Unintended consequences...

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Yes, that's true...

2ndAmendment said:
I am pretty sure a bald eagle is considered a bird of prey. :whistle:


They flourish here in part because of the salmon. Dead or dying fish are an important food source for all bald eagles.
http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/

They 'hunt' cripples and the dead. Such a noble bird.

Who was it, Franklin?, who fought and lost for the turkey to be our national symbol? Cunning, tough, master of his domain and a damn fine bourbon.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
See that????

MMDad said:
:yay: Thanks to the Navy, the technology isn't stagnant. Reactor production could be ramped up, and there could be small plants serving localities, instead of huge plants serving distant locations.
A fact of electric transmission is the loss through the lines. Reduce the distance and you reduce the loss.

People were freaking over the possibility of a Nuke south of the base. I understand it's scary at first, but wouldn't halving your electric bill make it easier?

That's what I've beening saying and wondering for a long time!

Why build some big azz monstrous thing when a plant per locality, say, what, 250,000 people, maybe less, would be awesome!
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
me me me...fa fa fa...la la la...ti ti ti....

FromTexas said:
BTW - converting to nukes is no big capital jump. There are many companies itching to build if they could just get the approval. We have many companies who have been trying to sell small nukes for years. The capital is there. We just need everyone to say, "Gee! What a great idea!"

Gee! Gee, I say! What a GREAT idea!

:bowexitstageleft:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I'm glad you asked...

2ndAmendment said:
We can keep the coal production. Run vehicles on coal synthesized fuels.
Seems with oil at what? $70+, it should be economically feasible.


http://www.alternateheatingsystems.com/fuel_source_alternatives.htm

If I may direct your attention to the left hand column, the anthracite, or hard, (read way less emmisions than super cheap soft coal) coal column.

Soft coal is about, ready? $30 a ton right now. Anthracite about $100.

Now, if you are sitting, look across the columns.

BTW, I dunno about you, but, I'm paying 9-11 cents for electric.

Coal.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
FromTexas said:
We just need everyone to say, "Gee! What a great idea!"
Pish. We can't even get everyone to agree that drilling the ANWR is a great idea, even though Alaskan residents and politicians are clamoring for it.
 

jazz lady

~*~ Rara Avis ~*~
PREMO Member
Larry Gude said:
http://www.alternateheatingsystems.com/fuel_source_alternatives.htm

If I may direct your attention to the left hand column, the anthracite, or hard, (read way less emmisions than super cheap soft coal) coal column.

Soft coal is about, ready? $30 a ton right now. Anthracite about $100.

Now, if you are sitting, look across the columns.

BTW, I dunno about you, but, I'm paying 9-11 cents for electric.

Coal.
But isn't price determined by demand? If we suddenly had this huge increase for soft coal, I would expect the costs to soar. Where did you get your emissions information?

Also, the article said conversion of coal to energy is about 35% efficient. I know my oil heater is at least 90% efficient. The table is assuming equal efficiency if I'm reading it right.
 
Last edited:

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
MMDad said:
...
A fact of electric transmission is the loss through the lines. Reduce the distance and you reduce the loss....
Edison envisioned a power plant in every neighborhood. He wanted to use DC though.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
I grew up in coal mining country in western PA, in fact I lived about 5 miles from one of the biggest. We used to have trains running 24/7 loaded with coal headed out of Allegheny county, but not one clump of it was ever used in the US. 100% of the coal mined was shipped via train to Canada.

As for Three Mile Island, the amount of radiation released was just a bit more than what someone gets during a chest x-ray, and the amount of increase in cancers is 1,
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Jazz...

jazz lady said:
But isn't price determined by demand? If we suddenly had this huge increase for soft coal, I would expect the costs to soar. Where did you get your emissions information?

Also, the article said conversion of coal to energy is about 35% efficient. I know my oil heater is at least 90% efficient. The table is assuming equal efficiency if I'm reading it right.

...all you ever wanted to know about coal and more!

http://www.penncoal.com/default.php

antrhacite; sulphur (in pounds) per million btu's .44
soft coal 1.2

If I understand correctly, that is the baseline determinate in how much bad stuff is released, hi sulphur vs. low sulphur.

As far as efficiency, a ton of cola has 27 million btu's in it, a gallon of oil about 140,000 and weighs, what 7 pounds per gallon, so, 2,000 pounds of oil is 285 gallons or 39 million btu's, so, from an energy standpoint, yeah, oil is better.

But, at $2 a gallon, 285 gallons is about $600 or 65,000 btu's per dollar vs. coal at $30 a ton, or 900,000 btu's per dollar.

There is NO question coal is dirty compared other fuels (especially nuke) but, damn it's cheap and I was just pointing out that low sulpher is a good bit lower than high sulpher coal in terms of pollution.

Incidently, that's what Bill Clintons Lippo connection was about; low sulphur coal reserves. There's a HUGE one in Utah and they wanted to develop it. Clinton, with a stroke of his willie...err...Presidential staff...uh...well, damn it, his PEN, made the Utah reserve a federal reserve. End of competition for Lippo who controls some other huge low sulphur reserve.

Quid pro quo.
 

Pushrod

Patriot
For any of you who receive National Geographic Magazine, there was an article last month on coal production in the US, especially the new surface removal methods.

I'm originally from West Virginia, and a coal mining family. It hurts me to see the way they mine coal now. They litterally remove the entire mountain to get to the reef of coal buried beneath it, and fill in the adjacent valleys with the overburden. Whole ecosystems are lost this way. They only employ 1/10th of the personel used for underground mining, so many jobs are lost.

I'm all for nuclear, and have always been an advocate of nuclear power. It can still be the way of the future.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Send the article to greenpeace...

Pushrod said:
For any of you who receive National Geographic Magazine, there was an article last month on coal production in the US, especially the new surface removal methods.

I'm originally from West Virginia, and a coal mining family. It hurts me to see the way they mine coal now. They litterally remove the entire mountain to get to the reef of coal buried beneath it, and fill in the adjacent valleys with the overburden. Whole ecosystems are lost this way. They only employ 1/10th of the personel used for underground mining, so many jobs are lost.

I'm all for nuclear, and have always been an advocate of nuclear power. It can still be the way of the future.
...along with articles about them and nuclear doom and gloom and tell them 'thanks!'
 
Top