The full cost of alternatives to coal

[M Paquette]

Is coal the only energy fuel associated with mercury in fish?

Coal has been a significant source of environmental mercury release, as mercury naturally present in mineral deposits such as coal are released as mercury compounds in the combustion process. Coal-fired boilers in the United States are required to have control devices to reduce the emissions released. The mining, cleaning, and transport process can result in the release of additional compounds.

Oil fired power plants may also release mercury compounds, with the level depending on the amount present in the oil being burned.

The uranium mining process used for nuclear fuel may release relatively small amounts of mercury into the environment from the disturbance, exposure, and weathering of rock.

Municipal waste burning may release trace amounts of mercury as well as other toxins.

Construction of any facility which exposes 'raw' rock to weathering may result in the release of mercury compounds.

Detailed data can be retrieved from the data files here:
eGRID | Clean Energy | US EPA

 

[Chuckanut]

It's a little like telling someone to buy a big bulky expensive portable computer in the 1980's, because someday in the future they will be light and cheap.

Didn't that already happen?

The cheapest alternative energy source is the energy not used by eliminating waste and inefficiency and using other forms of conservation. Personally, I try to bundle trips together so as to use less gasoline.

Some studies I have seen indicated that alternative sources of energy will take their biggest toll on the world's poorest people, who need cheap energy to move from poverty to a more secure lifestyle. Another complication.

Remember the paper versus plastic issue? All of those people eschewing plastic bags at the store because they weren't recyclable (at that time). Several studies showed that paper bags use far more resources to make and transport than the plastic ones, and even when recycled they still use more resources overall. That's why we really need to be careful when looking at alternative energy resources.

 

[Chuckanut]

FWIW, burning coal does release some radiation into the atmosphere. Each pound of coal release far less radiation than a pound of uranium, but since so many more pounds of coal need to be burned to equal the energy output of the uranium, coal may actually put more radiation into the environment than nuclear power plants.

Nothing is ever easy, is it? That dang law of unintended consequences will get you every time. Will Fusion Power save us?

Oh... Personally, I don't smell any bacon. It's a good discussion .

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
It's a little like telling someone to buy a big bulky expensive portable computer in the 1980's, because someday in the future they will be light and cheap

.Didn't that already happen? ...

You missed my point. It made sense to buy an expensive, bulky 'lugable' computer in the 1980's if you had a need for it that justified the expense and relative portability - IOW, if it was a 'value proposition' for you. And that was a niche market, relative to today's cheap, high performance, light laptops. It does not make sense to buy something today, because the future versions will be better. Buy them when they meet your needs, not before.

Same with many of these green technologies. Use them when they provide a good value, not based on some future improvements.

And I might as well proactively address the expected response about early adopters pushing the state of the art: it is largely a misnomer. Tech doesn't work that way. Portable computers didn't get better because of early adopters, which then led to wider adoption. They got better because technology advanced, which led to better value, which led to wider adoption.

For portables, batteries got better because lots of products use batteries, and lots of development went into making better batteries, not because of a few thousands of lug-able computers were sold.

Likewise, screens got better, micro-processors got better, manufacturing techniques got better, materials got better, etc, etc. A few lug-able early adopters could not bend that curve much in so many fields. Wide adoption happens when value improves, it isn't early adopters driving the price down. For example, if the govt decided to subsidize lug-able computers to increase sales, it would hardly have a dent at all in all those different technologies. They move at the pace they move at, micro-computers went through each die-shrink in succession, there was no 'fast track', it took time to advance each step in the state-of-the-art. And computer companies would have less incentive to improve, as the subsidies create a false demand for their relatively low-value product! Why improve when we can sell this crap today!

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

Paper vs plastic bag. I got a freebie bag made out of 100% recycled plastic bottles from my insurance agent. That's one of my favorite bags. Not because it's a freebie but the bag actually is quite sturdy and waterproof (after all, the bag was once plastic bottles). Sorry to digress

 

[Chuckanut]

Paper vs plastic bag. I got a freebie bag made out of 100% recycled plastic bottles from my insurance agent. That's one of my favorite bags. Not because it's a freebie but the bag actually is quite sturdy and waterproof (after all, the bag was once plastic bottles). Sorry to digress

The paper versus plastic rivalry a few years ago may be a good example of how these things work out. Initally, it was paper (renewable resource deemed more environmentally friendly) versus plastic (less resources to make and transport, but no way to easily get rid of). Ultimately, the solution seems to be for all of us to take our own grocery bags to the store and reuse them over and over again for many years. Paper versus plastic is no longer an issue.

