You're Going Down, Big Coal

[SoonerInKCMO]

Gas & Solar FTW (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/23/23greenwire-nev-power-plant-developers-opt-for-gas-solar-93219.html#sf49991)

Coal can suck it. :mad:

[sooner59]

Its going to become more prevalent as time goes by.

[Jacie]

So there are only 1445 coal-fired electrical generating plants in the U.S. instead of 1446, which btw, generate approximately 48% of the electrical power used in the U.S. as opposed to natural gas (21%) and nuclear (20%). Wind falls under the category Other Renewables (3% as of 2008).

[sooner59]

I didn't say it was common, just that it will become more common decade by decade. There is only so much coal available.

[Jacie]

There is only so much coal available.

That is true. Of the available coal, worldwide that is, about 1/4 of it is in the U.S. At the rate we are using it, it will only last us another 500 years or so . . .

[sooner59]

Oh, we will start selling that off to pay off some of the national debt before we 500 years out of it. Besides, if we burn coal as our primary energy source for 500 years, this place will be so polluted it will be unlivable.

[olevetonahill]

WE need Coal powered Cars
oh wait :P

[soonerboomer93]

There is only so much coal available.

There's only so much natural gas available also

[Okla-homey]

So we're the Saudi of coal. BFD.

<start rant>

Wind and solar are cute and quaint, but we can make all our nation's electrical requirments right flippin' now if we would build some more dadgummed nuke power plants.

I do not "get" the greenies' opposition to safe, clean, zero carbon-footprint nuclear generated electricity. For alleged rational people, who don't eschew science, it is utterly mind-boggling they haven't been shouting BUILD MORE NUKES since Chief Iron Eyes Cody did that tear-squirting commercial when I was a kid in the 1960's.

It's like a free gift from God people. A way to make all the megawatts we could ever use, on a few thousand pounds of fissionable material WE ALREADY HAVE!

A-B-S-U-R-D. Utterly. Even the flippin' French get it. I'm appalled. srsly.

<end rant>

[Tulsa_Fireman]

What he said.

[SCOUT]

I think solar will play a larger role in the future spectrum of energy sources than Homey does. The time required to build a nuke plant will closely correlate to the tech advances in solar IMO. Other than that....what he said.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Santa needs coal for the bad kids stockings.

[bluedogok]

A-B-S-U-R-D. Utterly. Even the flippin' French get it. I'm appalled. srsly.
Granted it is from a biased source but I have seen most of the same info elsewhere.
From a World Nuclear Association fact sheet: Nuclear Power in France (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html)


* France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.

* France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.

* France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

* It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.


Santa needs coal for the bad kids stockings.
I thought they all got trophies now......

[landrun]

I do not "get" the greenies' opposition to safe, clean, zero carbon-footprint nuclear generated electricity. For alleged rational people, who don't eschew science, it is utterly mind-boggling they haven't been shouting BUILD MORE NUKES since Chief Iron Eyes Cody did that tear-squirting commercial when I was a kid in the 1960's.


That's because the greenies (I mean the real activists setting the agenda-not the poor indoctrinated people buying the hybrids and installing solar panels etc...) don't believe the environment is in trouble and don't really care. It is about control. Their basic position is you can't drill for more oil, use coal, nuclear power or any truly useful form of energy. They argue we should use some sort of new technology. But as soon as some sort of new technology becomes a viable energy source, they'll be against that. And they'll use the environment as the excuse. There is no viable source of energy that they don't oppose. It is illogical. But it doesn't have to be logical or truthful in order for them to oppose any form of energy that makes life easier/cheaper for the US.

The sad thing is half the country is willing to follow them like a pied piper and submit themselves to will of the government .... lest they die due to some environmental disaster. :rolleyes:

[Boarder]

I do not "get" the greenies' opposition to safe, clean, zero carbon-footprint nuclear generated electricity.


I don't either. I think there is some progress being made on that front. However, there's a long way to go to reach the NIMBY people. Nucular is great!*


*as long as it's not built around me 'cause it hurts my prop-ty values.

[Boarder]

That's because the greenies (I mean the real activists setting the agenda-not the poor indoctrinated people buying the hybrids and installing solar panels etc...) don't believe the environment is in trouble and don't really care. It is about control. Their basic position is you can't drill for more oil, use coal, nuclear power or any truly useful form of energy. They argue we should use some sort of new technology. But as soon as some sort of new technology becomes a viable energy source, they'll be against that. And they'll use the environment as the excuse. There is no viable source of energy that they don't oppose. It is illogical. But it doesn't have to be logical or truthful in order for them to oppose any form of energy that makes life easier/cheaper for the US.

