EPA doing its job, no wonder so many panties in a wad!

[tonystewart1]

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

You start factoring in maintenance costs and repair and things will change there.

Bullshit. Coal plants are high maintenance installations. With a high output of dangerous byproducts such as fly ash, mercury, and lead.

Then you have to clean the site up once you are done burning coal. Not only that, the mining of coal is an environmental disaster where ever and how ever it is done. A windmill is good for twenty years, then you just pull down the nacelle, and put another in it's place, while the old one is rebuilt. And the whole time, it is so clean that they grow wheat right up to the base of the towers.

Tell me how you build a windmill without steel?

And how do you make steel without coal?

 

[tonystewart1]

Solar and wind are good to stretch out the fossile fuels we have. We should find ways to burn coal more efficently. There is no reason to waste what we have. There is no way to stop using coal cold trukey without turning the US into a third world country. Coal will not last forever but we have enough to keep our country strong for 100s of years until a real alternative is found. Right now solar and wind are not real alternatives.

 

[Trakar]

Those older power plants, while inefficient, were providing power. Shutting them down without newer replacement plants will stretch the power demand over fewer power plants and grids thus causing brownouts and planned rolling blackouts.

Not only will energy be more expensive but when use goes up this winter people will freeze to death due to EPA and Earth First, Eco-Fascist do-gooders forcing an agenda rather than help provide cheap energy for the masses.

If you look at the article, the facts are that many of these generation facillities are being shut down because they are uneconomical and uncompetitive with natural gas generation facillities and cannot meet current pollution requirements, not due to any "eco-fascist" conspiracy mongering rhetoric.

If coal is required to pay its own way, it is completely uncompetitive with many other energy sources. If you would rather pollute the air you breath, the water you drink and pay increased taxes to subsidize coal energy industry profits, compensate for increased health problems and to scrub the excess, previously sequestered carbon out of the atmosphere, that is certainly your choice, but the only thing I like less than the government's hand in my billfold are billionaire corporate welfare queens making record profits and still reaching into my billfold to snake the money out of the government hands.

 

[Trakar]

We need more mercury in our catfish, keep coal going!

We need it in our vaccines too!
CDC - Mercury and Thimerosal - Vaccine Safety

Your whackadoodle conspiracy colors run deep.

 

[Trakar]

Hey, what's a few people freezing to death, after all it's for the Environment.

Al Gore says so.

Evidence to support your assertions?

 

[code1211]

We need more mercury in our catfish, keep coal going!

No need for adding to the Coal fired power plant number. We can get you your mercury from the new light squiggles.

 

[Trakar]

Can't wait till we can get someone else in as President so we can PUT THE BRAKES on these out of control agencies.

In what way, do you consider what agencies, to be "out of control?"

 

[Trakar]

We need more mercury in our catfish, keep coal going!

Then throw all of those CFLs in the ocean.

Thanks to coal fired power plants there is more mercury in a tuna fish sandwich than there is in a CFL.

 

[Trakar]

Reality check for leftists:

There is no Magic Energy. Solar and wind will not scale up economically to replace the 45% of electrical power we get from coal.

That's just the way it is.

Who has ever stated that Solar or WInd energy generation systems were the only or even best options to replace base-load coal generated electricity?

As stated before, the first goal is a moratorium on new coal powerplant construction. After this we need a coordinated national energy generation and delivery backbone plan that looks at such things as doubling the national Nuclear Power generation profile, from its current ~20% total US electrical capacity, with most power plants being 60s-70s era design gen II systems, into ~40/50% total US electrical capacity, with all plants being genIII+ or later systems by 2025. Most of the short-term slack from the phasing out of coal to the full integration of nuclear and non-fossil fuelled alternatives will have to be filled with natural gas. While not a solution in the mid-long term, it is better than coal with far fewer pollutants and emissions of concern. Solar, Wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, wave, waste repurposing, bio-gas and even biofuels all have roles to play, but it would be rather idiotic to try and replace "Big Coal" and "Big Oil" with "Big Solar" and "Big Grain Alcohol." The idea is to create a broadly diversified, stable and (most importantly) "sustainable" energy infrastructure, not to create another monolithic, despotic energy industry to replace the current monolithic despotic energy industry.

