4 ms·

Call me cynical, but I think every state should keep at least 1 coal power plant running forever to maintain skills and supplies. Coal is one of the most abunda

Call me cynical, but I think every state should keep at least 1 coal power plant running forever to maintain skills and supplies. Coal is one of the most abundant natural resources in the USA. In national emergencies we can fall back on it, but not if we paint ourselves into a corner.

gerdesj 3y ago
Hi cynical! Overhead is the sun - it is a massively more abundant energy resource than coal could ever be. It has run for billions of years and has at least one more left in it. Coal is a finite resource and not a very pleasant one to mine. Solar generation is generally quite dispersed instead of few monolithic coal plants. That's just solar. There is also wind and wave, geo-thermal and many more ways to generate electricity (power). That's diversification and that surely is easier to defend. I would suggest that relying on one power source is painting yourself into a corner and then drinking the paint.
- profile53 3y ago
  > I would suggest that relying on one power source is painting yourself into a corner and then drinking the paint. You’re aware that that is exactly what the GP poster was arguing against, right?
  - kibwen 3y ago
    What "one power source" do you think they're arguing against? The person you're replying to has noted that renewables are diverse and abundant, while refuting the notion that coal is important to the US because of its abundance because it's less abundant than many other sources of energy.
    - gerdesj 3y ago
      Its like bloody whack a mole here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38945399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38945399
  - gerdesj 3y ago
    They seemed (to me, by omission) to really want to maintain the status quo. I understand a "back out plan" but it turns out that there are unfortunate side effects to burning fossils, so it isn't a really decent plan. Not once did GGP suggest an alternative. No one really wants to drink paint but in the immortal words of Mr F Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does".
    - fomine3 3y ago
      What I think is that solar will become the primary power source, so coal might be good for backup (for the US). GP didn't blamed solar.
      - gerdesj 3y ago
        Fair enough, but bear in mind that "solar" effectively created coal and oil! We don't need a backup as such - but the renewables need a bit more time. We have burned oil for millennia. Solar is only about 50 years old. I still drive a petrol (gas) powered car and even when I eventually get my eye wateringly expensive electric car, I might have range issues, despite living on a small island group off of Europe - the UK. However, that new car (with loads of plastics etc etc) will run on unicorn farts ... electricity. What generates that 'leccy is another matter too. You and I cannot change the world but we can at least point ourselves in the direction that we would like it to go. For me that would involve less fossil fuels.
    - profile53 3y ago
      I think the counter argument is that renewables are never going to replace coal/oil/gas completely as there will always be the boogey man of “what if there is no wind/sun”. Having a small amount of fossil fuel based capacity in reserve would make a huge difference politically and of the options, coal is probably the best for that. It is less environmentally damaging than maintaining fracking operations for oil/nat gas, extremely abundant in the U.S., and can be spun up or down on the order of hours so emissions can be kept minimal when plants are not needed.
      - 3y ago
- novia 3y ago
  I'm a big fan of solar and renewables, but at the same time, in the past there have been massive volcanic eruptions that have blocked out the sun for extended periods of time [1]. So in my mind, the post you were responding to makes a very good point. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tambora-1815-volcanic-eruption/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tambora-1815-volcanic-eruption/
  - gerdesj 3y ago
    I mentioned a few other too and as you say - the clue is in the name - renewables. Coal isn't renewable. The Carboniferous period only gifted us only so much to play with. There have been some impressive sun blocks in the past but if, say, Yellowstone went off in a doomsday scenario, then we would not be worrying about electricity generation. It is far more likely that we (humanity as a whole) would be back in the stone age but with jolly refined language skills! If we have all the other renewables available we do stand some sort of a chance of keeping going, despite a cataclysm. I don't think that banking on coal n that is a good idea.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Technology-wise, isn't it a lot easier to build a coal plant than it is to build PV panels? Obviously this is not a problem right now, but imagine a disaster scenario where a good amount of high-tech industry is non-operational. Or even a geopolitical crisis where we lose access to enough of the raw materials or manufacturing capacity to make the panels. (Does the US even manufacture PV panels? Or are they mostly -- or even all -- built overseas?)
  - gerdesj 3y ago
    Coal and oil are not renewable - they are finite. What do you do when they run out? If you disregard the environmental aspects of energy security, surely: banking on a non renewable, finite and diminishing resource is silly. We will probably not run out in my life time but I for one give a shit about my grand daughters's future quality of life. They will need 'leccy so they can sulk at the dinner table whilst doom scrolling on their phones (one is close). By the time they are old enough to get really pissy about the climate and granddad is a deposit for a mortgage, oil will probably have run out and coal will be distinctly brown coloured. Even the UK is dragging manufacture of stuff back in-house from abroad. Many of my customers make things here. I'm sure the US is doing the same.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
bobthepanda 3y ago
Hawaii is located thousands of miles away from the US with no coal deposits. I suppose this wouldn't be the first time the mainland introduced onerous requirements onto its territories (see: Jones Act)
kelseyfrog 3y ago
Yes! And the same for chariot manufactures.
gniv 3y ago
Gas and oil are also abundant and they are less polluting. Hawaii mostly runs on oil. https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/clean-energy-hawaii/our-clean-energy-portfolio https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/clean-energy-hawaii/our-cle...

gerdesj 3y ago

Hi cynical! Overhead is the sun - it is a massively more abundant energy resource than coal could ever be. It has run for billions of years and has at least one more left in it. Coal is a finite resource and not a very pleasant one to mine. Solar generation is generally quite dispersed instead of few monolithic coal plants. That's just solar. There is also wind and wave, geo-thermal and many more ways to generate electricity (power). That's diversification and that surely is easier to defend. I would suggest that relying on one power source is painting yourself into a corner and then drinking the paint.

profile53 3y ago
> I would suggest that relying on one power source is painting yourself into a corner and then drinking the paint. You’re aware that that is exactly what the GP poster was arguing against, right?
- kibwen 3y ago
  What "one power source" do you think they're arguing against? The person you're replying to has noted that renewables are diverse and abundant, while refuting the notion that coal is important to the US because of its abundance because it's less abundant than many other sources of energy.
  - gerdesj 3y ago
    Its like bloody whack a mole here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38945399 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38945399
- gerdesj 3y ago
  They seemed (to me, by omission) to really want to maintain the status quo. I understand a "back out plan" but it turns out that there are unfortunate side effects to burning fossils, so it isn't a really decent plan. Not once did GGP suggest an alternative. No one really wants to drink paint but in the immortal words of Mr F Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does".
  - fomine3 3y ago
    What I think is that solar will become the primary power source, so coal might be good for backup (for the US). GP didn't blamed solar.
    - gerdesj 3y ago
      Fair enough, but bear in mind that "solar" effectively created coal and oil! We don't need a backup as such - but the renewables need a bit more time. We have burned oil for millennia. Solar is only about 50 years old. I still drive a petrol (gas) powered car and even when I eventually get my eye wateringly expensive electric car, I might have range issues, despite living on a small island group off of Europe - the UK. However, that new car (with loads of plastics etc etc) will run on unicorn farts ... electricity. What generates that 'leccy is another matter too. You and I cannot change the world but we can at least point ourselves in the direction that we would like it to go. For me that would involve less fossil fuels.
  - profile53 3y ago
    I think the counter argument is that renewables are never going to replace coal/oil/gas completely as there will always be the boogey man of “what if there is no wind/sun”. Having a small amount of fossil fuel based capacity in reserve would make a huge difference politically and of the options, coal is probably the best for that. It is less environmentally damaging than maintaining fracking operations for oil/nat gas, extremely abundant in the U.S., and can be spun up or down on the order of hours so emissions can be kept minimal when plants are not needed.
    - 3y ago
novia 3y ago
I'm a big fan of solar and renewables, but at the same time, in the past there have been massive volcanic eruptions that have blocked out the sun for extended periods of time [1]. So in my mind, the post you were responding to makes a very good point. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tambora-1815-volcanic-eruption/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tambora-1815-volcanic-eruption/
- gerdesj 3y ago
  I mentioned a few other too and as you say - the clue is in the name - renewables. Coal isn't renewable. The Carboniferous period only gifted us only so much to play with. There have been some impressive sun blocks in the past but if, say, Yellowstone went off in a doomsday scenario, then we would not be worrying about electricity generation. It is far more likely that we (humanity as a whole) would be back in the stone age but with jolly refined language skills! If we have all the other renewables available we do stand some sort of a chance of keeping going, despite a cataclysm. I don't think that banking on coal n that is a good idea.
kelnos 3y ago
Technology-wise, isn't it a lot easier to build a coal plant than it is to build PV panels? Obviously this is not a problem right now, but imagine a disaster scenario where a good amount of high-tech industry is non-operational. Or even a geopolitical crisis where we lose access to enough of the raw materials or manufacturing capacity to make the panels. (Does the US even manufacture PV panels? Or are they mostly -- or even all -- built overseas?)
- gerdesj 3y ago
  Coal and oil are not renewable - they are finite. What do you do when they run out? If you disregard the environmental aspects of energy security, surely: banking on a non renewable, finite and diminishing resource is silly. We will probably not run out in my life time but I for one give a shit about my grand daughters's future quality of life. They will need 'leccy so they can sulk at the dinner table whilst doom scrolling on their phones (one is close). By the time they are old enough to get really pissy about the climate and granddad is a deposit for a mortgage, oil will probably have run out and coal will be distinctly brown coloured. Even the UK is dragging manufacture of stuff back in-house from abroad. Many of my customers make things here. I'm sure the US is doing the same.
Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]

bobthepanda 3y ago

Hawaii is located thousands of miles away from the US with no coal deposits. I suppose this wouldn't be the first time the mainland introduced onerous requirements onto its territories (see: Jones Act)

kelseyfrog 3y ago

Yes! And the same for chariot manufactures.

gniv 3y ago

Gas and oil are also abundant and they are less polluting. Hawaii mostly runs on oil. https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/clean-energy-hawaii/our-clean-energy-portfolio https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/clean-energy-hawaii/our-cle...