Doesn't this make you think that right now we need to at the very least need to scrap all new coal power?

Question

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/03/70393

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2006/03/70405

This article only adds weight to that conclusion

Answer 1

Good job I like them links.

Yes I think so. We need to build more Nuclear Power plants to take there place.

Answer 2

It is best to have balanced energy supplies that are reliable. Having a loss of only a couple percent will destroy the power system. Switching to all natural gas places the system in jeopardy of having major disruptions due to pipeline problems. During a problem you could loose both your gas heat and your electricity. The energy demands of the US are growing up at a scary rate. Green power like solar and wind is unreliable and not 7/24 and therefore cannot be more than a few percent of the overall power supply. Nuke is fine but takes too long to build and we need power now. On the good side there are tests being done right now with algae. Algae eats NO and CO2. Putting the exhaust gas from a plant through algae bio-reactors will remove about 85-90% of the gas that has not already been scrubbed by other means. This will make your Sim-city happier.

Answer 3

I feel that coal is an outdated source of electricty- not only for o-zone depletion and acid rain, but also that fact that it's a line of unecessary processes and expenses.

Coal is a much more scarce than earth (and solar) powered systems. Like oil, it must be found and the supply's limited. Then you have to mine it, transport it, and then burn it. If we are going to use coal, let's keep the newer ones. They have to be slightly cleaner but there are many more ways of heating up steam into a turbine. (I wonder what they do with the ashes?)

If you've ever played one of the Sim City games, you'll recall jumping on that low priced coal power plant that turns the lower left corner of your city into no-man's land. It's 2007- there are so many more alternatives; Enviromentaly friendly and cheaper on a long term scale.

Answer 4

No, not necessarily. We can have green coal at least, while working on wind, hydro, and nuclear.

By green coal I mean you can filter out most of the harmful stuff, and I believe you can pump the leftover stuff directly into the ground, where it will remain sequestered for thousands of years.

Some places need coal now, but that should be green coal.

But yes, we do need to work to the future, which is nuclear and renewable power.

Answer 5

Hi. Did you actually read his words? http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/03/70455
All new coal fired plants to be banned? Maybe, but conserving is a much better solution.

Answer 6

We haven't had a refinery built in over 30 years which is making us more dependent on foreign oil.

We need to open our on reserves and produce what resources we have her in the U.S.

Answer 7

And replace with nuclear that is much better for the enviroment at least on the global warming front.