Our energy inefficiency - 67% loss

The laws of thermodynamics require heat losses. Hopefully, there will be increasing efficiency now that fossil fuel costs are so high. Coal to gas is one option to increase the efficiency at the power generation level, but the overall efficiency will decrease because of the additional step of converting coal to gas.

Mining and transporting coal also takes energy and fuel add that to the equation too. Your electricity bill is about to go up.

Go wind and solar!

Here in NY I am awaiting a steady increase in my Gas Bill because instead of using clean burning coal in a new plant to be built here, the state has only given it's permission to build if it only burns natural gas. So the supply will be the same but now the demand will be greater and electric costs will not go down either.

hetrevillion wrote:

The laws of thermodynamics require heat losses. Hopefully, there will be increasing efficiency now that fossil fuel costs are so high. Coal to gas is one option to increase the efficiency at the power generation level, but the overall efficiency will decrease because of the additional step of converting coal to gas.

Nothing to do with the toic, but, hey man what the hell are you??Part yeti/part yak or what??

is ending

"The World is ending."

Just now noticed that did ya?

Allen wrote:

Here in NY I am awaiting a steady increase in my Gas Bill because instead of using clean burning coal in a new plant to be built here, the state has only given it's permission to build if it only burns natural gas. So the supply will be the same but now the demand will be greater and electric costs will not go down either.

Q: "clean burning coal" is that what they also call "brown coal" ?
Have heard that it is very clean , almost no emmisions , and the waste gets buried.

A Man Of This World wrote:

<quoted text>
Q: "clean burning coal" is that what they also call "brown coal" ?
Have heard that it is very clean , almost no emmisions , and the waste gets buried.

Umm. No. Brown coal is much harder to “burn clean”. You weren’t educated in Sweden were you?

another-peace-nic wrote:

<quoted text>
Umm. No. Brown coal is much harder to “burn clean”. You weren’t educated in Sweden were you?

As i dont know the name for it in english i asked,,,and i didnt ask you. Your just the thread asshole.Go F*** yourself. LOL

Sorry for the post above... maybe i missunderstood you. I am trying to stop smoking and tend to explode a cup. of times a day.

SORRY.

LOL hiding in shame

I thought only Americans called each other names here! you two are givin' Europe a bad name!

but go ahead, I'm not one to stand in between two flamin keyboards...

I (Topically) think that it's sad that, when 50% or more of the known oil-gas reserves are tapped out, we've waited 'desperate times' to increase the efficiencies...

A European concept (or Swiss?) is called 'Minergie': MINING-ENERGY from existing sources...

IOW: A house that is perfectly insulated, can get almost forty percent of needed heat from ordinary light bulbs... etc... pre-heating outside air, by passing it in a tube 'WITHIN' the exiting exhausted air-transfer (so the heat passes back into the incoming cold air...), etc...

A lot of little things, can do a lot of the recuperative needs we now need to implement...

ZENgood

People against idiots wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing to do with the toic, but, hey man what the hell are you??Part yeti/part yak or what??

Part Yeti. I grow my hair for two years and cut it, then donate it to a company that makes wigs for kids with cancer.

We could be farther along in not needing as much fossil fuels. President Carter started incentives to use solar and wind energy, and then Reagan came along and undid all that. I guess the perks from big oil were too good to piss off the oil companies.

hetrevillion wrote:

<quoted text>
Part Yeti. I grow my hair for two years and cut it, then donate it to a company that makes wigs for kids with cancer.

I love it!!! Thanks for helping the cause hetrevillion...in more ways than you know.

too bad we don't have 'global cooling', then we could all use ice-sails to get to work...

:-)zen

we need ten dollars per gallon now!

maybe when fuel cost begin to get impossibly high, things might actually improve.

ten dollars per gallon now!

Joeseph Hopster wrote:

We could be farther along in not needing as much fossil fuels. President Carter started incentives to use solar and wind energy, and then Reagan came along and undid all that. I guess the perks from big oil were too good to piss off the oil companies.

Don't get ahead of yourself in assuming things.

Tax breaks to oil companies have been used since Carter, and still are, in order to develop alternative energies. You're still having oil companies pay for the research.

Too bad the liberals like Ted Kennedy are against building more wind turbines. Bush's Texas has more wind generated energy than any other 3 states combined at this point.

Things aren't always what they seem, hmm?

I'm surprised that the tards at our local/greedy/pathetic power company haven't added a new fee to our bill for this lost energy. That's exactly something they'd do.

Joe_ wrote:

I'm surprised that the tards at our local/greedy/pathetic power company haven't added a new fee to our bill for this lost energy. That's exactly something they'd do.

Don't like 'em, don't use 'em. Make your own. I hate folks that only moan and do nothin'