Coal vs. Wind

[pineda]

coal's apparently too dirty, but...

wind turbines are supposedly noisy and ugly, so...

what's the answer here for Texas?

Comments?

[MidtownCoog]

what's the answer here for Texas?

Off shore wind farms.

[DJ V Lawrence]

How anyone could consider coal in the 21st century for energy is beyond me. U've gotta be the dumbest dude in the world to endorse something so obsolete when we've figured out how to use hydro-electricity, solar power, wind turbines, etc.

If we're not careful, other countries will pass us by in powerful environment-friendly power.

[Subdude]

If we're not careful, other countries will pass us by in powerful environment-friendly power.

Many are certainly trying to.

Coal is too dirty, but wind is too unreliable and can't be shaped to serve load. To me nukes are the best alternative.

[TheNiche]

Coal is too dirty, but wind is too unreliable and can't be shaped to serve load. To me nukes are the best alternative.

Agreed. But in addition to nuclear, coal has the additional advantage that most of it is supplied domestically from areas of the country that aren't disaster-prone, so it is not subject to worldwide political/military conflagrations or a Katrina-like event. That means that the price is less volatile.

Hydro depends on precipitation, and that is unreliable...impoundments along rivers can also cause a fair bit of environmental damage, so conservationists really don't like it. Wind depends upon the abundance of wind, and that is unreliable...it also can kill birds, so conservationsts don't like it. Solar depends upon the availability of sunlight, and that is unreliable. To my knowledge, the conservationsts don't have a beef with solar yet. I wonder how long it'll take them to come up with one.

If we're not careful, other countries will pass us by in powerful environment-friendly power.

And on the other hand, if we put too much emphasis on the need for environmentally-friendly power and other forms of economic production, the cost of doing business here may rise, providing an incentive for firms to relocate to countries that do not have or enforce environmental standards, and where technology is still lagging and energy efficiency is low (i.e. takes more hydrocarbons to produce the same output).

[CDeb]

How anyone could consider coal in the 21st century for energy is beyond me.

Uhhhh, because it's dirt cheap and we're the freakin' Saudi Arabia of coal.

And besides, there is a lot of promise in the FutureGen plant initiative to create clean buring coal-fired plants:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powe...tems/futuregen/

[pineda]

Thanks for the link, CDeb!

[wendyps]

How anyone could consider coal in the 21st century for energy is beyond me. U've gotta be the dumbest dude in the world to endorse something so obsolete when we've figured out how to use hydro-electricity, solar power, wind turbines, etc.

If we're not careful, other countries will pass us by in powerful environment-friendly power.

coal is relativley cheap to build. cheap to use and it isn't as dirty as it once was.

hydro, solar and wind are all unreliable. wind, for what MWs are generated, are generated at the wrong time of the day! and in the wrong part of the state! wind is blowing in a fury out in west texas in the middle of the night, in the middle of no where when and where there is little demand.

nuke's are extremely expensive to build, extremely time consuming (I think its like 20 years). once up, yeah, they are great, but no one wants them in their back yard.

There isn't a simple answer. Like many things, we need a portfolio, and we need it soon. Coal is the current answer to that equation.

[tcole]

coal's apparently too dirty, but...

wind turbines are supposedly noisy and ugly, so...

what's the answer here for Texas?

Comments?

Natural gas. TX, OK, and LA have enough for decades to come. And there is some talk of another formation UNDER the Barnett Shale which may be even larger.

[Subdude]

The "best" fuel depends to a large extent on the type of power generated. Coal, hydro, and nuclear are often used for base load because they are relatively cheap to run on a per mwh basis. Gas isn't often used for baseload because the price tends to be more volatile, but it is common for peaking plants. Wind power is just a supplement.

I think it is foolish to overly rely on coal unless the emissions can be sufficiently scrubbed. Yes, coal is cheap, but there are hidden costs in pollution. It is not realistic to try to eliminate coal as a fuel, but it needs to be balanced with other alternatives. Nukes are expensive, but they are cleaner and I think the price will drop as the regulatory and licensing regime is standardized as is proposed. It's obviously a balancing act between the pros and cons of the alternatives.

[Subdude]

And on the other hand, if we put too much emphasis on the need for environmentally-friendly power and other forms of economic production, the cost of doing business here may rise, providing an incentive for firms to relocate to countries that do not have or enforce environmental standards, and where technology is still lagging and energy efficiency is low (i.e. takes more hydrocarbons to produce the same output).

That line of thinking presupposes that businesses care only about their costs, and nothing about other quality of life issues. It might make sense if a city were trying to attract businesses such as refineries, slaughterhouses, or smelters. In reality, though, most cities are trying to attract higher value-added businesses, and these typically find poor environmental quality a big negative. For example, Houston lost out on the Texas Toyota plant in part because of pollution issues. If lax environmental standards were truly such a big draw, then you would see places like Bangladesh flooded with new businesses. Even if a cleaner mix of local power sources costs more, it can still help improve Houston's competitiveness.

[nmainguy]

And on the other hand, if we put too much emphasis on the need for environmentally-friendly power and other forms of economic production, the cost of doing business here may rise, providing an incentive for firms to relocate to countries that do not have or enforce environmental standards, and where technology is still lagging and energy efficiency is low (i.e. takes more hydrocarbons to produce the same output).

As usual, ThePedant takes the expedient route. "Oh My GOD!!!!!! If we do the hard work for the long run then someone else will do the lazy thing and make a butt-load of cash in the short run!!!!!" Horrors!!!

We are the most advanced and wealthy country on the earth but we didn't get there by spending a possible three trillion dollars on a war we were lyed into.

[3 trillion encompasses the cost of the war plus the rehabilitation and death benefits envolved]

Could that 3 trillion have gone to the developement of hydrogen technology instead? Of course it could have but the yahoos many of you yahoos voted into office have once again worked contrary to your best intrests.

Enjoy your coal.

[musicman]

That line of thinking presupposes that businesses care only about their costs, and nothing about other quality of life issues. It might make sense if a city were trying to attract businesses such as refineries, slaughterhouses, or smelters.

Cost is their biggest incentive. Newer technology is still to expensive to produce. Solar panels for producing electricity are more of a novelty for most because of their price. I've seen quite a few panels for heating water for pools but less for water htrs. Since this requires a pump, for a water htr you'd be burning energy to circulate the water. For a pool, since the pump is running already it makes it more feasible economically. once technology for producing solar panels for electricity becomes cost effective, we'll all have em.

[pineda]

And on the other hand, if we put too much emphasis on the need for environmentally-friendly power and other forms of economic production, the cost of doing business here may rise, providing an incentive for firms to relocate to countries that do not have or enforce environmental standards, and where technology is still lagging and energy efficiency is low (i.e. takes more hydrocarbons to produce the same output).

The Niche's comment above, like it or not, does have merit.

(from the wikipedia article:)

In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change.

However, critics of Kyoto argue that China, India, and other developing countries will soon be the top contributors to greenhouse gases. Also, without Kyoto restrictions on these countries, industries in developed countries will be driven towards these non-restricted countries, thus there is no net reduction in carbon.

[westguy]

You can't argue, though, that individual Americans don't by far leave the largest footprints on our environment. If emissions in Beijing increase anymore they're going to kill themselves off. That is a foul city.

[TheNiche]

Natural gas. TX, OK, and LA have enough for decades to come. And there is some talk of another formation UNDER the Barnett Shale which may be even larger.

Just because natural gas is produced in our state doesn't mean that we should rely upon it for our power production. It may be produced locally, but the modern pipeline system is very efficient, so it will be transported wherever there is the greatest demand, resulting in a systemwide equilibrium that varies by a nearly constant transport cost. And if demand for NG spikes in NYC today, the price of our electricity as produced by NG in Houston will spike as a consequence.

[TheNiche]

That line of thinking presupposes that businesses care only about their costs, and nothing about other quality of life issues. It might make sense if a city were trying to attract businesses such as refineries, slaughterhouses, or smelters. In reality, though, most cities are trying to attract higher value-added businesses, and these typically find poor environmental quality a big negative. For example, Houston lost out on the Texas Toyota plant in part because of pollution issues. If lax environmental standards were truly such a big draw, then you would see places like Bangladesh flooded with new businesses. Even if a cleaner mix of local power sources costs more, it can still help improve Houston's competitiveness.

I don't think Toyota was actually concerned with objective measures of pollution, more than they were with the consequences of non-attainment with federal regulations. If those policies didn't exist, I'll bet that Toyota would not have cared one way or the other.

And generally speaking, firms don't really care about pollution so long as they themselves aren't subject to it and their employees are able to choose from neighborhoods that aren't perceived as being polluted...and it should be borne in mind that only a handful of the pollution sensors in our region ever exceed the federal standards. If you aren't near the ship channel and aren't next door to a major freeway, concrete plant, or truck farm, you're probably pretty safe. ...and if you are, then the value of the real estate probably isn't that high, offsetting the negative externality.

[TheNiche]

You can't argue, though, that individual Americans don't by far leave the largest footprints on our environment. If emissions in Beijing increase anymore they're going to kill themselves off. That is a foul city.

Yeah, on a per capita basis, we probably do leave the largest impact, if only because we're among the wealthiest nations and have a high propensity to consume.

Funny thing, though, is that as a nation becomes wealthier, it is more able to pay for things like clean air. And you can see that evidenced by the policies of first world nations to effectively displace dirty industry to developing third world countries. I suspect that as they become wealthier, they will begin to undertake the same pattern of policy action. I have to wonder whether the best cure for pollution on a global scale is to let industrialization take its course so that eventually, the third world nations will convert over to first world status and export their dirty industry to other developing areas that desperately need the economic boost. In some ways, I suppose, all countries have to undergo the growing pains.

And in the mean time, technology advances so that each successive wave of global industrialization is less impactful than the last. I mean, the American industrial revolution witnessed the destruction of entire forests in massively wasteful ways. China and India are bad, but in context to our 19th century industrialization, it seems more bearable. I'm sure that when it gets to Africa, it'll be cleaner still.

[tcole]

Just because natural gas is produced in our state doesn't mean that we should rely upon it for our power production. It may be produced locally, but the modern pipeline system is very efficient, so it will be transported wherever there is the greatest demand, resulting in a systemwide equilibrium that varies by a nearly constant transport cost. And if demand for NG spikes in NYC today, the price of our electricity as produced by NG in Houston will spike as a consequence.

The point was in reference to the US as a whole. Other than that, I do agree with your post.

[RedScare]

I don't think Toyota was actually concerned with objective measures of pollution, more than they were with the consequences of non-attainment with federal regulations. If those policies didn't exist, I'll bet that Toyota would not have cared one way or the other.

And generally speaking, firms don't really care about pollution so long as they themselves aren't subject to it and their employees are able to choose from neighborhoods that aren't perceived as being polluted...and it should be borne in mind that only a handful of the pollution sensors in our region ever exceed the federal standards. If you aren't near the ship channel and aren't next door to a major freeway, concrete plant, or truck farm, you're probably pretty safe. ...and if you are, then the value of the real estate probably isn't that high, offsetting the negative externality.

You are clearly talking out of your arse, since Toyota has a very clear corporate policy on environmental stewardship. In fact, they are very proud of the fact that the new San Antonio plant is the "cleanest" auto assembly plant in the world. Just a minute or two on Toyota's website would have clued you in as to whether they were serious about their pollution requirements.

Do not feel bad though. Numerous Houston boosters scoffed at Toyta's demands as well, wrongly believing that everyone was as disdainful of environmental stewardship as Houstonians are. Only after Toyota went for (literally) greener pastures, did a few Houston leaders begin to wonder if that odor was not "the smell of money", but rather the smell of lost opportunity.

[Houston1stWordOnTheMoon]

I support coal wind and nuclear power. I dont lend any support to any dumbass treaties that will in turn hurt the USA. Kyoto is a freakin joke. Its a left over bad idea from the limp wrist lunatics of the 1990's that believed whole heartedly in symbolism over substance. They believe America should take the lead in enforcing those ridiculous laws and rules on our country and the rest of the world will fall in line. Theres no guarantee of that happening. The only guarantee from crap like that is it will serve to hurt our businesses and economy.

[TheNiche]

You are clearly talking out of your arse, since Toyota has a very clear corporate policy on environmental stewardship. In fact, they are very proud of the fact that the new San Antonio plant is the "cleanest" auto assembly plant in the world. Just a minute or two on Toyota's website would have clued you in as to whether they were serious about their pollution requirements.

Do not feel bad though. Numerous Houston boosters scoffed at Toyta's demands as well, wrongly believing that everyone was as disdainful of environmental stewardship as Houstonians are. Only after Toyota went for (literally) greener pastures, did a few Houston leaders begin to wonder if that odor was not "the smell of money", but rather the smell of lost opportunity.

There is a difference between Toyota building a relatively clean automotive assembly plant and them choosing to build in one city or another. Do you honestly think that any consumer or environmentalist (without an irrational regional bias) cares whether a plant of a given configuration is located in either Houston or San Antonio? Hell, the environmentalists and Toyota are probably on the same side by default, if only because each wants to minimize the logistics costs associated with procurement/distribution.

Btw, Houston literally has greener pastures than San Antonio, which is in a semi-arid zone and receives much less rainfall.

[musicman]

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/4558313.html

Climate change may have topped the agenda for policymakers, but it should be looked at first and foremost as a technological challenge, power executives gathered in Houston said Thursday.

The current slate of power generation technologies are not ready to handle the demands that proposed greenhouse gas regulations are likely to put on them, said Jeff Sterba, chairman and CEO of power and gas supplier PNM Resources.

That means the industry and the government need to fund more research for cleaner power plant fuels and ways to clean or capture greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

"Yes, there are policy issues, but fundamentally it's a technology challenge," Sterba said at the Cambridge Energy Research Associates conference at the Westin Galleria.

The power industry is already putting significant money toward meeting the country's growing power needs, according to CERA managing director Lawrence Makovich, with close to $800 billion budgeted for the next 15 years. That includes $275 billion for new plants and $50 billion retrofitting existing plants to reduce emissions, not including carbon dioxide.

But that may not be enough to increase capacity while keeping greenhouse gases in check.

Sterba and other executives and analysts at the conference say there's a great deal of mis- information about clean energy technology, both its weaknesses and strengths.

Wind and nuclear power are attractive to many worried about greenhouse gases because they have zero emissions.

But wind power can't replace existing power sources fast enough, and its output tends to be intermittent, particularly because winds are slower during the hot weather when power demand peaks, a number of observers said.

"Some would like to think wind can take up the slack from coal, but you'd have to build something like 150,000 to 170,000 new wind turbines, taking up enough land for seven states of Rhode Island," said John Rice, CEO of GE's Infrastructure business, which includes the company's growing wind power business.