The Problem with Renewable Energy....

nitanee123

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2001
5,796
2,410
1
They don't want prosperity. Shit, if they did, they would have followed what Trump did. Your party is loaded with idiots.

The founding fathers underestimated the potential destruction caused by the ego of politicians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox

Monlion

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2001
1,263
1,387
1
lets play "name that president" shall we? Who proposed:

The immediate goal of the President's proposed coal program is to increase the production of coal, presently at about 680 million tons per year, by 400 million tons per year by

A second goal is to provide efficient, economically feas- ible technologies for the longer term that will support the substitution of coal for oil and gas.

A major component of the proposed user tax is the existence of tax rebates to industries that convert to coal. An industrial user would have the option of either using an additional 10 percent investment tax credit or taking a rebate of up to that year's oil or gas tax and investing the rebate in coal conver- sion. Utilities would have the option of receiving a rebate on the user tax paid to be used for new construction which would help accelerate the retirement of facilities burning gas or oil.
Jimmy Carter
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve G

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
They don't want prosperity. Shit, if they did, they would have followed what Trump did. Your party is loaded with idiots.
Again, urban voters aren't hurt by a decline in coal employment and they benefit from lower pollution.
Many democratic voters are urban voters so it isn't surprising most democrats are not defending coal.
There are still a few democrats in coal states that do defend coal but most don't.
Coal is crap though and it should be discontinued from electricity generation as soon as possible.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
Again, urban voters aren't hurt by a decline in coal employment and they benefit from lower pollution.
Many democratic voters are urban voters so it isn't surprising most democrats are not defending coal.
There are still a few democrats in coal states that do defend coal but most don't.
Coal is crap though and it should be discontinued from electricity generation as soon as possible.

Urban voters live in pollution. Garbage doesn't get picked up. Human feces on the street. Needles. Drugs. Violence. Gangs.

I hope your electricity goes off first when the shortages hit. You dummies deserve it.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
I'm all for building natural gas plants Jeff. You are your part hate them too. Meanwhile, electricity shortages loom because your side is composed of unhinged zealots who can't think past their outstretched hand.

We've made huge technological strides in the ability to burn coal and mitigate pollution.

https://www.powermag.com/using-technology-to-tackle-power-plant-emissions/

Heck, I'm working on a job with a firm in CA to capture the carbon from the exhaust and either re-use it, or send it several miles into the Earth's crust. Carbon capture. You can learn about it in the article.

Think about this Jeff. This is how far technology has come. The town upstream from me pulls its water from the river, cleans it up, sends it to its citizens where it is consumed. Downstream, past the dam, is their sewage treatment plant cleans up the sewage and puts the effluent BACK INTO THE RIVER.

Guess what happens next? My town pulls water from the river, cleans it up, and sends it to its citizens. Then downstream, past the dam (of course), the sewage treatment plant cleans up the sewage and puts the effluent BACK INTO THE RIVER.........

Guess how many times that happens on average? Like 7. Water is "recycled" 7 times on average before it hits the ocean.

See how technology works Jeff?
It is unlikely any of these technologies will save coal.
Coal is dirty and companies will need to spend more to clean up its pollution than their non coal competitors.
And coal is already not cost competitive and the extra expense will make it even less competitive.
And that article you linked, the carbon capture tech was used on a biomass plant, not coal.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
It is unlikely any of these technologies will save coal.
Coal is dirty and companies will need to spend more to clean up its pollution than their non coal competitors.
And coal is already not cost competitive and the extra expense will make it even less competitive.
And that article you linked, the carbon capture tech was used on a biomass plant, not coal.

m.knox: Jeff, there are technologies that help clean up coal.
Jeff: Coal is dirty
m.knox: Did you read about carbon capture technology
Jeff: Coal is dirty
m.knox: CO2 is captured from any combustion process
Jeff: Coal is dirty
m.knox: Natural gas is another great option
Jeff: Coal is dirty....

lmfao....
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
remind us what you said about liberals and coal?

