What is Digg?27 Comments
- lettruthout, on 08/20/2008, -1/+23FTA: "A large amount of land adjacent to the plant is neededfor solar collectors. Ausra’s fresnal reflector technology requires 2-2.5 acres of land per megawatt compared with 5 acres per megawatt for solar trough systems or 7 acres per megawatt for solar dish engine systems."
It would be interesting to see a comparison: how many acres of land is destroyed (through strip mining) per megawatt for power a coal plant PER YEAR? - drig, on 08/21/2008, -0/+12Might not be perfect, but from the looks of things, it's a step in the right direction. I'm from Toledo, Ohio and First Solar just announced it will be doubling it's factory and adding 170 jobs. Yay. We need them.
- mlagana, on 08/21/2008, -0/+10maybe the coal they mentioned
- mlagana, on 08/21/2008, -0/+9i dunno about "inefficient, weak, wasteful, debatable, Christlike"..
first of all you can store power from the sun, as hydrogen, and it's not free, you just don't have to import billions of tonnes of something to keep it going. it does work, very well, especially in a situation like this.
you aren't as smart as you think you are - AReallyGoodName, on 08/21/2008, -0/+7So because solar panels don't work at night they have no value?
New South Wales, which is where i live and where this plant is being built, is one of the biggest users of pumped hydro-electric storage in the world.
It's ~80% efficient and works when solar doesn't. This infrastructure for solar during the day and stored hydro energy at night already exists in New South Wales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroe ...
Besides which, this particular scheme is designed to save on coal usage during the day. The energy doesn't even need to be stored in this case. - borez, on 08/20/2008, -1/+7Solar coal. tiz the future
- winmywii, on 08/21/2008, -1/+7Have you seen the land before and after strip mining? I have seen the mountains of WV before and after in person and I will tell you it is not the same. Yes, they may leave some flat land for development, but they destroy the natural beauty of the mountains.
- Nateon, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5Coal and Solar working together. This is madness!
- jus1haz2, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4no, its just digg.
- samotage, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4It's really kinda strange if you stop and think about it. Power stations - they dig up the ground, burn the dirt, and pump it into the air. They can do this at a rate of about 30 tonnes an hour of CO2... and some jokers rekon carbon capture and (storage??? wtf) is the answer.
It would be great to see this kind of thing on a massive scale, replacing the dirty tea kettle with something more appropriate. - bobby22, on 08/20/2008, -1/+5yeah that's true.. i guess it's not a complete win win situation.. =(
- TVarmy, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Even if we were on 100% solar, there's technologies out there to store electricity, which even coal plants use. Batteries, flywheels, etc. On a coal plant, they are used to keep the voltage/frequency of the line stable as they lower or raise the amount of coal they are burning IIRC.
Plus, other renewable sources stay around at night, like wind and tidal energy. There will be less energy available at night, but that's also when people use less. Flywheels could definitely fit the bill to store excess solar for the night. - Wind4ever, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3I also think that the night is not an issue here. First, this is a hybrid design, if energy is needed during the night the coal will work on it's own. Second, there are many ways to store energy (electrical, thermal and more). Third, there are hours of the night when we overproduce energy up to the point that it is offered for free. We shouldn't worry much about the time when the sun is not shining, but how to introduce more renewable energy in US and the idea presented in the article is very good and practical step in the right direction.
- P1um, on 08/21/2008, -1/+4They're just delaying our inevitable dependence on foot powered cars. (ie: flintstones style)
- Wind4ever, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3I would love the next step of this madness... Only Solar, No Coal :)
- roxgod666, on 08/21/2008, -2/+5madness...? THIS IS SPARTA
- DestroyFascism, on 08/21/2008, -1/+4I doubt your claims are correct matthafling. One of the problems with mining coal is the metals it leaves behind in an oxygenated environment. Once it was trapped in the strata without the ability to gain 02. now that it has been disturbed you risk leeching heavy metals like arsenic and others out from the strata.
Once this makes its way into the water table, streams and rivers over the next 20 years you will see it turn brown and die. The micro and macro invertibrates that keep the river alive and clean will disappear.
There are 3 streams in the Mountains west of Sydney Australia that suffer from this issue and the mines would be an inth of the size of Mountain top removal.
If the greenies complain about something 9 time out of 10 they turn out to be correct. Half of them have done Environmental science and they already know what will hapen. The governments choose to ignore these facts and when it does happen years later, they have already made thier money and moved on. So have the companies and share holders. What remains is an eco system that has been decimated and even though it looks ok half of what was there is gone and gone forever. The people that rely on these rivers and streams will suffer the burden of this mining for potentially, thousands of years.
