Scientists Solve The Solar Energy Storage Problem

Raw solar energy is largely worthless for electricity generation, because the sun doesn’t shine much when you need the electricity most – night, winter, and cloudy days. Scientists have been perplexed about finding a way to store solar energy for later use.

But a new discovery has been made by geologists – a way to use stored solar energy for later electricity generation. And it is almost pollution free.

fig24

screenhunter_352-apr-22-07-54

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

129 Responses to Scientists Solve The Solar Energy Storage Problem

  1. Disillusioned says:

    What? No intentionally misleading, darkly silhouetted-against-bright-sky, two stops under-exposed photos of steam rising from the stacks?

  2. omanuel says:

    Yes, a vein of coal is of greater value than a vein of gold when you are cold!

  3. gator69 says:

    Andy M posted this yesterday, and it defines “malthusianism”. Not surprising as the presenter’s education was a whole two years of college, and not so much as an Associates Degree…

  4. darrylb says:

    Hey, I have been creating. solar energy storage units for a long time.
    I use the old-fashioned method: photosynthesis. Works like a charm and costs little.

    Of course, I have to be careful of what the EPA might do to me.

    • gator69 says:

      I just helped a neighbor harvest three cords of stored solar power about a week ago, enough to last him all Winter, and it only took two days.

      • rah says:

        I burned a good bit of stored solar power last night when we had a bonfire. Gotta use up some of that wood before it rots and so I’m having white man fires in my 6′ diameter fire ring this summer when I have the time to have some folks over to enjoy it.

      • It’s a little chilly, 30 °F and 95% humidity, unusual in arid Colorado but typical for the current upslope conditions. The sun will burn it off later today and it will warm up.

        My ex-girlfriend wanted to know if I have any plans to convert some of our stored solar chemical energy and excite the gas molecules in the house into higher vibrational modes. I paraphrased here. It seems she thought I’ve already done it and she was somewhat terse in her inquiry.

        • gator69 says:

          Females of the human species are responsible for the majority if global interior warming.

        • gator69 says:

          “of” (Cooking again)

        • I. Lou Minotti says:

          What is it with ex-girlfriends? They still like wood, especially when they’re not getting any.

        • gator69 says:

          Some like it hot!

        • rah says:

          “gator69 says:
          April 18, 2015 at 3:57 pm

          Females of the human species are responsible for the majority if global interior warming.’

          Ain’t that the sorry truth! My ex-fiance just doesn’t seem understand no matter how many times I explain it to her. Turning the Thermostat in the house way up will not make it warm faster! Set the damned thing at the temp you want it to be and leave it there. I have also explained what the “comfort zone” is to her several times and that concept also seems to elude her. Thus I probably save money during the winter by keeping my log rack stocked up and using the fireplace even if there is natural gas heated air going up the chimney.

          There are times during the winter I come out here to the computer, well away from the fireplace and crack the window next to me to keep from suffering heat prostration.

        • rah, I’ve observed the same thermostat misconception with my ex-fiancée. I tried to explain it several times over the years but I always recognized that distracted expression telling me I was not getting through because she already knew how it works.

          I believe she concluded that thermostats work similar to husbands. When a wife wants something done right away, she turns up the demand level higher than needed to get quicker results and it usually works.

          They also seem to understand the function’s behavior at the limits. I noticed she never turns the thermostat all the way up. That, too, is consistent with my hypothesis. Whenever in our 2 ½ decades she turned up the demand intensity all the way up, I retired to my man cave. She must have deduced that a thermostat turned all the way to the limit would shut down the heating for an uncertain period of time.

        • I. Lou Minotti says:

          Rah, surely you’ve heard the old saying, “if it’s got tits or tires, you’ve got trouble.”

        • gator69 says:

          I haven’t heard that before, but if it’s got tits, tires, or tracks, I can drive it.

        • I always admire a man’s can-do attitude but there may be limits. Check the quality of your cooking ingredients but go easy on them …



          “If you do not have a good wine to use, it is far better to omit it, for a poor one can spoil a simple dish and utterly debase a noble one.”

          by Julia Child

          Wine Selection:

          The first and most important rule: Use only wines in your cooking that you would drink. Never, never use any wine that you would not drink! If your do not like the taste of a wine, you will not like the dish you choose to use it in.

          Do not use the so-called cooking wines! These wines are typically salty and include other additives that my affect the taste of your chosen dish and menu. The process of cooking/reducing will bring out the worst in an inferior wine. Please promise yourself never, never to stoop to such a product! Linda’s rule of thumb is – I do not cook with something I will not drink.

          http://whatscookingamerica.net/WineInCooking.htm

        • gator69 says:

          Didn’t I explain that I do not waste perfecty good alcohol on cooking? You sound French. 😉

          My parents were wine connoisseurs, mainly due to living in Europe twice. I picked up on their tastes, and have discovered some amazing local wineries that I visit on ocassion for restocking. They often take Gold Medals in national tastings, and my parents always enjoyed me bringing down a case or two when I would visit. My mother still has me bring a case with me from a winery just north of my property whenever I visit her, and her friends rave over the quality. In fact, they make a German style apple wine that has pleased the palate of every person to whom I have served it, including those who are not usually fans of wine.

          BTW – Nice pic of your mother in law, apparently you got her good side.

        • Yes, you told us but I am skeptical. And oui, merci beaucoup, vous paysan provinciale, I’ve been working on my metropolitan sound:

          BTW: That’s not my mother-in-law’s picture; she’s of slighter build and my wife inherited only the best features. 🙂

          On the subject of wine and good neighborhoods, one of these days I’d like to know more. Boulder’s been going postal coastal on me for a long time and I don’t expect it to reverse.

        • gator69 says:

          If I had not already settled here, I would be looking at Oklahoma, Wyoming, or Montana.

        • Yes, those are on my short list.

        • gator69 says:

          As a matter of full disclosure, I had dual citizenship until I signed up for Selective Service when I turned 18. Care to guess what the other country was?

        • Don’t have to guess. You came out of the French closet a while back. 🙂

        • I. Lou Minotti says:

          Is her name Alexis, as in “I’m driving a Lexus?”

