I love this commercial. "Clean coal" basically consists of burying the carbon dioxide under the ground... Great idea, guys. Very ingenious. I don't see anything wrong with that plan at all...
Now, all of a sudden, the term "clean coal" is being applied to current coal burning methods as a way to "get our economy back on its feet." How can they just lie in our faces like that? Why are such fraudulent ads even legal?!?
Now that Japan has produced a wind turbine that manages to be twice as efficient as any other energy option we currently have (including nuclear), the excuses are wearing thin. There's also the engineer at Purdue who has an aluminum alloy which can create hydrogen energy just by adding water, and is then REUSABLE infinitely. Oh, and it also purifies the water...
It's not a matter of better technology, it's a matter of getting around the industry strangle-hold to put our technology to use.
@TheWanderingPrimate I love the idea of wind power. But I think you mean it produces twice the amount of energy, not efficiency. Because a typical nuclear plant has about 50% efficiency. Wind isn't 100% efficient. Coal is about 30%. Natural gas can also reach up to 50 but with cogeneration can get up to 80-90. The problem with solar and wind is that they are intermittant. We have to transition to renewables. Total renewable energy in place now would not meet energy demand.
@obiwannotanikan - I used to agree with your sentiment that renewables could not meet our grid demands, but I think some of this new technology changes the game. Americans do need to cut down on their energy use in general, but with recent R&D, our demand is reachable. The entire interior of this country is prime for wind, the problem is that the major population centers are not in the interior, and our infrastructure is weak.
@TheWanderingPrimate Plus, hyrdrogen energy uses steam reformation (involves methane gas), so it's not completely clean. Breaking water takes a lot of energy and involves burning, you guessed it, fossil fuels. Plus, it's expensive because you'd need a noble metal catalyst (very expensive) to prevent the reaction from poisoning. Solar is inefficient. I like the idea of CC plants (nat. gas), geothermal, wind, solar (I still like it), and nuclear... or maybe someone will find how to use fusion.
@obiwannotanikan - The Purdue alloy is not hydrogen power - it's a much simpler innate reaction and doesn't require much external process; just a basic reactor and storage. The minimal waste is also non-toxic. They even hope to use it in the third-world to provide energy and clean water, two birds with one stone.
I used the word "efficiency" for Japan's turbines because they produce greater amounts of energy for less money. The ratio of those factors is the efficiency.
global warming is not a problem its and industry, all these isiots want to stop coal mining but what do we replace it with, wind power, so we need steel to build the windmills oh oh looks like we need coking coal for the steel. more mining less whining thats what i say.
@dodgetee We need to become a type 1 society by harnessing the naturally occuring geothermal activity in valcanos thats the best possible answer or we could keep eroding our atmoshpere with harmful chemicals. you dot know it but there is a whole lot that you don't know, so much so that you probably cant even imagine it. that explains your horrible view opinion quite well.
coal is clean and feeds the Family's in Kentucky West Virgina and many more states. people does not see how caol is mined and what it does to help people.
The global warming theory has not been proved. And never will. You cannot recreate the atmosphere in a lab experiment. But that doesn't matter, as long as you believe in it. Which make it a religion. The global warming religion. Use nuclear power instead of coal and go to heaven?
never been proved? you must be crazy? try telling that to the majority of climatologists around the WORLD who believe it is happening and is human induced...and buddy....you don't need to recreate the atmosphere to determine how green house gases are in the air..BTW..GREEN HOUSE GASES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING if you didnt know...the theory has already been proven....there is NO DISPUTE...JUST LOOK IT UP!
@keller43561 Global warming is accepted by over 90% of the academic community. That's a pretty good indicator that the science is valid. Oh, but it's a conspiracy! Come on, people. Stop being ridiculous.
Global warming theory has not been proved. And never will. You cannot recreate the atmosphere in a lab experiment. But that doesn't matter, as long as you believe in it. Which make it a religion. The global warming religion. Use nuclear power instead of coal and go to heaven?
@ikkeforlet Religion is based on a single book made by people thousands of years ago. Global warming has been studied and peer-reviewed by scientists and the greenhouse effect is not speculation. Based on the evidence of warming global temperatures, the carbon recorded in ice shelves, ocean acidification, changing seasons, etc. scientists conclude that human activity is accelerating the warming trend. What is disputed is how much this effect is.
actually...there is a consensus among a majority of world climatologists that anthopogenic sources are the MAIN cause for present global warming....believe the view is held by 60% ish...not a VAST majority but still
@keller43561 That's why I worded it the way I did. The major consensus is that humans contribute to global warming, but how much is disputed. Is it 20%? Is it 80%? I happen to think it's somewhere in the middle, which is an admittedly large range. But the planet is a complex system and I don't presume to know the exact numbers. No one does. That's why there's so much controversy. Either way, I think the argument shouldn't matter. Becoming energy efficient and enegy independent is a good idea.
@keller43561 People are just short-sighted. Climate change is gradual. We have time (or so people think). Except that even if we stopped all GHG/CO2 production today, the atmosphere would continue to absorb it. There's a lag. It's also on a global scale. People in the US aren't going to care about people in the Mediterranean. Combine that with political-infighting and you get the seeming apathy of our country to do anything to significantly address this issue. It's so frustrating.
@MrFennmeista It doesn't produce nearly the amount of CO2 as fossil fuels. I can only assume your definition of unclean comes from the nuclear waste? Because that is a problem, but I think less of a problem than the GHG emissions from coal and oil. I still say we should invest more into researching fusion power. It's always 40 years away. There's essentially no emissions, and there's no chance of catastrophic events like nuclear fission plants, because radioactivity is not a problem.
people and the German govt. are "passing the expensiveness" onto homes in the Schwarze area.) Truth be told it would be far wiser to invest all the money that would be required to set up clean coal facilities all throughout America into developing clean, renewable energy sources. And ultimately less expensive for the consumer as well. Clean coal is nowhere near cost effective yet, we're talking decades here folks. Food for thought anyway. Peace.
Actually, this add isn't entirely true. There is a small clean coal plant that now operates in Schwarze, Germany. But so far it's the only one, and it has actually made the energy bills for the local residents MORE expensive, not less so due to the (very) costly nature of trying to make the coal burning and power generation cleaner. (*Bit of Humor Here: You've heard of companies promising to "pass the savings onto you?" Well, the Vattenfall...
you cant deny the ludicrous implications made by the clean coal ads ( ie american future is in coal) ...BTW Carbon Capture Sequestration is impractical and will never be implemented on any substantial scale....so stop giving all the pro "clean coal" nut jobs a false sense of legitimacy...
Harvard Says Full Cost of U.S. Coal is $500 Billion a Year : us.mobile.reuters . com / article/article/idUS1634961002 20110218?ca=rdt -- Money down the drain because of the gangster coal cartel. Investigate, prosecute and imprison those that spread lies and disinformation about climate science. ClimateCodeRed . net -- PostCarbon . org -- Puppets of the automobile industry gangster cartels, free yourselves. Stop driving. CarFree .com -- BicycleCity . com -- FreePublicTransit . org
Dramatic commercials with no facts. Coal is being burned cleanly in this country with scrubbers, Electrostatic precipitators, ACI, SCR's and baghouses. Yes they do emit carbon dioxide but the overall quantity in relation to the atmosphere is not consequential. 85% of greehouse gases is water vapor. Coal has made energy affordable for the masses. Steel plants burn a lot of coal in addition to coal burned in utlity boilers. Look at a utility boiler stack. It's all water vapor out of stack.
Billy Hill, very clever of you. Other than that slur you present with a nice debate rather than an argument. Consider this if you will. All company heads are in business to profit. I think we can agree that is the case in green as well as not so green energy, in all forms of business including your own. I read somewhere that the average American CEO make $300 dollars for every $1 that his employee makes. Do I like this gap, not one bit. All I have to hope for in that arena is a livable wage.
I find it slanderous for somebody who has probably never had to preform real labor to pass judgment on my profession. You can eat all that they are feeding you, that is your choice, however it is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. If you want to drive your point home, take some initiative. Walk outside your house and switch the main disconnect on your house, and leave it off. Be a real crusader, don't sit at your keyboard and speculate about all of us hillbilly miners.
