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.
Coal is not cheap if the cost of medical issues cause by coal use is factored into the equation. Regardless of the impact historically, today there are alternatives far superior to continued reliance on coal.
Please document the "medical issues" caused by coal as an energy source. We haven't seen Coal Miner's Lung in decades-- simply using respirators now prevents it. The only research papers suggesting health issues from "airborne particulates" are easily dismissed for methodological flaws and flimsy statistical analysis.
Environmental issues? Acid rain is no longer a problem, hi sulfur coal having been rightly excluded from use. And can you explain why world temps have not increased over the past 20 yrs, yet HALF of all the fossil fuel EVER burned by men was burned during this period? While correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation does exclude it.
Measurements of energy usage serves as a proxy for the state of the economic & technological condition of a society. When those conditions are improved, so is the standard of living and its attendant health benefits.
The alternatives to coal are not all that superior in benefits. As those alternatives become cheaper, less coal will be used. As less coal is used, its price will come down and appear more attractive again. A delicate ballet will play out in the networked balance of price/demand among coal and its alternatives.
Measurements of energy usage serves as a proxy for the state of the economic & technological condition of a society. When those conditions are improved, so is the standard of living and its attendant health benefits.
Let me fix that . . . "Measurements of energy usage . . . " are sometimes used by lackwit economists attempting to find some correlation to create [a] validity their own measurements. You are a few decades out of date on this one, too.
Quote:
The alternatives to coal are not all that superior in benefits. As those alternatives become cheaper, less coal will be used. As less coal is used, its price will come down and appear more attractive again. A delicate ballet will play out in the networked balance of price/demand among coal and its alternatives.
Naw. You are missing the expense of Coal. The expense is NOT the Coal, itself. The Coal is so cheap that we burn it.
Expense with Coal is all the equipment and labor around it. Massive (expensive) Mining Equipment. A single plant is (now over) $1 Billion. The waste handling (ash) is Enormous. So is the Scrubbing and the rest of the Air Quality Equipment.
But the Central Plant Model is VERY attractive to Capitalists -- because all that "stuff" requires Massive Capital. And the hard part about Massive Capital is finding a "safe" return. For decades Coal Fired Central Plants -- often located near or next to Cheap Coal fit that bill. (in many cases the Utility also already owned the Mine).
But keeping the plants running is Very Capital intense, as well. Once the plants themselves Peter Out . . . there will be very little attractive about Coal, at all.
Let me fix that . . . "Measurements of energy usage . . . " are sometimes used by lackwit economists attempting to find some correlation to create [a] validity their own measurements. You are a few decades out of date on this one, too.
Naw. You are missing the expense of Coal. The expense is NOT the Coal, itself. The Coal is so cheap that we burn it.
Expense with Coal is all the equipment and labor around it. Massive (expensive) Mining Equipment. A single plant is (now over) $1 Billion. The waste handling (ash) is Enormous. So is the Scrubbing and the rest of the Air Quality Equipment.
But the Central Plant Model is VERY attractive to Capitalists -- because all that "stuff" requires Massive Capital. And the hard part about Massive Capital is finding a "safe" return. For decades Coal Fired Central Plants -- often located near or next to Cheap Coal fit that bill. (in many cases the Utility also already owned the Mine).
But keeping the plants running is Very Capital intense, as well. Once the plants themselves Peter Out . . . there will be very little attractive about Coal, at all.
Why does no one worry about what happens when the coal peters out? We only have so much of the good stuff left, then it is all crap lignite.
Please document the "medical issues" caused by coal as an energy source. We haven't seen Coal Miner's Lung in decades-- simply using respirators now prevents it. The only research papers suggesting health issues from "airborne particulates" are easily dismissed for methodological flaws and flimsy statistical analysis.
Environmental issues? Acid rain is no longer a problem, hi sulfur coal having been rightly excluded from use. And can you explain why world temps have not increased over the past 20 yrs, yet HALF of all the fossil fuel EVER burned by men was burned during this period? While correlation does not prove causation, lack of correlation does exclude it.
Measurements of energy usage serves as a proxy for the state of the economic & technological condition of a society. When those conditions are improved, so is the standard of living and its attendant health benefits.
The alternatives to coal are not all that superior in benefits. As those alternatives become cheaper, less coal will be used. As less coal is used, its price will come down and appear more attractive again. A delicate ballet will play out in the networked balance of price/demand among coal and its alternatives.
Read the EPA studies on health effects. Acid rain is not a thing of the past. My patio furniture gets etched by it every year. Global temperature have increase dramatically over the last 20 and 100 years. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
Wind and PV electricity already sell at grid parity in the United States. The ROI for a rooftop PV system is 12-20%. There's no ballet being played out. The US electric utility industry is just large enough that it will take 20+ years to work through the transition off coal.
Why does no one worry about what happens when the coal peters out? We only have so much of the good stuff left, then it is all crap lignite.
There are Centuries of Coal to burn . . . if we were so foolish as do so.
We would not likely survive the Scorching of the Atmosphere this could bring about.
So we can more easily: Just Leave It In The Ground.
Renewables are now: Cheaper, Faster, and (MUCH) Cleaner.
Only question is the pace of conversion. Most new Electricity Production is Renewable. Fastest stuff going Off-Line is Old Coal, to be Followed by Old Nukes. No Need for New Coal and No Need for New Nukes.
Read the EPA studies on health effects. Acid rain is not a thing of the past. My patio furniture gets etched by it every year. Global temperature have increase dramatically over the last 20 and 100 years. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
Wind and PV electricity already sell at grid parity in the United States. The ROI for a rooftop PV system is 12-20%. There's no ballet being played out. The US electric utility industry is just large enough that it will take 20+ years to work through the transition off coal.
Renewables are now: Cheaper, Faster, and (MUCH) Cleaner.
Where does the energy come from to manufacture the solar cells? How much energy does that require? Under optimum conditions, it takes a solar cell 2-6 yrs of use to "pay back" the energy it took to manufacture it. Most installations operate at less than 50% maximum potential, so that pay back period is more like 4-12 yrs, and the cells only have a 20 yr life span. Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture
I wish it were as rosey as the TreeHuggers think it is.
Where does the energy come from to manufacture the solar cells? How much energy does that require? Under optimum conditions, it takes a solar cell 2-6 yrs of use to "pay back" the energy it took to manufacture it.
That is nonsense, as PV can be used to Produce PV.
Not that it is, because All PV is already sold as fast as it is built.
But do you understand even Ford used horses in the early manufacture of his automobiles?
It was still the bellwether of the end of the horse era.
Quote:
Most installations operate at less than 50% maximum potential,
We do very specific math that most always matches the output to the site calculations. You do not follow that this is all very well understood science and engineering? Here is a typical Calculator -- PV Watts
And this is complete lunacy as the present standard warranty is 25 years. And the stuff from the 1980s is still working, so we already know the stuff runs in the 30 + year (or more) range. And the newer stuff is better.
You really do not understand anything you talk about?
PV cells start losing efficacy/efficiency after 20 yrs. Maybe they will still be useful at reduced output at 30 yrs. The literature is replete with studies showing that practical power output from wind & PV installations only produce at 50% of their max calculated potential in most applications. That's why England & Germany are now sorry they pushed for so much investment in alternatives- it's not paying off at the rate they hoped for.
"Power Trap – UK: The UK Institute of Mechanical Engineers has issued a report warning the government of a looming electricity gap in the UK between electricity generated and that required to satisfy consumption. The Institute estimates that this gap may be between 40% and 55% of electricity demanded within 10 years, 2025. There are multiple causes for this potential gap, but they can be summed as self-inflicted policy disasters. These disasters can be politely described as fads. One should note, that the report of the Institute refers to carbon dioxide as a pollutant, which has not been empirically demonstrated." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/...s-roundup-214/
PV cells start losing efficacy/efficiency after 20 yrs. Maybe they will still be useful at reduced output at 30 yrs.
No "maybe" about it.
[If] the Idiot-of-the-Americas - Ronald Reagan - had not pulled down the Solar PV that Jimmy Carter had installed on the White House . . . it would still be working.
The stuff just keeps on going. And Going. That is why on a Time-base Equipment Cost comparison of (with Time-Value of Money set to Zero), Solar is such an Easy-Win. Longest pay-back model is around 12 years. With a life of over 25. You know you are going to double your money, right from the start.
That it just keeps going . . . has become a potential future problem in that the stuff is more durable than the Olde Skool Shingle Roofs it is sometimes put over. During recent Hail Storms here in Texas -- the Solar PV is tougher than the Shingles, and actually tends to protect the (weaker) Shingle Roof underneath.
Quote:
The literature is replete with studies showing that practical power output from wind & PV installations only produce at 50% of their max calculated potential in most applications. That's why England & Germany are now sorry they pushed for so much investment in alternatives- it's not paying off at the rate they hoped for.
Very few systems are even designed or intended to operated at 100% of their capacity. Although my car may have a MAX (your cited basis?) Speed of 140 mph, I rarely go over 70 mph.
We do not design much of anything to operate at Max for long periods. Even Coal or Nukes, or . . . . that would just be irresponsible.
But as far as reality and German experience of Migrating their Electricity to Renewable. Actually it is OVER-Producing the projections and that is why the Local Coal operations are nearing bankruptcy. There, like here -- the Renewables Produce TOO much at times, and left the Legacy Plants running surplus with no Cash Flow.
Real Deal, there, like here, the Challenge is getting the Old Junk off-line in a well ordered (non-bankrupt) manner.
"Power Trap – UK: The UK Institute of Mechanical Engineers has issued a report warning the government of a looming electricity gap in the UK between electricity generated and that required to satisfy consumption. The Institute estimates that this gap may be between 40% and 55% of electricity demanded within 10 years, 2025. There are multiple causes for this potential gap, but they can be summed as self-inflicted policy disasters. These disasters can be politely described as fads. One should note, that the report of the Institute refers to carbon dioxide as a pollutant, which has not been empirically demonstrated." https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/...s-roundup-214/
Good gordies, you are going from dumb to dumber.
These are (barely) masked Climate-Religion / Anti-Climate-Religion sites . . . which is recognized as so goofy, the whole matter had to be banned from this Forum (Green Living) on the City-Data Site.
Did you even read those links? It is quoting quotes from folks standing up and saying goofy things at a forum.
That would be like quoting the nonsense you post on here, like it were some source . . .
Hey, wait a minute . . . IS THAT WHY you put some of your silliness on here?
Do you do that, too?
Last edited by Philip T; 05-01-2016 at 12:46 PM..
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.
