|
Please say they hinder them because gently caress coal.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Not to intrude on geothermal chat, but these systems don't seem terribly practical(possible) for urban areas with high pop. density. Or for major industrial centers. Which leaves rural/suburban homes for those part which is less than ten percent of energy consumption in the U.S. So this is pretty much a way for rural areas to lower their energy bill a moderate amount, and not any serious solution to energy generation, correct?
Schizotek fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Narbo posted:If you're working for a utility regulator I'd like to know how the federal carbon emission standards are affecting applications to build new coal power plants! I should have said "...in Canada", sorry! Though from what I hear through the NERC Mandatory Reliability Standards grapevine, the EPA is soft-walking and befuddling most coal applications they get. Or at least, that's what the angry voice on the conference call says, who knows if it's true or just a bunch of "THANKS OBAMA!  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Please say they hinder them because gently caress coal. I think the price of natural gas (being far cheaper than coal at the moment) has a far bigger impact than any regulations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:I should have said "...in Canada", sorry! I was asking about Canada though? I've been hearing that some of the requirements on catching fly ash etc. make previously viable (over NG) projects suddenly poo poo the bed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I think the price of natural gas (being far cheaper than coal at the moment) has a far bigger impact than any regulations. Ding ding ding. The other issue at play is that the natural gas lobbysts are teaming up with the hydrogen guys to try and push their cooperative agenda, which means they get a lot of "green venture" funding and positive attention from regulators of all stripes. Right now gas and hydrogen are eating coal's lunch. Narbo posted:I was asking about Canada though? Oh, geez, coal is deader than Elvis in Canada (except for Alberta). Last I heard Ontario was even contemplating switching over to biomass for some of their planned closures. Alberta's coal plants are probably going to stick around, but no new ones are likely to come online due to the regulatory environment. Actually, I'm happy that Alberta is choosing to continue with their stupid thermal plants, because B.C. buys their power at a discount overnight and then sells them back hydro power during the day at a huge markup. 
Franks Happy Place fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Mar 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Not to intrude on geothermal chat, but these systems don't seem terribly practical(possible) for urban areas. with high pop. density. Or for major industrial centers. Which leaves rural/suburban homes for those part which is less than ten percent of energy consumption in the U.S. So this is pretty much a way for rural areas to lower their energy bill a moderate amount, and not any serious solution to energy generation, correct? Not necessarily, depending on the area you don't need a trench, you can drill a well instead. It's certainly a confounding factor and usually a retrofit of an existing urban house can't beat a mini-split heat pump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Ding ding ding. Cool. How is hydrogen beating anything though? It not actually being an energy source. (More like a carrier)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Cool. How is hydrogen beating anything though? It not actually being an energy source. (More like a carrier) Well, in two ways. One, the gas guys are throwing their not-insignificant weight behind hydrogen, because they are aiming to mimic the German model, whereby you add hydrogen to the pipeline mix as a renewable additive. It basically allows you to harness thermal sources (nuclear, coal plants, whatever) off-peak to generate hydrogen, then pump it through the pipeline infrastructure as a storage medium for renewable energy. Hydrogen isn't an energy source per se, more a means of transmitting and storing renewable or 'waste' energy more efficiently, and then consume it more cleanly. It pairs nicely with nat gas, so they're working together, but it has applications in pretty much any power sector you can think of. If executed properly, it would be a massive boon for the renewable sector and for things like nuclear as well, because it really makes them more efficient. Two, the government loves it for Reasons, so they get a lot of earmark funding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Ding ding ding. I've even heard that some existing plants will have to speed up decommissioning due to otherwise requiring expensive equipment to continue operating. Does Alberta or BC have mandated proportions of renewable energy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Narbo posted:I've even heard that some existing plants will have to speed up decommissioning due to otherwise requiring expensive equipment to continue operating. Does Alberta or BC have mandated proportions of renewable energy? B.C. is 93% hydroelectricity, so I don't know what you could possibly do with a mandate that isn't already being done because it's already profitable and awesome (see: selling power during the day at a huge profit). Alberta, having a renewable mandate?  Their sector is... uh, I'm trying to think of how to put this in terms of professional courtesy. Let's go with "rather deregulated".
