@aspieresearchmom It's also the amount of land area required for the amount of power produced. My company just put a 50 acre solar project into service. It produces .5 megawatt (1/2 megawatt) using 50 acres. A typical coal plant like the one I work at is 1800 megawatt on 50 acres. That's 3600 times the power output per acre, making it a more useful use of land area. And a natural gas power plant is even more size efficient. And that's assuming the VERY BEST conditions for maximum solar output.
@aspieresearchmom PART 7: We also inject activated carbon ahead of the baghouses. This binds the mercury to the fly ash that the baghouses filter out. Not only does this allow the bahouses to filter out even more mercury, it also makes the mercury more inert (like it is in raw coal), which keeps it in place so that it's much less likely to pollute groundwater. More to come...
@aspieresearchmom PART 13: Yes, it IS necessary to use coal. Because like I've already CLEARLY stated, the alternatives we now have are NOT CURRENTLY producing enough megawatts of output to replace existing coal plants. For some reason you keep missing that. One day it may can be done, but right now it CANNOT be done. It will take YEARS of construction of alternative sources AND STORAGE METHODS in order for them to be able to produce enough megawatts AROUND THE CLOCK to replace coal.
@aspieresearchmom Part 22: I NEVER said that solar can't be used at home. However, this DOES still have limitations. It rules out the practicality (and therefore better efficiency) of solar-to-steam for power generation. And solar on each home versus solar at several big locations utiliziing an existing pwer grid is likely less cost-efficient. And there's the many years it takes for the energy savings to pay for the cost, whicch most homeowners can't pay for in the first place.
@JetMechMA I know. From mining to transportation to storage to power production to uses for the waste products (which are turned into raw materials), coal produces more jobs. Never said otherwise. I only addressed where he said a natural gas power plant can't produce as much power, which isn' t true, and I cited a coal plant and natural gas plant I've worked at in Florida as examples. I've worked at 1 coal and 2 natural gas plants in Florida, and currently at a coal plant in New Mexico.
@aspieresearchmom Using solar to make steam and then using that steam to produce electricity is more efficient than using solar cells to produce electricity. And existing steam turbines at coal fired plants can be used, with the steam from solar supplementing coal. The amount of coal required to produce electricity there can be reduced. However, you still can't produce steam with solar at night. Clouds reduce steam production, and so does cold weather. And you can't effectively store steam.
@aspieresearchmom PART 8: The waste materials produced at a coal plant are often used to replace raw materials that are mined. Fly ash is used to replace volcanic ash to make concrete and other things. The sulfur dioxide in the furnace exhaust is used to replace sulfur to make sulfuric acid, or is used to make gypsum which is used to make wallboard and other products. The slag is used to make sandblast media, concrete, and asphalt. More to come...
@noisypipes05 I also love how people think it is easy and replacing 50 percent of our energy production is something that takes a day to do. Science is not far enough for solar or wind to become a mainstay. Solar energy is only 12-15 percent efficient while coal is around 30-35. Coal is also loads cleaner then it was in the 50s thanks to scrubbers.
@aspieresearchmom PART 17: Something I noticed a few days ago. Was driving on vacation 2 days before Thanksgiving. Drove I-40 out of New MExico into Texas. Before I got to Texas, there were a bunch of wind turbines south of I-40 None of them were turning. There wasn't enough wind. Got into Texas, and there were more wind turbines north of I-40. Only a few were turning, and those were turning VERY slow, not fast enough to generate power. The rest were NOT turning. Again, not enough wind.
@noisypipes05 Okay, I misunderstood. But when you consider how many years the combustion turbine has been out and MW you can get from a CT now, then compare that to how many MW you could get from a coal-fired generator after they had been out the same number of years, CTs come out ahead. And although a simple cycle CT is less efficient than a coal-fired steam turbine generator, a combined-cycle CT is more efficient than coal. So I expect combined-cycle technology and CTs to be improved on.
