Is "clean coal" possible?

[bombumdam]

Free energy already exists lol. Money is the death of humanity.

[TheCaptainLulz]

theres a reason hes the origional moonbat. To suggest we can stop coal burning completely requires LSD to concieve. It simply wont happen. How about we work on DOABLE solutions.

[cardinalsboi22]

If you want to know about the truth of coal, just click my screen name to see my youtube channel. They are destroying my home day by day. This IS our Amazon. Mountain Top Removal must stop. Look at my channel and see for yourself. We in the Appalachians are the forgotten, sacrificed for profit and cheaper electric rates. When you turn on your light i hope you know where it comes from. My HOME. Take a look at my channel, see for yourself. Please help us.

[rcacad]

People WTF is going on? CLEAN COAL IS NOT AN AIR QUALITY ISSUE,IT IS A WATER QUALITY ISSUE! Have the ozone discussion all you want. The EPA has NO regulations on the ash dumped into "red pits" and the clean coal strageties only take more out of the smoke and concentrate it in a new form of ash. IT IS TOXIC AS ALL GET OUT! contains almost every toxic heavy metal including arsenic and lead. Entire communities have seen new "unknown" cancers. CLEAN COAL IS NOT POSSIBLE EITHER WAY. wake the f up!

[Eagles1978]

We're going to look back on this "clean coal" debate in 30 years and wonder...what the hell were we thinking? People quit smoking for a reason...coal will be looked at much like tobacco.

[jalexandref]

big difference:

ppl smoke because they are stupid

ppl burn coal because we need electricity

We (world) need to decrease the environ aggressions. Of course it would be much better if we don't burn coal, but we need energy.

[checkpegwham]

Yeah, stop burning coal right now, just eliminate 50% of our energy industry all at once...and fall back on what? Wind power, Ocean turbines? You, George Monbiot, are an idealistic moron.

[2dodley0]

Global warming, Lol! Why do you think they ever talked about an ice age? That sounds real peachy :)

[2dodley0]

The future depends on knowing! WTF! One thing I never knew about coal, it burns naturally when it gets wet! Are we going to let it all Burn or use it?

[krammitAll]

oil burns naturally... what half ass argument are you making.

[darkling9109]

Clean coal is quite possible. The clean coal systems by General Electric emit nothing but harmless water vapor and CO2.

[ElectricBird]

Yes, but that is just the burning of the coal. The extraction process (namely mountaintop removal) is the dirty part.

[LatteLiberal]

And who is this uppity black trying to be somebody? Hes lucky this isn't 1808 because he would have to do his "job" for free!. I'm from the south and I'm still bitter because my heritage was taken from me by liberals who decided they should set the blacks free. Now I have to hire workers who want money, breaks all the time, are lazy...and the libs want to take away farm subsidies! I might have to sell my family plantation! Coal power is my last chance because it will keep my lights on.

[LatteLiberal]

Nuclear power doesnt explode like hybrid batteries. Nuclear waste is clean enough to make frying pans out of when they recycle old nuclear plants. The government wouldnt let it exist if it wasnt safe. Corporations have our best interest in mind because the safer we are the more we will spend. Liberals should stay out of politics and energy and stick to flower power. Corporations know what is best. They can give us jobs and we can buy more stuff.

[Wafflepudding]

Not as funny as Stephen Colbert, but nice try.

[IQ174]

Controversial topic. Thank you for the insight. See:

Harry Reid "Coal makes us sick" (SqR0Ui0g3wI)

and

"Clean Coal Technology" - Largest Lie of Lethal Lobbyists (5urakRvTQCw)

[jorgedominguez2007]

Clean coal???

Yeah right. First, we get clean nuclear power ads. Then we get clean coal ads. Get ready for the next round: clean petroleum ads. I guess there are millions of unsuspecting gullible people.

[mountainjustice]

Carbon capture and sequestration is at least 20 years away but we can build wind turbines now - if you want to see where this "clean coal" is coming from just seacrh mountaintop removal on you tube or google to see pix of the Appalachian Mountains being permamnently flattened. Dont fall for the clean coal hoax.

[Maynlander]

In a word, NO...and coal is not a renewable resource. When it is gone, IT IS GONE!!! DuuuurHaaaah is the word for today Kiddys...

[PlanetThoughts]

Oh, come on! Where are all these sealed, but accessible, underground pockets?

Has anyone heard of a sniff test? This one fails.

[nookiboi]

The bastards will do everything they can to cling to oil and coal dont let them there are better cleaner solutions for energy and take care of our own long term needs theres nothing to fear in change on this scale it can bring some wonderful oppurtunitys.

[PlanetThoughts]

Well said!

