Three Way Discussion on Coal-Nuclear-Alternative Energy

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

The coal argument got away from my original point which is that coal is the most cost effective way to produce bulk energy other than nuclear power plants.

how do you define effective? ... producing greenhouse gases? ... causing health related issues?

I defined it as cost effective.

only if you don't quantify the impacts of using coal ... and it's not really that efficient in terms of energy production ...

nuclear is similar in that people don't want to talk about the ridiculous cost of building and maintaining nuclear ... much of our provincial debt is actually tied into our nuclear power plants here ...

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

The coal argument got away from my original point which is that coal is the most cost effective way to produce bulk energy other than nuclear power plants.

how do you define effective? ... producing greenhouse gases? ... causing health related issues?

I defined it as cost effective.

only if you don't quantify the impacts of using coal ... and it's not really that efficient in terms of energy production ...

nuclear is similar in that people don't want to talk about the ridiculous cost of building and maintaining nuclear ... much of our provincial debt is actually tied into our nuclear power plants here ...

How is coal inefficient?

Yes the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear plant is enormous. But, once it is in operation, they run very efficiently. Costs go down.

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

The coal argument got away from my original point which is that coal is the most cost effective way to produce bulk energy other than nuclear power plants.

how do you define effective? ... producing greenhouse gases? ... causing health related issues?

I defined it as cost effective.

only if you don't quantify the impacts of using coal ... and it's not really that efficient in terms of energy production ...

nuclear is similar in that people don't want to talk about the ridiculous cost of building and maintaining nuclear ... much of our provincial debt is actually tied into our nuclear power plants here ...

How is coal inefficient?

Yes the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear plant is enormous. But, once it is in operation, they run very efficiently. Costs go down.

when you factor in the resources required to utilize coal and the amount of energy you get from burning coal ... it's pretty inefficient ...

maintenance costs on nuclear are very high ... sure, on the assumption they work ok the first few years - it's cheap ... but as soon as you need a major overhaul - it's massive bucks again ...

with battery technology improving exponentially ... renewables become more and more the obvious choice ...

How? How are you going to make the power needed to put in the batteries? How exactly does a battery power a city?

Gtilley8 said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

polaris_x said:

Degeneratefk said:

The coal argument got away from my original point which is that coal is the most cost effective way to produce bulk energy other than nuclear power plants.

how do you define effective? ... producing greenhouse gases? ... causing health related issues?

I defined it as cost effective.

only if you don't quantify the impacts of using coal ... and it's not really that efficient in terms of energy production ...

nuclear is similar in that people don't want to talk about the ridiculous cost of building and maintaining nuclear ... much of our provincial debt is actually tied into our nuclear power plants here ...

How is coal inefficient?

Yes the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear plant is enormous. But, once it is in operation, they run very efficiently. Costs go down.

when you factor in the resources required to utilize coal and the amount of energy you get from burning coal ... it's pretty inefficient ...

maintenance costs on nuclear are very high ... sure, on the assumption they work ok the first few years - it's cheap ... but as soon as you need a major overhaul - it's massive bucks again ...

with battery technology improving exponentially ... renewables become more and more the obvious choice ...

How? How are you going to make the power needed to put in the batteries? How exactly does a battery power a city?

because the concerns of renewables such as solar and wind become irrelevant with battery storage ... also, the most efficient way to deliver energy needs is to localize it ... if we use coal for example - we mine it in one place ... deliver it far away to plant ... then deliver that electricity to another place which means that often that energy we are converting gets wasted ...

Look up bloom energy. They manufacture "servers" to provide the localized storage you speak of. As well as a bridge from fossil to renewable.

unsung said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

rgambs said:

Degeneratefk said:

Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

Why not?
There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.

Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.

You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
And yes, there are millions of jobs available.

Windows and solar would never have existed without subsidies.

brianlux said:

unsung said:

Kind of off topic.

Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

Almost everything on the train has been off topic today. Must be that kind of day! This thread went so far out of whack I had to change it's the thread title.

So what is the energy solution?

polaris_x said:

unsung said:

Kind of off topic.

Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...