Phasing out coal is the most significant environmental change the US can make

Whether you believe in climate change or not, you have to agree that pollution is a bad thing. The largest source of human CO2 emissions is coal for electricity generation. It contributes more than the entire transportation industry (as of 2006).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html

We have alternatives to coal that don't result in pollution, and these are nuclear and solar. What we should be doing is enacting a plan to phase out coal as fast as we can build solar and nuclear plants to replace them.

That said, reducing emissions from cars is still a good thing, but it's much easier to get off coal than it is to make significant reductions in emissions from transportation.

 

Well the problem with that plan is there is this thing called a Free Market, and the free market price for Solar and Windmill Powered energy is over 300 dollars a megawatt hour.

Nuclear is over 150 dollars a megawatt Hour.

Coal, 95 dollars a megawatt hour.

When it comes to consumers and the free market, that is all that matters and I don't care how envrionmentally conscious they are, when the utility bill comes in and it's 3-4 times as much as it could've been. They aren't going to give a rat's ass about "Climate Change" when their wallet is being drained.

We are decades, DECADES away from seeing Solar, Wind and Nuclear power dropping in cost per megawatt hour to 95 cents or less.

Until it does, your dreams are exactly that, pipe dreams.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources

The cost of nuclear is not that much higher than the cost of coal, and I think the benefits outweigh the cost. Also, this is not a truly free market. The government can, does, and should regulate pollution.

 

Well I'm glad that's what you think, but many millions of consumers would disagree with you.

To regulate a gas that we expel from our own bodies and put it in the same category as Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Mercury and Asbestos is a completely outrageous example of "going to far".

 

CO2 is just the most major output of coal, it is not the only pollutant:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html

 

CO2 is a pollutant.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/carbon-dioxide-everyones-favorite-pollutant.html

 

I have some optimism that coal will be phased out, at least in the United States. Environmental organizations have successfully halted many new coal plants, and government has been increasingly focused on the harms coal causes.

Coal consumption has been steadily declining over the last few years, while wind energy is soaring.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf

 

So you personally have the money to pay 300 dollars per megawatt hour? I sure as hell don't and i'm not accepting the proposed solution of taxing other people to subsidize my electricity bill, or support nationalization of the energy industry, which is pretty much what would have to take place for your vision to become a reality.

Is there anything you WON'T use government force to attain?

 

Which orifice did you pull "300 dollars per megawatt hour" from?

Stop being so alarmist. Wind power is already economically competitive with coal.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo06/special_topics.html

 

Renewable forms of energy like wind and solar require too much land. They interfere with the habitat of endangered species. As a result they will be tied up in court for years and years.

 

There are a lot of places where we can build solar systems with minimal impact to the environment (e.g. the desert). Nuclear is a good, clean solution for other areas.

 

Deserts have eco-systems as well. do you advocate destructions of eco-systems? Considering, desert eco-systems are far more fragile to other regions, do you consider that is OK?

 

However, the amount of damage it does to the environment is minimal compared to other types of construction we do. Houses, buildings, roads, etc. require paving the land. Solar plants do not. This does not result in significant damage to the environment, and it's not like we're talking about completely covering the deserts with solar panels.

 

I read your post, second in the thread, and realized I got nothing to add to what you said. I also no longer have a reason to read any of the other posts. You've said all that was needed to be said. You said all that matters.

So now I don't have to wait minutes for each page to load to read the other posts because I read your post instead.

 

There are only 3 source of energy, solar, nuclear and gravitational.

Coal, wood, and oil are stored solar energy, wind and waves are second generation solar energy

Fission reactors and geothermal are nuclear.

Tidal energy is gravitational.

At roughly 100W per square foot, there is more than enough solar energy hitting the planet.

Photo voltaic, even in the desert is good for 5 (fixed) to 7 (with tracking) hours a day. Once you provide the immediate needs, which at best is 50% of our total energy needs, more solar energy is a waste of money.

Neither wind power (second generation solar energy), nor tidal power (gravitational energy) are 24 hour a day.

The main problem is there is no effective means of storage.

Solar energy has been, and is stored, in plant matter. Other than coal and oil, natural gas is formed. Some, associated with coal and oil, but enough to meet global energy needs is deposited off the coast in the form of methane ice. And, methane ice is renewed by dying sea life.