The sad thing is half the country is willing to follow them like a pied piper and submit themselves to will of the government .... lest they die due to some environmental disaster. :rolleyes:
I can see the Earth First! people with that type of thinking, but not the actual lobbyist-types like Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.

[sooner59]

I wasn't actually supporting gas and solar specifically. I was mainly saying that alternative energy sources (gas, solar, wind, etc.) will inevitably become more prominent than they have in the past. Simply because it is renewable (except gas).

And Homey, you ain't talking about me. I support the increased use of nuclear power 100%. There is always a chance of something bad happening. The there is a chance I'll get hit by a car tomorrow as well. Nuclear power is very efficient and very safe, even though many think it isn't. There really isn't much to it either. Its pretty simple. As long as people do their job and don't do meth when they are supposed to be checking gauges, its safe.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Insert very interesting, thought provoking thorium reactor research comment here.

[Harry Beanbag]

Nothing wrong with nuclear energy at all. It is wildly expensive at start up though.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Most people, green and otherwise, are all for nuclear power plants until someone proposes building one near them.

[Harry Beanbag]

They don't need to be near population centers.

I lived 20 feet from two of them for 4 years, not really a problem.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I agree. But most of the times one is proposed people freak out.

The feds need to just decide they are gonna build 200 plants and just force it through and build a real power grid.

[TFSooner]

I agree. But most of the times one is proposed people freak out.

That's an understatement. Don't know how many here are old enough to remember the proposed Black Fox nuclear plant that was to be built in Inola back in the 70s, but some local "activists" put a stop to it. It was stopped right after the Three Mile Island incident happened and the movie "The China Syndrome" came out.

A lot of money was wasted by that move. A good amount of infrastructure was constructed for the plant when it was stopped. If you look at the site with Google Earth, you can see railroad tracks, foundations, roads, etc and nothing to show for it. Sad really.

[OUMallen]

1. Build more nuclear plants.
2. Use natural gas plants at max capacity until nuclear plants are built.
3. Keep the push to CNG vehicles.
4. Gradually shut down the coal plants as able.

TADA!

So did anyone really think of a good reason why we can't do more nuke plants?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Those cooling towers are really scary looking.

[sooner59]

They look scary, but if you know what is actually going on inside of them, it becomes much less so. A public information campaign would ease some worries. Everything is basically contained withing thick concrete and steel walls. In a simplistic description, it is a small enriched uranium (I think) core that emits radiation inside a area sealed off by tons of concrete and (maybe) steel. There are steel rods that protrude down into the area which are struck by radiation emitted by the uranium. The rods become very hot because of this. The rods also protrude outward from the enclosed area where they come in close contact with channels of water. The water become super heated and is released through a valve or something as steam. The steam is what actually produces the power. And the cooling towers are a necessity so there isn't tons of super heated steam released into the atmosphere. Maybe it would screw with the ozone/weather....I don't have a clue.

If anybody else has a better description, go for it. Thats the best I can remember off the top of my head from my History of Science classes in undergrad.

[landrun]

Bill Gates will solve this problem for us all. :)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/24/bill-gates-wants-nuclear-reactor/

[bluedogok]

Bill Gates will solve this problem for us all. :)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/24/bill-gates-wants-nuclear-reactor/
When are they coming out with a Mr. Fusion....
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080310223722/bttf/images/d/d0/Mrfusion.jpg

[soonerboomer93]

I do not "get" the greenies' opposition to safe, clean, zero carbon-footprint nuclear generated electricity. For alleged rational people, who don't eschew science, it is utterly mind-boggling they haven't been shouting BUILD MORE NUKES since Chief Iron Eyes Cody did that tear-squirting commercial when I was a kid in the 1960's.


part of the issue would be Three Mile Island

another part is the safe disposal of nuclear waste

[Stitch Face]

part of the issue would be Three Mile Island

another part is the safe disposal of nuclear waste

We already have a safe place in Harry Reid's back yard, if they would just seal the deal.

