What Could We Replace Coal With?
The
Energy Information Administration (EIA) has predicted that world energy use
will grow an astounding 50 percent by 2030. In the U.S. , the EIA predicts that total
electricity sales will grow by 29 percent by 2030 – even when taking into
account conservation measures and new technologies. That energy will (obviously)
need to come from somewhere.
While
many will suggest natural gas and renewables as the primary means of achieving
this growth in generation capacity, the simple reality is that with gas prices
increasing rapidly (and domestic supplies dwindling), domestic natural gas
supplies will not be able to keep up with growing industrial and residential demands.
EIA predictions regarding natural gas are that new domestic gas discoveries are
going to be “smaller and deeper, and thus more expensive and riskier to develop
and produce.” This means that we will need to increasingly rely on imported gas.
Over the past few decades we’ve relied heavily on foreign sources for our
transportation fuels and we’re now looking at $145 per barrel for oil. Do we
really want to do the same with our electricity supplies as well?
Renewables
are certainly worth developing wherever possible. However, the supply of
renewable energy is currently so limited that it is still listed as a part of
the 3.1 percent of total energy generation provided by “Other Energy Sources”
in EIA statistics. Although it is seeing growth, wind-based generation
currently makes up only 1 percent of all generation sources in the U.S.
Additionally, wind does not blow all of the time, so wind power cannot provide
the always on 24-7 baseload electricity that we need. Any wind generation
installation must be supported by another energy source to provide energy when
it is not producing. Quite often that other energy is coal.
In
contrast, coal is widely available in the U.S. Despite recent price
increases, it remains one of our most affordable energy resources. We currently
have over 230 years worth of reserves; over 29 percent of all of the world’s
coal is located in the U.S – we’re not called the “ Saudi Arabia of coal” for nothing.
Additionally, many people may not know this but coal already provides over half
of America ’s
electricity needs right now and it does so at less than half the price of
natural gas generation. (When fuel costs alone are considered, coal is less
than one quarter the cost of natural gas.)
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Geothermal, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Dams etc... We need more Nuclear and Geothermal especially
The head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has announced that we do not need new coal fired power plants. The claim rests on the notion that efficiency, renewable energy , and energy storage can provide for any projected increases in base-load and peak energy demand.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=ajl3fRv9AdDI&refer=energy
Liberals.
"Additionally, wind does not blow all of the time, so wind power cannot provide the always on 24-7 baseload electricity that we need."
This statement assumes that wind does not blow convectionally. It also assumes that it would be impossible to invest first in wind-mills instead of coal.
If one believes that coal is economically responsible, of course, statements about baseload electricity necessitating more coal plants follow. But if the same amount of financial interest was in wind-mills, as, say, coal, then arguments about the necessity of coal would be dubious.
Coal might be financially responsible, but this is only because consumer demand hasn't changed responsibility towards coal. Coal can only be use-less when there is an economically viable alternative. So it seems the problem is in education...
There is no such thing as clean coal. It is frankly a fraud and a sham to fleece taxpayers. Pumping CO2 into the ground is like sweeping dirt under a rug and is not only questionable but frankly makes no sense. With world energy supplies constrained it looks like we will have little choice in the no so distant future to look for oil anyplace we can find it, and use coal as a local energy supply for the short term. About the best we can do is just scrub the emissions from these plants and look for ways to offset as much of this dirty non-renewable energy as we can with cleaner alternatives like wind, solar, and tidal energy.
Coal isn't the answer, but I think we have little choices. Anyone questioning this needs to to out to the EIA and look at the data and see the decline in energy resources to start to realize the size and scale of the problem.
It is time to take this seriously and get on board looking for alternatives. It takes too much time to build the power infrastructure needed to supply our energy needs. If you haven't checked out pickensplan.org. go check it out. It is a start, and a possible way to get us moving logically on a path of smarter solutions to our energy needs.
Do we need more coal powered plants? Yes, but is it the best solution long term? No, I don't think so.
Geothermal works around the clock as well.
Further, most demand is day-time, when solar power applies.
Saying we've already got 50% electricity from coal, therefore more is better, doesn't follow. Maybe 50% base-load power from coal is quite enough thank you?
More base-load could be geo-thermal, and peak power could be solar.