Comments on: Will More Electric Cars Increase Reliance on Coal? http://business-ethics.com/2010/03/13/1438-will-electric-cars-increase-reliance-on-coal/ The Magazine of Corporate Responsibility Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:28:39 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Pete Jenkins http://business-ethics.com/2010/03/13/1438-will-electric-cars-increase-reliance-on-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-2638 Pete Jenkins Sun, 26 Sep 2010 22:49:52 +0000 http://business-ethics.com/?p=2037#comment-2638 The coal derived power is certainly a bit of a two edged sword. I guess there's really two arguments when it comes to where power is sourced for electric cars. 1. The generation of power creates just as much pollution as a fossil fuel vehicle. 2. While fossil fuels are burnt for the majority of power generation, at least the pollution source is diverted from the big cities. I'd certainly like to see an increase in the development of renewal energies in order to tackle both issues. The coal derived power is certainly a bit of a two edged sword.

I guess there's really two arguments when it comes to where power is sourced for electric cars.

1. The generation of power creates just as much pollution as a fossil fuel vehicle.

2. While fossil fuels are burnt for the majority of power generation, at least the pollution source is diverted from the big cities.

I'd certainly like to see an increase in the development of renewal energies in order to tackle both issues.

]]> By: John Farmer http://business-ethics.com/2010/03/13/1438-will-electric-cars-increase-reliance-on-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-843 John Farmer Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:27:24 +0000 http://business-ethics.com/?p=2037#comment-843 25,000 Americans die every year due to particulate pollution caused by the burning of coal.-US EPA If Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant closes the result will be that the Northeast will rely more heavily on coal to produce its electricity. If you put these two facts together the result is that the closure of Yankee will cause many Americans to die prematurely. It’s all about supply and demand when it comes to carbon free power sources replacing coal. Yankee illustrates this perfectly. First off it should be noted that regardless of whether Vermont makes a deal for Quebec’s Hydro power or builds thousands of new windmills when Yankee closes the Northeast will rely more heavily on coal for its electrical needs. Supply and demand economics dictate if you close Yankee nuclear power plant you will increase the demand for coal. Instead of building future wind mills to replace coal the Northeast will now have to build thousands of wind mills just to reach the low carbon levels the Northeast currently achieves when Yankee is in operation. Hydro power is cost competitive to coal. Instead of Quebec’s Hydro power replacing coal production Vermont will be buying this carbon free power source to replace an already existent multi billion dollar carbon free power source ie…Yankee. As my opening statement points out it is a fact that coal kills thousands of Americans. On the other end of the spectrum in the Western world there has never been a death caused from the radiation that is produced in the production of nuclear power. It is a statistical fact that it is as safe to work in a nuclear power plant as it is to work in a cubicle. Taking this all into consideration I must ask those who support Yankees closure just how many Americans do they think they will be responsible for murdering if they get their way? Is it hundred a year? Is it more? Is it 10,000 over the next twenty years? I wish the anti nukes would have the courage to step-up and own the fact that Americans will die due to the closure Yankee. May truth someday overcome fear mongering, Jfarmer9 25,000 Americans die every year due to particulate pollution caused by the burning of coal.-US EPA If Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant closes the result will be that the Northeast will rely more heavily on coal to produce its electricity. If you put these two facts together the result is that the closure of Yankee will cause many Americans to die prematurely.

It’s all about supply and demand when it comes to carbon free power sources replacing coal. Yankee illustrates this perfectly. First off it should be noted that regardless of whether Vermont makes a deal for Quebec’s Hydro power or builds thousands of new windmills when Yankee closes the Northeast will rely more heavily on coal for its electrical needs. Supply and demand economics dictate if you close Yankee nuclear power plant you will increase the demand for coal.

Instead of building future wind mills to replace coal the Northeast will now have to build thousands of wind mills just to reach the low carbon levels the Northeast currently achieves when Yankee is in operation. Hydro power is cost competitive to coal. Instead of Quebec’s Hydro power replacing coal production Vermont will be buying this carbon free power source to replace an already existent multi billion dollar carbon free power source ie…Yankee.

As my opening statement points out it is a fact that coal kills thousands of Americans. On the other end of the spectrum in the Western world there has never been a death caused from the radiation that is produced in the production of nuclear power. It is a statistical fact that it is as safe to work in a nuclear power plant as it is to work in a cubicle.

Taking this all into consideration I must ask those who support Yankees closure just how many Americans do they think they will be responsible for murdering if they get their way? Is it hundred a year? Is it more? Is it 10,000 over the next twenty years?

I wish the anti nukes would have the courage to step-up and own the fact that Americans will die due to the closure Yankee.

May truth someday overcome fear mongering,

Jfarmer9

]]>