I think most people who are critical of clean coal propaganda actually feel strong compassion for miners. Working in mines is one of the most unhealthy and dangerous jobs there are. And your hard labor serves in part to make your boss filthy rich and to trash the planet. Miners really are victims of psycopaths like Don Blankenship.
Personally, i do both: I get informed AND I cycle everywhere, I don't fly, I buy green electricity, I leave the heating switched off, ...
ever heard of black lung? how bout lung cancer? or maybe toxic waste? did i forget to mention it pollutes the air? oh, and just a small thing to add, its causes GLOBAL WARMING...coal isn't just dirty...its one of the dirtiest sources of energy in the world
Coal Kills: Coal is just as deadly as radiation from a nuclear bomb. Coal has been killing Americans for centuries. Coal should be considered a terrorist weapon not an energy source. Coal contains arsenic, lead, mercury, candium, cyanide, copper, polycyclic hydrocarbons and much more. Most EPA superfunds contain coal waste left to be cleaned up with our tax dollars. The only way to make coal clean is to leave it in the ground forever. Clean coal advertising is terrorist propagady.
@TomGrendal While I agree coal is nasty, many of those "hillbilly miners" would rather do something else, many live in coal towns where the plants own everything, and they are in debt and can't get away. I have never seen a commercial with a southern hillbilly accent expounding on the virtues of coal.
@TomGrendal I find it slanderous for somebody who has probably never had to preform real labor to pass judgment on my profession. You can eat all that they are feeding you, that is your choice, however it is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. If you want to drive your point home, take some initiative. Walk outside your house and switch the main disconnect on your house, and leave it off. Be a real crusader, don't sit at your keyboard and speculate about all of us hillbilly miners.
Amazing the luxurious lifestyles the limousine liberals live .....yet they curse the very things that make it possible.....all of them hypocrits.......they want you to stop using coal and oil.....but I assurre you .....they will continue using it......like our good friend Al Gore...it was and is a scam
@xxVampirePenguinxx It is not a proven fact ......and furthermore, they cannot prove the cause of the claimed warming......Al Goie and his comrades lied.....you must have missed that
@xxVampirePenguinxx The part where SOME scientists TRY to blame warming on the actions of man. That is the lie. Your idol Al Gore is a known liar and the gods from northern europe have been caught fudging the numbers. The gig is up.
@xxVampirePenguinxx Winston Churchill once said...."If you are liberal and young it means you have a heart......if you are liberal and old it means you are stupid"
@xxVampirePenguinxx Al Gore was just running a political campaign like its a job. He made so much money off all that crap. There is no hockey stick proof. The theory was proven wrong.
@xxVampirePenguinxx They did a nice documentary out there called "Not evil just wrong". It goes into good detail of the so called theory of the hockey stick. Just think about it. Cause a wide panic across the world on global warming. Put fear into people's minds and you can easily make money off of it. Start government agencies with tax funding and then fine companies for their so called carbon footprint. Heck 30 years ago they said our planet was entering an ice age. It's all baloney.
@2005yost You're right, the ozone layer is committing suicide after being laid off, and the planet is feeling the heat in debt. This economy effects everyone.
Oh yea, its the companies who are the victims here, of course. Those poor souls, being made to pay pennies for destroying our planet. BBBBULSHIT.
Humans have had an immeasurable impact on this planet, in some cases for the better, but in most, for the worse. Anyone who denies this is an absolute moron. Not because I say so, but because the information is right in front of them, and yet they are too inept to look it up. Its just easier to let Fox News do that for them.
@Jacobrester Funny, I feel the exact same way about religion. That is, if you're young and are religious you have a good heart, but if you're old and you're still religious you don't have much of a brain.
This is a highly politicized topic when it should be a scientificly debated topic only. I blame both sides for spreading misinformation but for now I will address this add only.
Yes burning coal is universally dirty I am not going to dispute that. So what makes it clean coal? After the coal is burned the green house gases and other "dirty" partials are collected before they can be released into the atmosphere. They are then sequestered into the earth in a scientifically proven safe way.
If you think there's no such thing as clean coal, it's because you haven't a clue as to what it looked like when everyone was burning it in their homes.
I think you misunderstand what is meant by clean coal. Specifically, it refers to pumping the carbon dioxide into the ground rather than releasing it into the air. This does exist but its small scale and cost ineffective.
Reality = realizing that a) the technology does not exist today to do this
and b) even if it did, there are not enough available sites with the appropriate geology to do this.
I agree that trying to sequester CO2 is a waste of time - and I don't think there's anything wrong with burning coal the way we do now (with all the pollution controls we already have). Sure beats going w/o electricity:)
I question that the "majority" believe this stuff because they realize the necessity of looking at whether the data is reliable. When you eliminate higher altitude surface station readings, drop a whole lot of Siberian ones, and take readings from places like Bolivia & the NWTerritories from other areas, it's not "science". I take it you have not seen pt 4 of John Coleman's expose? Have you read Anthony Watt's paper "Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"
If we took 1 tillion dollars the cost of the wars in you know where. 1 trillion/4 million (estimated cost of scale for a commercial one wind turbine) would net 25 billion wind turbines. One wind turbine can generate 2.5MWh electricity. 2.5MWh can power 350 homes in a northern cold state. 25 billion X 250 homes? I think that pretty much covers the US needs for power. Just having fun here, don't shoot the messenger. Coal is abundant yes, but we need to focus on nuclear, wind, solar, geotherm.
@ToxicBrainSyndrome Well obviously there are a few flaws with the math. But if we could lace the globe with that many wind turbines, we could power about 6.25 trillion people!
One of the best ways to save the environment is to elect Officials that will focus on reducing immigration.
In America, nearly all the population growth in the last 40 years has been via immigration, over 100 million more and we are on track to go to 500 million in a few decades. The world does not need 300 million more American consumers and America does not need 300 million more immigrants. Go to Numbersusa for more info on immigration and to fax your senators for free.
Just propaganda and slander...not saying that the coal guys don't use it...but apparently the only way you guys can fight the coal industry is to just make stupid jokes and ridiculous ads.
I live in an area which uses quite a bit of coal and I'll have you know, it's very clean year-round. In fact, the area surrounding a major coal mine is also very clean...there's a national park right next door. If you didn't know the mine existed, you'd be able to drive right on past it without knowing.
If your house was full of carbon monoxide, you could also walk right on through, fall asleep and die from poisoning without knowing. What's your point? if you can't see it it's not there?
Sorry but you get CO from burning anything, not just coal. And we don't have huge rashes of CO poisoning here where I live either. So sorry, your argument holds no water. We don't have smog, we don't have huge amounts of airborne particulates, unless the trees are on fire.
It wasn't an argument, it was a metaphor, but apparently it wasn't clear enough. Just because you can't see the externalities of energy production through coal burning doesn't mean there aren't any. All those particulares that are filtered by the scrubbers end up as fly ash or dolomite. That toxic crap ends up in landfills polluting aquifers, or worse, in construction. The process of washing coal also generates plenty of toxic blackwater, which is not treated because its not regulated.
That blackwater (essentially coal tailings) are impounded on artificial dams since companies don't have a legal obligation to treat them, and treating them would make coal power generation a lot more expensive (which is why energy companies lobby against regulation forcing them to do it). An example of the consequences of that policy is the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill, back in December 2008. CO2 sequestration would also be expensive. Coal can be either cheap OR clean.
Alright now I have to ask a question: What's the difference between a mine producing "black water" and natural erosion through a coal bed releasing EVERYTHING into the stream?
Natural erosion rarely causes a tidal wave of destruction when left unchecked, erosion doesn't systematically separate the most toxic elements for stockpiling (the coal industry does, to reduce atmospheric emissions), erosion also releases those substances at a much slower rate, at relatively non-toxic levels, allowing natural dilution and biological processes to fix the chemicals to the ground. The levels found at tailings are deadly to most lifeforms except a few extremophillic bacteria.
I'll go back to my coal-mine-next-to-a-national-park statement. the mine is virtually INVISIBLE even down hill. Real-world scenarios trump your propagandist facts. and all a coal mine does is dig the coal out of the hillside, dump the waste rock overburden, and ship it out. Coal is not further processed at the mine itself. there is no "separation of toxic elements for stockpiling"...it's putting naturally-formed coal into a pile to be sold. No chemical operations are done on it. learn something.
So far I've never heard of clean coal technology being put to use, if it was, I think the coal companies would be going a lot more advertising about it. I think the fact that it isn't advertised hints towards the technology being propaganda.
Search for "A Future For Clean Coal?" and decide who you want to believe.
I agree. How about no coal. Why not use truly clean energy like solar, wind, and geothermal? I bet they spend more on advertising "clean coal" than actual research. And furthermore, I love how they think that burrying the CO2 they are able to capture underneath the earth will solve the problem.
Wind is not "clean" - do you know how much oil is required for those things to operate? The turbines must also have a power plant on line running at full capacity so they are there to back up the turbines when the wind isn't blowing. Soalr panels have problems too; they require a lot of water to keep them clean. They are proposing building them in the desert. How practical is that? Also, what happens when it snows? Is cloudy, etc?
Sorry, but coal doesn't just affect the local area. Air has no borders, and the increasing CO2 affects everyone, albeit some regions are affect more greatly.
Also, impacts aren't always felt immediately, actually practically never. Climate isn't like the weather. It's not instantaneous. It is trends and patterns that spread over decades, not a single year or whatnot.
I would talk to someone who lives in the Powder River Basin, and they will tell you about the impact on the land.
"The cheapest way to stop global climate change is not converting to
solar power or buying a hybrid car. It's putting on a condom.
That's the conclusion of a London School Of Economics study showing money spent on contraception is five times more efficient than money spent on clean energy technologies. It backs up a recent Oregon State University study tha
t concludes overpopulation and massive immigration is the single biggest threat to the environment." NUMBERSUSA(DOT)COM
I dont believe that most of you are that dedicated to save Mother Earth as much as seeing more green jobs . Green jobs is good and we must reduce carbon emissions , too. We are still not doing anything about dismantling the old coal powerplants at all , yet. We are still burning firewood and charcoal , too. We are not as serious about the climate as we are about more green jobs.. We must have both or none!
junkyardnut-we do not need to reduce carbon emissions, and the push for "green jobs" is nothing but a by-product of the CO2 false alarm.
BTW, there are some wind farms that have gone defunct w/o subsidies and now need dismantling. At least the coal fired plants continue to produce energy.
alternate energy will be a very important source of energy in the future. Photovoltaics is not the most economical but solar thermal is. All we need is more direct sunlight through windows or chopping down trees that shades buildings to help reduce energy consumption. Carbon dioxide is a serious issue but firewood smoke is the worst air pollutant because of close proxmiity to population centers and should be banned. EPA knows that but is istll hesitant to do it.
The cost of a watt coming from the Sun had come down more than 95% in thirty years which is quite amazing. We need to nourish the solar industry and it will develop cheaper solar energy . We can make a watt for $1 on average down from $40 or so in 1970's. I think we can get down to a dime a watt in 10 years. Wind is limited to areas around mountain passes and few windy locations. Solar energy will be the dominant energy in the atlernate area. We ought to ban firewood first..
What about hot arid deserts? There is plenty of that ?? Every bit helps. It helps stretching the life of our reserves in fossil fuel. It helps keep fossil fuel prices down with reduced demand. The benefits is manifold. Also we should ban firewood which is harmful to health by breathing soot and particulates. Everybody wants firewood which makes it so politically hard to ban.
@junkyardnut - solar panels need to be kept clean. Where are you going to get the necessary water in a desert?
Firewood is not hard to find. Where I live, we just went through an ice storm of unimaginable proportions. I hate to think what it's going to be like when our city dump starts burning all the wood from the damaged and destroyed trees. Too bad I don't have a wood-burning stove.
Well, you know, as I always said all along that firewood ought to be banned outright .We know better than to breath soot and particulates coming out of chimneys so close to us. Second, we should stop building coal powerplants , then oil , nuclear and gas with matching growth of solar and wind . We cannot start talking about replacing any of them until we are able to rely practically 100% on alternate energy for future growth. Those traditional powerplants can stil be used during nights. Tough!
1. a cloth without using water i enough to clean it
2. wind is clean because it uses A LOT less oil then using other ways
3. have u heard of magnets? in not really sure if any one else has its a new thing i just found, get this, there r types of windmills that dont use oil, but (r u paying attention) they use the magnetic force to keep the windmill lubricated,can u believe that?!?!?!?!
so yes u can clean windmills without water and windnills r a type of clean energy
@InfamousWolf1 A cloth would not be sufficient. A dry cloth isn't even sufficient for windows. Consider that you will also have bird doo. Magnets or not, wind energy is not efficient.
ok fine, maybe u have more than just a little dirt on ur panels, then go get some wipes, like windows cleaning cloths, and even if that dosent work there r ways to clean ur windows without using a lot of water, u just have to look
Our government is too broke to do it all for us. Our government can at least hand out candy money to any of us willing to build a big green powerplant from stratch. Our government can only help so much, so it is still all up to you to call out for dismantling the old lousy big mean coal powerplants all by yourselves. You are still pointless about clean coal as long as the dirty coal powerplants are stil out there chugging along. all you do best is talk talk talk and act like investment chickens
Despite all your yappings about the truths or lies about clean coal, we have yet to dismantle one single lousy 500 megawatt or one gigawatt coal plant and replace it with a clean powerplant . All we did at least is to help meet the growing demands with new coal plants as well as green powerplants of all sorts. The old coal plants are still here to stay. We still depends on them because they are still cheap and we are still too scared to invest more on green power because we may lose our profits
Dude, it's never going to even come close to the level at which oil is. Forget it, bro. Lost cause. All this investment that could go towards wind turbines is being wasted on cleaning up coal... You think coal is cleaner than wind? Really?
that's a bit like saying there is cold fusion!!! it will just take a major investment...blah blah.
the point of the ad is that it is NOT here now, won't be anytime soon, and you are more or less agreeing, since as you say, it is MAJOR investment away.
let's, rather, put that major investment into wind, solar, biomethane, etc. things that really do exist, make a direct contribution to fighting climate change, and can be made much better with a fraction of the huge investment coal requires.
The masses will believe anything they see on TV. The EGOS of these companies. Really? Shouldn't the government ban these commercials. Aren't they lying? Oh wait, I forgot about lobbyists.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is no scientific data being created or released on how many people that firewood kills or make sick every year.. You see, firewood is a romantic thing that is so popular.. Who in his right mind would want to do research on the hazards of firewood? Hmm?? I dont think coal kills as many as firewood does.. I honestly dont... Maybe you all are fools for attacking coal while firewood is ignored.. Real fools of you!!
You don't even need scientific data to understand that coal is not good for the environment, but coal is. Just stop and think for a second before you post.
firewood can in fact pollute if not burned properly, but it doesn't have the mercury and other heavy metals coal does.
AND, it does not add to the earth's carbon total, since its carbon comes from co2 from the air, and the wood that is grown to replace it re-sequesters the co2 the burning releases.
coal digs up carbon that was safely stored miles underground, and in the burning, puts that out into the atmosphere. thus, it ADDS to the greenhouse gases in the air
Kaminix-how is coal any different from wood (coal is fossilized plant material) We've always burned things for energy - olive oil, pitch (pine tar) wood, straw, etc.
Millions of years ago, when the plants that are today's coal were growing, atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than they are today and the earth was much warmer. When we dig up fossil carbon and put it in the atmosphere we are pushing the earth's climate back in that direction. When you burn wood, you are just cycling non-fossil carbon that was in the air recently back into the air. This is sustainable. Digging up fossil carbon and putting it into the air isn't sustainable.
India and Bangdelish burned so much cowdung bricks that our satellite show a picture of soot over the area. wow! no such clean cowdung! there is no satellite photos of coal soot because the powerplants are very advanced and cleaner than your regular Joe's fireplace or woodstove with hollow pipes or chimneys!! Chugging chugging like a train cough cough
Bangladesh [Bengali,=Bengal nation], officially People's Republic of Bangladesh, republic (2005 est. pop. 144,320,000), 55,126 sq mi (142,776 sq km), S Asia. Bangladesh borders on the Bay of Bengal in the south; on the Indian states of West Bengal in the... more
We need the coal industry, for jobs and for home power, you don't appreciate that we mine the coal that powers the nation. No eco nut Democrat is going to take OUR industry away from West Virginia. If it does happen, there will be more Tea Parties, and the next time, it will be violent.
You did a big favor to thousands and thousands of firewood peddlers!!! now more and more homeowners agree with your clean coal criticism and start loading their fireplaces and woodstoves with firewood on a daiily basis!! The air is getting dirtier than EVER! We are losing the war on air pollution all over again!! Thank you so much for your misinformation!! You are a wonderful guy!
I cant believe the internet is so anti-coal. By putting regulations and taxes on the coal industry they will have to cut jobs. You eco-nuts don't realize that people in my state of West Virginia rely on the coal industry. You commie hippies out in Cali are a bunch of damn idiots. Both of my grandfathers were coal miners. We need the coal industry. I say build more coal plants. STOP WORRYING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ISNT REAL LIKE GLOBAL NOTHING.
hey, "hockeyfan83111991, ..."Coal mining is an extractive industry. It will never make these communities economically prosperous or independent. It rapes the land and the communities. It perpetuates poverty, environmental degradation, and poor health. If you actually cared about these people and their jobs/lives, you would be advocating for a diversified economy in coal country. Read any literature on social and environmental justice issues in Appalachia,- you'll see I'm right. " -
The fact that you deny even the possibility of Global Warming shows your pre-disposition toward extractive, What of the fly ash retention ponds? The UNREGULATED ones..which is..every one of them? Another environmental disaster just waiting to occur.abandoned because it is no longer economically viable to utilize the site, left behind for our tax dollars to clean up? While these corporations make billions in profits. There is no such thing as clean coal, and you are a dinosaur.
ok so you rely on the the coal industry and so did your family. Yet, the reality is that whether you like it or not coal will run out and then you will have to find something else to do... "Smart people" realize this and are decinding that we need to find another souce of energy so we dont kill the planet and can still have jobs. maybe we should use all the idots as fuel until we find somthing else
Can someone describe this so called 'clean coal' technology. Are we talking about technology to remove metals, solid particulates, sulfur, etc from coal? Is clean coal technology really carbon capturing technology?
**Can someone describe this so called 'clean coal' technology. Are we talking about technology to remove metals, solid particulates, sulfur, etc from coal? **
It's a Hype term for EPA requiredfiltration technology that has existed since the late 70's in the US
Bag Filters, Stack Filters,Water Scubbers,Carcoal Injection,etc
Environuts like to Pretend Protesting the Miles of Black Smoke and ash rain in the 70's and the EPA acting never happened
Well, global warming does exist. So does global cooling.
Natural cycle. My point is...the Earth is going to do what it is going to do. If we are to survive, they WE are the ones that need to change, because the planet is going to change regardless.
I fucking hate all these Al Gore doomsday retards preaching about a "problem" that is actually just a natural occurrence.
You are correct, there are natural cycles to the weather system that are beyond our control.
We work to live through these extreme events by preparing as best we can. The levies in New Orleans are a very well known example of us attempting to prepare for these events.
The point Al Gore makes is that if we didn't destroy the natural levies (swamps) we wouldn't need to put in an artificial levy.
Hey, fuck this shit. Of course there isnt any totally clean coal plants. The technology is still in development. This is like having a commercial where a guy is in an empty desert talking about all the people whose Alzheimers were cured. If all you do is naysay and give up you will never get anywhere. Plus America is chock full of coal. If we can find a way to burn it cleanly for energy, then why the hell not?
sure is...wood pellet stoves (aka, corn burners here). The very small amount of ash that it creates is recycled. so wait, haha, i guess your right in a way, only thing is the crap that it makes is recycled is all. so somewhat yea.
Piers Corbyn of Weather Action, a company that provides long-term forecasts to UK industry, claimed the IPCC had quite simply got it wrong. Corbyn, like a large group of solar scientists, believes the UN body has underestimated some of the indirect effects of the Sun on the Earth's climate.
"Particles and magnetic effects from the Sun are the decisive influence that controls world temperatures
The total mined mountain range area that has been dynamited forever into oblivion, covers an area the size of Delaware! The complacency of Coal advocates is astounding. Without changes in our energy consumption, our mountains will be "laid low" with Biblical efficiency ...
Professor David Unwin, an environmental scientist at Birkbeck College, London. He said the IPCC was guilty of glossing over many of the uncertainties in climate science.
"These uncertainties are never really made explicit," he said. "The IPCC will give you error bars but there are huge uncertainties to do with the science that goes into the computer models that predict the future."
UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.
I love this commercial. "Clean coal" basically consists of burying the carbon dioxide under the ground... Great idea, guys. Very ingenious. I don't see anything wrong with that plan at all...
obiwannotanikan 1 month ago
Clean coal? Thats like clean shit
thejerk1126 1 month ago
Now, all of a sudden, the term "clean coal" is being applied to current coal burning methods as a way to "get our economy back on its feet." How can they just lie in our faces like that? Why are such fraudulent ads even legal?!?
Bill1275w 2 months ago
@Bill1275w I have no idea. I guess they know that the people at large know about their lobbying efforts/ it's bullshit now.
theonetrueiota 2 months ago
Now that Japan has produced a wind turbine that manages to be twice as efficient as any other energy option we currently have (including nuclear), the excuses are wearing thin. There's also the engineer at Purdue who has an aluminum alloy which can create hydrogen energy just by adding water, and is then REUSABLE infinitely. Oh, and it also purifies the water...
It's not a matter of better technology, it's a matter of getting around the industry strangle-hold to put our technology to use.
TheWanderingPrimate 3 months ago
@TheWanderingPrimate I love the idea of wind power. But I think you mean it produces twice the amount of energy, not efficiency. Because a typical nuclear plant has about 50% efficiency. Wind isn't 100% efficient. Coal is about 30%. Natural gas can also reach up to 50 but with cogeneration can get up to 80-90. The problem with solar and wind is that they are intermittant. We have to transition to renewables. Total renewable energy in place now would not meet energy demand.
obiwannotanikan 1 month ago
@obiwannotanikan - I used to agree with your sentiment that renewables could not meet our grid demands, but I think some of this new technology changes the game. Americans do need to cut down on their energy use in general, but with recent R&D, our demand is reachable. The entire interior of this country is prime for wind, the problem is that the major population centers are not in the interior, and our infrastructure is weak.
TheWanderingPrimate 1 month ago
@TheWanderingPrimate Plus, hyrdrogen energy uses steam reformation (involves methane gas), so it's not completely clean. Breaking water takes a lot of energy and involves burning, you guessed it, fossil fuels. Plus, it's expensive because you'd need a noble metal catalyst (very expensive) to prevent the reaction from poisoning. Solar is inefficient. I like the idea of CC plants (nat. gas), geothermal, wind, solar (I still like it), and nuclear... or maybe someone will find how to use fusion.
obiwannotanikan 1 month ago
@obiwannotanikan - The Purdue alloy is not hydrogen power - it's a much simpler innate reaction and doesn't require much external process; just a basic reactor and storage. The minimal waste is also non-toxic. They even hope to use it in the third-world to provide energy and clean water, two birds with one stone.
I used the word "efficiency" for Japan's turbines because they produce greater amounts of energy for less money. The ratio of those factors is the efficiency.
TheWanderingPrimate 1 month ago
global warming is not a problem its and industry, all these isiots want to stop coal mining but what do we replace it with, wind power, so we need steel to build the windmills oh oh looks like we need coking coal for the steel. more mining less whining thats what i say.
dodgetee 6 months ago
@dodgetee We need to become a type 1 society by harnessing the naturally occuring geothermal activity in valcanos thats the best possible answer or we could keep eroding our atmoshpere with harmful chemicals. you dot know it but there is a whole lot that you don't know, so much so that you probably cant even imagine it. that explains your horrible view opinion quite well.
bluetyee 3 months ago
@bluetyee lol thats a good one.
dodgetee 3 months ago
coal is clean and feeds the Family's in Kentucky West Virgina and many more states. people does not see how caol is mined and what it does to help people.