@aspieresearchmom PART 11: Here's another thing I thought of. My company's new solar plant is .5 mw (1/2 megawatt) on 50 acres. So for a solar plant to produce the same 1800 mw as the coal plant my company owns would require 180,000 acres. Imagine the damage done to vegetation/wildlife by covering 180,000 acres with solar cells. And that doesn't even tell the whole story, since that 180,000 acres of solar cells would only produce 1800 mw on the brightest of days and ZERO at night.
@noisypipes05 Actually, a combined-cycle combustion turbine natural gas power plant CAN produce the same amount of power. And they can be started quicker, requiring much less warm-up time. As long as they are combined cycle (meaning the heat from the engine exhaust is used to make steam for a steam turbine), they are more efficient than coal power. I've worked at TECO's Big Bend (coal) and Bayside (natural gas) plants. Both are about the same MW capacity., So YES, natural gas can make as much.
@aspieresearchmom PART 23: Tell me, how many homeowners have the knowledge, tools, etc. to maintain their own solar plant? Woludn't a utility have people readily availble for troubleshooting/repairs/maintenance at a utulity-owned solar plant? YES. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective for the UTILITY to use solar power? YES. Homes, especially less efficient older homes RARELY have enough roof surface to power the whole home. Making older homes more effificient further adds cost.
@aspieresearchmom PART 24: I personally know a guy that spent $20k to add solar to his house. With the relatively low cost of power from the local utility (which is the same as my utility), and assuming a $100 a month electric bill from the utility (a LOT more than my bill), it would literally take 16.67 YEARS to pay for it. Wanna know another FACT? Solar cells have a lifespan like a battery does. It's likely he would need new cells before 10 years, which adds even MORE cost.
@WKHalford I have spent the better part of my life building power plants and when new construction isn't around then you'll find me at any major outtage. I have yet to see a single gas turbine produce the amount of energy as a single coal fired turbine. Siemens came out with the SGT5-8000H which is the most powerful engine out there...at 375 MW. Throw a HRSG on and its upto 570MW, but thats adding another turbine. Thats more or less what I was getting at.
There's enough coal to burn for over 1200 years, even with the increasing demands. The beauty of these plants is that they really go through great lengths to remove the toxic chemicals before it reaches the stacks. You can't compare coal burning to cigarettes. (Saying both kill you.) The stack exhausts produces a great deal of water vapor and no more CO2 than a city park puts out each night. It's a beautiful technology! And yes, trees do produce CO2 at night time.
@aspieresearchmom PART 3: Solar doesn't even produce at night, so figuring that into the equation makes it even less efficient. Then there's less production when it's cloudy and during shorter winter days. Hydro power varies according to seasons and rainfall. And the power output is often quite small. There's a few local hydropower dams here that are like 20-30 megawatt. And you can't put a hydropower dam just anywhere. Plus, are you naive enough to believe that hydropower causes no harm?
@aspieresearchmom PART 6: In the mean time, coal pollution reduction technologies are much better. My company switched to baghouse filtration to replace precipitators, and particulate output reduction went from 90+/-% of furnace output to 99+% of furnace output. That's less than 1% output. Mercury output is now also less than 1%, and is so low that current mercury output measuring technology has trouble measuring the super low amount of mercury in the stack emissions.
@stonerj0e Most of the mercury is removed BEFORE the process that makes gypsum, even more so if the plant uses baghouse filters instead of precipitators, and even more still if they use activated carbon injection. And the minuscule amount of mercury that the drywall MIGHT contain will be barely measurable (if at all), and won't hurt the homeowner unless the homeowner eats the drywall. And if a homeowner eats drywall, he's got MUCH more to worry about than just mercury.
@aspieresearchmom PART 12: So consider what I said in part 11 about no output at night. That alone would require DOUBLE the solar cells to produce twice as much in the daytime to make up for no nighttime output. So that's 360,000 acres of solar cells to make up for the output of the coal plant I work at, since it's dark half the time when averaged out over a year. Then how many more acres would be needed to make up for reduced output of cloudy days, snow, etc? Another 50,000 acres? Maybe more?
@aspieresearchmom PART 4: Wind power isn't always consistent. And by that I mean wind speed and wind force, not just whether or not the wind is blowing. And it's quite OBVIOUS that not every location in the USA produces enough wind. Plus, with the required wind generator spacing and 1.5 megawatt output per generator (again, under the VERY best conditions, usually less than 1.5 mw), how many acres of wind turbines do you think it takes to replace one coal plant?
