What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
118 Comments
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -9/+55"we want to take bold steps....provided it does not cut into our war funding"
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -9/+32COAL != THE FUTURE
- LordRahl72, on 02/05/2008, -2/+16Why cant we just go back to nuclear power plants? Solve post of our power problems and safer for the environment at the same time.
- Bing11, on 02/05/2008, -1/+9I agree. I hate to see funding go towards sending more troops to die instead of clean energy, but COAL IS NOT CLEAN. It's all market spin *****.
- brufleth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7And a wind turbine could fall over crushing an entire school on bring a cute kitten to school day.
Seriously dude. Look at the power requirements and look at the power outputs of different types of plants. We aren't going to be running 100% off wind and solar any time soon. - mancat, on 02/05/2008, -0/+7Maybe, but aside from Chernobyl, it hasn't happened in 60 years. Meanwhile, every coal plant in operation continues to belch radioactivity directly into the atmosphere.
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -2/+8We have over 300 years of coal in reserves not to include what is currently being mined, nor what is "mineable". We will not be off coal anytime soon in the US. One average size coal plant produces much more electricity than even the largest solar, wind, or wave plant does.
- Berkana, on 02/05/2008, -11/+17Even if you think coal's okay, you must look at the terrible price we've paid for coal by the way it is mined. They blow the tops off of entire mountains in Appalachia to scoop out the coal using a massive dragline bucket, while pushing all the debris into the valleys. Over 450 mountains have been destroyed this way, and virtually all the coal mining jobs along with the old methods of mining. This is a terrible shame. Mountain top removal zones never recover from the damage. See for yourself this crime against our national natural heritage:
http://ilovemountains.org/multimedia - Gir9000, on 02/05/2008, -1/+7Although I do not completely agree with canceling the project once it has been started, because it wastes recourses and money. I honestly think there was and is a better way. Clean coal is expensive and If we put the same amount of money toward renewable sources such as Wind, Solar and Wave etc... then we would be much better off.
If we dropped the income tax and started to tax polluters in replacement, this would would not even be an issue. - ZekeSulastin, on 02/05/2008, -1/+6Modern nuclear power plant design is safe (even TMI never breached the containment facility). At some point, politicians are going to have to get their guts together, push through the NIMBY folk, and use them, whether they be conventional or pebble-bed or some other type that is even safer. BS like 'clean coal' does nothing in the end.
- ploop, on 02/05/2008, -0/+5There are ways of daeling with that. Neutron flux bombardment, for example.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4721596-claims.h ... - belovedkid, on 02/05/2008, -1/+6Correct me if I am wrong (seriously), but I thought I had read a few articles stating that Clean Coal wasnt exactly that big of an improvement on pollution anyway. I know Duke Energy has started to put filters on many of its plants that arent nuclear and not only does it reduce emissions to a very low level, it also produces materials that can be used again in the same process. We need to abandon these aged forms of energy anyway and stop being so scared of nuclear energy. Nuclear, with a combination of solar, wind, or water turbines (whichever favors the area) is the way to go until we find a more efficient way to produce mass amount of energy.
- ploop, on 02/05/2008, -2/+7Carbon sequestration is a GIANT HUMONGOUS step in the right direction. RTFA, please.
- Praesil, on 02/05/2008, -1/+6Its not canceled, but it did get restructured. It's not 1 plant anymore, but 3 plants with no R&D
http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/techlines/2008/08003-DO ...
They're aiming for multiple commercial deployments of carbon capture systems not just 1 really expensive plant. - HomerS1, on 02/05/2008, -2/+6In the US upper midwest (WI, MI, OH, IL, IN, PA) wind, solar and wave are not practical alternatives.
Wind doesn't blow on the hottest days of the year (when power is needed most). Over 50% of the days are cloudy, in Columbus OH for example. The great lakes don't offer much in the way of wave action.
It is not practical to transmit this 'green' energy over long distances from places where the above is practical (you canna change the laws of physics).
In order to be practical, generation needs to be guaranteed available 24x7 and relatively local to the demand. That means some sort of stored energy 'fuel' is required to meet the demand. - Bukowsky, on 02/05/2008, -3/+7what if we were to just cut war funding? Then our kids, schools and homeless still get what they need and Americas money stays in America...
- brufleth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+4Exactly. It is all well and good to make statements like "coal isn't clean" and "we should use renewable source instead." Those aren't real solutions that are going to work today though. The US has coal. It is relatively cheap and easy to get. I'd very much prefer we use it as cleanly as possible until other options become more socially and/or economically viable.
- simplicityiskey, on 02/05/2008, -5/+9Further proof that our government is not at all serious about the energy problems of this country.
- jdotter, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Sad but true. Another blight on the mountain side is evident here in parts of PA, open pit and strip mining. Also, you can't forget the dangers of underground mining as well. This is why I think I'd be a bad politician. I see the advantages to finding cleaner ways of using coal because it is a widely used and found resource but the impact of mining is terrible.
- Tysto, on 02/05/2008, -4/+7"you must look at the terrible price we've paid for coal by the way it is mined"
Are you suggesting that we get some sort of revenge on coal? Because I can't condone hurting innocent minerals in the coal family just to get vengeance on coal. - brufleth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3There's different techniques I've seen. I know that GE has a gasification process which (I think) gasifies the coal and then burns it so you have emissions similar (but not as good as) a natural gas plant.
- doubl3d, on 08/28/2008, -1/+4I am from southern Illinois and most of you havent seen what happen when the laws were passed about clean air. This even effected me personally because my dad had to move 3 hours away and would go to work for 6 days then come home to see his family for 1 day. This area of the country went from thriving with many jobs and a nice area, to having almost nothing in terms of physical labor jobs and the towns of suffered do to lack of spending. That power plant would provide thousands of jobs and give southern Illinois what it needs to get many places out of the poverty level.
- konspence, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3Does anybody realize how ridiculous the concept is? We burn coal - solidified carbon - transform it into energy + carbon dioxide, then transform it back into carbon (or trap it). It is very counterproductive, and doesn't solve the fact that coal still has other pollutants and is a limited resource. It still gets mined and it still kills the miners. We should not be using forward-thinking technologies to breathe new life into outdated methods of electricity - our energy needs to be focused on making solar more efficient, and storing excess energy during the day to be used during the night with solar, not to mention similar for wind.
- paulpoulosky, on 02/05/2008, -2/+5Here's what really happened. Once the FutureGen committee (which had voting blocs per state with a lot of congressional influence) selected the Illinois site over the two Texas sites, then suddenly the Energy department found the project too expensive. I don't think this would have happened had either of the Texas sites had been chosen. Again, this is Bush overextending the power of the presidency to create policy instead of enforcing policy. This next year can't pass quickly enough.
- jdotter, on 02/05/2008, -0/+3"But without a demonstration of such carbon capture and storage technology soon, the future of preventing the greenhouse gases emitted when coal is burned appears bleak, according to experts."
Energy demands are high and we need to find ways to maximize resources while limiting its impact on the environment. We have lots of coal in the US but no effective/efficient way to use it without significant CO2 emissions. I'm no fan of clean coal but as a stop gap it's something, though it is no solution. Going forward the hope is energy created from these plants could be used in creating hydrogen, another stop gap product. Eventually renewable energy should be our main resource but we are so far from that. Things like clean coal, hydrogen, ethanol and so on will be needed to reduce CO2 emission while allowing further advancement and development of truly renewable zero emission solutions. At least thats my opinion- - LordRahl72, on 02/05/2008, -1/+4Bury it 5 miles under ground in a concrete vault and problem solved. Unless you plan to build a house 5 miles under ground inside a concrete slab of course.
