Study: 65 Percent Of Coal Plants In Danger Of Closure

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
If I'm not mistaken the coal ALREADY shut down is amoungst the cleanest it can get which if I rememeber correctly when burned with proper gear is supposed to be very very low impact compared to other fossile and certainly nuclear waste...

It would bring the energy costs down which is a prime mover of the economy and in my opinion would take business away from the unregulated power generators in the rest of the world and so therefore help clean up the overall picture which blows and flows everywhere anyway

in defence of Neo's economics
look at Spain
it went green
now in the news today on the beeb they have rediculiously close to 50 percent unemployment

green is the new red
edit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)


oh my,
you dont think the unemployment has anything to do with the bankia CDOs?
or the fact they bough bonds with depositors money,

to try to connect the two is disingenuous.

the banking system collapsed,
that has nothing to do with solar

xploder




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
In 20 years solar might be a viable source of energy.


It is viable now. As long as you plan accordingly.

My house was built in 1972 (it has character
) without any concern of alternative energy...well without any concern of energy usage, period. Cheap natural gas at time of construction.

I have had no problems netting 80% of my energy usage from alternatives. On site alternatives.

If I can hit that in a 1972 home, there is no real reason why any modern home couldn't convert fairly easily, as they are significantly more efficient then mine.

That being said, there is still the infrastructure issue, as well as the industrial issue. It is one thing to generate a couple kilowatts for home use, quite another to produce megawatts for industrial use.

Challenging? Yes.

Impossible? Nope.
edit on 25-4-2013 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Yeah lets put Americans out of work, pay no attention to the largest polluter in the world-China

So what good does all that do?


THIS....

What we do makes zero difference if our "slack" is picked up by China (and other nations as China changes)- Keep funding the R&D and when green Energy becomes cheaper and better the entire World will switch based on coast/benefit alone...The more scarce Coal becomes, the higher the price- At some point the Solar we keep improving and making cheaper will trump the Coal which we are extracting and making more costly.

EDIT : This is honestly a case where the free market will work if left alone...
edit on 25-4-2013 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)


spot on star

you are fully correct,
remove coal subsidies and give them to solar to speed up the roll out of the new technologies

xploder

Yeah, I am totally for that.

I do not dispute that green energy (probably Solar) is the future and will benefit us in all ways (jobs/cheap energy/ pollution)- Its win/win when the tech is there. We should be pumping money into R&D right now. In 20 years (or less) we could live in a World where we are at 90% or better clean , green, energy.

My problem is that the "switch" is being forced upon us to the detriment of all- The "benefit" (pollution) isnt really addressed since the overall pollution will just lean more towards China and underdeveloped nations and the overall will be the same (or worse)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





REALLY? thats your argument? everyone else is doing it?


Didn't say that as the quote clearly shows.




well if the usa did it and it was cheaper for energy in the usa than in china dont you think manufacturing would return to the US?


Nope




if energy is renewable, there is no cost to mine transport and consume the coal, this equates to cheeper power, cheaper power equals a more competitive environment,


Too funny there is always a cost be it on the front end or at the consumer, competition would be if coal,and alternative competed against each other might lead to cheaper prices, but with the EPA that is impossible since one product has to comply with EPA regulations that drive up cost.




this means you can produce products cheaper than countires that have to mine. china will be forced to follow suit or become uncompetitive.


Nobody can make products cheaper than China at the moment.-NOBODY.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER

there is a new generation cable that super conducts at high temperature being developed in the USA,
transportation usually consumes about 30% of generated capacity,

the new tech losses very little even over large distences

30% more power by just replacing the transportation lines alone

xploder


That is still a multi-trillion dollar, 50-70 year endeavour.

The current infrastructure took generations to build. The replacement will take about the same.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





you are fully correct, remove coal subsidies and give them to solar to speed up the roll out of the new technologies


Too funny alternative already has trillions of subsidies hell checkout any alternative energy site.

They all proudly display Get free money back!!



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 

leaked doc shows spains greennesss was very economically unsound
wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


That is why Europe is sponsoring (uplifting) nations in the north of Africa to become solar energy producers.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Doing work as an electrician many time a year, I am pretty current on solar tech.

50% boost in current doesn't mean 50% efficiency. In fact in your quote in the post that I first responded to, the 50% boost in current was reported to increase efficiency by 35%. Meaning if solar cells are now at 5% efficiency due to this, they only operated at about 3.5% before.

In 20 years solar might be a viable source of energy.



ok lets get into the science then



V3Solar's Spinning Cone-Shaped Solar Cells Generate 20 Times More Electricity Than Flat Photovoltaics


inhabitat.com...

and thats not even taking into account the new advances in photo cell design




we could also talk about nano strutures being used to collect much more of the light spectrum
like absorbing more of the available energy from sunlight

this is but one idea that is more efficient

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Nobody can make products cheaper than China at the moment.-NOBODY.

if they continue using coal that they have to continuously pay for,
solar will out compete their "ongoing costs" and their products will lose competitiveness.

solar has very little "ongoing costs"

over time counties will despise other countries for not switching to solar as being
irresponsible,

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 





you are fully correct, remove coal subsidies and give them to solar to speed up the roll out of the new technologies


Too funny alternative already has trillions of subsidies hell checkout any alternative energy site.