@aspieresearchmom I don't have "studies" to give. I have a lot of experience in the power industry, as well as a lot of knowledge about various forms of power production, including "green" energy. It will take years before solar and wind will come close to replacing coal. And the issue with solar isn't JUST the pollution associated with the manufacturing process. It's the pollution versus power output. It's also the raw materials used versus power output. More to come...
@Allante715 Yeah...your wrong. Solar power is less than 1% of power in this country. It is ten times more expensive than coal and doesn't yield nearly as much electricity.
@aspieresearchmom Because coal-fired plants can't just be shut down. About 50% of our power production comes from coal-fired power plants. This basically means that at any given time half the country would need to be without power. Not only that, when you consider ALL the jobs from the mining and transporting of coal, to the power production, to the waste products that are turned into raw materials, coal power creates more jobs than any other form of power production.
@aspieresearchmom PART 21: You mention "expendable coal". Yes, it's expendable. However, there's 300 YEARS of coal available just in the USA. WHY NOT keep using it until there ARE enough viable alternatives to totally replace it? Then there's other possible uses, like liquid fuels. I see you also ignored what I said in parts 11/12 about the MANY THOUSANDS of acres of solar needed to replace ONE coal plant. You think THAT will have no local environmental impact?
@aspieresearchmom PART 5: With all the mw of power required by US consumers on a typical day, it will take MANY years of constant "green energy" construction to even come close to coal's current generation capacity. I figure at least 15 years, and that's assuming America doesn't go bankrupt before then. Fact is, wind, and especially solar, are way more expensive than building a coal plant (per mw of power output). And it's much more expensive than that to replace an EXISTING coal plant.
@aspieresearchmom PART 15: Eigg only has 80 people. And apparently they have just the right combination of land area and resources to supply their low population. Even then, each power consumer has to restricted by law as to how much they can use (5 mw per houshold, 10 mw per business). In contrast, the USA is OBVIOUSLY much bigger, making it all MUCH more complicated. I see you ignored what I said about how many THOUSANDS of acres are required for solar to replace ONE typical coal plant.
Its a good idea if you don't like walking into your home and flipping a switch for lights and then walking over to your computer to watch vids... Coal burners are the biggest producer of power we have. Natural gas burners are up and coming but cannot produce the same amount of power. Not to mention when a city adds a natural gas burner...guess what, the heating and gas bill for your home just went up by 15% and don't say you heat your house with electricity cause thats just a catch 22...
Speaking of Powder, I always thought that was a really good movie, except for the part at the end where Robert Smith comes out of a portable toilet and starts reciting dialog from Neil Simon's, "The Goodbye Girl," which was not Simon's best work. Frankly I have always preferred soda made with pure cane sugar instead of corn syrup because it mixes better with rum and/or Kaluha. However, back to my original point, you just can't have too many pairs of special Christmas socks.
@aspieresearchmom PART 16: You also seem to have ignored a lot of things I said. Like how you just can't shut down coal plants BEFORE you have the generation capacity to REPLACE THE OUTPUT OF THOSE PLANTS. Yes, I agree that we should be making efforts to increase our alternative sources. However, what many of these videos and environmentalists choose to NOT tell you (or maybe they just don't know what they are talking about) is that it's just not as simple as they make it seem.
@aspieresearchmom PARt 9: Using coal waste materials to replace raw materials that would be otherwise mined is, in itself, an environmental savings do to less mining for the raw materials they replace. And usually an energy savings as well. When you look at the BIG PICTURE of coal, the picture that environmentalists won't tell you, coal doesn't look quite so bad. Yes, it's still a bit dirty. Yes, we need VIABLE alternatives. But there is NO WAY we can just SUDDENLY shut down all coal plants.
Your just the type of person I like to argue with, sorry... 1 wind turbine creates 1.8-2 mega watts of electricity, the coal fired power house i'm working at right now will creats 914 megawatts. Meaning it would take over 500 wind turbines to equall the amount of energy of one power house. This plant i'm working at has 4 boilers feeding 4 turbines, about 3,600 megawatts. Can you imagine the land and the price that many wind turbines would take up?
