What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
131 Comments
- davidmiller72, on 10/10/2008, -8/+35Finally somebody calling these guys out "clean" coal. As someone who also grew up in Appalachia, I can vouch for this. No matter what kind of sequestering technology is used, the fact remains--this is moving in the wrong direction. Although I support Obama over McCain (obviously), that choice is still, in my mind anyway, a lesser of two evils.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 10/11/2008, -1/+24Nuclear is greener than coal.
- phreak79, on 10/11/2008, -4/+18Clean coal is about as green as biofuel. Both are political fudges.
- HuskyPuzzle, on 10/10/2008, -6/+18"Clean coal" always sounded like an oxymoron to me, but I kind of bought into the marketing of it, without really thinking about what it meant or what made it so much 'cleaner'. Good that people are calling this out now.
- squareheart, on 10/10/2008, -4/+15Again, ignoring the fundamental issue that we consume too much for the planet to sustain us. We can gift wrap it anyway we like with the feelgoodery of carbon offsets and recapturing, but the best way to keep our emissions in check is to not make them in the first place. Something that seems almost impossible to do...
- UTKEngineer, on 10/11/2008, -3/+11What a crock of crap.
He claims clean coal is a farce, the points out that no one is currently using it, then points out that coal is dirty. This is a non-sequitur and proves nothing. Clean coal is better than the the coal plants we're currently running and building. Swapping the existing power generation for one that's cleaner would be an improvement.
Also, if clean coal is a farce, what is his solution? I guess he finds it fun to sit there an throw stones, but it's neither very informative nor helpful.
500 MW coal plants are our future until our legislative body gets its collective head out of its collective posterior and: writes sensible requirements for nuke energy which ensure its safety without interfering with its operation, permit reprocessing of spent waste, and fund both an improvement in our grid and research into waste disposal.
There, I'm done with this soapbox now. - jamangold, on 10/11/2008, -0/+8- Coal plants actually put out 100 times the radiation of a nuclear plant due to the amounts of naturally occurring fissile materials found in coal.
- Modern nuclear power plant designs are on the orders of magnitude more efficient and safe than their counterparts from the 1970's.
- One way to curtail some of the waste is to extract the unused U-235 from spent fuel rods. Currently, because of the Carter administration, we cannot do this.
One of the major obstacles, besides hanging on to outdated ideologies, is the amount of fissile uranium left in the ground that is extractable, and how long it will last. - DankNugzPlz, on 10/11/2008, -1/+9Nuclear is the safest power source available.
If only a way of dealing with the waste created by it was devised... - rucksack, on 10/11/2008, -2/+9exactly. the only thing that's clean is using less.
- Eric1285, on 10/11/2008, -1/+8Just because it's not commercially viable right now doesn't mean we should stop investing in and supporting it. I mean, 10 years ago Solar power wasn't commercially viable. Look where we are now.
Coal is here to stay for the next several decades - why not invest in ways to use it more efficiently and cleanly? - rocketman42, on 10/11/2008, -1/+7I missed what the "myth" was. I've always interpreted the talk to be clean coal is a stepping stone to get to fully renewable energy, like hybrid cars are a stepping stone to future emissions-free vehicles. The article says 50% of power is from coal plants. It will take a very long time to replace all that energy capacity with renewables, in addition to the extra energy we need every year. Yes, there are no plants that do it right now, that's why the federal government wants to invest in the research and development, like they do with solar, wind, and geothermal. They are already beginning to build a plant on this new technology. http://www.futuregenalliance.org/ (Although, when it was initially awarded to Illinois last year instead of a site in Texas, Bush then canceled the contract, but it appears the Senate put it back it place). Currently scheduled to produce 275MW in 2012. So, like many of these new technologies, it appears close to being able to significantly reduce pollution. Whether it works in the long run, who knows, but I'm willing to support the initial research to find out.
- xerigen, on 10/11/2008, -3/+9Solar, geothermal, wind, wave. Bam. Problem solved.
We all suffer so greedy corporations can continue to profit. - ianmack, on 10/11/2008, -3/+8 I'm surprised that Al Gore would go so far as to recommend civil disobedience to prevent plants from being built. That's some serious sh*t.
- partrow, on 10/11/2008, -1/+6Neither one is green in any valance state that I am aware of. Uranium is usually yellow, and coal is black.
