--------" We should get to a point where we can retire all coal and then natural gas and make up all remaining with renewables within the next 20 years if we all keep fighting."---------
Natural gas is methane, CH4. Methane is both a fossil fuel, AND a biofuel. Exactly the same stuff. CH4. CH4 can be made low tech and easily from any type of biomass at all, including sewage and landfills. It is being done right now and we've been doing it for over 160 years in recent history.
Natural gas is used in turbines. Turbines are jet engines. You can't use coal in a jet engine. If you could, airlines would be flying their jets on coal.
---------" Natural Gas Fired Power Plants
Natural Gas fired (including LNG fired) power plants account for almost 20 % of the world’s electricity generation. These power plants use Gas Turbines or Gas Turbine based combined cycles. Gas turbines in the simple cycle mode, only Gas turbines running, have an efficiency of 32 % to 38 %. The most important parameter that dictates the efficiency is the maximum gas temperature possible. The latest Gas Turbines with technological advances in materials and aerodynamics has efficiencies upto 38 %. In the combined cycle mode, the new "H class" Gas turbines with a triple pressure HRSG and steam turbine can run at 60 % efficiency at ISO conditions. This is by far the highest efficiency in the thermal power field."-----------
Then show me one power plant that uses coal and natural gas in the same equipment.
Westinghouse clashes with Georgia Power over nuclear plant cost overruns
---------" The project, originally estimated to cost $14 billion, is now between 18 and 21 months behind schedule and $900 million over budget"------------.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2013/10/20/Westinghouse-clashes-with-Georgia-Power-over-nuclear-plant-cost-overruns/stories/201310200290#ixzz346A2SZnV
Yup---good old cheap nuclear power. $6.78 per watt right now----and perhaps another 6-7 years before a single watt is delivered..................
--------------" The average price of a solar panel has declined by 60% since the beginning of 2011, according to GTM Research. And, according to CleanTechnica, a website dedicated to renewable energy news, the price of solar power has fallen from $76.67 per watt in 1977 to 74 cents today."-------------------
Solar power installation costs fall through the floor
$.74 is a LOT less than $6.78 per watt------------even the largest solar projects are finished within a year and most are ahead of schedule. We do not need to worry about explosions or air planes crashing into solar arrays, the fuel is free and delivered to the site with free shipping no matter how remote the site is, requires no mining, and has no immensely radioactive waste that has to shipped to a repository and stored for thousands of years. In fact, there is no waste at all to ship or store. And the price of fuel has not gone up in roughly 4.5 billion years, it is the same price today as it was then, free.
@ Steve----" Utopian niceties are not likely to provide us with the energy we need so we are going to have to entertain some less agreeable options. "----------
How much energy do we need?
---------" Fred, it's not the methane that is the problem, it is the source. Fossils source s add carbon, surface sources do not. There is no problem with carbon fuels, there is a terminal problem with fossils fuels."-----------
Thank you Brian----I am well aware of the Carbon Energy Exchange Cycle, in fact, I was the one who first introduced it here.
I've just been over and over it until I'm blue in the face----just to be ignored.
Yeah, I've gotten a bit sarcastic.
Bill Scutt------" I am a biological scientist, and the mainstream biological community would not agree that alpha emitters are much worse than beta or gamma emitters.
I have seen the lung histology with the embedded alpha-particle as quoted by Brian Donovan. The amount of damage involved is bad and it is spread over an area of somewhere between 10 & 50 micrometers. It's very unlikely the person died of it and it's almost certain it was an incidental finding. 10000 cells is not so much out of a 100 billion lung cells. It's quite certain that cigarettes damage > 10000 cells each and every day in a smoker. My guess is that a resident of Beijing would suffer >10000 cells damaged each and every day from air pollution even if they don't smoke. "------------
I don't know what you are, but you are NOT a biological scientist. No biologist alive would make such stupid statements.
The completely flawed and off the wall logic tends to indicate a political huckster or special interest hack writer.
Bill Scutt---------" Sorry Gelbert - Bioaccumulation of specific isotopes is IMPOSSIBLE. Think about it. Mercury bioaccumulates under some circumstances, Cadmium does too. There may be some circumstances under which Cesium bioaccumulates but Cs137 doesn't!!! "------
Opening statement. Read it carefully. Then judge for yourself the logic of the rest of his long winded tirade. (hint Cesium 137 IS Cesium)
The importance of Cs 137 is not its chemical properties. Cs 137 is not a natural isotope. The only source of Cs 137 is nuclear weapons or reactors. The presence of Cs 137 means that radiation can only be man made.
Chemical properties are a function of atomic number and an elements place on the periodic table.
Isotopes have differing atomic weights but they are still the same element.
Deuterium and Tritium differ from hydrogen in that they have atomic weights of 2 and 3 respectively but they all have the same atomic number 1, and all the chemical properties of hydrogen.