[AbtinX]

First they change the atmosphere and climate of the surface world, then these capitalist bastards want to alter and destroy the subterranean region of our planet to conserve their coal profits. Hell if you start something I guess you have to finish it off :) Death to earth seems to be the new capitalist agenda

[fr44ed]

And to speed along the process they spray chemtrails from the airplanes.

[pkscolax]

Whether or not the chemtrails theories are true, they're already putting enough nasty stuff into the air.

Particulate emissions from burning fossil fuels are a bitch to get rid of no matter where you stow them. In the ground, they'll only seep up at a later date or enter into our groundwater. The soot from coal is highly carcinogenic; people who breathe it in or unknowingly drink it are bound to have complications later in life.

[nookiboi]

Since seeing all these chemtrails on youtube i make it a habit to look up to Melbourne Australias skys, and you know what? Its not happening down here. Whats going on in the U.S today??

[AbtinX]

I live in Sweden, close to Arlanda Airport and I see the trails everyday

[PlanetThoughts]

According to Daniel Quinn (book "Ishmael" and others) "Death to earth" is exactly the mindset of the corporate / growth elite: the words they would use however would be to "conquer nature", without realizing that nature is what keeps us alive (and grounded). Following that unlimited dominance theory of humanity, we now have a world straining to keep us alive, for how much longer?

[AbtinX]

Until people organize against this sufficently, we outnumber the enemy by billions

[Khamomil]

Clean coal? The capture and sequestration ofCO2 from burning coal is like sweeping the dirt under the carpet. A pocket in the earth filled with liquefied CO2 under high pressure is a disaster waiting to happen. Who cares if it happens after we've died uh? But it isn't hard to imagine an underground pocket leaking like a petrol well gushing high into the air and killing a massive amount of people maybe, and once in the atmosphere acting as a massive dose of greenhouse gaz.

[32oz]

That's not all. When coal is processed so that it does not release as much CO2, the by product is a toxic slug that does not fall under polutant regulation. Furthermore, when extracting coal, the cheapest technique used by the coal industry is the blast the rock and top soil from the mountains. This releases the heavy metals that were in the rock. When it rains these metals get into the drinking water, lakes, and rivers, poisoning humans, animals, and plants.

[AbtinX]

Exactly, I pity the fool who came up with this idea, cause someone has to violently abuse him now

[pronatalist]

To Khamomil:

Burying CO2 is one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever heard of. In typical low concentrations, the CO2 of burning fuel, is so incredibly HARMLESS. But by burying it in the ground, any burning fuel for energy process, is automatically made far less efficient, thus burning even more, as the chemical burning process of CO2 release, is what releases all that useful energy, so CO2 emissions are so NECESSARY, and the CO2 could suddenly escape during an earthquake, smothering people!

[jblakster]

I say use our coal now for everything and let the world kill itself over the oil being used today. The long term environmental impact would be less (in my mind at least) than making the Saudi's and Iranians rich and powerful to the point where they may actually be ruling the world. If it took 30 years to figure out a viable clean coal burning solution it would still be less of an impact on everyone compared to us being dominated by an Islamic World Order.

[mallardhead]

The money thrown away on the CO2 SCAM would better be spent in cleaning up the water sources we now depend on and are going to depend on for the future. Water is life. Water resources are endangered RIGHT NOW.

[buckfush12]

NASA and the majority of scientists disagree.

[mallardhead]

NASA is political... enough said. But up to recently they did not hold to the problem being CO2. The majority you claim are scientist names stolen by the UN:PCC and named as contributors. About 90% said not to worry about CO2. Their statements were ignored but their names still listed as contributor, as if they were in agreement with the PCC, which used modeling. Garbage in; garbage out. The model reflects the data entered. Enter bad data... the model doesn't know. It gives a bad result.

[abram730]

Ohh and Global warming is real morons...

[JonThm]

'Climate Change' is nuclear PR: So you are giving money to the merchant's of death - or their stooges.

[MrEclectik]

HHO can be made "on demand" or at least that's what some inventors are claiming. What that means is no dangerous storage tanks since the hydrogen is created on the fly. There is no big dangerous holding tank. If this truly works on of the best applications would be for cars since they have the battery (power source) + alternator (recharges the battery). It's genius. Check my favorites (last page) I have 4 or so HHO vids showing it working. If true it's the oil cartels worst nightmare.

[Rickdeckard2020]

'HHO can be made "on demand" or at least that's what some inventors are claiming.'

HHO is a red herring

Hydrogen cars wont be affordable any time soon

Why not simply plug an electric car in an outlet?