@aspieresearchmom PART 18: This proves one point. Wind is unreliable. Even in a place like this, which is known for strong wind, the wind isn't 100% reliable. Engineers have also said how there very little room left for expansion of hydro power. Very few ideal spots left for new hydro. So, try and explain again how we can just shut down all coal plants and just rely on wind, solar, and hydro? Again, how can replace coal BEFORE we have reliable alternatives?
@aspieresearchmom PART 10: You said "Why don't we just get rid of coal fired plants ?" Well it's VERY simple. ANY running power plant (whether coal or not) needs a reliable, viable replacement BEFORE "we just get rid of coal fired plants". PERIOD. Not only does each area of the country need a certain mw of total power production at any given time, each area also needs a certain amount of reserve generation capacity. THIS IS A FACT. It will be MANY years before "green" energy will suffice.
@aspieresearchmom The "green" sources of energy are nowhere near enough to take over from coal. In most areas of the country, there's not enough wind. Solar only works during the day, and is greatly reduced by clouds, rain, snow. Neither is as cost effective as coal. Wind energy kills birds. Solar covers so much acreage, and native plants must die. Solar cells have a useful life span and will need replaced. Solar cells require polluting, dangerous chemicals to manufacture.
@aspieresearchmom PART 20: I very clearly stated in parts 17/18 how wind isn't relaible. This is FACT based on actual OBSERVATION. A while back you asked me to provide "sctientific studies". Well, much of scientific studies is simple OBSERVATION, just like I did when I saw all those wind turbines NOT TURNING. Yet you chose to fully ignore that. WHY? You say "coal will soon disappear". That is NOT true. It will NOT be soon. I figure realistically at least 15 years.
like i always say its a good idea (other than it'd put me out of work and hundreds of thousands of others) however our government likes putting money towards wars, not stuff that can make this country and world better...
@aspieresearchmom PART 14: To replace coal could further bankrupt our almost bankrupt country. You seem to have no idea HOW MUCH ALL THIS WILL COST. And don't point to government subsides as the solution, because (1) The government can't be fiscally responsible and (2) It STILL costs the taxpayers money, whether they pay higher taxes or higher electric bills. If we bankrupt the country trying to save the environment, how do you expect us to be able to afford to save the environment?
@WKHalford Not all solar is based at the solar plant, many homes can have self-sustaining solar too. The impact of solar is self-evident as the Earth and humans already need the sun to survive , and cleaner renewable energy will help sustain a healthy environment impact as well!
@WKHalford We already have reliable sustainable energy resources, they have always been here... We just need to harness them,& store the surplus. In meantime, there r many clean energy infrastructures to build to harness & store surplus wind, solar, & hydro, providing many American businesses/employees with contracts and income, so this is a win-win situation all the way. Jobs market & economy will flourish. "Need" for toxic expendable coal will soon disappear with the dinosaurs ;)
@aspieresearchmom PART 25: Not only that, the guy I mentioned doesn't even have enough solar to take his house off the grid on the sunniest of days, so he is STILL paying for SOME power.. And he still hasn't paid for the cost of storing electricity for night use. SO TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT HOW AMAZING AND CHEAP YOUR SOLAR GOD IS. And this guy has worked for years at the same coal-fired plant I do. Ironic, isn't it? Quit acting like you know something about electric power.
@aspieresearchmom PART 19: You keep ignoring several points. First, the loss of jobs from doing away with coal-fired plants, mines, transportation, and processign coal waste into usable raw materials (PERMANENT jobs) will MORE THAN OFFSET whatever TEMPORARY jobs will be created building the alternatives and storage means. Second, the alternatives cost WAY MORE $ per megawatt to construct, adding cost to the consumer and HURTING the economy. Add to that the cost of storage.
@aspieresearchmom It's also the amount of land area required for the amount of power produced. My company just put a 50 acre solar project into service. It produces .5 megawatt (1/2 megawatt) using 50 acres. A typical coal plant like the one I work at is 1800 megawatt on 50 acres. That's 3600 times the power output per acre, making it a more useful use of land area. And a natural gas power plant is even more size efficient.
