What is Digg?59 Comments
- greenfyre, on 11/18/2008, -5/+16Noting refutes real science by actual scientists like a long rant by someone on the net.
- macdady843, on 11/18/2008, -4/+13Yea stop using our most abundant and cheapest form of energy that makes a lot of sense. But hey if you're willing to start paying a bunch of extra money for your energy by all means down with coal!!
- rizzo2008, on 11/18/2008, -0/+7clean coal is a farce unless we coupled it with algae, bacteria or some other CO2 absorbing microbe to produce fuel.
- korvan504521, on 11/18/2008, -2/+8"""
Construction of new coal-fired power plants in the United States is in danger of coming to a standstill,
"""
Really? Because the company I work for is building four of them right now. And we just got awarded another one a couple months ago (before the credit crisis though, so who knows). - tbranham, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6Look, it's not feasible to bury the greenhouse gases underground -- it would use more energy than it is worth. No, the only solution is to plant trees. A lot of trees. All over. Trees capture tons (literally) of CO2 from the atmosphere, yet people don't seem to care (or notice). They are a very reliable, practical, inexpensive solution to the problem. To the individuals who will cry about trees taking too long to work: the answer is, obviously, to plant things which do NOT take a long time to grow in the short run while those trees mature. Easy.
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -1/+6The real problem at hand is the industrial revolution taking place in China.
It's annoying to see them stressing reform in areas of the world where it will hardly make a difference. - Charlotte_Web, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5Please explain how solar is "cheap".
Sunlight is abundant; that's true. But converting sunlight into electricity is the expensive part.
Research IS going into making solar power cheaper, but we can't implement what we don't have. - IneedaSN, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4lets forget all about the strip mining that occurs where thy blow the top off of mountains and fill in streams
THANK GOD FOR CLEAN COAL!!!
/sarcasm - Charlotte_Web, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Ethanol is better than nuclear? Ethanol is still part of the polluting internal combustion engine problem. Nuclear is far, FAR cleaner than ethanol.
- tgc1, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3I agree. Get rid of it. That's the cleanest option. Now what you replace it with, that should be the real question. And there are PLENTY of options.
- ousthouse, on 11/18/2008, -3/+6Too many environmentalist already have their mind closed to the issue;
Coal and nuclear are bad no matter what the scenario.
Ethanol and wind are good no matter the scenario.
Maybe these things are true in most scenarios, but too many people are demanding action before the science is able to confirm their beliefs. - pinchduck, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Have you? Not if you're on the grid. Not so easy, is it? Lead by example, or make a more realistic suggestion. Coal is cheap and plentiful, it would be stupid to not use it. It would be stupid to burn it in dirty generators. Extracting the energy cleanly and using it to generate power is a much better idea. OTOH, if you are off the grid and generate your own power, then kudos to you.
- divinediva, on 11/18/2008, -5/+8Coal, which now supplies more than half of all U.S. electricity, seems the best option.
- k3rfuffl3, on 11/18/2008, -3/+6Your volcanic data ***** doesn't account for the billions of tons of CO2 put into the atmosphere. Stop re-hashing false arguments if you want to be taken seriously.
- palehorse864, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Yes, but you've created a new and larger set of unacceptable problems. Job loss, black outs until we get new methods for energy. Also, your electric bill is going to go WAAAY up for a long time.
- anonymous1986, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3So i guess NASA, the American Physical Society and 37 other REPUTABLE (ie not some random blog post/digg user) who agree with the IPCC findings (i have yet to find a reputable organisation which disagrees with the position of AGW) are wrong since they are too stupid to take volcanic activity into account, which you, with your superior knowledge and 500 PhD's in climate science know all about.
I better put a (sarcasm) since you don't seem too intelligent to notice that judging by your rant.
Idiots like you are walking advertisements for condoms. - inactive, on 11/18/2008, -15/+18This whole "greenhouse gas is causing global warming and we're all gonna die"crap has been pushed about as far as it can get without straining credulity.
If you want to cure the global warming scare just put data from volcanic activity back into the computer models.
Can we burn coal in a more efficient way? I am sure we can because we have been moving in that direction for decades.
Today's coal fired plants are far more efficient and far less polluting than in the past. With the technology moving forward at it's current rate we can count on getting more use out of every ton of coal.
I am all for less pollution and using less energy. Personally I have made choices in my lifestyle that lessen the amount of energy we use off of the grid and it has been months since I bought gasoline or diesel fuel.
Every one of us can make a difference by recycling more and using more solar energy. My house and several other places here use solar energy to charge 12 volt batteries and use that energy for lighting.12 volt solar panels are cheap and the return on your investment starts as soon as you turn on the first light. Thanks to the RV industry we have many choices for 12 volt lighting. In fact the very first 12 volt battery charging system I set up was for the motorhome.
FTA:" "Policies such as California's Emissions Performance Standards could be met by coal plants using partial capture rather than having to rely solely on natural gas, which is increasingly imported and subject to high and volatile prices."The reason it is subject to high prices can be found in the governmental restrictions on drilling and capturing of natural gas.
Coal is an efficient way to make electricity. Coal should not be shut down, but that's what "0" promised to do if we allowed him in the White House without a visitors pass.
So, if technology will help keep the coal mines open, I am all for it. Just don't pretend it will solve global warming because that is a scam from the word go. - Colecoman1982, on 11/18/2008, -2/+5You should take your own advice. I hear clean air and drinkable water are scarce commodities. You should contribute to the conservation effort by using your "stop using it" method. See, I can make absurd suggestions too.
- anonymous1986, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Woah, seriously CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?!
Here I was thinking there's a limit to stupidity, well you've proved my hypothesis wrong.
Either you're mentally challenged or just plain ignorant. If it's true that you're 58 yrs old as your digg profile says then i would recommend getting checked up for alzheimers disease. Please tell me is the earth flat too? - inactive, on 11/18/2008, -1/+4Wow, that sounds like an article you'd see on Digg: "Captured Farts Could Replace Fossil Fuels by 2018".
- protodon, on 11/18/2008, -3/+5Leave it in the ground?
- inactive, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2It won't get better, cleaner or more efficient than nuclear.
At least not in this century. - Skrenlin, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2According to this article you are apparently in danger of becoming unemployed!
- Charlotte_Web, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Nuclear first, and then other green technologies as they become more affordable.
- zgf2022, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Having worked for a coal company I can tell you that every area we finished with had to be reclaimed. That means every area we finished work in had a pine forest planted on it that cant be logged or sold for (i believe) 20 years. When I left we had several thousand acres of trees (Its really a sight to see because they are all about the same height, looks like a giant field of grass from above).
- borez, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3Not when you're starving to death it isn't
- pintomp3, on 11/18/2008, -2/+4clean coal is like a healthy cigarette.
- palehorse864, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2@mister
Solar IS being researched, but there is more than one research group in the nation, and more than one avenue for funding. It's a bit like saying "why are we funneling money into flu research when we haven't cured cancer yet?" Because you don't stop all other research because you don't have your ideal solution, and there isn't one group controlling all the funding. Notice this is MIT. MIT chose to do this research.
If we had cheap solar now, we could implement it, but since we don't, how long do you want to go with the coal plants not producing our energy before we finally have the solar breakthrough we're looking for? It could be 3 years down the road or more. - YodaJones, on 11/17/2008, -14/+15Stop using it. See I solved the problem completely.
WTF is wrong with people? Are we living in Mary Poppins land? - anonymous1986, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Wrong again Mr excuse for an intelligent being:
from NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_world ...
Global Warming
Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.
Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.
Causes of global warming
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.
The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.
But then again when did facts change your opinion on something? - MisterEX, on 11/18/2008, -3/+4I'm pretty sure there's a giant glowing ball of gas that's full of cheap and clean energy that seems to rise and fall each day. If only we used time and money to research how to harness it at a much fuller potential, then waste it on trying to make a limited resource cleaner.
Just a suggestion. - ikepigott, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1I've advocated a genetically-engineered Kudzu.
Kudzu, FTW! - Thuban, on 11/18/2008, -4/+5But, But, the anointed one has said "coal is bad, mmmmkay so don't be bad mmmmmkay."
- MisterEX, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1One more thing...
In some states, you can actually get credit from the electric company for putting energy back into the grid. Plus there are some government subsidies you can apply for to help pay for part of the solar setup. - palehorse864, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Contractions sound funny if you break them apart without altering the sentence in any other way.