- inactive, on 10/11/2008, -3/+8Nuclear Power
Discuss - OrangeTide, on 10/11/2008, -0/+5Most of the waste can be used as fuel in other types of reactors. All our problems with nuclear energy stem from regulatory problems. The French have all the issues solved while we're still fighting about issues that are 30 years obsolete because our reactors are also 30 years obsolete.
- Valerieng317, on 10/11/2008, -4/+9An important, eye-opening piece. And much as I am a fan of Obama, he does disappoint me sometimes.
- ThatsNotPudding, on 10/11/2008, -3/+8It is clean! Clean, pure, Mercury. Soon, we'll be able to felt our own hats by simply wearing them outside. That's progress, my boy!
- akchrs, on 10/11/2008, -0/+5Clean Coal, Biden was against it for Obama told him he was for it.
- purag66, on 05/13/2009, -0/+5I agree with your comment, but only if you consider corn-based ethanol as the only biofuel. Other such fuels from certain strains of grass or even ethanol from sugarcane have large benefits The carbon stored in biofuels came from the environment (since the crops used atmospheric CO2 to grow in the first place) So burning these fuels is carbon-neutral. Indeed, even if a few carbon moles got left behind (in unused stems, etc.) then we have effectively created a cycle that depletes the atmosphere of CO2 (albeit on a very small scale).
- Eric1285, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4We are investing in clean/renewable energy. Have you not noticed this enormous boom in the renewable energy sector?
That being said, they're not about to replace coal over night, so why not burn coal more cleanly while we're doing it? - OrangeTide, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4yellow is much greener than black.
- StarlessKnight, on 10/11/2008, -1/+5Clean Liquid Coal Not an Eco-Friendly Alternative to Gasoline and Diesel
Jim Presswood, federal energy advocate of the Natural Resources Defense Council says, “Liquid CO2 emissions are twice as much as emissions from conventional petroleum-derived fuels.” He says that even if CO2 emissions were captured as part of the process, at best liquid coal would be 12 percent worse than the gasoline equivalent. As some environmentalists have put it, liquid coal can turn any hybrid Prius into a Hummer.
http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/clea ... - Aroundtown27, on 10/11/2008, -0/+4I disagree with the statement that it takes 2.5 years to build a "massive" wind farm when a coal plant from proposal to commisioning takes 8-12 years. Most of the time for the coal plant is regulatory and environmental studies and pre-work. I am sure the wind famrs have to go through a similar process and I am also sure that it takes a hell of a lot longer than 2.5 years.
Still an interesting article though, just somethings are misrepresented. - AlanJV, on 10/11/2008, -4/+7Clean coal = FAIL. Too bad most of the major news outlets don't touch on this.
- Gonthim, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Because we could invest in clean, renewable sources of energy instead. Yes, coal and oil are going to be around for a while, but why should we promote their use when we could promote the use of other, better, sources of energy?
- Half-Fast, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4FTA - “Just when is coal mining going to start being good for the economies of places like West Virginia, southwestern Virginia and eastern Kentucky?”
The author needs to look around in coal country when (if) he's actually there. The wages that the coal companies pay and the benefits they provide allow people to stay in our mountains and make a good living. When I leave these mountains of West Virginia I feel an actual physical longing until I return to the mountains. If you've never lived in this area, I don't expect you to understand it. Just know that the love for the land exists in the Appalachians like few other places in this country. Yes we make a trade-off with the damage we do to the land, but in the bigger picture the damage is small and with modern reclamation practices the attempt is made to not leave the messes of the past.
Coal not only pays it's primary employees, but the wages paid help banks, car dealers, restaurants, etc. A lot of these jobs would not survive if coal were to be done away with. Not to mention the services the coal mines use like trucking, heavy equipment, fuel, etc. We are talking about a LOT of jobs that depend on coal.
As for the question in the article concerning the economies of WV, Southeast VA, and Eastern KY, if not for coal, the economies of the coal producing areas would not exist. It's not like industry is beating down our doors around here trying to get in. In the big picture the mountains prevent easy access to and from the area. Maybe that's part of the reason we love it so much.
And for the record, I'm one who makes his living from coal. Not from management or PR before somebody says that. I'm a truck driver and love what I do.