FWIW, I find my reusable grocery bag a lot easier to lug around and store in the trunk. It doesn't fall over, spilling out all the groceries like those flimsy plastic bags so often do. And, unlike a paper bag, it does not rip and spill my groceries onto the ground.

 

[MooreBonds]

Is coal the only energy fuel associated with mercury in fish?

As a PSA reminder, it's easy for us to forget that the "environment" isn't naturally pristine:

Mercury in the Environment

Natural sources of atmospheric mercury include volcanoes, geologic deposits of mercury, and volatilization from the ocean. Although all rocks, sediments, water, and soils naturally contain small but varying amounts of mercury, scientists have found some local mineral occurrences and thermal springs that are naturally high in mercury.

For instance, did you know that asbestos is a naturally occurring fiber in the air we breath every day? Sure, it's worse when you're wrapping a pipe joint with asbestos insulation - but even if the mineral ore was never mined in the first place, asbestos fibers are all over the place naturally.

And when scientists were studying fish in the Gulf in the years after the BP spill, they had to admit that the fish they found with obvious effects of exposure to oil could not be automatically linked to the oil spill. Why? Because there many oil deposits naturally seeping "up" into the ocean from below the ocean floor.

Yes, there can be quite large impacts to the environment from various pollution from industry, but remember that everything exists pretty much everywhere to a certain, small amount just from natural random distribution as the earth formed.

 

[explanade]

I remember hearing that they could link mercury in fish in New England specifically to coal plants in China.

 

[haha]

Just this morning read in one of the Pittsburgh papers that since the administration has been dissing coal as energy source in the US. The US has been exporting increasingly larger tonnage to outside. To be burned as energy source in a far less efficient manner than the US coal fired plants.

Next thing, will the EPA ban coal mining?

I live in an area where many of the locals I know are coal miners. They are not happy campers.

This is a major issue in the Kentucky senatorial race.

Ha

 

[M Paquette]

The unfortunate problem with mercury is that it is a toxic heavy metal prone to bioconcentration (accumulation within a living organism over time) as well as biomagnification (accumulating in food organisms to higher concentrations, which further concentrate in organisms eating that food.).

We manage to raise the concentration significantly with coal fired power plants, gold production, nonferrous metals production, heating limestone to make cement, and some other processes, mostly involving heat that vaporizes off mercury compounds.

The mercury compounds accumulate over time in us (bioconcentration again), and interfere with selenoenzymes that restore antioxidant compounds in our bodies (vitanin C, E, and other compounds) to their reduced form. This makes cells with higher oxygen use more susceptible to damage. Brain cells are a good example of susceptible cells. Chronic longer term exposure leads to the brain cell failures that ultimately result in death.

A small amount of mercury present in the environment generally doesn't cause a problem. Exposure to higher concentrations inhibits selenoenzyme activity, resulting in bad, bad things happening to one's brain. That's why occasionally eating swordfish, in spite of the bioaccumulation and biomagnification of mercury in the fish, is not harmful for mature adults, but making it a frequent part of your diet is not a good idea.

 

[travelover]

The unfortunate problem with mercury is that it is a toxic heavy metal prone to bioconcentration (accumulation within a living organism over time) as well as biomagnification (accumulating in food organisms to higher concentrations, which further concentrate in organisms eating that food.).

.......

Never seemed to hurt the hatters.

 

[easysurfer]

The paper versus plastic rivalry a few years ago may be a good example of how these things work out. Initally, it was paper (renewable resource deemed more environmentally friendly) versus plastic (less resources to make and transport, but no way to easily get rid of). Ultimately, the solution seems to be for all of us to take our own grocery bags to the store and reuse them over and over again for many years. Paper versus plastic is no longer an issue.

FWIW, I find my reusable grocery bag a lot easier to lug around and store in the trunk. It doesn't fall over, spilling out all the groceries like those flimsy plastic bags so often do. And, unlike a paper bag, it does not rip and spill my groceries onto the ground.

