What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
85 Comments
- pintomp3, on 09/27/2008, -8/+35clean coal is like safe cigarrettes.
- cheezintern, on 09/26/2008, -4/+28Haven't you heard? Coal is green now, TV says so.
- WyoLars, on 09/27/2008, -2/+17.. all I know, if you shut down coal.
The state of Wyoming is screwed, we have more coal then you can shack a stick at.
No underground mines, and the land is returned to the state we found it... - drboyd, on 09/27/2008, -6/+21Do you know what that white stuff is coming out of the stacks in the picture? No, of course you don't. It's water vapor.
Do you know why water vapor is coming out of those stacks? No, again, you don't.
Water vapor is coming out of those stacks because the boiler exhaust gas stream has been passed though a water and limestone spray "scrubber" to prevent any sulfur from going out into the atmosphere.
See? Now you know. And now you know why they call it "clean" coal, too. - subliminalurge, on 09/27/2008, -1/+13Don't worry, coal isn't going anywhere for a very, very long time.
And it's not as "evil" as people think it is. Sure, there's some pollution, but you also have to look at the tradeoff. If the electricity from that coal plant were going to charge plugin hybrid vehicles, the NET pollution produced per mile by each vehicle goes way down. This is an environmental win.
Added to that is the fact that more cents per mile driven by those vehicles stays here in the US, instead of being sent overseas to people who would very much like to see us crumble. This is both an economic and a national security win.
Environmentalists really need to knock it the ***** off with their "all or nothing" attitude towards everything. It doesn't matter if your motivation is environmental or economic, getting off of fossil fuels is a good thing for everybody. But it's NOT going to happen all at once. It's going to happen through a long series (think in terms of generations, not weeks or months) of small steps in the right direction. - mockidol, on 09/27/2008, -1/+12Do people really want text message updates of this?
- Dralha, on 09/27/2008, -2/+12That's a nice steaming crock of ***** there, drkingcoal. Sure, there's water vapor there. But there's also particulates, lead, mercury, and other deadly toxins. Carbon dioxide. And even sulfur and nitrogen oxides (like those scrubbers are going to catch all of it). The whole notion that coal is "clean" is ludicrous.
- angryfirelord, on 09/27/2008, -2/+11Look guys/gals, I'm as sick of using fossil fuels as much as the next person. But when we absolutely need to remove ourselves from foreign oil, we must look at ALL energy options. This means building clean coal and nuclear plants because we know how to use these technologies effectively. Once wind & solar have advanced enough and have come down in price, then we can start phasing out coal and possibly some of the nuclear plants. Personally, I think coal has had its run in history and we should focus more on building nuclear plants and figuring out how to reprocess the spent fuel. But as we're learning from the oil crisis, we must exercise all available energy options, including coal.
- MatthewTheRaven, on 09/27/2008, -1/+9A good portion of Pennsylvania is screwed too. And West Virginia would be destroyed by such a move.
- akchrs, on 09/27/2008, -16/+23I'm for anything that gets us off foreign oil that can be done safely to the environment. But the eco terrorists want to stop everything.
55 diggs and 2 comments and it makes the front page? - lofispy, on 09/27/2008, -1/+7wow...zacbro, subliminalurge makes a cognitive argument, and all you come up with is a ad hominem attack, that's really ***** sad bro...people like you are the ones that stifle true debate and real progress. It is quite obvious that you live in a dream world where you can fix problems with magic wands and then believe if you pretend hard enough that your detractors will simply go away. Well, friend, if you truly disagree with what he said then tell us why, make an actual argument, resorting to the tactics of a spoiled three-year old is exactly the thing that is spoiling digg....so, either ***** or get off the pot my friend...
- oakraid706, on 09/27/2008, -0/+6Both candidates support clean coal except for Joe Biden...
- subliminalurge, on 09/27/2008, -2/+8Where exactly do I apply for one of these $70 an hour jobs? I'll abandon my IT career in a heartbeat for the chance to make that kind of money working outdoors in the fresh air.