 

[kiwiman127]

It's a fact that burnt coal leads to sulphur dioxide, which leads to Acid Rain, which leads to killing fish, plant life and animal life.

Acid rain is a byproduct of burning coal and oil for energy; the combustion process releases sulfur and nitrogen dioxide into the air, which bond with water and oxygen molecules, and then fall to the ground as sulfuric and nitric acid. Acid rain eats away at building exteriors, dissolves paint finishes, and erodes monuments. It poisons farmland and turns lakes into aquatic dead zones. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide (SO2 and NOX), two precursors of acid rain, can also contribute to secondary pollution with serious health consequences, including lung disease, heart attacks, and asthma.
<snip>
In 2001, Beijing included a national target for reducing SO2 emissions in the 10th Five Year Plan, covering 2001-2005. At first, official efforts yielded abysmal results. Beijing vowed to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 percent below 2000 levels by 2005; instead, emissions increased by 28 percent.

To some observers, such failures were taken as evidence that China was not serious about — or worse, not capable of — controlling its fast-growing pollution problem. And today Beijing continues to fall short of meeting many of its own green targets, as The New York Times reported this July, citing data released by China’s own Ministry of Environmental Protection.

But there is a glimmer of hope: Between 2006 and 2009, China’s sulfur dioxide emissions decreased more than 13 percent, even as construction of new coal-fired power plants expanded rapidly. Considering the government’s 15-year struggle, this sign of recent progress is significant.

China Takes First Steps In the Fight Against Acid Rain by Christina Larson: Yale Environment 360

 

[Trakar]

Yes it is true that the smaller older plants are inefficent and hard to maintian. How come the EPA makes it so hard to open new more efficent plants. Because the EPA and the Obama administration are planning on eliminating coal as a power source. They have not even tired to keep it quiet. Obama is going to bancrupt the coal industry in a America and bancrupt us all in the process.

Must be why he keeps approving such unproductive and environmentally harmful practices like mountain top removal, strip mining, etc.. Historically, Obama has been very friendly and accommidating to the coal industry. In 1997, he voted to use state sales taxes to help reopen closed coal mines and create "incentives to attract new businesses that use coal," in the state of illinois. In 2001, he voted for legislation that provided $3.5 billion in loan guarantees to construct coal-fired power plants with no means of controlling carbon emissions. In 2003, Obama voted for $300 million in bonds towards the construction and expansion of coal-fired power plants. As he moved on to the national stage, this support continued unabated, and was largely one of the many reasons I never have or will support Barry. On January 4, 2007, Obama helped introduce the Coal-to-Liquids Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. The bill was intended to help grow the coal-to-liquids industry through tax incentives and public-private partnerships. On June 19, 2007, Obama voted in favor of an amendment to establish a loan program for projects to produce syngas from coal and other feedstocks, while working to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

So you enviromentalists, good luck keeping warm during the rolling blackouts. I will stay nice and warm with my coal and wood stove.

I stay warm and well powered without coal, though I did want to mention that there is nothing environmentally wrong with a wood stove.

 

[Trakar]

We've got a real problem with coal fired electric generation, folks.

We need the electricity but the crap that spews out of the stacks is poisoning the water with mercury.

I don't really know if we can have clean coal, but I do know we can have cleaner coal than we typically have right now, much thanks to BUSH II's assinine Clear Skys legislation.

Yeah, keep blaming it on Bush.

That's all you can do.

Maybe the Tea Party has something to do with it too.

You are actually quite right, it wasn't Bush's idea, to accuse him of masterminding industry policy is to accredit him much more intellectiual prowess than any reasonable assessment would confirm.