And that's assuming the VERY BEST conditions for maximum solar output.
@aspieresearchmom PART 7: We also inject activated carbon ahead of the baghouses. This binds the mercury to the fly ash that the baghouses filter out. Not only does this allow the bahouses to filter out even more mercury, it also makes the mercury more inert (like it is in raw coal), which keeps it in place so that it's much less likely to pollute groundwater.
More to come...
The power plant i worked at we the same exact thing to capture mercury in flue gas and a different pac to help cut Nox.
@aspieresearchmom PART 13: Yes, it IS necessary to use coal. Because like I've already CLEARLY stated, the alternatives we now have are NOT CURRENTLY producing enough megawatts of output to replace existing coal plants.
For some reason you keep missing that.
One day it may can be done, but right now it CANNOT be done.
It will take YEARS of construction of alternative sources AND STORAGE METHODS in order for them to be able to produce enough megawatts AROUND THE CLOCK to replace coal.
@aspieresearchmom Part 22: I NEVER said that solar can't be used at home. However, this DOES still have limitations. It rules out the practicality (and therefore better efficiency) of solar-to-steam for power generation. And solar on each home versus solar at several big locations utiliziing an existing pwer grid is likely less cost-efficient. And there's the many years it takes for the energy savings to pay for the cost, whicch most homeowners can't pay for in the first place.
@JetMechMA I know. From mining to transportation to storage to power production to uses for the waste products (which are turned into raw materials), coal produces more jobs. Never said otherwise. I only addressed where he said a natural gas power plant can't produce as much power, which isn' t true, and I cited a coal plant and natural gas plant I've worked at in Florida as examples. I've worked at 1 coal and 2 natural gas plants in Florida, and currently at a coal plant in New Mexico.
@aspieresearchmom Using solar to make steam and then using that steam to produce electricity is more efficient than using solar cells to produce electricity. And existing steam turbines at coal fired plants can be used, with the steam from solar supplementing coal. The amount of coal required to produce electricity there can be reduced.
However, you still can't produce steam with solar at night. Clouds reduce steam production, and so does cold weather. And you can't effectively store steam.
@aspieresearchmom PART 8: The waste materials produced at a coal plant are often used to replace raw materials that are mined. Fly ash is used to replace volcanic ash to make concrete and other things. The sulfur dioxide in the furnace exhaust is used to replace sulfur to make sulfuric acid, or is used to make gypsum which is used to make wallboard and other products. The slag is used to make sandblast media, concrete, and asphalt.
More to come...
@noisypipes05
I also love how people think it is easy and replacing 50 percent of our energy production is something that takes a day to do. Science is not far enough for solar or wind to become a mainstay. Solar energy is only 12-15 percent efficient while coal is around 30-35. Coal is also loads cleaner then it was in the 50s thanks to scrubbers.
@aspieresearchmom PART 17: Something I noticed a few days ago. Was driving on vacation 2 days before Thanksgiving. Drove I-40 out of New MExico into Texas. Before I got to Texas, there were a bunch of wind turbines south of I-40 None of them were turning. There wasn't enough wind.
Got into Texas, and there were more wind turbines north of I-40. Only a few were turning, and those were turning VERY slow, not fast enough to generate power. The rest were NOT turning. Again, not enough wind.
@noisypipes05 Okay, I misunderstood.
But when you consider how many years the combustion turbine has been out and MW you can get from a CT now, then compare that to how many MW you could get from a coal-fired generator after they had been out the same number of years, CTs come out ahead.
And although a simple cycle CT is less efficient than a coal-fired steam turbine generator, a combined-cycle CT is more efficient than coal. So I expect combined-cycle technology and CTs to be improved on.
@aspieresearchmom PART 11: Here's another thing I thought of. My company's new solar plant is .5 mw (1/2 megawatt) on 50 acres. So for a solar plant to produce the same 1800 mw as the coal plant my company owns would require 180,000 acres.
Imagine the damage done to vegetation/wildlife by covering 180,000 acres with solar cells.
