|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:11 pm Post subject: |
    |
|
Until we get consensus or an overwhelming majority on global warming I think a moratorium on new coal fired power plants is a good idea.
The cost difference between coal and solar is not that great. Solar and other renewable energy resources are excellent supplemental energy sources. Also passive systems work very well (particularly in high desert and less humid climates).
I think one of the major hurdles we have to overcome in the USA is that we associate consumerism with capitalism and freedom. We (almost) all think capitalism is a good thing but it is not the same thing as consumption. I think one thing the capitalist system doesn't take into account very well is our long term well being.
How do we put a price on pollution? What will be the true cost of using up the oil supply? We can't really know these things therefor it makes since to proceed with caution.
Also we need to remember the reason that we don't have many more power plants and pollution in the USA is that we have exported a great deal of our manufacturing overseas or across the border.
As a consumer I am feed up with the poor quality of products available. I'm tired of all the plastic and paper dumped into the environment. I once sailed from Florida to Texas and the during the entire voyage I don't think I ever lost sight of some piece of trash floating by.
I'm irritated that every kitchen appliance has a clock built into it and sucks electricity 24 hrs. a day not to mention all the other crap that is built to stay in standby mode so we won't have to wait an extra minute for it to warm up.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
psudonym
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No more coal burning power plants sounds great. Even if we set aside any questions about C02. Less pollution overall including strip mining that I have seen back east. How much can the altenatives really contribute? Is California, Arizona ready to have their AC go out? We are building glass houses in the desert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
"We are building glass houses in the desert."
So true.
Certainly we could live off solar power, (we managed thousands of years with no electricity). But what does the average American expect these days?
It amazes me what passes for energy efficient and Earth friendly. Want a McMansion? -No problem just use a few CFL lightbulbs.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/03/19/8402358/index.htm
The first certifiably green mansion
Earth-friendly no longer equals Space Age design. Welcome to EcoManor, built in Atlanta by Ted Turner's daughter.
Now we can have our cake and eat it to. No amount of personal consumption is too much as long as it has a LEED stamp on it.
Certified sustainable forests?
Yes a few rich people can get their lumber from these while the masses clear cut Canada in an effort to keep up with the Jones. But the minute lumber prices go up enough we will see those "sustainable" forests clear cut as well.
Use some eco friendly products made in China.
Still feel guilty? Just buy some Carbon offsets 
Here is a good green joke: http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/escapehybrid/?searchid=426441|15932595|80550243
They even got Kermit the frog to sell it for them.
We consume far more than our grandparents ever dreamed of consuming. We have a huge population of baby boomer's about to retire and expect excellent health care while at the same time not leaving enough funds in the system. Our national debt continues to sky rocket as we are busy selling our soul to China for cheap products.
This is why I have trouble being optimistic at the moment and think it will have to get much worse before it can get better.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djswan
millennium club
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 1121
Location: Montana, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it time for a big protest? I can get some folks to join in. Sleeping gaints. The ents march to war?
We need a tougher breed of tree huggers.
Blame the architects? Don't blame the clients.
_________________
n/a |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WalkerARCHITECTS
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:12 am Post subject: CLEAN COAL IS A MYTH |
|
|
Coal is unfortunately a major part of the consciousness of the industrialized world — it is called King Coal. Everyone can conjure up images of the smoky, smutty streets of Dickens' London, — it is the stuff of old legends and nightmares.
But as much as coal seems the stuff of the past it is being embraced as the fuel of the present, and future. Coal production in the United States is up, and prices are down. Projections by International Energy Agency show coal's share of energy production growing. Simultaneously THE ECONOMIST labeled coal "Environmental Enemy No. 1."
— check out some of the facts below.
The U.S. has 25% of the worlds coal reserve.
Coal is 90% of the U.S. energy reserves.
A megawatt of energy produced by coal is between $20 to $30 dollars
In 2001 we mined 1,121 million tons of coal.
65% of the coal mined came from surface mining
India and China and the U.S are the top three producers of coal.
The world fossil fuel reserves represented by COAL is 78.5% of the total fossil fuel remaining.
The burning of coal is viewed by many as an environmental danger because it releases several gasses into the environment, including, carbon dioxide or CO2. The matter of coal-burning plants, CO2 emissions and The Clean Air Act, are frequently the subject of debate in the United States Senate because pollution from coal is dangerous to human populations.
38.2% of worlds emission from coal is CO2 which contributes to Global Warming.
60% of the U.S. sulfer Dioxide emissions is from plants burning coal.
31% of the U.S. CO2 emissions is from plants burning coal.
32% of the mercury polution is from plants burning coal.
