Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

Chemistry and physics does not work that way.

Liquify the co2? coal does not produce enough energy to cover that without a net energy loss.
Combine it into a hydrocarbon? You just cracked a hydrocarbon, coal does not produce enough energy to cover that without a net energy loss.
Shoot it into the sun? coal does not provide enough energy to cover that without a net energy loss.


Store it safely? The volume if gas involved is so massive it would be a herculean engineering project to even attempt to store a single years worth of production.

Coal produces about 2000 lbs  CO2 for every megawatt hour.
Coal in the us produces about 1,847,000,000 megawatt hours per year.
That is 3,694,000,000,000 lbs of CO2 gas.

If you compressed that to 2000 lbs per cubic meter, you would need a spherical storage reservoir more than 1.5 kilometers tall.

[mainiac]

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.

Well it might seem like the height of folly to you but there is a huge volume of research that speaks the other way.  The economic costs of using coal are higher then the economic costs of using completely sustainable energy sources like wind or solar.  So the thing that is actually the height of folly would be to cling to an outdated power source.  We didn't reject trains because we had such an abundance of horses.

[alexandertnt]

Because playing devil's advocate's generally fun and useful to these threads, and because, in general, there's a lot of problems that can get solved with blood and iron or can simmer until they boil over.

Yeah, I'll accept everything you just said, with the caveat of "sure, greenification has to happen, but whatever the other side's arguing for is too much in the damaging crash course camp"

Playing devil's advocate may be fun, and there are alot of problems that could be solved with blood. But (disregarding any "side"', and any particular issue) as to why you would claim to be more likely to support an action knowing it is a bad action is beyond all common sense and logic. It is insanity.

"The other side" not something you can just dump together and dismiss en masse. There are alot of different ideas and thoughts, they are all not all the "damaging crash course camp" strawman.

Alright, we'll find a better thing to do with it. Turn it into something useful or neutral, or store it safely, or shoot it into the sun. Just a matter of figuring out how. Or until we find something else that works as a solution.

What is wrong with not using it in the first place? Your solution seems to be specifically designed to require the use of coal for the hell of using coal.

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.

Of course that seems folly, you are considering a non-existant strawman you fabricated up for the purpose of seeming folly to you. What you were expecting? Not a single person has ever referred to coal as "useless", you completely made that up.

"[silver bullet] is a favorite device of the intellectually lazy who do not want to deal with your petty complications and nuance"

There is no, and will never be a silver bullet ("silver bullet" is the de facto metaphor usually used to refer to a non-existant, magical solution). Its terrable practice to rely on a silver bullet by definition. If you are waiting on this non-existant solution, you will be forced greenification by time.

The enemy is coming, better to build serious stuff now than handing out pointy sticks and saying we will just build the big stuff when SHTF.

To use a military metaphor strife, we know the war is coming, isnt it better to work on our defense now rather than waiting for the enemy to be at our shores?

The flaw is with your assumption that the enemy is comming. Were the Iraqi's comming with their non-existant WMD's? I would agree with you if the enemy is comming, but you cannot just assume the enemy is comming to justify war when there are better solutions available that have not been exausted yet.

This quote is often used in events to support millitary action, regardless of weather there is any need for said military action (the condition "the war is comming" is often completely ignored).

[jester]

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of what I said alex, the enemy is an end to useful non renewables and global warming, the intention of the metaphor is to show that its better to do something now, than sit on your hands

[Strife26]

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. However, that still doesn't change the fact that coal's a bloody nice chunk of energy sitting there. Just because we haven't figured out a good way to store it or ditch it.


Now, if we really want to keep up with metaphors, trying to sharpen a blade too much, or even keeping one sharp leads to a broken edge. Likewise, keeping a military mobilized in peacetime is damaging and expensive.



Cutting off our hand because replacing it with a bionic claw to fight the enemy in twenty years is cool and all, but we kinda need both hand to keep ourselves floating right now, you know?

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.

Well it might seem like the height of folly to you but there is a huge volume of research that speaks the other way.  The economic costs of using coal are higher then the economic costs of using completely sustainable energy sources like wind or solar.  So the thing that is actually the height of folly would be to cling to an outdated power source.  We didn't reject trains because we had such an abundance of horses.

Great. If we had completely sustainable energy sources in place that I could pull a big switch and my lappy'd be run from solar I'd happily break into the power box and flip it myself.

Because playing devil's advocate's generally fun and useful to these threads, and because, in general, there's a lot of problems that can get solved with blood and iron or can simmer until they boil over.

