Consider, however, that many coal plants in the US are rather small and they are very old (we’re talking 50 or more years in age). If we can retire these small, old plants and replace them with large nuclear plants, that is a very good first step.

Next, we should consider the following: why should we build a large, new, “clean” coal plant when we can build a large, new, much cleaner nuclear plant?

Finally, I should point out that the US has more natural gas (nameplate) capacity than both coal and nuclear combined, and most of that is hardly used. Why build more natural gas plants?

Personally, I think that natural gas is a great resource for times when peaking power is needed, but that should be rare. Large, (relatively) efficient combined-cycle gas plants made sense when gas was cheap, but I doubt we’ll see those days again. (Certainly, we won’t unless NIMBY concerns about LNG terminals in the US are overcome.)

So, in short, I agree with your skepticism, but a better energy balance has to start somewhere. “Clean coal” is clearly nothing more than a marketing gimmick. I’m willing to accept “dirty” coal for now, because there is little alternative for the near future; however, I am not about to fall for the line that coal can be made “clean” and therefore is a preferred source of energy.

        Tsakanga said:

Considering the U.S. has a 200+ year supply of coal in the ground which is relatively cheap and easy to get out and to the power plants, I doubt we’ll see coal-fired plants vanish in the near future. Yeah, they’re not the cleanest but they’re there, and they work.

While there is a certain amount of truth in what you say, I don’t think that it is as cut and dried as that.

Certainly, none of the ‘renewable™’ solutions stand a chance of making a difference, and gas will have to serve in peaking into the foreseeable future, the replacement of coal is quite possible, if some reasonable changes are made.

First and foremost, a streamlined approval and licensing process must be put in place. The industry has matured beyond its beginnings sixty years ago, and much of what were unknowns at the time have been addressed, and most if not all of the safety protocols have been field proven. Along with this there are millions of reactor-hours of operational experience behind us. It’s time to turn the page.

Second, a standard, modular design must be selected such that each new powerplant doesn’t have to be engineered from the bottom up, and economies of scale and centralized production of components can be realized.

Thirdly, funding rules have to change such that a project doesn’t have to start servicing loans until it starts to produce power. Much of the massive cost overruns that the industry has suffered has been in interest as delays, mostly caused by endless trips to court to deal with antinuclear barratry and other legal harassment.

And lastly, the ’show cause’ bar has to be set higher before temporary injunctions are issued by courts in these matters, with a fixed window for public comment during the site approval process.

With these changes, and a moratorium on new coal plants, constriction of a 350 reactor fleet is more than possible.

The infrastructure cost to replace all fossil power plants would be huge to the point its beyond comprehension. Coal and natural gas account for about 70% of U.S. electric production. Nuclear with its 104 reactors makes up about 20%. To replace fossil fuels with nuclear (the most energy-dense source) would require ~350 more reactors. Increase that number by orders of magnitude if you want to go with the ‘green alternatives’ of wind or solar since they’re significantly more diffuse than nuclear and about a third as reliable.

The short of it is we need all the energy sources we can get. Coal’s not going anywhere. Nuclear’s here to stay. Natural Gas comes and goes due to its price volatility but will be around for those peak demand high price markets. Solar and Wind have their limited applications but for the most part are feel good eco-Band-Aids that fall short of supplying even a fraction of the nation’s energy needs despite the environmentalists’ claims to be the wave of the future and our salvation from fossil fuels (something I’ve heard about as long as I’ve been alive and still waiting for it to come true…). Might sound a little preachy, but that’s how I see the facts, not how I wish them to be.

…wait, nevermind.

        Andrew said:

That would serve as a carbon sink for at least a few hundred years.

Too little, to make a difference.

        DV82XL said:

First only some of the tree is used, second much of the cut wood goes for pulp and much of that is not recycled.

So the best thing to do would be to log it and then just sink the logs in cold lakes? We ought to log big areas of Canada, replant, and sink the logs in the lakes.

http://www.forest-reflections.com/history.htm

That would serve as a carbon sink for at least a few hundred years.

        Andrew said:

But I do wonder, wouldn’t logging (and replanting) actually result in a net decrease in CO2, assuming the logs are used for construction or something? It seems many assume logging results in all the CO2 in the trees being released, but isn’t the opposite the case?)

First only some of the tree is used, second much of the cut wood goes for pulp and much of that is not recycled.

        drbuzz0 said:

Yes, but a lot of realestate is needed. Also, one must be careful or the plants will only release it again when they decay.

Trees work okay, because they have a long enough lifetime that they can make a difference.

Stuff like grass often ends up just returning it to the atmosphere.

Plankton is good, if it ends up sinking and not decaying.

That’s why we need to clear cut lots of forests! Then we can make sure the wood doesn’t decay by building log cabins with the logs. Or a big wooden wall on our border with Mexico. Wooden roller coasters could also use lots of the wood!

(Just being a bit sarcastic. But I do wonder, wouldn’t logging (and replanting) actually result in a net decrease in CO2, assuming the logs are used for construction or something? It seems many assume logging results in all the CO2 in the trees being released, but isn’t the opposite the case?)

And lets not forget that many (most) of the big CO2 sources are also sources of all kinds of other nasty stuff!