Unfortunately, I can count on one hand the number of solar panels I've seen installed in my city on either residential or commercial buildings. - jotate, on 09/27/2008, -3/+9If "clean" coal is the lobby that fronts the legislation to push through a full energy reform, I'll take it as the necessary evil.
- MikeSD34, on 09/27/2008, -0/+6if you weren't aware, there's an algorithm that decides what goes to the front page. It's not simply the number of diggs, or the number of comments. It's the amount of diggs over a period of time, among other things. This means that you can have a story with fewer diggs make it to the front page, than an older story with the same number of diggs which does not. The popularity of those stories is not the same, despite the fact that they have both been dugg the same number of times. The reason for this is the amount of attention over time that it receives. A story which receives 100 diggs in 1 hour is much more popular than a story that receives 100 diggs over the course of 2 days.
Also, not everyone who diggs a story comments on it. This means that there can be a fairly popular story in the upcomming list, with little or no comments at all. Why is this? Because they may think that a story is digg worthy, despite the story not leaving them with the feeling that they need to comment on it. There's nothing wrong with that.
On a similar stream, servers go down despite a digg count being low because people click through to a story without necessarily digging it. - brad3378, on 09/27/2008, -0/+4I'd like one of those jobs too.
If I were earning $70 an hour installing solar cells,
I'd trade in my car and buy an H2 Hummer. - CCB0x45, on 09/27/2008, -2/+6Wow you might win the award for most buries ever.
- MorganMghee, on 09/27/2008, -0/+4Exactly!
- madfastride, on 09/27/2008, -2/+6Block dsmith530 '08!!!
Block dsmith530 '08!!!
Block dsmith530 '08!!!
you get the idea!!!! - razorsedge555, on 09/27/2008, -1/+5Does anyone know that we are generating 50 percent of our electricity off coal?
- Solstice, on 09/27/2008, -0/+4Working on roofs is just as dangerous (if not more) than working in a coal mine. See the workplace injury/fatality rates for roofers - also see how much insurance a roofing contractor has to carry. If you've ever had one replaced on your house, it's quite an eye-opener.
Also, solar panels aren't very efficient in many parts of the country. They work great on my house in California, but there's no way I would have put them on my house when I lived in Michigan. They're pretty fragile and a few winters would have destroyed them - not to mention the fact that they won't work too well covered in snow. - MrSlumberjack, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3Right, but the process you are talking about, coal gasification, is to reduce acid rain (sulfur dioxide) by precipitating out the sulfur in the form of calcium sulfate. The issue at stake here is the other gas coming out of those pipes, CO2. There is "clean coal" in terms of reducing acid rain, but there is no such thing as"clean coal" in terms of CO2.
- goodinohio, on 09/27/2008, -1/+4how many trillions has the green fad cost us?
- subliminalurge, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3@zacbro
Look, dude, I remember what it's like to be young and idealistic. It's fun to get all pumped up and excited about a "cause".
What you have to realize is that it's the idealistic people like you who are stopping us from making any damn progress at all. If you maintain an "all or nothing" attitude, you'll get "nothing" every ***** time. That's just reality.
Keep your head up your ass as long as you want, it doesn't change the cold, hard fact that my approach of "steps in the right direction" will achieve the goal, and your approach of "let's do it all, 100%, and let's do it by next Friday, otherwise everyone can ***** off" will only result in the status quo being maintained.
If you really want to make a difference, the first step you need to take is to accept reality. - brad3378, on 09/27/2008, -1/+4So who should we vote for?
Even the Democrats support coal.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D93E1 ...
Maybe it's time to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party? - m0laria, on 09/27/2008, -2/+5ITS A LEFTIST LIBERALIST CONSPIRACEY!!!!!haashaSdHSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHSKD:Lhaslfha;'ja
- pintomp3, on 09/27/2008, -3/+6you are that one doctor who believe cigarettes are good for you, huh?
- quandrum, on 09/27/2008, -1/+4Or it's a slow news day and early morning, which alters the threshold for getting a story on the front page so that the front page stays fresh even when not a lot of people are digging.
Seriously, why is conspiracy the first place humans go? It's just boring. - malice8691, on 09/27/2008, -4/+7Cause a site like treehugger wouldn't be biased would they?
