Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (102442)	5/15/2001 6:41:25 PM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 436258

Tippet, re Tell us how to calculate the environmental costs and add them to the price -- the acid rain you mention -- the emissions responsible for that have been greatly reduced owing to two factors I think the USA is lucky in that Ca is upwind of most of the pollution problems. Otherwise there would be some serious whining. On the East Coast, National Parks like Arcadia, that are in pristine natural areas, have some of the biggest ozone counts in the country, purely from industrial activity from the rest of the USA. nps.gov The air on the USA East Coast is definitely not good. Ear infections and things like Asthma are a problem I live further east. Fortunately we have that big chemical scrubber called the Atlantic Ocean, plus the maritime polar air masses, that gives us some of the best air going -g- pearly.

To: yard_man who wrote (102442)	5/16/2001 9:12:15 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 436258

tippet--You stated, "you are second-guessing the public's choices." At least I have some better data than most. I think you will find that coal is used for less than 50% of electrical generation, unless you are looking only at base load generation. Low sulfur coal is mined mostly in the West and used mostly in that region. In the East, there are still many plants using higher sulphur content coal, some with scrubbers, and some with not enough scrubbers or pollution controls, as they are grandfathered in. The processes that have been worked on for the past 30 years to make coal really clean are too expensive to be economical. As to alternatives, the cost of solar photovoltaic has dropped considerably, due mainly to the patented technology developed by AstroPower, where the photovoltaic material can now be manufactured in sheets. Improved designs for wind power have also reduced its cost to the point where both these alternative technologies are competitive when electric rates from conventional centralized plants reach about $0.18/kwh. We are getting close to that in many parts of the nation, and California will pay higher than that. The simple truth is that coal and other traditional fossil fuels look less inviting now than they did even 10 years ago. A system of individual generating units designed for residential or small commercial applications can provide for both base and peak loads. Large numbers of individual units can improve the reliability of a system because it is less likely the total system will fail at any one period in time. Less dependence on fossil fuel will also have long term benefits in terms of impacts on global warming and too rapid depletion of scarce fossil fuel resources. The traditionalists who favor coal, oil, and natural gas, or who think nuclear is just great have a mindset that is about 50 years behind the times. They're entitled to their opinions, but they should not be in a position to dictate today's energy policy. Art