I'm sure liberals in 1860 wanted more coal too...... There's no gotcha here Steve.

Liberals HATE coal and have hated it for DECADES.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
m.knox: Jeff, there are technologies that help clean up coal.
Jeff: Coal is dirty
m.knox: Did you read about carbon capture technology
Jeff: Coal is dirty
m.knox: CO2 is captured from any combustion process
Jeff: Coal is dirty
m.knox: Natural gas is another great option
Jeff: Coal is dirty....

lmfao....
Wow you are really stupid. I did read about the carbon capture tech you posted and it was for biomass not coal.
And other sources of energy won't have to spend as much as coal to capture carbon and coal is already more expensive so it is unlikely this will be a feasible solution for coal electricity.
And I have repeated myself many many times that I believe a mix natural gas, renewables and nuclear will be supplying our electricity in the near future, so your above comment is complete garbage like all your posts.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,070
37,490
1
For generating electricity, the only fossil fuel companies are investing in the U.S. is natural gas.
Coal is still around because the coal plants have already been built and their owners still make more money by running them than they would by shutting them down.
But they aren't building any new plants and eventually all those coal plants will be closed. As for China, they are building coal plants for a variety of reasons.
These are all government decisions and they often make decisions based on politics.
Coal plants provide not only electricity but employment for coal miners, and money for well connected politicians.
In China they have built whole cities that nobody lives in because some government bureaucrat decided it would be a good idea to build them, probably with a lot of incentive from construction companies.
You're a fool blinded by your ideology. The one thing I'll agree with is that coal plants in the U.S. are propped up by politicians who don't want to lose coal jobs in their district. Could you imagine if Joe Manchin came out against coal in West Virginia?

That said, coal has given way to natural gas. Natural gas is relatively inexpensive and it burns clean so the transition makes sense. Coal has not given way to solar and wind. The growth in those areas is largely due to subsidies and regulations making coal expensive.

You act like China and India are stupid. You act like they could power their economies with renewable energy but they just aren't smart enough. That's absurd. Also explain why Germany wanted a pipeline from Russia. Are German politicians stupid too?
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
Wow you are really stupid. I did read about the carbon capture tech you posted and it was for biomass not coal.
And other sources of energy won't have to spend as much as coal to capture carbon and coal is already more expensive so it is unlikely this will be a feasible solution for coal electricity.
And I have repeated myself many many times that I believe a mix natural gas, renewables and nuclear will be supplying our electricity in the near future, so your above comment is complete garbage like all your posts.

LOL..... Let's talk about stupid................. It's Carbon Dioxide Jeff. The technology captures carbon dioxide...... You know, the greenhouse gas that is generated when you burn any organic matter.

Meanwhile................ There is no reason for electrical shortages other than leftwing zealous ideologues LIKE YOU.

Does America Have a Secret Energy Source? Yes, It's Coal​

https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...secret_energy_source_yes_its_coal_831781.html

With energy-driven inflation a stubborn problem, this new surge in gas prices couldn’t come at a worse time. The addition of renewable power to temper gas demand will help but it’s hardly a cure-all. Wind and solar power are already the fastest growing sources of power but together they still only meet roughly 13% of U.S. power demand and are not reliable sources of electricity. Also building the transmission infrastructure needed to connect them to urban centers from the sunniest and windiest regions of the country remains an enormous challenge. Opposition to new interstate power lines is such a problem transmission additions have actually decreased when experts tell us they need to increase significantly.

Ensuring that energy inflation doesn’t get far worse is going to require an energy policy reset that gets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) agenda in line with energy pragmatism. It may seem anathema to the Biden administration’s climate goals but it’s time to reevaluate the importance of the coal fleet and put EPA’s daggers away.

The best hedge consumers have against high natural gas prices is the coal fleet that continues to meet 20% of U.S. power demand -- and double that in some regions of the country. These plants provide security to the grid and offer choices in fuel use.