- dualpower, on 09/27/2008, -2/+5"I don't understand the necessity of coal or oil. "
Coal fired power plants provide a steady baseline of power for the grid. The only other power source that could replace it currently is nuclear. This is the reality of our system. Power has to be produced in real time as it is used. Any slight deviations cause system instability and damage. Blackouts are really really expensive. Industry stops.
Wind and solar power are good for topping up demand fluctuations, but there are reasons why they cannot be used for the base power demand. They are inconsistent and not located ideal distances from demand centres. Did you know that the further you have to transmit power, the less power you get out at the other end? The system can only use so much solar and wind!
If you want to reduce our USE of coal you should consider living a more conservative lifestyle.
Most of the electricity in North America powers industry. Buying ***** you don't need burns coal. - burningmanstan, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3What about the thousands of square miles of strip mines and permanent pollution of surface water? I really don't think the average digg reader has a grasp on the amount of land and water area in the US destroyed by coal mining.
- madfastride, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3I don't understand the necessity of coal or oil. I also don't under stand the Wyoming and Montana are screwed comments. No body is screwed... the point is that if people get off coal the jobs will be replaced by installing and maintaining more environmentally friendly options like solar and wind. Which will actually produce more jobs because it's more labor intensive to install solar than the much more automated business of extracting and burning coal. Especially in an open pit.
- JigoroKano, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3You know why coal workers make that much money?
It's hard work and they die! Even in the U.S., miners still get black lung or die from cave in.
Hard jobs pay more. Supply and demand determines the price of labor. People have the right to unionize. Take your corporatism elsewhere. - pagno, on 09/27/2008, -2/+5Sure, lets go back to a 100hour work week, where you can pay them minimum wage(thats *****, too) to build your cars, keeping everyone in the lower ranks of poverty. Sounds like a plan. McCain 08!
- Nerys, on 09/27/2008, -3/+6I don't CARE. Lets go all in for coal. First its domestic IE no foreign oil needed SECOND powerplants are the easiest to clean up.
LETS just get the battery electric cars on the road. EVERYTHING ELSE will change on its own rapidly once we do that.
You see once we have battery electrics on the road you will see a massive influx into battery development and solar development. Once that happens you will see coal plants go byebye.
The only thing stopping us from going all solar besides resistance from other industries is HOW do we "store" the power for at night. Battery Electric cars will take car of that by promoting massive developments in batteries.
We need to stop worrying about the unimportant stuff IE whether we are using oil or coal. And worry about the REALLY important stuff. Battery Electrics. Solar Power, The Constitution etc..
With battery development and projects like nanosolar I see the day coming where POWER PLANTS becomes obsolete. If we had a super cheap battery that did not "wear out" for all intents and purposes we could ELIMINATE power plants all together. - MorganMghee, on 09/27/2008, -1/+3Jeez, you guys are a little judgy about a name.... maybe these articles will prove a bit more 'qualified' to you:
"The coal industry and its allies are spending more than $60 million to promote the notion that coal is clean. But so far, “clean coal” is little more than an advertising slogan." Yale University's E360 http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2014
If nothing else besides money will convince you, how about the New York Comptroller saying NO to new coal plants because they face the same dismal failure and cost over run rates that doomed the nuclear power market. In both cases, regulations to keep us SAFE would have to be reduced (they are already at bare minimums) or eliminated (more likely, considering the low levels they are at now).
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov/press/pdfs/06-16-08 ...
Or how about the Union of Concerned Scientists? They find the costs will equal or overtake that of nuclear.
"With over 150 new coal power plants proposed nationwide, the Union of Concerned Scientists has expanded its efforts to heighten awareness of the true costs of coal. Our report, Gambling with Coal, shows how investment in conventional coal plants is a reckless financial gamble given coming climate regulation." http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_ ... - KaiserArny, on 09/27/2008, -2/+4Reported
- brad3378, on 09/27/2008, -1/+3You bring up a good point.
Why spend tens of thousands to go to college when you can join a union and earn more? - inactive, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2@brad3378,
There are plenty of online resources available.
This link explains it the best:
http://www.chicoer.com/business/ci_5155928
It was a bill that passed in 2003 and it takes effect next year.
My wife is a tax accountant. - inactive, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2US workers that work overseas will now be subjected to double taxation effective next year.
You'll be taxed on the gross for the host country and taxed on the gross for US taxes. - AutoXer, on 09/27/2008, -1/+3Coal miners "round these parts" easily make $60K/yr with little post high school education. I'd quit my engineering job for a $50/hr non-exempt labor job. Please let me know where to signup.
- MorganMghee, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Nope, I think we want the same thing. Problem here is, there IS NO CLEAN COAL. It's an ad campaign, not a product or technology.
- angryfirelord, on 09/27/2008, -1/+3Not necessarily. There are some oil power plants in operation, but they're certainly not as common as coal plants. However, if we adopt something like the electric car, then the two will be intertwined, since the power will all be coming from the same source.
In addition, if we continue our energy demand, we're going to have to start importing natural gas as well. So while it may be apples and oranges now, in the future we'll be blending it all into a fruit smoothie. :-) - madfastride, on 09/28/2008, -1/+3I understand all of this... Solar panels can be installed on roof tops. Our country has plenty of roof tops going unused. This is about as local as you can get. I agree with you that some traditional forms of energy still need to be used but we have enough of those. I guess my statement of "I don't understand the necessity of coal or oil." meant any new plants. If all our new plants were strategically placed solar and wind we would be fine. The problem of night time or solar is a hard one. And I understand this along with modern mentality are the hardest hurdles to overcome. The problems can be solved with the gravity fed water plants being tested in Germany. Or plants that burn farming waste such as chickens, being use in Denmark.
To prove it is possible without coal and oil all together, look at Samso http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2008 ... It's small scale but we can do it with the right mentality and that is basically that oil and coal are not necessary.
"If you want to reduce our USE of coal you should consider living a more conservative lifestyle. " This seems a little ignorant as you don't know anything about my life style. Also the only reason I gave your post a thumb down. Cheers, - MatthewTheRaven, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Yup, you're right, they would be just fine, like how Detroit is booming since the downturn of the auto industry there, right?
I didn't say that they couldn't find a new industry or that the people couldn't learn new skills, but there's a generation of people in West Virginia who have little continuing education, but manage to support their families comfortably at the expense of a lot of hard work and for many with the loss of their personal health. Do you know what it would mean to go from an income of $65k for a family down to an income of, what... $15-20k?
The next generation would adapt and find something different to do, or more likely, just up and leave to go to places where there are more opportunities. But there would be a large portion of the existing generation of people living in the areas supported by coal that would, by and large, be screwed. - brad3378, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2@Tomchei
I haven't heard anything about the double taxation for overseas workers.
Where did you hear this from and where can I learn more? - MorganMghee, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2quandrum's right, I was refreshing the upcoming page over and over with no new stories about this time.
- barkrr, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2So far what is being touted as clean coal is a myth. To have truly clean coal you need to implement coal gassification but that process is too expensive and hasn't been fully engineered. Check out this article - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/business/21coal. ...
I live very near a coal fired power plant and when it's running at full capacity it produces 110,000 TONS of pollution every year. CO2 and NOX aren't the only pollutants hey are just the ones that are measured for climate change. The most serious pollutants are mercury, thallium and dioxin - but no one wants to monitor those. One teaspoon of mercury can pollute a 20 acre lake. Just look at at the warnings we have today about not eating a lot fish from our oceans because they contain too much mercury. Do you want more of this with additional coal fired power plants? - hiPpymIck, on 09/27/2008, -1/+2its a recent quote of Al Gore
FTA
" But Gore, who said that "clean coal" was like "healthy smoking", is convinced that we need to change our habits now.
"What we should do is make a one off investment to switch our energy infrastructure from one that depends on fuel that is dirty, dangerous, destroying the habitability of this planet and rising in price,
to a new global energy infrastructure that is based on fuel that is free forever -- the sun, the wind and geothermal. There is a myth that the technology is not available. It is available," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/25/gore.ca ... -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is