What is Digg?180 Comments
- doublefelix, on 12/13/2008, -3/+66It's always going to burn dirty to some extent. Just look at the stuff. Might as well claim you've discovered "clean" technology for smoking the resin out of your bong.
- tbhurst, on 12/14/2008, -7/+66Fiction
- mf0thrilla, on 12/14/2008, -7/+62Clean coal is a joke.
- ieee, on 12/14/2008, -4/+31They may come up with a way to burn coal cleanly, but mining it is an environmental issues in itself. Aside from destroying the health of the miners, coal mining devastates environments. I've heard such sites described as being desolate as the moon.
- Bloake, on 12/14/2008, -7/+27Just as factual as Santa Clause...
- solmakou, on 12/14/2008, -3/+19I don't know if it's fact or fiction, but the commercial of touring a clean coal plant is hilarious!
- lolwaffle, on 12/14/2008, -3/+17I get pissed off every time I see one of those billboards touting "clean coal". They're all over the place, and a new one just went up last week near my house. Something creative needs to be done about them, if you're picking up what I'm putting down.
- Norumeni, on 12/14/2008, -1/+14I actually worked at a coal plant for a couple of days as a temp worker because the ashes had built up and they needed people to clear them out. As I had been doing this for several hours, they decided to give me a break by having me slowly scrape baking soda into a chute, which the guy telling me what to do showed me that it made the coal burn "clean", and it did; I thought about sending smoke signals, that's about how accurate it was...
Anyways, I always laugh when people talk about clean coal, because whenever there's an inspector around, they just have some poor temp worker shove baking soda down a tube so there isn't smoke pouring out of the smokestack like usual. - stopbrorape, on 12/14/2008, -4/+14Clean coal isn't the way to go.
- bluetytanium, on 12/14/2008, -2/+11Coal is coal.
- angryfirelord, on 12/14/2008, -2/+10I think it's obvious it's fiction, whether it's from burning it to mining it out of the ground. At the same time, nearly half our power comes from coal plants, so we should look into "green" ways of burning it while transitioning to cleaner energy. That includes nuclear power as well.
- scoottie, on 12/14/2008, -0/+8i actually missed the ending the first couple times i saw it and thought it was a pro clean coal commercial
- LastDitchHero, on 12/14/2008, -0/+7People can't sense the sarcasm
- grantface, on 12/14/2008, -2/+9Is it fact or fiction? Yes.
- dignation, on 12/14/2008, -0/+7Geothermal power is only an option in a few lucky places. It isn't going to solve all of our energy problems.
- Ductapemaster, on 12/14/2008, -2/+9Exactly what I wrote my Environmental Science paper on...it's all BS. The "clean coal initiative" is just a ploy from the coal compnies to make them look better in the public's eye, while receiving huge suns of money from the government so they can build more plants. They don't even want to fix the old plants, just build new ones with "new technology".
Plus, where does all that money come from? Well, they take it away from renewable energy research. The coal companies received over $550 million in R&D last year, while renewable -combined- received somewhere around $30 million. Absolutely ridiculous.
I could go on for days about all this... - woodrow8292, on 12/14/2008, -7/+14"We ought not think that we can stake literally the survival of our planet on something that currently is just an illusion."
It's not the survival of the planet at stake, it will be here long after we are gone. Thats one thing I hate about the envirowackos, we will not destroy the planet we will destroy ourselves. All these people who point out the scientific evidence that we will destroy the earth fail to remember that this planet has been through a lot worse than a temperature change. Could we make the earth inhabitable for our species. Sure. Will we destroy it with man made global warming? No. - icabodane, on 12/14/2008, -1/+8Well Bush just pushed some law that will make it legal for miners to dump their waste directly into mountain streams, so... yeah... once again, the republicans prove loud and clear that they believe money is more important than the will of the people or the environment.. or the people themselves (remember the republicans don't want universal health care, but they've fought anti-smoking laws tooth and nail). What ever makes the most money will win out and nothing else matters. We're not much better than China.
- skyshock1, on 12/14/2008, -1/+7You can burn coal and collect ALL the output gas, process it chemically, and change it into other things. So in that regard, *yes* clean coal is fact. Are coal burning power plants actually doing this? Not no, but HELL no. So in that regard it's fiction.
Possible? Yes, theoretically.
Actual? No. - stormofswords, on 12/14/2008, -1/+6What a useless red herring argument. The survival of our species is tied into the survival of our planet. The argument isn't about saving the rocks and trees and water of planet earth only so they exist after we're dead, it's about perserving our environment through sustainable energy usage so we aren't wiped out as a species.
