Or so says the left. If you drive an electric car it is a good bet you are driving a coal powered car.
I wish I lived somewhere with coal. Those coal stoves are the bomb. There is nothing better than the heat those things give off. Just wraps its arms around you and puts you to sleep.
Most electricity is produced without coal in the U.S. now. At the turn of the century (2001), about 51% of our electricity was from coal. That's down to close to 30%. Coal isn't dead, but it's dying. Natural gas is a much more convenient fuel for power plants--it's easier to turn on a gas turbine than a coal fired steam turbine. In addition, the NG plant needs less water for cooling.
But if 30% of our electricity was from solar and wind you'd tout it as a huge number and declare all fossil fuels dead. Coal is alive and well and there will be a place for it for many decades to come
Not for long. Wind power gets twice the funding of the fossil fuel industry and employs more people, for less power cost. Wind and solar installations cost far less now than a nuclear or a gas power plant, megawatt-for-megawatt.
And smokes in South Carolina are over $6 bucks cheaper a pack then in Chicago, so what's your point? .
The issue isn't that we use 30% coal for electricity, the issue is that number is down from over 50%. That is the indication of something that is dying.Coal is dying off as an energy source. It's just not as practical as other energy sources. It's been dying off since the 1980s, this isn't a new thing, and it has little to do with environmentalism. I'm not anti-fossil fuel at all. At this time, petroleum (gasoline or diesel) is the best way to fuel vehicles. I've just researched the subject enough to know that, at least in the U.S., coal is dying for electrical generation. It just isn't as practical as natural gas. (you can turn on a NG turbine and get it up and producing in minutes (and shut down in minutes). It takes much longer to get a coal steam plant producing electricity, or to turn it down. ).
It's dying off because the 40 year war on frickin coal, and the emergence of natural gas, we have enough coal.in the United States to last us over 400 years.... Only a liberal would tax the hell out of/ put massive rules and regulations on a cheap product and then point and say lookie it cost to much / it is dying.. . .
It's been dying off because it's not as practical as the alternatives. NG is a much better fuel to work with--it's cleaner, and once set up, easier to transport. So are you claiming that the Reagan administration started the war against coal?
Wind energy is the best option for long term sustainability, assuming we can find somewhere to put them. We have some here in east TN on Windrock Mountain, but most people say not in my back yard, or NIMBY.
Coal is dying like the huge Douglas fir behind my house which is past it's prime and on the way out but will still outlive you and me, our kids and probably their kids.
Not at the rate it's going. It went from producing over 50% of the electricity in the U.S. in 2001 down to around 30% of the electricity in the U.S. in 2016. That's dropping quite fast. Coal is simply 19th century fuel, at least until we figure out a cheap way to turn it into gasoline.
Do you feel having a conversation without identifying the causality to be useful? Would you hazard a guess as to why coal is being replaced? Could it be artificial governmental regulation is forcing this? If is had to be artificial, does that inherently mean that the move was natural? And if not, why not? To suggest that something is so this century or that century, you have to admit to some personal level of smug. It simply becomes vanity without substance.
The prime reason is that NG is less expensive and easier to use. A NG plant can be ramped up and down within minutes. A coal plant cannot. Fracking is the reason coal is dying.
Failing to quantify the emissions and regulatory burden being placed on coal simply ignores the decline. Likely, had there not be artificial regulatory requirements, Coal's usage would not have declined and NG would have replaced other more costly fuels instead.
Take away the regulation, and coal won't come back. Fracking put the final nail into coal's coffin, but coal is simply old technology. It takes a lot of water (cooling) and can't be ramped up and down quickly, unlike NG gas turbines.
So what you are saying is that wind power gets to steal twice as much as the coal industry. By far less costs I'm taking you are referring to the base cost of electricity with no accounting for the high up front capital cost , capital stolen from whom? Do you have any costs analysis on your projections or do we just believe your feelings?
And how would this practically you are claiming determined as compared to other technologies? Does the cost figures include all factors or just operating cost?
Fracking is the reason whole sections of nature will be dying. The cost to human health will be tremendous but why would most care, they're killing grandchildren. To those that "feel" they are an animal, you should drink the water at frack sites, who knows, you may have toads as offspring.
I have researched the issues. Coal is dying, and has been since the 1980s. It's an old technology. NG is easier to use, and is currently much cheaper than it was (and almost as cheap as coal, just fuel-wise) due to fracking. This is a current cost breakdown of all of the above. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html Roughly speaking fossil steam (which is most coal plants and a few NG plants) requires a total of 37.26 mils per kwh (a mil being a tenth of a cent), or 3.7263 cents per kwh. Gas turbine (most NG plants) requires a total of 33.24 mils per kwh (3.324 mils per kwh). Admittedly, nuclear and hydro are cheaper than either, but they also have a much worse footprint.
If the EPA could find credible cases of fracking destroying the environment, fracking would already be shut down. They haven't found credible cases.
One of us is having a problem with comprehension. The totals when you only consider operation, maintenance and fuel show that fossil steam is 37.26 mills while gas turbine and small scale is 33.24 mills. On the fuel side, fossil steam is 26.7 mills against gas turbine and small scale is 28.22. What you fail to mention is: "Gas Turbine and Small Scale category consists of gas turbine, internal combustion, photovoltaic, and wind plants." So what percentage is non natural gas? Do you not agree this has a large impact on fuel costing? When you look at the other areas, operation and maintenance, those numbers would also be skewed. But the most important point that I brought up was total cost and all you have responded with is operation. What of externalized costs? What impact does the toxic chemicals used in fracking have on externalized costs? Who do you believe is going to be stuck with the costs of these massive cleanups? What will be the externalized costs when drinking water would need to be recovered at a very high carbon cost? Using your argument, a better argument could be made for nuclear when you ignore the externalized costs. And we haven't even gotten into a discussion of the determent to the health of the people and the planet. Your determination is based on very short sighted convenience not on the true factors of cost.
