As we all know, coal is the cheapest source of energy, but it is also, allegedly, causes a lot of pollution. However, when I've searched for how much pollution burning coal causes, I got a lot of envirowhacky stuff about carbon dioxide and global warming.
What I'm interested in is: How much pollution does coal cause AND would coal be a cheap, viable source of energy in a free market?
EDIT: I'll be accumulating links on the subject of coal power here. I'm starting with this:
http://mises.org/daily/1867
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju:As we all know, coal is the cheapest source of energy, but it is also, allegedly, causes a lot of pollution. However, when I've searched for how much pollution burning coal causes, I got a lot of envirowhacky stuff about carbon dioxide and global warming.
I think it's bad. Coal-burning power plants seem to be the main source of air pollution. I hear France has the cleanest air in the world because they heavily rely on nuclear, while countries that have problems with smog seem to be the ones that rely on coal (thanks environmental lobby). You're right, it's hard to find much about air pollution caused by coal due to all the rambling about global warming. I can't provide much useful information yet, but I will post more as I find out, cause now I wanna know too.
krazy kaju:would coal be a cheap, viable source of energy in a free market?
Nope, without burdensome regulation making it artificially expensive (thanks environmental lobby), nuclear energy would have out-competed coal decades ago. In a free market coal would already be a thing of the past. I bet even solar energy would be more viable than coal if the statists would let the free market develop solar panels with higher efficiency.
I agree, let the market decide.
Ever read Sherlock Holmes?
Here's an interesting link: http://sherlockholmes.stanford.edu/print_history.html
An excerpt or two:
London's air was not much cleaner than its water. The burning of coal for heat and cooking caused the greasy yellow "London fog" that Holmes and Watson prowl about in:
In the third week of November, in the year 1895, a dense yellow fog settled down upon London. From the Monday to the Thursday I doubt whether it was ever possible from our windows in Baker Street to see the loom of the opposite houses. —from "The Bruce Partington Plans"
Watson does not exaggerate; in the worst London fogs, it was impossible to see past your nose
Arthur Conan Doyle's original readers recognized their city and their time in the Sherlock Holmes stories. It was easy to imagine that he was just around the corner, riding in the next hansom cab. No wonder so many people believed that Holmes was real.
England has seen a century of upheaval since the first Sherlock Holmes stories burst upon the scene. The old, mysterious London has melted away with its "pea-soup" fogs and plagues of sewer gas
Just so we know what we're getting into with coal. Of course, maybe modern refining has improved things, don't know.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I had a discussion with an engineer friend of mine about coal plants a while ago...
Eskom (state power monopoly in South Africa) uses "electrostatic precipitators" to remove the vast majority of free-floating ash particulant from the smoke stacks of some of the largest coal generating plants in the world.
http://www.eskom.co.za/content/CO%200008PartiEmisContRev4~1.doc
Eskom claims that the ESP's remove about 99.8% of particulant from the smoke stacks. You certainly can't see any smoke coming out.
What's very interesting about the process is that most of the coal used in this country has an extremely low natural level of sulpur. This is actually a problem, because sulphur reduces the electrical resistance of the ash and is necessary for the ESP's to function. They actually have to artificially inject the smoke stacks with sulphur trioxide, which forms a layer of sulhpuric acid over the ash particles and allows them to be picked up more easily by the ESP's.
So yeah... They actually have to artificially add incredibly toxic material to the fuel before the electromagnetic exhaust filters on the smoke stacks will work properly. :p They claim that 99.98% of all ash is filtered out with the SO3 injections. The solid ash recovered in the ESP's is buried, preferably at the pit where the coal was mined.
Smog depends on a number of specific local atmospheric and topographical conditions being met. You don't get smog on the Highveld, though the air is very poor quality in winter due to a very strong prevailing high pressure system which lasts for months. I'm not an expert, but I do know that thousands of poor homes burning coal and wood in their stoves results in a hell of a lot more air pollution than one modern power plant providing electric power to them. Even with modern catalytic converters, thousands of cars are also worse than a coal power plant.
I think it depends on whether or not it's "big" and/or "foreign." If it's "Big Coal" or it's "Foreign Coal" then it's bad. If it's "Big Foreign Coal" then we're probably addicted to it.
EmperorNero: Nope, without burdensome regulation making it artificially expensive (thanks environmental lobby), nuclear energy would have out-competed coal decades ago. In a free market coal would already be a thing of the past.
