What's Worse Than a Coal Power Plant?
Uploader Comments (TheGreenMiles44)
All Comments (12)
-
Actually you would need about 250 wind turbines to equal the capacity of somerset. They are such an eyesore and would spread out over a hugh area. Problem is they can't produce power on demand, average about a 20% capacity factor, are more expensive to install then a nuclear power plant and all the capital equipment is made overseas. In addition to that they need to use induction generators due tothe technology so you can't have a large % of them on the grid because they cause instabilty
-
Lol... really you have no clue what your talking about.
-
You can use that style of cooling tower for coal as well...That being said. Shut down that plant and put up your windmills and solar panels and see how many megawatts you get. As far as that "giant pile of coal" "spewing" co2, so2 and mercury? Give me a break. If you burn it with no air quality system I would agree. Keyword being "burn". Just sitting there its not "spewing" anything. If the plant spent money on the cooling towers it most likely spent money on a scrubber and esp.
-
Secretly nuclear?! You guys are crazy...
-
One energy choice is to use less of it. But then the big corporations wouldn't make profit, and that would never do, would it?
-
That sucker is Nuclear, nobody cares that much about the fish that live here.
Also, you seem to think those TWO cooling towers are a larger "eyesore" than the windmills and solar panels it would take to power your region. You are very very misguided man. Please use your brain.
Saluki388 2 months ago
@Saluki388 The cooling towers are 50 feet taller than Cape Wind windmills (I used my Google!). And on cold days like this, you can add giant steam clouds on top of that.
TheGreenMiles44 2 months ago