        • darrylb says:

          Well, I can say started an interesting sub-thread.
          Drive on Gator! 🙂

  5. Aphan says:

    I realize that correlation is not causation, but perhaps leaving them cold (even with plenty of wood)has something to do with the “ex” part? *grin*

    • rah says:

      Na! She keeps hanging around for some reason. She’s just not my fiance anymore. In fact come Sept. 3rd she’ll have been with me for 32 years. No matter how hard I try sometimes I just can’t seem to make her leave. I think it’s because she likes my body heat on cold winter nights. I also serve certain other functions for her too. In fact she just found a new one the last couple of days. The dog has a virus and has diarrhea for the last couple of days. She can’t hardly go more than two hours without asking to go out in the most urgent manner. And so for the last two nights I’ve been popping out of bed to get her out before I have a mess to clean up. I have had the training for waking up and moving with alacrity at a moments notice and she hasn’t. So she’s well rested and I’m, well…….. sitting here typing on this computer when I should be working on putting in the piers for my new shed.

      • Disillusioned says:

        Waking up at 3 am to let the dog out is impressive. Doing it with “alacrity” is remarkable. (I hope your pup gets better quickly.)

        • rah says:

          Thanks! There is no reason to get pissed about it. It has to be done and the consequences of not doing it are far worse. So though I would say I’m not really cheerful about it, I certainly don’t resent having to do it.

          After two days having her on a bland diet of boiled hamburger and white rice she wasn’t showing improvement. Also a little blood was showing up in her stool. So I called the vet this morning and took her in. She is up to date on her shots and shows no lethargy and in fact is still playful. And she isn’t vomiting so I figured it wasn’t Parvo. But if you can’t get that kind of thing under control by the third day it’s time to get with a pro.

          Doc diagnosed it as a virus and put her on flagl. Also fortiflora to try and get the normal bacteria of the gut back up and prednisone for her bowel and rectal inflammation. We continue the bland diet of boiled ground beef and rice. Hopefully this will get her fit again.

          Oh, BTW the doc told me he has only lost 2 dogs in the last two years to Parvo. Says that if the owner hasn’t given them pedialite or gatoraide or any other of that type of thing that has a sugar substitute in it and they aren’t fatally septic by the time he gets them, he can save them with antibiotics and subcutaneous injections of normal saline. Needless to say I think I have a pretty darn good vet.

        • Disillusioned says:

          I’m with you – I wouldn’t be thrilled about it, but I would gladly get up to avoid messy problems later in the morning. I just got a chuckle with the adjective “alactrity” in your description.

          It is good you have a good vet. Garsh, the best are prohibitively expensive these days, although I found shopping around, that prices vary a bunch in my area.

        • Disillusioned says:

          LOL, Okay, alacrity is a noun. Very descriptive, yes. But not an adjective.

        • I’m known for some English language innovations myself but I’ve only seen rah using ‘alacrity’ as a noun (I’m working off a tiny mobile screen here).

        • Yeah, I only see that one use in your earlier post, as a noun. No adjective use anywhere. This is some kind of mixup.

        • And there I used the noun “adjective” as an adjective, if I’m not mistaken.

        • rah says:

          BTW concerning the pup. She’s doing great. Our little Geisha the Cocker had that serious puppy flu going around that killed a quite a few pups. Not in the respiratory system, but in the gut. For two nights I would get up at her prompting to go outside every hour or two to see her produce a little watery diarrhea. We immediately put her on a bland diet of boiled hamburger and white rice. She would eat and still had some play left in her but she was still lethargic compared to her usual self.

          On the third day we took her to the vet. He put her on flagyl, prednizone, and FortiFlora and told us to keep her on the bland diet.
          That night the diarrhea was gone but she didn’t poop for almost two days and we started worrying again. Finally she had a more or less regular bowel movement and she is obviously better now. She is being wheened off the Predinzone but will stay on the Flagyl for another week. She LOVES the FortiFlora.

          The virus is not what kills them. The virus throws off the growth of normal bacteria and allows damaging bacteria to proliferate. The damaging bacteria attack the walls of the intestines and stomach. Eventually it transmits into the blood stream and and they die of septicemia.

          The bland diet denies the bad bacteria the sugars they need to proliferate. The fat is boiled out of the meat so it’s more or less pure protein which is not much use for the bacteria. The rice, though a carbohydrate, digests very slowly in the small intestine so the sugars the body converts it to only show up in the lower portion of the small intestines.

          Flagyl goes after the bacteria. The FortiFlora enhances the growth of normal bacteria. The FortiFlora comes in a powder that you just sprinkle on their food. It can be used all the time to promote a healthy digestive tract. Geisha is now back on her regular dog food but once my ex-fiance forgot to put the FortiFlora on it and the pup just looked at her food and then looked back up at her. She got the message. That dog loves the flavor of that stuff.

  6. SMS says:

    The US is the “Saudia Arabia” of coal. We will not be running out soon. And when the recovery cost for deeper coal starts to get too expensive, we will turn to nuclear.

    Where we are as a civilization is a result of the energy we use. The more energy we use (efficiently), the better our lives. If we want the lives of those living in third world countries to be better, we need to find ways for them to have greater access to energy.

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IDN6GC5umKRIYBkHazM5yOxP15iC2w8FhS9we7zD-j0/embed?hl=en&size=m#slide=id.p4

    Those who think our lives would be better by living in caves and trees will be responsible for the greatest human mass murder committed since Mao Tse Tung and Stalin were forcing their misguided beliefs on a compliant population. The radical environmentalists are no better than Mao Tse Tung and Stalin and if given more control, will be responsible for mass murder.

  7. Yes. As the professor says:

    ”If people keep choosing means that seem unsuited to their ends, consider that you might not understand their ends.”

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/205247

    He commented on this article in The American Prospect:

    What’s Wrong with Fossil Fuel Divestment

    Never underestimate the environmental movement’s ability to squander its resources. Today’s fossil fuel divestment campaign is the latest example of fecklessness, and yet another demonstration—as if we needed one—that greens don’t understand the problems they’re trying to fix.

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/04/16/whats-wrong-with-fossil-fuel-divestment

  8. markstoval says:

    The day will come sometime in the future, far future most likely, when men and women will look back at this James Hansen inspired fear of CO2 and shake their heads in wonder that anyone could believe that more CO2 would lead to the earth getting too warm. It is lunacy. Much like the Tulip Bubble it will be taught in schools and sage teachers will observe that humans periodically go f’ing nuts.

  9. Chris Barron says:

    Woke up this morning
    couldn’t catch my breath
    black lung and silicosis
    next up, the coalminer’s death.

