Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 02/26/2009 4:39:54 PM PST by EveningStar
The Reality Coalition, set up by five environmental orgs to debunk the notion that there is such a thing as "clean coal," is introducing a new ad spot directed by the Coen Brothers, to be introduced in broadcast and online media today...
But even President Obama mentioned clean coal in his speech before Congress on Tuesday...
(Excerpt) Read more at wilshireandwashington.com ...
This is a general interest list. We cover everything from the sublime to the ridiculous.
If you want on or off this ping list, please FReepmail me.
That’s unfortunate.
I love their movies and will miss not seeing any more of them.
That’s unfortunate. I love their movies and will continue to enjoy them. I do think “No Country for Old Men” was way overrated. And I really have no idea if clean coal is real or not.
Amen. I’m not turning off The Big Lebowski because of this.
I don’t care if they pee on my rug! I’m still watching. And like I said, for all I know, clean coal IS BS.
Clean coal is more a reality than “green” energy. Ala solar panels or wind mills.
The notion of “clean coal” is beneficial to all sides in the argument over global warming.
To the coal producers, it gives the illusion that carbon dioxide can be removed from combustion, which is just silly.
To the people who are cynically exploiting fear over global warming, it lets them pretend that they are not going to bankrupt the coal industry, cripple our energy infrastructure and plunge huge swaths of the country into poverty.
To the people who actually believe global warming exists,... well, they’ll believe just about anything, so they think clean coal is a nifty idea...
Clean coal is more a reality than “green” energy. Ala solar panels or wind mills.
Any kind of combustion of a carbon-based fuel in air will yield CO2, and some CO. If it is at any kind of elevated temperature, like in boilers, it will produce NOx from the nitrogen in the air. If combustion is incomplete (inefficient), you will get PAHs. It is suspected that the leading cause of lung cancer in third world countries is from PAHs released in wood smoke.
You just can't avoid those things. So you have to do a risk-benefit, cost-benefit analysis to see if you want to do it. Right now, we depend too much on coal for baseload electricity just to switch them off tomorrow. If we're really concerned about environmental impact, we eventually have to move away from how we use coal now.
We can do that. We know how to do it. We have the technology, here, today. And that is nuclear energy. You get prodigious amounts of electricity, with 90+% capacity factors, reliable and economical, with very very little environmental impact. We lack only the will and courage, moral and political, to move it forward.
To say there is "clean coal" implies there is "dirty coal", which is not true.
It's ALL clean coal.
CO2 is NOT pollution.
Ash, soot, SOx, NOx, etc. are scrubbed and reduced to very low levels.
Coal benefits us MUCH MORE than it harms the environment or people. Living like cave men would be much more harm to the environment and people.
I'll take coal, and nuclear too. Wind and solar will not supply reliable, plentiful, and cheap power. They have their place where the economics and circumstance make it attractive. But they are not base load capable.
If I gave up on the books, movies and music I love because the creators believed something I didn’t, I’d have no books, movies or music.
I love the Coen Brothers’ movies, and will continue to watch them. If I were to stop watching their movies it’d be because BURN AFTER READING was a piece of crap.
Well I don’t know man, that rug really ties the room together.
It might starve a few plant though...
So many of the greenies go ape over the solar and/or wind systems. Few folks think about the lead-acid storage batteries, their periodic replacement, and the ultimate disposal of lead batteries. Oh my, the ugly reality.....
While I share your enthusiasm for nuclear power, the 90+% capacity factor for nuclear plants is only possible because they cycle the coal stations.
We need both. Natural gas stations are a waste of natural gas. That fuel is best left to "soft" uses, like residential and commercial heating.
The large capital that it takes to build a unit that can handle, pulverize, and combust coal while controlling NOx, SOx, Ash, and soot makes a utility boiler the only realistic place to use this fuel. Using coal saves natural gas and oil for the "soft" uses I mention above.
Nuclear helps conserve coal, and coal helps conserve the soft fuels. Coal helps keep nuclear affordable by allowing the high capacity factors. This is a balanced and sensible use of our available fuels.
Most have no idea what they are asking for. The reality WILL be ugly.
90% capacity is a good goal, but it isn’t often we average that high with our nuke plants.
Nuclear Power Plant Operations, 1957-2007
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0902.html
Actually lead batteries has a pretty high rate of recycling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.