When gas prices soar – as they are now – coal generation rises, shielding rate payers from higher power costs. Unfortunately, much of the coal fleet is facing a renewed regulatory push that could see it disappear just when it’s needed most. Half the coal fleet that existed a decade ago is gone and utilities have already scheduled the closure of dozens of more plants. In some regions coal plants are closing sooner than anticipated and complicating electricity reliability. Several regional transmission organizations forecast very tight electricity supplies this summer. There is an increased probability of forced blackouts.

EPA has signaled it’s about to use every tool at its disposal to accelerate coal plant closures. That’s a mistake policymakers must make sure doesn’t happen. We should be able to do things in an intelligent way. A pragmatic energy approach accelerates renewable energy deployment while also ensuring the coal fleet remains a near-term buffer against soaring natural gas prices.

Coal capacity is also playing an unheralded but critical role in preserving grid reliability when renewable generation has faltered. Blackouts have hit California and Texas in recent years and the grid operator for the Midwest is now warning that some states could see rolling blackouts this year for lack of enough generating capacity.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
You're a fool blinded by your ideology. The one thing I'll agree with is that coal plants in the U.S. are propped up by politicians who don't want to lose coal jobs in their district. Could you imagine if Joe Manchin came out against coal in West Virginia?

That said, coal has given way to natural gas. Natural gas is relatively inexpensive and it burns clean so the transition makes sense. Coal has not given way to solar and wind. The growth in those areas is largely due to subsidies and regulations making coal expensive.

You act like China and India are stupid. You act like they could power their economies with renewable energy but they just aren't smart enough. That's absurd. Also explain why Germany wanted a pipeline from Russia. Are German politicians stupid too?
The pipeline to Germany was natural gas. Natural gas is ok, it's too bad the gas is from Russia.
As for the subsidies, sure a carbon tax would be better but it isn't politically practical at the moment.
Think of subsidies as rewarding companies for not polluting the air.
And the growth in renewables has taken a chunk out of the coal industry.
As for Chinese and Indian politicians, yes they often are stupid as politicians around the world can be.
India is one of the worst run countries in the world and China isn't far behind.
Did you see my earlier link of the ghost cities in China?
There are roughly 50 cities where hardly anyone lives because some Chinese bureaucrat thought they would be a good idea to build.
Politicians in every country will often make decisions based on political expediency, and one big political draw is employment.
Coal plants provide jobs to plant workers and coal miners and China and India are two of the biggest producers of coal in the world.
 

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
24,291
28,003
1
An altered state
so close was actually.......... Jimmy Carter
You are such a loser. Catch stupid. Jeffclear dishonest.

Do you realize that was nearly fifty years ago? Before the internet, cell phones, home computers. Cars were massive gas hogs. The Soviet Union was the beast of the globe. US in decline. China was backward country stuck in the previous century. In short a completely different world.

Carter was faced with massive oil shortages due to OPEC. Nat gas was in very short supply because fracking hadn’t been invented. Carter proposed this because we desperately needed energy source from h9me instead of MideastOPEC oil.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
LOL..... Let's talk about stupid................. It's Carbon Dioxide Jeff. The technology captures carbon dioxide...... You know, the greenhouse gas that is generated when you burn any organic matter.

Meanwhile................ There is no reason for electrical shortages other than leftwing zealous ideologues LIKE YOU.

Does America Have a Secret Energy Source? Yes, It's Coal​

https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...secret_energy_source_yes_its_coal_831781.html

With energy-driven inflation a stubborn problem, this new surge in gas prices couldn’t come at a worse time. The addition of renewable power to temper gas demand will help but it’s hardly a cure-all. Wind and solar power are already the fastest growing sources of power but together they still only meet roughly 13% of U.S. power demand and are not reliable sources of electricity. Also building the transmission infrastructure needed to connect them to urban centers from the sunniest and windiest regions of the country remains an enormous challenge. Opposition to new interstate power lines is such a problem transmission additions have actually decreased when experts tell us they need to increase significantly.