    I got the blacks……the bituminous coal industry workers blacks…….with at least a 5 times higher death rate by accident at work than the rest of the population, remember me when you look at those stacks

    John Le Mucker

    • Chris Barron says:

      You know that when an industry has a disease named for it that it’s not a great occupation if you, if you fancy living a long time

      Coalminer’s pneumoconiosis http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/surveillance/ords/CoalMiningRelatedRespiratoryDiseases.html

      • gator69 says:

        Right here, today, in 21st century Britain, many thousands of people die prematurely each year simply because they can’t afford to keep their homes warm.

        According to recent data, over 5 million British households currently suffer ‘fuel poverty’ – and with steeply rising energy prices, this number is likely to increase.

        https://www.ebico.org.uk/fuel-poverty

        How many black lung deaths in the UK last year VI?

        The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors. And not being able to heat your home also takes a huge toll on health in general: those in fuel poverty have higher incidences of asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney disease and mental health problems.

        http://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/2014/sep/11/fuel-poverty-scandal-winter-deaths

        • Chris Barron says:

          Between 1968 and 2007, 75,000 miners nationwide died of black lung, a preventable disease resulting from exposure to coal dust.

          It’s irreversible, debilitating and very often fatal.

          This must be the new ‘clean coal’

          26,632 Americans died of black lung in the period 2000 to 2010

          What is the cost of compensation to the victim’s families ? Is it a tax break or a real subsidy ?

          East Kentucky black lung incidences are appalling http://archive.courier-journal.com/cjextra/blacklung/index.html

        • gator69 says:

          Pay attention Dumb Dumb!

          Read again, and answer the question…

          Right here, today, in 21st century Britain, many thousands of people die prematurely each year simply because they can’t afford to keep their homes warm.

          According to recent data, over 5 million British households currently suffer ‘fuel poverty’ – and with steeply rising energy prices, this number is likely to increase.

          https://www.ebico.org.uk/fuel-poverty

          How many black lung deaths in the UK last year VI?

          The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors. And not being able to heat your home also takes a huge toll on health in general: those in fuel poverty have higher incidences of asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney disease and mental health problems.

          http://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/2014/sep/11/fuel-poverty-scandal-winter-deaths

        • Chris Barron says:

          Gator, you quote EBICO.ORG

          They just happen to be award winning renewable energy project providers.

          Did you check that out first ? They are caring about fuel poverty and they totally support renewable energy…but why shouldn’t they…they aren’t extremists or alarmists who are not hooked on poorly researched newspaper headlines

          Gators, preferred source of information is an award winning renewable project supporter and for that I salute Gator !
          https://www.ebico.org.uk/blog/?s=renewable

        • gator69 says:

          Dismissed.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Gator’s source of data , EBICO.ORG, can help you get your wind turbine or solar project off the ground by offering professional advice

          https://www.ebico.org.uk/blog/2012/03/08/community-renewable-energy/

        • gator69 says:

          Dismissed.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I missed your reply before Chris..

          If you have a 100MW wind farm, what amount of power can you guarantee to provide 95% of the time ?

        • gator69 says:

          Chris pleads the fifth! 😆

        • AndyG55 says:

          UK wind currently installed approx. 12GW..

          currently supplying about 1.2GW. 10%

          Come on Cwuss.. what percentage can you absolutely guarantee to supply 95% of the time.?

          1%, 2% capacity factor ? Or am I being too generous.?

        • gator69 says:

          The Village Idiot pleads the fifith. Again, and again, and again…

          Or maybe his toes cramped up from all the earlier typing.

        • AndyG55 says:

          I think what we will see when the subsidies run out and when the stupidity of CO2 demonisation abates, is that electricity will go to a contract situation, whereby the wholesalers pay for tender of ASSURED delivery to meet base load requirements, anything above the normal base-load pay on an “as-required” basis.

          That will be the demise of wind energy. It cannot ever guarantee to meet basic supply contracts, no matter how low that contract is set.

    • gator69 says:

      Fuel Poverty

      Clear skies wake us
      the boldness of night
      probing for weakness
      as frost scuttles south
      claiming empires
      of fingers and toes

      We drink tea
      Luke warmed
      over a candle

      How many in the box?

      And wonder if wind barrons
      will someday
      sleep in their clothes.

      http://deepundergroundpoetry.com/poems/31170-fuel-poverty/

      Right here, today, in 21st century Britain, many thousands of people die prematurely each year simply because they can’t afford to keep their homes warm.

      According to recent data, over 5 million British households currently suffer ‘fuel poverty’ – and with steeply rising energy prices, this number is likely to increase.

      https://www.ebico.org.uk/fuel-poverty

      How many black lung deaths in the UK last year VI?

      The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors. And not being able to heat your home also takes a huge toll on health in general: those in fuel poverty have higher incidences of asthma, bronchitis, heart and lung disease, kidney disease and mental health problems.

      http://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/2014/sep/11/fuel-poverty-scandal-winter-deaths

      Are black lung deaths any where near this? Are they rising @ 30% per year?

      I know math is hard for you, so ask Andy for help. 😆

      • Chris Barron says:

        As I’ve already shown, fuel poverty is term used to described households who have to spend more than 10% of their income keeping warm.

        As I have also shown too, the largest cause of inadequate constant temperatures is heat loss through poor insulation and low quality building methods….broken windows and so on.

        There is no point people being able to pay to heat their homes when they lose 60% of their heat to the outside….they will just end up further in financial poverty. The solution being employed is free insulation to all households claiming welfare and for the elderly and the most vulnerable there are substantial winter fuel bonus payments ….all at the taxpayers expense.

        The key drivers behind fuel poverty are:

        The energy efficiency of the property (and therefore, the energy required to heat and power the home)
        The cost of energy
        Household income

        The largest reason for fuel poverty is low efficiency. By tackling efficiency and increasing income the impacts of the increased cost of fuel are reduced.

        • gator69 says:

          So once again, you evade the question, because you know I am right.

          You can type with your toes! Amazing! 😆

      • Chris Barron says:

        In 2012, the number of households in fuel poverty in England was estimated at
        around 2.28 million, representing approximately 10.4 per cent of all English
        households. This is a fall from 2.39 million households in 2011 (a reduction of
        almost 5%). In line with this, the aggregate fuel poverty gap (in real terms) also
        dropped by around five per cent, from £1.06 billion in 2011 to £1.01 billion in 2012,
        as did the average fuel poverty gap over this period, from £445 to £443.
        • Due to the relative nature of the LIHC measure, it is difficult to accurately isolate
        absolute reasons for changes. However, in summary, changes in income, fuel
        costs and energy efficiency levels amongst fuel poor households are broadly
        consistent with the changes seen for the population as a whole. Hence the overall
        change in the number of households in fuel poverty was relatively small – with the
        reduction happening mainly due to income increases for higher income fuel poor
        households.
        • The reduction in the number of fuel poor households, coupled with the
        improvements to incomes and energy efficiency levels for households have
        reduced the aggregate and average fuel poverty gap.
        • All fuel poor households came from the bottom four income decile groups. In
        2012, 41 per cent of all households in the lowest income decile group were fuel
        poor, as were 36 per cent of all households in the second income decile group
        and 13 per cent of all households in the third and fourth combined income decile
        groups.
        • The depth and likelihood of being fuel poor increases markedly with lower SAP
        scores. In 2012, 35 per cent of households living in G rated properties were fuel
        poor compared to only two and seven per cent living in A/B/C and D rated
        properties respectively.
        • The West Midlands followed by the East Midlands had the highest rate of fuel
        poverty (with fuel poverty rates of 15% and 13% respectively). Households living
        in the South East and East have the lowest levels of fuel poverty (at 8% and 9%
        respectively).

  10. Chris Barron says:

    From Gators preferred site EBICO.ORG, their guest author demonstrates the positive effects wind power has on the retail price of electricity
    http://static1.squarespace.com/static/545e40d0e4b054a6f8622bc9/t/54cb6175e4b0ff3172d9e672/1422614904678/?format=750w

  11. gator69 says:

    Chris has once again demonstrated he cannot answer my simple question, just as he did yesterday, because he is dishonest.

    Big surprise! 😆

    • Chris Barron says:

      Not answering a stupid question is not dishonest….it’s just not a waste of time but, if you insist.

      You asked me how many black lung deaths there were in a year in the UK. You asked me this question in an attempt to play off the number of deaths estimated to take place as a result of fuel poverty, of which only one of the causes is the cost of electricity….as a way to attempt to create an argument which says subsidies paid to renewable projects have increased the price of electricity so much that all the people who died have done so as a result of those price rises. And then we need to look at the number of deaths from black lung of all the miners who dug coal for us to use in the UK

      [Have you seen any dishonesty yet ?]

      In order to make this an honest comparison Gator, if honesty is your only concern, we need to establish if all of the deaths due to fuel poverty are as a result of high gas, electricity and solid fuel prices.

      [not dishonest]

      Fuel poverty is a term which is applied when a household has to spend more then 10% of it’s income on heating. The main source of heating in most houses comes from gas and gas prices are consistently volatile over years. This makes it difficult to say if the fuel poverty came as a direct result of the subsidy or as a result of the raw fuel cost increase

      [completely true]

      How many people die as a result of fuel subsidies ? Is it all of the figure quoted by you Gator relating to all fuel poverty deaths ? if so then that would imply that if there were no subsidies paid to wind then there would be no fuel poverty deaths. To assert your point in such a way is in itself dishonest. The reason it is dishonest is because you did not establish how many deaths occurred due to fuel poverty before wind subsidies were established. The reality is that if there were no subsidies there would continue to be many deaths

      [Absolutely true]

      The three main causes of fuel poverty are low efficiency buildings, energy cost, and income. Wind subsidies can only affect one of these three causes.

      [True]

      This proves that to maintain that all of the deaths caused by fuel poverty are caused by wind subsidies, is dishonest.

      [Still no dishonesty]

      Turning to black lung deaths and how many occur as a result of coal consumption in the UK. The 300 or so deaths by black lung last year in the UK represents merely 15% of the coal consumed . Of the 60 million tonnes consumed, 50 million were imported.

      [Still no dishonesty]

      Half of all of the coal consumed,, 30 million tonnes. came from Russia. Official figures for the number of black lung deaths in Russia are difficult to find, but due to the established knowledge that health and safety standards and working practices are generally lower in Russia than in the USA for example, it is fair to assume that death rates from black lung in Russia , per worker, exceed that of the USA and most other countries

      [nothing dishonest]

      Finally, to draw comparisons in order to satisfy Gator’s argument….we need to know how many British and foreign coal miners died producing the 15% and 85% of coal consumed (respectively)….and then consider the number of fuel poverty deaths which might have happened as a result of the small addition of wind subsidies to the cost of electricity, when electricity is used for heating in fewer than 8% of British households, while at the same time eliminating all of the inefficient buildings and low income families from the equation, because Gator’s argument is aimed at wind subsidy application.

      [True]

      So Gator, do you now still have confidence that wind subsidies kill more people in the UK than black lung kills the miners of our coal ? Be honest.

      • gator69 says:

        Finally!

        300 vs 31,0000

        Less than one percent of fuel poverty deaths, and black lung deaths are decreasing while fuel poverty deaths are increasing due to renewable fascists like the Village idiot.

        So that is why you didn’t want to answer! 😆

  12. Acres of Statuary says:

    Back to the subject of the picture at the top: Here’s another nightmare for the carbon-phobes:

    http://321energy.com/editorials/mckenziebrown/mckenziebrown102808.html

    An estimated 450 billion barrels of oil equivalent in bitumen carbonate deposits in Alberta. This stuff is basically sedimentary rocks saturated with very heavy oil. It’s not economically viable now but after some technology development and increased prices it could well be.

  13. Chris Barron says:

    Obama keeping the cost of coal down by keeping the death rate up

    US stalls on new coal dust rules as black lung disease spreads
    By Clement Daly
    9 January 2014
    As new coal dust regulations drafted by the Mine Health and Safety Administration (MSHA) await final approval by the Obama administration, black lung disease continues to take its toll on the nation’s miners. The Obama administration was supposed to sign the new standards last year, but has not done so and no explanation has been given. While official numbers are not yet available, hundreds of miners will have died from black lung over the past year alone.
    The new rules will cut the legal limit of coal dust exposure in half to 1 milligram per cubic meter, standards which were first advocated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) back in 1995 after health officials noticed a resurgence of black lung after decades of decline.

  14. Chris Barron says:

    Gator quoted
    “The social cost of fuel poverty is massive, and growing. In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors.”

    30 -50% of 31,000 equates to roughly 10000 to 15000 [true]

    8% of homes use electricity for heating. [True]

    8% 0f the above deaths equates to 800 to 1200 deaths (households heated by electricity) [True]

    The three causes of fuel poverty are low efficiency buildings, energy cost and low income [True]

    Of the 800 to 1200 deaths from fuel poverty in houses heated by electricity, many were as a result of low efficiency of insulation, and many were as a result of low income. [True}

    Being mightily generous, if 50% of deaths were as a result of energy price, the number is cut to 400-600 [True]

    Remove from this category the number of deaths which would have happened naturally anyway.
    Remove from this category the number deaths which occured as a result of the non-subsidy cost rise of electricity.
    Remove from this category the number who would still be a victim of electricity prices even if there were no small wind subsidy.

