In one corner, the new kid on the block - commercial scale wind turbines. In the other corner, bad old coal, but with new disguises, and some fresh lipstick so it looks all pretty and user friendly. All to supply us the electrical energy that keeps us lit up, and rocks our world with music and tunes and communicates to our wildest....well, communicates something, anyway.
And also all those other new electricity supply requirements, or replacements of old supplies that don't supply enough - like hydroelectricity in areas with droughts, or where glaciers are drying up the river sources.
The new kid definitely has the cool factor going for it. Most agree that they are impressive looking, and environmentally, they rule - wind turbines have the combination of the best energy payback and least risk (= probability of an "oops" multiplied by the magnitude of Chernobyl raised to a higher power). They can make lots of electricity at reasonable prices...not dirt cheap, but reasonable. Somewhere in the 5 to 10 c/kw-hr range, onto which you have to add delivery fees and taxes, etc. All in all, this makes for booming times, especially since the former "new kid" - natural gas - is out of contention. Not enough to go around at prices to compete with coal and wind, so out goes that one.
As for the current US electricity champ (in terms of the amount made) - coal - it too is set to experience boom times. Of course, those boom times will be a big bust for anyone with beachfront property, but odds are, a lot of those castles in the sand should have not been built where they have been. Unfortunately, just a tip of the melting iceberg, so to speak - after all, most of the people on the planet who will get hammered with Global Meltdown won't be Trophy Home Onwers (but they do make for such great TV stories...so photogenic). Check out the Stern Report if you wish to read about what a "lump of coal" we dump on the planet with the current rush to build new coal burners. Or consider this view of the future, based on the last 47 years of life on earth:
http://i139.photobucket.com/...
Anyway, coal has some obvious downsides in addition to CO2 pollution, which is what the proverbial lipstick has dealt with. After all, reacting acids (H2SO3, HNO2/HNO3) with bases (limestone) is no big deal - high school science or perhaps even earlier than that. And even soaking up most of the mercury can be done done with activated carbon. But dealing with that CO2...that is serious money. over the next decade, hundreds of billions,and maybe even a trillion dollars or so are at stake, so this is not just a quibble about spare change here...
It turns out that when the numbers are run, money wise, so called "clean coal" plants - where they actually stash the CO2 trash - well, they get expensive to make electricity with. In fact, production costs go way past 10 c/kw-hr in most cases, especially in metropolitan areas, where there is actually significant demand for electricity. Oops...Coal gets knocked out with that one....
So, the best way to deal with that is....to rig the fight, pay off the ref, and change the rules. Its always worked in the past, and it seems to be the core of the Bu$h Agenda, or at least quite compatible with their view of life. And lots of democrats and unions will sign up with fixing the sport, and jump onto this steadily melting disaster of an iceberg going to ice "berglet". That, too, will not be a pretty sight...I wonder if there will be any lipstick left for the lumps of coal....
Besides, so many will say the new kid is too much of a newbie..and we only added $5 billion worth in the U.S. for 2006, barely 1000 MW of delivered juice, why at that rate.....not much gets done. But with that attitude, WW2 would have had different outcomes, and really ugly ones, at that.
Actually, the hardest part of the doing the right thing seems to be deciding to do the right thing. With electricity, despite lots of foggy claims and bluster on the part of the nukers and gas burners (gasheads...), over the next decade (about the length of time to build and get the bugs out of nukes..nuke bugs, what a lovely concept), the choice is coal or wind in the USA. And coal will not be so widely used if the stashing of the trash has to be done and paid for by the massive coal burners that make electricity. So the battle is going to be over obtuse economics and whether there really is a need for CO2 stashing. Or if coal burning power plants have to stash thier CO2, why doesn't everybody..including YOU there, driving that car...(great diversion, eh..).
Actually, most coal burning electricity producers are easy to identify, and they only nnumber a few hundred. They constitute the vast majority of CO2 made in the name of making electricity...or most of the 40% of the CO2 Made in USA that comes from electricity manufacture. All of which has alternatives to making electricity via essentially free of CO2 emanation methods, and at comparable prices. Consider these coal burners the low hanging fruit in the global warming battle, not the only one, but a decent target. Where they get the choice..clean it out and pass the costs along, or shut it down and let somebody else make the electricity.
Besides, does lipstick on that coal really make coal derived electricity that much prettier, or cute..? Maybe it's me, but that kind of image doesn't excite me. But does it excite YOU? Does it make those Xmas lights shine brighter. After all, kinky can be in the eye of the beholder...
For some wind turbine info,, check out http://www.awea.org, or the across the pond site at http://www.ewea.org. It beats Holiday TV programming, generally. They join in the fight of Wind vs Coal...since this should be more than a spectator sport.
deb9