And that doesn't even tell the whole story, since that 180,000 acres of solar cells would only produce 1800 mw on the brightest of days and ZERO at night.
@noisypipes05 Actually, a combined-cycle combustion turbine natural gas power plant CAN produce the same amount of power. And they can be started quicker, requiring much less warm-up time. As long as they are combined cycle (meaning the heat from the engine exhaust is used to make steam for a steam turbine), they are more efficient than coal power.
I've worked at TECO's Big Bend (coal) and Bayside (natural gas) plants. Both are about the same MW capacity., So YES, natural gas can make as much.
@aspieresearchmom PART 23: Tell me, how many homeowners have the knowledge, tools, etc. to maintain their own solar plant? Woludn't a utility have people readily availble for troubleshooting/repairs/maintenance at a utulity-owned solar plant? YES. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective for the UTILITY to use solar power? YES. Homes, especially less efficient older homes RARELY have enough roof surface to power the whole home. Making older homes more effificient further adds cost.
@aspieresearchmom PART 24: I personally know a guy that spent $20k to add solar to his house. With the relatively low cost of power from the local utility (which is the same as my utility), and assuming a $100 a month electric bill from the utility (a LOT more than my bill), it would literally take 16.67 YEARS to pay for it. Wanna know another FACT? Solar cells have a lifespan like a battery does. It's likely he would need new cells before 10 years, which adds even MORE cost.
@WKHalford I have spent the better part of my life building power plants and when new construction isn't around then you'll find me at any major outtage. I have yet to see a single gas turbine produce the amount of energy as a single coal fired turbine. Siemens came out with the SGT5-8000H which is the most powerful engine out there...at 375 MW. Throw a HRSG on and its upto 570MW, but thats adding another turbine. Thats more or less what I was getting at.
Great job. I love American ingenuity.
There's enough coal to burn for over 1200 years, even with the increasing demands. The beauty of these plants is that they really go through great lengths to remove the toxic chemicals before it reaches the stacks.
You can't compare coal burning to cigarettes. (Saying both kill you.) The stack exhausts produces a great deal of water vapor and no more CO2 than a city park puts out each night. It's a beautiful technology! And yes, trees do produce CO2 at night time.
@aspieresearchmom PART 3: Solar doesn't even produce at night, so figuring that into the equation makes it even less efficient. Then there's less production when it's cloudy and during shorter winter days.
Hydro power varies according to seasons and rainfall. And the power output is often quite small. There's a few local hydropower dams here that are like 20-30 megawatt. And you can't put a hydropower dam just anywhere. Plus, are you naive enough to believe that hydropower causes no harm?
@aspieresearchmom PART 6: In the mean time, coal pollution reduction technologies are much better. My company switched to baghouse filtration to replace precipitators, and particulate output reduction went from 90+/-% of furnace output to 99+% of furnace output. That's less than 1% output. Mercury output is now also less than 1%, and is so low that current mercury output measuring technology has trouble measuring the super low amount of mercury in the stack emissions.
@stonerj0e Most of the mercury is removed BEFORE the process that makes gypsum, even more so if the plant uses baghouse filters instead of precipitators, and even more still if they use activated carbon injection. And the minuscule amount of mercury that the drywall MIGHT contain will be barely measurable (if at all), and won't hurt the homeowner unless the homeowner eats the drywall.
And if a homeowner eats drywall, he's got MUCH more to worry about than just mercury.
@aspieresearchmom PART 12: So consider what I said in part 11 about no output at night. That alone would require DOUBLE the solar cells to produce twice as much in the daytime to make up for no nighttime output.
So that's 360,000 acres of solar cells to make up for the output of the coal plant I work at, since it's dark half the time when averaged out over a year.
Then how many more acres would be needed to make up for reduced output of cloudy days, snow, etc? Another 50,000 acres? Maybe more?
@aspieresearchmom PART 4: Wind power isn't always consistent. And by that I mean wind speed and wind force, not just whether or not the wind is blowing. And it's quite OBVIOUS that not every location in the USA produces enough wind. Plus, with the required wind generator spacing and 1.5 megawatt output per generator (again, under the VERY best conditions, usually less than 1.5 mw), how many acres of wind turbines do you think it takes to replace one coal plant?