    The number you will be left with is less than the number of deaths by black lung in the UK alone, which, when you consider is a reflection of just 15% of all coal consumed,….coal is killing more people than wind subsidies.

    We have the answer now Gator….in pure terms of lives lost, coal kills more poeple than wind subsidies (using figures provided by Gator)

    • AndyG55 says:

      Very obviously the UK should be installing insulation at zero cost, rather than wasting the money on useless wind farms.

      Oh and still waiting for an answer…..

      If you have a 100MW wind farm, what amount of power can you GUARANTEE to provide 95% of the time ?

      • Chris Barron says:

        “Very obviously the UK should be installing insulation at zero cost, rather than wasting the money on useless wind farms.”

        Very obviously ?

        Check your facts, we already do.

        Familles on welfare/child benefit/income support or working families tax credit qualify for free wall insulation, loft insulation and contributions towards replacement double glazing of any single glazed property.

        “If you have a 100MW wind farm, what amount of power can you GUARANTEE to provide 95% of the time ?”

        Obviously nothing like a coal fired station. I had already answered that many times. The point you don’t want to accept is that as wind installations increase in number then the combined guaranteed dispatchable amount increases proportionally too, based on the distribution of variable wind.presence.

        Gator has already provided links to a not for profit energy company’s website which promotes the use of wind as a non-cost solution…it might be worth your while reading that which Gator promotes

        • … as wind installations increase in number …

          I keep telling people that more of them have to be built to make work.



        • AndyG55 says:

          “If you have a 100MW wind farm, what amount of power can you GUARANTEE to provide 95% of the time ?”

          1 % of nameplate capacity, 2% ????

          Be brave, Give me a number, and stop running around like the headless chicken you seem to be.

          Wind cannot guarantee supply.. you know that.

          #5,, keep digging, little boy !!

        • Chris Barron says:

          ““If you have a 100MW wind farm, what amount of power can you GUARANTEE to provide 95% of the time ?”

          1 % of nameplate capacity, 2% ????

          Be brave, Give me a number, and stop running around like the headless chicken you seem to be.

          Wind cannot guarantee supply.. you know that.”

          I don’t recall denying it…that part is all in your head

    • gator69 says:

      You need not continue waving your feet, we know you are dishonest already. 😆

      300 vs 31,0000

      Less than one percent of fuel poverty deaths, and black lung deaths are decreasing while fuel poverty deaths are increasing due to renewable fascists like the Village idiot.

      And we can assume an aditional 6000+ for the next year, putting us close to 40,000 deaths per year soon, whereas black lung deaths are on the decrease and will be history.

      Are black lung disease claims limited to coal miners?
      Black lung disease claims are not limited to coal miners. If your occupation involves: grinding of mineral carbon or graphite; even working with carbon electrodes – you might also suffer a similar carbon based anthracosis lung disease.

      So that is why you didn’t want to answer! 😆

      • Chris Barron says:

        Don’t yoiu read your own quotes Gator ?

        “In the winter of 2012/13, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England and Wales, a rise of 29% on the previous year. Around 30-50% of these deaths can be linked to being cold indoors.””

        there were 31000 extra winter deaths
        Around 30-50% of these can be linked to cold indoors

        What is 30-50% of 31000 ?

        • gator69 says:

          Still more than 300, and you are counting deaths that did not come from coal production. Black lung deaths are declining, as fuel poverty deaths increase.

          And even with all the facts, you still advocate more deaths via your precious windmills.

          Still picking pockets and leaving youir neighbors to freeze.

          Dismissed!

      • Chris Barron says:

        “300 vs 31,0000”

        You don’t include the deaths of Russian miners at all…..I guess because you are a cold war remnant and consider Russian lives to be unworthy of consideration.

        • gator69 says:

          The discussion was on UK fatalities Dumb Dumb.

          Dismissed!

        • Chris Barron says:

          Not at all…you assumed that it should be that way, you assumed we dig up all our own coal. You were sly, you know it and I know it

        • gator69 says:

          Nobody forces men to dig coal. Fuel poverty deaths are people who are executed, and do not volunteer.

          How many is acceptable for you Chris? Would you like to choose the sacrificial lambs for your agenda?

          Dismissed!

        • Chris Barron says:

          What is 30-50% of 31000 ?

        • gator69 says:

          Still cannot do math? 😆

          How many is acceptable for you Chris? Would you like to choose the sacrificial lambs for your agenda?

          Dismissed!

        • Chris Barron says:

          Fuel poverty deaths are execution ?
          Nobody forces people to dig coal ?

          If a miner doesn’t work he might end up in fuel poverty or do you have a plan to stop non working miners from becoming poor ?

          [Quote[
          The bulk of all deaths from CWP are in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia, with Pennsylvania accounting for most of them. Of the men in the Big Branch disaster, 17 of 24 had some form of the disease, including men as young as 25. Five of the men found to have CWP in those autopsies had been involved in mining for less than 10 years
          [Unquote]

          Through the necessity of having to earn a living to support their families miners are executed slowly.

          But Gator thinks that there is a job for everyone who does not want to go down a mine…..well , where are all those jobs ? Without miners there is no coal

        • gator69 says:

          So your country can afford to build windmils, but not take care of the poor?

          Some people decide to be firemen to feed their families. Should we stop them?

          And again, we are discussing the UK, focus Dumb Dumb. 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Like I say, if you can guarantee that nobody will die of fuel poverty if wind subsidies are ended I will be for the removal of wind subsidies.

          By the same token, will you demand we no longer use coal due to the horrendous deaths miners have to suffer…..or maybe you would like to say how many sacrificial lamb miners is an acceptable number ?

        • gator69 says:

          My father died from lung cancer caused by agent orange exposure in Viet Nam. He had no regrets. He knew, just like every other member of my family who has volunteered for service, that there is a risk of death. Coal miners are not as a rule stupid. Neither are fire fighters.

          Those that die because people like you demand government mandates, did not volunteer.

          Don’t talk to me about suffering. I watched my own father wither away for years, and I was by his side when he died.

          Dismissed.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “Those that die because people like you demand government mandates,”

          Imaginatives like you only imagine that I demand government mandates in order to satisfy your skewed thoughts

          I have never ever demanded a government subsidy for wind…or anything else for that matter

          I have also never demanded that miners be sent to dig for coal, but understand that they must do it or they fail to thrive. I used to live in Yorkshire, coal mining country and can talk about many suicides as a result of mine closures by men who lost all hope and could not support their family due to them finding it impossible to find alternative work.

