MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Nature & Environment > DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters  (Read 2621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

marilyn.monroe

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9218
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2012, 11:00:43 PM »

My work from another thread but it pretty much applies here too:

" Power is a dirty business but we all seem to continue to demand to be warm in the winter, cool in the summer AND able to see at night.  We won't let the energy companies do it clean and efficient with nuclear and we complain about the mess they make with coal and oil.  Solar is not very efficient and we tell them "NIMBY" when they try to build wind turbines.

At what point do we start taking a good long hard look at ourselves? "
Solar is efficient. It is free too. I'm fine with summer and night vision, but I am partial to heat in the winter. I don't need no gd industrial turbine in my backyard. lol.
Logged

marilyn.monroe

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9218
Logged

sammy

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2488
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2012, 11:14:33 PM »

Solar is efficient. It is free too. I'm fine with summer and night vision, but I am partial to heat in the winter. I don't need no gd industrial turbine in my backyard. lol.

So, with your "free" solar, you're good with the heat of Summer and the cold of Winter? Or are you just blowing smoke? Please tell me how to get free solar, if you don't mind. Solar is only free after a HUGE investment on the front side. Your grandchildren may see a minor savings.
Logged

sammy

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2488
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #33 on: June 07, 2012, 11:17:52 PM »

http://muskingum.osu.edu/news/solar-power
Oddly, there was no mention of how much this "free" solar energy cost on the front side, nor how long the payback period was.Also, I foresee a huge backlash from the anti-ag contingent over the use of the Extension office for this purpose. What does the extension service have to do with solar or any other energy source, other than the coverage of 80 acres of farmland?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 11:28:18 PM by sammy »
Logged

pkrbkr

  • Elite Talker
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 93
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2012, 04:13:37 AM »

http://muskingum.osu.edu/news/solar-power
This article states that it took 80 acres of land & 159,000 solar panels to produce 12 megawatts of electricity. DTE's Monroe coal plant produces 3,300 megawatts of electricity. That means to replace it with solar would take 22,000 acres of land (34.4 square miles) & 4,392,500 solar panels. As a reference Monroe City & Monroe Charter Township covers 28 square miles ... Just saying.
Logged

BigMike

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2012, 06:40:49 AM »

Solar is efficient. It is free too. I'm fine with summer and night vision, but I am partial to heat in the winter. I don't need no gd industrial turbine in my backyard. lol.


Solar is the least efficient way to generate power. It certainly isn't free. To power a city the size of Monroe would require placing solar panels about 3/4 of the area of Texas.
Logged
This is for a very good cause, a disabled Marine and his family:
http://wishuponahero.com/wishes/?id=1268673

lordfly

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7567
  • Fancy.
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2012, 08:43:18 AM »


Solar is the least efficient way to generate power. It certainly isn't free. To power a city the size of Monroe would require placing solar panels about 3/4 of the area of Texas.

That's not even slightly accurate. You might as well say it would take covering half the moon to power a house.

Durochers has about half their roof installed with solar; I believe they've reduced their power bill by at least 25%, and that's with 30 TVs and other appliances going. And this is in Monroe, a place not known for sunny days.

The problem is not that solar is inefficient (its efficiency doubles every couple of years due to breakthroughs), it's that it cannot provide a decent baseload power generation. The sun is not always in the sky. Therefore, you need something behind the solar to keep the grid going. That's where nuclear/coal/oil/gas comes in.
Logged
your mom goes to college.

marilyn.monroe

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9218
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2012, 09:52:18 AM »

That's not even slightly accurate. You might as well say it would take covering half the moon to power a house.

Durochers has about half their roof installed with solar; I believe they've reduced their power bill by at least 25%, and that's with 30 TVs and other appliances going. And this is in Monroe, a place not known for sunny days.