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Not to intrude on geothermal chat, but these systems don't seem terribly practical(possible) for urban areas with high pop. density. Or for major industrial centers. Which leaves rural/suburban homes for those part which is less than ten percent of energy consumption in the U.S. So this is pretty much a way for rural areas to lower their energy bill a moderate amount, and not any serious solution to energy generation, correct? Well there's that map I posted a few pages back that shows geothermal potential for straight up electricity generation, using full facilities that go below just the very top part of the soil like a typical residential system. There a lot of population centers where you could sink in a bunch of those and start getting a lot of electric power off of them, or use them to run a district steam system like Manhattan has. Would require heavy retrofitting but it can supply a lot of power in the right areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:B.C. is 93% hydroelectricity, so I don't know what you could possibly do with a mandate that isn't already being done because it's already profitable and awesome (see: selling power during the day at a huge profit). Is there not a way to encourage wind development? I thought BC hydro was working on a bunch of wind fields, I guess I'm wondering how you guys evaluate a new proposal for a wind field whether it's utility or private, is it just based on ratepayer risk?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Thanks for the help explaining. I still don't think that guy understands it, but whatever. The only reason I raised this issue was the need for local power generation (solar or wind) coupled with reductions in fossil fuel/electricity use. My solar panel/geothermal setup can easily create a carbon free household, especially if you're in a prime solar power area. For example, why wouldn't a new house in Arizona or California have this by default (cost withstanding)? Every new house would use far less grid power and fossil fuels, while also providing all the comforts of traditional HVAC systems. Seems like an easy and clean solution to a lot of different issues. This is an area where the government can make a big difference via tax credits. As they have been doing - 33% back from the Feds, and states also have their own programs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Well there's that map I posted a few pages back that shows geothermal potential for straight up electricity generation, using full facilities that go below just the very top part of the soil like a typical residential system. There a lot of population centers where you could sink in a bunch of those and start getting a lot of electric power off of them, or use them to run a district steam system like Manhattan has. I've heard some scare stories about geothermal electrical generation - for example, causing earthquakes in California. Anything to this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
redshirt posted:I've heard some scare stories about geothermal electrical generation - for example, causing earthquakes in California. Anything to this? Places that are prone to earthquakes tend to also be places that have the most geothermal energy available - there isn't really any evidence that they cause them to happen where they wouldn't have already. Plus if you induce smaller quakes more frequently, that could tend to reduce the likelihood of really large quakes too. If it turns out that doing it does cause quakes, we may actually want to keep doing it for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Narbo posted:Is there not a way to encourage wind development? I thought BC hydro was working on a bunch of wind fields, I guess I'm wondering how you guys evaluate a new proposal for a wind field whether it's utility or private, is it just based on ratepayer risk? Well, any project under $5m in cost* doesn't need approval, so long as it won't directly bill energy consumers. Which is where this part comes in; you can produce as much power as you want, however you want (within health, safety, and environmental reason), with relatively little regulatory interference, then sell it to Hydro. Since Hydro has a number of different procurement policies, it basically means there is a standard price floor that offers alternative producers cost certainty, without the end consumer having to pay higher prices. *With some exceptions for certain areas. Shockingly, regulating energy utilities is complicated!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
In other news, South Korea has a growing spent nuclear fuel problem and would like to be able to reprocess it to diminish the volume of stuff destined for permanent storage by a factor of 20. Of course, the US won't have that because reprocessing = bombs. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-waste-growing-headache-skorea-092702110.html quote:North Korea's weapons program is not the only nuclear headache for South Korea. The country's radioactive waste storage is filling up as its nuclear power industry burgeons, but what South Korea sees as its best solution — reprocessing the spent fuel so it can be used again — faces stiff opposition from its U.S. ally. Some further discussion regarding why the US has such weird policies regarding other countries reprocessing their spent fuel: http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/william-tucker-living-in-the-nuclear-past/ It's all sorts of ridiculous when it's patently impossible to make weapons out of the spent-fuel plutonium South Korea has, even if it is seperated because it's always left in the reactor long enough that the isotopic mix of plutonium you get is totally useless. The only way you could get weapons-useable plutonium would be to cycle the fuel rapidly. That only really happens if there's a decision made on a political level to instruct operators to do it, because there's no advantage to fast-cycling fuel other than producing plutonium for weapons. The US is also telling SK not to enrich uranium on their own soil, again because weapons. And again leaving out a crucial step, which is that you need to enrich uranium far beyond what's necessary for reactors to make it suitable for breeding (20%+), and to impractically costly levels to make it directly useable in weapons (85%+). Breeding nuclear fuel involves 20% uranium, but