Ensuring that energy inflation doesn’t get far worse is going to require an energy policy reset that gets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) agenda in line with energy pragmatism. It may seem anathema to the Biden administration’s climate goals but it’s time to reevaluate the importance of the coal fleet and put EPA’s daggers away.

The best hedge consumers have against high natural gas prices is the coal fleet that continues to meet 20% of U.S. power demand -- and double that in some regions of the country. These plants provide security to the grid and offer choices in fuel use.

When gas prices soar – as they are now – coal generation rises, shielding rate payers from higher power costs. Unfortunately, much of the coal fleet is facing a renewed regulatory push that could see it disappear just when it’s needed most. Half the coal fleet that existed a decade ago is gone and utilities have already scheduled the closure of dozens of more plants. In some regions coal plants are closing sooner than anticipated and complicating electricity reliability. Several regional transmission organizations forecast very tight electricity supplies this summer. There is an increased probability of forced blackouts.

EPA has signaled it’s about to use every tool at its disposal to accelerate coal plant closures. That’s a mistake policymakers must make sure doesn’t happen. We should be able to do things in an intelligent way. A pragmatic energy approach accelerates renewable energy deployment while also ensuring the coal fleet remains a near-term buffer against soaring natural gas prices.

Coal capacity is also playing an unheralded but critical role in preserving grid reliability when renewable generation has faltered. Blackouts have hit California and Texas in recent years and the grid operator for the Midwest is now warning that some states could see rolling blackouts this year for lack of enough generating capacity.
The carbon capture mentioned in the link was foe biomass and it isn’t a given that the same technology would work for coal.
Plus, coal is so dirty it will require more cleaning than competing sources of energy, increasing the cost of coal.
Coal mining should be reserved for metallurgical coal and not be used for electricity.
As for the linked article, I disagree that coal is the best alternative. Personally, I think we will probably have to build a few nuclear plants to go along with natural gas and renewables and they will have to be subsidized because nuclear plants are expensive and are a risky long term investments but they do provide a relatively clean source of electricity, so they should be compensated for their relative cleanliness.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
The carbon capture mentioned in the link was foe biomass and it isn’t a given that the same technology would work for coal.
Plus, coal is so dirty it will require more cleaning than competing sources of energy, increasing the cost of coal.
Coal mining should be reserved for metallurgical coal and not be used for electricity.
As for the linked article, I disagree that coal is the best alternative. Personally, I think we will probably have to build a few nuclear plants to go along with natural gas and renewables and they will have to be subsidized because nuclear plants are expensive and are a risky long term investments but they do provide a relatively clean source of electricity, so they should be compensated for their relative cleanliness.

LOL... You think repeating yourself like a dumbass is going to make you right?

And there you go again, "coal is dirty."..... lmfao....

https://www.mtrinc.com/our-business/carbon-capture/

Learn. Please learn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
LOL... You think repeating yourself like a dumbass is going to make you right?

And there you go again, "coal is dirty."..... lmfao....

https://www.mtrinc.com/our-business/carbon-capture/

Learn. Please learn.
It's because you are thick headed and incapable of logic.
I'll try again, coal, by its very nature is dirty, sure you can install pollution controls and clean it up but it costs money and coal is already expensive and not competitive and it will be even more expensive and even less competitive if they install extra equipment to remove the pollution.
See to get the coal "clean" they have to spend a bunch of money.
Now coal's competitors don't have to spend the money that coal does because they aren't as dirty.
And it appears these coal plant operators agree with me because they aren't building any new ones.
Because they can make more money building natural gas plants or renewables like solar and wind.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
It's because you are thick headed and incapable of logic.
I'll try again, coal, by its very nature is dirty, sure you can install pollution controls and clean it up but it costs money and coal is already expensive and not competitive and it will be even more expensive and even less competitive if they install extra equipment to remove the pollution.
See to get the coal "clean" they have to spend a bunch of money.
Now coal's competitors don't have to spend the money that coal does because they aren't as dirty.
And it appears these coal plant operators agree with me because they aren't building any new ones.
Because they can make more money building natural gas plants or renewables like solar and wind.

LOL... You allegedly have a degree in English Literature, and I have from the College of Science. You can't even fathom what Carbon Dioxide is let alone capture it. "The article says "biomass."" lmfao....

Just remember Jeff Unclear, when the electricity shortages come, we have a SECRET WEAPON!!!

It's not about "making money", it's about generating electricity Americans WANT and NEED.

https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...secret_energy_source_yes_its_coal_831781.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
LOL... You allegedly have a degree in English Literature, and I have from the College of Science. You can't even fathom what Carbon Dioxide is let alone capture it. "The article says "biomass."" lmfao....

Just remember Jeff Unclear, when the electricity shortages come, we have a SECRET WEAPON!!!

It's not about "making money", it's about generating electricity Americans WANT and NEED.

https://www.realclearenergy.org/art...secret_energy_source_yes_its_coal_831781.html
English literature, not even close.
Pretty much every expert in the industry agrees that coal is in its death throes for generating electricity.
"U.S. coal-fired generating capacity is set to take a record plunge in 2028 in advance of tough environmental rules, with more than 23 GW scheduled to come offline, dwarfing the previous retirements record set in 2015.

Under price pressure from renewable power and a national move away from high-emission fuels, utilities plan to shutter 51 GW of coal power from 2022 through 2027, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence analysis. But in 2028 alone, retirements will jump by 23 GW, and that doesn't include the retirements of the 1,700-MW Conemaugh and 1,700-MW Keystone coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania that were reported by media. As in 2015, when a rule establishing strict mercury emissions limitations went into effect, plants will be shuttering to avoid complying with new environmental rules.

"It's going to get worse before it gets better," said Steve Piper, director of energy research at Market Intelligence. "We're going to see more retirements coming up."

The collapse in the cost of wind and solar power along with years of low natural gas prices left coal power a high-priced, high-emissions source of electricity. Power generators are increasingly building solar and wind resources when retiring coal-fired power plants. Utilities have already been retiring their coal plants at a rapid clip, with 71.4 GW of coal-fired power plant capacity taken offline since 2015. In particular, the midwestern U.S. is set to lead the next wave of power plant retirements as plants age and their prospects appear increasingly dim."

As for carbon capture
"Coal plant operators have also held out hope for years that carbon capture technology would become cheap enough to let them burn coal with far fewer carbon emissions, but the technology has not yet been sufficiently established.

"I don't know that utilities can bank on that as a tool that they're going to have in their tool belt in the timeframes that it's needed," Julia Hamm, president and CEO of the Smart Electric Power Alliance, said in an interview.

The coal power plant base will likely continue to atrophy."
 
  • Like
Reactions: rumble_lion

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
English literature, not even close.
Pretty much every expert in the industry agrees that coal is in its death throes for generating electricity.
"U.S. coal-fired generating capacity is set to take a record plunge in 2028 in advance of tough environmental rules, with more than 23 GW scheduled to come offline, dwarfing the previous retirements record set in 2015.

Under price pressure from renewable power and a national move away from high-emission fuels, utilities plan to shutter 51 GW of coal power from 2022 through 2027, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence analysis. But in 2028 alone, retirements will jump by 23 GW, and that doesn't include the retirements of the 1,700-MW Conemaugh and 1,700-MW Keystone coal-fired power plants in Pennsylvania that were reported by media. As in 2015, when a rule establishing strict mercury emissions limitations went into effect, plants will be shuttering to avoid complying with new environmental rules.

"It's going to get worse before it gets better," said Steve Piper, director of energy research at Market Intelligence. "We're going to see more retirements coming up."

The collapse in the cost of wind and solar power along with years of low natural gas prices left coal power a high-priced, high-emissions source of electricity. Power generators are increasingly building solar and wind resources when retiring coal-fired power plants. Utilities have already been retiring their coal plants at a rapid clip, with 71.4 GW of coal-fired power plant capacity taken offline since 2015. In particular, the midwestern U.S. is set to lead the next wave of power plant retirements as plants age and their prospects appear increasingly dim."