The Zenn is ok for some people (slow, inexpensive), while i MiEV from Mitsubishi should be adequate for a large portion of the population (120km,200kmrange,25K$) and its available next year in jap. The Heck with HHO, I want to plug an EV (with Solar Panels on roof its even better)

[Amebixfan]

Clean coal is a contradiction

[piscesgutt]

Yeah morons, go worship Al Gore

[Lucretia2222]

We don't breathe CO2, you can prove it to yourself in a very simple excersize by sucking on a tail pipe for a minute or two. Plants can "breathe" it and convert it to Oxygen, which we can in turn breathe. However, deforestation in places such as the Brazilian rainforest and elsewhere around the world inhibit and actually contribute via slash and burn to the CO2 released/not processed each year. That has been a known and generally accepted fact for decades.

[sk8tafrnk]

@Lucretia2222 The CO2 from volcanoes and whatnot do not produce the same CO2 emissions that people make with oil and whatnot.

CO2 from volcanoes is absorbed back into our atmosphere by plants and whatnot. It's a cycle that's been happening for millions of years. The CO2 people produce contain free radicals, atoms with an unbalanced electron that are volatile and destroy other atoms. Such as the ones in our ozone.

[MrEclectik]

Hey piscesgutt you know the only time when the air is clean and clear in my area? After a good rainstorm or heavy winds come through. You know how often that occurs? Rarely. It's not just Co2 it's all the other shit getting pumped into the air. Even if manmade global warming is a total sham it's almost irrelevant to me. GW is but one aspect of concern.

[doboy09]

Fossil fuels will only last for about 60 more years if we keep using at the rate we do. Y dont we jus invest our money in something that releases no emissions and we can rely on with no repercutions.

[truthspeaker2000]

"Fossil fuels will only last for about 60 more years if we keep using at the rate we do"

That´s very optimistic.

[abram730]

If you assume that it takes more and more energy to get it out of the ground and we are about peaked now...

It's not like we are going to get every drop.

[Hopefl1]

Solar and steam electric are also good sources of power. Oh this might get rid of a lot of jobs and we don't want that. Bad solution but just think how many jobs it will create building these plants. Years of jobs and a clean future.

[piscesgutt]

They call CO2 "toxic air pollution".

CO2 is not toxic!

[BuelahMan]

Are you nuts?

Try Google or something, for Christ's sale.

[piscesgutt]

CO2 is the stuff of life, its what makes plants grow.

Unless you're a member of the brainwashed Gore sect, of course.

Then you run around thinking CO2 is going to kill us and the icebears.

Well, for your information, icebears can swim and they have survived much warmer periods before mate.

[BuelahMan]

Connect a hose to your muffler on your car and put the other end of it into your car window. Sit in the driver's seat and shut the windows, start your car and...

Report back tomorrow.

[bushputz]

BuelahMan:

"Sit in the driver's seat and shut the windows, start your car and..."

...right before you black out, you think, "OHHHHH.....Carobon DIoxide, not Carbon MONoxide"

[abram730]

Both can kill you... carbon monoxide will much faster and at lower concentrations.. See our body gives off carbon dioxide so it takes more.

To those that think that carbon dioxide can't kill in high levels should look at submarines and space stations.. Carbon scrubbers

[bushputz]

abram730

You are correct.

Carbon dioxide is the waste product given off by animal(including human)respiration. It is not toxic per se, but high concentrations in the blood block oxygen absorption.

Carbon monoxide combines with your blood's hemoglobin 250 more times better than oxygen, again preventing your blood from carrying enough oxygen to your body.

Either way, you're toast

btw - too much oxygen can cause damage or death. All things in moderation

[abram730]

I learned something new... I didn't know about O2 being able to kill in high concentrations...

I saw some interesting computer modeling results for a hydrogen economy... the escaping hydrogen would be worse then global warming...

So that's why biomass is being used now...

The real questions are the real long term solutions...

[pronatalist]

To abram730:

The green nazis are lying when they claim CO2 is a pollutant. Not! It's what plants need to grow. All humans and animals have blood "contaminated" all the time with CO2. It's a prime reason why the blood has to be continually pumped and circulated by the heart, to keep replacing the natural CO2 with O2.

CO2, even CO, are not harmful in typically low concentrations. CO is far more potent than CO2, because it bonds in place of O2 to the blood hemoglobin.

CO2 = harmless fizz in soda

[bettasbetta]

last time i checked the fizz in soda wasn't exactly 'harmless'...

[pronatalist]

To bettasbetta:

And yet you totally neglected to offer any evidence?

Actually, i hear the CO2 in soda is a preservative, and if they were to add a minor amount of CO2 to milk, it would not sour so quickly. And then I could buy more. I don't drink much milk, because it doesn't keep well enough, and I have better things to do than to go to the supermarket or shopper club very often.

How come soda doesn't seem to have a problem with going sour or getting moldy? Just goes flat, which okay with me

[Wafflepudding]

The CO2 in soda is a byproduction of efervescence, it has less to do with preservation and more with taste and the bubbly effect.