[OUMallen]

part of the issue would be Three Mile Island

another part is the safe disposal of nuclear waste

The Kemeny Commission Report concluded that "there will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects."[2] Several epidemiological studies in the years since the accident have supported the conclusion that radiation releases from the accident had no perceptible effect on cancer incidence in residents near the plant, though these findings have been contested by one team of researchers.[3]

[Jacie]

That's an understatement. Don't know how many here are old enough to remember the proposed Black Fox nuclear plant that was to be built in Inola back in the 70s, but some local "activists" put a stop to it. It was stopped right after the Three Mile Island incident happened and the movie "The China Syndrome" came out.

A lot of money was wasted by that move. A good amount of infrastructure was constructed for the plant when it was stopped. If you look at the site with Google Earth, you can see railroad tracks, foundations, roads, etc and nothing to show for it. Sad really.

I believe that is what happened to all U.S. nuclear power plants under construction at the time. However, the ones already online continue or continued till they reached the end of their operational life. The burning question still on the table is what to do with nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the answer but as with the plants themselves, activists managed to derail the project (not before $10 Big Ones were spent on a tunnel to nowhere . . .).

[Boarder]

I believe that is what happened to all U.S. nuclear power plants under construction at the time. However, the ones already online continue or continued till they reached the end of their operational life. The burning question still on the table is what to do with nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the answer but as with the plants themselves, activists managed to derail the project (not before $10 Big Ones were spent on a tunnel to nowhere . . .).
I understand it to be more about states not wanting the waste shipped across their property. The activists griped, yes, but their opposition could be overcome.

[TFSooner]

I understand it to be more about states not wanting the waste shipped across their property. The activists griped, yes, but their opposition could be overcome.

Don't you think the activists griping in each state that the waste is shipped through has something to do with said states wanting to put a halt to it? Or, never allowing it in the first place?

[Okla-homey]

part of the issue would be Three Mile Island

another part is the safe disposal of nuclear waste

Three Mile Island was the most overblown nuke accident in world history. You know how many people got hurt in and around the site when it had its little problem? Precisely no one.

You know how many lawsuits were won by people who sued. Precisely none.

The plant's safety features worked as designed. And that was involving now 40 year old technology.

As to where to stash the waste? We have lots of big square states to our west and north with millions of acres not doing anything. We also have very deep oceans off California and Maine. And even a foaming at the mouth greenie (not saying you are one BTW) ought to realize underground storage of spent nuke fuel in nice, neat storage facilities has just a tiny smidge of the environmental impact of enormous surface and underground coal mines and the resultant burning of brazilians of tons of coal to make electricity.

That's not to mention we have technology now that can extract far more energy out of a given amount of fissionable material than we could even 10 years ago. Thus. less waste and less radioactivity remaining when the stuff is used up.

Therefore, I say "bah" on your Three Mile Island and nuke waste storage problems.

Oh, and before you mention it, that problem the Soviets had with their reactor that melted, well, they were Soviets. And their facility was crap, run by Soviets who were mostly drunk on Stoli. It's a fact, you can look it up.

[olevetonahill]

Hell just send all the waste into space.
Problem solved

[Chuck Bao]

A little closer to home was that Karen Silkwood case and eventual movie. I mean even if she was crazy and all and contaiminated herself to prove the point that the workers were not properly trained and facilities not up to scratch. Yeah, I am all for nuclear power, but I think they really have to screen the employees and make it safe for the employees and not in any way, shape or form find out later there was plutonium poisoning in somebody's home.

[BudSooner]

Hmmm, my cousins in Virginny are coal miners and have been for over 70yrs combined. Even so, it is a dangerous business to be in but i'm still not sold on Solar other than it is clean and damn we have enough wind in Oklahoma to rival Chicago as the windy city....or state, whatever.

Remember the ordeal with the company years ago that wanted to transport nuclear waste thru OKC and Tulsa 4-5yrs ago? Anyone? That's right..it was shot down because NOBODY wanted to glow in the dark, at least that is what both mayors told the owner of the crap. Does it make you glow in the dark? I don't know, not a scientist...I just love boobies but when we spent the weekend in over in Russelville Arkansas, the sight of the towers from Arkansas Nuclear One were enough to make me want to stay someplace else.
I'm sure it's totally safe, but not in my back yard.

[delhalew]

We have enough natural gas to be energy independent AND pay off our debt.
If only we were allowed to drill for it.

[Jacie]

Everything, coal, natural gas, even wind and solar is a trade off.

How could something as clean, green and renewable like wind power be a trade off?

