AH poor baby.
You can post pages of bunk. Stale links. But can't sort out the truth from your BS.
Coal fired plants can be clean.
----------------------
They are not. I showed reams of evidence on this.
Coal is the biggest polluter in the US.
So everyone in southern AZ is going to die from all that pollution. Not to mention lots of northern AZ and everyone in the 4 corners area. You post the same old stale BS web sites over & over again. You are also wrong on biggest polluter in the US. Forrest fires are making more pollution than everything man is doing.
EPA releases interactive map of US biggest polluters | SmartPlanet
The Scherer coal-fired power plant near Macon, Ga., is labelled as the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the United States. In 2010, the plant generated 22.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide alone.
The collated data for greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 shows:
姫ower plants were the largest stationary sources of direct emissions. 2,324 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent were released.
姫etroleum refineries ranked second with emissions of 183 mmt.
匹O2 accounted for the largest percent of greenhouse gas emissions, claiming a share of 95 percent.
ç*†ethane accounted for 4 percent, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases coming in last for the remaining 1 percent.
?00 facilities each reported emissions over 7 mmt of carbon dioxide, including 96 power plants, two iron and steel mills and two refineries.
Maintaining Fire's Natural Role | The Nature Conservancy
Around the world, fires are behaving differently now than they have throughout history, primarily as a result of human actions. In many places, for example, climate change is causing more frequent and more intense wildfires.
1. we can't control nature.
2. the thing that is creating the acidity in our lakes and oceans is coal fired power plants.
--------------------------
There are more ways to save energy than solar and wind or water.
--------------------------
I never said there weren't BUT PV, wind and hydro are our best alternatives at this point. -
If all this is so great and good, why does it cost .25 to .35 cents a KWH after all the 'Gov $$$ poured into it. Fossil fuel power plants produce the same energy at .05 cents.
You're not looking at all the costs.
Fossil fuel plants use a consumable resource.
Once renewable Kw are paid for they keep producing without the added cost of materials.
The shipping of those materials.
The coal slurries created by them.
The cost of the constant pollution created by the fossil fuel burning.
etc.
Steel, copper, aluminum & plastic all cost more than 10 years ago.
PV prices have dropped dramatically in the past ten years. Go check today prices. Yep they have come way down.
But the steel, copper & aluminum to mount & install them have gone up.
So has the cost of materials to make everything else. The bottom line is cost per Kw to install a PV, micro hydro, or wind system.
--------------------------------------
You can not produce copper or steel without fossil fuel.
----------------------------------------------------------
Not true, you can use electricity. The metal doesn't care what produces that electricity.
You don't seem to have a clue as to how much energy it takes to refine these metals on a large scale.
That's not a defense of your position, I showed elsewhere here where induction processing of metals is an alternative to coal furnaces.
-------------------------------
Aluminum requires so much energy to produce it's doubt full that wind or solar could ever do the job.
-------------------------------
Not true, see above answer.
Initially the only place in the US that had enough electric power was in the north west and lots of hydro dams.
Hydro is a renewable, you're contradicting yourself and making my point!
----------------------------------
You brag about you fine big house that you built. Out of New Lumber?? Why not use reclaimed lumber??? It could have been built out of adobe or rammed earth, very little heating or cooling.
------------------------------------
It's not big BUT it was built to maximize wind and sun. It's efficient, not big. It is as easy to cool and heat as adobe (not viable here or rammed earth) I felt insulation and building wise it is best suited to this area to build out of wood. I planted trees to more than replace the lumber I used in its construction.
I'm impressed, you planted a few trees. How did you make up the fossil fuel used to cut, mill and transport that lumber??? Did you even look into recycled lumber?? Adobe not viable?? Last time I checked they were made out of dirt. No Dirt where you live???
Again, I used the materials that best suited the application here. You built out of used wood but I'm the one not polluting. You're sending pollution into the air every time you light a wood fire.
----------------------------------
Explain why other people should be helping to pay for your energy. You claim to be some big deal inventor, why aren't those inventions paying for your energy???
----------------------------------
I did pay two thirds, the government only gives me back 30%, I put in the rest. Also new technology benefits us all, just as the technology we paid for from the space program benefited everyone. We all paid for it and we all benefited from it. Did you object to subsidization of other technologies that you benefited from? Food, nuclear, fossil fuel, etc. Alternate grants and subsidies are available to everyone including you.
Poor baby you had to pay for 2/3s of it yourself. Want me to send you a few $$ to help you out?? I'd like to know how to get some of those grants or subsidies, without spending a bunch of $$$. Space program benefited everyone. Now tell me how you getting free electricity benefits me or anyone else. Some how I have missed out on the food food benefits. Are you getting Food Stamps, is that what you mean????
I'm in an electric co-op, when I produce electricity it feeds back to the grid and everyone in the co-op gets reduced rates. I don't get food stamps, we do grow most of our own food however.
Rob
