patrick.net

I know this is just speculation (break out the tin foil hats) but I have a family member in the midwest that has been working franticly (for a power company and some municipalities) over the past three years building small coal-fired electric plants. Other than the obvious (they need more power) I wonder if they were doing this in preparation for the once-imminent carbon trading scheme. Build them now, shut them down later, and sell your carbon credits in perpetuity? Better yet - convert them to natural gas and get the $$ for the electricity and still have carbon credits to sell.

And the more water we can pollute.

Things are going to get cold in the future.
If you are relying on electricity for heat, you're already in trouble. Well, I partially take that back. A ground (or air) source heat pump is an efficient use of electricity.

I thinks it's official:
Plan B is natural gas
Plan C is coal
Both of which we have abundant supplies. I'm just hoping that Plan A (as in alternative energy) works out as both Plan B and C just pump more carbon (sequestered deep in earth) into the atmosphere (not to mention the ground water issues).
Has anyone caught GE's latest biogas commercial? To (imperfectly) quote another poster, if this was viable someone would be doing it right now. Well, guess what, they are...

I hope that natural gas remains cheap! I am all for alternative energy....alternative oil drilling, coal, nuclear, wood, etc. These are alternatives when you compare to what Obama wants...no energy!

Let's build Obama an outhouse and he can bottle his own natural gas to power the White house.

Maybe everyone should look at the source of the article. It's not exactly an unbiased carefully researched piece of journalism. What Chu was talking about was that lots of the old coal plants were nearing the ends of their lives and will need to be replaced. As with anything else political you need to follow the money. The only reason most of these 40-50 year plants are still around is that they have been granted exemptions from having to implement pollution controls (aka losing profits for a few quarters) and more importantly they are subsidized, some heavily. It's interesting the writers of the article who are screaming about the "government" aren't demanding that their "government" subsidies be cut. Therein is the problem, people are suggesting that the subsidies used for coal be shifted to cleaner energy sources and let coal stand on it's own economically. The people on the gravy train don't like that idea at all and are trying very hard to throw the issue in other directions.

EBGuy says

If you are relying on electricity for heat, you're already in trouble. Well, I partially take that back. A ground (or air) source heat pump is an efficient use of electricity.

Uh, well - they are efficient UNTIL the air (because 90% of heat pumps are air source) reaches 32 degrees or less. At that point thermal heaters on the heat pump kick on to heat the air being pumped into the residence and those heaters SUCK electricity like there is no tomorrow. When do we use heat most? When temperatures are LOW, hence high electric bills.

EBGuy says

Plan B is natural gas

Plan C is coal

Both of which we have abundant supplies. I'm just hoping that Plan A (as in alternative energy) works out as both Plan B and C just pump more carbon (sequestered deep in earth) into the atmosphere

Alternative energy is a bit of a joke, really! Wind turbines don't produce much energy when the wind isn't blowing AND they can only be run with wind up to certain wind speeds. If the wind blows too hard, and if they don't shut the turbines down, the turbines will self-destruct (not to mention what they are doing to the birds). Solar? Again, they aren't very efficient on cloudy days (so it depends on where you are and the time of year that it is). Again, what solar farms have done to the environment can not be ignored (despite Obama trying to ignore it). Here in Texas, we have LOTS of natural gas, my heating bill was MUCH cheaper than my summer electric bill (when I have to run my AC).

Installing energy efficient dual pane vinyl windows in your house is probably your best upgrade. I was able to get custom windows (33"x48" so not small) made at $148/window. It isn't rocket science to install them yourself, but I did have a few upstairs windows installed professionally, for $125 each. The sliding patio door was the spendy bit, but now that it's done the house stays an even temp, sliding maybe 5-8 degrees during the day and night if we use no heat or AC.

It would be nice if we ran all our cars and trucks on natural gas, the U.S.A. would keep that $500 billion/year here instead of sending it to the Saudi royal family and other assorted foreigners. This would be another economic boost for the USA.

As mentioned above, the coal mined here is going to be sold eventually, so if we don't use it here for electricity (presently about 45% or so), it's going to China and India. Or, they could use it to make other fuels but this is probably expensive.

If the USA used nukes for electricity and ran our vehicles on natural gas, we'd never need import one goddamm drop of tar sand oil or crude oil from anywhere.

TadPole says

These are alternatives when you compare to what Obama wants...no energy!

Interesting comment given that during Obama's administration the US has gone on to becoming the largest producer of natural gas in the world and by some estimates by 2017 will also be the world's largest producer of crude oil. So I suppose I would be curious how you came to that conclusion since nothing would suggest that Obama wants "No energy".
mmmarvel says

Alternative energy is a bit of a joke, really! Wind turbines don't produce much energy when the wind isn't blowing AND they can only be run with wind up to certain wind speeds. If the wind blows too hard, and if they don't shut the turbines down, the turbines will self-destruct (not to mention what they are doing to the birds). Solar? Again, they aren't very efficient on cloudy days

Not sure where you're getting your technical information. Sorry, but if the wind blows hard wind turbines do not " Self-destruct". Even the cheapest little crappy homebrew wind turbines people buy for their houses come with a governor that kicks in to prevent the turbine from running away. Its the same principle as a governor on a lawn mower or stationary engine. Large commercial turbines use a braking system with large metallic brake pads, not all that different from the material used on your car.

As far as solar, well perhaps what you said was true 10-15 years ago, but the technology has not only improved drastically, but gotten cheaper still. I can personally attest to this with my own small experimental solar setup at my house. I have a single 100 watt panel on the roof that feeds into a regulator which charges two deep cycle batteries. These run through a power inverter which produces a steady 110 volts of power at up to 1,000 watts.

On this system I can run all of the lights in the house as well as the TV and its sound system for up to 5-6 hours a day. The panel works in sun or cloudy weather and on average takes about 4 hours to charge the system. The panel was $100 and the rest of the equipment was around $200. So $300 for a basic home setup that works like a charm.

Edvard2

Your system sounds great for a hunting cabin but most people need a LOT more power than that. Refrigerators, HVAC, larger tv's, desktop computers, gaming consoles, kitchen appliances, hair dryers, well you get the idea.

The other question is you claim your system still works on cloudy days. Fine, but how much cloudiness can your system tolerate before output drops. On a day with constantm heavy cloudcover how many watts does your panel put out?

New Renter says

Your system sounds great for a hunting cabin but most people need a LOT more power than that. Refrigerators, HVAC, larger tv's, desktop computers, gaming consoles, kitchen appliances, hair dryers, well you get the idea.

The other question is you claim your system still works on cloudy days. Fine, but how much cloudiness can your system tolerate before output drops. On a day with constantm heavy cloudcover how many watts does your panel put out?

I used the system I have as an example of just how much the cost of solar has dropped. Not too long ago a panel like mine would have cost several thousand dollars. As of now for under $10k I could install a system that would easily power all you mentioned and more. I know someone who did in the last year and they basically use no power from the grid.

So the costs are coming down and doing so fast. As far as your question about cloudy days, usually the charge time increases by an hour. So even on rainy days when I come home the system is fully charged.

edvard2 says

So even on rainy days when I come home the system is fully charged.

Interesting - so even on rainy days your panel still put out 75W or so.

New Renter says

Interesting - so even on rainy days your panel still put out 75W or so.

I haven't measured the exact amount, but according to the indicators on the regulator even on rainy days its still putting out most of its potential output. basically what happens is that once the system is charged, a indicator slowly blinks to show charging has completed. These are large deep cycle batteries with more capacity that a typical car battery. So yes, still impressive.