Enough with this fatalistic, sociopathic, personal responsibility ignoring ***** the Right loves to push about how "this planet has been through a lot worse than a temperature change". The Right can't stop pulling on themselves like coked up sex addicts screaming about "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!" when the issue of health care or welfare comes up, but when the issue is using energy responsibly and environmental protection they are all to quick to simply shrug their shoulders and say "it doesn't matter what I do since the earth will survive long after I do!". They're nothing but two-faced cowards who are simply looking for the easy justification for their unsustainable, irresponsible lifestyles.
Enough of the *****. It's the same squanderous mindset which delivered us into this mess in the first place. - madfrogurt, on 12/14/2008, -2/+7It's a wonderful example of how a PR firm can inject a concept into the political lexicon and have something which does not even exist become part of many, many different plans for clean power.
- SisyphusFragmnt, on 12/15/2008, -1/+6So we should kill ourselves in the long run so we can feel comfy in the short term? That's logic for sure.
- inactive, on 12/14/2008, -1/+6Does anyone posting actually work in the coal industry? Just checking, because I'm reading a lot of misinformed stuff from you people... Not surprising, it's Digg after all.
Should we move to alternative fuels. Yes, we'll have to eventually anyway, but that doesn't mean we should stop using the fuels we have available now, or limiting them either. Use them up as we move to more efficient and better alternatives. Some of you would throw the baby out with the bath water. What, we just shut down the entire coal industry overnight? What do you think that would do to the economy of this country? - Farik, on 12/14/2008, -2/+7While it may be "cleaner" coal, it's definitely not clean. Even if the carbon exhaust is trapped, where does it get stored? Underground, most likely but this is not a truly clean technology. Solar is where the world should be investing money.
- publiclurker, on 12/14/2008, -3/+8Well if money is the only thing important to you, maybe we should legalize child prostitution. After all, you have shown quite clearly that profit is the most important thing there is.
- inactive, on 12/14/2008, -0/+5And capitalists want you to believe in both so they can make more money.
- inactive, on 12/14/2008, -0/+4@blakestah: Agreed. However, we need to build the nuclear plants NOW, we need to build the wind farms NOW, we need to build the solar arrays NOW. We've backed ourselves into a corned because we've done nothing productive with energy other than burn fossil fuels.
I'd say in the next 20 years we could get off fossil fuel all together, IF we researched alternative energies and worked towards a real solution. Coal and oil are stop gaps. Nuclear is the next 100 years, but what about after that? We really need to look at making building more energy independent, cities more linked into renewable grids, and look at how to manage cities grow demand for energy and water. Right now, we have no plan. - Observant1, on 12/14/2008, -0/+4geothermal could do it just fine.
- Yookji, on 12/14/2008, -0/+4Right. Geothermal is great and is perhaps the best option if you live in Wyoming or Hawaii, but isn't developed enough to be cost-competitive in other parts of the world. With enough development, a technology called Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) could work in most of the US. Unlike other alternatives such as wind and solar, this provides a steady source of electricity not subject to the whims of the weather.
http://www.google.org/egs/ - fauxbro, on 12/14/2008, -0/+4I really like alternate energy solutions, but when i tried to install solar panels on my roof my housing assositation blocked it. I think we have a long way to go.
- tremerevamp, on 12/14/2008, -2/+6Clean Coal = power for sissies that won't do Nuclear.
:(
As an Australian I find it unfortunate that my fellow Australians and politicians are wasting time mucking around with this idea. Better move to France, where my 'carbon footprint' these people talk about would instantly plummet. - prodigitalson, on 12/14/2008, -2/+6Thres no such thing as "clean coal" - at least not yet. There is however, cleaner coal. There is a big difference.
- blakestah, on 12/14/2008, -0/+4There's multiple lines of debate on this. Obviously we SHOULD invest in solar and wind and biofuel infrastructure. But based on what we know now, these are 20+ year investments with nearly no return in that time frame. The DOE has many white papers analyzing the scalability and cost per kwh of these different energy sources. Cost does matter. Coal is 3-4 c/kwh, and gasified coal 5-6 c/kwh. Nuclear is around 7c/kwh, wind is around 9c/kwh when the wind blows. Solar has no scalability currently. Biofuels are in the early research stages.
If you were in charge today, and had to plan the next 20 years of what is best for America, what would it be?
Once you research the topic you will see the ONLY viable directions to shift energy usage in the next 20 years are coal, nuclear, or biofuels, and of those only coal and nuclear can be in the planning phases today.
