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.
With a maximum lifespan of 30 years on any existing PV cell panel, such claims are unrealistically utopian at best.
Why? You replace a roof every 30 years. The PV system would have paid for itself 5-6 times over. And 30 years from now the systems available will be much more efficient and cheaper. Think these things through before you post silly assertions.
And yet sub Saharan Africa still increased it's electricity consumption by 45% in a decade. What on earth makes you think that they will sit in the dark in the decades to come? Sounds a bit elitist if not racist to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Rare earths aren't really rare. It's just a name. There are major deposits that aren't being mined because the demand isn't sufficient.
They are indeed. Most deposits are too small to be worth the time and money to extract.
Quote:
While many rare earth metals are actually quite common, they are seldom found in sufficient amounts to be extracted economically
and renewables aren't without their own environmental hazards either
Quote:
Both wind turbines and solar PV use rare earth minerals, mostly from China, in their manufacture. Mining and processing these rare earths generates a tremendous amount of “hazardous and radioactive byproducts.” In the part of China where rare earth minerals are mined, soil and water are saturated with toxic substances, making farming impossible. If we were to try to increase wind and solar by a factor of 10 (so that they together amount to 12% of world energy supply, instead of 1.2%) we would need huge amounts of rare earth minerals and other polluting minerals, such as *gallium arsenide, copper-indium-gallium-diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, used in making thin-film photovoltaics. We could not expect China to take on all of this pollution itself. Instead, the rest of the world would need to produce these toxic materials as well. Presumably, many countries would require stringent pollution controls to do this extraction. These pollution controls would likely require greater use of fossil fuel energy. While pollution problems might be kept in check,*the greater use of fossil fuels would likely raise both CO2 emissions and the prices of the wind and solar PV.
There are many other pollution issues. China is a major center for renewables production, using coal as it primary fuel. Silicon-based solar cells require heating silica rock to high temperatures in 3000 F ovens, something that which can be done cheaply with coal. Wind is known for its noise pollution issues and for killing birds. Solar panels on the desert floor*interfere with the local ecosystem.
And yet sub Saharan Africa still increased it's electricity consumption by 45% in a decade. What on earth makes you think that they will sit in the dark in the decades to come? Sounds a bit elitist if not racist to me.
For the same reason they sit in the dark today. They have no money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
They are indeed. Most deposits are too small to be worth the time and money to extract.
There are multiple significant deposits including in the US. Historically the demand hasn't justified opening the mines.
We also see from above vast domestic resources not withstanding the USA actually *imports* coal, mostly from Columbia. You want to talk about preserving American miners/coal jobs or whatever, that might be something to look into.
Long story short unless or until demand for coal increases there is only so much that can be done for miners/the industry. Time and time again it has been stated in this thread the same thing; cheap and abundant natural gas supplies are what is driving the nails in Big Coal's coffin. Simple fact is global demand for the carbon-intensive, power-plant fuel is still weakening.
Metallurgical coal, the sort used in steelmaking is probably the bright spot, but even there jury is out as to how strong the legs are for current rally in prices.
One looming threat is the production of steel using hydrocarbon instead of coke. This could be a huge game changer on many levels especially as the world markets find new ways to deal with a glut of natural gas. This is on top of the already standard practice of using scrap iron for feedstock.
While current POTUS has begun a war against the Obama administration's clean power plan, it remains to be seen how far things will go nor how long will last. DT won't be POTUS forever (four or eight years) and thus successive administrations simply may have other ideas regarding coal.
We also see from above vast domestic resources not withstanding the USA actually *imports* coal, mostly from Columbia. You want to talk about preserving American miners/coal jobs or whatever, that might be something to look into.
Compared to US production it amounts to nothing. If US production was $8 the imports add up to 10 cents.... Those imports occur for two reasons, the first is the coal may have specific chemical properties someone may want for an industrial process. The second is simply geography, there is acoal plant on the Canadian border that imports it from Canada. Another in Florida near a port gets it shipped from South America.
Quote:
Time and time again it has been stated in this thread the same thing; cheap and abundant natural gas supplies are what is driving the nails in Big Coal's coffin.
The countries that have large amounts of wind and solar capacity also have some of the highest electricity rates in the world.
We can add a lot of wind and solar to our grid, but it won't be cheap. The cost of everything will go up, since all businesses need electricity to operate. It's not just paying an extra $100 on your monthly electric bill.
The countries that have large amounts of wind and solar capacity also have some of the highest electricity rates in the world.
We can add a lot of wind and solar to our grid, but it won't be cheap. The cost of everything will go up, since all businesses need electricity to operate. It's not just paying an extra $100 on your monthly electric bill.
It varies by country, but be told many places in Europe long have had higher electric rates than USA.
In both Europe as in the USA (and probably all over the world), you have to factor in various local taxes, fees, and surcharges on top of the kwh rates to arrive at true consumer costs. Am here to tell you in New York we have been getting raped by local electric and or gas utilities for years.
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.