Nope, without burdensome regulation making it artificially expensive (thanks environmental lobby), nuclear energy would have out-competed coal decades ago. In a free market coal would already be a thing of the past.
I really don't think that would be the case at all. I may be wrong on that, but I believe that nuclear energy still is a highly subsided activity, but not only that, there's a bigger problem: which company would want to insure a nuclear plant? Even if they did, how much would that cost? And even if they pay, I think that the insurance company would make them take some very strict security measures, which in the end wouldn't be that much different than what governmental regulation does today. To be honest I don't think there would even be any nuclear plants in a free market.
Zombie Dr:I think it depends on whether or not it's "big" and/or "foreign." If it's "Big Coal" or it's "Foreign Coal" then it's bad. If it's "Big Foreign Coal" then we're probably addicted to it.
Nice. Yea, it's all rhetoric.
Welcome to the forums.
Frederique Bastiao: EmperorNero:Nope, without burdensome regulation making it artificially expensive (thanks environmental lobby), nuclear energy would have out-competed coal decades ago. In a free market coal would already be a thing of the past.I really don't think that would be the case at all. I may be wrong on that, but I believe that nuclear energy still is a highly subsided activity, but not only that, there's a bigger problem: which company would want to insure a nuclear plant? Even if they did, how much would that cost? And even if they pay, I think that the insurance company would make them take some very strict security measures, which in the end wouldn't be that much different than what governmental regulation does today. To be honest I don't think there would even be any nuclear plants in a free market.
EmperorNero:Nope, without burdensome regulation making it artificially expensive (thanks environmental lobby), nuclear energy would have out-competed coal decades ago. In a free market coal would already be a thing of the past.
Yes, nuclear power is subsidized. But it, and all the raw materials and labor it requires, is taxed too. And other energy sources are subsidized too, likely more. I read that half the cost of nuclear power is complying with regulation, and currently it is barely a little more competitive than coal. So with reasonable regulation it would be way cheaper than coal. Plus all the bureaucrats telling them what to do raises operation costs. Not to mention that nuclear power plants are still relatively inefficient, once we harness their full potential the energy might actually be 'too cheap to meter'.
There are other potential advantages. Nuclear power plants might be small in the future so every city could have one, we might even each have one in our basement. Coal plants have to be big to be efficient and they have to be near where the coal is, solar has to be where the sun is and wind has to be where it's windy. Which means all these have to transport the electricity to the consumers, which is inefficient and expensive. Nuclear can be brought to the consumers. Of course that might become redundant with efficient batteries or efficient methods to convert hydrogen.
As for insurance, I think that's not a big problem. Modern nuclear reactors are very safe (and only produce a soda can full of nuclear waste per person per lifetime). Most of the regulation of current reactors is mandating backup generators and such to prevent meltdowns, which can't happen to modern passive-safe reactors. So the whole risk of nuclear power, that they can explode and spread radiation, is just not relevant any more. They wouldn't be expensive to insure because the risk of disasters is so low. In a free market a coal plant would really be a bitch to insure, because they'd have to expect residents with asthma and cancer to sue them. (Which costs the plant money even if they win or settle.) The current state legal monopoly protects coal power.
Insurance companies want to compete, so they would require reasonable but not unnecessary safety measures. Which is a good thing, that's how we know we wouldn't grow three eyes in a free market. But their safety requirements wouldn't be overkill, government requirements are mostly unnecessary. And they are more about sounding good than actually making people safe. They are political too, meaning they are often driven by irrational fear and lobby group interest rather than factual consideration of what's necessary. And then it's really their purpose to burden nuclear energy so it can't compete with coal and oil.
The main problem with nuclear power is that it sounds scary, and people are way overreacting to it's danger. If people are too freaked out about nuclear power, they might boycott it. So it is certainly possible that we wouldn't have nuclear power in a free market. But my guess is that we would have lots of nuclear power in a ree market, of course in the end nobody knows and we have to let the market figure it out.
I agree!
bings:I agree!
Good. If everyone agreed with me the world would be a better place!
According to the EPA, the combustion of coal emits between 93 kg and 113 kg of CO2 per million btus (mmBtu) of energy, depending on the type of coal.
For comparison, natural gas combustion emits about 54 kg CO2/mmBtu and diesel fuel combustion emits about 73.
EmperorNero: Good. If everyone agreed with me the world would be a better place!
Our time will come someday, I hope.