Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So we should never have had Seat belts, catalytic converters more efficient cars, nmore efficient heating and cooling systems, etc mandated?
You would love it if your neighbors still heated with coal
Mandated Cancer Bulbs
So we should never have had Seat belts, catalytic converters more efficient cars, nmore efficient heating and cooling systems, etc mandated?
You would love it if your neighbors still heated with coal
I still heat with coal...
So what time is the BBQ?
I don't believe in the seat belt law. I wear them because I believe in seat belts, but I don't believe in mandating it.
Something you may want to consider about seat belts. If you are not wearing one when the air bag deploys, it can kill or do serious harm. I'd recommend wearing one for that reason all by itself.
So we should never have had Seat belts, catalytic converters more efficient cars, nmore efficient heating and cooling systems, etc mandated?
You would love it if your neighbors still heated with coal
That is a false assumption. You are confused. How do you compare Mandated Cancer Bulbs to seat belts to coal furnaces? What is up with that? What is the wattage on your plasma TV? Your hot tub? Have you ever stopped to ask what is behind CFL bulbs? Follow the money.
I agree, but they do save lives so I wear them.
I almost quit wearing them way back when they became mandated. But decided why cut off my nose to spite my face?
and that's how I feel about banning incandescent bulbs. I'm going to stop using them. They waste money, but should the government ban them?
Because the power companies lobbied them to so they did not have to spend money upgrading their distribution netowrk and add power plants?
to reduce mercury polloution form coal fired power plants?
I dunno for sure but it does make sense to stop using them.
Heck even in my drop light in my auto workshop I used the CFL's they last even when you drop the drop light. unlike incandescent which I have gone thru 4 on a bad say in the shop.
So we should never have had Seat belts, catalytic converters more efficient cars, nmore efficient heating and cooling systems, etc mandated?
You would love it if your neighbors still heated with coal
That is a false assumption. You are confused. How do you compare Mandated Cancer Bulbs to seat belts to coal furnaces? What is up with that? What is the wattage on your plasma TV? Your hot tub? Have you ever stopped to ask what is behind CFL bulbs? Follow the money.
I did follow the money in post #197.
If you still heat with coal you are outputting far more mercury than broken CFL bulbs are.
If you still heat with coal you are outputting far more mercury than broken CFL bulbs are.
Yeah I know, but if I heated with electric instead it would be more still. There's no natural gas here, otherwise we'd have it.
In December 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the selection of three new projects with a value of $3.18 billion to accelerate the development of advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and storage at commercial-scale. These projects will help to enable commercial deployment to ensure the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity and power. An investment of up to $979 million, including funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will be leveraged by more than $2.2 billion in private capital cost share as part of the third round of the Departments Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).
The selections demonstrate technologies that:
make progress toward a target CO2 capture efficiency of 90%;
make progress toward a capture and sequestration goal of less than 10% increase in the cost of electricity for gasification systems and less than 35% for combustion and oxycombustion systems; and
capture and sequester or put to beneficial use an amount of CO2 emissions in excess of the minimum of 300,000 tons per year required by CCPI.
DOE - Fossil Energy: Clean Coal Power Initiative Recovery Act Projects
In December 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the selection of three new projects with a value of $3.18 billion to accelerate the development of advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and storage at commercial-scale. These projects will help to enable commercial deployment to ensure the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity and power. An investment of up to $979 million, including funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will be leveraged by more than $2.2 billion in private capital cost share as part of the third round of the Department’s Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).
The selections demonstrate technologies that:
make progress toward a target CO2 capture efficiency of 90%;
make progress toward a capture and sequestration goal of less than 10% increase in the cost of electricity for gasification systems and less than 35% for combustion and oxycombustion systems; and
capture and sequester or put to beneficial use an amount of CO2 emissions in excess of the minimum of 300,000 tons per year required by CCPI.
DOE - Fossil Energy: Clean Coal Power Initiative Recovery Act Projects
Many would call those projects pork or corporate welfare.
In December 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy announced the selection of three new projects with a value of $3.18 billion to accelerate the development of advanced coal technologies with carbon capture and storage at commercial-scale. These projects will help to enable commercial deployment to ensure the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable electricity and power. An investment of up to $979 million, including funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will be leveraged by more than $2.2 billion in private capital cost share as part of the third round of the Department’s Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI).
The selections demonstrate technologies that:
make progress toward a target CO2 capture efficiency of 90%;
make progress toward a capture and sequestration goal of less than 10% increase in the cost of electricity for gasification systems and less than 35% for combustion and oxycombustion systems; and
capture and sequester or put to beneficial use an amount of CO2 emissions in excess of the minimum of 300,000 tons per year required by CCPI.
DOE - Fossil Energy: Clean Coal Power Initiative Recovery Act Projects
Many would call those projects pork or corporate welfare.
You place unrealistic impositions on industry with one hand, make draconian mandates on consumers with the other, all while standing on a soap box, claiming to know best, well... your shoe lace is untied, your fly is open, your shirt is buttoned wrong, and there is a piece of toilet paper stuck on your shoe. When is enough enough?
On May 13, 2008, the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission released a comparison of the costs of of new generating capacity from various sources. The analysis for the comparison was prepared by Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc., a consulting firm that prepares studies for utilities, governmental regulators, law firms, and non-profit agencies.[1] These estimates include firming resource costs.
Busbar cost in cents per kilowatt-hour in 2008 dollars:
Coal:
Coal Supercritical: 10.554
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC): 11.481
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 17.317 Alternatives:
Biogas: 8.552
Wind: 8.910
Gas Combined Cycle: 9.382 (assumes $5.50 to $6.50/MMBtu for gas)
Geothermal: 10.182
Hydroelectric: 10.527
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP): 12.653 Nuclear: 15.316
Biomass: 16.485
Capture and storage can be done. But why spend that kind of money? You can get the same generation from wind for less than 1/2 the investment. Even solar thermal and nuclear are cheaper.
The proprietary process developed by Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. (CCTI) is supported by some of the worlds' preeminent energy research firms. It is a cost effective, green alternative to unprocessed coal. PRISTINE is a clean energy fuel that eliminates coal's contaminants, pollutants and moisture while dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, and NOx. Our process removes pollutants PRIOR to combustion, thereby conserving certain key properties of the coal that impact positively on cost and commercial viability. Clean-burning PRISTINE eliminates the enormous expense of scrubbers and power plant maintenance costs. CCTI is poised to accelerate the acceptance of PRISTINE while leveraging its technology for geopolitical and economic advantage. (see Test Results)There are no clean coal plants in the US. The only one that I know that is actually operating is in China. Thus far, Clean Coal is just a chimera created for the bemusement of those that do not want to be bothered by researching what the cost truly are.
Here is a Video I posted on a different Thread. Salt Water Fuel. Using Radio waves to separate Hydrogen and Oxygen from Salt Water. With a secondary chamber you can produce steam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo&feature=player_embedded
