Coal and electricity
 

I was watching Frontline on PBS tonight, and I learned something
that shocked me.
52% of the electricity in the U.S. is produced by burning coal.
The National Mining Association more or less backs it up here;
http://www.nma.org/pdf/012907_forecast.pdf
They also expected to produce 1.170 billion tons in 2007 for the U.S.

It's obvious that we are not only heavily dependent on oil, but coal as well.
Think of all those who are employed in the coal industry. No wonder both
candidates have to say they support "clean" burning coal.
They'd lose Illinois, Indiana, & West Virginia otherwise.

Here is what I ask, did you know about this vast underbelly (or does everyone
else know and I'm the idiot) to our "cleaner" alternative, electricity?

Well I knew coal fired plants make over 50% of the electric power in the U.S. so 52% is believable. In fact, this D.O.E. link mentions that and a couple other interesting related facts Department of Energy - Electric Power

This cost info is probably the most significant reason why coal is popular, though the cost of cleaning coal, or processing it like in coal gasification is not included in these costs:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes4.gif

The Energy Information Administration has this nice pic:

Figure ES 1. U.S. Electric Power Industry Net Generation, 2006
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.gif


Natural gas is projected to be the largest growing fuel segment for electric production in the U.S. for the next 20 years or so.

I'll throw another interesting "fact" I read recently...I'll have to find where and if it's true since I didn't check it out... but it said there is more radiation emitted into the atmosphere (per kW produced) from a typical coal burning powerplant than a nuclear plant. Apparently the natural radiation level in coal is the reason why.

We've got a lot of coal in the US. The issue with oil is that the US really only has something like 20 billion barrels (which is just a few years worth), so we get it from everyone else.

Coal is also a horrible pollutant. And "clean coal" doesn't seem to be what it's promised as.

In Canada we have the Alberta oilsands. We've known for 30+ years that as soon as technology costs and oil
prices met on a graph somewhere we'd be in the money.

Why's that? What were we promised? I'd say the wet scrubbers, wet flue gas desulfurization units, and IGCC configurations do a pretty damn good job.

As for the lack of emission from a nuclear power plant, that shouldn't come as a big surprise. Nuclear power releases no solids into the atmosphere. Recirculating water doesn't come in contact with the reactor vessels, and any exhaust or vented gas that is radioactive is stored and compressed until the radioactivity level is deemed acceptable for release to the atmosphere. Air ejector exhausts on modern units have no radiation exposure unless you have leaking boiler tubes. Boiling Water Reactors do have radioactive exhaust that is filtered by charcoal systems, but those are pretty much obsolete. Honestly, most of your nuclear emissions come from the exhaust of backup diesel generators.

Yes, that is true. Nuclear power plants emit extremely little radiation.

Technology has advanced a great deal and power plants that burn coal don’t pollute nearly as much as they used to, but still they emit carbon dioxide. And too much of it causes the greenhouse effect. Same goes for natural gas power plants. In my opinion, nuclear power plants should be built and coal burning plants should be closed.

I thought natural gas wasn't as bad as coal power in terms of their emissions? Or has 'clean' coal caught up with natural gas emissions?

52% is less than I expected.

Slightly OT but a quote from New Scientist:

"Industry analysts say upto £50 billion in capital is now waiting to be invested in solar projects in the Nevada desert but there is a problem: Washington DC. Under the Bush administration the US Beureau of Land Management has granted permission for oil companies to prospect for oil on 30,000,000 hectares of fedral land. Yet it has refused applications for putting solar panels and reflectors across a total of 400,000 hectares of western states - enough for 40,000 megawatts of electricity generating capacity."

I don't consider myself to be a thoroughly convinced environmentalist, but I do get kind of queasy at the
sheer volume of material that we consume yearly.
As proof continues to come out about how global warming is still very much a theory rather than a fact,
I'm worried we will turn our backs on conservation. Before folks yell at me, I am convinced of
climate change, just not necessarily global warming.

Anyway, I think the our focus is wrong. I think our level of consumption is what needs to be changed.
Also, why must it always be combustibles used to satisfy our energy needs?

Pardon?

What's interesting though, is that a majority of our electricity comes from hydro. (It's something ike 60% hydro vs. 20% coal.) Compared to the U.S., that's an astounding difference. We have a lot of running water up here. Maybe the U.S. could make better use of theirs?

What's interesting is that most of the coal used to fire the Nanticoke and Lambton Generating Stations comes from the United States, either from Superior, Wisconsin or from Ashtabula, Ohio. The loaders at Superior tell me that they've got enough coal left in the mine for 250 years and by God, they are going to use it all!

Baraka, while it is true that we generate a fair amount of our electricity through Hydro, let's not forget the vast areas
we flood in order to do so (China's Three Rivers Gorge Three Gorges Dam is a disaster in the making, China admits - Times Online.
Again, it seems every time we deal in vast quantities of material something is destroyed/shifted.
Anybody know how solar power is shaping up?

Lucifer, I think any effort to change our energy consumption habits will have to take into account the vast infrastructure we
have created, and the the tens of thousands of jobs that depend on it.

Yes, grolsch, but at least hydroelectric is renewable. And as for new projects, there are methods for designing systems that have minimal impact on the natural habitat. China's example is a rather extreme case.

Solar power is still really expensive. I think wind power is what currently deserves a big push. They're planning a big "channel" of wind power in the eastern United States. In northern parts of Canada, there are many areas of untapped power in windy areas. Areas that are predictably and consistently windy.

There is much opportunity in renewables.