- randumbusername, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1ok. all you so called intelligent people get together with the rich lefties, build the coal/power plants of your choosing, sell your high and mighty attitude along with it and put the "idiots" out of business.
lets see you succeed without cheating (going through government). how about practicing what you preach. show us dummies how to do it right.
i love how these people have all the solutions to every problem in the world but it doesn't start with them it starts with forcing others by way of government.
if companies can sell and toy with a sandwich surely you can sell "green" technologies with a side of "high and mighty". there are plenty seeking a "high and mighty" attitude (as evident by most of the stories on here) so give it a try. - anonymous1986, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Don't bother replying to ImranNathan, all you need to know is that he wrote down this comment, and no i'm not making it up:
"Co2 is not a "greenhouse gas, and does not cause "global warming. Co2 is one of the most abundant elements on the planet, and is what makes it GREEN. without it everything would DIe. The more co2, the better, the faster and greener the planet will." - palehorse864, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1You don't need the /sarcasm tags, it's pretty clear.
- GreyFlcn, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1re: cashman57
==If you want to cure the global warming scare just put data from volcanic activity back into the computer models.==
What makes you think they don't already do this?
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2
http://greyfalcon.net/whatwouldittake - BrandonP63, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Too late. Coal industry is on the lib's hit list.
- MisterEX, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1@Charlotte_Web
Well considering I can put my entire house on solar energy for about $20,000 and be completely off the grid (comes to about $12/watt), I'd say that's pretty cheap.
Do the math - A 4-bedroom house averages about $135 per month for electricity or $1620 a year. At that rate it would take about 12 years for the solar panels to pay for themselves. Now look at the average mortgage rate of 30 years for a home and it's not that bad.
If more money was used to research solar energy, the margin between cost and effectiveness would shrink drastically. There is more energy in the sun than every fossil fuel on the planet. - wunksta, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1we shouldnt abandon available energy sources, that would be counterproductive. we definitely need more carbon capture methods though, get as much energy as possible out of it while minimizing emissions
- GreyFlcn, on 11/18/2008, -0/+0As he said, you better start looking for a new job.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/11/13/145939 ... - Leviathan433, on 11/18/2008, -1/+1Godwin's Law.
- borez, on 11/18/2008, -3/+3I agree, it's about time we all stopped being silly with the climate change crap, we have coal supplies that can last a good few hundred years. I'm sure solutions for the environmental CO2 problems ( if they actually are problems ) can be found with a bit of research. Coal has been ousted recently at a time when we need to stop all the ***** and start using it more.
Wind isn't a solution because spinning reserve is too big of an issue, biofuels push up food prices. Enough already. - theDarkGamer, on 11/18/2008, -0/+0Because the United States has the largest coal supply in the world, we're not going to get rid of its use until we have a better, cheaper domestic option. Although we happen to have a large supply, the problem with coal is that it's still a limited resource; one we are burning through at an alarming rate. According to wikipedia, It takes 438 kg (966 lb) of coal to power a computer for one full year. Estimates say peak coal (when the amount we can mine starts to shrink) will happen around 2025:
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/04/24/peak-coal-as-e ...
Right now we use the good grade coal (Anthrocite). We will run out of it first. The dirtier grades of coal are serious causes of pollution. Many of the environmental issues in modern China are as a result of the power plants burning low-grade coal, releasing sulfur and mercury into the atmosphere, ending up on mountaintops as far away as North America. At best, the notion of clean coal is a short-term solution. It might work but only as long as we have supplies of higher grade coal.
Coal mining in general is very dangerous to the health and well-being of miners (even though it puts food on tables). For those interested, there's a great episode of Morgan Spurlock's show 30 days about what it's like to be a coal miner:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/22466/30-days-working-in ...
I for one look forward to a day when we don't put the environment and human lives at risk by making ourselves dependent on a non-sustainable resource. - kosser, on 11/18/2008, -3/+3just bankrupt the coal industry like obama says, that's a great way to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and add one less manufacturing component to the United States. there are already techniques on how to burn coal cleanly...
- notahack, on 11/18/2008, -0/+0Is it possible CO2 can become the feedstock for a process to produce another kind of fuel with some genetic super bug?
Sorry folks but there is no way pure green power in the form of solar and wind is going to provide the electricity we ALL want. I hear railing against the supposed environmental impact but I doubt anyone really wants to do without power. If we want to end foreign oil dependency we will need coal and nuclear power in massive quantities and we will need an economically feasible means of producing synthetic fuel. Thinking otherwise is just day dreaming. -
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is