The truth in fact, is there is no such thing as "clean coal." And coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates. Coal's most catastrophic and permanent impacts are from mountaintop removal mining. If the American people could see from the air and ground the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia: leveled mountains, devastated communities, wrecked economies and ruined lives, there would be a revolution in this country to stop coal.
The risk of getting cancer from coal ash lagoons is 10,000 times greater than government safety standards allow, according to a draft report from the Environmental Protection Agency obtained by an environmental group. Although the EPA acknowledges this risk, it has neglected to adopt regulations that will limit exposure and protect against the health threats of America's second-largest industrial solid waste stream, coal ash.
EPA assessment, and environmental groups indicate that the cancer risk for adults and children drinking groundwater contaminated with arsenic from coal combustion waste dumps can be as high as 1 in 100 -- 10,000 times higher than EPA's regulatory goals for reducing cancer risks.
EPA's failure to limit pollution from coal combustion waste, or coal ash, has led to poisoned surface and groundwater supplies in at least 23 states, by EPA's own admission. Coal combustion waste is the solid waste produced by coal-fired power plants, which produce approximately 129 million tons of the waste each year. The waste is contaminated with toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium and selenium. There are currently about 600 existing coal ash landfills and surface impoundments in the U.S
There are currently plans to build over 100 new coal-fired power plants in the United States by 2030. Pollution from coal ash impoundments will undoubtedly worsen unless EPA takes the necessary steps to protect neighborhoods and communities from this dangerous pollution source. EPA acknowledges that coal ash landfills and surface impoundments have contaminated water above federal drinking water standards in the following states: Texas, Maryland, New York, Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The agency also acknowledges that more cases of drinking water damage occur, but that monitoring systems are not in place to detect contamination at a large percentage of the existing dumps.
A broad coalition of 27 environmental and public health groups, led by Earthjustice, Clean Air Task Force, and the Environmental Integrity Project, submitted a proposal to EPA detailing ways to protect against pollution from the millions of tons of coal ash disposed annually by U.S. coal-fired power plants. The groups also requested that EPA take immediate action to investigate and abate pollution at coal ash dump sites.
Coal combustion waste currently disposed without adequate safeguards poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to health and the environment in dozens of communities throughout the country. EPA has made no effort to protect the public against these pollution sources for over seven years. We believe it is time to act. SAY NO TO COAL
Many coal ash disposal sites lack the most basic safeguards such as liners, covers, and groundwater monitoring -- standards that are routinely required for household trash at sanitary landfills. according to Eric Schaeffer, Director of the Environmental Integrity Project. "In fact, in many cases, the operators are simply dumping the waste straight into groundwater and face no cleanup requirements by states."
The relentless expansion of the coal industry is the single greatest threat to averting dangerous climate change. Coal is the most climate-polluting fossil fuel, responsible for one third of all CO2 emissions, and is projected to increase to 60% of emissions by 2030, according to Walker Architects research. "Clearly, quitting coal will benefit not only the climate, but also reduce the other impacts which everybody else has to pay for.
From smog and soot to mercury and carbon dioxide, coal-fired power plants are one of the largest sources of dangerous air pollution in the United States. The consequences for human hearts and lungs are staggering. Yet plans are on the table to build dozens of new coal-fired power plants across the country, increasing the health threats for both nearby communities and those downwind.
Burning coal creates several different types of liquid and solid wastes that are known as coal combustion waste. The amount of coal combustion waste produced is more than 120 million tons every year. It’s enough to fill rail cars that would make a train 9,600 miles long.
CLEAN COAL IS A MYTH
The clean coal technologies that have attracted the most attention are carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). CCS remains an unproven technology and IGCC emits just as much global warming pollution as ordinary coal plants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 756
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
reduce renew reclaim recycle.. ration
we have the power, so when is this civil disobedience against coal going to start?
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nanrehvasconez
Joined: 25 Feb 2008
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The debate of what is greener and what is not, is mainly motivated by what is cheepper and easily available, and what is hard and more difficult and expensive.
Hydraulic power plants are the cleannest and a way to produce inexpensive electric energy, but we are not allowed to build them anymore due to the localized damage they cause to the fisheries. fauna and flora.
Geo-thermal power plants are very good, but relatively few locations are accessible to this system, and not too many business people like to invest their capitals next door of a volcano crater.
"Coal burning power plants are the next less expensive and the present answer to produce cheep electric energy, if coal burning power plants will be forced to use carbon monoxide scrubbers", they will lose this advantage to nuclear energy, then solar, then wind, then tidal power turbines.
Presently the only real answer to this problem is to minimize the use of electric energy by designing buildings using less energy in HVAC and illumination, the less energy we consume the less carbon need to be burned. Waste of electical energy is present in every city, at night you can see vacant office buildings all illuminated for the benefit of may be the janitors.
