subsidized (to the point that our military protects private business interests), that the notion that there's a free market regarding energy is laughable at best.
Yes if you want to include military spending oil certainly takes a big chunk of change but I don't think you attribute all the costs of overseas miltary operations because of oil. While on the topic in 2007 the largest subsidies went to ethanol surpassing everything else. Wind and coal were in the $800 million range:
Table ES6.
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids
FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 55.78
Subsidization : $1,921 Million
Subsidy per million Btu: $0.03
Ethanol/Biofuels
FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 0.57
Subsidization : $3,249 Million
Subsidy per million Btu: $5.72
And, for the record, I have nothing against the use of coal. Especially in the manner in which I have seen you write about it (primarily rural, home-based uses) I think it can fill a strong niche.
Natioanally it would only be suitable in rural homes, bituminous coal presents a lot of hurdles. It has a very noticeable sulfur odor, it usually burns with some soot and since the volatile matter varies so widely some areas would not have a supply suitable to begin with. Coal with a lot of volatile matter forms what is called a clinker which is mass that looks like molten steel and has the same consistency. Coal like that is unusable in a automated stoker and quite a bit of work in a hand fired stove.
Anthracite the type of coal I deal with doesn't have much of smell, at most you might get a whiff on very damp and warm mornings occasionally but you almost have to be trying to smell it. There's no smoke and it burns to almost a powder. It's very easy to use and is more than suitable inside an urban environment. It's a different animal than soft coal used by power plants. The issue with anthracite is that it's only found in Northeastern Pennsylvania with an estimated 6 billion tons of recoverable material. That's probably an optimistic number. It could certainly fill a small hole within the Notheast US but that's about it.
Lastly you can only produce heat with it, we actually tossed around the idea of making electricity but came to the conclusion it would be very expensive on such a small scale.
It is obvious that India and China can give two ****s about global climate.
We our in debt to China in the billions, so we have no say so as they would
give us the middle finger solute.
Yes if you want to include military spending oil certainly takes a big chunk of change but I don't think you attribute all the costs of overseas miltary operations because of oil. While on the topic in 2007 the largest subsidies went to ethanol surpassing everything else. Wind and coal were in the $800 million range:
Table ES6.
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids
FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 55.78
Subsidization : $1,921 Million
Subsidy per million Btu: $0.03
Ethanol/Biofuels
FuelConsumption(quadrillion Btu): 0.57
Subsidization : $3,249 Million
Subsidy per million Btu: $5.72
True. I usually don't include ethanol because it was a prime example of government trying to create an economy out of nothing. I knew it'd be dead before it hit the ground. I suspect if you look at graphs over time, ethanol will spike in 07 and maybe 08.
Quote:
Natioanally it would only be suitable in rural homes, bituminous coal presents a lot of hurdles. It has a very noticeable sulfur odor, it usually burns with some soot and since the volatile matter varies so widely some areas would not have a supply suitable to begin with. Coal with a lot of volatile matter forms what is called a clinker which is mass that looks like molten steel and has the same consistency. Coal like that is unusable in a automated stoker and quite a bit of work in a hand fired stove.
Anthracite the type of coal I deal with doesn't have much of smell, at most you might get a whiff on very damp and warm mornings occasionally but you almost have to be trying to smell it. There's no smoke and it burns to almost a powder. It's very easy to use and is more than suitable inside an urban environment. It's a different animal than soft coal used by power plants. The issue with anthracite is that it's only found in Northeastern Pennsylvania with an estimated 6 billion tons of recoverable material. That's probably an optimistic number. It could certainly fill a small hole within the Notheast US but that's about it.
Lastly you can only produce heat with it, we actually tossed around the idea of making electricity but came to the conclusion it would be very expensive on such a small scale.
Slurpee's all around ... I'm not buying it either.
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.
