4 ms·

I'm not qualified to answer either way. But my grandfather worked at a coal fired plant. I've been to the strip mine. I've seen the trains that run continuousl

by ssmoot 11y ago

I'm not qualified to answer either way. But my grandfather worked at a coal fired plant. I've been to the strip mine. I've seen the trains that run continuously to truck it in. From a layman's perspective it seems like an incredibly efficient process. Is there any chemical refinement going on at all? All that I saw looked mechanical (but I was very young). I would guess that it would take many years of Solar before it broke even, in an environmental impact sense, with "cleaner" coal. I think ultimately solar probably wins. But the initial cost seems like it must be orders of magnitude higher. That said, I'd get solar if I could. Just not my highest home-improvement priority and I'd have to do something about the trees shading the south side of my roof. I like my trees. :-( OTOH it would be nice if there were a high power (~2KV), affordable (<$2,000?), silent wind turbine solution to supplement our grid power.

breischl 11y ago
Deciduous trees on the south side of your house are great for energy efficiency. The shade reduces summer cooling costs, and then the leaves drop so you get solar heat in the winter. You should definitely think about it carefully before cutting them down to install solar panels.
- davegardner 11y ago
  Unless you live in the southern hemisphere, in which case you want to plant them on the north side of your house. On a somewhat related note, rooftop solar panels have also been shown to have good insulation benefits[1]. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11002131 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11...
  - breischl 11y ago
    True, you want the trees and panels on whichever side of the house is sunniest. Since the GP was talking about "trees shading the south side of my roof" I'm guessing that he's in the northern hemisphere. Or maybe he's just really bad at siting solar panels, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. :)
pjc50 11y ago
There isn't chemical refinement in the same way as there is with oil. But there are mine tailings, ash, a surprising amount of radioactive thorium in the ash(1), sulphur (usually neutralised by trucking in limestone and out gypsum (2)), and of course vast quantities of carbon dioxide. "Clean" coal does not and cannot really address the CO2 even if it has been cleaned up in the other ways. There are various estimates of the breakeven time, but even the most conservative ones put it under ten years. You don't have to get your own solar if it's not convenient, that's what the grid is for. 1: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization

by ssmoot 11y ago

breischl 11y ago

Deciduous trees on the south side of your house are great for energy efficiency. The shade reduces summer cooling costs, and then the leaves drop so you get solar heat in the winter. You should definitely think about it carefully before cutting them down to install solar panels.

davegardner 11y ago
Unless you live in the southern hemisphere, in which case you want to plant them on the north side of your house. On a somewhat related note, rooftop solar panels have also been shown to have good insulation benefits[1]. [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11002131 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X11...
- breischl 11y ago
  True, you want the trees and panels on whichever side of the house is sunniest. Since the GP was talking about "trees shading the south side of my roof" I'm guessing that he's in the northern hemisphere. Or maybe he's just really bad at siting solar panels, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. :)

pjc50 11y ago

There isn't chemical refinement in the same way as there is with oil. But there are mine tailings, ash, a surprising amount of radioactive thorium in the ash(1), sulphur (usually neutralised by trucking in limestone and out gypsum (2)), and of course vast quantities of carbon dioxide. "Clean" coal does not and cannot really address the CO2 even if it has been cleaned up in the other ways. There are various estimates of the breakeven time, but even the most conservative ones put it under ten years. You don't have to get your own solar if it's not convenient, that's what the grid is for. 1: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-r... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization