National Academy Blockbuster: Coal's Huge Hidden Costs, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times
Topic started on 19-10-2009 @ 03:45 PM by grover

National Academy Blockbuster: Coal's Huge Hidden Costs


www.commondreams.org
Coal industry lobbyists and coal-state politicians like to remind us that coal is a relatively cheap source of energy.

But in a major new report out today, the National Academy of Sciences details some of the huge "hidden costs" of coal: More than $62 billion a year in "external damages" - that is, premature deaths from air pollution.

A National Academy news release is available here and the report itself here.

Those coal costs are part of the $120 billion in "hidden costs" that the academy's National Research Council documented in its report, "Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use."
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 19-10-2009 by grover]


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 04:10 PM by KissMyBass
reply to post by grover


So are you just against power in general? You do not like coal, oil, nuclear, and I am sure since it is a fossil fuel your beloved natural gas will be found to have similar problems.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 04:29 PM by grover
reply to post by KissMyBass


Please!!!

I have no beliefs about energy per se...just common sense.

If you have problems with your furnace...it vents into the house or isn't efficient you either fix or replace it.

The same should be true with energy...if the big boys weren't blocking it and hadn't been blocking it for decades we would have had a whole range of options by now...and in all reality that should be the sanest approach in the first place.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 05:12 PM by KissMyBass
reply to post by grover


What exactly are these options that the "Big Boys" are blocking? I always love how people like to blame Boogie Man for everything.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 05:30 PM by grover
reply to post by KissMyBass

Solar for one was big in the 70's and it was pretty much swept under the table until the past few years. There is geo-thermal for example and wind. You can with a combination of all three make a large home energy self sufficent enough to sell some back to the power companies (I know I have a friend who has all three) but they are priced high enough so that you have to be well off to afford them.

Biofuel is another. We have been conned into using corn but of the choices available corn is the least energy efficient to produce.

You don't have to buy off an inventor, all you have to do is arrange it so that they are too expensive for the average joe to afford in order to kill something.

Besides berating me...what solutions do you have? More of the same is no answer.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 05:47 PM by KissMyBass
reply to post by grover


Look if Solar was economically viable in the 70's then it would have caught on. One issue with Solar and Wind is that it only works when its sunny or the wind is blowing.

If a company could build a solar or wind produt that is economically viable then they will, because capitalists like to turn a profit. I know hearing that makes you sick to your stomach and all, because of your views.

More of the same actually would work fine for at least another 50-100 years, but I would support things like
Drilling for more oil in the USA
More nuclear
Finding things to make coal burning cleaner
Better allocation of Natural Gas
Building Wind and Solar where it makes economic sense, but these will never really become the backbone until we are able to store excess energy.


Plus you have all the eco-terrorists who have a hissy fit about the effects of large scale wind and solar projects on the precious environment.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 06:53 PM by grover
reply to post by KissMyBass

It was too expensive but I know solar buildings built in the 70's on the coast of Maine and if solar can work there it can work anywhere.

You are naive...yes they like to make a profit for sure but they also don't like change or risks especially big heavy industries like energy...they will keep on keeping on as long as possible.

So you have no solutions just more of the same.

And yes the environment is precious...you can't live without it and there is none to flee to anywhere nearby besides this planet.



reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 09:23 PM by KissMyBass
reply to post by grover



It was too expensive but I know solar buildings built in the 70's on the coast of Maine and if solar can work there it can work anywhere.


Just because they built them doesn't mean they were cost effective and gave any sort of reasonable return on investment.


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 12:52 AM by HunkaHunka
Originally posted by KissMyBass
reply to post by grover


Look if Solar was economically viable in the 70's then it would have caught on.



Not true at all, except in capitalist fantasy land.

The truth is that there are tons of technologies and methods of doing things which are replaced for less efficient and less viable means... it all has to do with money.

It all depends whos money you are trying to take away.


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 01:24 AM by cloakndagger
Welcome to the real Silent Hill.



This is another danger of coal mining. This could happen anywhere an underground coal mine is located. Scary stuff.


reply posted on 20-10-2009 @ 01:47 AM by C0bzz
The proponents of coal are actually for clean coal (or cleaner coal, coal is not clean), not the widely implemented coal we already have - therefore criticisms of coal do not necessarily apply to clean coal. These plants are far higher efficiency (>60% vs <35%) and have better ways to reduce the particle matter with higher efficiency scrubbers. The vast majority of renewable technologies (and gas) simply cannot provide a base load of electricity like coal can - historically they have never displaced any coal, nor have the cut down significantly on emissions. There are fundamental reasons for this. So rather than being against clean coal - why not embrace it? Let me reiterate, "renewable energy" will not do much to reduce coal (Nuclear is its only peer competitor)( there is a reason coal energy share is growing rather than shrinking).

As far as the death that coal causes - most forms of electrical energy cause people to die. Coal power generates massive amounts of energy. Renewable does not. Point is, stating they kill 25,000 a year and claiming that renewable energy is better is misleading. A more valid comparison is people killed per megawatt hour. Some (but not all) studies have indicated that Wind energy actually kills a similar amount of people as Coal (per unit of electricity generated, oh, and Nuclear is far superior than both - so much for it being dangerous )


Originally posted by grover
Yeah nuclear energy looks good until you consider the waste and accidents like Chernoble.



Accidents such are Chernobyl are extremely unlikely in any Western reactor. And even more improbable with newer reactors that utilize passively safe systems. I like to put it this way - hydroelectric dams are more likely to collapse killing far more than any Nuclear accident could. The waste still can be an issue, but remember that it can be minimized through reprocessing and also thorium breeder reactors - similar to what India is implementing. With future GENIV reactors, they use laws of physics prevent any such accident from occuring, and almost completely eliminate waste. Every criticism of nuclear energy is eliminated with GENIV technology.

Gas is an incredibly bad idea because it's essentially what many environmentalists began to push after they (finally) gave up on wind power. It pollutes the atmosphere, is expensive, and also increases our energy dependence on foreign nations. IIRC, the UK got hooked on gas after major discoveries in the north sea, the prices rose, now they have an energy crisis. About the only good thing about gas is that it pollutes less than coal, and has low capital cost.

Wind power, and Solar power are some of the most expensive forms of electricity available. They ave not economically viable, and might never be. They have massive problems integrating with the grid, and massive problems with capacity factors and massive problems scaling up. The energy is not "free". I'm not saying the solar / wind have no part, but it is most certainly a small one. As Obama said, "there are no silver bullets" (actually India believes Nuclear is a silver bullet, but I digress..)

A fantastic solution I read about was this. Replace the coal fired boilers at existing coal plants with nuclear ones with designs similar to the Russian BN-800, or B&W mPOWER, perhaps on a Thorium fuel cycle. This will minimize waste and use existing infrastructure. Implement existing reprocessing techniques, while stockpiling the rest of the "waste" to start up GENIV reactors like the Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactor (LFTR) by 2030. Use the LFTR's for hydrogen production to run our cars etc...

Not true at all, except in capitalist fantasy land.

The truth is that there are tons of technologies and methods of doing things which are replaced for less efficient and less viable means... it all has to do with money.

What?

You talk about a capitalist fantasy land then go on to describe a capitalist fantasy land? Not only is solar and wind less efficient, it's vastly more expensive. It's no surprise that it supplies <2% of the worlds energy... and if anyone wants to dispute this then go ahead, because my viewpoint is very easy to prove. In Europe, for example, they are using Nuclear profits to subsidize its failed "competitors" - renewables.

[edit on 20/10/2009 by C0bzz]
Pages:     ^^TOP^^