War on coal

Quote: stinkingliberal

There are these things called batteries...I believe that even Republicans have heard of them.

The real question to ask is, "If you had a choice between free power and power you had to continually pay for, which would you choose?"

How much the infrastructure costs is irrelevant to that question, but a solar plant is cheaper to build and operate than a fossil fuel plant.

Free power? Who makes the solar panels and other needed items for free?

Quote: AZDuffman

Free power? Who makes the solar panels and other needed items for free?

Heh. I figured that you would fall into that trap. The items needed to generate coal power aren't exactly free, either. Those include furnaces, facilities to handle the coal, buildings, infrastructure, etc.

Also, there are recurring costs. Those include machinery and labor to extract the coal, railroad cars to transport it, and fuel to power the railroad engines. Solar plants have very few such recurring costs because the "fuel" is delivered for free.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Heh. I figured that you would fall into that trap. The items needed to generate coal power aren't exactly free, either. Those include furnaces, facilities to handle the coal, buildings, infrastructure, etc.

Also, there are recurring costs. Those include machinery and labor to extract the coal, railroad cars to transport it, and fuel to power the railroad engines. Solar plants have very few such recurring costs because the "fuel" is delivered for free.

It is total cost that matters. Solar you pay huge upfront. Payback may be 20years. Hardly "free."

Quote: AZDuffman

It is total cost that matters. Solar you pay huge upfront. Payback may be 20years. Hardly "free."

Yes, and how expensive is a coal-fired generating plant? If you want to bring construction costs into play, solar comes out even further ahead.

In any event, it makes sense to spend more on an ultimately cheaper alternative. Since even ignoring carbon emissions, and even ignoring the cost of coal, solar is about 60% of the cost of coal per Mwh, you could spend twice or even three times as much constructing a solar plant and you'd still be better off well before 20 years had elapsed. Don't forget, that "payback" you mention would also apply to a coal plant.

Solar plants are a smart, long-term investment, which is why companies all over the world are building solar power infrastructure. But Republicans are neither smart nor long-term thinkers.

Quote: stinkingliberal

There are these things called batteries...I believe that even Republicans have heard of them.

What do batteries have to do with generation of electricity? Industrial batteries provide peak shaving, grid stability, emergency power, and load management.

Coal ain't going anywhere. It's nice to dream of a day when renewable energy will rule the world but the fact is it's not happening any time soon. You only have to look at the fact that there are more than half a billion people in India alone who have no power at all. They're not going to be building the roofs of every slum out of solar panels or chucking a wind turbine on top of ever building thats for sure.

And if you're talking about coal why is the discussion limited to electricity generation anyway? There are still no viable substitutes for met coal in the steal making process so good luck with any serious construction without it.


Humourous fact: it takes more than 400 tonnes of coal to build 1 wind turbine.

Quote: Aussie

And if you're talking about coal why is the discussion limited to electricity generation anyway? There are still no viable substitutes for met coal in the steal making process so good luck with any serious construction without it.

In the USA 93% of the consumption of coal is in the Electric Power Sector. I don't think that there is much of a war on coal on the other 7%.

Coal is nasty to deal with, but man is it
good to heat a house. I would take a
piece so big it barely fit thru the furnace
door and it would keep the whole 2
story house warm in January all day.
With coal it's easy to get it too warm
and have to open the doors when it's zero
outside. That was the 80's, nobody
sells coal anymore around here.

Quote: Evenbob

Coal is nasty to deal with, but man is it
good to heat a house. I would take a
piece so big it barely fit thru the furnace
door and it would keep the whole 2
story house warm in January all day.
With coal it's easy to get it too warm
and have to open the doors when it's zero
outside. That was the 80's, nobody
sells coal anymore around here.

Coal is what can be called "energy dense." This is because coal is indirect solar power, same as everything, basically.

Coal comes from what was once vegetation. Think of a tree, for 50 years or whatever it will soak up the sun, turning that solar energy into its own matter, which can burn. Wood burns hot as it is releasing the energy gotten over that 50 years.

Coal is trees and other vegetative matter compacted over thousands of years. This is why the lump of coal burns hotter than a lump of wood of equal size. The wood has 50 years but the coal maybe 1000 years, 20 times as much. Now, I know it is not equal to the exact level so no need to go off all crazy on that. (Wait, sorry, that guy is on vacation a week, no disclaimer need!) But that is the simple principle. It is also why you need so much more surface area to collect solar power, you are just getting what is hitting now.

Once again, of course not equal. The tree is not made to collect energy and the solar panel is. But think of the principle.

We have coal for hundreds of years--lets dig it!

Quote: AZDuffman

We have coal for hundreds of years--lets dig it!

A return to coal for central heat is nasty and dirty and means you have to go back to shoveling coal in your basement. It is not likely to catch on.

But you can save a lot of money by turning central heat down to about 60 degrees to protect you pipes. Space heaters are better at heating a zone of a home, and not the entire house. As a space heater coal is often much better than electric heater because of the massive difference in operational cost. As a space heater, lugging the coal into the house is a much smaller project.




Coal space heaters were how my parents grew up in the 1930's. I got the impression from my mother that the space heater was also the kitchen stove, and they would just use a lot of blankets in the bedroom.



But as a practical matter the use of 90% of coal for electricity generation is probably not going to change. I don't know if President Trump is advocating the building of new coal fired generation plants, or just a reduction of the rate of closure of old ones.