brenthutch 444 #1 November 22, 2012 Quit burning coal, and start burning wood. We can plant great swaths of trees, harvenst them and burn them. They uptake the carbon they release, it is the perfect solution! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genego 2 #2 November 22, 2012 I work for a large railroad. We deliver freight trains to coal fired plants. A single coal train will deliver about 38 MILLION pounds of coal, most plants get multiple trainloads per week. Just how much wood would you have to harvest to supply a single plant, and what is your lead time to regrow and re-harvest?I live with fear and terror, but sometimes I leave her and go skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #3 November 22, 2012 In my experience, most of the people who strongly advocate renewable energy don't appear to have a firm grasp of thermodynamics. While you can't deny the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere, you can deny the efficacy of many of the proposed solutions being proposed, other than giving the government even more control over our lives. CO2 emissions in the US have actually gone down, while CO2 emissions in China continue to grow at an accelerating pace.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarpeDiem3 0 #4 November 22, 2012 QuoteQuit burning coal, and start burning wood. We can plant great swaths of trees, harvenst them and burn them. They uptake the carbon they release, it is the perfect solution! What is the comparison of CO2 release between burning coal and burning wood? Do they produce the same BTU's, or would you need more of one than the other. How much of the wood burning would be mitigated by live trees reabsorbing CO2? What about other particulates released into the atmosphere from each source? Need more info... I don't have a problem with coal the way my buddy Obama does. Half the electricity in America comes from coal plants. We need it. It can be done cleanly. There's plenty of it. So we ought to use it. I'm not ready to deforest America to replace it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #5 November 22, 2012 Quote What is the comparison of CO2 release between burning coal and burning wood? Do they produce the same BTU's, or would you need more of one than the other. How much of the wood burning would be mitigated by live trees reabsorbing CO2? What about other particulates released into the atmosphere from each source? Either I'm missing the sarcasm, or you fell hook line and sinker for the troll bait. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billeisele 130 #7 November 24, 2012 the Greenies are crying in their tofu nuclear is non-emitting and a coal plant site is the perfect size for a SMR in the meantime the coal industry will sell coal to foreign markets where air emission standards are lax, net result is more air pollution - I guess this makes sense to a greenie or we could install wind turbines along the complete coast of SC about 2 miles wide to equal the generation of one nuke plant, of course no one could afford the power and if a hurricane came along that might be a problem but those are just minor details that the greenies want to ignoreGive one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blueblur 0 #8 November 24, 2012 QuoteJust how much wood would a woodchuck have to chuck to produce the same energy, assuming of course that a woodchuck could chuck wood? fixed it for ya.In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts. - RiggerLee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,062 #9 January 15, 2013 ==================== More Aging U.S. Coal Plants Hit the Chopping Block By Matthew Charles Cardinale IPS ATLANTA, Georgia, Jan 10 2013 (IPS) - Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, one of the largest utilities in the U.S. south, plans to retire 15 coal and oil-fired energy generating units at four different plants, in the latest sign that a national campaign against coal is gaining traction. The latest announcement by Georgia Power brings to 129 the total of plant retirements announced for closure – either in whole or in part – since Sierra Club launched the Beyond Coal Campaign in 2002. Credit: public domain The 15 units comprise a total of 2,061 megawatts, one quarter of Georgia Power’s coal fleet. Georgia Power will seek permission from Georgia’s Public Service Commission (PSC) to close the units, and there is no reason to expect that the PSC will refuse. “The economics of coal are changing, and we’re seeing massive changes in terms of how the U.S. generates its power,” Jenna Garland, associate press secretary for the Sierra Club, a major U.S. environmental lobby group, told IPS. “In the next few years, we hope Georgia Power will make plans to phase out more of their coal plants and replace them with energy efficiency and clean energy,” she added. A November 2012 report by the Union for Concerned Scientists titled “Ripe for Retirement: The Case for Closing America’s Costliest Coal Plants” reported that Georgia has the most coal-fired plants that should be considered for closure out of any U.S. state. “As many as 353 coal-fired power generators in 31 states – representing up to 59 GW of power capacity – are no longer economically viable compared with cleaner, more affordable energy sources,” UCS said in a statement. In 2011, approximately 42 percent of all electricity in the U.S. was produced by burning coal, the report stated. “But today, more than three-quarters of U.S. coal-fired power plants have outlived their 30-year lifespan – with 17 percent being older than half a century,” the report stated. . . . “It is a significant move in the right direction definitely,” agreed Amelia Shenstone, southeast energy organiser for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. “We have been encouraging them to consider retiring some of these plants. As early as 2011, 2012, Georgia Power’s own studies found that some of these units would be most economical to retire. They retired two units, Branch 1 and 2, at that time,” Shenstone told IPS. She emphasised that the plants that are closing are well beyond their expected life cycle. “I think it’s possible the EPA regulations have helped dictate the schedule (of the closures)… but these plants really are getting old. They have a life expectancy of 30 years. These units are 44 to 63 years old. The oldest plants now are 60 to 70 years old. These plants don’t have a precedent for what the maintenance costs are,” Shenstone said. ========================= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #10 January 15, 2013 QuoteI work for a large railroad. We deliver freight trains to coal fired plants. A single coal train will deliver about 38 MILLION pounds of coal, most plants get multiple trainloads per week. Just how much wood would you have to harvest to supply a single plant, and what is your lead time to regrow and re-harvest? And think about those polluting chainsaws to cut down the trees. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
