• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion So why is the US still using Coal for energy?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,465
7,456
146
Ok, but my point is is it better?? It doesnt work if it isnt sunny or windy out. You will need batteries, there is waste there to consider. You need to consider also the mining involved for the batteries need in your home or at the plant, and if at the plant will have to have a butt load of batteries. You need fuel/eco killing chugging huge diesel machinery digging out the material needed for them batteries, and what is needed to make this stuff, so need to add that stuff into the wates these make vs what waste we make with what we got now.

And am I folish in if we are going to get rid of what we are using now, vs this stuff that is FLAWED, for it doesnt work all the time no matter what or the weather, and Im being told I must use this flawed stuff no matter what when I cannot afford to do so, or the up keep to keep them going, and replacement every 25 years, thats way too soo IMO for we been using coal and nuke for more then 25 years with no problems other then the waste, OF WHICH, these are not all as waste free as we are being pumped and told they are, and they are FLAWED, for they dont work all the time no matter what.

If your going to replace this stuff, IMO, it needs to work all the time, be close to 100% waste free not only to make to the power, but to make the units themselves as well. And they need to last more then 25 years before needing replacement, because the blades wear out, or the panels begin to die out for they will not continue to work.

Choosing a flawed better path for your told its soooooo clean, and it isnt between waste produced to make the tech, or mine the tech needed so the tech will work, and then you need to be replace often costing more money in the long run, probably less if you just keep paying your bill you got now in the 25 year span, is flawed. I dont like the propaganda involved in this stuff making people think it the king shit of all shit, when it wont work all the time, and its producing waste too, maybe not all that much, but from what Ive read and people say, its waste for the blades, or the panels, but what about the hazardous waste in the batteries that need to be replaced every 5-10 years or so. What about the pollution made by the stuff mining this crap out for the batteries, or the production of the blades, the plants pollution made making this crap too, ADD ALL that up in conjunction with the waste your going to make as every person in the usa is tossing this stuff out in the trash for new ones all the freaking time, is that really more then a coal or nuke plant makes, or as little as they claim its to make vs the latter that will work all the time unless they catch fire, melt down, or you dont pay ur bill?

I want clean energy, but it has to be CLEAN, clean it producing, clean to make it, and clean to get rid of in recycling 100% of. Untill then, because I need energy for everything in my house and life, I want them to stop lying to me saying this is soooooo much better then what we have because it clean clean clean, I dont like being lied to, or have to pay all the time for something on my roof because you say I need to when I cannot afford it, and like my bill just fine for constant power I dont have to do shit to to keep it going, or have to worry about the weather and if Im going to run out of power because of the shit on my roof. I want it to just work, I pay a bill, and it works.
This is a good point about mining. People seem to think it’s just the emissions of the fuel yet they never think about cost of production.

Take steam turbines for example. They weigh 100-1000 tons a piece and with many coal plants only lasting 35 years all those turbines will end up as scrap. Not to mention the 1000’s of tons of steel and concrete used to make the plant. All that waste and that’s even with them getting a pass on their fuel waste that nuclear doesn’t get and renewables don’t even need.

Many people think that coal and gas fired plants are just about the fuel but so much waste comes from mining for the steel and concrete used to build the plant, process the fuel and transport it.


Oh as for solar arrays, yes they are more efficient when equipped to track the sun. Power falls of with the cosine of the angle to the sun. That being said I’ve personally run critical operations for years on nothing but solar power and batteries without catastrophically running out of power.

One just had to size the arrays and storage to cover worst case loading and eclipse periods. The ability to power down when a problem occurs also helps.
 

iRONic

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2006
5,268
306
126
No, they don't, that's lunacy. If you let perfection stand in the way of progress we'll literally end up with an uninhabitable planet.

You're literally spouting anti-green energy propaganda. You've been fed it by some fuck in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry and you're hear preaching it like it's gospel.
Yeah, I'll let somebody else waste their keystrokes on this argument.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,152
1,023
126
If your going to replace this stuff, IMO, it needs to work all the time, be close to 100% waste free not only to make to the power, but to make the units themselves as well.
I'm pretty sure the first cars were not much faster than a horse and carriage and by your logic since the first cars didn't do 200mph then it was pointless to develop them? Renewables are in their early development stage...they can be much better and in fact are better than fossil fuels in a lot of ways.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,465
7,456
146
I'm pretty sure the first cars were not much faster than a horse and carriage and by your logic since the first cars didn't do 200mph then it was pointless to develop them? Renewables are in their early development stage...they can be much better and in fact are better than fossil fuels in a lot of ways.
You know @funboy6942 craping on the availability of renewables is pretty funny to me. I’ve been able to buy 100% wind energy for several years now. (The power doesn’t go out either)

This is from a few years ago and the price has come up a bit since then (but still competitive)
 

LurchFrinky

Senior member
Nov 12, 2003
288
50
91
For Funboy
Most people get their power from the grid, and it's always windy somewhere. Also, you still get power on cloudy days, just not as much.
It doesn't have to be sunny and/or windy at your house to take advantage of renewable energy. It only needs to be sunny/windy somewhere else and the power will travel through these things called wires to the outlets in your home.
 

iRONic

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2006
5,268
306
126
I am very much confused. When it comes to electrical providers... you... have a choice?
I had a choice for the generation portion of my power when I lived in CT. Delivery provider wasn't an option. Eversource was the utility.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,465
7,456
146
I am very much confused. When it comes to electrical providers... you... have a choice?
Welcome to Texas. As part of deregulation we get to “pick” our power provider.

Texas New Mexico provides the lines and electrical service. The actual electrons are coming from whatever plant I’m wired for but I can pay any one of a number of providers to actually put the KWH I need on the Texas grid.

The provider handles billing and I would assume buying/trading power.

I’m not sure it saves any money because it adds provider as a middle man into the mix. The benefit is if I want to pay GreenMountain Energy for X KWH a month they’ll provide X KWH of wind energy to the grid.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,105
781
126
Neither EEVBlog nor Thunderf00t are anti-green energy. They are climate change activists who are also realists. Much of their math on the inefficiency of fixed solar cells versus tracking solar cells are in their "Solar Roadway" debunking videos or the one where Thunderf00t mocks Donald Trump's idea about putting solar cells on his border wall or the Fontus self-filling water bottle debunk. There's a lot about the inconsistent availability of wind in the Waterseer debunkings too.

These guys routinely mock deniers and are not trying to promote a denier's agenda. In their cases, it isn't the corruption of big oil telling them how to think. It's the scientific method telling them where we can best focus our resources for maximum benefit. Tracking solar arrays vs. fixed solar arrays; angled fixed solar arrays versus flat solar arrays, nuclear or wind energy, etc. Dave (EEVBlog) isn't anti solar just because he talks about the real world problems and costs you might encounter... he's invested in it himself! He obviously believes in doing it but he wants to promote it realistically.

By all means, promote green solutions... just be realistic/honest about the benefits. These guys are. Let's not have a knee-jerk reaction to reality.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY