Skip to main content

View Diary: A Calculation: How Many Trillions of Dollars of Environmental Damage Will IGCC Coal Cost? (48 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

    We are just talking past each other at this point.  I, like you, have strongly criticized coal about every 4th sentence as an unacceptable energy source.

    I said that even after my 20 years of involvement, mainly in review of natural gas fired plants but also coal, that despite seeing and causing 90-95% reductions in air and water pollution from these sources, the previously-unrealized carbon impacts are still deal-killers for gas and coal fired electricity.

    You seem to read most of what I write as pro-coal. Not true.  For the 10th time, coal sucks.

    What I am seeking is critical review and discussion of the significant adverse impacts of nuclear energy.  To me, Nuke's excessive water use (10-100 times greater than gas or coal) is a little-known problem and renders it unworkable for arid climates.

    To others, the nuclear industry's run of the mill radioactivity discharges and the spectre of catastrophe are far more important issues. Folks already discuss those issues widely, so I thought it would be helpful to bring up the neglected issue of water use.

    I've known and dealt with several Nobel Prize level scientists at the University of California.  The ones I've known were concerned about nuclear energy because of the possibility of nuke plants leading to the spreading around the world of the feedstock materials for nuclear weapons.

    Hans Bethe (rest in peace)was a very bright fellow.  Trouble is, he or someone like him won't be the CEOs of the profit-driven contractors like Halliburton and utilities like FirstEnergy who will build and run the next generation of nukes.

    •  I've written elsewhere in my diary on nuclear (0+ / 0-)

      terrorism or weapons.  I'm sorry, it's not as big a risk as climate change.

      You seem to think that it is not either/or coal.   But it is.   There are no other forms of scalable energy beyond nuclear.

      The number of nuclear wars that have resulted in the destruction of cities as the result of commercial nuclear power is zero.   The number of cities destroyed by weather events is not zero.

      Climate change is a certainty.   Nuclear war using commercial nuclear fuels is not a certainty.

      Climate change will almost certainly damage many cities and cost hundreds of millions, if not billions of lives.

      Nuclear weapons are so expensive and difficult to make, that it is very unlikely that without a national program, it will never occur.   Is the risk zero?    No it isn't.   However the expectation value (risk times number of people injured) is infinitely higher in the climate change case, since the risk of climate change is 100% now.

      Your objection is still specious.   You insist that nuclear power be without risk, but you do not insist that any other form of energy be without risk.   It ain't gonna happen, and that decision, that only nuclear energy be declared associated with Halliburton - the logical fallacy of "guilt by association" - is arbitrary and will cost human lives.

      For the record, Halliburton runs neither the Japanese or French nuclear programs, nor the Romananian, nor the Belgian, nor the South Korean...

      You can blah, blah, blah all day about renewable energy, I bet, but you can't show me 3 exajoules of it.   That's a problem since the default is coal.

      •  oh yeh? (0+ / 0-)

        The number of cities destroyed by Chernobyl was more than zero.

        59,900 MW of wind power already installed worldwide.  How many exajoules? You tell me.

        Energy conservation, especially in highly industrialized countries, would be an important factor, properly subsidized.

        Natural gas combustion produces far less carbon than coal and could provide a less damanging source of
        base load capacity.

        Laast time I talked to the Nobel prize-level scientists you suggested I talk to (at Lawrence Labs/UCB), some of them were working on energy generation from ocean wave action, including functioning pilot projects. I admit, its been a while since then.

        I share your skepticism of carbon sequesterization because I don't trust the monitoring of the calculations, but properly audited, planting more "trees in Belize," required as mitigation for gas-fired power plants, could reduce the carbon impacts from natural gas usage.

        In the Northwest, the State Energy Councils require new thermal power plants to invest in carbon offsets.  At least 2 IGCC plants are coming up for approval. I can barely wait to see what kind of carbon mitigation these coal-fired plants will offer to the agencies.  It could be among the biggest lies ever told.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site