gowlerk 2,205 #76 June 2, 2016 QuoteThat is simply not true, with regard to coal we have centuries of power still left in the ground. That is very true. And on a pure cost basis coal will likely remain the cheapest and most available fossil fuel. Hopefully forever. God help us if we ever manage to burn all of the coal available. The goal is to use less of it, slow the growth of mining it, and then begin to decrease it. The true cost of coal consumption is the destroyed health of miners, especially underground miners, environmental degradation from mountaintop removal mining, open pit mining, and ash storage. Then there is the damage to health from particulate inhalation. Scrubbers can ameliorate that one, but the cost of doing so is high enough to cut into the profitability of burning it. Then there is the fact that of all our energy sources, coal releases the most CO2 into the atmosphere. Deadenders think that is alright, but they are out numbered and out voted by citizens who are paying attention to the facts. So all in all, the fact that we have plenty of coal reserves is irrelevant. The era of King Coal is over.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #77 June 2, 2016 Yes, coal has been pushed out by cheap plentiful natural gas (thanks to fracking), simple economics, and I embrace the change. Who doesn't like lower electric bills? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,205 #78 June 2, 2016 brenthutchYes, coal has been pushed out by cheap plentiful natural gas (thanks to fracking), simple economics, and I embrace the change. Who doesn't like lower electric bills? Also true.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #79 June 2, 2016 >Yes, coal has been pushed out by cheap plentiful natural gas (thanks to fracking), >simple economics, and I embrace the change. Who doesn't like lower electric bills? Coal miners and oil companies, to name two groups. But in any case, the change to natural gas is definitely a step in the right direction. It has a much lower CO2 per megawatt-hour release rate, works well in cogenerators, is cleaner across the board when it comes to air, ground and water pollution and is an excellent fuel for peakers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,205 #80 June 2, 2016 That does bring up the question of what would be happening now without the boom in gas production. I think we would still be working to reduce coal use, but it would be happening more slowly by necessity. Ironically the current abundance of natural gas is probably reducing the speed of our move to renewables. One thing is for sure, we are not willing to go without energy to reduce CO2 emissions. We are only moderately willing to pursue reduction in use through efficiency.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #81 June 2, 2016 >I think we would still be working to reduce coal use, but it would be happening more >slowly by necessity. Agreed. Usage would also be lower than it is now due to higher energy costs, so that would be another factor in reduction of coal usage, but overall we'd still be burning more coal. One of the benefits of natural gas WRT renewables is that natural gas is a much better fuel to use in conjunction with renewables. Solar thermal plants can run on either natural gas or solar heat; natural gas peakers are cheap to build and are still relatively efficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #82 June 2, 2016 billvon>Yes, coal has been pushed out by cheap plentiful natural gas (thanks to fracking), >simple economics, and I embrace the change. Who doesn't like lower electric bills? Coal miners and oil companies, to name two groups. But in any case, the change to natural gas is definitely a step in the right direction. It has a much lower CO2 per megawatt-hour release rate, works well in cogenerators, is cleaner across the board when it comes to air, ground and water pollution and is an excellent fuel for peakers. You forgot to mention that there is an endless supply of the stuff. That's the part that I like. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #83 June 2, 2016 >You forgot to mention that there is an endless supply of the stuff. True; it's the only "fossil" fuel that is easy to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #84 June 2, 2016 >Who doesn't like lower electric bills? Californians do! ========= In late March, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) approved its 2015-2016 Transmission Plan, which calls for canceling 13 transmission projects planned in Pacific Gas & Electric territory. The low-voltage transmission projects were deemed no longer necessary in light of materially lower load forecast levels since the projects were approved several years ago. At a recent CAISO board meeting, Eric Eisenman, PG&E’s director of ISO relations and FERC policy, expressed support for the project cancellations, California Energy Markets reports: "The need for those is just not there anymore," he said. "We really appreciate the reappraisal of those projects.” Load forecast has flattened in the service area from a combination of energy efficiency and rooftop solar, which eliminates the need for these upgrades, Eisenman said. The result is $192 million in transmission cost savings for PG&E customers. The canceled projects include line improvements, transformer replacements and bus upgrades. ======= http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Californians-Just-Saved-192-Million-Thanks-to-Efficiency-and-Rooftop-Solar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #85 June 2, 2016 billvon But in any case, the change to natural gas is definitely a step in the right direction. It has a much lower CO2 per megawatt-hour release rate, works well in cogenerators, is cleaner across the board when it comes to air, ground and water pollution and is an excellent fuel for peakers. I take it "across the board" doesn't account for the fracking process to obtain that "clean" natural gas: loads of trucks burning fuel to transport fracking water and chemicals, toluene and other carcinogens and methane in groundwater and streams, tarp-lined waste pits of "produced water" spilling into the surrounding ground during stormy weather, methane leaks into the atmosphere... http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/ 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
billvon 2,998 #86 June 2, 2016 >I take it "across the board" doesn't account for the fracking process to obtain that >"clean" natural gas: loads of trucks burning fuel to transport fracking water and >chemicals, toluene and other carcinogens and methane in groundwater and streams, >tarp-lined waste pits of "produced water" spilling into the surrounding ground during >stormy weather, methane leaks into the atmosphere... It does take all that into account. But we are comparing it to coal, not to any sort of ideal energy source. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #87 June 2, 2016 billvon>I take it "across the board" doesn't account for the fracking process to obtain that >"clean" natural gas: loads of trucks burning fuel to transport fracking water and >chemicals, toluene and other carcinogens and methane in groundwater and streams, >tarp-lined waste pits of "produced water" spilling into the surrounding ground during >stormy weather, methane leaks into the atmosphere... It does take all that into account. But we are comparing it to coal, not to any sort of ideal energy source. Given the extremely unpleasant side effects, I disagree with the idea that it's a step in the right direction. Natural gas comes with just about every downside of petroleum and coal. 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
billvon 2,998 #88 June 2, 2016 >Natural gas comes with just about every downside of petroleum and coal. I disagree there. Coal mining levels entire mountain ranges and fills in valleys, streams and rivers - AND has all the problems with wastewater you mention above. Natural gas power plants exhaust water, CO2 and some nitrous oxides. Coal plants exhaust water, CO2, NOx, SOx, particulates and HC pollution. A typical coal power plant generates more nuclear waste (thorium and uranium) than a nuclear power plant - and that all just gets dumped in unlined pits, or used to make bricks for schools. Particulate pollution kills about 7500 people a year (2010 estimate.) Gas power plants do not emit particulates. Most natural gas (by weight) is transported most of its distance via pipeline. All coal goes by road or rail. So while natural gas is far from ideal, it causes less problems, overall, than coal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #89 June 3, 2016 The Nation?!?! Rotflmao Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