Well, an array of those really big wind turbines (the towers alone are 400 feet tall) have an interesting effect on things. For example, did you know they interfere with Doppler radar? They literally create blind spots for stations. The effect can be mitigated when data from multiple stations are combined but your local radar cannot "see" through them.

Another local effect is you don't want to live near one or more of them. The companies that benefit from wind turbines will tell you that they are no "louder" than a busy street in the daytime. What that leaves out is the low frequency vibration that people who live even 1500 feet away (one of the larger offsets from the nearest home some companies in this area have been required to provide) can feel . . . all the time. Yes, people can always move out of the neighborhood and good luck selling your home to some other sucker now that the value is oh, zero.

And if your home is in the shadow of one it is like having a strobe light on during daylight hours. People have to keep their curtains closed.

Finally, this is also a local effect, they can and have been known to suffer mechanical difficulties. If you think the sudden acceleration of a Prius is bad news, wait'll you are in range of a wind turbine that starts turning too fast. Pieces of those 100-foot long blades can (and have) flown off and go pretty far, a couple of miles.

The knock on wind power then seems to be the NIMBY effect. Great idea so long as it doesn't inconvenience I'll-be-the-judge-of-what-that-means me.

As for solar, we don't have much to say about it because so far, the large installations have yet to appear. Developers are still wrestling with the issue of how to store the energy they capture. Hopefully, it won't be batteries since the ones we use now decidedly do have drawbacks due to the toxic nature of such.

Another consideration not yet dealt with, are there environmental issues to covering large expanses of land with enough solar collectors to make a serious contribution to our electrical needs? Only one way to find out . . .

[sooneron]

So we're the Saudi of coal. BFD.

<start rant>

Wind and solar are cute and quaint, but we can make all our nation's electrical requirments right flippin' now if we would build some more dadgummed nuke power plants.

I do not "get" the greenies' opposition to safe, clean, zero carbon-footprint nuclear generated electricity. For alleged rational people, who don't eschew science, it is utterly mind-boggling they haven't been shouting BUILD MORE NUKES since Chief Iron Eyes Cody did that tear-squirting commercial when I was a kid in the 1960's.

It's like a free gift from God people. A way to make all the megawatts we could ever use, on a few thousand pounds of fissionable material WE ALREADY HAVE!

A-B-S-U-R-D. Utterly. Even the flippin' French get it. I'm appalled. srsly.

<end rant>
RIGHT FLIPPIN' NOW! Like 10 years from now? Because that is about how long it takes to get a nuclear plant on line. Brilliant!. Stick to the law dawg stuff.
I'm not against nukes, but start putting solar fields in the Mojave. I don't know what your fellow tea baggers have against them, but they are quicker and cheaper than nukes at the moment. Please don't give me the "oh, they're so vulnerable out there in the desert bull****, because I was just at a Hess Oil installment where anyone could cut a chain and toss an IED into the place and **** the **** up for a long while. No "high security" installation of power is safe and they're all VERY susceptible to sabotage. The cameraman I was with was laughing about the story he had just shot about that subject and that nukes were a joke (security wise).
Of course, that brings up a question. Why are "conservatives" so against using anything that doesn't have to be drilled for or is a dangerous substance. Seriously, I would like to know. Because to me, it sounds like all you guys want to do is go all locust **** on whatever there is and then figure out a solution later on.

I'm listening....

[SCOUT]

Why are "conservatives" so against using anything that doesn't have to be drilled for or is a dangerous substance. Seriously, I would like to know. Because to me, it sounds like all you guys want to do is go all locust **** on whatever there is and then figure out a solution later on.

I'm listening....
Since you are listening...I am a "conservative" and if you read my post above you will see that I think solar will play a large role in our future energy policy.

I think your mojave idea is less than ideal though. The true potential for solar, IMO, is through more of a distributed system.

If you want to go back to your sweeping statements about "all you guys" go ahead, but understand that you are incorrect.

[sooneron]

riiiight. You obviously have not been on SF for very long...

[SCOUT]

Yeah. About a decade or so.

[sooneron]

As far as your party affiliation is concerned, you are in the minute minority.

[sooneron]

DRILL DRILL DRILL!!!!

in case you forgot.

[sooneron]

And when I see a pub standing up for something other than nukes and fossil fuels...

well, you get the idea.

