Coal can't 'rebound', it can't even bounce! When coal hits something solid it shatters.
Changing to natural gas is only marginally less disruptive to the enviornment than coal is - they both put CO2 into the atmosphere.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Changing to natural gas is only marginally less disruptive to the enviornment than coal is - they both put CO2 into the atmosphere.
Natural gas produces about 45 percent less CO2 than coal per unit of energy. The logic of switching to natural gas was to reduce CO2 emissions while renewables were being developed and energy efficiency was increased.
Over the long haul, policy makers want to move toward a combustion-free society. Municipalities are banning natural gas in new housing developments and during full remodels. Here is a link to a story about this.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-are-banning-natural-gas-in-new-homes-because-of-climate-change/
AnthonyV The move away from coal happened at least thirty years ago. I wrote of this in another thread a while back. My first job was with a world-wide consulting firm in 1990. In July 1990, the head of the EPA Global Change Division gave a company-wide presentation about global warming. As I wrote in that post, I expected the effort to focus on nuclear power. Instead, the plan was to shift from coal to natural gas, increase energy efficiency, and to increase renewables. Nuclear power was relegated to a mere footnote. I cannot remember the details of how each of these would be achieved, but I was flabbergastered that nuclear wasn't the primary means of reducing CO2 emmisions. I still feel the same in 2020.
The move away from coal happened at least thirty years ago. I wrote of this in another thread a while back. My first job was with a world-wide consulting firm in 1990. In July 1990, the head of the EPA Global Change Division gave a company-wide presentation about global warming. As I wrote in that post, I expected the effort to focus on nuclear power. Instead, the plan was to shift from coal to natural gas, increase energy efficiency, and to increase renewables. Nuclear power was relegated to a mere footnote. I cannot remember the details of how each of these would be achieved, but I was flabbergastered that nuclear wasn't the primary means of reducing CO2 emmisions. I still feel the same in 2020.
Years ago, in another life, I was trained as a Radiation Safety Officer. It wasn't a graduate level course by any means, but what I learned had me, and still has me, firmly with you. While the prospect of radiation accidents are daunting for various reasons, the long term requirements of humanity mean that a direct pipe from the sun, or nuclear generation here on Earth, are the future of our existence. Only kidding about the former.
Obviously several serious accidents plus the problems with spent fuel created a negative situation.
However, it seems to me as an amateur that new developments such as mini reactors and improved safety seem to make nuclear an essential component in reducing CO2 emissions. But convincing others is not easy.
AnthonyV BaltACD Changing to natural gas is only marginally less disruptive to the enviornment than coal is - they both put CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural gas produces about 45 percent less CO2 than coal per unit of energy. The logic of switching to natural gas was to reduce CO2 emissions while renewables were being developed and energy efficiency was increased. Over the long haul, policy makers want to move toward a combustion-free society. Municipalities are banning natural gas in new housing developments and during full remodels. Here is a link to a story about this. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-are-banning-natural-gas-in-new-homes-because-of-climate-change/
45% is still marginal - now if we come up with a process that uses CO2 as the power source for the majority of our power needs, then we will have something.
A little more progress on the fusion side of nuclear energy. MIT is ready to build the next expermental fusion reactor that will theoretically produce twice as much power as you put into it.
https://news.mit.edu/2020/physics-fusion-studies-0929
AnthonyVOver the long haul, policy makers want to move toward a combustion-free society. Municipalities are banning natural gas in new housing developments and during full remodels. Here is a link to a story about this. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-are-banning-natural-gas-in-new-homes-because-of-climate-change/
I can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces. I suppose in those Californis cities mentioned, that heating is not a large expense, but in colder climates it would be a major expense. It might drive people to propane, which would be a worse CO2 generator.
MidlandMikeI can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces.
Or all electric (ie, commercial), but that power has to come from somewhere.
Even solar and wind have come under fire for various reasons. People fight wind in this area.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 MidlandMike I can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces. I would suspect the answer would be "green." Right now your choices are basically solar and wind, with some battery thrown in for good measure. Or all electric (ie, commercial), but that power has to come from somewhere. Even solar and wind have come under fire for various reasons. People fight wind in this area.
MidlandMike I can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces.
