- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Decline of Coal
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:49 pm to Lee B
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:49 pm to Lee B
quote:
and that is bad, for them... but they will move past it as they implement solar increasingly... the threat is that they pass us up so far in solar that we can't compete.
GM just changed its marketing, logo and focus onto electric vehicles. Change can't be stopped at a certain point... and we're past that point.
Liberal wet dreams.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:49 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
So tell us what happens when Joe bans fracking.
Where are you going to get all of your cheap natural gas?
joe is not going to ban fracking... he is going to limit "new" additional fracking... the fracking in place will continue.
But fracking sucks. Ask people that live around where it happens. Nothing like having flammable water come out of your taps.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:50 pm to SmileyVamp
Someone in the thread drives a wind powered vehicle or will gladly sell you solar panels for your house....
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:50 pm to Lee B
quote:
and that is bad, for them... but they will move past it as they implement solar increasingly... the threat is that they pass us up so far in solar that we can't compete.
GM just changed its marketing, logo and focus onto electric vehicles. Change can't be stopped at a certain point... and we're past that point.
LOL
The whole green energy shite is a lie, or about 95% a lie. Even man boobs Michael Moore figured it out.
The whole carbon shite is scam. There is pollution of course, but carbon isn't one of them. What happened is over 20-30 years things like coal technology was able to reduce the amounts of real pollution down to almost nothing. Although, places like China are not even interested in these restrictions.
The scam had to move to carbon.
Don't get me wrong, there is things with coal that must be contained like coal ash. But 99% of this green energy shite is scam especially with present battery tech.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:51 pm to Lee B
quote:
Coal is not cost-effective, anymore. It's dead. Natural Gas is much cheaper to extract and much cheaper to burn and is what killed it, as far as America goes.
There have been major pursuits to make coal more viable for the future. There was the development of a carbon-capture coal power plant in Mississippi called the Kemper Project. Unfortunately, that has been canceled due to vast increasing costs.
For natural gas, carbon capture is seeing better results with a zero-emissions gas plant being in development and showing promise.
Source:LINK
Source:LINK
This post was edited on 1/12/21 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:52 pm to BiteMe2020
quote:
Liberal wet dreams.
... from the fine folks at General Motors.
ABC News: New campaign, and logo, for GM in a bid to electrify image
General Motors is changing its corporate logo and launching an electric vehicle marketing campaign to reshape its image as clean vehicle company, rather than a builder of gas-powered pickups and SUVs
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:55 pm to lsufan1971
Solar has it's advantages and disadvantages. The tech is moving so fast, now, that plants from even 5 years ago are using obsolete tech.
Personally, I'd love to see regulations that require houses of certain square footage to have solar. If someone can afford a $700,000 house, they can afford $25,000-$30,000 in solar tiles.
I know it's not a popular opinion, but if coal is being replaced by solar (which is why california is having massive brown-outs), they need to figure out the best way to take pressure off the grid.
Personally, I'd love to see regulations that require houses of certain square footage to have solar. If someone can afford a $700,000 house, they can afford $25,000-$30,000 in solar tiles.
I know it's not a popular opinion, but if coal is being replaced by solar (which is why california is having massive brown-outs), they need to figure out the best way to take pressure off the grid.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:55 pm to SmileyVamp
quote:
There was the development of a carbon-capture coal power plant in Mississippi called the Kemper Project.
That's the new scam... carbon is pollution. Everything on this planet will eventually burn because it has a molten core.
There are underground coal fires that go on for 1,000s of years.
All coal, oil, trees, natural gas, etc. will one day burn.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:56 pm to Lee B
quote:
and that is bad, for them... but they will move past it as they implement solar increasingly... the threat is that they pass us up so far in solar that we can't compete.
California has humongous amounts of solar power. So much; in fact, that they have too much of it.
Solar is not the solution. Better batteries is. Until we can store energy better, solar will continue to have large problems.