Quite simply, it is not worth the risk! - TVarmy, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2I really think we need to embrace nuclear quickly. The more I read about coal and what we do to get it, it sounds like we should try to get off of it ASAP. I know it can't be done overnight, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. I like that this plant will still produce power should they shut off the coal side. More coal plants should do the same, and scale back their coal production appropriately.
Of course, I know uranium is mined by strip mining, but currently, its cheap, plentiful, and doesn't produce carbon emissions. Waste is an issue, but it seems to be managed well enough. We're going to need more electricity if we are ever to get off of oil, either for environmental, foreign policy, or fiscal stability reasons, especially because we need a viable fuel for our vehicles. Ethanol won't work, because it uses so much fuel to be created. And switchgrass is no good, because the cellulose in a plant is meant to decompose and enhance the soil for the next crop. Nuclear is a bandaid, and can be done more or less domestically and in friendly countries.
Solar, wind, and tidal are probably the idea, but solar calls for a lot of space, meaning it will take consumer co-operation, consumer wind turbine options are lacking, and people are irrationally afraid of tidal turbines, even though it's been shown time and time again that fish know to swim around them. - FaithclubDotNet, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but what will power the plant by day?
- mustangmike53, on 08/21/2008, -1/+3“$30 a ton is $.03 a kilowatt hour [for electricity generated from coal],” said John O’Donnell. “For some of the older coal power plants, you are looking at a 30, 40, or 50% increase in the electricity price all at once and an ongoing uncertain future.”
There's the real issue right there. Energy Companies would be generating solar power on a massive scale today if it were competitive with other sources, but it isn't. Solution? Well, they tried subsidizing the cost of solar, but that required huge amounts of tax dollars the politicians would rather spend elsewhere. How to get the people to pay for it themselves... hmmmm. I've got it! Carbon Tax. Just raise the price of all the other power sources until they cost more than Solar and then, voila!
Congratulations, Australia. You just doubled your national electricity bill. Let us know how that works out for you. - stephenjbolger, on 08/21/2008, -1/+3This is a bull crap article. I live near that power plant and the solar put is just a pilot and is not even connected to the power station. The article tries to imply that its already working. Sorry to disappoint. Its all a good theory though.
- matthafling, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Yes I have seen these mines and have spent a great deal of time in them. I work in the mining industry for Caterpillar. Before I took the job, I thought the same thing. I was anti strip mining and thought these very same things. But then I spent time on mines with people who love and care about the environment and the communities they work in. I've seen mine operations build new rivers and create 1,000s of jobs in low income towns. Certainly there are people and business out there that don't do it right and they are the ones making the press - but a large majority of the mines I have spent time on - they don't disrupt the water tables and take great pride in reclaiming the land to it's original beauty - via tree planting, lake building, creating cattle fields, and even state parks. I"m not saying there isn't a risk there - there certainly is - but most of the mine operators I have met aren't environment hating right wing nutjobs. So sure - for those of you passing through towns like Hazard, KY or parts of West Virginia - we are saddened that where once a mountain stood - is now a paper factory - but believe me - the people in those communities are pretty thrilled with the 1,000 or so additional jobs that were created.
- Wind4ever, on 08/21/2008, -1/+2If the coal people had the intention to do things wright they wouldn't be in this business. They mine coal for profits and doing it wight cuts down the profits. So... what percentage of the coal mining is done right?
- matthafling, on 08/21/2008, -4/+2Actually - if done right - you can leave the land in the same or even better shape than you started with. There are many parts of west virginia and kentucky that could have never been developed if not for mountain top removal strip mines. In some parts of those states - the only flat land that exists is because of coal mining. Most states have laws now that force them to reclaim the land within so many degrees of original grade. In most cases - the land left behind is more fertile than before if reclaimed correctly and it will look almost exactly as it did before.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 08/21/2008, -6/+2Yeah, but what will power the plant at night?
- smegmaslough, on 08/21/2008, -6/+1Exactly. I think this is one of the things that is often overlooked when people think of solar power. You aren't going to get 100% uptime unless the solar panels are orbiting the planet. What you are getting instead is an inefficient, weak, wasteful, debatable, Christlike, and altogether lousy attempt at energy production that, just because its free, people seem to love. Its almost like the ancient alchemists trying to transmute various metals into gold. IT ISN'T GOING TO WORK.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is