The problem is not that solar is inefficient (its efficiency doubles every couple of years due to breakthroughs), it's that it cannot provide a decent baseload power generation. The sun is not always in the sky. Therefore, you need something behind the solar to keep the grid going. That's where nuclear/coal/oil/gas comes in.

The grid is falling apart, now is the time to transition to true energy independence. Every building should be self-sustaining. I am proud of Durochers for their good start. Wind, geothermal, biofuel, water and kinetic energy are viable alternatives. We can't transition over night, but now is the time to start moving forward with advanced energy.
Logged

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27257
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2012, 12:14:57 PM »

Not sure why the righties always attack alternative energy.

Solar Panel Savings for Your Home

Families often find that they spend most of their money o household bills, with little left over for savings. One way to save your family money and help the environment at the same time is using solar energy. Today's solar energy panels are much more efficient than the ones available just a couple of decades ago. They have also gotten smaller, which means you can get more energy without sacrificing your entire yard or roof. The initial investment in solar energy can be expensive, but generating your own power will pay for itself in a matter of months.

Save Money on Electric Bills

A common misunderstanding of solar power is that it only works on days that are bright and sunny. The truth is that solar panels connect to a generator that stores the energy so it can be collected when the sun shines and used whenever you need it. In fact, most solar power users actually sell power back to their energy providers in the form of vouchers.

Energy Prices on the Rise

All forms of non-renewable energy are getting more and more expensive. As these resources continue to dwindle, their cost will continue to rise. Solar panels are a way to cut your ties to these precious resources so that you can be sure you will have the power you need no matter how expensive traditional power sources become. Right now is the best time to consider solar installation packages because the demand for solar power is not as high as it could become in the future when natural gas, electricity, coal and other resources become too expensive for the public to afford.

Installation can be Expensive

Solar power home installations are expensive, but worth the investment. The type of system you choose makes a big difference in cost, but most solar power systems cost around $10,000 for materials and installation. Those high dollar systems can provide most of your home's power, especially during the sunnier months of the year. That initial price tag is only painful at first, though. Once you take into account government subsidies and the ability to almost eliminate your power bills, the system usually pays for itself in less than a year.

Everyone's Use is Different

Not every house that has solar power uses it the same way. If you typically use a lot of energy to run your home, solar power will pay for itself much more quickly. Homes that are located in areas that receive more sunlight will generate more power, which will also help the solar systems pay for themselves faster. Where you live and how much power you consume makes a big difference when you try to calculate the money you would save with solar panels. In all cases, however, you will save some money when much of your energy comes from the sun instead of the power company. Anyone who installs solar panels will see their energy costs drop, and everyone who installs panels will be eligible for government grants or subsidies.

Solar PV Panels and Solar Thermal Panels

There are two different kinds of solar systems to choose from. Solar PV systems convert sunlight directly into stored energy, while solar thermal panels use the sunlight to heat water for energy. In the UK, the government subsidy program only accepts homes that operate with solar PV systems. Solar PV panels are more efficient and they produce more energy than solar thermal panels. The energy created with solar thermal panels is ideal for areas that do not receive as much direct sunlight. Heat from thermal panels can be stored more efficiently, which means that the energy is available for longer periods. PV panels do not store energy as well as thermal panels, so they need more exposure to direct sunlight to continue to create energy.

United States Government Credits and Grants

The United States government provides tax credits, grants, and even mortgage consideration for solar powered homes. You can earn an immediate 30 percent tax credit if you install a PV solar powered system that qualifies for the government credit. Energy Star rebates are also available, though the rebates differ according to your time zone. In some cases, you could receive reimbursement for almost half the installation price by taking advantage of government tax credits. Local electric companies may also offer specific rebate plans for solar power users, especially if the users are able to give energy back to the grid.

On top of the financial savings, solar panels offer emotional benefits to those who care about the health of the planet. Every time you send out that check for a tiny electric bill, you'll feel the satisfaction of making a different for all of us.
http://savingtools.com/tips/solar-panel-savings-your-home
Logged
WARNING! Reading Republican/Conservative/Tea Party comments will lower your intelligence quotient!