This post was edited on 1/12/21 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:57 pm to dbbuilder79
quote:
If someone can afford a $700,000 house, they can afford $25,000-$30,000 in solar tiles.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:57 pm to SmileyVamp
quote:
There have been major pursuits to make coal more viable for the future. There was the development of a carbon-capture coal power plant in Mississippi called the Kemper Project. Unfortunately, that has been canceled due to vast increasing costs.
yeah... the cost-effectiveness just isn't there, ultimately, no matter what they try... and it's awful and filthy and creates so many other problems, especially for the people who work to extract it, health-wise... it's just not worth it.
We have a lot of natural gas. It doesn't need to come from fracking... it's almost really just a by-product of that process being used to extract oil and shale, right? (I'm not in the field... I have friends who are Chemical Engineers working in it or geologists working in research and discovery)
Posted on 1/12/21 at 12:59 pm to lsufan1971
quote:
How many solar panels does it take to equal the production of 1 nuclear reactor?
Fuel Type/Energy Density(MJ/kg)
Wood/16
Coal/24
Ethanol/26.8
Biodiesel/38
Crude oil/44
Diesel/45
Gasoline/46
Natural gas/55
Uranium-235/3,900,000
Before I get to the energy density of solar please pay attention to the units I used above...mega-joules per kilogram or MJ/kg.
Now for solar:
1.5 microjoules per square meter. Micro is 10^-6.
So for a solar farm to equal one kg of Uranium you will need 2.6 billion square kilometers of solar panels to equal the energy output of one kg of uranium for its lifetime.
LINK
Posted on 1/12/21 at 1:01 pm to dbbuilder79
quote:
Solar has it's advantages and disadvantages. The tech is moving so fast, now, that plants from even 5 years ago are using obsolete tech.
Personally, I'd love to see regulations that require houses of certain square footage to have solar. If someone can afford a $700,000 house, they can afford $25,000-$30,000 in solar tiles.
I know it's not a popular opinion, but if coal is being replaced by solar (which is why california is having massive brown-outs), they need to figure out the best way to take pressure off the grid.
For large energy production with solar or wind in most places in the world doesn't make sense as its not viable. Than once you put in that you have to support the whole grid which in the United States expands large areas.... its an impossibility.
The honest green people will admit this, the others are just trying to make an easy buck.
Don't get me wrong we use solar but not because its viable large scale, for independence.... its very costly.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 1:01 pm to Lee B
quote:
ather live next door to a field full of solar panels than a nuclear power plant
You do realize all of the fossil fuels needed to create/run your solar power universe is probably more harmful than a nuclear plant.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 1:01 pm to SmileyVamp
quote:
carbon capture is seeing better results with a zero-emissions gas plant being in development and showing promise.
This is the way the industry is going.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 1:02 pm to dbbuilder79
quote:
If someone can afford a $700,000 house, they can afford $25,000-$30,000 in solar tiles.
And Tesla;s solar tiles are roofing tiles... so you just pay for solar when you get a roof, and I think their tiles will last longer as roof tiles than roofing tiles, do... though I worry the photovoltaic element wears out before the roof does.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 1:02 pm to HurricaneTiger
quote:
California has humongous amounts of solar power. So much; in fact, that they have too much of it.
Solar is not the solution. Better batteries is. Until we can store energy better, solar will continue to have large problems.
Unless they get batteries which are cost effective and last 30 years, they'll tap out real quick like CA.
Posted on 1/12/21 at 1:03 pm to SmileyVamp
quote:thats all on obama.
U.S. coal-fired power plants closing fast
Posted on 1/12/21 at 1:04 pm to southern686
quote:
You do realize all of the fossil fuels needed to create/run your solar power universe is probably more harmful than a nuclear plant.
Why can't they be created with the existing nuclear power plants supplying the energy?
Posted on 1/12/21 at 1:05 pm to Lee B
quote:are you joking? it isnt cost effective because of the restrictions of super clean burning that Obama imposed is what is killing it.
Coal is not cost-effective, anymore. It's dead.
quote:there is over 200 years worth of coal for electricity on America soil.
Natural Gas is much cheaper to extract and much cheaper to burn and is what killed it, as far as America goes.
Popular
Back to top


1