Look if done right nuclear energy can be so cheap it would be close to free and MUCH SAFER for the environment than any coal or gas plant. - fluffythekitten, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I agree, there is a fat chance!
- PRlME, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Go America! Lets sit ere and blog about it
- PeterODactyl, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Sounds like a bong.
- ploop, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3When people use the word "folks", my ass begins to twitch.
- yngtimmy, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4Can we PLEASE stop building coal power plants and build something greener like...uhh i dont know....a nuclear facility??? Or maybe spend some $$ on hydrogen???
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4I think he's trying to say that doesn't count, because no one will end the war in 3 years anyway.
- perish, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2It's just like the fresh-frozen vegtables in your ice-box. Please go back to sleep now, nothing to see here.
- amoro99, on 02/05/2008, -2/+4Just keep saying "CLEAN COAL". There, now it's clean!
- ploop, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2And even if it were, the infrastructure for its distribution hasn't yet been developed. (I'm betting on Sodium Borohydride.)
- staxofmax, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2The banking industry has already started moving ahead of the government in terms of emissions requirements for coal powerplants seeking investment. Evidently "dirty" coal plants are starting to be seen as a risky investment by at least three major investment banks. Even though the US government environmental policy is as backwards as ever, there are some encouraging developments nevertheless. http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/ ...
- Sharky35, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2Agreed, a 1.8 billion dollar... anything is too costly.
- freezeout, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3just think of all the bombs we can buy with those 1.8Billion
- ploop, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3@ToRoE
Burying CO2 is MUCH more viable than burying nuclear waste because carbonate minerals are much safer from a radioactivity and toxicity perspective than the various radioactive metal salts we're talking about. - elementop, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2The environmental agenda *can* happen; we just need to stop expecting the government to foot the bill for it. My wife and I were set to buy a house that had an entirely self-contained water system -- no septic, no well, no muni water supply. It recycled all the grey water in the house and collected rain water and water from a seasonal spring to replenish what was lost through evaporation and other processes. It had composting toilets so there was no plumbing to muni wastewater. In addition, it had a wood stove surrounded by several tons of brick that would absorb all the heat from the fireplace and chimney, then re-radiate it into the house rather than pumping into the exhaust air. All in all, it was a very green house. Unfortunately, the deal fell through because the buyers for our house backed out at the last minute, but these are examples of what motivated, conscientious *individuals* can do the help the environment.
- wittynamehere, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I live not even an hour away from Mattoon, Il. Needless to say the whole state of Illinois is pissed about the whole ordeal considering the amount of money they poured in to make sure the plant was put there.. It was Mattoon or some city in Texas. They chose Mattoon, then the funding was cut. For about a week I got to read letters in the newspaper about some President Bush/Texas conspiracy with the power plant.
- ploop, on 02/05/2008, -1/+3Oh yeah! Let's keep doing what we're doing instead of taking a big step in the right direction! All or nothing! Nothing short of a revolution will do.
Carbon sequestration will enable a cleanup of OUR EXISTING COAL BASED INFRASTRUCTURE, which would take hundreds of billions of dollars to replace completely. - ploop, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I volunteer you (and only you) to pay for it.
- TypeEE, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2How about thermal? I would love to install a thermal for heat. but $20k - $30k is hard to swallow. If there are programs subsidized to equate the installation cost into monthly bills to replace gas heat, I would go for it.
- mahuebel, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I like how a lot of you seemingly didn't even read the article. Bush was actually portrayed in a good light...
obviously that wouldn't happen on digg, even with things he does right/well - ToRoE, on 02/05/2008, -2/+3I am tempted to bury this article, just as this "R&D" suggests burying CO2 is viable. Did they just copy of the guy sitting next to them (Burying Nucular waste.)
- Grohl, on 02/05/2008, -7/+8What a shame...
- inactive, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Individualism is a two edged sword when you consider most people aren't concientious, or, well, individual (aka, what's the cheapest I can buy the house for?).
-
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is