C02 is a pollutant not because it's toxic, but because it contributes to climate change because it affects heat dissipation How much? It's still up for debate but it certainly has an effect. A good analogy would be a blanket: It's harmless, except if you bury yourself under tons of them in summer and die from heatstroke.

[pronatalist]

To Wafflepudding:

Release of CO2 is necessary to release energy. CO2 can't be eliminated so easily as actual pollutants. Nature already very effectively removes CO2 as plants need it to grow. If atmosphere was a football field, then human-released CO2 would be but 1 inch

A thin blanket might make you sweat a bit on a warm night, but then sweating rarely is fatal

And for 6.8 billion+ people to be allowed to have no effect at all, is ludicrous. Are you willing to stop breathing? Didn't think so

[Wafflepudding]

1. If you account for construction and production stages then yes, but the amount is so ridiculously lower that there's little room for comparison. Plants remove some CO2 but we are also cutting down forests faster than they are regrowing, slowing that process.

2. That is the central point of the climate change argument, how thick is the blanket. An overwhelming majority of scientists and studies around the world say "It's pretty thick".

[Wafflepudding]

continued: Now, basically can either listen to you types who don't even know why drinks are carbonated or why CO2 was bad to begin with and the fossil fuel lobby, OR I could listen to a huge number of actual scientists who have actually looked into it with studies and instruments and have evidence and numbers to back them up. Guess which one I'm listening to?

3.- Coal power is responsible for 41% of manmade CO2 emissions in the U.S. alone. Breathing doesn't even make it into the list.

[DJuggz06]

Because it doesn't have protein and bacteria within. Its merely water with CO2.

You should try to drink milk (at least 1 glass a day) its one of the best sources for calcium and prevents osteoporosis in later life. Unless you want to break ur hip when ur 65 and be a further burden on society.

[husky528]

a glass of milk a day is contribution to another of america's best corporations..

[DJuggz06]

this is true, but the CO produced by coal powerplants is produced at very large quantities, there are also many other toxic compounds termed "greenhouse gasses" that are the larger problem.

[PersonalJesus348]

no you idiot. Coal is a fossil fuel buried deep in the earth just like oil. The problem isn't what its emitting per se. Its the fact that we are digging up these fuels and burning it up. A process that would happen on a smaller scale on a course of a million years or so.

By speeding up this process the earth goes on a rapid warming trend globally. Thus killing life not adapted to such a weather change locally. Also the primary reflectors of sunlight like ice will begin to melt rapidly.

[BuelahMan]

You know... Google? Amazing what brainwashed Koolaid drinkers could learn just by using that simple litle tool.

[MrEclectik]

holycowdidyouseethat wrote:

"Hydrogen is not an enery source you are using electricity to create hydrogen. Question what is creating the electricity?"

Good question, I'm only a laymen so I can't say I know the best solution. Some ideas: batteries, wind power, geo thermal steam turbines, solar. Basically just have any of those serve as electricity generators. It can be done if there is the will/demand.

[DoJaenin]

That's perfuming dog shit.

Coal is non-renewable, it's finite, so it's never going to be sustainable anyway. End of discussion.

I thought I was going to have to bash 'green technology' now but coal? That's just too simple. Not a challenge at all. What's next, 'clean' steam engines for trains?

[holycowdidyouseethat]

MrEclectik

Hydrogen is not an enery source you are using electricity to create hydrogen. Question what is creating the electricity?

[MrEclectik]

I love all the arguments put into taking dirty fuels and trying to 'make' them clean....how about just use clean fuels? Oh yeah that would be too easy (and bad for profits). Check out HHO technology. Basically it uses electricity run through WATER to make hydrogen gas which burns a hell of alot cleaner than any of the other old fuels. It COULD be done if demand was there but of course don't count on entrenched interests to cut down their money tree. Also keep waiting on that cancer cure..

[truthspeaker2000]

"Check out HHO technology. Basically it uses electricity run through WATER to make hydrogen gas which burns a hell of alot cleaner than any of the other old fuels."

Hydrogen has some ugly drawbacks. For example

it is very exhalable, so that it diffunds

through the most materials. It´s also high explosive. Contact to oxygen is enough to cause an explosion. And yes it needs

a lot of electric energy to produce hydrogen.

[CultofScientology]

Nuclear power is so much better.

[libertyerian]

It sounds like a pipe dream sold buy big business just like bio fuel. Nuclear power is the best solution we have but the coal, gas and farming industry have combined with environmentalist to preventing the best chance we have at reducing emissions.

[hypnofan35]

It seems like people could create clean capture strategies, but it would mean some kind of localized storage for later use. Electric could be stored in batteries, fuel cell, or even a insulated water reservoir as heat for "indoors". It would not be a bad thing to have clean water stored on one's place, to be used as a heat sink, or cold sink. Ice from Walden pond apparently was shipped around the world to keep things cold. Not exactly high tech thermodynmic business but would work.