Will we return to Coal?

Remove all ads!

Simple question, based on the worlds reliance on fossil fuels and the declining supplies of oil and gas. We're probably looking at 20 or so years of oil, and after that point gas will vanish at a high rate leaving vast quantities of coal still untapped.

so, I wonder this, will we (mankind) develop sufficient renewable energy sources within that time to tackle the worlds demand for energy, or do we expect to see mines reopen in our countryside and a new dependence on coal.

 

Oh dear lord no. Not only will it make the corporations have another reason to not research alternative energy sources, but it will also **** up our environment more than it already has.

 

I'd rather have coal than nuclear. Nuclear power may not cause air pollution, but that will be small consolation to our grandchildren breathing that clean air through gills......

 

Coal has been and continues to be a major source of power production in the world. In the US we are not allowed to use coal that has certain contaminants in it, in fact there are huge reserves of coal in Illinois that cannot be mined because of contaminants. The biggest problem right now is the sulfur content of the coal -- sulfur in coal means acid rain. However, technology is catching up and the ability to remove the sulfur has been improving. There is a growing trend to make more coal plants now that technology has been able to (somewhat) clean up coal.

 

Yes, because nuclear power stations have an incredible track record of inexplicably exploding and showering nearby cities with radiation; it isn't just the ones that are run by incompetents.

I feel nuclear power is our only hope until we figure out nuclear fusion.

 

Finland is building its 6th (or was it 5th, hmm) nuclear power-plant and I think it was a wise decision too. Out of the options we currently have, nuclear-power is the most reliable and enviroment-friendly despite the raging opposition around the nuclear-waste. Frankly, people who preach against it more often than not do not seem to even understand how the process goes, which -in turn- proves how much people lack knowledge of basic physics.

With nuclear-power, at least, those kids with "gills" can laugh at us for using such dirty energy-sources as coal -and then, hopefully, proceed to sweeping off the smudges. And if we want to look into future some more, we can also say that the best place and source for energy lies in space. How 'bout producing all that energy at Moon and then dumping the wastes to Sun? Zero problems and Earth is so cramped anyway.

...Or more utopistically, how 'bout some gravity-powered power-plants?

 

You understand that there is a finite amount of space in which we can store nuclear waste, right? And that it does tend to leak, right? It doesn't matter how well you store Nuclear waste. It will leak. And when it hits groundwater.......

 

I'll agree that is a problem. However, when compared to coal power:

From this website. So, coal power needs more resources, and creates more industrial waste.

Oh, and Wordplay, if you think sending waste into space is a good idea, you probably haven't considered the possible scenario of the shuttle exploding in the atmosphere, something not entirely unlikely at this current point in time.

 

I know a few people who still have coal fires in their house .

 

@ Mediocre Man

That not a problem at all. You see, there will not be shuttles in the future; they will be replaced by CEVs by 2014.

Besides, when it comes to space, we are still living in the caves. Before anything can be launched or produced out-of-Earth, there really needs to be something backing it up on Moon.

Shure; like the engineers can't take that into account. And how many years do you think it will take for a few hundred meters of solid beton to leak? Many, I bet. Everything has its risks and out of the options we have at the present time, nuclear-power is the best choise we have to produce the energy we need.

 

Whether or not they can is irrelevant. They haven't been. Not only have we had issues with containment, but we've also had issues actually getting off our asses to clean up when we fail on the containment front (Love Canal, anyone? Also, we'd be remiss to forget about Hanover, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island). Let's also not forget to factor in the fact that the waste will still be dangerous millions of years from now and there will be a hell of a lot more of it if we maintain or increase our nuclear energy production. Over 20, 40, or even 100 years we may be able to prevent leakage, (which is being really, really generous since we haven't exactly been doing well with this so far) but what about five hundred? One thousand? Ten Thousand? One hundred thousand? Come on. Given the number of safe, viable, and sustainable alternatives available, continuing our pursuit of nuclear energy is not only dangerous and unnecessary, but stupid and suicidal.

I, for one, am not interested in sitting around and hoping that science will produce a solution to our nuclear waste "problem". By the way, shuttles don't actually leave our atmosphere. They would be releasing the waste into our atmosphere. Even if they were redesigned to be able to leave the atmosphere they would also need to be specially built in order to handle nuclear waste. No one is funding any technology that even comes close to being able to transport nuclear waste into space right now. It's a very sci-fi solution, anyway. Do you have any idea how many trips it would take to transport our nuclear waste off the planet even if it were feasible?

 

this topic came into my mind when i had a dream about the world having to return to steam power and coal orientated energy.

i notice that nuclear power has had a massive place in this thread, what about developing hydrogen power and lately (as one such lant has appeared near my home) a human waste plant built near a landfill.

so these have potential? could they ever produce enough power?

 

Man can only prepare for a certain degree. But if it is buried deep and well enough, you can presume that it will also stay there for the next ten thousand years. Saying that "There might be an accident during the next 100,000 years!" and digging up every case in the history is just phobic. Tell me, what is so scary in atoms splitting to heat some water?

I didn't say that it should be taken seriously with the current technology we have, since, after all, it is impossible ATM when we can barely get to the orbit. But it would be a goal worth striving for and goals we need if there is to be any improvements.

 

And that helps how? 10,000 years is actually a very small amount of time.

 

Well there are hybrid cars that solve the gas problem.

For other types of energy, we could always go back to good, old fashioned slavery

...I mean solar energy for electric devises
and wood for heating

 

We have had, and continue to have, instances in which nuclear waste has gotten into groundwater. If we had a track record of perfect containment, you'd probably have a point (although not a very good one since earthquakes or damage due to war or other unknowns could cause even the most secure site to be compromised). And we don't have a track record of perfect containment. Not even close.

 

Coal is not realkly that much a solution. It's just another fossil fuel that will eventually be used up. Not one person here has talked about actually finding ways to reduce our rampant consumption of energy, which will eventually have to be part of any solution.

 

We obviously need to genetically engineer some kind of beast which can consume nuclear waste and process it into rainbows and happiness.
With science.

 

But some of us were thinking it. In all seriousness, there are plenty of green energy solutions out there to which we should be turning our attention as well.