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 the greatest source of mercury in the environment. .
Coal is the largest "single source of man made mercury emissions in the U.S. The keyword(s) are "single" and "man made". Coal accounts for 1/3 of the mercury produced in the U.S., overall about 1 percent of the worldwide total. I beleive the single greatest source in the U.S. and elsewhere is the environment itself. There was graph on the EPA website but I cannot find it at the moment. In any event naturally occurring emissions are significant, are we going to ban mother nature?
Anyhow:
Quote:
Basic Information | Clean Air Mercury Rule | US EPA (http://www.epa.gov/camr/basic.htm - broken link)
Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent.
Last edited by thecoalman; 11-27-2008 at 12:44 PM..
The area where i live wouldn't be suitable. There isn't a large enough area. It's a densely populated and even if they had room it would be sitting right in the middle or very large urban population. There is one quite close though about 50 miles with a much more suitable location. A nuclear plant needs an enormous amount of water so it has to be placed near a water source which is something available here hence the reason there is one 50 miles away in less populated area. I mean honestly if you're going to build them they shouldn't be near urban areas for obvious reasons, that's just common sense.
Natural sources of mercury—such as volcanic eruptions and emissions from the ocean—have been estimated to contribute about a third of current worldwide mercury air emissions, whereas anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions account for the remaining two-thirds. These estimates are highly uncertain. Much of the mercury circulating through today's environment is mercury that was released years ago, when mercury was commonly used in many industrial, commercial, and residential products and processes.
Seriously, when is the last time a new nuclear power plant has been built in the USA?
France is almost 80% powered by nuclear power plants. They make so much electricity they are the largest exporter of electricity.
Honestly, everything has waste by products. And you have to balance the good with the bad. But the honest truth here is we are not going to power this country with solar, wind, and tidal. Well, small parts can be. But nuclear is the obvious solution to this problem.
It would be nice if Obama would help to spur on a new nuclear power age in the US. You know encourage the young kids to want to go into fields like science and nuclear engineering. Or well...I guess they can all be road builders with his current plan.
Or well...I guess they can all be road builders with his current plan.
Well everyone does want roads. Did you know 3 counties in NE Ohio were recently designated as being part of Appalachia. The Ohio govt did it to get $$ for roads etc. Cracks me up since so many people in that area have always made fun of Appalachian "hillbillies".
Anyone who truly wants to do their part in reducing emissions should unhook their computer and throw it out the window.
Did you know:
• A typical computer spread with internet access requires about 1,000 watts of power.
• A lump of coal is burned every time a book is ordered on-line.
• It takes about a pound of coal to create, package,store and move 2 megabytes of data.
• The average internet user (12 hours per week) uses over 300 pounds of coal annually for this purpose
• The total demand for electricity from personal computers on the internet amounts to 8% of the U.S. electrical supply
• When one billion people are accessing the internet is projected, the required electricity will be equal to total current capacity of U.S. electric power production
It takes one pound of coal to produce 1.25 kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to light one 100 watt lightbulb for 10 hours.
Scream about coal all you want, but it is the least expensive and most efficient source of energy we have today. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - we need changes but we currently don't have the answer.
If you really want to have a voice - cut down on your own energy uses and start by throwing out your computer or at least limiting your time on it. If you are not willing to do this, then don't just stand around complaining.
Nukes are neither sustainable nor alternative nor a magic bullet. The waste is highly toxic and there is no acceptable storage solution. All storage eventually leaks into the environment. No containment is stable enough over long enough periods of time. Reactors and their waste are tempting targets for terrorists.
Uranium is a lot scarcer than oil. There's only a few decades left even at current usage rates.
Decommissioning a plant can cost as much as building it and it takes 100 years. That's how long it takes for radiation to cool off enough to risk sending in crews.
Taking all these costs into account, nukes are not cost effective.
The risk of accident is low but if it does occur the consequences would be catastrophic. There have been lots of near misses which the nuclear industry routinely covers up. The more reactors the higher the odds an accident will occur and the higher the odds material will get into the hands of "terrorists".
The area where i live wouldn't be suitable. There isn't a large enough area. It's a densely populated and even if they had room it would be sitting right in the middle or very large urban population. There is one quite close though about 50 miles with a much more suitable location. A nuclear plant needs an enormous amount of water so it has to be placed near a water source which is something available here hence the reason there is one 50 miles away in less populated area. I mean honestly if you're going to build them they shouldn't be near urban areas for obvious reasons, that's just common sense.
Do you have another solution? Let's hear it...
Depends what you mean by solution. If you mean how are we going to continue using energy at the current or greater level there is no solution. If you mean how can we produce sustainable energy for the long run the solutions are:
Increasing conservation, sustainable living (ie no big screen TV, SUVs, megamansions), wind, geothermal, solar, hydro, increasing rail and public transportation, horse & buggy, ox carts, more human labor.
As a side benefit the obesity problem will be solved and we'll save billion$$$ in medical costs.
My Grandmother recently turned 90 and lived on farm as young child when they still did that, she'd slap me up side the head if I suggested such a thing. That's not a solution either as it will just cause other problems, where are we to get the feed for these animals. where are you going to house such a massive population of them to keep them alive in cold weather. They will have environmental impacts of their own. I live near the Susquehanna river and livestock and the subsequent farming is pointed out as the single biggest danger to the river and therefore the Chesapeake Bay.
The environmental impacts that we are placing on the planet can be solved with time and technology. At some point someone will come up with vialble soalar panel, some comapny will make the massive invest required for hydo in the worlsd oceans and someone will find geothermal to be feasible but only after the technology has evolved.
Many of your suggestions have merit, people simply conserving energy would have an enormous impact. The simple things too and not necessarily the big things. If every person in the U.S. used clothed bags to get their groceries how many barrels of oil and trees is that going to save?
You suggestion about the horse and buggy and human labor is ridiculous however. You can bet China, India and other countries just entering the industrialized world are not goin to ramp down their needs so anything we do would be fruitless anyway. I'm not even positive there is long term problem or if we are the cause. There's plenty of naysayers with very legitimate credentials.
In any event forcing coal off the market and not having a viable alternative to take its place as its phased out will prove to be a disaster to this country.
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.