I go to Aldi for my groceries so bring my own bags anyhow as it's a bag your own groceries place. I've got my recycled bottle bag which is the largest and use that to hold my other bags in the trunk. The others are a combination of bags that are about the size of a regular brown grocery bag plus smaller insulated ones for the frozen/cold foods. Bringing the own bags seemed cumbersome at first but now from habit, is second nature.

 

[ls99]

Meanwhile down under, the Aussies have decided that enough is enough of meddling by the environmentalist.

The properly killed off the carbon tax. Apoplectic noises nothwithstanding.

Lessons from the Death of the Aussie Carbon Tax - Reason.com


"Environmentalists had a global meltdown last week after Australia scrapped its carbon tax. They denounced the move as "retrograde" and "environmental vandalism.""

It is really tiresome to listen to the constant whining about climate change. Yes climate change is happening and has been going on ever since there has been climate. And will continue so long as there is climate.

I do wish the whiners would alway present their claim fully as to 1what the claim is: Man Made Climate change. Which is IMHO total bunk. and has been debunked properly.

 

[aja8888]

There is a better was to burn coal. It's going to come when the technology can be supported by higher energy prices someday.

Coal Gasification Could Unlock Coal’s Future | EnergyBiz

 

[M Paquette]

Never seemed to hurt the hatters.

Yup. Totally harmless.

Mad Hatter's Disease - YouTube

Pay no attention to those pesky scientists, doctors, and other fearmongers. They're just trying to keep all that grant money flowing.

Don't believe me? Try this experiment at home!

1) Make sure your will, trust, medical power of attorney, and living will are up to date.
2) Put on some latex gloves.
3) Dip a gloved fingertip into a bottle of dimethyl mercury. Not too much, now! Be careful, as it does stain so...
4) Take off the gloves.
5) Spend the next several weeks telling your friends how harmless low levels of mercury are.

Pay no attention to the growing abdominal discomfort, weight loss, vertigo, and slurred speech. Once you lapse into a vegetative state, these won't bother you any more.

 

[rodi]

Nuclear was mentioned as an alternative... I live just south of San Onofre which was suddenly, unexpectedly, permanently shut down last year. This is an expensive proposition.

Rate payers paid to build the plant, to run the plant, and now we're being asked (firmly) to pay for the billions it will cost to shut down the plant. There are lawsuits over this. We're getting no energy, but still have hefty bills to pay.

I've also heard that the spent rods are held onsite - similar to Fukashima. Makes me very nervous.

 

[ERD50]

There is a better was to burn coal. It's going to come when the technology can be supported by higher energy prices someday.

Coal Gasification Could Unlock Coal’s Future | EnergyBiz

I seem to recall that while this is cleaner, it uses up a lot of energy in the conversion. So on the mining side, we will need to mine more coal, with those environmental impacts, for the same energy out.


Now I saw some links that seem to compare these new CG plant's eff% and their new technology and co-generation capability to the old 'average' plant. In that flawed comparison, the new plants look better. But, I think if you compare a modern CG plant to a modern 'standard' plant, the CG loses on eff%? But it has other advantages - whether they outweigh the extra mining, I do not know.

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

It is really tiresome to listen to the constant whining about climate change. Yes climate change is happening and has been going on ever since there has been climate. And will continue so long as there is climate.

You didn't get the memo?

The new target is to admit that yes, perhaps there is something to this global warming, but we really can't do anything about it. Even if one country reduces it's use of fossil fuels, another one will just take up the slack. Any attempt to reduce the CO2 load is just an exercise in futility.

There's nothing to be done. It's too late. Might as well get used to it.

It turns out that denying global warming exists keeps regional governments from letting out new contracts for construction of higher sea walls, new water control systems, re-siting of power plants, construction of new port facilities, and other very profitable large scale projects. Oops! Bad for business, and bad for America!

 

[Mulligan]

I guess a lot of things contribute to the global warming issue. I was just reading today in USA online that methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is in greenhouse effects with cows being a major producer of it. Maybe if everyone quit eating beef we could burn a little more coal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[easysurfer]

I guess a lot of things contribute to the global warming issue. I was just reading today in USA online that methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is in greenhouse effects with cows being a major producer of it. Maybe if everyone quit eating beef we could burn a little more coal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Quit or ease up on eating beef is actually one of the tips to curb [-]global warming[/-]...[-]the green house effect[/-], [-]death from smoking[/-], oh I mean..climate change.