Yeah, I'll accept everything you just said, with the caveat of "sure, greenification has to happen, but whatever the other side's arguing for is too much in the damaging crash course camp"

Playing devil's advocate may be fun, and there are alot of problems that could be solved with blood. But (disregarding any "side"', and any particular issue) as to why you would claim to be more likely to support an action knowing it is a bad action is beyond all common sense and logic. It is insanity.

"The other side" not something you can just dump together and dismiss en masse. There are alot of different ideas and thoughts, they are all not all the "damaging crash course camp" strawman.

I'm only going to support a genuinely bad side (and just a minor bad one at that) for the sake of discussion, and with the reasoning that furthering information might lend it credence. I mean, my actual ability to affect policy is pretty much zero. What I'm admitting is my bias, especially the fact that in a real draw of a question, I'm going to tend tp lean towards rolling in the tanks, or more likely "watch closely, with the tanks sitting on the nearest border, and a finger on the button to give the first wave of air strikes the go-ahead"

Alright, we'll find a better thing to do with it. Turn it into something useful or neutral, or store it safely, or shoot it into the sun. Just a matter of figuring out how. Or until we find something else that works as a solution.

What is wrong with not using it in the first place? Your solution seems to be specifically designed to require the use of coal for the hell of using coal.

Because it's something we've got in country, that a not-inconsiderable segment of the country works with, and that can certainly provide power.

Yeah, I gotta say that I'm pretty fond with it myself, honestly. However, it's completely true. When we've got a resource like coal in abundance, saying "eh, it's useless, let it sit" seems to be the height of folly to me. Discounting anything when we don't have a silver bullet (or even after that) is poor practice.

Of course that seems folly, you are considering a non-existant strawman you fabricated up for the purpose of seeming folly to you. What you were expecting? Not a single person has ever referred to coal as "useless", you completely made that up.

"[silver bullet] is a favorite device of the intellectually lazy who do not want to deal with your petty complications and nuance"

There is no, and will never be a silver bullet ("silver bullet" is the de facto metaphor usually used to refer to a non-existant, magical solution). Its terrable practice to rely on a silver bullet by definition. If you are waiting on this non-existant solution, you will be forced greenification by time.

"Focus on options that aren't coal" has *certainly* been addressed as a point. What I'm saying is that until someone's got a solution that looks like it's best, discounting research into dealing with coal's downsides is a bad idea.

The enemy is coming, better to build serious stuff now than handing out pointy sticks and saying we will just build the big stuff when SHTF.

To use a military metaphor strife, we know the war is coming, isnt it better to work on our defense now rather than waiting for the enemy to be at our shores?

The flaw is with your assumption that the enemy is comming. Were the Iraqi's comming with their non-existant WMD's? I would agree with you if the enemy is comming, but you cannot just assume the enemy is comming to justify war when there are better solutions available that have not been exausted yet.

This quote is often used in events to support millitary action, regardless of weather there is any need for said military action (the condition "the war is comming" is often completely ignored).

[/quote]

Call me old fashioned, but yeah, I do think war's coming. Or at least greater competition between the nations/blocs of the world. And, quite frankly, the idea of America not being the strongest kid on the block any more terrifies the *shit* out of me. If we're not the principle country in the world, than everything we do matters a helluva lot less, and there's no guarantee that whomever becomes the biggest kid (China, the EU, maybe Russia even) isn't going to be willing to back burner greenification to ensure that he keeps his place?

[Reelya]

http://climatecommercial.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/us-coal-subsidy-345-billion-harvard-study/

US Coal Subsidy $345 billion: Harvard Study
February 22, 2011

Through incorporating externalities into their lifecycle analysis, Harvard researchers have discovered the true extent of subsidies to coal in the United States:  $345 billion.

This implies a real cost of electricity production by coal-fired power plants of $0.178 per kwh – several times the accepted and oft-quoted cost of electricity, thereby significantly eroding the coal industry argument that coal is the cheap baseload power option.

That's a pretty hefty chunk of change, and a lot more than combined investment in alternative energy technology. But that takes into account "externalities", so lets look at direct budget costs to the taxpayer:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_coal_subsidies

In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy. In a July 2011 EIA report on federal fossil fuel subsidies, coal was estimated to have tax expenditures (provisions in the federal tax code that reduce the tax liability of firms) with an estimated value of $561 million in FY 2010, down from $3.3 billion in FY 2007.[2]

[jester]

Big issue with the US being the biggest kid on the block is that only matters till you actually get in a real fight, which again, will come down to nukes, your tank is great in the iraq type deal but against china/russia/nuke armed country of your choice, 90% of the military are just expensive toys.  Its sad, but if it ever comes down to a serious war, the tech has kind of killed the 'fighting' part.

