flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

[jk]

Natural Gas Hits a Roadblock in New Energy Bill

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: September 6, 2009


HOUSTON — The natural gas industry has enjoyed something of a winning streak in recent years. It found gigantic new reserves, low prices are encouraging utilities to substitute gas for coal, and cities are switching to buses fueled by natural gas.


But its luck has run out in Washington, where the industry is having trouble making its case to Congress as it writes an energy bill to tackle global warming.

For all its pronouncements that gas could be used to replace aging, inefficient coal-fired power plants — and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the process — lawmakers from coal-producing states appear committed to keeping coal as the nation’s primary producer of power.
[and so on]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/bu.../07gas.html?hp

[Starving Steve]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

Two big benefits of staying with coal: 1.) Coal means lots of jobs mining coal; 2.) Coal is plentiful and cheap.

I can't think of much wrong with coal especially with scrubbers for particulates and sequestration of CO2.

The future for generating electricity will be atomic power, natural gas, hydro-electricity, and yes, that four-letter word: coal.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

Two big benefits of staying with coal: 1.) Coal means lots of jobs mining coal; 2.) Coal is plentiful and cheap.

I can't think of much wrong with coal especially with scrubbers for particulates and sequestration of CO2.

The future for generating electricity will be atomic power, natural gas, hydro-electricity, and yes, that four-letter word: coal.

Don't forget the fastest-growing source of new generation in the US: windpower. And not only is it the fastest growing source-- windpower represented the majority of all newly installed generation capacity in 2008.

[GRG55]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

Don't forget the fastest-growing source of new generation in the US: windpower. And not only is it the fastest growing source-- windpower represented the majority of all newly installed generation capacity in 2008.

Sounds like a bubble...

[Starving Steve]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

China is the leading wind-power producer in the world. And with China's massive wind production, China Central Television Channel 9 underscored the key fact from their forests of windmills and major investment in solar panels. In real time, live on TV for everyone to see, the actual output from wind and solar combined failed to even meet 1% of China's gross electric power demand.

China's electric power is over 99% supplied from atomic power plants, hydro-electric dams, and coal-fired power plants. End of story.

[BlackVoid]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

Steve: GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. Please.
China is the number one producer of wind turbines, but they are nowhere near being #1 in installed capacity.
The USA is the 1st in installed capacity with 25 GW. China is number 4 with 12 GW.

Wind power is the fastest growing energy generation method worldwide, in absolute numbers too. But its a long process to increase wind power, it cannot happen overnight.


"I can't think of much wrong with coal especially with scrubbers for particulates and sequestration of CO2."

I see a problem, since there is no sequestration of CO2 anywhere. It is just a plan. A bad plan, because it would make call power more expensive than wind. Another problem is that coal production has already peaked in the US. Not for quantity, but for energy content.

As for nuclear, planned power plants in the next decade do not even make up the decline by plants decommissioned.

[bcassill]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

Can someone please explain why we are not looking at geothermal? It seems a relatively inexpensive way to produce power:

1. You drill a bunch of holes into the ground (deep enough where the ground temperature reaches 200 - 400 degrees F)
2. Water is forced under pressure into some of the holes.
3. The water is heated and forced by up as steam in the other holes.

How easy is this???? No pollution, no greenhouse gases, no nothing. Just add water. Does anyone know the relative cost effectiveness of producing energy like this vs. other methods like NG? And can this be broken down by start up costs vs. long term maintenance costs? Just curious.

[Starving Steve]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

If you want to go geo-thermal, be my guest: Open-up YOUR cheque-book and call in the drillers.:rolleyes:

While geo-thermal could make some sense when and if another Empire State Building in New York City is built, you be there on-the-spot with YOUR cheque-book, not mine, and not the tax-payer's cheque-book either. Build-in the fancy geo-thermal heating system into your building-project with YOUR money, not via government grants, and not thru pot-head accounting schemes such as carbon-credits.:rolleyes:

[Starving Steve]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

Steve: GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. Please.
China is the number one producer of wind turbines, but they are nowhere near being #1 in installed capacity.
The USA is the 1st in installed capacity with 25 GW. China is number 4 with 12 GW.

Wind power is the fastest growing energy generation method worldwide, in absolute numbers too. But its a long process to increase wind power, it cannot happen overnight.


"I can't think of much wrong with coal especially with scrubbers for particulates and sequestration of CO2."

I see a problem, since there is no sequestration of CO2 anywhere. It is just a plan. A bad plan, because it would make call power more expensive than wind. Another problem is that coal production has already peaked in the US. Not for quantity, but for energy content.

As for nuclear, planned power plants in the next decade do not even make up the decline by plants decommissioned.

1.) We need jobs for real people, starving people like me.
2.) We have lignite coal deposits in North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Saskatchewan. We also have vast coal deposits in West Virginia where work is desperately needed for real people, not geeks.
3.) GE has already exported 180 atomic reactors this year, if my memory has served me correctly. Check on this number, but the number is very high. The exports are to China, India, and other countries with real honest-to-goodness energy PLANNING.
4.) As for CO2 sequestration in coal-fired power plants, check with Duke Power Company. They do it very well, thank you. I own their stock too, symbol DUK on the NYSE.