          As a result of lost income, some people died of fuel poverty then, in the days before wind subsidies were even thought of.

          If you can tell me how many people die of wind subsidies I will ask the government to stop giving them out. I doubt you would do the same for coal miners but this isn’t a game, I’m being real.

          Give me the number of deaths caused by wind subsidies for inclusion into my letter to government

        • gator69 says:

          Once again, Dumb Dumb does not know the difference between voluntary sacrifice and involuntary sacrifice.

          My father died from lung cancer caused by agent orange exposure in Viet Nam. He had no regrets. He knew, just like every other member of my family who has volunteered for service, that there is a risk of death. Coal miners are not as a rule stupid. Neither are fire fighters.

          Those that die because of people like you, who advocate government mandates, did not volunteer.

          Dismissed.

      • Chris Barron says:

        “And we can assume an additional 6000+ for the next year, putting us close to 40,000 deaths per year soon, ”

        How many of those have you attributed to a small increase in the retail price of electricity ?

        How many are as a result of a drop in income ?

        How many are as a result of a low efficiency buildings ?

        How does this figure compare to the number fuel poverty deaths on other countries ? – have you noticed that fuel poverty does not officially exist in the USA, because the government are scared to measure this metric ?

        If there is no wind subsidy are there no fuel poverty deaths ?

        • gator69 says:

          How many is acceptable for you Chris? Would you like to choose the sacrificial lambs for your agenda?

          Dismissed!

        • Chris Barron says:

          If you can guarantee that if wind subsidies came to an end then nobody will die of fuel poverty I will support full removal of wind subsidies. I can’t say any fairer than that

        • gator69 says:

          False logic.

          What we do know, is that government mandates for windmills causes more deaths, and they are not volunteers, but innocent victims. Of you.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “What we do know, is that government mandates for windmills causes more deaths, and they are not volunteers, but innocent victims. Of you.”

          You have yet to produce a number representative of the number of deaths as a result of wind subsidies.

          In your own time

        • gator69 says:

          You give me a number you can live with killer. What is it? How many?

          My father died from lung cancer caused by agent orange exposure in Viet Nam. He had no regrets. He knew, just like every other member of my family who has volunteered for service, that there is a risk of death. Coal miners are not as a rule stupid. Neither are fire fighters.

          Those that die because people like you demand government mandates, did not volunteer.

          Don’t talk to me about suffering. I watched my own father wither away for years, and I was by his side when he died.

          Dismissed.

        • Chris Barron says:

          “You give me a number you can live with killer. What is it? How many?”

          As soon as you give me the actual number I won’t need to guess.

          You say you know the number of people being killed by wind subsidies, how many is it ?

          I have never supported subsidies but I have never be active to get them stopped. Once you tell me how many died i will be active about getting them stopped.

          you understand why i need a number don’t you, there needs to be proof

        • gator69 says:

          Chris is avoiding the fact that his advocacy is leading to additional deaths, from people who do not volunteer to make a sacrifice.

          Let’s say it is one Chris.

          Would you still advocate an unreliable and costly energy source for one murder?

          Whether you kill one innocent, or one million, you are still a killer.

  15. Chris Barron says:

    Quote from a money saving expert site in the UK copied in below.

    “Free stuff – we’re talking £1,000s’ worth – is a sexier phrase than “Energy Company Obligations (ECO) scheme” but they’re the same thing. Many big energy providers are giving away boilers, plus loft and cavity wall insulation, to people who get tax credits and have an income of £16,010 or less, or are receiving certain benefits such as pension credit.

    But British Gas is giving away free loft and cavity wall insulation to anyone with a suitable home – you don’t need to meet the benefit criteria. In addition, there’s the Green Deal Home Improvement Fund.

    It offers up to £1,850 cashback towards energy saving measures such as floor insulation, double or secondary glazing, fan-assisted storage heaters and more. “

    • AndyG55 says:

      Good to see they are doing something sensible.

      Wasting more on useless wind turdines that can’t be guaranteed to supply more than a tiny fraction of their nameplate, maybe, if they are lucky , now that sure is pretty darn stupid.

      What was that guaranteed percentage again…… you mentioned you had told us.

      I can’t seem to find it anywhere. 😉

      And just in case you have forgotten the question..

      “If you have a 100MW wind farm, what amount of power can you GUARANTEE to provide 95% of the time ?”

      • AndyG55 says:

        Days like 8/4 2015 are NOT a good advertisement for wind power..

        at 2:05 ZERO out of a total nameplate of around 12GW… that’s , let me see.. oh.. ZERO % !!!

        Wonderful reliability!.

        Although I doubt too many birds or bats died from chopping an exploding that day. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          Tell you what Cwuss, seeing you think more wind is better…

          What percentage can you absolutely GUARANTEE for 95% of the time from the whole UK wind network ???

          Give me a simple basic number. Can you guarantee 1%?, 2%?

        • AndyG55 says:

          meant to type..

          What percentage “of nameplate” can you absolutely GUARANTEE for 95% of the time from the whole UK wind network ???

      • Chris Barron says:

        I guarantee much more than thorium…cheaper than nuclear…causing fewer deaths than coal

        • AndyG55 says:

          You can’t guarantee any of those, because you can’t or won’t say how much you can guarantee to deliver.

          Wind energy CANNOT DELIVER.. you know that, but you still squirm like the little worm that you are.
          For the tiny , tiny amount that you might be able to guarantee, wind will be massively more polluting, costly and deadly to all forms of life, per MW of guaranteed electricity production.

          Answer the question…. you gutless wonder.

          We might just hear you from the bottom of that hole you are in.

        • Chris Barron says:

          I CAN guarantee it

          I CAN guarantee that wind, installed at it’s current capacity, can always produce more than the installed thorium generation….because it already does

          I CAN guarantee that wind is cheaper than nuclear, once you add in the decommissioning cost of at least £50 per MWh of electricity produced, to the total cost of nuclear

          I CAN guarantee that the number of deaths in the wind industry is less than the number of coal mining related deaths….at current death rates I actually doubt that we can install enough wind to compete with coal in fact….when compared per unit of electricity.

        • Chris Barron says:

          First Andy says a figure cannot be guaranteed….then says “For the tiny , tiny amount that you might be able to guarantee,”

          You see Andy…it can be guaranteed and you know it

        • AndyG55 says:

          And of course you convenient forget/ignore the copious amounts of coal and other fossil fuels that go into making those useless, destructive, highly unreliable wind turbines.

