Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 01-29-2013, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,353 posts, read 5,129,553 times
Reputation: 6771

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Coal's biggest subsidy is the right to pollute. Remove the right to pollute and coal is way more expensive than any other electricity option.
Does coal pollute the air in large quantities with anything besides CO2?

CO2 cannot be counted as a pollutant as it is neither harmful to plants or animals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2013, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,724,472 times
Reputation: 6745
People should study how the intergreted grid works in this country.....Solor and wind have no mass or inertia, .....While they are technically synchronized to the grid they don't push amps....Without Coal or Nukes or some other isochronous generation to maintain cycles all the solar panels in world won't do jack for you.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Taos NM
5,353 posts, read 5,129,553 times
Reputation: 6771
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford View Post
People should study how the intergreted grid works in this country.....Solor and wind have no mass or inertia, .....While they are technically synchronized to the grid they don't push amps....Without Coal or Nukes or some other isochronous generation to maintain cycles all the solar panels in world won't do jack for you.....
This is precisely why wind power is the worst alternative energy source availible. Because it has such variation in the amount of power made because the wind changes in speed and direction wind power messes with the grid. For each % increase of wind power to the grid, the price goes up exponentially. If wind is above 20% of a grid, electrical devices fail to function as the power varies too much.

For alternative energy, you must not only look at the cost of implementing the alternative source, but you must also include the cost of natural gas generators to overcome the shortages induced by alternative energy. The only alternative source free from these issues is hydroelectric.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 05:23 PM
 
Location: DC
6,848 posts, read 7,989,918 times
Reputation: 3572
Coal is a filthy fuel. It's time to phase it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 04:14 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,039,086 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Coal is a filthy fuel. It's time to phase it out.
Well the likes of the Sierra Club has done a pretty good job of that, next up natural gas.
Quote:
Fractured Lives - July/August 2012- Sierra Magazine - Sierra Club

What about recent studies that suggest that the extraction and burning of natural gas has a bigger impact on climate change than coal does?

They're alarming. Studies in places like the Marcellus Shale and Colorado have shown that the greenhouse emissions from natural gas are much, much worse than originally thought. Unfortunately, there isn't yet a comprehensive empirical analysis of the full carbon footprint of gas. So the Sierra Club—along with almost every other environmental group—is calling for a full study that documents those emissions and the extent to which they can be controlled or avoided altogether.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 06:14 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,355 posts, read 60,546,019 times
Reputation: 60938
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Coal is a filthy fuel. It's time to phase it out.
Hope you enjoy living by candlelight. No more internet babbling for you. If you live in DC you need to figure out what generates your electricity. If you have trouble with it I'll take you on a trip to watch the coal trains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 07:41 AM
 
Location: DC
6,848 posts, read 7,989,918 times
Reputation: 3572
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Like the new mercury regulations that will reduce mercury deposition rates here in the US a whopping 1 to 10 percent and increase the average IQ 2/1000 of one point? At least according to EPA estimates and data. Yeaaaaaaaa Team!
You misrepresent the EPA's findings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 07:46 AM
 
Location: DC
6,848 posts, read 7,989,918 times
Reputation: 3572
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Hope you enjoy living by candlelight. No more internet babbling for you. If you live in DC you need to figure out what generates your electricity. If you have trouble with it I'll take you on a trip to watch the coal trains.
50% of my energy currently comes from wind resources up in West Virginia. My guess is I know a lot more about the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity than you ever will. There is too much coal in the generation mix to shut all the plants down today, but there's no reason ever to build a new coal-fired plant and no reason we can't wean ourselves from this archaic fuel source over the next 30 years. We'll have no problem keeping the lights on using a mix of wind, solar, hydro and natural gas resources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 08:12 AM
 
Location: On the Chesapeake
45,355 posts, read 60,546,019 times
Reputation: 60938
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
50% of my energy currently comes from wind resources up in West Virginia. My guess is I know a lot more about the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity than you ever will. There is too much coal in the generation mix to shut all the plants down today, but there's no reason ever to build a new coal-fired plant and no reason we can't wean ourselves from this archaic fuel source over the next 30 years. We'll have no problem keeping the lights on using a mix of wind, solar, hydro and natural gas resources.
Go ahead and think that. If you think that your personal electric actually comes from a wind mill in WVA you're naive at best. The companies trade power around the grid so while your alledged 50% might come from wind at any one time it doesn't all the time. That power likely actually stays in WVA.

Tell me about hydro. Dams aren't being built anymore and many of those in use are being torn down. And where in the DC area will any be built with the environmental regulations being what they are?

Natural gas is cheap now but doesn't it strike you as eminently stupid to use a primary power source to genearte another primary power source? Likely not, your type of "environmentalist" never thinks in those terms. Since you're so against coal I'm really surprised you'd advocate for natural gas drilling in any case with the environmental damage caused by fracking.

I'm actually going to be looking at your power plant in Charles County in a couple hours. It's upriver from my goose blind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2013, 08:33 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,039,086 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
You misrepresent the EPA's findings.
Here ya go:

Quote:
Economic Valuation of Human Health Benefits of Controlling Mercury Emissions from U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants

Changes in mercury deposition rates associated with reductions in power plant
mercury emissions are based on regional deposition modeling results from the EPA's
analysis of the Clear Skies Initiative. In its analysis, the EPA simulated current mercury
deposition rates and the changes in these rates that would result if power plants
reduced their mercury emissions from the current rate of 49 tons per year to either 26 or
15 tons per year. We used these predictions to estimate changes in deposition rates for
the freshwater regions, the Atlantic Coastal Region, and the Gulf of Mexico. Estimated
decreases range from approximately 1% to 10%.
The change in deposition rates to the
All Other Waters region is assumed to be proportional to the change in total global
emissions that would result from U.S. power plant emissions reductions, which is less
than 1%.


Quote:
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards


The average effect on individual avoided IQ loss in 2016 is 0.00209 IQ points, with total nationwide benefits estimated between $0.5 and $6.1 million.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top