 

[ls99]

You didn't get the memo?

The new target is to admit that yes, perhaps there is something to this global warming, but we really can't do anything about it. Even if one country reduces it's use of fossil fuels, another one will just take up the slack. Any attempt to reduce the CO2 load is just an exercise in futility.

There's nothing to be done. It's too late. Might as well get used to it.

It turns out that denying global warming exists keeps regional governments from letting out new contracts for construction of higher sea walls, new water control systems, re-siting of power plants, construction of new port facilities, and other very profitable large scale projects. Oops! Bad for business, and bad for America!

Nope, did not get that memo.

By the way, if all CO2 is eliminated, what wil plants do?

 

[Lakewood90712]

Starting to smell bacon . I was hoping this discussion could go on without porky showing up.

 

[Chuckanut]

Starting to smell bacon . I was hoping this discussion could go on without porky showing up.

Why don't we let the moderators decide about Porky. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

This has been an interesting discussion about where we may get future energy that is needed. It certainly has given me food for thought.

 

[M Paquette]

Nope, did not get that memo.

By the way, if all CO2 is eliminated, what wil plants do?

Won't happen unless there's a REALLY cold spell.

TRIGGER WARNING: The following content contains facts, which may offend some people's sense of truthiness.

Believe it or not, some carbon dioxide is produced from naturally occurring sources, both geological and biological. It's an integral part of the carbon cycle. The gotcha here is what happens if the level changes faster than life can adapt.

TRIGGER WARNING: The following contains content that may be offensive to Young Creationists

The past 400,000 years have seen CO2 concentrations from 180 parts per million during deep glaciations, to 280 parts per million during interglacial periods. These aren't the highest levels the Earth has seen, but they do represent the range that life on Earth is currently adapted to live with.

Over 2.4 billion years ago, the Earth's atmosphere consisted mostly of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, before the oxygen catastrophe occurred with the appearance of cyanobacteria. Note that reverting to these levels of carbon dioxide are likely to impact our lifestyle fairly noticeably. One would have trouble lighting the barbecue, for example.

The long term trend the past few billion years has been for the carbon dioxide level to decrease in the atmosphere. This has also produced some changes. About 34 million years ago, the CO2 concentration dropped below 760 parts per million, leading to an extinction event and the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet, locking up 7.2 million cubic miles of water and lowering sea levels. Plants evolved new respiratory mechanisms to handle the gradual drop, giving the Earth plants such as the grasses, maize (corn), and millet.

TRIGGER WARNING: The following contains content that may be offensive to persons who don't believe carbon dioxide levels can be measured.

Recently, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen to 400 parts per million, a new high for this particular epoch with humans in it. This is somewhat higher than that recorded in previous swings of the past several hundred thousand years.

TRIGGER WARNING: The following contains content that may be offensive to persons who don't believe that there is a greenhouse gas effect.

Now, natural changes do have an effect on the climate. Solar output has increased slightly over the past 150 years. The change is small, though, about 0.12 Wm-2 (Watts per square meter). The observed global temperature change in that period corresponds to an added flux of 2.9 Wm-2 with an error of 0.2 Wm-2.

There are natural sources of CO2 that can contribute the total concentration, such as volcanoes. Volcanic CO2 can be identified by the different ratio of carbon isotopes than those present in biological sources including fossil fuels. Carbon isotopes have different reaction rates due to the slightly different atomic weights of each isotope. Biological processes tend to concentrate Carbon-12 preferentially to Carbon-13. We see different ratios in carbon dioxide from volcanoes than from burned biological material such as fossil fuel. The added carbon dioxide does not appear to have an isotope ratio similar to that of volcanic carbon dioxide.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 'capture' some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions - including back to the Earth's surface.

Through this process, CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep the Earth’s surface 33°Celsius (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2, and temperatures have gone up.

 

[aja8888]

I guess a lot of things contribute to the global warming issue. I was just reading today in USA online that methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is in greenhouse effects with cows being a major producer of it. Maybe if everyone quit eating beef we could burn a little more coal.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually, Mulligan, a lot of it's caused by all these darn people we have on the planet....

Why don't we let the moderators decide about Porky. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

PAY, WHAT PAY?.....No one told me about that! Who do I talk to about this PAY stuff??