SynysterKryss 9 months ago
The global warming theory has not been proved. And never will. You cannot recreate the atmosphere in a lab experiment. But that doesn't matter, as long as you believe in it. Which make it a religion. The global warming religion. Use nuclear power instead of coal and go to heaven?
ikkeforlet 10 months ago
@ikkeforlet
never been proved? you must be crazy? try telling that to the majority of climatologists around the WORLD who believe it is happening and is human induced...and buddy....you don't need to recreate the atmosphere to determine how green house gases are in the air..BTW..GREEN HOUSE GASES CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING if you didnt know...the theory has already been proven....there is NO DISPUTE...JUST LOOK IT UP!
keller43561 3 months ago
@keller43561 Global warming is accepted by over 90% of the academic community. That's a pretty good indicator that the science is valid. Oh, but it's a conspiracy! Come on, people. Stop being ridiculous.
obiwannotanikan 1 month ago
Global warming theory has not been proved. And never will. You cannot recreate the atmosphere in a lab experiment. But that doesn't matter, as long as you believe in it. Which make it a religion. The global warming religion. Use nuclear power instead of coal and go to heaven?
ikkeforlet 10 months ago
@ikkeforlet Can you reproduce the First World War? Does that mean it never happened? Does that make history a religion?
Nigeman 8 months ago
@ikkeforlet Religion is based on a single book made by people thousands of years ago. Global warming has been studied and peer-reviewed by scientists and the greenhouse effect is not speculation. Based on the evidence of warming global temperatures, the carbon recorded in ice shelves, ocean acidification, changing seasons, etc. scientists conclude that human activity is accelerating the warming trend. What is disputed is how much this effect is.
obiwannotanikan 1 month ago
@obiwannotanikan
actually...there is a consensus among a majority of world climatologists that anthopogenic sources are the MAIN cause for present global warming....believe the view is held by 60% ish...not a VAST majority but still
keller43561 1 month ago
@keller43561 That's why I worded it the way I did. The major consensus is that humans contribute to global warming, but how much is disputed. Is it 20%? Is it 80%? I happen to think it's somewhere in the middle, which is an admittedly large range. But the planet is a complex system and I don't presume to know the exact numbers. No one does. That's why there's so much controversy. Either way, I think the argument shouldn't matter. Becoming energy efficient and enegy independent is a good idea.
obiwannotanikan 1 month ago
@keller43561 People are just short-sighted. Climate change is gradual. We have time (or so people think). Except that even if we stopped all GHG/CO2 production today, the atmosphere would continue to absorb it. There's a lag. It's also on a global scale. People in the US aren't going to care about people in the Mediterranean. Combine that with political-infighting and you get the seeming apathy of our country to do anything to significantly address this issue. It's so frustrating.
obiwannotanikan 1 month ago
There's not such thing as Clean "nuclear" either. ;)
MrFennmeista 10 months ago
@MrFennmeista It doesn't produce nearly the amount of CO2 as fossil fuels. I can only assume your definition of unclean comes from the nuclear waste? Because that is a problem, but I think less of a problem than the GHG emissions from coal and oil. I still say we should invest more into researching fusion power. It's always 40 years away. There's essentially no emissions, and there's no chance of catastrophic events like nuclear fission plants, because radioactivity is not a problem.
obiwannotanikan 1 month ago
people and the German govt. are "passing the expensiveness" onto homes in the Schwarze area.) Truth be told it would be far wiser to invest all the money that would be required to set up clean coal facilities all throughout America into developing clean, renewable energy sources. And ultimately less expensive for the consumer as well. Clean coal is nowhere near cost effective yet, we're talking decades here folks. Food for thought anyway. Peace.
danning1 11 months ago
(*Note: Politically I'm a moderate Democrat.)
Actually, this add isn't entirely true. There is a small clean coal plant that now operates in Schwarze, Germany. But so far it's the only one, and it has actually made the energy bills for the local residents MORE expensive, not less so due to the (very) costly nature of trying to make the coal burning and power generation cleaner. (*Bit of Humor Here: You've heard of companies promising to "pass the savings onto you?" Well, the Vattenfall...
danning1 11 months ago
@danning1
you cant deny the ludicrous implications made by the clean coal ads ( ie american future is in coal) ...BTW Carbon Capture Sequestration is impractical and will never be implemented on any substantial scale....so stop giving all the pro "clean coal" nut jobs a false sense of legitimacy...
keller43561 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harvard Says Full Cost of U.S. Coal is $500 Billion a Year : us.mobile.reuters . com / article/article/idUS1634961002 20110218?ca=rdt -- Money down the drain because of the gangster coal cartel. Investigate, prosecute and imprison those that spread lies and disinformation about climate science. ClimateCodeRed . net -- PostCarbon . org -- Puppets of the automobile industry gangster cartels, free yourselves. Stop driving. CarFree .com -- BicycleCity . com -- FreePublicTransit . org
gregjalbert 11 months ago
IN REALITY GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL
toddky32 11 months ago
Dramatic commercials with no facts. Coal is being burned cleanly in this country with scrubbers, Electrostatic precipitators, ACI, SCR's and baghouses. Yes they do emit carbon dioxide but the overall quantity in relation to the atmosphere is not consequential. 85% of greehouse gases is water vapor. Coal has made energy affordable for the masses. Steel plants burn a lot of coal in addition to coal burned in utlity boilers. Look at a utility boiler stack. It's all water vapor out of stack.
thinkingthingsthru 1 year ago
@thinkingthingsthru
I would be curious of what algae does, if we get a lot of our energy from coal, perhaps the C02 from thecoal plants is what could feed the algae..
If algae is 100% clean...
thefakeyeti 6 months ago
CleanSmokestacks. com has all of the clean coal resources that you need.
getyoid 1 year ago
DiscussGlobalWarming. com has all of the clean coal resources that you need.
getyoid 1 year ago
Billy Hill, very clever of you. Other than that slur you present with a nice debate rather than an argument. Consider this if you will. All company heads are in business to profit. I think we can agree that is the case in green as well as not so green energy, in all forms of business including your own. I read somewhere that the average American CEO make $300 dollars for every $1 that his employee makes. Do I like this gap, not one bit. All I have to hope for in that arena is a livable wage.
jashby27 1 year ago
I find it slanderous for somebody who has probably never had to preform real labor to pass judgment on my profession. You can eat all that they are feeding you, that is your choice, however it is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. If you want to drive your point home, take some initiative. Walk outside your house and switch the main disconnect on your house, and leave it off. Be a real crusader, don't sit at your keyboard and speculate about all of us hillbilly miners.
jashby27 1 year ago
@jashby27
Dear Billy Hill,
I think most people who are critical of clean coal propaganda actually feel strong compassion for miners. Working in mines is one of the most unhealthy and dangerous jobs there are. And your hard labor serves in part to make your boss filthy rich and to trash the planet. Miners really are victims of psycopaths like Don Blankenship.
Personally, i do both: I get informed AND I cycle everywhere, I don't fly, I buy green electricity, I leave the heating switched off, ...
arneperschel 1 year ago
I know how to make clean coal.... just install a filter!
stickmanpwner64 1 year ago
Ask Napoleon on the ironclad. Then you'll get the truth! xD
Bidmartinlo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Global warming is a lie
mech12478 1 year ago
Coal keeps on producing power even if it's night time, or when theres no wind, it may be dirty, but theres always CO2 SCRUBBERS
siggy16 1 year ago
@siggy16
I'm sorry, your idiocy is painful.
Quipster99 1 year ago
@siggy16
ever heard of black lung? how bout lung cancer? or maybe toxic waste? did i forget to mention it pollutes the air? oh, and just a small thing to add, its causes GLOBAL WARMING...coal isn't just dirty...its one of the dirtiest sources of energy in the world
keller43561 1 month ago
Coal Kills: Coal is just as deadly as radiation from a nuclear bomb. Coal has been killing Americans for centuries. Coal should be considered a terrorist weapon not an energy source. Coal contains arsenic, lead, mercury, candium, cyanide, copper, polycyclic hydrocarbons and much more. Most EPA superfunds contain coal waste left to be cleaned up with our tax dollars. The only way to make coal clean is to leave it in the ground forever. Clean coal advertising is terrorist propagady.
Rubenleesims 1 year ago
Clean Coal my butt! Coal is the dirtiest and most polluting fuel there is! Ban coal and tell the hillbilly miners to get some education!
TomGrendal 1 year ago
@TomGrendal While I agree coal is nasty, many of those "hillbilly miners" would rather do something else, many live in coal towns where the plants own everything, and they are in debt and can't get away. I have never seen a commercial with a southern hillbilly accent expounding on the virtues of coal.
jneddo76 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TomGrendal I find it slanderous for somebody who has probably never had to preform real labor to pass judgment on my profession. You can eat all that they are feeding you, that is your choice, however it is not as cut and dry as you would like it to be. If you want to drive your point home, take some initiative. Walk outside your house and switch the main disconnect on your house, and leave it off. Be a real crusader, don't sit at your keyboard and speculate about all of us hillbilly miners.
jashby27 1 year ago
Fischer Tropsch is the reality!
Cleaner burning fuels!
Even diesel and aircraft fuel
MrBullseye61 1 year ago
Amazing the luxurious lifestyles the limousine liberals live .....yet they curse the very things that make it possible.....all of them hypocrits.......they want you to stop using coal and oil.....but I assurre you .....they will continue using it......like our good friend Al Gore...it was and is a scam
Jacobrester 1 year ago
@Jacobrester Holy crap there are other punctuation marks besides ellipses.
Also anyone worth his weight in oxygen used believes in global warming now. It is a proven fact, not a theory anymore.
xxVampirePenguinxx 1 year ago
@xxVampirePenguinxx It is not a proven fact ......and furthermore, they cannot prove the cause of the claimed warming......Al Goie and his comrades lied.....you must have missed that
Jacobrester 1 year ago
@Jacobrester Oh, OK. What part was a lie again? The part where thousands of studies have proven it to be correct?
xxVampirePenguinxx 1 year ago
@xxVampirePenguinxx The part where SOME scientists TRY to blame warming on the actions of man. That is the lie. Your idol Al Gore is a known liar and the gods from northern europe have been caught fudging the numbers. The gig is up.
Jacobrester 1 year ago
@Jacobrester You are such an idiot I'm only responding to you to be entertained.
xxVampirePenguinxx 1 year ago
@xxVampirePenguinxx Winston Churchill once said...."If you are liberal and young it means you have a heart......if you are liberal and old it means you are stupid"
Jacobrester 1 year ago
@Jacobrester Voltaire once said... "A witty saying proves nothing."
xxVampirePenguinxx 1 year ago
@xxVampirePenguinxx Come with me and you'll be
In a world of pure imagination
Take a look and you'll see
Into your imagination
If you want to view paradise
Simply look around and view it
Anything you want to, do it
Want to change the world, there's nothing to it
Willy Wonka
Jacobrester 1 year ago
@Jacobrester the irony burns
xxVampirePenguinxx 1 year ago
@xxVampirePenguinxx Al Gore was just running a political campaign like its a job. He made so much money off all that crap. There is no hockey stick proof. The theory was proven wrong.
2005yost 1 year ago
@2005yost Oh boy I can't wait to hear this "proof" that proved it wrong. Hit me.
xxVampirePenguinxx 1 year ago
@xxVampirePenguinxx They did a nice documentary out there called "Not evil just wrong". It goes into good detail of the so called theory of the hockey stick. Just think about it. Cause a wide panic across the world on global warming. Put fear into people's minds and you can easily make money off of it. Start government agencies with tax funding and then fine companies for their so called carbon footprint. Heck 30 years ago they said our planet was entering an ice age. It's all baloney.
2005yost 1 year ago
@2005yost You're right, the ozone layer is committing suicide after being laid off, and the planet is feeling the heat in debt. This economy effects everyone.
xxVampirePenguinxx 1 year ago
@2005yost
Oh yea, its the companies who are the victims here, of course. Those poor souls, being made to pay pennies for destroying our planet. BBBBULSHIT.
Humans have had an immeasurable impact on this planet, in some cases for the better, but in most, for the worse. Anyone who denies this is an absolute moron. Not because I say so, but because the information is right in front of them, and yet they are too inept to look it up. Its just easier to let Fox News do that for them.
Quipster99 1 year ago
@Jacobrester Funny, I feel the exact same way about religion. That is, if you're young and are religious you have a good heart, but if you're old and you're still religious you don't have much of a brain.
danning1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is a highly politicized topic when it should be a scientificly debated topic only. I blame both sides for spreading misinformation but for now I will address this add only.
Yes burning coal is universally dirty I am not going to dispute that. So what makes it clean coal? After the coal is burned the green house gases and other "dirty" partials are collected before they can be released into the atmosphere. They are then sequestered into the earth in a scientifically proven safe way.
goastros98 1 year ago
Big Coal destroys the land I fight for.
REAL patriots ain't fighting to preserve Big Coal's 'right' to blow up our mountains.
Big Coal isn't American, Big Coal is China, Germany, India and England (didn't we already whip their ass a couple years ago?).
Come for my mountain and I'll take you down by the numbers... 28 x 5.56 = 0
HOORAH!!!!!!!!
ChinaMarine556 1 year ago
I imagine you want to live in a fucking cave and snack on grass? Fuck these stupid environmentalists...
darthspeaks 1 year ago
Coal = Mercury in fish - Definitely not clean
atomicchitlin 1 year ago
Clean coal?. . . you'v got to be kidding me
dekeludwig 2 years ago
Coal is dirty and it all ways will be .
Christopher3786 2 years ago 13
@Christopher3786
I wouldn't go that far there pal...
/watch?v=e_CcrgKLyzc
anonimity304 11 months ago
There is so much douchebaggery on display in this commercial that it actually becomes hilarious.
DonZabu 2 years ago
If you think there's no such thing as clean coal, it's because you haven't a clue as to what it looked like when everyone was burning it in their homes.
anonymous915 2 years ago
I think you misunderstand what is meant by clean coal. Specifically, it refers to pumping the carbon dioxide into the ground rather than releasing it into the air. This does exist but its small scale and cost ineffective.
Reality = realizing that a) the technology does not exist today to do this
and b) even if it did, there are not enough available sites with the appropriate geology to do this.
Reality = no clean coal
TruthJunior 2 years ago
TruthJunior, CO2 is not pollution. There is no need to pump it into the ground.
anonymous915 1 year ago
@anonymous915 then you agree with me that clean coal is a waste of time i guess
TruthJunior 1 year ago
I agree that trying to sequester CO2 is a waste of time - and I don't think there's anything wrong with burning coal the way we do now (with all the pollution controls we already have). Sure beats going w/o electricity:)
anonymous915 1 year ago
@anonymous915 i suppose im gullible, but shouldn't we go with what a majority of climate scientists recommend?
or do you know something that I don't?
TruthJunior 1 year ago
I question that the "majority" believe this stuff because they realize the necessity of looking at whether the data is reliable. When you eliminate higher altitude surface station readings, drop a whole lot of Siberian ones, and take readings from places like Bolivia & the NWTerritories from other areas, it's not "science". I take it you have not seen pt 4 of John Coleman's expose? Have you read Anthony Watt's paper "Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?"
anonymous915 1 year ago
If we took 1 tillion dollars the cost of the wars in you know where. 1 trillion/4 million (estimated cost of scale for a commercial one wind turbine) would net 25 billion wind turbines. One wind turbine can generate 2.5MWh electricity. 2.5MWh can power 350 homes in a northern cold state. 25 billion X 250 homes? I think that pretty much covers the US needs for power. Just having fun here, don't shoot the messenger. Coal is abundant yes, but we need to focus on nuclear, wind, solar, geotherm.
ToxicBrainSyndrome 2 years ago
@ToxicBrainSyndrome Well obviously there are a few flaws with the math. But if we could lace the globe with that many wind turbines, we could power about 6.25 trillion people!
Fastenjaw 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of the best ways to save the environment is to elect Officials that will focus on reducing immigration.
In America, nearly all the population growth in the last 40 years has been via immigration, over 100 million more and we are on track to go to 500 million in a few decades. The world does not need 300 million more American consumers and America does not need 300 million more immigrants. Go to Numbersusa for more info on immigration and to fax your senators for free.
mrhulot101 2 years ago
Just propaganda and slander...not saying that the coal guys don't use it...but apparently the only way you guys can fight the coal industry is to just make stupid jokes and ridiculous ads.
I live in an area which uses quite a bit of coal and I'll have you know, it's very clean year-round. In fact, the area surrounding a major coal mine is also very clean...there's a national park right next door. If you didn't know the mine existed, you'd be able to drive right on past it without knowing.
TJvigilante 2 years ago
If your house was full of carbon monoxide, you could also walk right on through, fall asleep and die from poisoning without knowing. What's your point? if you can't see it it's not there?
Wafflepudding 2 years ago 2
Sorry but you get CO from burning anything, not just coal. And we don't have huge rashes of CO poisoning here where I live either. So sorry, your argument holds no water. We don't have smog, we don't have huge amounts of airborne particulates, unless the trees are on fire.
TJvigilante 2 years ago
It wasn't an argument, it was a metaphor, but apparently it wasn't clear enough. Just because you can't see the externalities of energy production through coal burning doesn't mean there aren't any. All those particulares that are filtered by the scrubbers end up as fly ash or dolomite. That toxic crap ends up in landfills polluting aquifers, or worse, in construction. The process of washing coal also generates plenty of toxic blackwater, which is not treated because its not regulated.
Wafflepudding 2 years ago
That blackwater (essentially coal tailings) are impounded on artificial dams since companies don't have a legal obligation to treat them, and treating them would make coal power generation a lot more expensive (which is why energy companies lobby against regulation forcing them to do it). An example of the consequences of that policy is the TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill, back in December 2008. CO2 sequestration would also be expensive. Coal can be either cheap OR clean.
Wafflepudding 2 years ago
Alright now I have to ask a question: What's the difference between a mine producing "black water" and natural erosion through a coal bed releasing EVERYTHING into the stream?
TJvigilante 2 years ago
Natural erosion rarely causes a tidal wave of destruction when left unchecked, erosion doesn't systematically separate the most toxic elements for stockpiling (the coal industry does, to reduce atmospheric emissions), erosion also releases those substances at a much slower rate, at relatively non-toxic levels, allowing natural dilution and biological processes to fix the chemicals to the ground. The levels found at tailings are deadly to most lifeforms except a few extremophillic bacteria.
Wafflepudding 2 years ago
I'll go back to my coal-mine-next-to-a-national-park statement. the mine is virtually INVISIBLE even down hill. Real-world scenarios trump your propagandist facts. and all a coal mine does is dig the coal out of the hillside, dump the waste rock overburden, and ship it out. Coal is not further processed at the mine itself. there is no "separation of toxic elements for stockpiling"...it's putting naturally-formed coal into a pile to be sold. No chemical operations are done on it. learn something.
TJvigilante 2 years ago
So far I've never heard of clean coal technology being put to use, if it was, I think the coal companies would be going a lot more advertising about it. I think the fact that it isn't advertised hints towards the technology being propaganda.
Search for "A Future For Clean Coal?" and decide who you want to believe.
ObsidianKnight90 2 years ago 2
I agree. How about no coal. Why not use truly clean energy like solar, wind, and geothermal? I bet they spend more on advertising "clean coal" than actual research. And furthermore, I love how they think that burrying the CO2 they are able to capture underneath the earth will solve the problem.
obiwannotanikan 2 years ago
Wind is not "clean" - do you know how much oil is required for those things to operate? The turbines must also have a power plant on line running at full capacity so they are there to back up the turbines when the wind isn't blowing. Soalr panels have problems too; they require a lot of water to keep them clean. They are proposing building them in the desert. How practical is that? Also, what happens when it snows? Is cloudy, etc?
anonymous915 2 years ago
CO? I thought we were talking about CO2 Sorry, but making a fire isn't the same thing as industries burning coal as much as we do.
obiwannotanikan 2 years ago
Sorry, but coal doesn't just affect the local area. Air has no borders, and the increasing CO2 affects everyone, albeit some regions are affect more greatly.
Also, impacts aren't always felt immediately, actually practically never. Climate isn't like the weather. It's not instantaneous. It is trends and patterns that spread over decades, not a single year or whatnot.
I would talk to someone who lives in the Powder River Basin, and they will tell you about the impact on the land.
obiwannotanikan 2 years ago
Yes on nuclear power, ffs.
cmitch419 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The cheapest way to stop global climate change is not converting to
solar power or buying a hybrid car. It's putting on a condom.
That's the conclusion of a London School Of Economics study showing money spent on contraception is five times more efficient than money spent on clean energy technologies. It backs up a recent Oregon State University study tha
t concludes overpopulation and massive immigration is the single biggest threat to the environment." NUMBERSUSA(DOT)COM
rocketsredglare101 2 years ago
I dont believe that most of you are that dedicated to save Mother Earth as much as seeing more green jobs . Green jobs is good and we must reduce carbon emissions , too. We are still not doing anything about dismantling the old coal powerplants at all , yet. We are still burning firewood and charcoal , too. We are not as serious about the climate as we are about more green jobs.. We must have both or none!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
junkyardnut-we do not need to reduce carbon emissions, and the push for "green jobs" is nothing but a by-product of the CO2 false alarm.
BTW, there are some wind farms that have gone defunct w/o subsidies and now need dismantling. At least the coal fired plants continue to produce energy.
anonymous915 1 year ago
alternate energy will be a very important source of energy in the future. Photovoltaics is not the most economical but solar thermal is. All we need is more direct sunlight through windows or chopping down trees that shades buildings to help reduce energy consumption. Carbon dioxide is a serious issue but firewood smoke is the worst air pollutant because of close proxmiity to population centers and should be banned. EPA knows that but is istll hesitant to do it.
junkyardnut 1 year ago
The cost of a watt coming from the Sun had come down more than 95% in thirty years which is quite amazing. We need to nourish the solar industry and it will develop cheaper solar energy . We can make a watt for $1 on average down from $40 or so in 1970's. I think we can get down to a dime a watt in 10 years. Wind is limited to areas around mountain passes and few windy locations. Solar energy will be the dominant energy in the atlernate area. We ought to ban firewood first..
junkyardnut 1 year ago
Solar is just as impractical as wind, especially in areas that get snow.
anonymous915 1 year ago
What about hot arid deserts? There is plenty of that ?? Every bit helps. It helps stretching the life of our reserves in fossil fuel. It helps keep fossil fuel prices down with reduced demand. The benefits is manifold. Also we should ban firewood which is harmful to health by breathing soot and particulates. Everybody wants firewood which makes it so politically hard to ban.
junkyardnut 1 year ago
@junkyardnut - solar panels need to be kept clean. Where are you going to get the necessary water in a desert?
Firewood is not hard to find. Where I live, we just went through an ice storm of unimaginable proportions. I hate to think what it's going to be like when our city dump starts burning all the wood from the damaged and destroyed trees. Too bad I don't have a wood-burning stove.
anonymous915 1 year ago
Where do you think guys get water to drink when they are installing the solar panels? What a dipstick!
Firewood is not hard to find, you can buy em at Walgreens or Walmart!
junkyardnut 1 year ago
@junkyardnut I thought you were suggesting putting vast numbers of solar panels in the desert areas to replace the power that coal now produces.
anonymous915 1 year ago
Well, you know, as I always said all along that firewood ought to be banned outright .We know better than to breath soot and particulates coming out of chimneys so close to us. Second, we should stop building coal powerplants , then oil , nuclear and gas with matching growth of solar and wind . We cannot start talking about replacing any of them until we are able to rely practically 100% on alternate energy for future growth. Those traditional powerplants can stil be used during nights. Tough!
junkyardnut 1 year ago
@anonymous915 u dont need water to clean a solar panel, then r other easier and cheaper ways to do so
InfamousWolf1 1 year ago
@InfamousWolf1 Really? Such as????
anonymous915 1 year ago
@anonymous915
1. a cloth without using water i enough to clean it
2. wind is clean because it uses A LOT less oil then using other ways
3. have u heard of magnets? in not really sure if any one else has its a new thing i just found, get this, there r types of windmills that dont use oil, but (r u paying attention) they use the magnetic force to keep the windmill lubricated,can u believe that?!?!?!?!
so yes u can clean windmills without water and windnills r a type of clean energy
InfamousWolf1 1 year ago
@InfamousWolf1 A cloth would not be sufficient. A dry cloth isn't even sufficient for windows. Consider that you will also have bird doo. Magnets or not, wind energy is not efficient.
anonymous915 1 year ago
@anonymous915
ok fine, maybe u have more than just a little dirt on ur panels, then go get some wipes, like windows cleaning cloths, and even if that dosent work there r ways to clean ur windows without using a lot of water, u just have to look
InfamousWolf1 1 year ago
Our government is too broke to do it all for us. Our government can at least hand out candy money to any of us willing to build a big green powerplant from stratch. Our government can only help so much, so it is still all up to you to call out for dismantling the old lousy big mean coal powerplants all by yourselves. You are still pointless about clean coal as long as the dirty coal powerplants are stil out there chugging along. all you do best is talk talk talk and act like investment chickens
junkyardnut 2 years ago
Despite all your yappings about the truths or lies about clean coal, we have yet to dismantle one single lousy 500 megawatt or one gigawatt coal plant and replace it with a clean powerplant . All we did at least is to help meet the growing demands with new coal plants as well as green powerplants of all sorts. The old coal plants are still here to stay. We still depends on them because they are still cheap and we are still too scared to invest more on green power because we may lose our profits
junkyardnut 2 years ago
Coal is getting cleaner and cleaner daily!!!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
Dude, it's never going to even come close to the level at which oil is. Forget it, bro. Lost cause. All this investment that could go towards wind turbines is being wasted on cleaning up coal... You think coal is cleaner than wind? Really?
gbutiri 2 years ago
THERE IS CLEAN COAL!!!!!!! It will just take a major investment in scrubber tech. do your research morons.
