Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 09-24-2015, 02:17 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,559 posts, read 37,160,046 times
Reputation: 14017

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
How did they arrive at that figure or do you not understand the statistics they are citing?

I'll be happy to explain it to you once you admit you don't know.
Read page 26 and 27....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2015, 02:20 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,080,948 times
Reputation: 17865
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
That is nothing more than a projection.
LOL, and I suppose the authors of the articel you cited have crystal ball and know exactly what the future is? Long term projections are difficult becsue things change however EIA projections are fairly accurate. The bottom line is there is nothing to replace it without some extraordinary amount of expense, end of discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 02:24 AM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,080,948 times
Reputation: 17865
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Read page 26 and 27....
You don;lt seem to understand, what I'm asking you is how they arrived at that number. Nobody has "died by coal" on their death certificate. How do they arrive at 1.2 million deaths?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 03:58 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,559 posts, read 37,160,046 times
Reputation: 14017
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You don;lt seem to understand, what I'm asking you is how they arrived at that number. Nobody has "died by coal" on their death certificate. How do they arrive at 1.2 million deaths?
Your lack of understanding is your problem, not mine. Try reading page 26 and 27 in the research I linked to.

The cost of solar has decreased and is still going down.... Solar Costs Will Fall Another 40% In 2 Years. Here's Why.

Sun Electronics offers a wide array of solar panels at the world's lowest prices. Our panels are as low as 34¢ per watt. Some of our panels are sold by the panel, pallet or container. We sell to homeowners, contractors, installers, electricians, and businesses worldwide. Solar Panels at World's Lowest Prices

Solar, and other technologies such as wind power, are no longer more expensive than traditional fossil fuels. In many parts of the world, they are cheaper.

This project is about an hour from my place.... Cowichan Solar Group Achieves Astonishing Price Breakthrough | BC Sustainable Energy Association
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 04:05 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,559 posts, read 37,160,046 times
Reputation: 14017
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
LOL, and I suppose the authors of the articel you cited have crystal ball and know exactly what the future is? Long term projections are difficult becsue things change however EIA projections are fairly accurate. The bottom line is there is nothing to replace it without some extraordinary amount of expense, end of discussion.
End of discussion? I don't think so.....Strange that your long term predictions are valid, but mine aren't...Biased much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 04:33 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
18,773 posts, read 18,158,423 times
Reputation: 14783
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechGromit View Post
Nuclear on the other hand at the current rate of usage is estimated to last 230 years. Of course if Coal and gas reserves are exhausted, this figure will fall. On the other hand, extraction of uranium from seawater could extend that figure to 60,000 years (again based on today's current rate of usage). The uranium extraction technology exists today, but it's not very efficient yet.
The nuclear industry has not recovered from the movie "The China Syndrome" and Three Mile Island. Yes a few new plants will be coming online in the next few years. But we still have not solved the waste problem. NIMBY stands for not in my back yard and that is the crux of the problem. Many of our reactors are storing their nuclear waste on site; they have no place for long term storage.

The average age of our nuclear plants is 30 years old. They were only licensed for 40 years. Oyster creek, in NJ has been operating for 46 years due to an extension. But decommissioning these plants also presents problems - especially since we have no long term 'safe' storage facilities.

All I am saying is that nuclear has a very rough road ahead. You can Google like I can Google. There are two camps - the industry and those that try to protect our environment. Another 'little' mistake, like Three Mile Island, will put nuclear out of the question for generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 03:15 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,080,948 times
Reputation: 17865
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Your lack of understanding is your problem, not mine. Try reading page 26 and 27 in the research I linked to.
I can assure you I fully understand it and certainly much more than you, what I'm specifically asking you is the methodology used to arrive at these numbers. When you are willing to admit you don't know I'll be glad to explain it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 03:18 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,080,948 times
Reputation: 17865
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
End of discussion? I don't think so.....Strange that your long term predictions are valid, but mine aren't...Biased much?
You understand the issues related too solar and wind regarding base power? You can stack coal to the moon next to a coal plant, you cannot do that with wind and solar. The capacity and storage needs for solar and wind grow exponentially if you want to replace base power. Thew per kWh cost for storage and generation would need to be somewhere around 10% of fossil fuels to be competitive. If you do no know why that is I'd urge you to educate yourself on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,559 posts, read 37,160,046 times
Reputation: 14017
You are going to educate me? That's rich. Hell you can't even retain what I've already posted here..... Nobody here, least of all me, is advocating completely abandoning fossil fuel use in power generation, although there are those that think it is possible... News - The world could completely abandon fossil fuels by 2050 - The Weather Network

Coal power is on it's way out....Face the facts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 04:48 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,123,991 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
You understand the issues related too solar and wind regarding base power? You can stack coal to the moon next to a coal plant, you cannot do that with wind and solar. The capacity and storage needs for solar and wind grow exponentially if you want to replace base power. Thew per kWh cost for storage and generation would need to be somewhere around 10% of fossil fuels to be competitive. If you do no know why that is I'd urge you to educate yourself on it.
LOL. Look, it's time you start investing your money in other forms of energy. The growth rate of coal, while still positive, has been declining.

Not to mention....

China Will Soon Leapfrog Traditional Leaders in Nuclear Power
Quote:
The country plans to increase its capacity from 23 gigawatts currently to 58 gigawatts by 2020, at which point it is also aiming to have 30 additional gigawatts under construction, according to the World Nuclear Association. Right now, of the 64 reactors being built around the world, 24 are in China—15 more than in second-place Russia....

....The Chinese government is banking on nuclear playing a significant role in helping it achieve its goals of having 15 percent of overall energy consumption come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2020, and 20 percent by 2030 (in 2012, 91 percent came from fossil fuels, according to the Energy Information Administration).

Source: IAEA
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 > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:12 AM.

© 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