Coal is cheap and it burns slowly and hotly creating plenty of steam for the turbine generators. Of course, coal is just plain nasty stuff. Nuclear energy is really the answer here. It faces a lot of stigma from 40 years ago but now adays nuclear power plants are some of the safest places to work.
2007-02-11 14:13:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by nashmortis1 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
We burn lots of coal because it's cheap and readily available. We need to develop methods of reclaiming the soil after surface mining, which will increase the cost, though not to a higher level than other fuels.
The main thing we need to do, still, is reduce the need for energy. We need to get off our fat glutea maximi and start riding bicycles. Electric cars will help. A very necessary change is that we need to get over being afraid to sit beside somebody we don't know, and get back to using really efficient means of transportation. (That is, railroads.)
The problem with nuclear energy is the same as the problem with the steamer RMS Titanic. The chances of the Titanic sinking were very slim, indeed. Nonetheless, it happened, with disastrous results.
So to understand what nuclear energy is, we need to understand the difference between risk and danger. The risk in booking a passage on the maiden voyage of the Titanic was very slight. The danger was in terms of what would happen if the unthinkable occurred.
To understand what nuclear energy is, understand that...
1--Fissionable materials are the most severe toxins that ever existed. One meltdown could kill millions of people and render an area the size of the state of Pennsylvania uninhabitable for thousands of years.
2--The people responsible for protecting the public from the danger of a nuclear accident are the same people that were responsible for protecting New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina.
Enough said.
2007-02-11 13:44:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by aviophage 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
We use coal because it is cheap to mine and transport, can be burned in cheap powerplants, and the environmental costs do not fall primarily on either the producers or the users of the power. We also have an administration policy that favors making it easier to keep obsolescent coal-fired plants in operation.
In the U.S., there's no need to replace coal with either hydro or nuclear. We could find about 30% slack in our present generating capacity if we used best available conservation techniques.
Countries like India and China, who need vast amounts of new powerplant capacity to industrialize, will continue to find coal attractive until we invent cheaper alternatives or the international legal climate changes.
2007-02-11 13:40:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by virtualguy92107 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
All easily exploitable hydro power sites already have dams and power stations. The Mississippi for example, does not have a high enough fall to produce much power.
2007-02-11 13:46:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Coal is the most cost effective form of energy. Simple economics is the reason. To help preserve our world simple economics will need to be applied as well with carbon taxes and investment into alternative fuels. I have wondered lately how come the tidal forces on our shores cannot be utilized to generate some energy. Simple hydroelectric motor using high and low tide for power.
2007-02-11 13:27:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Billy Dee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Coal is everywhere and it is inexpensive to use. It does pollute very badly and it is messy. Hydro Plants are not as stable as you would think. There has to be another method developed, one that is inexpensive and can be responsibly used. I guess that's coming just like the alternative fuel everyone is telling us is going to be here any day.
2007-02-11 13:33:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Terry Z 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
One problems with Hydro power is it can alter the surround environment thus offsetting the local ecosystem.
Coal is everywhere and it is dirt cheap.
The best source is nuclear. The problem is that the people who oppose it have no idea what it is. It's the cleanest and most efficient. The only problem is storing the waste but that can be solved.
2007-02-11 13:22:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by dlln5559 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
you've thoroughly misinterpreted the record you cite. China's huge boost in coal burning led to a short while period temperature cut back because all those particulates blocked solar. Temperatures are already mountaineering back.
2016-11-27 02:28:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
hydro kills fish and destroys the ecosystem so take your pick...
2007-02-11 13:38:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by elmar66 4
·
0⤊
0⤋