The same can be said about gasoline, the less we use, the less carbon monoxide we produce. The abusive use of gasoline in luxury cars/SUV's with humungus engines should be punished and perhaps forviden. Europe has done this by taxing gasoline/petrol to the point that buying a car in Europe with six or more cylinders is limited to the very rich.
Finally, the electricity transmission system has to be modernized so less energy is lost in the distribution nets, therefore less electric power plants will be needed.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY (Wikipedia)
Clean coal technology is an umbrella term used to describe technologies being developed that aim to reduce the environmental impact of coal energy generation.[1]. These include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification (see also IGCC), treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, and carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas.
Clean coal technology usually addresses atmospheric problems resulting from burning coal. Historically, the primary focus was SO2 emissions and particulates. Current concerns focus especially on carbon dioxide emission, due to its like impact on global warming mitigate greenhouse gas emissions as well as other pollutants[2]. Concerns exist regarding the economic viability of these technologies and the timeframe of delivery[3], high hidden economic costs in terms of social and environmental damage [4], and the costs and viability of disposing of removed carbon and other toxic matter [5] [6].
Coal is the largest domestic contributor to carbon dioxide emissions[7]. The public has become more concerned about global warming, which is leading to legislation, so the coal industry has been running advertising touting clean coal in an effort to deal with negative perceptions. Changing meanings of term ‘clean coal’ and questions about motives have provoked skepticism on the part of environmentalists. The term ‘clean coal is often stated in inverted commas by its critics, due to claims that it is a misnomer [8] and a public relations term[9]. In November 2008, NBC anchor Brian Williams described clean coal as an oxymoron as part of the station’s report on the issue[10]. Supporters of clean coal use the Great Plains Synfuels plant to support the technical feasibility of carbon dioxide sequestration. Carbon dioxide from coal gasification is shipped to Canada, where it is injected into the ground to aid in oil recovery. Supporters acknowledge that economics can be problematic for carbon sequestration.[
[url]
TIDAL HYDRO POWER
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tidal power, sometimes called tidal energy, is a form of hydropower that converts the energy of tides into electricity or other useful forms of power.
Although not yet widely used, tidal power has potential for future electricity generation. Tides are more predictable than wind energy and solar power. Historically, tide mills have been used, both in Europe and on the Atlantic coast of the USA. The earliest occurrences date from the Middle Ages, or even from Roman times.[1][2] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cjpunkz
Joined: 09 Jan 2009
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Using coal is dispensable, there are other alternative ways to produce fossil fuel. There is a process, which is gasification, that will convert wood and its byproducts into biofuels such as ethanol and biogas, which is more environment-friendly. There is just a need to further develop this process so that it won't be too costly to produce them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WalkerARCHITECTS
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 5:18 pm Post subject: STOP COAL NOW |
|
|
Gasification of coal is a fascinating technology but currently not feasible or demonstrated as economical. You still need a place to store the CO2. Coal is dirty. The best approach is a moratorium an coal. mercury is entering our living world from the current use of coal and polluting the oceans & damaging the fisheries.
STOP COAL NOW
We can live longer without it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antisthenes
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 756
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zeitgeist addendum has some great ideas on this
_________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquired, Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WalkerARCHITECTS
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I am familiar with this work. Geothermal, Tidal, Wave, Solar & Wind are at hand. But the existing financial power structures of the world are not currently invested in it as they wish to perpetuate a future that exists only in the perpetuation of the existing control structure, system and ownership. They are warming up to it. To restructure the world about the emergent and symbiotic realities of our existence is a transformation at odds with the current inertia. We need to work on creating a self sustaining world of abundance but the transformation requires co-opting the establishment. Walker Architects understands the current problem, understands the significant barriers to power generation, the dangers of coal and knows how to build the rooftop power plant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WalkerARCHITECTS
Joined: 25 Sep 2007
Posts: 105
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: GO BACK AND READ THE OLD POSTS |
|
|
We have come along way since much of this was written. I am against dirty coal power plants and would love to see a clean coal power plant with carbon sequestration because I know how to use CO2 to store electrical power in the range of 500MW and greater.
But I do not see clean coal in reality anytime soon and we really do need to STOP COAL unless it is clean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Archie_tech
Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The global consciousness definitely seems to be shifting to the positive
_________________
Revit Training |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arc1tectronic
Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes use green alternatives instead of coal. I agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Archie_tech
Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's hard not to change when it's on every channel and media you see. It is a dirty fuel. I have been thinking of getting an electric for the city and keep SUV for travel.
_________________
Revit Training |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