  That and when oil et al are expected to end their serious useful amounts within the next 40 years or so, if its not delt with now, the next top dog is going to have to deal with it or they will just be the proud owners of a world full of useless crap.

[alexandertnt]

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. However, that still doesn't change the fact that coal's a bloody nice chunk of energy sitting there. Just because we haven't figured out a good way to store it or ditch it.

Look up, there is considerably more energy raining from the sky freely every day. We have no problem storing coal, its the coal emmisions and waste products that we can't store. Not being able to store this is reason not to use it. You are grasping at straws.

Great. If we had completely sustainable energy sources in place that I could pull a big switch and my lappy'd be run from solar I'd happily break into the power box and flip it myself.

Are you saying that if the problem was already solved, than everything would be good? What you say, everyone will agree with. This point has no meaning. The argument is to put that sustainable energy source in place, it has not happened yet. And it will not happen while people continue give vague and ambiguous reasons as to why we should not focus on it.

It (in reference to what that quote was a respone to) is more closer to not wanting to build trains in the first place because we have plenty of horses around. Difference is all the horses are gradually disappearing. But as long as we have horses now why worry?

I'm only going to support a genuinely bad side (and just a minor bad one at that) for the sake of discussion, and with the reasoning that furthering information might lend it credence. I mean, my actual ability to affect policy is pretty much zero. What I'm admitting is my bias, especially the fact that in a real draw of a question, I'm going to tend tp lean towards rolling in the tanks, or more likely "watch closely, with the tanks sitting on the nearest border, and a finger on the button to give the first wave of air strikes the go-ahead"

genuinely bad side

information might lend it credence

If information might lend it credence, it would not be a genuinely bad side. You would call it a genuinely bad side after it has become evident that the side has been speaking crap. Once this has happened, you do not give them credit. We would never get anywhere if we spent the whole time considering every single side related to a situation, for the hell of considering every single side.

How can you lean towards a solution due to bias, with full knowledge you are leaning towards that solution due to bias?

What is wrong with not using it in the first place? Your solution seems to be specifically designed to require the use of coal for the hell of using coal.

Because it's something we've got in country, that a not-inconsiderable segment of the country works with, and that can certainly provide power.

This is just lazyness, while completely ignoring the points against continuing the use of coal. It is basically "Well, meh. We have coal, so meh. Yeah, climate change, but meh". It is nothing more than buying your head in the sand.

The entire point of renewables is to stop using non-renewables, so im not entirely sure what (correctly) pointing out that the country already works with coal is supposed to mean. Part of the argument is to change what the country works with.

You do not just use something because its there.

"Focus on options that aren't coal" has *certainly* been addressed as a point. What I'm saying is that until someone's got a solution that looks like it's best, discounting research into dealing with coal's downsides is a bad idea.

You are assuming that there will be a solution, "so just wait". What people are saying is it is best to focus resources on a long term solution, rather than a cheap hack to patch up coal for however long it would last (which is not that long). People are discouning recearch into coal's downside because one of its biggest downside is an unstoppable inevidability. It will run out. There is nothing you can do about that. We already have alternative solutions, how do you determine that a new solution is "best"? The only way to definetely know is to consider every single possible solution that could come into existance (an impossibility).

Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood the meaning of what I said alex, the enemy is an end to useful non renewables and global warming, the intention of the metaphor is to show that its better to do something now, than sit on your hands

Ok, I see now, I take back what I said.

Call me old fashioned, but yeah, I do think war's coming. Or at least greater competition between the nations/blocs of the world. And, quite frankly, the idea of America not being the strongest kid on the block any more terrifies the *shit* out of me. If we're not the principle country in the world, than everything we do matters a helluva lot less, and there's no guarantee that whomever becomes the biggest kid (China, the EU, maybe Russia even) isn't going to be willing to back burner greenification to ensure that he keeps his place?

As I have said, whoever is the biggest kid at some point will have to greenify. It is an inevitability. What you are saying is basically milking what you can now out of fear, rather than a rational analysis of the situation. It is also "Well, they probably won't do it, so why should we"? All the while the problem continues to grow, regardless.

Wouldn't getting a renewable resource to replace oil help America retain power, instead of relying of middle eastern countries who are making large wads of cash from it? Most solutions would replace coal as well as oil. A sustainable America is an independent America, and will never have to rely on other countries (such as what has happened with oil) for energy.

[scriver]

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. 

You're grasping at straws because you're wrong. You fail to make rational points not because you are unprepared but because there are no rational points to make for your position. The line of reasoning you're following is that of a spoiled child who doesn't want to realise he can't have the cake and eat it. No logic. No thought. No basis in reality.