          No you CANNOT guarantee anything, except your empty cowardly rhetoric.

          Stop sliming around in the ooze at the bottom of your pit. and answer the question.. !!

          Put a number to the UNRELIABILITY of wind turbines.

          What percentage of nameplate capacity can you guarantee to deliver 95% of the time.

  16. Tab Numlock says:

    Odumbo is shutting down coal which means the NatGas bonanza is going to be squandered on electricity. That’s if and when the EPA allows new plants to be built.

    • Gail Combs says:

      No Natural Gas also emits CO2. Obama has point blank stated his goals:

      The White House
      Office of the Press Secretary
      November 25, 2009

      President to Attend Copenhagen Climate Talks

      Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen

      …The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030….
      https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-attend-copenhagen-climate-talks

      And just in case you think he has backed off since that 2009 press release here is a recent press release.

      The White House
      Office of the Press Secretary
      November 11, 2014

      FACT SHEET: U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation
      President Obama Announces Ambitious 2025 Target to Cut U.S. Climate Pollution by 26-28 Percent from 2005 Levels

      …The new U.S. goal will double the pace of carbon pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025. This ambitious target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost-effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the right trajectory to achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050

      The Administration’s steady efforts to reduce emissions will deliver ever-larger carbon pollution reductions, public health improvements and consumer savings over time and provide a firm foundation to meet the new U.S. target.

      The United States will submit its 2025 target to the Framework Convention on Climate Change as an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” no later than the first quarter of 2015.

      The joint announcement marks the first time China has agreed to peak its CO2 emissions. ….

      What does reducing CO2 by 83% actually mean?
      The average for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. http://www.nuicc.info/?page_id=1467
      (Total population: 246,081,000)
      The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu. http://www.bu.edu/pardee/files/2010/11/12-PP-Nov2010.pdf
      (Total population: 5,308,483. 2% of the current US population.)
      If the USA reduces its energy consumption by 83% it equals 57 million Btu.

      Farmers made up about 90% of labor force  in 1790. About 250-300 labor-hours were required to produce 100 bushels of wheat from 5 acres with a walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail in 1830. (1987 – 2-3/4 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels but that takes lots of oil.)

      1810-30 saw the transfer of “manufacturing” from the farm and home to the shop and factory. It wasn’t until the 1840′s that we saw factory made farm machinery, labor saving devices and chemical fertilizers. It was in the 1860′s that kerosene lamps became popular. Also up until the 1850′s dung and wood were the major source of energy. dieoff(DOT)org/page199_files/image002.gif

      In other words for the USA to use HALF the energy per person that was used in 1800 we must abandon ALL factories and 90% of the population must return to subsistence farming using animals.

      HOWEVER we are now soft city folks without the skills to life an 1800’s lifestyle so what does that energy reduction really mean?

      Wiping out the electrical grid ( will KILL 90% of the US Population according to this report. Yet this is EXACTLY what the US government is planning to do only they are going to do it in slow motion over the next 30 years or so.

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON CYBERSECURITY,
      INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION,
      AND SECURITY TECHNOLOGIES

      MAY 8, 2014 [43 pages]

      pg 12
      Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is the executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a Congressional advisory board dedicated to achieving protection of the United States from electromagnetic pulse and other threats. Dr. Pry is also the director of the United States Nuclear Strategy Forum, an advisory body to Congress on policies to counter weapons of mass destruction….

      STATEMENT OF PETER VINCENT PRY, CONGRESSIONAL EMP
      COMMISSION, CONGRESSIONAL STRATEGIC POSTURE COM-
      MISSION, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TASK FORCE
      ON NATIONAL AND HOMELAND SECURITY

      Natural EMP from a geomagnetic super-storm like the 1859 Carrington Event or the 1921 Railroad Storm, a nuclear EMP attack from terrorists or rogue states as practiced by North Korea during the nuclear crisis of 2013 are both existential threats that could kill 9 of 10 Americans through starvation, disease, and societal collapse.

      A natural EMP catastrophe or nuclear EMP attack could black out the National electric grid for months or years and collapse all the other critical infrastructures, communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water, necessary to sustain modern society and the lives of 310 million Americans…..

      EMP is a clear and present danger. A Carrington-class coronal mass ejection narrowly missed the earth in July 2012. Last April, during the nuclear crisis with North Korea over Kim Jong-Un’s threatened nuclear strikes against the United States, Pyongyang apparently practiced an EMP attack with its KSM–3 satellite that passed over the U.S. heartland and over the Washington, D.C.-New York City corridor. Iran, estimated to be within 2 months of nuclear weapons by the administration, has a demonstrated capability to launch an EMP attack from a vessel at sea. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy commenced patrols off the East Coast of the United States in February.

      Thank you for your attention to EMP, which is the least understood but gravest threat to our society.

      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg89763/pdf/CHRG-113hhrg89763.pdf

  17. Gail Combs says:

    Chris The Wind Barron and the Black Lung Disease Red Herring

    Black Lung | United Mine Workers of America

    Black lung is a legal term describing a preventable, occupational lung disease that is contracted by prolonged breathing of coal mine dust. Described by a variety of names, including miner’s asthma, silicosis, coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, and black lung, they are all dust diseases with the same symptoms.

    Like all occupational diseases, black lung is man-made and can be prevented. In fact, the U.S. Congress ordered black lung to be eradicated from the coal industry in 1969.….

    Can black lung disease be prevented?

    Black lung disease is caused by environmental factors, so it is completely preventable and can be avoided by limiting or eliminating your exposure to coal dust. Even miners or others who work around coal or graphite mines can lower their exposure by taking certain precautions. By law, companies must take steps to reduce their workers’ risk. Masks may offer some protection against the disease. Ventilation systems in the mines may also be helpful. Consider practical measures as well. People should not eat or drink in areas where coal dust is prevalent. Coal dust on the skin should be washed off as soon as possible, and clothes covered in coal dust should be removed promptly and washed thoroughly.

    Discover Zinkan’s line of DCG products and how they can help protect you and your crew against black lung disease.

