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.
... each computer uses the equivalent of three pounds of coal a day. If you surveyed editors and reporters (or even science teachers) about how much coal they use, it is very likely that the most common answer would be, "We don't use coal anymore, we have electricity." In fact, the average American probably has no idea that they use the equivalent of about 21 pounds of coal a day to generate the electricity they need just to go about their daily lives. Lucas is vice president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity based in Alexandria, Va.
Joe Lucas: Get to know coals benefits (http://www.wvcoal.com/news/wvcoal-news/514-joe-lucas-get-to-know-coals-benefits.html - broken link)
Except it's not true.
Rough rule of thumb is at a pound of coal will produce 1 kwh of electricity. 21 kWh/day x 30 day/ month = 630 Kwh from coal. Coal is about 50% of the energy mix in electricity, so that would imply the average consumer is using 1260 kWh/month. Average residential consumption 920 kWh per month.
Average computer consumes 70-100 watts of electricity. Assume 10 hours per day of use = 700 - 1000 watt hours or .7 to 1.0 kWh with 50% coming from coal, the average computer uses about .35 - 0.5 pounds of coal per day. Mine uses none since I buy wind power through my utility.
Rough rule of thumb is at a pound of coal will produce 1 kwh of electricity. 21 kWh/day x 30 day/ month = 630 Kwh from coal. Coal is about 50% of the energy mix in electricity, so that would imply the average consumer is using 1260 kWh/month. Average residential consumption 920 kWh per month.
Average computer consumes 70-100 watts of electricity. Assume 10 hours per day of use = 700 - 1000 watt hours or .7 to 1.0 kWh with 50% coming from coal, the average computer uses about .35 - 0.5 pounds of coal per day. Mine uses none since I buy wind power through my utility.
Oh that's right - I forgot you are the supreme expert and everyone who works in the industry are liars and idiots who know nothing of their trade.
Unless you are calling EIA and the utilities liars, the price of coal used in production of electricity was the highest it's ever been as of September 2008 at $43/ton.
What exactly do you disagree with in what I said, coal like the rest of fossil fuels was rising in cost for the last year particularly over the spring and summer. It's since declined with the other other fuels when the bubble burst.
FYI anthracite is not effected by the international market and held steady from the fall of 2007 until mid august of 2008. Nearly a full year. Didn't budge a penny. The only abnoramality was it didn't drop in the spring like it typically did. Like I said the the spike in fuel prices was driven by other factors and not the real worth of the product.
Obama climate czar has socialist ties
Group sees 'global governance' as solution
Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change. Washington Times - Obama climate czar has socialist ties
As slanted as this article is, they manage to leave out that the organization in question was chaired by Tony Blair, and that George Bush was awarding her the Presidential Medal of Freedom when this story was circulated.
The conversion to green technologies will result in the greatest economic boom the world has ever seen.
Tony Blair, like both Bushes, is a globalist and a guy who can't leave the limelight. He is after personal power. He is not a public servant.
Great Britain's hapless citizens lost a lot of freedoms during his warhawk tenure.
GW has had several meetings with Mexican and Canadian officials--some would call such meetings high treason--regarding the forming of a north american union.
He turned over the entire 2001 education bill, which BTW the federal government has absolutely no constitutional authority to meddle/muddle in, to Ted Kennedy.
Don't make the mistake of thinking--or pretending--W has any sort of conservative or constitutionalist credentials. He doesn't.
He has a long history of kissing up to whoever serves his purpose at the moment.
No, the idea lacks historical perspective. Pollution nowadays is nothing compared to what it was a century ago, and here we are, doing just fine. For an excellent case in point, consider Pittsburgh which by now has barely a ghost of a steel industry, and consider also the much-improved cleanness of modern motor vehicles. Humanity has survived more severe environmental crises than the "crises" we face today. The fear of environmental cataclysm lives on because it's a substitute for religion in the modern secular world, and because it has an aggressive political side to it.
Last edited by MichaelCC; 01-17-2009 at 06:55 PM..
Reason: clarity
Do you support shrinking our economy to support climate change?
Yes. Absolutely. If necessary.
It may not be readily apparent because we are accustomed to it but we are living in a bubble of sorts of historically sort duration, of about the last 150 years, fueled and supported by fossil fuels (most especially including coal). Much that we accept as normal is the direct result of this. And it is NOT sustainable. This bubble will burst as surely as that of this recent economic collapse. Both in effect houses of cards.
For those willing to look, the documentary film, 'A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash' demonstrates this phenomenon quite well (this film can be easily rented on iTunes, for one). Amazon.com: A Crude Awakening - The Oil Crash: n/a, Ray McCormack, Basil Gelpke, Reto Caduff: Movies & TV
Peak Oil was probably reached in 2005, which means for all the new technologies and discoveries that while overall supply could even be increased in the short term that proven reserves will only decline. We are on the downslope of the bell curve. This in consideration of projected much greater demand from economies such as India's and China's.
Entirely aside from this the use of fossil fuels has had a deleterious effect on this planet, the serious nature of which are beginning to become patently obvious. We are nearing some points of no return. There is no longer any serious scientific argument regarding this, and anyone telling you different is either lying or willfully ignorant. Consider the state of the world's oceans, something we have always taken for granted as inexhaustible: Our Oceans: What Could Happen . NOW on PBS
A sobering assessment of where we stand in this alone was presented by 'The Economist' in a special report: A survey of the sea: Troubled waters | The Economist
While one might choose to ignore all this, it hardly bodes well for future generations or one's own children. If, for instance, their livelihood happened to be that of a fisherman, it couldn't just be business as usual. There would be little to nothing to catch, or you to eat, and in fact many fisheries are presently already exhausted. Climate change and pollution will only exacerbate thoughtless over fishing. The point being we are part and parcel of our environment and can only push it out of balance so far before suffering the consequences.
The United States with something like 3% of the world's population consumes roughly 25% of its resources. Clearly not everyone could share the same level of living as is. We have taken more than our share as a nation, as has mankind as a species. We have markedly increased the natural rate of extinction of other species due such imbalances. But this can, will and has caught up with we humans. There is of course hope. Such green technologies as solar offer vast potential. If I recall correctly enough solar energy falls upon this earth in 1 hour to provide mankind's yearly use of electricity. If it were properly utilized. This is not so much a question of technology as foresight and will.
And balance. Estimates are that at the general level of living we have grown accustomed to and expect in industrialized Western economies that the sustainable population of this world roughly 2.5 billion. That in a world of about 6.6 billion souls, projected to reach 9 billion in a few decades. Do the math. This planet is a veritable Garden of Eden, could be for all (in proportion), and will remain as such for ages if respected and treasured.
The conversion to green technologies will result in the greatest economic boom the world has ever seen.
You may be right. New technologies have the potential for finding new and imaginative uses of that technology that spurs the economy. If green is regulated with no respect to economic sence however, the only economic boom is in the employment of regulators.
Regulated industries succeed until the regulations are changed. Fundamentally sound industries succeed in spite of regulation.
You may be right. New technologies have the potential for finding new and imaginative uses of that technology that spurs the economy. If green is regulated with no respect to economic sence however, the only economic boom is in the employment of regulators.
Regulated industries succeed until the regulations are changed. Fundamentally sound industries succeed in spite of regulation.
Good points.
Let's just hope they don't find ways to send the related jobs overseas!!
What exactly do you disagree with in what I said, coal like the rest of fossil fuels was rising in cost for the last year particularly over the spring and summer. It's since declined with the other other fuels when the bubble burst.
There is no data to support your assertion that the average price of coal to utilities has declined since September. You have some data that show spot prices, but that's not the same thing -- apples and oranges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
FYI anthracite is not effected by the international market and held steady from the fall of 2007 until mid august of 2008. Nearly a full year. Didn't budge a penny. The only abnoramality was it didn't drop in the spring like it typically did. Like I said the the spike in fuel prices was driven by other factors and not the real worth of the product.
Anthracite is such a tiny fraction of coal consumed in the world that I'm not sure anyone knows or cares. There can't be more than a couple of utility plants that actually burn the stuff.
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.
In measure & respect
!
