• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

UK set for first full day without coal power

ecofarm said:
Fossil fuels are only more "bang for the buck" because of massive subsidizing. They are subsidized as a matter of political benefit to a bunch of politicians.
Click to expand...

Plenty of tax dollars have gone to renewables. Half a billion to Solyndra before it went belly up.


Sent from my iPhone 8 using My finger.
 
Anthony60 said:
Plenty of tax dollars have gone to renewables. Half a billion to Solyndra before it went belly up.


Sent from my iPhone 8 using My finger.
Click to expand...

False equivalence. The subsidy is insignificant compared to coal.
 
beerftw said:
But using wood is a step in the wrong direction, unless they can replace the trees in a one for one ratio to use, as trees absorb carbon, and reducing carbon by using up sources that use carbon is redundant. It mostly has to do with the eu mandating renewable energy, and allowing less green energy to replace coal.

I am sure someone somewhere can find a burnable plant that works like tree wood and grows rapidly, but for now trees seem like unrenewable, if hundreds of years ago just runing steel mills england was in fear of mass deforestation, how could power plants run without using trees faster than they can grow.
Click to expand...


In Germany, trees are used more for other purposes than just energy. Rapeseed oil is also considered a renewable energy source. Nonetheless, not only does Germany require replacement planting, they also use a coppice system of cutting back shrubbery, etc., to instead plant trees. I anything, it won’t be the demand of trees for fuel than it will be for paper and building material.
 
ecofarm said:
Fossil fuels are only more "bang for the buck" because of massive subsidizing. They are subsidized as a matter of political benefit to a bunch of politicians.
Click to expand...

Total nonsense.
 
brothern said:
Both of you are operating under the assumption that renewable energy is ineffective and expensive, and will continue to be so. However depending on the region/market, that's just not true. In fact, right now, there is only a few counties in the continental United States where coal is the cheapest power plant to build. Likewise the efficacy and cost of these other energy sources continues to decline at an impressive and steady rate.

Furthermore the most desirable aspect of most renewable energy sources is that they do not have raw material input costs -- no truck or pipeline has to deliver raw material to the wind, solar or hydroelectric plant that is then burned/consumed. That is the next step in energy technology.
Click to expand...

You are also operating on assumptions as well. For renewable like solar or wind to make a big enough impact would require huge land grabs to produce enough to make a dent in fossil fuel output. For example the average solar farm to produce 400 MW is around 3,500 acres (Ivanpah Solar Power Facility). That facility is in prime Solar Power country. Alta Wind Energy farm sits on 3,2000 acres and produces 1,547 MW.. Wind and Solar's Capacity factor is much lower then Coal and Nuclear. In fact Nuclear is around 90% output to homes. The reason for this lower Capacity factor is with Wind and Solar there is more down time.

Your map is also suspect because of EPA rules many of the coal building plants have been saddled with higher costs. Just like Nuclear power plants are saddled with extreme start up costs despite the fact it's actually the cheapest per Capacity factor.

No, they have raw material costs, might not be input costs.. but it sure as hell requires tonnes of land and in the case of the best areas to put wind farms in the US are mountainous forest areas and farm land in the midwest which would reduce food output. Like in Scotland, 5 million trees were cut to build wind farms. This makes it counter productive as you have less trees and plants converting CO2 into O2. There is also the issue of bird and bat deaths due to wind farms. Up 300,000 birds are killed per year in the US due to wind farms. Including deaths of Golden Eagles (which to kill one is a federal crime) and up to 1.2 million Bats (bats are natural form of pest control for farmers).
 
JMaximus said:
Total nonsense.
Click to expand...

What are you, the Iraqi Information Minister?

"There are no coal subsidies!"

"If there were, they are not political!"

:lamo
 
Scrabaholic said:
We don't use coal plants anymore and we have plenty of power - so much, in fact, that we are sending some of our excess to the USA.
Click to expand...

Your country has the most Hydro power plants of any nation and your populations size is only middle of the road. No wonder your selling that power to the USA
 
brothern said:
Biomass and coal are the same technology.
Click to expand...

Same techonology but different out comes of the break down in the exhuast stacks.
Biomass doesnt have nearly the amount of carbon as coal does. And its carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide that people complain are causeing global warming. Nitrix oxide, Nitrics dioxide, and Nitric trioxide are the polutants that are the main reason for smog. Look at the two (biomass & coal) whats in them and when burned what type of gas comes out. Two totatlly diffrent kind of polutants
 
Anthony60 said:
Then what is the point? Are you saying that we would be using wind and solar, but for the "subsidies" that coal gets?
Click to expand...

