Comments on: What to tell people who insist that cheap and plentiful coal will power our future http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/15/what-to-tell-people-who-insist-that-cheap-and-plentiful-coal-will-power-our-future/ Human Animals at the Crossroads of Culture, Science, Religion and Media Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:49:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Architecture 2030 http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/15/what-to-tell-people-who-insist-that-cheap-and-plentiful-coal-will-power-our-future/#comment-17808 Architecture 2030 Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:12:25 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/15/what-to-tell-people-who-insist-that-cheap-and-plentiful-coal-will-power-our-future/#comment-17808 Please see our latest report "The 2030 Blueprint: Solving Climate Saves Billions, Good for the Economy, Jobs" for a discussion about nuclear energy, coal, efficiency and climate change at: www.architecture2030.org. Please see our latest report “The 2030 Blueprint: Solving Climate Saves Billions, Good for the Economy, Jobs” for a discussion about nuclear energy, coal, efficiency and climate change at: http://www.architecture2030.org.

]]> By: grumpypilgrim http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/15/what-to-tell-people-who-insist-that-cheap-and-plentiful-coal-will-power-our-future/#comment-17784 grumpypilgrim Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:54:13 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/15/what-to-tell-people-who-insist-that-cheap-and-plentiful-coal-will-power-our-future/#comment-17784 Responding to Roger P., I have also heard that the U.S. has huge coal reserves -- at least 100 years, provided, of course, that we don't irrevocably ruin our planet by burning it. Yes, nuclear is looking better every day. It is the only currently-feasible source that can replace fossil fuels. "Green" sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.) currently lack the energy density that is needed, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Nuclear also has the surprising advantage of releasing *less* nuclear radiation into the environment than coal-fired power plants: turns out radioactive isotopes exist naturally in coal, and these isotopes are released into the atmosphere when the coal is burned; with nuclear power plants, the radiation is contained and sequestered (though many people continue to debate how secure this process will be over time). Responding to Roger P., I have also heard that the U.S. has huge coal reserves — at least 100 years, provided, of course, that we don’t irrevocably ruin our planet by burning it.

Yes, nuclear is looking better every day. It is the only currently-feasible source that can replace fossil fuels. “Green” sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.) currently lack the energy density that is needed, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Nuclear also has the surprising advantage of releasing *less* nuclear radiation into the environment than coal-fired power plants: turns out radioactive isotopes exist naturally in coal, and these isotopes are released into the atmosphere when the coal is burned; with nuclear power plants, the radiation is contained and sequestered (though many people continue to debate how secure this process will be over time).

]]> By: Roger P. http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/15/what-to-tell-people-who-insist-that-cheap-and-plentiful-coal-will-power-our-future/#comment-17689 Roger P. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:16:10 +0000 http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/04/15/what-to-tell-people-who-insist-that-cheap-and-plentiful-coal-will-power-our-future/#comment-17689 I'm all for alternative sources of energy (nuclear power is looking better every day), but until something becomes cheaper and more practical than coal, those power plants are going to continue burning fossil fuels. I reside in Indiana, and our state produces the most CO2 from coal-burning power plants in the United States. It's going to be expensive to convert plants to handle other energy sources, but we must do it soon, if for no other reason than we will eventually run out of coal! I've heard that the United States has sufficient coal resources to last another 130 years. Can someone confirm this assumption? I’m all for alternative sources of energy (nuclear power is looking better every day), but until something becomes cheaper and more practical than coal, those power plants are going to continue burning fossil fuels.

I reside in Indiana, and our state produces the most CO2 from coal-burning power plants in the United States. It’s going to be expensive to convert plants to handle other energy sources, but we must do it soon, if for no other reason than we will eventually run out of coal!

I’ve heard that the United States has sufficient coal resources to last another 130 years. Can someone confirm this assumption?

]]>