Norm Schultze Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Clean Coal" is a fantasy. Even assuming that a
> perfectly clean stack is practical (and that's a
> stretch) it is far from a complete picture.
>
> What's left are huge piles of ash. Full of heavy
> metals and other nasty components. Poer companies
> simply pile the stuff up and hope that disaster
> doesn't strike. But it does. A quick google search
> will lead you to the disasters of the TVA and Duke
> Power.
>
> Coal in its totality is a dirty fuel. There are
> better alternatives - solar, wind and gas.


Chugging on the "renewables" kool-aid I see.

Let's get back to basics - we have this thing called Base load generation, where the output of generation has to match the demand in real time. Wind and solar do not meet the criteria for base load generation. Coal, gas, nuclear, and hydropower are great for base load generation.

When demand tends to exceed base load output, we have this auxiliary generation called "peaking power". Peaking power has to be available at a moment's notice, so again, wind and solar do not meet the criteria for peaking power. Most peaking power generation if via natural gas combustion turbines (which are much less efficient than combined-cycle generation), and to a lesser extent generation from compression ignition engines (which are even less efficient than straight combustion turbines).

In order for wind and solar to be integrated into the base load/peaking power matrix, it must have the constant backup availability from conventional sources of generation. Most of this backup power comes from natural gas fired compression ignition generators, since those are the easiest to ramp up and down at a moment's notice (commiserate with the inconsistent nature of wind and solar generation).

So to recap, wind and solar end up being more polluting than conventional sources of generation due to the handicap of dependence on compression-ignition generation as it's primary backup source.