Coal. It's what lights up the world

[GliderGuider]

Coal. It's what lights up the world

What the utilities know that isn't getting enough press is that as much as we all want to power the country with wind, solar, hydro, biomass and even nuclear, all those advances in alternative energy combined are forecasted to make up only about 7% of our nation's power needs by 2020 -- and that's if all the stars line up for rolling out these new technologies.

Coal is here to stay. In fact, according to government statistics, coal is responsible for 47% of the power generated in the U.S. today. By 2030 the Department of Energy forecasts that coal will account for 51% of power output, an increase of 4% in the wake of all the momentum behind alternative energy. That's a bit of a reality check for the green movement. We need a lot more power generation sooner than the green industry can deliver.

Shit.

[JonQ]

1. That's why we need to switch to nuclear

Solar, hydro, biofuels, etc, are nice and might be great for certain regions that are blessed with the right climate, resources, etc. But are not a reasonable alternative to coal/oil.

Nuclear is, and it produces far less pollution than burning coal.

And before everyone starts lamenting this as a recipe for hundreds of chernobyls, remember France has been getting the majority of their electricity from nuclear power for years now, and they have yet to wipe out the world.

[jdlh8894]

3. Then how do you make steel without coal?

[JonQ]

4. How do you make plastics without petroleum?

In both cases they are necessary. In both cases they make up a tiny fraction of the total amount consumed. If we were to totally switch from an oil/coal based economy to a green/nuclear use of oil/coal wouldn't go away entirely, but it'd certainly be greatly reduced.

[GliderGuider]

6. "If we were to..."

But we won't. It sucks to be human.

[jdlh8894]

11. In both cases they are necessary

Agreed. However, how are going to create the 2500 degree heat needed to make steel? Move the planet closer to the sun? Wind ,Hydro,and Nuclear do not produce that kind of heat.

[GliderGuider]

13. I think the point was

If we transitioned away from oil/coal/gas for non-essential uses there would be plenty left for "essential" uses like plastics and steel.

Whether that transition would take place in a global free-market economy would depend on the relative price elasticities of demand for the various competing end products. It would be much easier in a unified global command economy...

[JonQ]

15. Even if it's impossible to make steel without burning coal

let's say it is for the sake of argument, the amount of coal dedicated to this purpose is trivial compared to the amount used for electricity. If we were to get our electricity elsewhere, but keep steel production the same, the amount of coal burned would plummet.

[hunter]

24. Modern steel plants are electric.

This existing technology could be enhanced to reduce carbon emissions very significantly. Furthermore the carbon in steel need not come from coal (although I shudder to think how charcoal might be substituted...)

Electricity can get things hotter than any chemical reaction.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. I believe some plants use "Natural Gas" as the carbon source

Ah... here's a method which uses Methane:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0753586.html

Steel production method, particularly for producing steel by means of electric furnaces

…

A method for producing steel, particularly for producing steel with electric furnaces, comprising a step of charging ferrous material in a melting furnace, a melting step during which heat energy is supplied to the ferrous material to raise its temperature to a level that is higher than the melting temperature, and a step of refining the liquid steel produced by the melting of the ferrous material. A simultaneous injection of methane or of another hydrocarbon and of oxygen in the bath of liquid steel is performed, at least during the refining step, in replacement of the coal fines and/or sized coal that are conventionally used.

…

[IndyOp]

8. No nukes - the water available from rivers near existing nuclear plants is no longer

sufficient to keep the core cooled at peak energy output. Many/most nuclear plants around the world are powering down (not off, but down) because global climate disruption is causing water shortages. Nuclear is unacceptable because we need stable sources of energy - sun, wind, geothermal.

California is installing enough solar panels within the next year to provide the same power as 2 new nuclear plants and they are doing it instead of nukes because the existing nuclear plants in the West are suffering from insufficient water supply as a result of increasing temps.

Also - the energy required to produce a nuclear plant and its radioactive fuel -- is nearly as much as the so-called "clean" energy it will eventually provide. So coal is burned to provide energy to build the plant and create the radioactive fuel and the coal puts out the nasty greenhouse gases in a sick zero-sum game.

No nukes.

[JonQ]

12. Wow, it uses almost as much energy to build it

wipes out all the water in a country and destroys the environment? Poor France, I wonder if they know this, better shut down all those productive plants they have that have been providing them with cheap, clean and safe energy for decades. Because apparently they have been losing out all these years and never noticed.

[IndyOp]

19. Global climate disruption is causing a drop in water level in many rivers that

are currently used to cool nuclear reactors. I didn't say that the solar plants themselves were causing the water level to drop, I said that many plants are being run a low power because the climate crisis is causing there to be not enough water available to run them.