[SCOUT]

I remember and I tend to agree. If it is going to take 10 years to get our nuclear power plants on line and active, we should probably have an energy source that will bridge that gap. Drilling domestically is a better plan IMO than just giving our money to the middle east.

While we use our domestic oil and natural gas we can build the nuclear plants and develop the technology necessary to make solar economically feasible.

Why is that a bad idea?

[sooneron]

That depends upon what we are ****ing up by drilling in places that should not be drilled in. I don't think your's and my ideologies are so far apart, I have issue with those that tow the party line and pretend like they give a **** about this place where we live. However, if it kills one lizard in the mojave instead of a ****load of fish/other animals where oil "might be", I am going to opt for one for the good of many.

[Okla-homey]

RIGHT FLIPPIN' NOW! Like 10 years from now? Because that is about how long it takes to get a nuclear plant on line. Brilliant!. Stick to the law dawg stuff.
I'm listening....

Pardon me. It seems to me you do not appreciate the reason it takes so long to get a nuke plant built and online. Please allow me to enlighten you. It takes so long to build a nuke plant because of the incredibly complicated bureaucratic maze of licensing, permits, regulations and agency rules that must be observed which have very little to do with plant safety and a great deal to do with making sure it takes ten years to build a nuke plant.

Think about it, we designed and built the atomic bomb from scratch in under four years time back in the 1940's. Therefore, do you honestly assert it would be impossible to convert US electrical production to nuclear in only a couple years if it became a national priority to do so? And think about all the jobs such a drive would create. There is certainly no physical or technological impediment to building a nuke plant in a single year's time. They are mostly concrete, steel and electronics, none of which is magic.

Why build enormous, ugly, uber-expensive solar arrays or wind farms when a nice, compact, clean and safe nuke facility using proven and existing technology can be built cheaper, quicker and which will produce more watts per dollar invested than either wind or solar?

[delhalew]

Everybody knows wind and solar are nice and makes your heart feel like sunshine, but for large scale power needs, they are a looser. Use our CNG for transportation and Nuclear for power. After a period of time, maybe we come up with better tech, or find some magical faerie dust with which we can power the country. In the Meantime in between time, we don't have to be beholden to the Mid east.

[SoonerInKCMO]

We have enough natural gas to be energy independent AND pay off our debt.
If only we were allowed to drill for it.

:confused:

We are allowed to drill for it. We are drilling for it. After a combination of low-prices and little available storage room led to a reduction in activity last year, rig counts and production are increasing. Production is especially strong in the various shale plays across the country. Both foreign and domestic companies are spending $billions to further develop these plays.

There are, however, people looking to further regulate hydraulic fracturing due to misplaced fears about drinking water contamination. That **** needs to stop. :D

[delhalew]

:confused:

We are allowed to drill for it. We are drilling for it. After a combination of low-prices and little available storage room led to a reduction in activity last year, rig counts and production are increasing. Production is especially strong in the various shale plays across the country. Both foreign and domestic companies are spending $billions to further develop these plays.

There are, however, people looking to further regulate hydraulic fracturing due to misplaced fears about drinking water contamination. That **** needs to stop. :D

You can't frac in Mass or NY. Other countries are off our shores drilling and we subsidize them. Not to mention there is enough gas under Yellowstone to power the globe, all that in addition to the spots everybody knows about that are forbidden.

[SoonerInKCMO]

True enough. I'm just saying that the production capabilities of where we are drilling are enough support a huge increase of gas usage.

[BudSooner]

RIGHT FLIPPIN' NOW! Like 10 years from now? Because that is about how long it takes to get a nuclear plant on line. Brilliant!. Stick to the law dawg stuff.
I'm not against nukes, but start putting solar fields in the Mojave. I don't know what your fellow tea baggers have against them, but they are quicker and cheaper than nukes at the moment. Please don't give me the "oh, they're so vulnerable out there in the desert bull****, because I was just at a Hess Oil installment where anyone could cut a chain and toss an IED into the place and **** the **** up for a long while. No "high security" installation of power is safe and they're all VERY susceptible to sabotage. The cameraman I was with was laughing about the story he had just shot about that subject and that nukes were a joke (security wise).
Of course, that brings up a question. Why are "conservatives" so against using anything that doesn't have to be drilled for or is a dangerous substance. Seriously, I would like to know. Because to me, it sounds like all you guys want to do is go all locust **** on whatever there is and then figure out a solution later on.