just as a sort of "matchstick" to get things going. Breeding cycles produce an excess of neutrons that generally perpetuates the cycle so long as fertile fuel is continuously fed into the system. The plutonium cycle is well-suited for weapons because you get more plutonium in the end than was required to make it with the fuel cost being U-238 or "depleted" uranium, which happens to make up 99.3% of natural uranium. In any case, plutonium doesn't breed itself. You need a specific reactor for that which adds yet another step between 20% uranium and weapons if that's what a country's trying to do. If you're breeding for energy production you end up with plutonium that's again too isotopically dirty for weapons (but a LOT of energy at negligible fuel cost). Breeders can also run on thorium by converting it into U-233, and they also need 20% uranium to start up. U-233 isn't produced in very large excesses and there's some extra complications that make it difficult to covertly produce for weapons-use. Bottom line is that unless the country wills it, a terrorist group can't just nab plutonium extracted from spent fuel and use it to make a garage-weapon. The country has to really shoot for it to make weapons-grade material, and that's basically what the US is accusing South Korea of trying to do in this. They're understandably upset about the whole affair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
With electric cars already viable in their first generation, I really expect futures for oils to start dropping dramatically in the coming years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:With electric cars already viable in their first generation, I really expect futures for oils to start dropping dramatically in the coming years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Pander posted:I can't tell, is this sarcasm or not? Why would I spend $30+ a week when I can pay a couple bucks and drive 3X more often?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Why would I spend $30+ a week when I can pay a couple bucks and drive 3X more often? (1) For all practical purposes it's typically WELL more than "a couple bucks". --(1a) Battery replacements are a real and extremely pricey thing. --(1b) Lithium-Ion (cobalt and soon to be phosphate) batteries are the current standard, and they have disadvantages of their own (2) Charging stations are a hold-back point for electric cars for a good while (3) Full-electric cars typically have worse range than gasoline, so I don't understand the "drive 3x more often" bit. (4) Demand from India, China, and others will ensure oil futures won't decrease due to increased electric/hybrid demand. The supply of hybrid/electric will NOT rise quickly enough to match the demand for oil. I really don't see oil dropping for another decade, if it ever does, short of a sudden admitting by oil-producers globally that they've actually artificially held back supply of oil, and there's really a TON more ready to go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:With electric cars already viable in their first generation, I really expect futures for oils to start dropping dramatically in the coming years. That's silly, there's still 250 million privately owned vehicles in use in the US alone, and we tend to only buy 6 million new ones a year. Takes a long time to work out the old ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:That's silly, there's still 250 million privately owned vehicles in use in the US alone, and we tend to only buy 6 million new ones a year. Takes a long time to work out the old ones. Right now the current electric vehicles are a "second car" and at that they are already doing a perfect job. For example lets just look at the Chevy Volt, it has a battery with a gasoline back up. Right now people that own these have hardly ever used any gasoline which has pretty much meant that they have driven entirely electric in their day to day lives the vast majority of the time. Now imagine someone wants to sell this vehicle and get the newer and better version. Sure a new electric car is going to be expensive, but that used electric car is going to be a great choice for someone looking for a new car and is now cost competitive with other vehicles especially since maintenance on electric vehicles is pretty much non existent. At this point we're already reaching a tipping point where the money saved driving these vehicles can now pay off driving your gasoline engine. Which is going to hold more value in 20 years? The internal combustion engine that will need constant maintenance and oil when gas costs $4+ a gallon or the electric which I can charge at home? edit: Here's a great informational on the latest on batteries https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtfKux9BUnE I personally would be willing to deal with range anxiety when I can drive stupid cheap everyday and do donuts in the parking lot for the hell of it. People are already range limited when you think about it, hell most people are already thinking about how much it costs them just to go on simple errands. ColoradoCleric fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Right now the current electric vehicles are a "second car" and at that they are already doing a perfect job. For example lets just look at the Chevy Volt, it has a battery with a gasoline back up. Right now people that own these have hardly ever used any gasoline which has pretty much meant that they have driven entirely electric in their day to day lives the vast majority of the time. And you also can't cherry pick high gas prices and maintenance/oil and neglect the fact that batteries constantly degrade, especially in warmer climates or near salty bodies of water. Electric cars are far from maintenance free.