Of course we should invest in other energy alternatives. But we also need to plan for the energy infrastructure for the next two decades. Building a massive wind and solar infrastructure is as effective as throwing 100 dollar bills on a fire for energy. In the meantime we need to keep the lights on, and coal is one of two big roads we can go down. - lacrimosa2008, on 12/14/2008, -0/+4Is this kind of headlining bad journalism or good selling?
- publiclurker, on 12/15/2008, -0/+4And if it does cause bad things (which it will, let's face it), do they have to remove it and pay the price needed to return everything back to normal, or do they just have to say "oops" from their corporate jets?
- blakestah, on 12/14/2008, -0/+4@greyfalcon: the proof is in the pudding. I would be wholeheartedly behind the new solar efforts if they can be convincing in their costs and scalability. I haven't seen it yet, but maybe it is coming. The problems with "new technologies" like new solar plants and air cars is that the developers will consistently over-represent progress to lure investors. Nuclear is mature today and working all over America already. Hyperion has a scalable solution that could grow fast.
But, like I said, if/when solar has the same benchmarks, it would be even better. - Midtowner, on 12/15/2008, -1/+5The Clean Water Act still would make it illegal to dump dredged materials or mining waste if the dumping actually causes bad things to be released into the water, e.g., lead, SO2, etc.
If the mining can be done more cheaply, we can produce energy more cheaply. Our society right now, by and large is powered by coal. Take that away and half the country's dark. - jeffinseatown, on 12/15/2008, -0/+4I agree that "clean" coal has a long way to go to satisfy me as a potential answer. Solar and wind need to gain momentum (and funding). Regarding nuclear power, though, what do we do about the waste? I grew up near the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. They have been spending millions per year trying to figure out how to contain the nuclear waste. They have tried to turn it into glass but that hasn't panned out. When I was in H.S., I worked at the reservation in a group that monitored air and water coming out of a portion of Hanford and rest assured that there is contamination reaching the Columbia River. Increase nuclear production and you can ensure increased contamination...at Hanford or wherever the plants are built.
Wind and solar are a part of the answer. Our country has a vast difference in climates and I don't think that one source will work. We will probably need to still use coal and oil, but we need to build "green" plants to reduce the need for the others, but they will never replace the others. - Scaryclouds, on 12/14/2008, -1/+5They are saying all the clean coal stuff is imaginary.
- partrow, on 12/14/2008, -0/+4Fuel Tech (ftek.com) is just one example, and many others are working on other technologies.
- harksaw, on 12/14/2008, -3/+7That commercial made absolutely no sense to me. Maybe I missed the joke entirely.
They're showing a guy walking around in the desert talking about clean coal, and that's supposed to somehow prove or convince us that clean coal can't work? - inactive, on 12/14/2008, -3/+7The only thing I use coal for it to light my hookah.
- inactive, on 12/14/2008, -1/+5Wow. Typical Republican ***** on everything new. How is that too expensive you retard. Mass production would lower the prices even further. All we need is a political will, but bitter Republicans will try to slow us down on every turn.
- duggdowncatisad, on 12/14/2008, -2/+6Military intelligence
Jumbo shrimp
Routine surgery
Clean coal - samuellclemens, on 12/15/2008, -0/+4Why not vape it? Why not vaporize our trash for energy? http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/11/12/plasma-plants- ...
- inactive, on 12/14/2008, -1/+4Because wind/solar don't really work. Sure they make some elctricity. But it's too expensive.
- flawlessjess, on 12/15/2008, -0/+3OMG really you could make millions :-O don't forget to patent it for protection ;-) / sarcasm
- inactive, on 12/14/2008, -3/+6We still need coal, dammit.
Solar/wind are waaaay more expensive that fossil fuel. Why? Cause you spend millions building the plant. Then it only makes electricity SOME of the time. The fact is, we don't have a way to store the electricity. So these multi-million dollar plants would only work during the sunny/windy days. Where do we get electricity the rest of the time? THAT'S why it's expensive.
Cause we still need coal or oil generated electricity.
It's as if you had to buy two cars. One for daytime and one for night. Most of your auto expenses would be double, cause you were keeping up two cars.
When some genius figures out how to make batteries that are ten times as good as the ones we have today, it will be different. Until then alternative energy really means very, very expensive.
Or it may mean ration books. Remember when Obama said this:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK"
Think that was just talk? Maybe. Or maybe he won't let you keep your house at the temperature that you want. - floorman56, on 12/15/2008, -0/+3You should come to Thunder Basin in Wyo Just look out for the herds of animals as you drive there.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 184 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is