My brother just got his electric bill for ONE MONTH here in the hills south of San Jose: $375 for 29 days of electric power. So go take your windmills and your solar panels and shove them xx xxxx xxx.

I deal in realities, not pot-head economics and not promises from pot-heads in the environmental movement.:rolleyes:

[BlackVoid]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

Does anyone know the relative cost effectiveness of producing energy like this [geothermal] vs. other methods like NG? And can this be broken down by start up costs vs. long term maintenance costs? Just curious.

For heating geothermal is a good solution. For electicity generation is not so good. Upfront costs are the smallest for NG power plants. From all renewables only wind is really effective, with an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of about 20. For electricity genereration all other "alternatives" are not really competitive with fossil fuels. Not even nuclear.
There are some fundamental problems:
1. Upfront costs for renewable (and nuclear) energy sources are generally much higher.
2. Efficiency (EROEI) calculation is not standardized and very hard to do in general. That is why you see wild assumptions for many energy sources. Still EROEI for alternatives is much lower than for oil, gas and coal.
3. Compared to NG, coal and oil, most energy generation is expensive (except wind), especially since the infrastructure supporting these kind of plants is already built.

For EROEI data (comparing energy return on energy investment) see these charts:
http://images.google.com/images?q=co...N&hl=en&tab=wi

Wind is really the cheapest renewable energy source that we have, it is no wonder that wind power is growing faster than any other. But it has its problems too: intermittent generation, lack of power lines and roads in windy areas. Still, wind is a very good idea, but needs investment in the power distribution infrastructure as well.

[BlackVoid]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

3.) GE has already exported 180 atomic reactors this year, if my memory has served me correctly. Check on this number, but the number is very high. The exports are to China, India, and other countries with real honest-to-goodness energy PLANNING.

There are currently about 50 nuclear plants under construction worldwide. If GE has shipped that many reactors in a year (which I doubt) then they must go into nuclear powered ships.

Wind is cheaper than coal in the long run, because it never runs out.
See this:

World Coal Reserves Could Be a Fraction of Previous Estimates

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...rld-coal-rese/

[jk]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

1. duke energy's co2 sequestration effort appears to consist of paying people to NOT cut down trees that already exist. real sequestration is - so far- a dream. if they were to take agricultural lands and pay to revert them to forest, then you'd have net sequestration. unfortunately, we'd eventually run out of agricultural lands, not to mention driving up the cost of food.

2. eroei can be very misleading. the type of energy produced, the quality, is of importance, not just the raw joules. liquid fuel for transportation, for example, is more valuable than the equivalent energy in other forms.

[Starving Steve]

Re: flash: "lawmakers from coal-producing states committed to keeping coal [as] 1o power source"

Wind does NOT need investment in power infra-structure. NO WAY! The problem with wind is that the places where it is windy---- southern Alberta, Montana, North Dakota, Soth Dakota, western Nebraska, Saskatchewan, Wyoming, Colorado, west Texas--- are NOT the places where the power is needed.

So, one may plug working and producing windmills into the existing power grid, but the additional power added by wind is partly (maybe mostly:rolleyes lost thru transmission distance. This is a HUGE problem.

And don't give me this "we can invent super-conductors" crap. You don't have them invented now to replace gold as a conductor, and gold is way too expensive to use.

Stop smoking pot in the universities. Maybe the engineering just might improve.

Yes, you can put windmills on your house, but they look like sh*t. And most homes do not have hurricane-force winds every day except for those homes sited in the states and provinces mentioned above.

So wind is a joke, just like tidal power in the Sooke Basin was a joke on Vancouver Island. The more you get into it, the more it proves itself to be a cruel joke. :rolleyes:

[Starving Steve]

There are currently about 50 nuclear plants under construction worldwide. If GE has shipped that many reactors in a year (which I doubt) then they must go into nuclear powered ships.

Wind is cheaper than coal in the long run, because it never runs out.
See this:

World Coal Reserves Could Be a Fraction of Previous Estimates

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...rld-coal-rese/

General Electric also makes atomic power plants for ships including aircraft carriers and submarines. Thank you for reminding me.

Hopefully, with Jack Welch gone from GE, things might improve. (GE stock has been decimated thanks to the leadership from Jack Welch.)

You commented also that coal might run-out.

There is no shortage of coal in North America, especially lignite coal in North Dakota and Saskatchewan. West Virginia and Pennsylvania also have vast supplies of coal along with hungry people who need work. Coal is also plentiful in Wyoming, Montana, Alberta, and yes, pot-head British Columbia.

And here is something for the record books: The mining of uranium in British Columbia is forbidden under provincial law.... So, the slow starvation of people is just fine in BC, but the mining of uranium is strictly forbidden. ( And you may wonder why I hate pot-heads? )