They all proudly display Get free money back!!


after using solar cells for a period of time they pay themselves off,

coal is a dinosaur who doesn't know that there is a comet coming.

technology will beat fossil fuels its only a matter of time.

your support for coal says alot about your motivations for this thread

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 





after using solar cells for a period of time they pay themselves off,


So spend 50 to 100K that takes 20 to 25 years to finally pay for itself, and do it all over again.

Sorry that is not cost effective.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 



That is still a multi-trillion dollar, 50-70 year endeavour.

The current infrastructure took generations to build. The replacement will take about the same.


you are correct,
BUT the technology is owned by americans and will be used world wide,
some of that money could be used for a roll out that would put people to work,
and every line that is completed will cause a saving of 30% of power generated,
the savings from those lines can be used to employ more people and roll out the new tech faster.

there are models for how to do this

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 





after using solar cells for a period of time they pay themselves off,


So spend 50 to 100K that takes 20 to 25 years to finally pay for itself, and do it all over again.

Sorry that is not cost effective.


the cost of solar cells has halved in the last 5 years,
the power output will double in the next few years,
combine the fact that energy use to manufacture the next gen solar cells has halved,
and the amopunt of silcone per cell has halved,

and you can see this will be much more cost effective to pay off in the short term,
leaving the owner with years of free power before replacement

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by XPLodER
 





after using solar cells for a period of time they pay themselves off,


So spend 50 to 100K that takes 20 to 25 years to finally pay for itself, and do it all over again.

Sorry that is not cost effective.


That would be one way of doing it, but not the ideal.

I spent a little over $20,000 making my house more efficient. That brought my solar costs down from close to $55,000 to a little under $25,000.

Total cost: $45,000
Savings: approx $350/month.

Payback period: 10.7 years (129months).

Which, all things considered, is not to shabby. Plus, I still get to sell any extra energy once I increase my efficiency further, and that will improve my ROI considerably.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by XPLodER
 

leaked doc shows spains greennesss was very economically unsound
wattsupwiththat.com...


politicly scewed web sight,
with an anti obama agenda,

not saying the green money was spent wisely but instead miss manged,
this is not saying that it wouldnt work if there was not corruption involved

ie crony capitalism

nice try tho

xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 



That would be one way of doing it, but not the ideal.

I spent a little over $20,000 making my house more efficient. That brought my solar costs down from close to $55,000 to a little under $25,000.

Total cost: $45,000
Savings: approx $350/month.

Payback period: 10.7 years (129months).

Which, all things considered, is not to shabby. Plus, I still get to sell any extra energy once I increase my efficiency further, and that will improve my ROI considerably.


nice work

and with the new "thinner" and more cost effective production processes the out lay will decrease over the next few years.

a photo voltaic plant in china just went under, because the new manufacturing plants can produce the new cells at nearly half the price of the old processes

so in theory in two- five years your out lay would halve and the amount generated would nearly double

makes it much more attractive investment.

i would love to hear you get energy independant


xploder



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Coal is a terrible choice for fuel in this country and the coal industry and federal government know it.

What's more important?

Short-term jobs or long-term damage from climate change?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Well that is exciting. Something that stands in a larger footprint than a 3 foot by 3 foot square (and who knows how tall) that produces 1000 watts of power in the best of conditions.

www.solar-is-future.com...


What does kilowatt peak (kWp) actually mean? Kilowatt peak stands for peak power. This value specifies the output power achieved by a Solar module under full solar radiation (under set Standard Test Conditions). Solar radiation of 1,000 watts per square meter is used to define standard conditions. Peak power is also referred to as "nominal power" by most manufacturers. Since it is based on measurements under optimum conditions, the peak power is not the same as the power under actual radiation conditions. In practice, this will be approximately 15-20% lower due to the considerable heating of the solar cells.


I can fire up a diesel generator the size of a 5 gallon gas can to get 4000 watts.
Some of the lights I work with are 2000 watt lamps.
My lightest load home outlets provide 1800 watts.
There really is no comparison.

We should :


. . . also talk about nano strutures being used to collect much more of the light spectrum like absorbing more of the available energy from sunlight


I'm all for the advancement of solar tech. I see it being ready in 20 years, perhaps there will be breakthroughs sooner.
Right now give me something to compete with our current power plants, or accept that when it's really ready, it will be used.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by neo96
 


Coal is a terrible choice for fuel in this country and the coal industry and federal government know it.

What's more important?

Short-term jobs or long-term damage from climate change?



Never heard of clean coal technology even China is outpacing the US with?





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join