You may not be fond of coal if it's in your Christmas stocking, but some see it as a useful and beneficial source of energy. Recently more energy companies have opted to build coal-burning plants, and experts are debating whether this is a viable solution to our energy needs. They say America runs on coal, but are we running in the right direction?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
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.
- HomoSapiensNotsomuch July 13, 2008 7:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
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.
- Longsnowsm
September 28, 2008 12:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"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...
- poemgranite December 28, 2008 9:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
No matter how clean you burn coal, mining it destroys, pollutes the land and water downstream forever.
Each major coal plant puts out a dirty bombs worth of radioactive material every day!! Google radioactive coal emissions for a real eye opener.
I can't eat the fish around my home because of mercury from the ;local coal plants. I need them for my health but can only eat them 1/week. This costs me about $100/mo.
Jerryd
- jerryd October 25, 2008 1:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This argument is not only against coal, it is against every new kind of power plant, including renewables. All of them will only be built if there is some profit in it, and of course the electricity consumer has to pay for the electricity, including rate increases. Are you thinking that a power plant should be a charity?
This argument is D.O.A.
- HomoSapiensNotsomuch July 13, 2008 6:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
While costs on all plants go up, wind, solar thermal, tidal/river gens you don't have to pay for fuel so vastly lower long term life cycle costs.
I can build from scratch for under $2k in parts a solar thermal generator with biomass back up burner and a 10' wingenerator easily handling my home, business and electric car I drive energy needs. So RE really is affordable even for the poor and handy. Built as a product would cost about $6k in mass production and one wouldn't need any other than maintaining them costs.
All of this is on the web. Join a RE group that people do this to find out wha works and what's a scam. But easily doable.
jerryd
- jerryd October 29, 2008 7:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Unfortunately coal is abundant, and so is mining-equipment, therefore coal is cheap and miners are not well-paid.
But here's the flip-side: If coal mining were stopped, how many jobs would be lost? What would those miners do? If there is a better alternative, why aren't the miners taking it today?
This argument makes me wonder if the Rain-Forest Action Network cares about the miners the same way the mining company does: they can be used.
- HomoSapiensNotsomuch July 13, 2008 7:14PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Since Re costs are mostly initial installation and maintaining them, they produce many more jobs, instead of making a few rich, many dead both mining and pollution, but nice outdoor jobs instead.
If you add the real costs in health, acid rain, radioactive emmissions into the price of coal, oil then RE is so much cheaper.
Even with these fossil fuel subsidies, wind, tidal, solar thermal generators, biomass can beat oil, coal in costs. I can easily build them at rates lower than coal plants/kwhrs output which is about $4k/kwhr now. But that doesn't include coal which will only go up in price, it's shipping, ect.
Now Fla has net metering if start up loans are available I'll be able to put 50 people to work in 6 months myself and many more as the business grows.
None of this takes new tech.
Instead of coal, the best energy source is that you don't use. Retro fitting homes, business with insulation, Ewindows, ect can make jobs now and save trhe cost of plants and their fuel. Last yr here we used 2% less electricity.
Jerryd
- jerryd October 29, 2008 7:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Coal power is good for the economy in a number of ways, no, we are not dependent on it, we won't all drop dead if we don't have it, but coal powerplants would be a major imployer in the midwest where unemployment is highest in the nation... Also, as John McCain said, energy, and American energy, of any sort is a plus. America has a large percentage of it's energy imported. We need to become energy indepent, for the sake of our nation! Yes, I believe in wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy, but I also believe in coal, natural gas, AMERICAN oil, and nuclear power.
- Brady November 10, 2008 10:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Should the U.S. Build More Coal-Fired Power Plants?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Both Sides Suffer From Myopia
I wish that one or both sides had taken a more systematic approach, like "Here's what we need, here's (all) the options, here's a range of solutions complete with consequences (e.g. Is NO more coal an option? Would workers be better off as miners or as solar technicians?), and THEN is yet more coal-fired power a good thing or not."
Unfortunately this debate has strengthened my suspicion of both sides.
- HomoSapiensNotsomuch July 13, 2008 7:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Look mom I can still breath!!
We should quit wasting money git rid of the 9 trillion debt brought to you by Mr. Bush. Spend our money on solar, wind, water power. We do not need to burn more coal!
- Cherokee Fred hussein
August 5, 2008 3:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Best for taxpayer, consumers, and coal miners
With a 200 year supply of coal, why not!! Jobs for the coal states and the taxes that come with it. Not everybody can work for the Gov. or a Environmentalist groups. 50% of the electricity in the northeast is coal fired electricn plants. Making laws that restrect coal fired plants is foolish and not cost effective. We can make them cleaner and that needs to happen but a total shut down is not the answer. Mr. Obama is going to see that the presant swing to to solar and wind isn't cost effective when Nuclear is far more cheaper to build and maintain. His new programs can't be wasting money on over priced solutions with the shortage of Fed. funds in Washington. I'm sure he'll have the best intrests of the consumers, taxpayer, coal miner at heart when he takes charge and ignore the special intrest groups who only want to line their pockets with gov. cash at the expence of the American Public.
- bcooper
December 2, 2008 6:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.