Short my ass.

Geez, tearing down mountains in WVA and filling in valleys is not the ideal? Where is Christy when we need her?

No mercury in fish how long will it take to clean up the Atlantic Ocean if we give up coal?
That should increase fish populations but by how much which would also help the economy.

It’s all a matter of political will. The technology is there.
The single most critical step is ending internal combustion engines in transportation. Once it’s all electric-powered, the electricity doesn’t care how it gets made.

Just finished watching Frontline’s Heat, which did a reasonable job of covering Global Warming. On the energy front: lots of discussion of energy sources / production, not much in terms of serious discussion of the necessity and potential for energy efficiency.

And, well, reckless and dangerous T Boone Pickens got lots of face time, but not Google’s Energy 2030 or Gore’s concept for 100% clean power in a decade nor …

I’m still on “How to eliminate coal”.

Personally, given the immense problems with radioactive waste storage problems (like forever), I see a need to replace nuclear power rather than add more nuclear power capacity. Other than that I love your article and your ideas.

Much better than blowing up mountains is taking advantage of the wind blowing through the mountains.

Basic baseload concept: use micro-zone high quality wind in Appalachia’s mountains for large scale wind production. To provide baseload capacity, create reservoirs w/in the mountains (think hourglass shape) and pump water up when there is excess wind power and use the water reserves to generate power when there isn’t enough wind blowing. This would create more and better jobs, and longer term revenue for the communities than what they will see with coal.

Ah, the venturi effect?

Blowing thru the wind. Sounds like a DFH song.

Very roughly, coal-fired electricity is equivalent to all transportation emissions in the United States. (See EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory Reports (warning pdf).) With that in mind, it is not clear that the “single most important step” is eliminating combustion engines. (We can quickly gain fuel efficiencies and hybrids and some alternative fuels and … even though I want to see electrification of transportation as much as possible.)

There is going to be a significant political battle with those states that are involved in coal. Look what happened with ethanol development. The corn states seized the development process.

Sort of Venturi … but really, just pumped hydro storage, but not using surface reservoirs/dams.

The United States’ greatest reserve of energy potential is not our coal, but our wasteful energy use patterns. Inadequate building standards (inadequate insulation, leakage, windows), inefficient appliances/electronics burning up vampire power, McSUVs and McMansions, inefficient motors, transmission line losses, failure to exploit combined-heat power (CHP) opportunities, etc …

Sounds like the housing boom construction jobs can be changed over to making existing homes more energy efficient the long term benefit is less energy/cost use in the economy, same with Hybrid Cars.
The more money we free up to make the economy more efficient the more money we have in our economy.
Government not free enterprise has to lead on this Ford Motor company is at $2.17 a share now.
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:F
The expected merger of GM and Chrysler should drop that price further without hybrid cars I don’t think the new GM should survive.
Free Enterprise has been given decades to save the American car companies now they need cash and we need to impose some strings and push them to make hybrid cars.
Or else no cash.

I believe it’s known as Bernoulli’s principle.

Hybrid technology is just a transition to non internal combustion.

Exactly … How many of ‘unemployed’ construction workers can be turned to retrofitting existing buildings? Insulation / leak sealing / putting in new windows / HVAC systems / etc … And, we’re talking about investments that will be 10+% per annum, after taxes (actually better in most cases), far better than anyone should expect from Wall Street — even before the meltdown.

You know, this is where I part ways with the average “progressive.”

Most nuclear fuel is recyclable. Recycled, there is very little waste (about five percent).

I am in favor of nuclear power. Do I have to turn in my decoder ring?

Challenge is social, business opposition, and other special interests …

For West Virginia, renewable power would be far more profitable. And, well, I would be glad to see the nation contribute to help WVA reach that wealthier and cleaner future — far better expenditure of money than subsidizing $70 billion or so of bonuses on Wall Street.

You are right we have to work to sell this. We need to stress the jobs created with wind power and after the wind mills are built the jobs fixing the land after years of coal mining.
That should provide work for generations. Plus more land to rebuild wildlife populations which means more hunting for red state voters.

I’m open to electric cars:)

The safety of nuclear is amyth that McShame is articulating is just that a myth. France is experiencing numerous leaks and other incidents with it’s nuclear facilities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7522712.stm

There exists a multitude of choices for generation of electricity. The hurdles are not technological in nature.
For transportation, the barriers are much more fundamental. Finding something with the equivalent energy density to gasoline will be very challenging.

How many hmmm that depends on how much the energy efficient home business can crank out energy efficient windows, insulation etc.
But when you consider how many homes need this we are talking about years worth of work.
Assuming that the energy efficient home product business can crank out enough product the question is how high do we need to make tax or other incentives to convince enough homeowners to do this and employ all the home builders who are now unemployed?
Maybe super low cost loans like the Fed is giving the banks would work?

In many instances the electrical utility cos. can have a part in this. The economics of saving energy have in the past resulted in these cos providing rebates as this is cheaper for them than building new generation facilities.

Two weeks ago, the authorities had to issue a ban on fishing and water sports in two local rivers after 30 cubic metres of liquid containing unenriched uranium leaked from a broken underground pipe onto the ground and into the water.

In the most recent leaks, about 100 staff at Tricastin, in southern France, were exposed to low doses of radiation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7522712.stm

I’m sure that under a McCain administration this would never happen be reported by the MSM.

You solutions need work:

“This 5% increase would mean a net 15% reduction from today’s electricity or 30% reduction in coal-fired electricity.”

Coal is baseload and cheap. If we cut electrictiy use, we’ll cut peak plants (typically natural gas fired).

CHP (Combined Heat & Power) is a NO use in the south or south west. Peak loads here are for air conditioning.

And plug-in hybrids? They consume more energy in making the batteries that they will save over their liftimes.

Have some thoughts … that I wish had been part of bailout.

1. Any ‘refinanced’ home / business loans should have a requirement (with funding) for energy audit and energy efficiency investments / limited renewable energy. Perhaps do this on a 7 year return on investment basis (which would make solar hot air and solar hot water viable to include in many areas). That “7 years” is a 10 percent ROI … if the loan were charged at 5 percent or so, this would be a ‘profitable’ investment for the home owner. (Truth be told, most homes would likely be 25+% ROI in terms of energy savings — have to be pretty aggressive to have a total package that is a 10 percent ROI.)

2. For business, change tax code: energy expenditures are not deductible in same year, but over three years. And, energy efficiency investments (either retrofitting to energy star or new build to energy star+) deductible over a three year period (with some 100% deductible in same year). This would get America’s CFOs to pay much more attention to energy efficiency.

3. Provide basically free energy audits to homeowners.

Etc …

It exists. Methanol. Natural gas->Methanol is the best solution for a step to the Hydrogen Economy. Them solar + Water -> Methanol.

China plans 300 nuclear plants. Fucking awesome. /s

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01051.html

Coal fired plants operate at a fixed output level when demand peaks the extra is accomplished with natural gas.

Synoia,

1. Please provide your statement about hybrid batteries.

2. Coal is “cheap” if we don’t count “externalities”. (I hate the word as my children breathe the polluted water, eat fish from the polluted waters, drink water … this isn’t external to them (or to me).)

3. RE “coal is cheap”: This is about a path toward eliminating coal, if the decision is made (whether carbon tax or otherwise) that the emissions from coal-fired electricity are no longer acceptable.

4. CHP is mainly from industrial processes (smelting, for example) … these occur on summer days.

5. In terms of energy efficiency, a key element is a “Smart(er) Grid” (intelligent energy system) with HVDC transmission fostering long-distance movement.

6. Re air conditioning loads — you do recognize that this is an arena truly prime for energy efficiency and demand shifting. (Re the last, already cost-effective are systems that attach to air conditioning systems to make ice using off-peak electricity and then using that ice to support cooling during high-demand periods.)

Etc …

RF Kennedy, Jr. says that enough solar collectors could be installed in AZ to power the whole country. He also said that enough wind turbines could be installed in North Dakota to power the whole country.

A massive investment and a Federal Works Program in these two things is needed. Big Oil and Coal hinders us. Boone Pickens wants to sell his natural gas – also a finite commodity.

Mine baby, mine!!!

Nope as preprocessing Is a viable option But the big But is Plutonium, it is a by product of the cycle and do we really need MORE Plutonium… last I knew you make those really BIG weapons with it. But if the proliferation of plutonium can be strictly regulated nuclear power Is a Viable option.

To the author of the post…
It is mildly offensive to the reader to present a posting that you have been pretty careless proofreading. It diminishes the value of the post, fyi, and I would hope that you respect your readership more.

Styve

well, i’m still beat from the rally yesterday. goin’ to bed. night all.

Coal is baseload and cheap. If we cut electrictiy use, we’ll cut peak plants (typically natural gas fired)

Given how the wind can stop blowing or a cloud can block the sun very quickly peak power plants that can come on line quick would be needed more than ever. Increased need for Natural Gas would boast the price of NG if anything.

How was the turnout?

that’s bullshit in my view. just deal with the content, huh? And Christ forbid I ever see a typo or grammatical or punctuation error in one of your comments. you will never hear the end of it you picker of nits.

Hey Pups Egregious opened the Digg but youze guys are forgeting to Digg this great Post!!

Don’t make me CALL Guido and send him YOUR way! He does like the Knees… easy targets!! /S

CHP (Combined Heat & Power) is a NO use in the south or south west. Peak loads here are for air conditioning.

Solar power is at its peak when you need the air conditioner the most.

Good ideas:)

How True!!
I am still waiting for my installation to start… Plans are finished and submitted to the City … But no word when the construction will start..(:>()

but i kinda like coal. when i was a kid,we had a coal furnace and a coal bin in the basement and we use to climb on top of the coal and play in it and get all dirty and piss off my mother to no end. coal brings back some great memories. what is we go solar? i don’t want my kids playin’ on the roof.

Thanks for the “great post” … compliments always taken, sometimes even graciously …

Blogs don’t have the same level of editing that normal media has, as a rule, but to the extent that it’s true, it’s my fault not Adam’s, I’m the editor and should have gone through is piece more carefully. That said, I’d urge folks to concentrate on Adam’s ideas and knowledge, which I think are very important.

Egregious did all the Work I just added my 2 cents to it!! But compliments are always welcomed(:>))

I am not sold on Nuclear Power being cheap or clean when you factor in the cost of an accident or the cost of insuring an accident…and their are always accidents humans are not perfect.
If you thought the bank bailout was expensive imagine the cost of a nuclear accident that dumps reactor cooling water into the a river that connects to the Mississippi.
Imagine the crop losses down wind.
Now imagine private enterprise insurance companies paying those costs instead of tax payers.

Don’t feed trolls most Pups understand that Mistakes “Happen” And usually very politely point them out so they Can be remedied!

Please give a Diary to update us on how it works through the winter and how it works with winter cloud cover.

jane has late nite upstairs

someone pointing out errors in the post is not a troll

i’m heading upstairs to read jane – seems like old times.

Will be doing … Once construction begins I will be posting updates on the progress from the first day to the day WE GO SOLAR and become our own Generation center!! We can’t wait!!

Suz it was their TONE that triggered my response…

Ian … I wasn’t going to engage but since you posted this.

This was / is intended to be in ‘text outline form’. With purpose, there are sentence fragments and other ‘editorial gaps’. This is a way to imply what this is: a draft, with parts to fill in and document.

I don’t see the need for any apology — on your part or mine.

Now, perhaps there are several hundred typos that or tens of words used incorrectly or … Perhaps there are … but I don’t see them.

1. Agree not “troll” but don’t see it as a constructive engagement.

2. For example, where was the ‘pointing out of faults’ other than a statement about proofreading? (Yes, Herculean rather than Heruclean …)

3. Really, not the discussion that I want to spend my time on.

Don’t worry it was a good post anytime you right on the environment you risk getting trolls ask Kirk. If anything it means that you got THEM worried and thats a more honest compliment than any of us could give.

Don’t think that I suggested / stated nuclear power as cheap.

Total Ownership Cost accounting for nuclear power is quite difficult — long-term waste storage, insurance / risk of proliferation, insurance / risk of leaks/accidents, etc …

And, the straight construction costs for new nuclear power do not look low.

On the other hand, the known costs of coal are very well known: fly ash, mercury and other pollutants, CO2, mountain-top removal, etc … This is not (solely) coal vs nuclear, but if it were …

This needs to be the new New Deal. Period.

That said, I can’t jump aboard the “new nuclear” bandwagon. We can’t even support a modest growth of plants. Why? Not only is it a mess to deal with the waste (we still haven’t found a really good way of doing it), but these plants end up costing us far more to run (and retire) than they ever make in terms of electricity. There was a fantastic documentary that truly didn’t take any blatant sides on nuclear power a while back – I think I saw it on HBO, but I could be wrong – and in it they referenced how Britain’s first nuclear power plant was taken offline a few years ago, retired after a lengthy existence. However, “retired” is very different than you or I would expect: because we don’t know what to do with all this waste, the plant will actually have to be fully staffed for well longer than the years it was allowed to exist, costing taxpayers millions yet producing nothing for decades to come. It was inanity. Furthermore, just like there’s a limit of fossile fuels, there’s a very real limit of nuclear material: if we grow the number of nuclear plants by tangible numbers, we’ll rapidly reach the end of our Earthly supply.

There is a time and a place for nuclear plants. It absolutely makes sense on large military vessels, for example. The plants we’ve already built ought to be used to their fullest potential, to make sure we get the most out of these wastes (literally and figuratively). We should certainly reprocess nuclear material as they do in France, which would give us a far better bang for our buck. However, let’s not go down the long, windy and outrageous path of more nuclear power. We can find much better sources of electricity that won’t contribute to Global Warming. We just need to treat it, as I said above, as the new New Deal.

Two things I rarely see people talk about: our infrastructure to deliver electricity is outmoded and loses a lot of the electricity on delivery, as I understand it. Secondly, to make the most out of some of these renewable technologies, we need to greatly expand our ability to store excess energy in batteries to be used later. I’ve read about some interesting proposals for entirely new batteries for those purposes currently being worked on at places like MIT, we should be investing tens of millions (hundreds?) as a country into that research to make it happen and streamlined ASAP.

So, if we update our infrastructure and add to it new battery systems to capture any excess daytime electricity made in times where we need it less, so we can use it when we need it most, then I think this blog only touches on the potential to become energy independent, without the need for coal, by 2030. I’d like to see us do it far sooner, even if it means massive investments by this country to make it happen.

Synoia,

1. Please provide your statement about hybrid batteries.

http://whimfield.com/?p=261
http://www.salon.com/mwt/featu…..ablo_cars/

2. & 3. I’m not disagreeing with your goal of eliminating coal. Hybrid cars are just the wrong path. This is an alternative:

http://agonist.org/synoia/2008…..able_water

4. CHP is mainly from industrial processes (smelting, for example) … these occur on summer days.

CHP is Combined Heat & Power. The best thermal power plant is 30-35% efficient in energy use. The balance is heat as 65-70% of the energy consumed is discharged as heat. In a CHP system the heat is typically delivered or released as steam. NYC is a good example of a CHP city.

5. HVDC transmission maybe. But not necessary. The same efficienies can be produced with power factor correction of loads. Most electrical loads are inductive, the current lags the voltage. KW = cos(phi) x KVAR, Transmission loss is proportional to KVAR (current actually), while power delivered is KW.

6. Re air conditioning loads — Tried the Ice approach. The ecomonics just don’t play out with todays electricity tarrifs.

True. My comment was about CHP. I like solar.

http://agonist.org/synoia/2008…..able_water

To amplify on my dislike of hybrid cars:

1. My niece in the UK has a Toyota People mover (had it for 5 years) that does 70 miles per gallon (diesel powered)
2. Petrol (or Gas) hybrids are stupid. Diesel Electric is much more efficient.

Diesel engines have a Compression Ratio of about 22:1, gas engines 12:1 at best. Efficiency of a this form of engine is proportional to compression ratio.

3. The safety aspects of Lithium Batteries are bad. Why were the reports of laptop batteries bursting into flames? Becuase Lithium is combustable when wet. Punctured batteries in a hybrid vehicle are potentially catastrophic. aka Toast.

My vision / version of this is that we must have an honest accounting of the risks, benefits, and costs of all potential sources of energy. For example, writ large, the risks/costs of coal have been greatly understated in societal decision-making re energy.

There are very real issues to deal with re nuclear power: cost, waste management, etc …

If we have an ‘honest’ appraisal, with honest understanding of total-ownership costs, we might arrive at better decision-making re energy chocies moving forward.

This essay is really meant as a ‘if we are serious about eliminating coal from the electricity sector, we can do it with a serious, even aggressive ‘all of the above’ solution path’. By the way, I believe that we can (as hinted) do far better with energy efficiency (including aggressive Smart Grid) and with a portfolio of renewables than provided within this outline.

The outline is meant as an outline for discussion, rather than the exact prescription of where and how we should go.

Quite interesting project. In some ways, looks quite like TREC/DESERTREC. (my perspective)

Re Hybrid batteries:

First link doesn’t do an apples-to-apples comparison. It is comparing an existing used diesel car, using zero energy to create it (it already exists), with the energy use assumption for a seven year period against new vehicles — which are all charged for energy to produce them. Of course that somewhat efficient diesel does well against monster HEVs (Highlander / Tahoe), with the new construction penalty, it does a little better than a Prius. Without the penalty, Prius blows it away in terms of efficiency. Point is a ‘recycled/reused’ has a huge advantage in terms of EROEI over new built. What a surprise.

And, this is the exact same issue in the second case.

In EROEI terms, for a specific car owner, it can be hard to justify new buy over a reasonably fuel efficient, well-operating old vehicle. But that is not an “apples to apples” comparison.

And, in an interesting twist, there is the issue of the used car market — which is overwhelmed with ‘cheap’, highly fuel inefficient vehicles, which is somewhat the reverse of the case 10-15 years ago.

RE #6 and ice: it depends on the cost implications of peak/off-peak. If there is minimal difference / no benefit from reducing peak load, hard to justify. With a significant difference in peak/off-peak pricing (including the potential not to face power cutoffs in times of power demand spikes), this can be a highly effective approach.

They’ve been using compressed air (for air turbines) and molten salt(steam turbines) to store power and then get more energy out of the stored power than batteries will retain.