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

Renewable energy is more labor intensive than coal. There are more jobs per capacity installed than coal provides, and they tend to be better and safer jobs.

 

Sure, and now we have alternatives to fossil fuels, to where the need to consume them at ever-increasing rates is rapidly becoming unnecessary. Take a look at Albert's post. They are starting to have problems beating the alternatives through economic arguments.

The so-called "free market" doesn't entirely exist in this case. Fossil fuel interests control the strings of government, keeping trillions dollars of our money flowing to the middle east to protect their interests. In West Virginia, the criminal activity of mountaintop removal continues because industry controls government puppets there. Big Coal is largely shielded from massive environmental, health, and economic costs that comes with it. We are already paying for it indirectly.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html

If you think the costs of burning fossil fuels is limited to your utility bill and gas prices, you're entirely naive.

 

But require a high degree of education that 75% of Americans simply do not have and seem to show little to no inclination to pursue.

They want the shuttered factory down the street to reopen it's doors and hire them for 20 bucks an hour. They don't want to go to school to become a technician.

 

You mischaracterize my position. I think renewables would be wonderful, but they aren't going to happen in America. It is in the interest of Big Oil and Gas to keep renewables and alternatives tied up in court so they never become available. But the environmental movement itself will stop renewables. Don't believe me? Here's the proof:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/05/us-solar-idUSTRE70432N20110105

Read it and weep. See you in court forever. Hoisted on your own petard.

 

Those will have to be UNION jobs that raise the cost of development sky high.

 

Venture capital is moving out of cleantech because the federal and state subsidies are drying up.

 

Sure - a few projects are delayed, but it's not stopping the industries as a whole from advancing.

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec2_13.pdf

Wind is on pace to advance another 40% this year, despite NIMBY opposition and shaky economy. Coal is down 10% from a few years ago.

Coal has had much greater difficulty in recent years.

http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/plantlist.aspx

 

Not all clean tech requires higher education, some only needing HS or above around installation, transportation, and factory assembly line, but it's funny you think quality jobs are a bad thing.

 

The point is to keep renewables and alternatives in their infancy. They need venture capital. Venture capital won't flow into those technologies without govt. subsidies, and no litigation. The govt subsidies won't be renewed because the left doesnt have total control as it did two years ago. Litiagation drains the lifeblood of the investments in these technologies. That's the game being played.

 

You've failed in that. This isn't the 1970's, and you're having much greater difficulties stifling progress. But I'm glad to see you're revealing your agenda here.

 

Renewable resources (like whales) tend to go extinct.

Africa had problems with poachers in their preserves until they tried capitalism. The local villagers were allowed to harvest excess animals and to charge tourists. Suddenly, poaching was enforced.

You are confusing evolution (better technology replacing aging technology) with coolaid drinking. When there is a better technology, it will replace fossil fuels.

As a few examples:

In 1985 I started heating my hot water with sunlight, because it is better than an electric water heater.

During my few months of winter, I heat my home with wood (also sinde 1985), because the heat is better than what my heat pump provides.

Because I cool my house much more than heat it, all my lights are CCFL. I've tried LED's, but not enough light yet.​

Sources like what? Only oil has enough energy density to be suitable for flight, and is the best solution for automobiles.

Are you suggesting we start raising whales to replace fossil fuels?

 

Exactly why the cost of renewable energy is prohibitive.

 

Cleantech isn't "profitable" without the subsidies, meaning it isn't profitable.

 

Nope. Fossil fuels make up the difference in fuel costs. Then there are the massive external costs...

 

The wind and Sun don't go extinct, not for a few billion years anyway.

Renewables are already better technology. Fossil fuels are already aging, with supplies of some of them becoming scarce. Fossil fuels are orders of magnitude more harmful to the environment (local and global), public health, and some carry with them massive national security costs. The tragic mental block right-wingers seem to have is acknowledging costs beyond one's utility bill.

It's quickly becoming less important to consume oil in the same quantities for auto use, with hybrids, plug-ins, and electrics hitting the road.

I don't waste time knocking down strawmen.

 

A few details backing u p your assertions would be nice.

 

The world runs on fossil fuels. They are the cheapest and most transportable form of stored energy yet found. CO2 stimulates growth in plants which, in turn, expire more Oxygen than they take in. Burning fossil fuels puts particulate matter into the air which blocks the sun and has a cooling effect.

There will be no alternative energy source until fossil fuels become so depleated that the consumer cannot get them. Then the market will have to turn to alternative energy sources.

There is no such thing as 'clean coal' but coal-fired plants have come a long way.

 

See the levelized cost comparison at the bottom.

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

See also a partial analysis of external costs.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html

 

My agenda is quite clear. I'm going to f-ck your side up and cause it to fail. You can't stop me. The more you try the more it costs. That works for me. I'm not trying to win. I'm trying to prevent you from winning. Those are very different things. Winning is hard. F-cking your side up is easy. See you in court.

 

I concur.......

 

What is the useful life of a windmill? Of solar panels?

What is the number of hours a day you can count on solar and wind power?

Proof?

E85 costs more in energy than it generates, and the reduced farmland has increased the cost of food, far exceeding the "benefit".

There isn't a good source of veggie oil for biodiesel, although Exxon Mobile is working on algae.

Plug-ins powered by what, coal???? Solar power reequires you to stay home, or convince your employer to install charging stations.

Hybrids don't get significantly better mileage than non-hybrids. Why are they gasoline (25% efficient), and not diesel (low boost, 40%, high boost 55% efficient). Hybrids are expensive status symbols, and are not good for the environment.

Stop wasting time making assertions with nary a fact.

 

Your agenda is clear. But on this forum, you're nothing but common troll. Move along.

 

You're moving the goalposts. My comments was in reference to renewable fuel, as was yours.

E85 from corn ethanol...debatable. Some studies put it at a small net positive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel#Efficiency_of_common_crops

But it's easily the most inefficient of ethanol sources.

Probably so. You don't see many environmentalists support corn ethanol.

Plug-ins powered entirely by coal would still be a significant net reduction in pollution, but wind, solar, nuclear, hydro would be significantly better.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to do a comparison. Make sure to compare apples to apples (same sizes).

I was about to request that from you, but I'm used to that from the anti-green crowd.

 

How do you ban electricity production from burning coal and keep the lights on in American homes? Energy prices would sky rocket, nuclear, gas, and hydro can not currently replace the energy loss from banning coal, nor could they replace it in the foreseeable future. Second, alternatives such as solar and wind do not produce consistent reliable power 24-7-365.

One of the greatest leaps forward in America happened in part to low cost reliable power to not only the factory but to the home. You would overnight further the gap between the rich and poor that the left is so worried about, how do you continue to provide electricity to those who are poor if even the middle class can not afford it.

Please help me understand how you can bring about "social justice," if only the rich can afford the luxury of electricity? Once again it seems to me that the left really does not care about the poor, they only care about their own elitist attitudes!

 

I'm in your face, but that doesn't make me a troll. I am an admirer of the great leftist tactician Saul Alinsky. In Rules For Radicals Alinsky set out a formula for deconstruction of one's political opposition.

That's what's happening here. I am in your face telling you that your objectives will never be achieved. In doing that I am demoralizing you. These are very effective tactics.

I look forward to many good discussions with you. I have a few insights that I would be happy to share with you, but first we have this leftist unpleasantness to dispose of.