Coal Ash Dumps Contaminate Water in 21 States

[InCytful]

Just for clarity this is "bottom ash" they're referencing stuff that falls out of the fireball to the "bottom". A good deal of "fly ash" the stuff that rises out is being used for erosion control and feed lot stabilization around the US and does not carry any concerns at the moment.

The other posters that mention problems with wind are dead on. Sometimes the wind stops blowing when you need power - actually quite a few of the hottest days are low wind production. Then you need a gas plant to turn on quickly to cover the loss - but turning a plant on and off is hard on it. More expenses for the utility means more expenses for the comsumer - not to mention the issues if natural gas prices soar again like they did a couple years ago.

Coal is cleaner than its ever been - they make as much power off of 1 railcar as they used to from 5 with less emmissions. However, it still has the by-product problems. Its cheap and we have a lot of it. and a coal plant takes something like a day to come on and off line ... so peakers they are not.

Nukes would be nice - if anyone could afford to build them.

No real solutions from that post ... just more questions I guess - but have at it anyway.

Nuclear waste disposal is a problem, with no national strategy. The cost in regulation to build a new plant makes them hard to afford. Wind doesn't succeed without subsidies, and solar isn't practical in many places due to a number of factors. All of these will come around with some innovation, but coal and natural gas are the cheapest alternatives for electric power generation available today.

[Clonehomer]

Nuclear waste disposal is a problem, with no national strategy. The cost in regulation to build a new plant makes them hard to afford. Wind doesn't succeed without subsidies, and solar isn't practical in many places due to a number of factors. All of these will come around with some innovation, but coal and natural gas are the cheapest alternatives for electric power generation available today.

For now. With the advancements in nuclear and the ever increasing EPA emission regulations, the $/kWhr isn't that far off. The difference is whether you want to pay more upfront with nuclear and have cheaper operation, or pay less upfront and have more operation expenses.

As far as waste goes, the US could benefit greatly by using the fuel recycling processes being used by European countries. While it wouldn't completely eliminate the problem, it could reduce the amount of waste by as much as 90%.

[imnclone]

including Iowa

Study: Drinking water polluted by coal-ash dump sites - Green House - USATODAY.com

I find it odd that a cigaretteman would think that coal is bad.

[CloneIce]

New construction requires liners. The industry is fighting proposals to replace existing ash ponds with new ponds that have liners.

Coal ash may be nasty but it does not contain anything that wasn't found in the ground (in coal) in the first place.

There is a huge, huge difference between being found deep in the ground and being found in groundwater.

[CloneIce]

Nukes would be nice - if anyone could afford to build them.

Great point, thank you. People constantly bemoan the lack of new nuclear power plants, but they are unaware of the costs associated with them. The cost is why you don't see new plants being in built. And, obviously, nuclear plants are not something you can build on the cheap or with less safeguards, unless your freaking crazy.

[ISUKyro]

There is a huge, huge difference between being found deep in the ground and being found in groundwater.

"point you plot-holes else where" -Homer Simpson

[clones_jer]

Great point, thank you. People constantly bemoan the lack of new nuclear power plants, but they are unaware of the costs associated with them. The cost is why you don't see new plants being in built. And, obviously, nuclear plants are not something you can build on the cheap or with less safeguards, unless your freaking crazy.

And no one could even if they were crazy because they would not get certification or be insureable.

I'm not against wind at all - in fact I fully support the subsidies for wind / solar / ethanol & biodiesel.

A) it helps the midwest where we have wind / sun / corn & soybeans
B) all of the technologies are lightyears farther along than where they started - in part because people were allowed time to improve them without going out of business. Coal & Oil are established technologies that are cheap because of their availability and efficeincies - if we want something better (read cleaner) we have to invest in making them productive.

My only concern is that people see wind as a savior when really anything beyond maybe 20% or so wind would be brown out / black out crazy ... and people really like to have that lightbulb turn on when they flip the switch.

[besserheimerphat]

Great point, thank you. People constantly bemoan the lack of new nuclear power plants, but they are unaware of the costs associated with them. The cost is why you don't see new plants being in built. And, obviously, nuclear plants are not something you can build on the cheap or with less safeguards, unless your freaking crazy.

