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.
Does coal pollute the air in large quantities with anything besides CO2?
Huge, do a little reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P
CO2 cannot be counted as a pollutant as it is neither harmful to plants or animals.
CO2 has been confirmed by scientists and the courts to be a pollutant under the requirements of the Clean Air Act. You saying it's not doesn't really carry any weight. You also don't know much about CO2. Concentration in air above 5% are toxic.
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.
It's too complicated a subject for a lay person such as yourself, but the allocation of a wind resource to my load is done the same way energy is accounted for in the PJM power pool for all loads and resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
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?
Not many new hydro dams will be built. Most of the incremental resource will be wind and solar. That's abundant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
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.
No natural gas is a great fuel for power production. Fraking doesn't have to cause significant environmental damage. The states need to crack down on shoddy well drillers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
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.
Yeah the Morgantown Plant will eventually suffer the same fate as the coal-fired plant over in Alexandria.
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.
Seriously 50%. If so, then there must be some other predictable power source for the other 50%, because otherwise the computer you wrote that post on would not be functioning do to power swings by wind.
CO2 has been confirmed by scientists and the courts to be a pollutant under the requirements of the Clean Air Act. You saying it's not doesn't really carry any weight. You also don't know much about CO2. Concentration in air above 5% are toxic.
And windmills and solar power do not pollute? The only way you can justify that statement is if you completely blind yourself of all the pollution it takes to make the windmills and solar panels.
And CO2 levels will never get to 5%. I bet we could burn all of our fossil fuel reserves and still not get to 5%. 5% of the atmosphere is a HUGE percentage.
And windmills and solar power do not pollute? The only way you can justify that statement is if you completely blind yourself of all the pollution it takes to make the windmills and solar panels.
And CO2 levels will never get to 5%. I bet we could burn all of our fossil fuel reserves and still not get to 5%. 5% of the atmosphere is a HUGE percentage.
So you want to retract this statement, "CO2 cannot be counted as a pollutant as it is neither harmful to plants or animals." No problem.
So you want to retract this statement, "CO2 cannot be counted as a pollutant as it is neither harmful to plants or animals." No problem.
Under that criteria oxygen or any other element on the planet can be called a pollutant, that's deadly as well in a high enough concentrations. I don't know what the numbers are exactly but such a concentration could never be achieved. It's estimated the US has more than 25% of the worlds reserves of coal, absolute best case scenario and the US could continue burning coal for about the next 2000 to 3000 years. When I say best case that includes estimates on the unknown.
This is an interesting academic discussion but as practical matter coal and fossil fuels as an energy source will no longer be in use 100 years from now.
So you want to retract this statement, "CO2 cannot be counted as a pollutant as it is neither harmful to plants or animals." No problem.
Only if you admit to windmills and solar are more polluting (considering the pollution made in manufacturing them) than coal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Under that criteria oxygen or any other element on the planet can be called a pollutant, that's deadly as well in a high enough concentrations. I don't know what the numbers are exactly but such a concentration could never be achieved. It's estimated the US has more than 25% of the worlds reserves of coal, absolute best case scenario and the US could continue burning coal for about the next 2000 to 3000 years. When I say best case that includes estimates on the unknown.
This is an interesting academic discussion but as practical matter coal and fossil fuels as an energy source will no longer be in use 100 years from now.
True that about the pollutant.
But why won't fossil fuels be used 100 years from now mr coalman?
Under that criteria oxygen or any other element on the planet can be called a pollutant, that's deadly as well in a high enough concentrations. I don't know what the numbers are exactly but such a concentration could never be achieved. It's estimated the US has more than 25% of the worlds reserves of coal, absolute best case scenario and the US could continue burning coal for about the next 2000 to 3000 years. When I say best case that includes estimates on the unknown.
This is an interesting academic discussion but as practical matter coal and fossil fuels as an energy source will no longer be in use 100 years from now.
We didn't transition to the Bronze Age because we ran short of Stone.
Only if you admit to windmills and solar are more polluting (considering the pollution made in manufacturing them) than coal.
True that about the pollutant.
Windmill and solar systems are certainly not large environmental problems. Coal is.
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.
