(no title)
emp_zealoth | 9 years ago
You need a few hundred (400-600) tons of coal per hour per one decently sized BLOCK (few hundred MW), usually power plants have several of those, sometimes a dozen or more, a few jet engines running at full blast its a big deal compared with a FUCKING POWER PLANT /rant
Also, none of the renewable energy sources are cheaper than coal, especially when you look at the bigger picture (mostly unutilised capacity, grid overbuild requirements, volatility)
bradjohnson|9 years ago
emp_zealoth|9 years ago
>They could transition to a combined cycle plant if they wanted to increase efficiency.
And who is going to pay for that? How do they fuel them? They already have to import a sizable part of their natural gas consumption. Do they spend even more and add coal gassification?
India is building out nuclear, obviously after Fukushima retards made sure to obstruct as much as they could
Again, the issue is smog, that is killing right fucking now. Should they just ignore the problem and develop a massive program so you feel better?
Retric|9 years ago
The problem with coal is not power production, it's the infrastructure of power distribution that makes going off grid so viable.
unknown|9 years ago
[deleted]
emp_zealoth|9 years ago
Once you take the feed-in away the benefit is not so clear cut. Also, many people dump the externalities of home solar on everyone else (the negative spot electricity price) and then use cheap power from the grid for most of the 24h cycle
Where do you think going off grid is so viable?