Can't know, but we spend many millions making coal the biggest "bang for the buck" to the benefit of politicians. So let's not pretend that's just because coal is best.
 
Everyone needs to faces actual facts. There is a big push to use more green energy, hydro, wind, solar. Biomass will become more popular but is not a solution to polution and Hydro is already been explored to max potential. Wind is irregular and unpredictable so can not be relied apon. Solar has a big use but not they most of you think it should. Solar farms are rididled with unpredicted cloud cover and other weather factors. Solar and wind cannot be used for voltage control. Until someone is able to make a more efficient voltage control for solar farms they will not be in mass use. Most electric companys are having a hard time control transmission line voltages due to the amount of solar this country already has. More is only going to compound the problem then companys will band together and put a halt to it. Coal will and should continue to be phased out but only with compariable natural gas plants.
On a sad note the poltical push for solar before adequate technology to suport it is another way Nuclear has been phased out. Nuck plants have to stay based loaded and dont have the ability ramp fully down. So they have been the base of the market and all others supplemented the rest of the power. With solar eating away more and the gov telling companys X amount of there portphlio has to be green (large hydro doesnt qualify) and the amount of rooftop solar that MUST be taken by and energy company. Nukes are shuting down.
 
ecofarm said:
False equivalence. The subsidy is insignificant compared to coal.
Click to expand...

That is not true:

Wikipedia on Energy Subsidies:

A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce ... nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and bio-fuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I probably wasn't in the last 5 years... cause there sure are a lot of smog deaths for people in a country that is smogless.
Click to expand...

True enough. I lived in London 15 years ago. We did have some days of fog, but from my window on Tower Bridge I could always see the Tower Hotel across the river. Why, we had worse fogs in the countryside around Aix-la-Chapelle.
But a lot of the "smog" problem is not the old kind. At least in Stuttgart the the exhausts that are a health hazard are practically invisible to the naked eye. You need fine instruments and chemical labs to measure it. So "smog" as in my childhood, this stuff is not.
 
bluesmoke said:
In 1952, 4,000 people died and 100,000 people made ill by the “Great Smog” from coal pollutants. The reason you never say a day of smog in London is, as was said, England has practically eliminated burning coal to produce electrical energy.

Germany is ever increasing the share of renewable energy production, eliminating hard coal mining and imports for energy use, but, yes, continuing production of soft coal and lignite, which produces less CO2 emission. Combined with CO2 capture technology, the result is as you say, very few smog days. BTW, Germany considers wood (pellets) as a renewable energy source.

Germany has closed natural gas plants because it is cheaper to import. Germany is about the 16th most populous country, and the 9th highest consumer of NG.
Click to expand...

As to the smog on the Thamse question, I did not really mention, why I thought the smog had been worse, when I was a kid. I was only commenting on the article.

The air pollution problem in Stuttgart has very little to do with the production of electricity.

What is interesting to note in the German case might be
-that the subsidies to entice alternative energy production are about as high as the usually quoted cost of producing energy by coal and
-coal plants must be used as back-up for alternative energy, because gas plants are less easily stopped and started.
 
Anthony60 said:
Plenty of tax dollars have gone to renewables. Half a billion to Solyndra before it went belly up.


Sent from my iPhone 8 using My finger.
Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:
I'm for the energy source that is the best bang for the buck. So far, that's been fossil fuels. Fossil fuels rose to the top because they were way better than whale blubber. If a renewable can overtake fossil fuels, it's going to have to be pretty good.

They aren't there yet. And I certainly don't want to be using an energy source because it's politically beneficial to a bunch of politicians. Obama tried to ram that down our throats for political gain, and ended up pissing our money, not investors, away on companies like Solyndra. No thanks, let the market decide.
Click to expand...

Firstly, I wonder if you can quantify that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables. Because increasingly that's not the case.

Also, most of the costs surrounding things like solar power aren't down ot the hardware of solar. They're soft costs, like permits and supply chain that arise because of political instability. Given the actual political will we could make solar cheaper than fossil fuels. Unfortunately, big oil and big coal are deeply entrenched in our political system - Rex Tillerson anybody?