I'm listening....
Leave my name out of this. :D

[Flagstaffsooner]

They don't need to be near population centers.

I lived 20 feet from two of them for 4 years, not really a problem.
And you glow like an old Timex in the dark.;)

[delhalew]

Btw, am I sme kind of freak for feeling sorry for hillbillies who's entire culture is rooted in the coal industry. Regardless of what tech we go with, coals days are numbered. Country and bluegrass songs about coalmining are some of the best.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpkGeUn69S0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WpkGeUn69S0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object

[MR2-Sooner86]

I'm not against nukes, but start putting solar fields in the Mojave. I don't know what your fellow tea baggers have against them, but they are quicker and cheaper than nukes at the moment.

Solar and wind are not the quickest and cheapest. In fact, solar and wind power is nothing but a joke. You want power? Nuclear is the way to go as that's the only way you'll get it. If you don't want to wait, build new coal fire plants with clean technology.

The best wind turbines they make today create 5 megawatts under excellent conditions. Your average coal fired unit makes around 500 megawatts and there are several nuclear plants that make up to 1-3 gigawatt's. You'll need 100 wind turbines to equal 500 megawatts and 600 to reach 3 gigawatt's just to get that. It'll be taking up more space and unable to meet that load 365 24/7.

As for solar, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is proposed to be the biggest solar facility built. The maximum output? It will be a little over 400 megawatts. Lets not forget the loan to build it is over a billion dollars and it'll take up over 4,000 acres.

[Okla-homey]

Solar and wind are not the quickest and cheapest. In fact, solar and wind power is nothing but a joke. You want power? Nuclear is the way to go as that's the only way you'll get it. If you don't want to wait, build new coal fire plants with clean technology.

The best wind turbines they make today create 5 megawatts under excellent conditions. Your average coal fired unit makes around 500 megawatts and there are several nuclear plants that make up to 1-3 gigawatt's. You'll need 100 wind turbines to equal 500 megawatts and 600 to reach 3 gigawatt's just to get that. It'll be taking up more space and unable to meet that load 365 24/7.

As for solar, the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is proposed to be the biggest solar facility built. The maximum output? It will be a little over 400 megawatts. Lets not forget the loan to build it is over a billion dollars and it'll take up over 4,000 acres.

Like I said above, the best megawatt per dollar investment is nuclear. Nothing else comes close. And as to that proposed 4,000 acre solar farm in the Mojave? The greenies are already lining up in opposition because it will displace seven desert tortoises, three kangaroo rats and 36 sand roaches, or some damn thing.

Like a previous poster pointed out, the enviro-wackos are about stopping anything that will enable human civilization even if it does so responsibly and in an environmentally sound way, because in the final analysis, the wackos are anti-human.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Solar and wind are not the quickest and cheapest. In fact, solar and wind power is nothing but a joke. You want power? Nuclear is the way to go as that's the only way you'll get it. If you don't want to wait, build new coal fire plants with clean technology.

"Clean Coal" is a myth perpetrated by the coal industry. Carbon sequestration is in no way practical or economical; mercury emissions continue to climb.

If you really don't want to wait - run the natural gas plants we have at higher utilization rates.

[MR2-Sooner86]

"Clean Coal" is a myth perpetrated by the coal industry. Carbon sequestration is in no way practical or economical; mercury emissions continue to climb.

If you really don't want to wait - run the natural gas plants we have at higher utilization rates.

You'll see electricity prices skyrocket if you go to nothing but natural gas. For starters, most of the plants are smaller compared to coal and can't generate that type of power. Yes, natural gas plants are easier to put up and cheaper to run but you run into a bigger problem. Natural gas supplies are low and prices can, and have, gotten to be five times greater than coal. Right now our coal reserves, in this country, are around 250 year. While with natural gas we're not even close to that. Finally, we have the technology now that if any new coal plants are built, their emissions are that with today's gas fire plants. In fact, most coal fire plants now are switching to better scrubber and cleaning technology. As with everything, the major factor is money.

[bluedogok]

Just like with oil there isn't going to be one magic silver bullet, it is going to be a combination of sources. I think nuclear should be the primary with solar/wind as a secondary source as a replacement technology to coal/gas.

The largest part of the problem right now is the distribution grid, there are way too many losses over the distance traveled, the efficiency of the grid needs to be upgraded or else whatever generation type is used is still woefully inefficient. If large systems are going to be located in the desert west, then the system has to be upgraded.