Nuclear IS going to happen. My empolyer makes equipment for nuclear power plants - our products are found in 90% of the world's nuclear plants. Our nuclear stuff is going crazy right now, and is projected to continue for the next 5 years or so. There are licenses in the works for (I believe, I can check later) 30 new plants in addition to recommisioning many old ones in the US. Europe and China are already going nuclear because right now it's what makes sense for a growing, developed nation. The new plant designs I'm aware of are inherently safe - if they lost power or instrument air or hydraulics, everything would fail in a state that still provides enough cooling water to maintain safe core temps. I'm not saying that it's impossible for them to fail, but they are going to be pretty bulletproof. The old plants are being recommisioned because they are in such good shape after being conservatively engineered in the first place. Standards and regulations have gotten tighter, so this next generation of plants will be that much safer.

The environmental impact is why you don't see any new coal plants being built, and we have to generate electricity somehow. I don't want this sent to the cave, but what this country needs in a comprehensive energy policy - a plan for the future. It has been ignored by many administrations for too long.

[besserheimerphat]

Plans for New Nuclear Reactors Worldwide

In the USA there are proposals for over twenty new reactors and the first 17 combined construction and operating licences for these have been applied for. All are for late third-generation plants, and a further proposal is for two ABWR units. it is expected that 4 to 8 new reactors will be on line by 2020.

In the USA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved 126 uprates totalling some 5600 MWe since 1977, a few of them "extended uprates" of up to 20%.

Nuclear Power in the USA

[besserheimerphat]

And no one could even if they were crazy because they would not get certification or be insureable.

I'm not against wind at all - in fact I fully support the subsidies for wind / solar / ethanol & biodiesel.

A) it helps the midwest where we have wind / sun / corn & soybeans
B) all of the technologies are lightyears farther along than where they started - in part because people were allowed time to improve them without going out of business. Coal & Oil are established technologies that are cheap because of their availability and efficeincies - if we want something better (read cleaner) we have to invest in making them productive.

My only concern is that people see wind as a savior when really anything beyond maybe 20% or so wind would be brown out / black out crazy ... and people really like to have that lightbulb turn on when they flip the switch.

There was an article in Wired Magazine this month discussing wind energy - apparently the Midwest is already generating more windpower than it has use for (when combined with the old coal/NG plants already here), and the areas of the country that need the excess wind power can't generate it themselves due to geography. So the power companies out east and west that want our wind power would have to build infrastructure to get the power delivered to them.

[besserheimerphat]

Also, incase anyone is curious, there is a nuclear plant in Palo, IA (9 miles NW of Cedar Rapids). It's the Duane Arnold Energy Center. Operated by Florida Power and Light (FPL).

FPL | About Duane Arnold Energy Center

[jbhtexas]

Natural gas is equally bad for the environment, if not worse than coal. Check out this clip from the documentary Gas Land, it will make you sick to your stomach.

Gasland: A film by Josh Fox

I guess I live in "Gasland". There are two "frac wells" wells within 1/2 mile of my house, and dozens more around Arlington. My pets haven't died yet. My neighbor's horses are closer to the well, and they haven't died yet. I can't light my drinking water on fire. Various environmental groups are conducting air testing and have not yet found any abnormal levels of benzene or other toxic chemicals. I'll keep you posted...

[tazclone]

Great point, thank you. People constantly bemoan the lack of new nuclear power plants, but they are unaware of the costs associated with them. The cost is why you don't see new plants being in built. And, obviously, nuclear plants are not something you can build on the cheap or with less safeguards, unless your freaking crazy.

I find it hard to believe that the US cannot afford to build nuclear plants yet other countries throughout the world have and continue build them.

[tazclone]

As long as we all use electricity, there will be byproducts. We just need to be responsible and minimize the byproducts. The coal industry has come a long way as have most industries. One thing that quick little article doesn't tell u i show oold the sites are and what preventative measures are at the sites. Are these old sites that were built without proper containment? Are the site 5 years old, 10, or has the leaching been going on for decades?

[CloneIce]

I find it hard to believe that the US cannot afford to build nuclear plants yet other countries throughout the world have and continue build them.

Obviously we can afford to build them. Its just that in recent years it has been more cost-effective to produce our energy from other sources. It likely will change in the future.