Plenty of tax dolllars have gone to fossil fuels. Both now and in the past. How do you think they became profitable in the first place? When we invest in technologies that investment can pay itself over hundreds of times in the future. It did for fossil fuels, it will for renewables.

austrianecon said:
You are also operating on assumptions as well. For renewable like solar or wind to make a big enough impact would require huge land grabs to produce enough to make a dent in fossil fuel output. For example the average solar farm to produce 400 MW is around 3,500 acres (Ivanpah Solar Power Facility). That facility is in prime Solar Power country. Alta Wind Energy farm sits on 3,2000 acres and produces 1,547 MW.. Wind and Solar's Capacity factor is much lower then Coal and Nuclear. In fact Nuclear is around 90% output to homes. The reason for this lower Capacity factor is with Wind and Solar there is more down time.

Your map is also suspect because of EPA rules many of the coal building plants have been saddled with higher costs. Just like Nuclear power plants are saddled with extreme start up costs despite the fact it's actually the cheapest per Capacity factor.
Click to expand...

Ivanpah is solar thermal not photovoltaic, which requires more land.

Also, that the EPA has safety standards on plants is a good thing.
 
joG said:
coal plants must be used as back-up for alternative energy, because gas plants are less easily stopped and started.
Click to expand...

I think you might have that backwards. NG is usually the backup for solar/wind because it can cycle on and off more easily in response to the ficlkeness of Nature.

Coal, nuclear, and hydro are typically base generators - they provide a constant and stable amount of power - but are difficult to ramp up or down (at least for coal and nuclear, which basically use the same power-generating scheme).
 
JMaximus said:
I think you might have that backwards. NG is usually the backup for solar/wind because it can cycle on and off more easily in response to the ficlkeness of Nature.

Coal, nuclear, and hydro are typically base generators - they provide a constant and stable amount of power - but are difficult to ramp up or down (at least for coal and nuclear, which basically use the same power-generating scheme).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I had been looking at the financial side of it. Sorry
 
JMaximus said:
That is not true:
Click to expand...

per kWh they produce. Coal subsidy is being divided by millions, while other subsidies are being divided by 10. Wrong figure.

1m in coal subsidy divided by 1m kWh is 1.
1000 in alternative subsidy divided by 10 is 100.
 
ecofarm said:
per kWh they produce. Coal subsidy is being divided by millions, while other subsidies are being divided by 10. Wrong figure.

1m in coal subsidy divided by 1m kWh is 1.
1000 in alternative subsidy divided by 10 is 100.
Click to expand...

You said "bang for the buck" - that's a per unit measure not a total.

You also said "Fossil fuels are only more 'bang for the buck' because of massive subsidizing."

That is not true.

Fossil fuels inherently deliver more "bang for the buck", as evidenced by the fact that governments don't have to pour as many bucks into each bang.
 
JMaximus said:
UK set for first full day without coal power



Sounds impressive but reading the rest of the article it looks like more illusion than anything, with the coal being mostly replaced by other fossil fuels and biomass (i.e., pre-coal).

The carbon footprint savings seem minimum at best. Plus this is happening on a lower demand day when carbon footprints are already smaller...
Click to expand...

England has a right to fear coal.

The Killer Fog That Blanketed London

For five days in December 1952, London gasped for air. A toxic fog smothered the British capital, paralyzing the city and blackening out the sun. Take a look back at the worst air pollution disaster in British history, which is estimated to have killed at least 4,000 Londoners.​
 
bluesmoke said:
In 1952, 4,000 people died and 100,000 people made ill by the “Great Smog” from coal pollutants. The reason you never say a day of smog in London is, as was said, England has practically eliminated burning coal to produce electrical energy.

Germany is ever increasing the share of renewable energy production, eliminating hard coal mining and imports for energy use, but, yes, continuing production of soft coal and lignite, which produces less CO2 emission. Combined with CO2 capture technology, the result is as you say, very few smog days. BTW, Germany considers wood (pellets) as a renewable energy source.

Germany has closed natural gas plants because it is cheaper to import. Germany is about the 16th most populous country, and the 9th highest consumer of NG.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it.
 
beerftw said:
Why would wood pellet be used as a renewable energy source, and even on the subject of britain, I remember reading not too long agao they were trying to switch some coal burning stuff to wood burning. Problem with this is people have a hard time reading history.

Prior to modern coal charcoal was used through most the world. The big problem with charcoal was deforestation, long before electricity existed, england figured out they could not keep up the rate of deforestation to support charcoal, and instead opted for mined coal, which puts out around the same carbon, but much higher amounts of soot.

Wood puts out even more soot but less carbon, as charcoal is heated wood that removes impurities and converts it to pure carbon, allowing it to run hotter and longer than plain wood.
Click to expand...

Wood soot output also varies widely on how hot it's burned. Some fireplace stoves burn very efficiently. They have no burn days here UNLESS you have one of these more efficient stoves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom