Green Agenda Dangerous = CFL bulbs

[Cuyo]

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

Really Intense?

 

[Cuyo]

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?

Oh don't think you'd fancy coming... Awful lot of "Cancer bulbs" round here.

 

[elvis]

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.

well yeah. I decided to wear my seatbelt all the time before I had a car with airbags.

Good idea though.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[Intense]

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.

We need a stronger Power Grid and more Plants. Power Companies want that. You need to surrender your power toys, sell your shop. Save energy. Turn off the radio, the Plasma, the Computer, the lights, just stare at the walls in the dark knowing that you have done your part to save the planet. When reason catches up with you, I recommend you listen to talk radio more and watch more FOX News. Don't worry about apologizing, we get it, we have mostly all been there.

 

[elvis]

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.

Hal Holbrook.

 

[uscitizen]

If you still heat with coal you are outputting far more mercury than broken CFL bulbs are.

 

[Intense]

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

 

[Cuyo]

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.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

I understand.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

 

[Intense]

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?

 

[uscitizen]

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?

Why do we need to place any impositions on industry? It will police itself and do what is best for America without any regulations, etc won't it?

Yes when is enough enough? It is all an attempt at balance which is never fully attained due to all sides pushing and pulling.

Reality is not quite like idealism.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Intense]

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.

Those technologies are great to build on, yet you know that the wind does not always blow, Old Rocks. We will eventually get past coal, yet it is a long way off. Those numbers are Cali numbers, probably not the best place for cost comparison. Clean Coal is a big step. It is damaging to the infrastructure to undermine it, unless you are talking Nuclear and Reprocessing fuel rods on site.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Intense]

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.

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)

Our value proposition is compelling: beneficiating coal using the CCTI process is not an added cost to comply with laws protecting the environment. It is a way of boosting the top line and margins, while contributing significantly to a clean environment. Coal producers are able to sell coal that, processed, has a significantly higher calorific value, is free of most contaminants, and therefore commands a higher price. At the same time, the process turns the volatiles in the coal into a liquid that is similar to a fuel oil and can be sold to oil refineries for mixing with heavy crudes. Depending on the characteristics of the source coal, the liquids that come out of he process can add as much as 20% to the top line. Investment returns on the CCTI process are over 50% while the investment payback period is just over three years. (see Pro-forma Plant Economics

Clean Coal Technologies, Inc. | The PRISTINE™ PROMISE | Clean, profitable coal!

 

[uscitizen]

Old, we will be suing coal for quite a while.
Why? We have a lot of it and around 50% of our current electricity is generated by it.

We should use it cheaper when at all practical though.


I do have to wonder about those hydro numbers though. That may be to det up a resivoir and dam from scratch?
Existing hydro should be the cheapest way to produce electricity.

 

[Intense]

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.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGg0ATfoBgo&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

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

Old Rocks lives in Bumfook USA.............spent half his life in the middle of a fcukking big forest. Im sure he thinks a city like New York can be powered by steam and solar panels!!!
Many of the environmental crusader k00ks have spent their lives in thatched cottages in the middle of nowhere places across the country. Places like Bangs Beach, Maine.........Bone Gap, Illinois.........Mooreheadsville, Pennsylvania...........Scratchgroin, Oregon..............of course they think we can fire up some windmills and provide power for thousands of skyscrapers.