@aspieresearchmom I don't have "studies" to give. I have a lot of experience in the power industry, as well as a lot of knowledge about various forms of power production, including "green" energy.
It will take years before solar and wind will come close to replacing coal.
And the issue with solar isn't JUST the pollution associated with the manufacturing process. It's the pollution versus power output. It's also the raw materials used versus power output.
More to come...
@Allante715 Yeah...your wrong. Solar power is less than 1% of power in this country. It is ten times more expensive than coal and doesn't yield nearly as much electricity.
Great video and 5 rate!!!!
@aspieresearchmom Because coal-fired plants can't just be shut down. About 50% of our power production comes from coal-fired power plants. This basically means that at any given time half the country would need to be without power.
Not only that, when you consider ALL the jobs from the mining and transporting of coal, to the power production, to the waste products that are turned into raw materials, coal power creates more jobs than any other form of power production.
@aspieresearchmom PART 21: You mention "expendable coal". Yes, it's expendable. However, there's 300 YEARS of coal available just in the USA. WHY NOT keep using it until there ARE enough viable alternatives to totally replace it?
Then there's other possible uses, like liquid fuels.
I see you also ignored what I said in parts 11/12 about the MANY THOUSANDS of acres of solar needed to replace ONE coal plant. You think THAT will have no local environmental impact?
@aspieresearchmom PART 5: With all the mw of power required by US consumers on a typical day, it will take MANY years of constant "green energy" construction to even come close to coal's current generation capacity. I figure at least 15 years, and that's assuming America doesn't go bankrupt before then. Fact is, wind, and especially solar, are way more expensive than building a coal plant (per mw of power output). And it's much more expensive than that to replace an EXISTING coal plant.
Yup; that evil mercury goes into wallboards. (Tongue firmly in cheek)
@aspieresearchmom PART 15: Eigg only has 80 people. And apparently they have just the right combination of land area and resources to supply their low population.
Even then, each power consumer has to restricted by law as to how much they can use (5 mw per houshold, 10 mw per business).
In contrast, the USA is OBVIOUSLY much bigger, making it all MUCH more complicated.
I see you ignored what I said about how many THOUSANDS of acres are required for solar to replace ONE typical coal plant.
Its a good idea if you don't like walking into your home and flipping a switch for lights and then walking over to your computer to watch vids... Coal burners are the biggest producer of power we have. Natural gas burners are up and coming but cannot produce the same amount of power. Not to mention when a city adds a natural gas burner...guess what, the heating and gas bill for your home just went up by 15% and don't say you heat your house with electricity cause thats just a catch 22...
Speaking of Powder, I always thought that was a really good movie, except for the part at the end where Robert Smith comes out of a portable toilet and starts reciting dialog from Neil Simon's, "The Goodbye Girl," which was not Simon's best work. Frankly I have always preferred soda made with pure cane sugar instead of corn syrup because it mixes better with rum and/or Kaluha. However, back to my original point, you just can't have too many pairs of special Christmas socks.
@aspieresearchmom PART 16: You also seem to have ignored a lot of things I said. Like how you just can't shut down coal plants BEFORE you have the generation capacity to REPLACE THE OUTPUT OF THOSE PLANTS.
Yes, I agree that we should be making efforts to increase our alternative sources.
However, what many of these videos and environmentalists choose to NOT tell you (or maybe they just don't know what they are talking about) is that it's just not as simple as they make it seem.
@aspieresearchmom PARt 9: Using coal waste materials to replace raw materials that would be otherwise mined is, in itself, an environmental savings do to less mining for the raw materials they replace. And usually an energy savings as well.
When you look at the BIG PICTURE of coal, the picture that environmentalists won't tell you, coal doesn't look quite so bad. Yes, it's still a bit dirty. Yes, we need VIABLE alternatives.
But there is NO WAY we can just SUDDENLY shut down all coal plants.
Yeah man...Dutch Gap.