In my section of the country, we get most of our electricity from hydro, and we as consumers have the option to only buy power from renewable sources (hydro and wind).

And Baraka, there are other parts of the country that get their power from hydro as well. The Tennessee Valley Authority's projects come to mind.

I'm not sure how practical it is in other parts of the country to construct large dams; furthermore, the funds for such superprojects aren't exactly forthcoming.

Baraka, I think renewables are an excellent choice, too. Wasn't trying to be too demanding.
It's true that Canada's vast landmass and low population density (hey I'm from Quebec, we love our
hydro) means less obvious impact. I think the US of A is a little more constricted.
Touche on Three Gorges, it is over the top, I admit. But imagine if they tried it with the mighty
Mississippi?
Onesnowyowl, if we are headed into a depression (I say we as US sneezes, Canada gets a cold)
than something like the NRA could be used to build all sorts of infrastructure. Like, proper levees in
Louisiana, say?

There is no point in the Mississippi where there are any walls high enough to build a dam around. Levees are the only structure which are high in comparison to the river, and we know how well those work. The entire area around the river is a giant flood plain. There are no valleys which the Miss carved such as in the Tennessee Valley, they have long since been worn down. So all you can do is dam some of the tributaries, many of which are already dammed.


We can't build dams any more because they have too much impact on the environment, fish etc.

We can't build Nuclear Reactors because fears of meltdowns.

We can't recycle used Nuclear Waste because of Carter's Executive Order.

We can't build Coastal Wind Turbines because certain Dem's want to sail without seeing eyesores.

We can't build Coastal Tide Turbines because of the risk to fish.

So what we're stuck with is land-based turbines which are fickle. Solar panels which are horridly inefficient and overpriced. Natural Gas which is expensive. Coal when looked this way is really the only option without government change.

Personally I'd love to see large reactors built cross country, along with tidal and coastal turbines to take advantage of the clockwork movement of the wind/water on the coastline. It's not a cure-all, but those would give a lot of environmental justifications for plug-in hybrids and the lowered cost per KW/H would help ailing families. Lowering the KW/H enough so electric heaters would be economically efficient during Northern Winters and AC in Southern Summers.

Until we get fusion power, a big part of the problem is that generation has to happen so far away from where you live. There has to be pressure, either governmental or monetary for having people produce some of their own power right at home. Make home builders put in geo-thermal systems on new homes, have big box stores put enough solar panels on their roofs to be able to run the store except for heating and AC. Make people more independent and less reliant on the power companies. I know I will be looking into buying some solar panels for my house since it would meet my needs and produce the power I require.

The southwest could be 100% powered by sun. Texas to California, Nevada and Utah could build simple solar reflectors and heat oil in a black pipe. They have a few of them already. It isn't too hard to build. They can build a few nuclear power plants to generate nighttime power and supplement the daytime AC use. And the more people that generate their own power, the less the power companies will have to produce.

But I am getting tired of the whole attitude that I have, "if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." Companies aren't producing what I want and have no incentive to change, government isn't regulating or forcing the people or companies to change, and individuals don't care unless their lives are effected directly.

Seaver and ASU, thanks for weighing in.
Seaver, not so sure I like that "Dems" remark, but you know what? You might just be right.

ASU, the last bit you had about lives being affected directly? I think you are right. To the point
where when we are told "It will cost lot's of $." "We need to pay our debt." "Things might take
a generation." all we do is say no. I want my candy, now.
Our politicians and companies are what we deserve.
We vote for both of them. Think about it; if a large enough segment of the population said we
will not stand for it, you don't get our $ any more, wouldn't it change?
Vote with your $.
That's just an idea.

The thing about wind power is that it`s on the up-and-up, especially in the U.S. It`s estimated that the cost per kwh of producing it will rival the cost of nuclear. The benefit, however, is that you don`t have to worry about uranium mining and enrichment, and the disposal of hazardous waste.

There are many areas in the U.S. where there are untapped wind resources. Also, due to the nature of the technology, you can mass-produce turbines as you would automobiles. Compare that to how ruinously expensive and long-term nuclear projects can be (not to mention how many of them get abandoned or indefinitely delayed for various reasons).

Worldwide, you are seeing a great increase in both private and public investment in wind power, and the reasons behind it are becoming clearer.

Canada, too, has many opportunities for increasing wind power output.

You, of course, mean Dems like Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, right?

Opposition to Wind Power

It's true. I work for a natural gas distribution company, and we have a very active programme which is developing a windfarm out on the west coast (of Ontario) just north of Kincardine. This farm will have 110 Vestas turbines which will generate 181 MW of electricity.

We also just fired up a direct fuel cell - energy recovery generation (DFC-ERG) power plant in our parking lot. This fuel cell actually creates 2.2 MW of electricity by replacing the normal process for bringing cool natural gas up to temperature using an emmission free turbo expander process.

The energy produced is fed back into the electrical grid.

Both of these are done by a natural gas company. Just some thoughts on leveraging capabilities, infrastructure as well as government & corporate funds to seek alternatives.

I'm a coal state (Kentucky), so I'm not at all surprised by the statistic. I have very mixed feelings about coal energy. My ex-boyfriend is from a coal community--this grandfather died in the mines, his father then had to go work in the mines at 14, and is an old man long before his time thanks to lungs full of coal dust. His cousin still works in the mine. I'll never forget the first time I saw him come home from work, black-faced in coveralls. It's a hard life, but for many, it's the only viable option. Although I know we must move towards more renewable, environmentally-friendly energy, I worry about the people of the Eastern Kentucky coalfields. I hope they are remembered during the transition.