 

[tonystewart1]

Yes it is true that the smaller older plants are inefficent and hard to maintian. How come the EPA makes it so hard to open new more efficent plants. Because the EPA and the Obama administration are planning on eliminating coal as a power source. They have not even tired to keep it quiet. Obama is going to bancrupt the coal industry in a America and bancrupt us all in the process.

Must be why he keeps approving such unproductive and environmentally harmful practices like mountain top removal, strip mining, etc.. Historically, Obama has been very friendly and accommidating to the coal industry. In 1997, he voted to use state sales taxes to help reopen closed coal mines and create "incentives to attract new businesses that use coal," in the state of illinois. In 2001, he voted for legislation that provided $3.5 billion in loan guarantees to construct coal-fired power plants with no means of controlling carbon emissions. In 2003, Obama voted for $300 million in bonds towards the construction and expansion of coal-fired power plants. As he moved on to the national stage, this support continued unabated, and was largely one of the many reasons I never have or will support Barry. On January 4, 2007, Obama helped introduce the Coal-to-Liquids Fuel Promotion Act of 2007. The bill was intended to help grow the coal-to-liquids industry through tax incentives and public-private partnerships. On June 19, 2007, Obama voted in favor of an amendment to establish a loan program for projects to produce syngas from coal and other feedstocks, while working to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

So you enviromentalists, good luck keeping warm during the rolling blackouts. I will stay nice and warm with my coal and wood stove.

I stay warm and well powered without coal, though I did want to mention that there is nothing environmentally wrong with a wood stove.

So you think that Obama is a friend of coal. If he is then why dont he reign in the EPA?

 

[Trakar]

We've got a real problem with coal fired electric generation, folks.

We need the electricity but the crap that spews out of the stacks is poisoning the water with mercury.

I don't really know if we can have clean coal, but I do know we can have cleaner coal than we typically have right now, much thanks to BUSH II's assinine Clear Skys legislation.

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

The problem is, that making coal simply pay for their own market failure externalities, raises its price to the point where it is economically unviable. Making coal "clean" (which entails the recapture of all the CO2 generated in its production and combustion, as well as filtering all of the various combustion processes and then sequestering the CO2, and otherwise safely storing/disposing of the rest of the various sulfur and heavy metal contaminants) takes almost as much energy as the coal generates in combustion, and raises the price of the energy to the point where it is completely uncompetitive with most other energy sources.

 

[Trakar]

"Clean Coal" Technologies, Carbon Capture & Sequestration

(updated April 2011)

Coal is a vital fuel in most parts of the world.
Burning coal without adding to global carbon dioxide levels is a major technological challenge which is being addressed.
The most promising "clean coal" technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen.
The greatest challenge is bringing the cost of this down sufficiently for "clean coal" to compete with nuclear power on the basis of near-zero emissions for base-load power.

Coal is an extremely important fuel and will remain so. Some 23% of primary energy needs are met by coal and 39% of electricity is generated from coal. About 70% of world steel production depends on coal feedstock. Coal is the world's most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source. The International Energy Agency expects a 43% increase in its use from 2000 to 2020.

However, burning coal produces about 12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year which is released to the atmosphere, about 70% of this being from power generation. Other estimates put carbon dioxide emissions from power generation at one third of the world total of over 28 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions.

Development of new "clean coal" technologies is addressing this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal can be utilised for future generations without contributing to global warming. Much of the challenge is in commercialising the technology so that coal use remains economically competitive despite the cost of achieving low and eventually near "zero emissions".

As many coal-fired power stations approach retirement, their replacement gives much scope for 'cleaner' electricity. Alongside nuclear power and harnessing renewable energy sources, one hope for this is via "clean coal" technologies, such as are now starting to receive substantial R&D funding.
Managing wastes from coal

Burning coal, such as for power generation, gives rise to a variety of wastes which must be controlled or at least accounted for. So-called "clean coal" technologies are a variety of evolving responses to late 20th century environmental concerns, including that of global warming due to carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. However, many of the elements have in fact been applied for many years, and they will be only briefly mentioned here:

Coal cleaning by 'washing' has been standard practice in developed countries for some time. It reduces emissions of ash and sulfur dioxide when the coal is burned.
Electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters can remove 99% of the fly ash from the flue gases - these technologies are in widespread use.
Flue gas desulfurisation reduces the output of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere by up to 97%, the task depending on the level of sulfur in the coal and the extent of the reduction. It is widely used where needed in developed countries.
Low-NOx burners allow coal-fired plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 40%. Coupled with re-burning techniques NOx can be reduced 70% and selective catalytic reduction can clean up 90% of NOx emissions.
Increased efficiency of plant - up to 46% thermal efficiency now (and 50% expected in future) means that newer plants create less emissions per kWh than older ones. See Table 1.

Advanced technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) enable higher thermal efficiencies still - up to 50% in the future.
Ultra-clean coal (UCC) from new processing technologies which reduce ash below 0.25% and sulfur to very low levels mean that pulverised coal might be used as fuel for very large marine engines, in place of heavy fuel oil. There are at least two UCC technologies under development. Wastes from UCC are likely to be a problem.
Gasification, including underground coal gasification (UCG) in situ, uses steam and oxygen to turn the coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
Sequestration refers to disposal of liquid carbon dioxide, once captured, into deep geological strata.

Some of these impose operating costs and energy efficiency loss without concomitant benefit to the operator, though external costs will almost certainly be increasingly factored in through carbon taxes or similar which will change the economics of burning coal.

Clean Coal Technologies | Carbon Capture and Storage | CCS

Interesting and a seemingly objective analysis,...thank you for sharing.

 

[Trakar]

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

You start factoring in maintenance costs and repair and things will change there.

And more importantly the down time and the small regions that are actually best suited to wind power generation, and we see that wind is but one factor in a balanced equation. It would be impracticable to attempt to replace Coal with Wind. That said, wind has a place and a role in the future of energy production, whereas coal's future role is more in the area of plastics and environmentally stable chemical compounds, not fuel.

 

[tonystewart1]

We've got a real problem with coal fired electric generation, folks.

We need the electricity but the crap that spews out of the stacks is poisoning the water with mercury.

I don't really know if we can have clean coal, but I do know we can have cleaner coal than we typically have right now, much thanks to BUSH II's assinine Clear Skys legislation.

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

The problem is, that making coal simply pay for their own market failure externalities, raises its price to the point where it is economically unviable. Making coal "clean" (which entails the recapture of all the CO2 generated in its production and combustion, as well as filtering all of the various combustion processes and then sequestering the CO2, and otherwise safely storing/disposing of the rest of the various sulfur and heavy metal contaminants) takes almost as much energy as the coal generates in combustion, and raises the price of the energy to the point where it is completely uncompetitive with most other energy sources.

Do you have a source for this?

 

[Trakar]

Really? I'm not the cultist here, Roxy.

Try spreading those lies amongst those who are gullible enough to fall for them.

 

[tonystewart1]

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

You start factoring in maintenance costs and repair and things will change there.

And more importantly the down time and the small regions that are actually best suited to wind power generation, and we see that wind is but one factor in a balanced equation. It would be impracticable to attempt to replace Coal with Wind. That said, wind has a place and a role in the future of energy production, whereas coal's future role is more in the area of plastics and environmentally stable chemical compounds, not fuel.

Replacing coal as an energy source is way off in the future. We need it now and will need it for a long time to come. There is nothing to lose in trying to make coal more effiecent.

 

[Trakar]

If by "doing their job" means making sure all business relocates to a country where there are no epa regulations then yes, they are doing their job.

Their job is to protect the commons environment for the benefit and use of all. If companies can't make money while abiding by such constraints, then I won't be sad to see them fail or leave. This is like saying US law encourages our criminals to go to nations with more relaxed laws and law enforcement,...if that's the case, so be it.