As for carbon capture
"Coal plant operators have also held out hope for years that carbon capture technology would become cheap enough to let them burn coal with far fewer carbon emissions, but the technology has not yet been sufficiently established.

"I don't know that utilities can bank on that as a tool that they're going to have in their tool belt in the timeframes that it's needed," Julia Hamm, president and CEO of the Smart Electric Power Alliance, said in an interview.

The coal power plant base will likely continue to atrophy."

You are agreeing with everything I just said.

The result? Your political party is causing electricity shortages. Any guess on who Biden will blame for that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
You are agreeing with everything I just said.

The result? Your political party is causing electricity shortages. Any guess on who Biden will blame for that?
Apparently you forgot to mention "Under price pressure from renewable power and a national move away from high-emission fuels, utilities plan to shutter 51 GW of coal power from 2022 through 2027, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence analysis."
And the stricter pollution regulations are for mercury.
Only a moron would want power plants to spew toxic mercury into our air and water, especially when there are better alternatives.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
Apparently you forgot to mention "Under price pressure from renewable power and a national move away from high-emission fuels, utilities plan to shutter 51 GW of coal power from 2022 through 2027, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence analysis."
And the stricter pollution regulations are for mercury.
Only a moron would want power plants to spew toxic mercury into our air and water, especially when there are better alternatives.

We have technology to remove Mercury.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac...ed carbon,than 90% mercury removal efficiency.

BTW, our federal government mandated spreading Mercury.

https://www.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

Summary: Your political party is too dumb to avoid electricity shortages.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
We have technology to remove Mercury.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.9b02825#:~:text=Among these technologies, activated carbon,than 90% mercury removal efficiency.

BTW, our federal government mandated spreading Mercury.

https://www.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

Summary: Your political party is too dumb to avoid electricity shortages.
There certainly is technology to remove the mercury but it isn't cheap so companies are closing coal plants rather than pay for the upgrades.
Summary, you are too dumb to realize coal is close to being obsolete for generating electricity in the USA.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
There certainly is technology to remove the mercury but it isn't cheap so companies are closing coal plants rather than pay for the upgrades.
Summary, you are too dumb to realize coal is close to being obsolete for generating electricity in the USA.

LOL... You are too dumb to realize that we are running out of electricity because of zealous ideologues like you are your political party.

Meanwhile, much of the world is doing the smart thing for their people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
LOL... You are too dumb to realize that we are running out of electricity because of zealous ideologues like you are your political party.

Meanwhile, much of the world is doing the smart thing for their people.
You are too stupid to realize that coal poisons the environment with mercury, sulphur and arsenic.
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
You are too stupid to realize that coal poisons the environment with mercury, sulphur and arsenic.

Technology stops all that Jeff. We live in a modern world. No matter what source of energy is used, resources will be consumed and by products will be generated. It's from humans being on the Earth. Coal has warmed people for hundreds if not thousands of years, and we are all still here, and doing great.

You and your party of irrational idiots.......
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
Technology stops all that Jeff. We live in a modern world. No matter what source of energy is used, resources will be consumed and by products will be generated. It's from humans being on the Earth. Coal has warmed people for hundreds if not thousands of years, and we are all still here, and doing great.

You and your party of irrational idiots.......
Technology is the reason coal powered electricity is obsolete.
Yes there is technology to clean up coal but the technology also exists to produce power at a lower cost.
And just because we have used something a long time doesn't mean we should keep using it especially when something else comes around that is better.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,643
5,468
1
Technology stops all that Jeff. We live in a modern world. No matter what source of energy is used, resources will be consumed and by products will be generated. It's from humans being on the Earth. Coal has warmed people for hundreds if not thousands of years, and we are all still here, and doing great.

You and your party of irrational idiots.......

Coal has warmed people for hundreds if not thousands of years, and we are all still here, and doing great.