    Black Lung Disease – You Don’t Have to Put Yourself at Risk…

    ….MSHA Changing Standards to Save Lives:

    Control of underground/above ground dust is necessary to lower the coal worker’s exposure to dust to a safer level. MSHA and mining companies monitor the level of respirable dust via gravimetric sampling methods. Currently the 2.0 mg/m3 standards are being lowered to 1.7 mg/m3 in September of 2013 and are expected to drop even further over the next couple of years. Zinkan has been very successful in providing treatment programs, on a mine-wide basis, to keep the mining face and work areas well below the Black Lung Disease levels set by MSHA and creating a safe work environment for miners….
    Choose the Best… Choose MineREADY

    With over one million gallons of MineREADY product having been applied since 1987, today we find more and more underground mining operators choosing Zinkan’s MineREADY technology for three simple reasons:

    MineREADY products are VERY EFFECTIVE, SAFE to use, and have a VERY LOW APPLICATION COST….

    GAME, SET, MATCH….
    Technology is taking care of the problem.
    Those dying today are the people who were mining BEFORE the new OSHA regs went into effect. Black lung is not curable.

    Please note that my father worked for Johns-Manville (asbestosis) and had lung cancer. He also smoked three packs of Camels a day. I chose not to have kids after I discovered the chemicals I was working with as a chemist were mutagens.

    No one promised us a completely safe and happy life but what we have had for the past 75 years beats the crap out of the life people in the 1700s had or the life people in third world countries have now.

    What the Progressive elite aims to do is condemn our children to serfdom and a life that is nasty brutal and short. After all those over retirement age are useless eaters and as the UK has shown there are various methods, like Fuel Poverty and the Liverpool Care Pathway that can be used to terminate the useless old folks as quickly as possible without raising an out cry from the public.

    At Kyoto in 1992 Maurice Strong was very blunt in targeting the middle class for erratication:

    “It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

    As Petr Beckmann pointed out freedom and progress is based on ‘Access to Energy’ The elite are going to cut off the middle classes access and shove us back into third world conditions.

    • gator69 says:

      Hey Gail! We are dealing with a zealot here, so there is no cure for his ignorance. I pointed out yesterday that Black Lung Disease has several causes. He knows he is FOS, but he is a religious zealot.

      What causes coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP)?

      The inhalation and accumulation of coal dust causes coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP). This stems from working in a coal mine, coal trimming (loading and stowing coal for storage), mining or milling graphite, and manufacturing carbon electrodes (used in certain types of large furnaces) and carbon black (a compound used in many items, such as tires and other rubber goods). Because CWP is a reaction to accumulated dust in the lungs, it may appear and get worse during your exposure to the dust or after your exposure has ceased.

      http://www.webmd.com/lung/tc/black-lung-disease-topic-overview

      He is worse than Hope Forpeace. 😆

      • Gail Combs says:

        Chris the Wind Barron has a vested interest in repairing the bat-chomping bird-slicing eco-crucifixes. He is willing to see people die as a result and sooth his conscience with blather about black lung and unprofitable nuclear.

        The Economics of Nuclear Power

        (Updated 16 February 2015)

        Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
        Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
        Providing incentives for long-term, high-capital investment in deregulated markets driven by short-term price signals presents a challenge in securing a diversified and reliable electricity supply system.
        In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.

        Assessing the relative costs of new generating plants utilising different technologies is a complex matter and the results depend crucially on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive for base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though rising gas prices have removed much of the advantage.

        Nuclear power plants are expensive to build but relatively cheap to run. In many places, nuclear energy is competitive with fossil fuels as a means of electricity generation. Waste disposal and decommissioning costs are included in the operating costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, the economics of nuclear power are outstanding.

        See also the December 2005 World Nuclear Association report (pdf 310 kB) The New Economics of Nuclear Power.
        Assessing the costs of nuclear power

        The economics of nuclear power involves consideration of several aspects:

        Capital costs, which include the cost of site preparation, construction, manufacture, commissioning and financing a nuclear power plant. Building a large-scale nuclear reactor takes thousands of workers, huge amounts of steel and concrete, thousands of components, and several systems to provide electricity, cooling, ventilation, information, control and communication. To compare different power generation technologies the capital costs must be expressed in terms of the generating capacity of the plant (for example as dollars per kilowatt). Capital costs may be calculated with the financing costs included or excluded. If financing costs are included then the capital costs change in proportion to the length of time it takes to build and commission the plant and with the interest rate or mode of financing employed. It is normally termed the ‘investment cost’. If the financing costs are excluded from the calculation the capital costs is called the ‘overnight cost’, because it imagines that the plant appeared fully built overnight.

        Plant operating costs, which include the costs of fuel, operation and maintenance (O&M), and a provision for funding the costs of decommissioning the plant and treating and disposing of used fuel and wastes. Operating costs may be divided into ‘fixed costs’ that are incurred whether or not the plant is generating electricity and ‘variable costs’, which vary in relation to the output. Normally these costs are expressed relative to a unit of electricity (for example, cents per kilowatt-hour) to allow a consistent comparison with other energy technologies. To calculate the operating cost of a plant over its whole life (including the costs of decommissioning and used fuel and waste management), we must estimate the ‘levelised’ cost at present value. It represents the price that the electricity must fetch if the project is to break even (after taking account of the opportunity cost of capital through the application of a discount rate).

        External costs to society from the operation, which in the case of a nuclear power is usually assumed to be zero, but could include the costs of dealing with a serious accident that are beyond the insurance limit and in practice need to be picked up by the government. The regulations that control nuclear power typically require the plant operator to make a provision for disposing of any waste, thus these costs are ‘internalised’ (and are not external). Electricity generation from fossil fuels is not regulated in the same way, and therefore the operators of such thermal power plants do not yet internalise the costs of greenhouse gas emission or of other gases and particulates released into the atmosphere. Including these external costs in the calculation gives nuclear power a significant advantage over fossil fuelled electricity generation.

        Considering these costs in turn, with information from numerous studies…..
        http://world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/

        • gator69 says:

          Actually Gail, Chris is simply ignorant, and I have a file of his uneducated spewings to prove it! 😆

          Thanks VI!

      • AndyG55 says:

        It would be interesting to do a study of the diseases that occur due to mining and processing the enormous rare earth magnets and all the petroleum based composites that go into making wind turdines.
        Wind turdines cannot be made without copious input of fossil fuels.
        We already know the massive environmental damage done to get the huge amounts of neodymium required. Production of rare earths was well controlled until wind turdines came on the scene. The huge surge in production due to their necessity in wind turdine rotors has poisoned large tracts of land in China forcing farming communities off their once useful land. This will never be able to be remediated.
        How many deaths have occurred because of it, we will probably never know.

      • He is worse than Hope Forpeace.

        Chris is a more interesting phenomenon to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s