[kristopher]

27. What is France doing with its nuclear wastes?

If we address climate change with nuclear energy, how will we fuel the reactors? The limits of once through uranium under such demand would be prohibitive, directing the world to a reliance on recycling. That, in turn, leads to three problems: first is a drastically reduced energy return on energy invested; second is the expense of reprocessing facilities leads to centralized control of the fuel output which is anathema to the idea of each nation's energy security.

Nuclear weapons proliferation is assured if we encourage nuclear power with current operational technologies.

Until the expense, waste and proliferation problems are SOLVED, the preferred bulk solution is renewable resources, efficiency improvements and conservation. That is not a mandate to return to a preindustrial society, either.

[kristopher]

26. Do you realize you are misrepresenting the potential of renewable energy? nt

[jdlh8894]

2. Sure, stop using coal.

You would put appox. 15-20 Unions (along w/3-4 Million workers) under the bus.

[GliderGuider]

5. Lord, nobody's going to stop using coal.

That may be a problem for the planet, but it's our reality. I have no personal recommendations. Coal sucks, but so does no coal.

The only probable resolution of this dilemma is completely orthogonal to the original problem. It will entail fewer people and less human activity.

[IndyOp]

9. My grandfather mined coal with Peabody Coal Co and my uncle did so as well

until his retirement about a decade ago. If you'd offered either one of them a job above ground installing solar panels instead of working in either a mine tunnel or an open pit -- they have taken it - guaranteed.

Are you saying that we aren't capable of transitioning our economy in a way that provides new jobs to miners? Or that miners aren't capable of or interested in any other types of jobs? (I am not talking about bullshit "re-training programs" that provide low-paying shit jobs, but a real transition to clean jobs for miners.)

[jdlh8894]

14. Taking nothing away from your GF or Uncle

But how can you get enough solar heat to smelt ore into steel?

[madokie]

17. The local foundry here uses eddy currents to smelt Iron to make steel

The furnaces are big assed piss poor transformers if you will.

[IndyOp]

18. Solar energy that reaches the earth in 1 day is sufficient to satisfy energy demand for 1 year.

No, we can't harness all of the energy that reaches the earth on any given day, but we can harness a huge proportion of that energy and have more than enough energy for personal use in our homes, running our battery-powered cars and for manufacturing - particularly taking into account the development of large "smart" electric grids and new battery technology.

In my opinion, the technical problems and imagination required to travel from earth to the moon were more severe than those facing us now that we need to use current sunlight power (solar) instead of ancient sunlight power (fossil fuels).

Even though the amount of solar energy that reaches the earth in one day is more than sufficient to satisfy the worlds yearly energy demand we still use fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas.
http://www.lawton-bes.co.uk/sun21/solar_energy.html

Every year, the sun irradiates the land masses on earth with the equivalent of 19,000 billion tons of oil equivalent (toe). Only a fraction — 9 billion toe — would satisfy the world's current energy requirements. Put differently, in 20 minutes, the amount of solar energy falling on the earth could power the planet for one year. http://re.pembina.org/sources/solar

[NickB79]

22. Sure, keep using coal

You would put untold tens of millions of 3rd-world people under water, literally.

[jdlh8894]

23. Explain please!

[NickB79]

31. Global warming. NT

[kristopher]

25. Where are all those workers employed?

There are only about 80,000 involved in mining.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. What are they talking about? it's getting plenty of press! (Thanks to the coal industry.)

http://www.americaspower.org/

[GliderGuider]

10. I don't think it's the potential of coal is that's not getting enough press

It's that all those nice green alternatives don't have the muscle we need to run our civilization, and won't any time in the foreseeable future.

I've met very few greens who are willing to acknowledge (or even consider) that possibility. I suspect it's because if they do, they also have to acknowledge a lot of other uncomfortable truths about our situation and human nature.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. I don't know... I can foresee a long way into the future...

We've seen various plans for a wholesale switch taking place in the span of several decades or perhaps a century time frame.

However, we certainly will not make a complete switch-over tomorrow, or next year, or in the next decade.

[excess_3]

20. better than petroleum from the Middle East .n/t

[GliderGuider]

21. In what way? n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. OK, I'll bite

One way in which it is better is that you don't have to ship it half way around the world with great risk of spills.

(None of which is to say I'm a fan of coal.)

[eppur_se_muova]

29. Mmmm .... sooty. nt

[Nederland]

32. Shit exactly

I don't see how we are going to replace coal anytime soon.