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Right now the current electric vehicles are a "second car" and at that they are already doing a perfect job. For example lets just look at the Chevy Volt, it has a battery with a gasoline back up. Right now people that own these have hardly ever used any gasoline which has pretty much meant that they have driven entirely electric in their day to day lives the vast majority of the time. You do understand that the current average age of a car in the US is 11 years right? People don't get new cars that much. You need people to have gotten a whole bunch of new electric cars in order to start putting a serious drop into oil demand. It would take a massive uptick in new car purchases to cover replacing such a significant amount of vehicles with new electric ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Pander posted:Are you a troll, or completely out of touch? Most families, in this economic market, aren't thinking "I need to spend more on a second car for myself". Those so privileged do not constitute a majority of citizens, or a large enough demographic to single-handedly lower oil futures. The average American household has 2.23 cars based off a simple Google so I don't think you know what you're talking about. Most people who have used electric cars are using them for either repetitive driving habits (to and from work/school) or are using them for simple trips. Compare this with a gasoline engine and you're spending $4 to $8 every single time you drive your car. On average Americans are spending $3000 on gasoline each year per person. Electric cars have none of that. Also, electric cars don't need regular oil changes and don't suffer from any of the problems related to making a gasoline engine simply work like timing belts and spark plugs. Eventually dollars and simplicity is going to start pushing people to adopt electric cars. Trying to buy oil future contracts 20 years down the line where a foreseeable future might not have people using gasoline at all might start to become a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
You are vastly underestimating the uses and demand for oil globally by focusing on such a small segment of its users.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:In other news, South Korea has a growing spent nuclear fuel problem and would like to be able to reprocess it to diminish the volume of stuff destined for permanent storage by a factor of 20. Of course, the US won't have that because reprocessing = bombs. Not to nitpick too much, but "reactor grade" plutonium (that has been contaminated with large amounts of Pu-240) isn't "totally useless". It has a high rate of spontaneous fission which poses several design challenges, however with a good implosion system you could definitely fashion a working fission bomb out of it. The main challenges would be the high thermal output, and radiation exposure to those working with it (once in the bomb itself, the heavy neutron reflector and tamper necesary to implode such a core effectively would shield most radiation). To be sure, it is a pretty dumb material for a fission bomb, but that wouldn't necessarily stop a country from using it if all they wanted was a show-off weapon, and they didn't have access to U-235 or Pu-239. In fact, the US actually built and tested (successfully) such a device in 1962 (http://tinyurl.com/cum7prs). The yield is classified ("less than 20kt"), but as discussed more below, any country with abundant Pu-240 would have a straightforward path to greatly increasing that yield. Maybe more usefully, Pu-240 can be used as an alternative to U-235 as an ablation tamper, neutron reflector, "spark-plug", or hohlraum material. Using fissile, as opposed to fissionable (like U-238), materials in these parts of either a Teller-Ulam or LiD Sloika type of weapon makes miniaturizing them much easier, boosts their yield considerably, and can simplify their design as well (since ignition of the fusion fuel after compression is all but guaranteed). Most importantly, "allowing" plutonium with high amounts of Pu-240 to be used for civilian power also means "allowing" an extensive PUREX capability. Once this exists, all that is required to make weapon grade Pu is to simply operate the existing reactors with more frequent refueling. This is particularly easy when using pressurized heavy water reactors, since they can be refueled without shutting down and therefore no "signature" is presented when switching from civilian to weapon mode (other than kicking out IAEA inspectors, if applicable). As a bonus, once weapon grade Pu is available, you can use your abundant stockpiles of reactor-grade Pu to increase the yield of your weapons, rapidly develop a thermonuclear weapon, and reduce the window of time from weapon grade Pu production to a credible weapon. This is, more or less, exactly what India did, and is the main proliferation scenario associated with civilian plutonium reactors, not terrorists. Anyway sorry for the semi-derail, but I think a better understanding of this sort of thing is helpful to understand US proliferation policy and the politics of nuclear power in general. Morbus fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Electric cars have none of that. They do have extremely expensive batteries with limited life spans though (>20% drop in 5 years for the leaf, goodbye resale). I'll take the oil changes. sanchez fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Mar 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
sanchez posted:They do have extremely expensive batteries with limited life spans though (>20% drop in 5 years for the leaf, goodbye resale). I'll take the oil changes. According to Nissan they claim their batteries will last 10 years. And also I think some people may be overlooking the fact that the car's battery isn't just one giant piece. It's made up of individual cells, and according to Nissan they can repair/replace these cells if it becomes a problem. So I guess you'd probably still have maintenance to keep the main "battery" in peak condition by periodic replacing of bad cells. Info from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DShtvd5jJHQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:According to Nissan they claim their batteries will last 10 years. And also I think some people may be overlooking the fact that the car's battery isn't just one giant piece. It's made up of individual cells, and according to Nissan they can repair/replace these cells if it becomes a problem. So I guess you'd probably still have maintenance to keep the main "battery" in peak condition by periodic replacing of bad cells. The Leaf costs ~$35,000. That's about $10-15k more expensive than a comparable car. Even if you save more money in gasoline versus electrical/battery-replacement costs and don't mind the 75 mile range, that's still quite a large up-front charge to face when purchasing a vehicle. One that the majority of Americans won't decide to take any time soon. It'll be years before hybrid/electrics will be the standard vehicle on the road. And it'll be years after that before it would have a chance to make an impact. And each year that passes will see the developing world add more cars to the road. Oil will remain in demand. That seems to be the point you refuse to admit to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Pander posted:You are vastly underestimating the uses and demand for oil globally by focusing on such a small segment of its users. Naw man we're just going to build hybrid container ships, hybrid jet airliners, hybrid construction and excavation equipment, and hybrid tanks. We can synthesize hybrid plastic! Can you use the numbers that you're working with to project when oil will begin its slide into irrelevance, ColoradoCleric?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