Why did we ever stop using whale oil?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeffClear

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
Coal has warmed people for hundreds if not thousands of years, and we are all still here, and doing great.

Why did we ever stop using whale oil?

We found coal. Duh..... I mean, you are in Jeff Clear territory now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: junior1

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
106,381
60,238
1
Technology is the reason coal powered electricity is obsolete.
Yes there is technology to clean up coal but the technology also exists to produce power at a lower cost.
And just because we have used something a long time doesn't mean we should keep using it especially when something else comes around that is better.

So you are celebrating fracking!!! LOL... You might get kicked out of your party for celebrating fracking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan and bdgan

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
61,070
37,490
1
So you are celebrating fracking!!! LOL... You might get kicked out of your party for celebrating fracking.
He actually thinks wind and solar are cheaper than coal or gas and leaders in China, India, Japan, etc. just don't realize it. Or Germany for that matter.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sullivan and m.knox

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
He actually thinks wind and solar are cheaper and leaders in China, India, Japan, etc. just don't realize it. Or Germany for that matter.
What are you talking about?
You make no sense at all. Try speaking in complete sentences for a change.
What exactly do I think I wind and solar are cheaper than?
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,072
6,376
1
What are you talking about?
You make no sense at all. Try speaking in complete sentences for a change.
What exactly do I think I wind and solar are cheaper than?
I don't know where Jeff lives, but when I lived in PA - 2 years ago - every year at electricty provider contract time, they would give a price for unit. Then they would offer a rate for renewable electricity, and every year the rate for renewable was HIGHER. So maybe renewable is cheaper somewhere, but it wasn't for me.
 

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,963
13,002
1
Yes really.
"

As of 2020, according to a report published by Energy Innovation Policy and Technology, 80% of existing U.S. coal plants are more expensive to keep in operation than replacing them with new wind and solar projects. In Nebraska, the same study showed this to be true for five of the state’s seven active plants, with four of these plants operating at a cost 29% or more higher than new wind.
There are a few key factors that play into this shift:
  • Renewable energy is gaining momentum—and getting a lot less expensive. Wind and solar technologies have greatly improved in the past decade, resulting in increased effectiveness, which is appealing to energy investors and communities alike. As demand has increased, so too has supply, driving down the cost of the parts and hardware required to get wind turbines and solar panels built and operational. Research conducted by Our World in Data found that in 10 years, the price of solar electricity has dropped 89%, and the price of onshore wind has dropped 70%.
  • Outdated coal plants are expensive to maintain. The inefficiencies of aging coal plants cause a significant financial strain to the business. The older they become, the more costs tied to operations and maintenance grow. To maintain current operations, many are forced to raise their energy prices or close entirely. According to Energy Innovation Policy and Technology’s Coal Cost Crossover 2.0 report, 158 U.S. plants have been retired since 2012.
  • Many coal plants are in debt. Many of the coal plants that aren’t shutting their doors are facing another obstacle—debt carried by the local co-ops that run them. As a result, dollars that could be spent making these plants more efficient or installing emission-control equipment are used to pay off long-standing bills. "


Cihina is building coal plants faster than the U.S is shutting them down:

 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
9,782
3,900
1
Cihina is building coal plants faster than the U.S is shutting them down:

Just because the Chinese are building them doesn’t mean we should too.
The Chinese government does a lot of stupid things. They don‘t even need the extra capacity because their current power plants only run at 50 percent capacity.
But China’s coal industry is state owned and there is political pressure to create jobs so they are building power plants they don’t need.
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
6,072
6,376
1
Cihina is building coal plants faster than the U.S is shutting them down:

Wow and no one on the left seems to want to "cancel" china
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan and Sullivan

Sullivan

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2001
16,963
13,002
1
Just because the Chinese are building them doesn’t mean we should too.
The Chinese government does a lot of stupid things. They don‘t even need the extra capacity because their current power plants only run at 50 percent capacity.
But China’s coal industry is state owned and there is political pressure to create jobs so they are building power plants they don’t need.

That’s quite the spin. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.