The new motto of the obstructionist Republican Party/Conservative-right/Tea Party...refuse to legislate, just investigate.

Mike Ingels

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2882
    • Expatriate Monroe
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #39 on: June 08, 2012, 12:22:15 PM »

The answer in the short term is natural gas.  It provides good baseline power from a large domestic supply.  It's proven technology and it could cut emissions in half.

I like nuclear, but it is so difficult to get a new plant built.

I'd like to see wind, solar, etc. make up 10 or 15% of power supply, but just look at the Lenawee County wind farm proposal.  It was planned for a nice, flat, windy area with no significant geographic features in an area with a depressed economy.  If a wind farm can't happen there, it really can't happen in many places.  So it's not a viable large-scale answer.

I like the basic idea of the Ludington Pumped Storage facility if the fish kills can be stopped.  I might even like it with the fish kills if it stops a lot of pollution from happening.

So the winner is natural gas.
Logged
The world is basically good.

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27257
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #40 on: June 08, 2012, 12:27:02 PM »

June 07, 2012

Chicago-based Exelon Corp. told analysts Thursday that a bevy of new government-subsidized natural gas-fired power expected to come online by 2015 has robbed it of earnings it expected from its nuclear power plants.

Natural gas prices are at historic lows, which has made natural-gas fired power attractive to some states at a time when historically cheap coal-fired plants are closing.

Exelon -- the country's largest owner of nuclear power -- has seen its stock fall 14 percent this year, in part because of low natural gas prices that have driven down prices for power.

At the same time, the results of a recent auction hosted by the PJM Interconnection, which manages the electrical grid that includes the Commonwealth Edison region of Chicago, also favored natural gas-fired power to Exelon's detriment.

The auction reserves power three years in advance to ensure enough electricity is generated to prevent blackouts. Winners walk away with lucrative "capacity payments" in exchange for promising to supply power to the grid. Those payments are based on the generators' projections for how much it will cost them to produce electricity, and PJM chooses the lowest cost mix.

Exelon told analysts Thursday that the government-subsidized plants were able to bid into the auction at extremely low prices because they did not include the subsidized costs in their bids. The plants cleared the auction, bringing down the price of payments Exelon receives for keeping its power plants online.

The company said it is exploring an option that would change the rules for such plants and will consider requesting that PJM require such plants to include subsidies in their bids.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-07/business/chi-exelon-sees-naturalgas-threat-to-nuclear-earnings-20120607_1_exelon-natural-gas-prices-power-plants
Logged
WARNING! Reading Republican/Conservative/Tea Party comments will lower your intelligence quotient!

The new motto of the obstructionist Republican Party/Conservative-right/Tea Party...refuse to legislate, just investigate.

BigMike

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2012, 12:51:36 PM »

That's not even slightly accurate. You might as well say it would take covering half the moon to power a house.

Durochers has about half their roof installed with solar; I believe they've reduced their power bill by at least 25%, and that's with 30 TVs and other appliances going. And this is in Monroe, a place not known for sunny days.

The problem is not that solar is inefficient (its efficiency doubles every couple of years due to breakthroughs), it's that it cannot provide a decent baseload power generation. The sun is not always in the sky. Therefore, you need something behind the solar to keep the grid going. That's where nuclear/coal/oil/gas comes in.


Doubling something that is at best 5% efficient is STILL inefficient.

And YES that was 100% accurate.
Logged
This is for a very good cause, a disabled Marine and his family:
http://wishuponahero.com/wishes/?id=1268673

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27257
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2012, 11:35:39 AM »

Poll: Americans Know How to Save Energy, but Balk

When it comes to saving energy, people in the United States know that driving a fuel-efficient car accomplishes more than turning off the lights at home.

But that doesn't mean they'll do it.

A new poll shows that while most of those questioned understand effective ways to save energy, they have a hard time adopting them.