Methane ice is also a huge danger if global temeperature increases a couple of degrees - for any reason. Once ocean temps increase enough for methane ice to melt, entering the atmosphere, a positive feedback loop begins.

Methane delivers twice the energy per ton of CO2 compared to coal.fortunately, we have no method of harvesting methane ice.

 

You leftists just never quit...

CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!! Good grief, it is a naturally existing molecule, mans contribution of which is infintesimal in relation to nature.

Admit it... all you want is for government control of people and resources!!! Admit it!!!!

Doesn't matter how you get it... violence, military force, brainwashing, propaganda, lies, smears, junk "science", doesn't matter... the ends always justifies the means doesn't it??? As long as you can destroy freedom, harm humanity, and advance collectivism... doesn't matter how you get there, does it???

Despicable, dishonest, disgusting... really, I don't know how you people sleep at night.

 

There are a lot of naturally occurring molecules that you don't want in any abundance. The Apollo program in 1967 found out what happens in 100% oxygen.

CO2 is the battle cry of the left, because their "the world is going into thermal runaway" models don't work without a fudge factor, and CO2 is their current fudge factor.

CO2 is also the source of our prosperity. Look at our progress (wealth) for the 10,000 years before, and the 200 years since discovering how to harness fossil fuels.

Being the left doesn't like prosperity (look how well they have pulled the poor our of poverty), CO2 is a great two-fer.

 

The far right doesn't like progress or prosperity apparently. Whale oil was once a source of prosperity, increasing quality of life by improving the safety and smell of oil lamps. Then whale populations began declining dramatically, entailing major economic and environmental consquences, a classic Tragedy of the Commons.

Horses were also a source of prosperity, as were inventions of early farming tools, and the incadescent bulb. I imagine those seeking to defend existing technology against the "threat" of new ones used similar arguments as yours, that if a resource was important in increasing prosperity, then not continuing to use that resource in ever-increasing amounts would bring society back to the stone age. The world progresses. Frankly, I think Edison would roll over in his grave thinking that there are some who don't embrace the progress of new and better lighting technology.

Fossil fuels are scarce resources, with horrendous growing environmental impacts - a relic of the 20th century. Better technology exists - the kind that utilizes sources that will never run out (not for billions of years). Best to harness it now.

 

No there aren't any places available for renewable energy because each and every project interferes with endangered species. That means we get to sue you guys in federal district court for the next two decades. This is called monkey wrenching the left.

 

Your side is going to have to litigate each and every issue over and over and over again. We on the right learned these tactics from environmental litigators. We'll make these projects so expensive that ultimately you will give up. The process is called monkey wrenching.

 

I agree , ReasonOverIdeology , that the Worlds nations need to wean themselves off of coal power , but other than getting rid of ' smoke-stack ' industry , coal is going to be around and used for many hundreds of years in the future , it's just a great energy source ...

and if I may add , in todays economic climate , coal is a more affordable energy source , but I do agree that nuclear / solar power is something that really needs to receive a top priority in R & D , and Gov't sponsored funding.

 

I agree. Coal is dirty and nasty for the enviornment.

 

Oh I have no doubts you fossil fuel addicts will continue to attack every renewable project, seeking to drive up energy costs while protecting the status quo, but I doubt it will work for long. In the U.S., renewable energy is advancing significantly. Coal is declining.

 

Yes but once electricity became widespread, the need for whale oil became mute does it not? Now we're so "whale crazy" the Japanese can't even enjoy a ancient cultural meal without videos being made of them pretending they are the moral equivalent of nazis in the death camp.

Embracing? Of course, as long as it's a natural outgrowth of consumer choice, rather consumer choice being forced by Government! You obviously don't understand that these arguments you are making are no different than the arguments made by the British Parliament in regards to the way the Home Country mandated everything from the tea you drank to the wool you bought, which incidentally were Government backed monopolies or oligopolies.. hmm.

This is a myth, the "better technology" has not reached the level of cost effectiveness necessary to be anything except a niche market. I really really hate to tell you this, but you are going to have to accept the fact that people are willing to risk a market correction forcing them to change rather than Government fiat telling them to change. Even if it hurts them more later on. They just don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

Americans trust the free market as "natural", Government fiat is not.

 

I believe that global warming is happening and that is man-made.

However there is a problem. Many people make a living producing coal in the U.S. and a mine cannot be exported. Where are these miners going to work?

Just asking.