I would suspect the answer would be "green." Right now your choices are basically solar and wind, with some battery thrown in for good measure.
We need a mix of energy choices in order to maintain price stability. Otherwise, if you put all your eggs in one basket, you are captive and vulnerable to someone raising the price.
As the price of green energy rises, the cost will need to be paid by conservation. So, conservation will become the new green energy.
charlie hebdo Obviously several serious accidents plus the problems with spent fuel created a negative situation.
Problem with focusing on well publicized "serious accidents" is that the death and injury toll from much more frequent minor incidents can easily exceed the toll from the major incidents. As far as I know, there have been no fatalities in the general public directly attributable to an serious accident at a commercial nuclear generating station. I do know of two incidents (there may be more) in the last 21 years where members of the general public have been killed by failures of natural gas pipelines.
Waste storage is more of a political problem than technical, although there may be an advantage in prolonging above ground storage for a long a time as reasonably possible.
I can understand banning gas stoves for the indoor air pollution, but I wonder what legal theory they are using to ban gas for furnaces.
My understanding is that the ban is intended to eliminate the need for natural gas infrasctructure - there are a fair number of people who want to ban frac'ing. At least frac'ing sand generates a fair amount of RR traffic.
One problem with banning gas is that it presupposes that there is a reliable source of electricity. An additional problem is the push to go "all-renewable" for electric power production, which will require massive amounts of energy storage to be practical. With current technologies, the amount of mining needed to provide the materials for energy storage may make coal mining a clean alternative.
I have relatives in southern California. The rolling blackouts are fairly constant. One wonders how all the electric cars for the 2035 mandate will be powered in addition to the current load that they seem to be having great difficulty serving.
Mind you, I have nothing against electric cars, or solar or wind as part of an overall strategy.
What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen. How will emergency vehicles operate? How will hospitals stay operating if their load is larger than what rooftop solar can provide. If you can't get fuel to run a backup generator, what are the options?
There seem to be many questions related to an all or nothing strategy.
kgbw49What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen. How will emergency vehicles operate? How will hospitals stay operating if their load is larger than what rooftop solar can provide. If you can't get fuel to run a backup generator, what are the options?
Works as well as anything else they seem to know how to implement in California.
One of the issues is that both 'clean coal' and nuclear have fairly dramatic stranded capital cost -- the figures I was familiar with for the simpler clean coal alternatives show a ~35% increase in the cost of power for the former, plus the lead time involved in procuring and building out the equipment. I thought then, and really still do, that the 'correct' use of coal is processing via some version of SRC, which puts the carbon into a form useful for other industries and purposes and can get rid of the ash and metals content effectively in the chemistry. At least some of the cost of the SRC plant and operations, and of sequestration of the flue gas (probably via recompression to ~35atm where the CO2 naturally separates) can be justified as 'public good'; I have actually advocated that these be parts of the planning for a Green New Deal (if we can agree on properly safe conditions for miners).
Frankly I don't see the proper support for nuclear of almost any kind, particularly the thorium scam... we can't support it as a society at present, and the likelihood of adopting, say, an EdF model here does not seem too great. I notice that China, with the capital access needed for large economy of scale in nuclear development, seems to have done nothing even to encourage theoretical development (e.g. via university grants); I don't know if they have anything like the akademgorodok system for training nuclear engineers, but it wouldn't be difficult for them, if they had the interest... I think we'd see more if they did, though.
Big target for the 'Biden plan' continues to be not better wrap of existing buildings, but proper combination of 'ground source heat pump' geothermal and IAQ improvement. The most important thing there is ramping up the necessary knowledge and skills in the next four years... the operational model to accomplish that looking amusingly like the startup of the business plan for emu meat. Of course if that's to be accomplished within the culture of the existing unions, the training needed to start, oh, about the end of the Obama administration. To me this is more evidence of chronic shortsightedness for the past "over 20 years" that another poster brought up a couple of weeks ago.
The same here. The"swoosh" of the blades can drive you nuts and impacts on sleeping. Plus the folks arround here are mainly in the know as to the damage the turbine blades can do to the birds and especially the raptors. I did read where one of the Nordic countries (I can't remember which one) is now testing painting one of the blades black to see if it helps with the bird kill. But eagles weren't mentioned specifically in the article so maybe they aren't a factor in that country.