Six in 10 surveyed say driving a more fuel-efficient car would save a large amount of energy, but only 1 in 4 says that's easy to do, according to the poll by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. People also are skeptical of carpooling or installing better home insulation, rating them as effective but impractical.

On the other end of spectrum, 8 in 10 say they easily can turn off the lights when they leave a room, and 6 in 10 have no problem turning up the thermostat in summer or down in winter, although fewer than half think those easy steps save large amounts of energy.

Even those who support conservation don't always practice it.

Cindy Shriner, a retired teacher from Lafayette, Ind., buys energy-efficient light bulbs and her 2009 Subaru Impreza gets nearly 30 miles per gallon on the highway.

Still, she keeps her house at about 73 degrees year-round, despite government recommendations to turn thermostats to 68 degrees in winter and 78 degrees in summer.

"I'm terrible," Shriner, 60, said in an interview. "In all honesty we have extreme weather in all seasons" in Indiana, she said, and her thermostat settings keep her comfortable.

Her parents recently qualified for a grant under the economic stimulus law that paid for a new furnace and insulation, Shriner said. She said such programs are important to improve energy conservation.

The public looks to large institutions for leadership in saving energy, believing that individuals alone can't make much of a difference. Nearly two-thirds look to the energy industry to show the way toward energy conservation, and nearly 6 in 10 say the government should play a leading role. Democrats, college graduates and people under 50 are the most likely to hold industry is responsible for increasing energy savings.


Graphic shows AP-NORC Center Poll results on energy priorities


The poll, paid for by a grant to the AP-NORC Center from the Joyce Foundation, shows that just 4 in 10 questioned think their own actions can significantly affect the country's energy problems. Some 15 percent say individual actions make "a very large difference," while 7 percent say individual action makes no difference at all.

On some energy topics, people are in the dark.

Only 1 in 3 reports knowing a lot or a great deal about the government's Energy Star product labels, which are meant to help consumers choose energy-efficient appliances and other products. Even fewer, 25 percent, report detailed knowledge about fuel-efficiency standards for cars. Not even 20 percent know a lot or a great deal about rebates for energy-saving products, home renovation tax credits or home energy audits.

About 6 in 10 people cite lack of knowledge about energy-saving products as a major reason they don't do more to conserve.

Jennifer Celestino, 29, of Buffalo, N.Y., said she might do more if she knew how much energy she was using compared with her neighbors.

"If you had information that says, 'Hey, your household uses more than the typical house in your ZIP code,' that would get my attention," said Celestino, a workforce analyst at an insurance company.

More here:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/poll-americans-save-energy-balk-16531846#.T9NsD7WwUS7
Logged
WARNING! Reading Republican/Conservative/Tea Party comments will lower your intelligence quotient!

The new motto of the obstructionist Republican Party/Conservative-right/Tea Party...refuse to legislate, just investigate.

lordfly

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7567
  • Fancy.
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2012, 11:42:21 AM »


Doubling something that is at best 5% efficient is STILL inefficient.

And YES that was 100% accurate.

I'd love to see how half of a small roof filled with solar panels reducing a hefty energy bill by double digits equals 5% efficiency.

Do you have an equation for that, or is this pulled from thin air?
Logged
your mom goes to college.

lordfly

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7567
  • Fancy.
Re: DTE Monroe plant one of regions top mercury polluters
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2012, 11:44:53 AM »


Doubling something that is at best 5% efficient is STILL inefficient.

And YES that was 100% accurate.

So I know this chart is filled with science, something most people who hate solar panels aren't too keen on, but here it is anyway.



Turns out there ARE 5% efficient solar panels... at some research station in Toronto, probably using something ridiculous like seashells or cats or something. Current solar panel tech is topping out at over 40% efficient, and shows little signs of stopping anytime soon.

But sure, 5% sounds totally accurate.
Logged
your mom goes to college.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up