10 ms·

Not really. It's not like we have a trillion solar panels near the surface that we simply have to dig up. Coal is only alive, because the infrastructure is all

Not really. It's not like we have a trillion solar panels near the surface that we simply have to dig up. Coal is only alive, because the infrastructure is all there, and it's profitable. The mines are there, the electric plants are there, they are connected to the grid, etc. Solar panels and batteries are not there, they need to be manufactured, transported from China, land needs to be bought, then they have to be installed. New fabs need to be built to match the increasing demand.

wonderwonder 9y ago
All of the above is true. But coal is also alive because of the way the EPA was politically forced into classifying coal ash as solid waste as opposed to toxic. This has amplified the negative affects of coal residuals a hundred fold. It has also made it increasingly difficult to regulate as well as made it easier for state and local politicians to defend. This started decades ago The epa provides guidelines on coal ash storage but does not have the power to enforce them. This power falls to the local level and is expected to be enforced via citizen lawsuits. Some state politicians are working hard to prevent even this. http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article75704382.html http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-co... This is directly a result of lobbyists and campaign contributions.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  While favorably classifying waste certainly helps the coal industry I'm not getting on the "more federal power will solve this" bandwagon. We'd also have a lot more wind farms if it weren't for environmental regulations. A group of people with money can stall a project by taking them to court over environmental impact and compliance with regulation.
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    So are you saying that the conservatives have it all wrong when they say that coal in the US would be healthy if if it were not for the actions of the federal government?
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    What justification is there to simply sidestep certain classes of solution that have worked just fine in the past? Federal environmental regulation worked pretty to curtail many wide-scale human pollution problems - acid rain, water pollution, and ozone depleting chemicals, just to name a few. The only real reason to not solve it federally is political capture by entrenched capital.
  - spenczar5 9y ago
    I don't understand, you seem to be drawing a false equivalence between any sorts of government action. Claim: "Campaign lobbyists are giving coal an extra advantage by helping coal dodge regulations." Your response: "We would have more wind farms if it weren't for bad regulations." These two claims seem like two ships passing in the night. I agree with both of them.
maoistinquisitr 9y ago
Solar has a barely positive EROI. When all costs are considered it typically uses more energy than it produces. This has been studied extensively in multiple European countries. http://energyskeptic.com/2018/solar-pv-has-a-net-energy-losse-in-germany-and-switzerland-eroei-is-less-than-1/ http://energyskeptic.com/2018/solar-pv-has-a-net-energy-loss... These articles making claims to the contrary basically don't make any sense. If solar panels and wind farms resulted in large amounts of cheap energy they would be going up at a massive rate. We have a relatively free economy. Utilities and entrepreneurs would be going nuts building the things. Instead they only exist as tax scams anywhere in the industrialized world. Use your head, people.
- bufferoverflow 9y ago
  It used to be that solar panels never paid for themselves, then it was 20 years to break even. Now, I think, we're down to 5 years. Solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper, and they definitely have a positive ROI now. And there are huge solar farms being built all over the world. I'm pretty sure they did the math before investing millions of dollars.
  - maoistinquisitr 9y ago
    If you can highlight a plant that is not a "tax farm" I would be interested to read about it. "we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." --Warren Buffet This illustrates the reality of every "renewable" facility I've heard of to date. If the business case has changed just now, that's great and I look forward to the future. But most of what I've seen has been very silly industry propaganda.
    - politician 9y ago
      Is the 40GW of production in China a "tax farm"? Your argument that "solar is a gimmick because tax subsidies" seems flawed when international counterexamples are considered.

wonderwonder 9y ago

All of the above is true. But coal is also alive because of the way the EPA was politically forced into classifying coal ash as solid waste as opposed to toxic. This has amplified the negative affects of coal residuals a hundred fold. It has also made it increasingly difficult to regulate as well as made it easier for state and local politicians to defend. This started decades ago The epa provides guidelines on coal ash storage but does not have the power to enforce them. This power falls to the local level and is expected to be enforced via citizen lawsuits. Some state politicians are working hard to prevent even this. http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article75704382.html http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-co... This is directly a result of lobbyists and campaign contributions.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
While favorably classifying waste certainly helps the coal industry I'm not getting on the "more federal power will solve this" bandwagon. We'd also have a lot more wind farms if it weren't for environmental regulations. A group of people with money can stall a project by taking them to court over environmental impact and compliance with regulation.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  So are you saying that the conservatives have it all wrong when they say that coal in the US would be healthy if if it were not for the actions of the federal government?
- dv_dt 9y ago
  What justification is there to simply sidestep certain classes of solution that have worked just fine in the past? Federal environmental regulation worked pretty to curtail many wide-scale human pollution problems - acid rain, water pollution, and ozone depleting chemicals, just to name a few. The only real reason to not solve it federally is political capture by entrenched capital.
- spenczar5 9y ago
  I don't understand, you seem to be drawing a false equivalence between any sorts of government action. Claim: "Campaign lobbyists are giving coal an extra advantage by helping coal dodge regulations." Your response: "We would have more wind farms if it weren't for bad regulations." These two claims seem like two ships passing in the night. I agree with both of them.

maoistinquisitr 9y ago

Solar has a barely positive EROI. When all costs are considered it typically uses more energy than it produces. This has been studied extensively in multiple European countries. http://energyskeptic.com/2018/solar-pv-has-a-net-energy-losse-in-germany-and-switzerland-eroei-is-less-than-1/ http://energyskeptic.com/2018/solar-pv-has-a-net-energy-loss... These articles making claims to the contrary basically don't make any sense. If solar panels and wind farms resulted in large amounts of cheap energy they would be going up at a massive rate. We have a relatively free economy. Utilities and entrepreneurs would be going nuts building the things. Instead they only exist as tax scams anywhere in the industrialized world. Use your head, people.

bufferoverflow 9y ago
It used to be that solar panels never paid for themselves, then it was 20 years to break even. Now, I think, we're down to 5 years. Solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper, and they definitely have a positive ROI now. And there are huge solar farms being built all over the world. I'm pretty sure they did the math before investing millions of dollars.
- maoistinquisitr 9y ago
  If you can highlight a plant that is not a "tax farm" I would be interested to read about it. "we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That's the only reason to build them. They don't make sense without the tax credit." --Warren Buffet This illustrates the reality of every "renewable" facility I've heard of to date. If the business case has changed just now, that's great and I look forward to the future. But most of what I've seen has been very silly industry propaganda.
  - politician 9y ago
    Is the 40GW of production in China a "tax farm"? Your argument that "solar is a gimmick because tax subsidies" seems flawed when international counterexamples are considered.