Favorite bumper sticker around the coalfields: If you really hate strip mining that much, prove it by turning off your electricity. - Skywise, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4Actually we HAVE been debating it. That's why Biden had to retract his "no coal power at all" statement.
- baileydoo, on 10/11/2008, -3/+6This is not progress.
- UTKEngineer, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3Burning coal isn't clean, capturing and sequestering the impurities fixes that. I never said we shouldn't look to NEW sources of energy. But, unless you and a few million of your closest friends are going to live in the dark and eat raw food till they become economically and technologically competitive, we're going to have to use what have, right now. We have coal. Clean coal is better than the coal plants that currently generate 50% of our stationary energy.
Like I said, I want nuclear to become the backbone of our stationary generation, but that's years if not decades down the road. Plenty of plants are going to come online before then. Clean coal is our best cheapest bet in the interim. - barryiggins, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3the timing of this seems to be partisan in its own right.
- HuoXin, on 10/11/2008, -2/+5* shaking head * not cool, candidates. not cool.
- partrow, on 10/11/2008, -2/+5No, it is typical Al. He will, as usual, get others to do his bidding for him, and they and others will bow down to him as a prophet for doing it. Amazing!
- TSK05, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3"McCain has said Obama has said "no" to nuclear energy. But as the Boston Globe points out, "Obama has described nuclear power as 'not optimal' and labeled himself 'not a nuclear energy proponent.' But he has said he would not rule out more nuclear power 'only so far as it is clean and safe.'""
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/06/ ...
McCain: Yay nuclear power (also my position).
Obama: Nuclear power "not optimal", "not a nuclear energy proponent," so that's a maybe at best. - evilbob333, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3Aside from the obvious what to do with the waste, Nuclear has an interesting problem of not being able to throttle up or down the power output. Which would not be a problem if we always needed the same power output, but as any power engineer would probably tell you, we use significantly more power during the day. All that extra power would most likely go to waste during the night(plugin hybrids?). And more importantly, with nuclear, you do not have the ability to increase power output on the file. Starting and stopping a safe nuclear reaction is quite time consuming. We could still use it to provide the bulk of our power needs, but would still need to augment it to take care of spikes in power needs. I know that both France and Britain have had and are working on this issue. Not to say that nuclear power shouldn't be used, just to say its not as simple as people make it out to be.
- Tyrghast, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3We should give out free liposuction and use the fat for fuel.
- dbisping, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3yay! i'm excited that someone actually has a clue.
check out this book:
http://earththesequel.edf.org/
the story is inaccurate. most of the comments are inaccurate. most of the problem with getting clean technologies going on a large scale is the incompetence of current administration and the whining ignorance of the population. in other words, lack of leadership and all the foot shuffling nay sayers out there. - UTKEngineer, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3source?
- evilbob333, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3Solar power still isn't commercially viable. It needs all sorts of tax credits and subsides to make it economical. Not to say it isn't a good idea, but it isn't a commercially viable product that can stand on its own without outside incentives.
- thesonofdarwin, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately the same can be said about numerous topics. Agriculture, for instance. We could utilize our environment to both feed everyone and be ecologically friendly, but we don't promote this line of reasoning. We've fallen into a rut; American's aren't willing to be inconvenienced and it'd be political suicide to put full support behind things that would. With all the whining about the environment lately, we still aren't willing to pay more for oil, be mandated to buy more eco-friendly vehicles, refit our houses with solar, etc. etc. We talk the talk, and that's as far as it goes. No politician that presented this would get elected or enough support to pass bills.
We'll push on until our collapse and look around asking why no one did anything. Being eco-friendly should not be a life style choice, it should be a governmentally enforced requirement. That's the ONLY way a difference will be made. Until then, all talk. - bincoder, on 10/11/2008, -1/+4I see the article is talking about coal fired generating plants.
Naturally its dirty if tossed in a burner and used to boil water to make electricity, so is the family BBQ and the living room fireplace.
To get 'clean' coal, it gets converted first to gasoline then used in vehicles the same as light sweet crude oil (which would also be filthy if burned as-is)
It isn't bleeding edge technology. One little country nearly took over the free world by converting dirty and low grade local coal into diesel and gasoline.
If nazi germany had the technology to supply 50% of their fuel by synthesizing it back in the dinosaur days of vacuum tubes and crystal radio sets 70 ish years ago, it should be a bit simpler now, in the 21st century, to do the same.
Say what you will, but synthetic liquid fuels derived from coal burn just as cleanly as the gas you can get at your nearest gas station now. Possibly cleaner, since more processing steps are involved.
Its just taking anything made of hydrogen and carbon and rearranging the structure to suit the desired application.
Corn or algae are the current darlings of the alt fuel fans. They are made of nothing more than hydrogen and carbon just like coal and, just like coal, they won't burn in your car as is, but fuel must be made from the ingredients they provide.
It all releases CO2 as a waste product. Corn, algae, gasoline, coal, the neighbors horse... on and on. CO2 is a different problem (If it really is a problem) with different solutions. Many claim nuclear power is the answer for all our problems. It isn't so. Like Anything else, there is only so much nuclear fuel to go around. When it gets priced out of sight from demand then what? Invade other countries to get more?
Energy was not even a concern until the price of Oil to drive your Hummer with went up. Now its like the sky is falling and we will all run out of electricity to power homes and businesses if we don't cover the planet with windfarms or solar panels.
That is not even a problem. There is no shortage of electricity. Hell, with the economy down the tubes, if anything, there is an excess of power.
The prices are rising for it Only because it costs much more now to drive a truck, forklift or what have you. Nuclear fuel doesn't dig itself up and deliver itself to the plant nor does coal and the employees don't just 'beam in' at 7am to work.
How to build more plants anyway? They won't just automatically appear in the desert either. Someone has to drive vehicles, use heavy equipment and actually build them. A few windmills aren't going to do that and there aren't enough batteries in the world to supply the energy to just build a new plant.
All that requires cheap liquid fuels bottom line, before anything else is going to be cheap or even doable at all.
I can eat corn, I cannot eat coal. Electricity can be made in massive quantities with geothermal power, no need for nuclear fuel or coal and that method doesn't involve destroying the desert to cover it with all those lovely shiny solar panels and windmills either. The cactus, coyotes and mountains look just fine the way they are, no 'improvements' to it are needed or wanted. - inactive, on 10/11/2008, -0/+3It's change we can believe in!
Climate change. - astroslut, on 10/12/2008, -0/+2More accurate, Nuclear is cleaner than coal, more efficient, and safer.
And the argument about waste, Europe reuses the waste which can still be productive, but for some, more than likely political and lobbyist reason, the U.S will not. - kmand, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2THANK GOD, I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH A STUCK CAPS LOCK!
- zanzzz, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Actually it's nuclear power which is not commercially viable. Despite its low carbon footprint nuclear is vastly more expensive per kilowatt/hour than coal, oil, gas, solar, wind. Another issue is that no private insurance company is crazy enough to insure a nuclear facility so you the taxpayer is on the hook if anything goes wrong.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=204 ... - OrangeTide, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Coal plants are the number 1 source of mercury pollution in the environment.
- inactive, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Well said.
- zanzzz, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Nuclear looks attractive until you consider the real costs. It is vastly more expensive than other conventional power sources and even solar and wind! Don't believe it? Read this industry report that admits as much:
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=204 ... - Corrosionx, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2When will you people learn? Government can't do anything right.
- TVarmy, on 10/11/2008, -0/+2Coal is no good when converted to a liquid fuel to replace gasoline or diesel. However, it is more efficient than gasoline or diesel to burn coal at a power plant and use that power to run an electric car.
However, that's ignoring the other options for expanding the grid, such as tidal power, wind power, solar power (to a lesser degree until it reaches parity) and nuclear power (to a greater degree until those options become cheaper). If it weren't for NIMBY towards wind and tidal power, the high cost of homeowners installing solar panels, and the fear towards nuclear power (even though the new designs are much safer than the old junkers we keep up just because it's too hard to build new ones), coal wouldn't have to be an option.
I'd say the best thing to do would be to expand nuclear power and offshore wind turbines and tidal turbines. Modern nuclear plants are safe and cannot melt down by nature, and when wind turbines are 10 - 15 miles offshore, they are profitable and do not affect the view or tourism. Tidal turbines are underwater, and it's been found that fish are smart enough to avoid them. -
Show 51 - 100 of 132 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is