"I read somewhere that the waste issue would be reduced for nuclear energy if we weren't against breeder reactors that could recycle the present waste into more fuel sources. It wouldn't eliminate contaminated waste from nuclear power facilities, but it would reduce the more intense sources."
kgbw49What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen.
Extending the concept outside of California -
The Ice Storm of '98 here took out as many as 10,000 poles, including some major transmission towers. We got power at my house after a week only because the utility brought in a large portable generator to an area substation and fired up what they could.
Some areas were out for two weeks and more.
The area affected ran from the eastern Lake Ontario region well into Quebec.
During one of those ice storms CN ran a old MLW M420 down a street and plugged it into a hospital.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Remember reading about that in Trains..
https://steemit.com/history/@kiligirl/remembering-canada-s-worst-ice-storm-ever-part-5-postscript-what-happened-in-my-home-town
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/194245.aspx
tree68 kgbw49 What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen. Extending the concept outside of California - The Ice Storm of '98 here took out as many as 10,000 poles, including some major transmission towers. We got power at my house after a week only because the utility brought in a large portable generator to an area substation and fired up what they could. Some areas were out for two weeks and more. The area affected ran from the eastern Lake Ontario region well into Quebec.
kgbw49 What happens at the next big earthquake when electric lines are down for weeks and charging can't happen.
If I remember correctly - that was in early December - it wreaked havoc through the Carolina's, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania in route to New York and Canada.
It basically coincided with my Winter vacation when I was in Jacksonville and gave me my easiest trip to Maryland - ever. Very little traffic on I-95 but you could see all the damage along the way.
kgbw49 I have relatives in southern California. The rolling blackouts are fairly constant. One wonders how all the electric cars for the 2035 mandate will be powered in addition to the current load that they seem to be having great difficulty serving.
The irony in all this.. California imports most of it's electricity from coal fired generation in the intermountain west.. Prime example.. Six municipalities in California are the largest shareholder in the Intermoutain Power Agency located in Delta, Utah. Which operates one of the largest coal fired generating stations in the country. Can you guess which ones? The hint is they are all in Southern Califronia.. Mind you this plant will be converted to gas by 2025.
BaltACDIf I remember correctly - that was in early December...
Late January 1998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1998_North_American_ice_storm
tree68 BaltACD If I remember correctly - that was in early December... Late January 1998 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_1998_North_American_ice_storm
BaltACD If I remember correctly - that was in early December...
There was a similar storm 'sometime' in a early December that ravaged the Carolinas and Virginia - the year is lost in the gray matter.
BaltACDThere was a similar storm 'sometime' in a early December that ravaged the Carolinas and Virginia - the year is lost in the gray matter.
No reason to doubt it.
What did people do for heat for 2 weeks in those cold climates?
MidlandMikeWhat did people do for heat for 2 weeks in those cold climates?
Burned wood in wood stoves, used kerosene heaters (Kerosun, etc). Some people had generators.
I dug out my wood stove and got some firewood from a friend.
The FD spent a lot of time making the rounds pumping basements, or at least providing power to sump pumps. There was a lot of water involved between the ice and the snow that fell after the ice.
Many more people have generators now, both portable and built in.
Perhaps the more interesting ice-storm result was the one in north Louisiana in the early 1990s, which took down nearly all the overhead power lines. I lived in a neighborhood -- and it was one of the better ones in Springhill -- where the electric power was out 35 days. A couple of local supermarkets were wall-to-wall utility trucks at night for much of that time...
I'd like to be able to say this was the wake up call to use better distribution infrastructure. It was put back about as expediently as it had been.
Perhaps the more interesting ice-storm result was the one in north Louisiana in the early 1990s, which took down nearly all the overhead power lines. I lived in a neighborhood -- and it was one of the "better" ones in Springhill -- where the electric power was out 35 days. A couple of local supermarkets were wall-to-wall utility trucks at night for much of that time...
OvermodI'd like to be able to say this was the wake up call to use better distribution infrastructure. It was put back about as expediently as it had been.
The local utility is still dealing with the aftermath here. Because they needed so many poles, they bought what they could find, some of which were substandard.
As well, many outside utility companies were called on to assist. Some weren't as diligent as may have been desired.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.