sanchez posted:They do have extremely expensive batteries with limited life spans though (>20% drop in 5 years for the leaf, goodbye resale). I'll take the oil changes. What's great about these batteries is that they can be recycled for at home battery banks for solar power storage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 02:52
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:B.C. is 93% hydroelectricity, so I don't know what you could possibly do with a mandate that isn't already being done because it's already profitable and awesome (see: selling power during the day at a huge profit). Only the generation market is deregulated, but it's still heavily monitored by the arms-length government agencies. Transmission and distribution is heavily regulated..Alberta's coal plants are in the process of being gradually retired and replaced with gas plants. Currently, we have to live with the coal plants while said gas plants are planned and built. There is one major source of hydro left in the province, but it's located on the Alberta-NWT border. They also put off reinforcing the grid here (for whatever reason), so we are in the process of going through a "big build" now. I wish they would put in more nuclear, but I don't work for the regulator here. (I work for one of the transmission utilities in Alberta, so I can answer some questions about operations of a large-scale transmission grid with some renewables if anyone is interested - Alberta actually has a surprisingly large amount of installed wind capacity.) Colmface fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Colmface posted:Only the generation market is deregulated, but it's still heavily monitored by the arms-length government agencies. Yeah, I was only talking about generation-side, all transmission in North America is going to be heavily regulated just because of MRS oversight. The point I was making is that in Alberta, renewable-based generation is going to be 100% a private-sector decision (like their wind farms you mentioned), because the ideological bent in policy there is definitely towards a deregulated generation market, and renewable-content mandates would obviously fly in the face of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
Sorry, I guess I'm just defensive of my province. v v Alberta will probably never completely give up coal due to sitting right on top of a very large coal seam, but they are looking at coal-to-gas and other "clean" technologies for coal-fired plants. They are building more gas turbines in the province to replace the coal plants, installing more wind capacity, and there will soon be another tieline to Montana's wind farms. I know Alberta has a bad reputation (mostly deserved), but the system operators are working to get a more balanced energy profile in the province.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Pander posted:The Leaf costs ~$35,000. Yeah, but there is an end game there and progress, it isn't a case of "never" or even the "far-flung future." Oil is certainly going to be around for a while, but the technology is improving to cut demand eventually. Of course, the issue isn't the first world but the third world. Also, I doubt other coal heavy US states (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio etc) will ever give on coal since it is so important to their local economies. You can reduce demand in other states and cut down the number of approved coal plants but I doubt the US will ever really give up on coal although you could cut it down significantly (and it has been dropping somewhat). (Btw, do states/provinces with predictable baseload hydroelectricity like BC, Washington State, Oregon and Idaho need to change their ways? Maybe add some wind power on top of that but in general, it seems like the NW already had its issue solved and doesn't really need mass natural gas or nuclear power.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, I doubt other coal heavy US states (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio etc) will ever give on coal since it is so important to their local economies. You can reduce demand in other states and cut down the number of approved coal plants but I doubt the US will ever really give up on coal although you could cut it down significantly (and it has been dropping somewhat). Funny thing about that, PA and OH are both currently ramping up natural gas instead of coal, especially PA, and on top of that PA already makes nearly as much electricity from nuclear as from coal. This site has very comprehensive information on power generation in each state: http://www.eia.gov/state/ The summary pages are nice, like http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=NJ
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Funny thing about that, PA and OH are both currently ramping up natural gas instead of coal, especially PA, and on top of that PA already makes nearly as much electricity from nuclear as from coal. Both assertions don't address that point, it is doubtful either state would fully give up on coal even if they are exploring or have explored other options. Furthermore, the vast majority of electric generation in Ohio is still coal even if they are exploring natural gas Second, Pennslyvania is a pretty big state...the western half is covered in coal plants while the eastern half is very diverse. On a regional level, the local communities of Western Pennsylvania use coal power far more extensively. Obviously, some states, especially somewhat larger ones will have regions with different forms of power generation. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 22:43
|
|