What Do We Think About Climate Change

If anyone but you had told me coal is the cleanest source of energy we have, I'd think they were joking. Everyone else in the world knows it's actually the dirtiest, by a long shot.

Another example of people blandly stating the exact opposite of the truth as though it isn't even arguable....

Try reading up on the London Killer Fog of 1952.

 

The only fantasy here is yours. For someone who works in the gas industry, you should know the difference between a modern coal fired power plant and old and badly maintained home heating devices tha spew soot up in the air.

By the way have you noticed how every time there is some news on TV about anythingto do with "climate" they show powerplants stacks that let go ...water wapour? I love it, give me a good laugh every time.

Yes Coal is the cleanest, most aboundant and cheap energy source we have so far. Solar, wind, waves, geothermal are all wet dreams. Nuclear is a very good portable source of energy for ships when there is unlimited money. For electricity, the establishment costs are astronomical and make it a bad business proposition. The only reason nuclear is out there because it keeps the door open for alternative uses of nuclear fuels for making bombs. Without that alternative use, we would be out of business
The day we learn to split the water molecule in an eregy efficient way, we may have another source. For now Coal is 'it'.

Is it any surprise that it is under attack by the 'alternative' thinkers?
Not in my books.

 

wrong on all counts Marcman
you wanna try the one over again

 

Yes, I work in the natural gas energy. That's why I know that even modern coal plants are dirtier than natural gas plants -- although they're much, much better than they used to be. Even the most modern coal plants, burning the highest grade of coal, produce about twice as many greenhouse gases as natural gas does.

The CO2 emissions from Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants are reduced relative to those produced by burning coal given the same power output because of the higher heat content of natural gas, the lower carbon intensity of gas relative to coal, and the higher overall efficiency of the NGCC plant relative to a coal-fired plant (1).

“The average emissions rates in the United States from natural gas-fired generation are: 1135 lbs/MWh (Mega Watt hours) of carbon dioxide, 0.1 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 1.7 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides. Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulphur oxides at the power plant.”(2)

References:

1. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants DOE/NETL-2007/1281 Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity Final Report (Original Issue Date, May 2007) Revision 1, August 2007, Pg.446

2. http://epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html

 

And you venture into judging other people's knowledge, after such a statement...?????????????????????????

I can only ask you to read this quote and keep reading it until it sinks in:

"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self."

Because there's clearly plenty of room for improvement here.

Plenty.

 

However you asked me to compare with a time in history when coal heating home devices produced a lot of soot and coined the word smog, a combination of sooth and fog.
I know that natural gas is a better fuel, however it is not as abundant and it is very expensive to transport, or it would take over coal any time. We have extremely large deposits of methane yet the commercial choice is still coal.

As for the word "dirty" and "clean" those are very subjective words that mean little. The usual ignoramus populace that get's his ideas from media, would agree with you that coal is dirty, because it is black and you hands get black if you touch it. Sooth is also dirty for similar reasons. The chimney sweepers use to get testicular cancer from it plus the telly says so and that is the most compelling reson to believe it.

The reality is that unless one accepts your premise that CO2 is "pollution" which it is not. You can hardly consider coal a dirty fuel. It is the cheapest and cleanest, up there with gas, sure, no arguments from me.

As far as comparing with the other wet dream wishes like solar and wind and the rest, those are hobby stuff not even worth mentioning. The amount of energy necessary to manufacture those hobby contraptions and the subsidies they need to remain on line, their inherent unreliability and inconsistency,make them a modern day joke and will go down in history as the most idiotic choices made by dammed politicians to please and capture green votes wasting billions of our money in the process. The reality is that there are no alternatives to coal or gas.

The only real life alternative is nuclear. Yet as posted already by others, nuclear is also incredibly expensive and exists in my view for a dual purpose to justify uranium production for nuclear explosives.

All the efforts by politicians and parties that pretend to go into all this trouble for the purpose of "saving the planet from CO2" could be geared towards a better energy source, NOT SOLAR NOT WIND NOT ANY OF THAT CRAP but real stuff new stuff we would probably have it by now if the effort is coordinated. Of course we need a new source of energy, a cheaper and more reliable, not for the reason of "global warming" but to free society from the servitude of expensive energy.

One point to make once more is that those from the green persuasion, DO NOT WANT A NEW EFFICIENT ENERGY SOURCE and that is why they push this string of losers be it solar wind or waves. They tell you to your face that "the worst that can happen to humanity is that a new cheap reliable energy source is invented" The global warming peddlers are anti-humanity, anti industry, development or anything to do with what a normal person would consider advancement. They want you to believe it is because of CO2 and you believed it and run with it.
Think again, there is much more to it than it appears.

 

Look who is back, the eucalyptus expert.
Sorry masdespacio, but I stick to my guns. Coal (and gas as pointed out by Tory) are both the cheapest, cleanest and for now THE ONLY sources of energy besides nuclear.

To make a simile you may understand, coal and gas are like a fright train pulling thousands of tons of goods cheaply and reliably day in day out 365 days a year.
The "alternative" is like a guy that wants to transport goods in his backpack standing on a skateboard powered by a kite.

May be you want to set me straight and tell me which one is "your" choice of energy for human kind... And don't tell me a fart capturing device because I already thought of that one and it does not work. Relies far too much on bean consumption.

I like your "judgment outrage" hehe, your buttons are far too obvious.

 

Please stop just making stuff up, OK? Even if you ignore the CO2, coal burns dirtier than natural gas -- and I'm not talking about soot or smudgy hands. Read this quote again:

Compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulphur oxides at the power plant.

Got that? a third of the nitrogen oxides, and a hundredth of the sulphur dioxides. Both of those are serious pollutants.

And where did you get the idea that piping natural gas cross-country is more expensive than shipping coal? At the moment, I'm pumping gas from four separate pipelines coming into California through this station: a 36" dia pipeline, two 30" pipelines, and a 24" pipeline. And I'm the only one running the station. There's no way enough truckloads of coal could be shipped into California cheaply enough to replace that gas. Not to mention the extra pollution from the trucks....

 

Troy. since when was this about coal versus gas?
Gas is good, you want me to say it is the best? You got it. Pumping is cheap? Sure, because you don't pay for the gas pipe nor the pumping stations. We thought of pumping gas to china but somehow the numbers did not add up.

So gas is good. Coal is just as good.

As for the alternative?

It does not exist yet. And if we continue following the green rotten thought it will NEVER exists because we keep on playing with toys and having solar 'pannels' on our roofs.

That is the point, the only point.
Electricity generation is either coal or gas or nuclear, take your pick the rest is complete ********....well I suppose no one is considering diesel.

 

I simply objected to your claim that coal is the cleanest and cheapest fuel. I'll cheerfully admit it's some very useful stuff anyway, and more attention should be paid to getting it to burn cleanly...especially since the US has the world's largest reserves of it, and Australia also has plenty.

 

Burn more coal. The sooner it is all burnt, the better. Same with oil.

 

Did Jack the Ripper wear a London Killer Fog?

 

ya for the guys raking in the bucks off its consumption but not so much for the rest of us who have to put up with the acid rain the global warming and the soot filled air, We have way better technology available than to continue using this pathetically dirty fuel and to insist on demolishing what little is left of the environment is just madness

cheers
B

ps
nice doggy

 

Madness, I say! Ha!. It's insane. They're coming to take me away, ha ha! They're coming to take me away, ha! Hee hee ha ha hee hee! Party time in Bedlam!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4