@CalamityJane,
I'm not particularly fond of coal as a power source. However, I believe that the ready avaiability of electrical and other forms of power and energy have significantly improved human life for millions, and recognize that curtailing it would come at a very large cost to human welfare. (That's basically the argument put forward by Bjorn Lundberg, a well-known Danish environmentalist).
Nuclear power, of course produces zero airborne emissions of any kind, including CO2. In terms of public health effects and environmental insults (including waste disposal) it is far superior to any and all carbon based fuels. There's a lot of hype and exaggeration out there. For example over 15,000 people were killed in the tusnami that struck eastern Honshu a few yrears ago, while no one was killed at or by the Fukushima powerplant failure (which could/should have been prevented). According to Japanese government data, the most exposed worker at that plant got a radiation dose about equivalent to that from a cat scan of his torso. Tens of thousands of these medical tests are performed annually in this country.
Natural gas is an increasingly abundant power source, and in the past decade it's contribution to our energy mix has grown markedly. Per unit of energy produced, natural gas produces well under half of the CO2 emissions produced in the production of the same amount of power from, coal, and far less of other airborne pollutants.
The replacement of coal derived power with that from natural gas has, in the past five years alone, reduced carbon emissions by nearly 10 times the total reduction achieved through wind and solar power which, despite all the hype, deliver only a very small component of our power actually produced.
There is a reason for this. 100 units of power generating capability from either natural gas or nuclear power can deliver 100 units of power 24/7/365 except for periods when the plant is being repaired or mechanically unavailable, or shut down by choice during periods of low demand.
Wind and solar are different: the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time. Wind turbines must be sized to absorb the peak wind, while the power they deliver is determined by the average wind. As a result they, on average deliver only about 24% of their rated capacity for output. Solar is about the same, depending on the location.
Capacity factor is the term of art used for the % of the generating capoacity that is actually reaslized by power systems.The national average of the nation's 98 nuclear plants is over 90%; for natural gas plants the average is a bit lower only because they are preferentially shutdown or throttled back during periods of low demand. Coal is somewhat lower still for the same reason. Wind and solar are way back there at less than 25%.- and that is not by choice, it is instead an inherent limit.
That's why the real cost of wind and solar power is more than three times that for conventional sources, and why they are so heavily subsidized by direct payments and statutory requirements that a certain fraction of them must be used regardless of cost. Without these costly subsidies it wouldnn't exist.
There is another matter here as well. Well-known primary effects of subsidies are (1) the creation od well organized lobbies that ensure the subsidies are preserved (that's why ethanol survives). (2) the suppression of investment in innovation for improved sources resulting from thoise subsidies and captive markets. Subsidies for wind and solar power are often rationalized on the basis of sustaining investment in new techniques, while the real effect is exactly the opposite.
All of this is relatively well-known by knowledgable people, but it hasn't changed the public perception very much. Could the large body of people be wrong about something so basic??? Look at Greece today.
.
Roger.