XPost: sci.skeptic, alt.solar.thermal, sac.politics   
   XPost: sci.chem.electrochem.battery   
   From: sylvia@not.at.this.address   
      
   On 12/03/2017 6:09 AM, BruceS wrote:   
      
   > Before all the fracking made natural gas so cheap, coal was the most   
   > economical fuel over here.  Many blame Obama's opposition to coal for   
   > its decline, but the real cause is simple economics.  At some point,   
   > the natural gas supply will start getting more expensive, and coal will   
   > be king again.  With Australia having such supplies, I'm surprised it   
   > doesn't burn more coal.  Surely with rolling blackouts, there's a   
   > market.   
      
   Rolling blackouts are caused by a lack of peak supply, for which coal is   
   singularly inappropriate. Such supply is traditionally provided by   
   either gas or diesel generation. The problem is that with solar and wind   
   taking the peak supply when it suits them, the economics of building   
   peak generation are seriously undermined. Essentially, the market has   
   been broken by government requirements that renewables be allowed to   
   supply when they can. So some government intervention is required to fix it.   
      
   >   
   >> Adding to the problem is that to appease the environmentalists, gas is   
   >> now being used for base-load, because it has lower CO2 emissions. Even   
   >> leaving aside the insufficiency of gas supply, the known gas reserves   
   >> are nothing like as big as the coal reserves.   
   >   
   > That's the same over here, with hundreds of years of coal reserves, but   
   > at the moment it's cheaper to burn natural gas.  Of course, the   
   > coal-fired plants are still operating, just at lower levels.   
   >   
   >> We could, of course, process and use our huge uranium reserves in   
   >> nuclear plants, rather than shipping the ore overseas. But the NIMBY   
   >> effect applies, and in Australia BY seems to mean "within a couple of   
   >> thousand kilometres."   
   >   
   > I'd like to see more nuclear plants, preferably of a better design than   
   > is usual for the U.S.  Canada's "CANDU" design seems like a good one.   
   > Nuclear power has some serious advantages if treated properly.  I for   
   > one would much rather have a nuke nearby than a coal or oil plant.  I   
   > just checked, and it looks like we've only ever had one in Colorado,   
   > and that's been shut down for years.   
      
   Provided they don't leak, nukes actually release less radiation into the   
   environment that coal plant does, because there's a small amount of   
   uranium in the coal, and it ends up in the ash.   
      
   Sylvia.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)