Your just the type of person I like to argue with, sorry... 1 wind turbine creates 1.8-2 mega watts of electricity, the coal fired power house i'm working at right now will creats 914 megawatts. Meaning it would take over 500 wind turbines to equall the amount of energy of one power house. This plant i'm working at has 4 boilers feeding 4 turbines, about 3,600 megawatts. Can you imagine the land and the price that many wind turbines would take up?
@aspieresearchmom PART 18: This proves one point. Wind is unreliable. Even in a place like this, which is known for strong wind, the wind isn't 100% reliable.
Engineers have also said how there very little room left for expansion of hydro power. Very few ideal spots left for new hydro.
So, try and explain again how we can just shut down all coal plants and just rely on wind, solar, and hydro?
Again, how can replace coal BEFORE we have reliable alternatives?
@aspieresearchmom PART 10: You said "Why don't we just get rid of coal fired plants ?"
Well it's VERY simple. ANY running power plant (whether coal or not) needs a reliable, viable replacement BEFORE "we just get rid of coal fired plants". PERIOD.
Not only does each area of the country need a certain mw of total power production at any given time, each area also needs a certain amount of reserve generation capacity. THIS IS A FACT.
It will be MANY years before "green" energy will suffice.
I cant agree better buddy:)
@aspieresearchmom The "green" sources of energy are nowhere near enough to take over from coal. In most areas of the country, there's not enough wind. Solar only works during the day, and is greatly reduced by clouds, rain, snow. Neither is as cost effective as coal. Wind energy kills birds. Solar covers so much acreage, and native plants must die. Solar cells have a useful life span and will need replaced. Solar cells require polluting, dangerous chemicals to manufacture.
@aspieresearchmom PART 20: I very clearly stated in parts 17/18 how wind isn't relaible. This is FACT based on actual OBSERVATION.
A while back you asked me to provide "sctientific studies". Well, much of scientific studies is simple OBSERVATION, just like I did when I saw all those wind turbines NOT TURNING. Yet you chose to fully ignore that. WHY?
You say "coal will soon disappear". That is NOT true. It will NOT be soon. I figure realistically at least 15 years.
like i always say its a good idea (other than it'd put me out of work and hundreds of thousands of others) however our government likes putting money towards wars, not stuff that can make this country and world better...
@aspieresearchmom PART 14: To replace coal could further bankrupt our almost bankrupt country. You seem to have no idea HOW MUCH ALL THIS WILL COST. And don't point to government subsides as the solution, because (1) The government can't be fiscally responsible and (2) It STILL costs the taxpayers money, whether they pay higher taxes or higher electric bills.
If we bankrupt the country trying to save the environment, how do you expect us to be able to afford to save the environment?
Them bcwp's!
@WKHalford Not all solar is based at the solar plant, many homes can have self-sustaining solar too. The impact of solar is self-evident as the Earth and humans already need the sun to survive , and cleaner renewable energy will help sustain a healthy environment impact as well!
@WKHalford We already have reliable sustainable energy resources, they have always been here... We just need to harness them,& store the surplus. In meantime, there r many clean energy infrastructures to build to harness & store surplus wind, solar, & hydro, providing many American businesses/employees with contracts and income, so this is a win-win situation all the way. Jobs market & economy will flourish. "Need" for toxic expendable coal will soon disappear with the dinosaurs ;)
@aspieresearchmom PART 25: Not only that, the guy I mentioned doesn't even have enough solar to take his house off the grid on the sunniest of days, so he is STILL paying for SOME power..
And he still hasn't paid for the cost of storing electricity for night use. SO TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT HOW AMAZING AND CHEAP YOUR SOLAR GOD IS.
And this guy has worked for years at the same coal-fired plant I do. Ironic, isn't it?
Quit acting like you know something about electric power.
@aspieresearchmom PART 19: You keep ignoring several points. First, the loss of jobs from doing away with coal-fired plants, mines, transportation, and processign coal waste into usable raw materials (PERMANENT jobs) will MORE THAN OFFSET whatever TEMPORARY jobs will be created building the alternatives and storage means.
Second, the alternatives cost WAY MORE $ per megawatt to construct, adding cost to the consumer and HURTING the economy. Add to that the cost of storage.
Why don't we just get rid of coal fired plants ?