Oh, and seriously, you need to get help for that disgusting war boner you have. Maybe spending some time outside that glass bubble you live in would be a good idea. Especially, you know, if you still want to become a professional writer. That usually takes having some experience and knowledge of the world beyond "I sit in my mobile bunker and press buttons to make people go BOOM lol".

[Sheb]

Especially since war is damn innefective at making a lot of stuff happens. Having a large stick is good, using it is not. (And I should point out that the US is so hegemonic military wise it can totallyafford to shrink its military to half its size and still outperform the rest of the world combined.)

[Max White]

Oh, and seriously, you need to get help for that disgusting war boner you have. Maybe spending some time outside that glass bubble you live in would be a good idea. Especially, you know, if you still want to become a professional writer. That usually takes having some experience and knowledge of the world beyond "I sit in my mobile bunker and press buttons to make people go BOOM lol".

I think there is a part of the human mind that just likes the idea of killing the rival tribe. It makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary point of view that the guys who spend all day sharpening spears and talking about how they are going to kick the asses of the guys on the other side of the hill are going to have a better survival rate than the guys on the other side of the hill painting on walls and dancing for the sun god.
You just have to look at how sports are presented. It isn't just a matter of watching people play a game, people instead feel invested enough to belong to one team, and want the total defeat of all others. The need for tribal superiority is deep rooted into our minds. Makes sense that it is going to express itself in the glorification of war and patriotism.

Not saying that justifies anything. After all, we get all sort of primitive urges that we shrug off casually as civilized human beings. Just an observation.

[Nadaka]

Yeah, I'm grasping at straws a bit. However, that still doesn't change the fact that coal's a bloody nice chunk of energy sitting there. Just because we haven't figured out a good way to store it or ditch it.

...

Great. If we had completely sustainable energy sources in place that I could pull a big switch and my lappy'd be run from solar I'd happily break into the power box and flip it myself.

...

I'm only going to support a genuinely bad side (and just a minor bad one at that) for the sake of discussion, and with the reasoning that furthering information might lend it credence.

...

Because it's something we've got in country, that a not-inconsiderable segment of the country works with, and that can certainly provide power.

...

"Focus on options that aren't coal" has *certainly* been addressed as a point. What I'm saying is that until someone's got a solution that looks like it's best, discounting research into dealing with coal's downsides is a bad idea.

Once again. The chemistry and physics does not work that way. There is no such thing as clean, there can  be no such thing. The amount of energy gained from burning coal is so small, and the amount of pollution it creates is so large that any sustainable way of dealing that pollution is going to use more energy than you get out of the coal. Subterranean sequestration is the only alternative, and it isn't a permanent solution.

To give you a military analogy. Using coal because some day, maybe, it will be clean is like continuing to shoot at an main battle tank with a .32 revolver because one day they might invent a nuclear handgun capable of cutting through a foot of composite armor like butter. The .32 worked ok against unarmored people with improvised weapons, but it is completely outclassed by the threat we are now facing.

You can't flip a switch and have clean coal either. However, one can flip a switch to begin using clean solar thermal power. Replacing all of coal will take years of effort, and on the plus side it will create a lot of construction and plant maintenance jobs. It is a change in the workforce, not necessarily an elimination of jobs in the coal industry.

Call me old fashioned, but yeah, I do think war's coming. Or at least greater competition between the nations/blocs of the world. And, quite frankly, the idea of America not being the strongest kid on the block any more terrifies the *shit* out of me. If we're not the principle country in the world, than everything we do matters a helluva lot less, and there's no guarantee that whomever becomes the biggest kid (China, the EU, maybe Russia even) isn't going to be willing to back burner greenification to ensure that he keeps his place?

"Greenification" does not mean losing our place. It means retaining it. It makes us stronger, not weaker.

[Reelya]

The "anti-waste" argument can be made more effective to support solar/wind.

Coal is in the ground now, it'll still be in the ground later if we DELAY using it, it's finite and LATER we'll be able to utilize it cleaner and more efficiently.

Solar energy is all around us, in greater amounts than coal. It's infinite And if we don't harness today, that amount of energy that we COULD have harnessed is lost forever. Harnessing solar NOW gets us more energy in the long run.

[Zangi]

Wut... New York and New Jersey are petitioning to secede?  Who the hell is trying to push this?  Some slack-jawed yokals in some backwater towns signing some petition or some of its elected representatives being right wing douchebags?

[Mego]

Wut... New York and New Jersey are petitioning to secede?  Who the hell is trying to push this?  Some slack-jawed yokals in some backwater towns signing some petition or some of its elected representatives being right wing douchebags?

Boston Legal, anyone?