69rugmuncher69 2 years ago
that's a bit like saying there is cold fusion!!! it will just take a major investment...blah blah.
the point of the ad is that it is NOT here now, won't be anytime soon, and you are more or less agreeing, since as you say, it is MAJOR investment away.
let's, rather, put that major investment into wind, solar, biomethane, etc. things that really do exist, make a direct contribution to fighting climate change, and can be made much better with a fraction of the huge investment coal requires.
vitomarcantonio 2 years ago
Yes, just like there is clean 'shit'. The lengths to which some go to cling to coal is comical.
SuckersTillTheEnd 2 years ago 2
The masses will believe anything they see on TV. The EGOS of these companies. Really? Shouldn't the government ban these commercials. Aren't they lying? Oh wait, I forgot about lobbyists.
gbutiri 2 years ago
Actually, sh*t is much cleaner than coal. Maneur! Compost! Haha.
obiwannotanikan 2 years ago 7
clean coal is win-win and will smooth the post peak oil transition
florgat91 2 years ago
How can something that doesn't exist be "win-win?"
Anything labeled "clean" coal is anything but - and it is always a lose-lose situation.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago 2
To be more specific to my "lose-lose:"
It still pollutes, and it costs more.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no scientific data being created or released on how many people that firewood kills or make sick every year.. You see, firewood is a romantic thing that is so popular.. Who in his right mind would want to do research on the hazards of firewood? Hmm?? I dont think coal kills as many as firewood does.. I honestly dont... Maybe you all are fools for attacking coal while firewood is ignored.. Real fools of you!!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
Retard.
Kaminix 2 years ago
See?? I am called retard! What a statesmanship ! just a miffed drivel!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
You don't even need scientific data to understand that coal is not good for the environment, but coal is. Just stop and think for a second before you post.
Kaminix 2 years ago
You dont also need scientific data to understand that firewood is not good for the environement..NEITHER! WAKE UP AND SMELL YOUR CHIMNEY!!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
firewood can in fact pollute if not burned properly, but it doesn't have the mercury and other heavy metals coal does.
AND, it does not add to the earth's carbon total, since its carbon comes from co2 from the air, and the wood that is grown to replace it re-sequesters the co2 the burning releases.
coal digs up carbon that was safely stored miles underground, and in the burning, puts that out into the atmosphere. thus, it ADDS to the greenhouse gases in the air
vitomarcantonio 2 years ago
Kaminix-how is coal any different from wood (coal is fossilized plant material) We've always burned things for energy - olive oil, pitch (pine tar) wood, straw, etc.
anonymous915 2 years ago
Millions of years ago, when the plants that are today's coal were growing, atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than they are today and the earth was much warmer. When we dig up fossil carbon and put it in the atmosphere we are pushing the earth's climate back in that direction. When you burn wood, you are just cycling non-fossil carbon that was in the air recently back into the air. This is sustainable. Digging up fossil carbon and putting it into the air isn't sustainable.
cuhlik 2 years ago 2
Iceburn!
Laramas 2 years ago
Clean coal is not a reality. Talk with any scientist about clean coal and they will give you the stink eye.
IIX666XII 2 years ago 12
India and Bangdelish burned so much cowdung bricks that our satellite show a picture of soot over the area. wow! no such clean cowdung! there is no satellite photos of coal soot because the powerplants are very advanced and cleaner than your regular Joe's fireplace or woodstove with hollow pipes or chimneys!! Chugging chugging like a train cough cough
junkyardnut 2 years ago
Bangdelish huh. haha
Banten 2 years ago
Ok, ok hahaha here it is below.. feel better now?
Bangladesh - Reference Center
Bangladesh [Bengali,=Bengal nation], officially People's Republic of Bangladesh, republic (2005 est. pop. 144,320,000), 55,126 sq mi (142,776 sq km), S Asia. Bangladesh borders on the Bay of Bengal in the south; on the Indian states of West Bengal in the... more
News | Images | Videos
junkyardnut 2 years ago
Good news! Coal stocks up 20% today,, you all coal haters missed the big profits~ keep burning firewood, treehuggerS~~
junkyardnut 2 years ago
How about you just stop wasting energy?
allemenia 2 years ago
We need the coal industry, for jobs and for home power, you don't appreciate that we mine the coal that powers the nation. No eco nut Democrat is going to take OUR industry away from West Virginia. If it does happen, there will be more Tea Parties, and the next time, it will be violent.
Hockeyfan8311991 2 years ago
You did a big favor to thousands and thousands of firewood peddlers!!! now more and more homeowners agree with your clean coal criticism and start loading their fireplaces and woodstoves with firewood on a daiily basis!! The air is getting dirtier than EVER! We are losing the war on air pollution all over again!! Thank you so much for your misinformation!! You are a wonderful guy!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
....but....Obama says clean coal is a reality....Just like global warming.....Who's right?
ClaudeParish 2 years ago
I cant believe the internet is so anti-coal. By putting regulations and taxes on the coal industry they will have to cut jobs. You eco-nuts don't realize that people in my state of West Virginia rely on the coal industry. You commie hippies out in Cali are a bunch of damn idiots. Both of my grandfathers were coal miners. We need the coal industry. I say build more coal plants. STOP WORRYING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT ISNT REAL LIKE GLOBAL NOTHING.
Hockeyfan8311991 2 years ago
hey, "hockeyfan83111991, ..."Coal mining is an extractive industry. It will never make these communities economically prosperous or independent. It rapes the land and the communities. It perpetuates poverty, environmental degradation, and poor health. If you actually cared about these people and their jobs/lives, you would be advocating for a diversified economy in coal country. Read any literature on social and environmental justice issues in Appalachia,- you'll see I'm right. " -
MigotoOokami
jerrysart 2 years ago
"Cali commie damn idiot hippies"... mmm. Nothing quite like reasoned debate is there Hockeyfan.
PS. I am in the UK
frpd5 2 years ago
The fact that you deny even the possibility of Global Warming shows your pre-disposition toward extractive, What of the fly ash retention ponds? The UNREGULATED ones..which is..every one of them? Another environmental disaster just waiting to occur.abandoned because it is no longer economically viable to utilize the site, left behind for our tax dollars to clean up? While these corporations make billions in profits. There is no such thing as clean coal, and you are a dinosaur.
Jakedonavan 2 years ago
ok so you rely on the the coal industry and so did your family. Yet, the reality is that whether you like it or not coal will run out and then you will have to find something else to do... "Smart people" realize this and are decinding that we need to find another souce of energy so we dont kill the planet and can still have jobs. maybe we should use all the idots as fuel until we find somthing else
weisr3129 2 years ago
Kill the planet? Give me a break, knave.
eaglecry1957 2 years ago
The term 'global warming' was changed because it is an incorrect and inadequate name for such a complex problem.
killerbandit 2 years ago
THERE IS NO CLEAN COAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
775gary 2 years ago
Can someone describe this so called 'clean coal' technology. Are we talking about technology to remove metals, solid particulates, sulfur, etc from coal? Is clean coal technology really carbon capturing technology?
alwaysChE 2 years ago
**Can someone describe this so called 'clean coal' technology. Are we talking about technology to remove metals, solid particulates, sulfur, etc from coal? **
It's a Hype term for EPA requiredfiltration technology that has existed since the late 70's in the US
Bag Filters, Stack Filters,Water Scubbers,Carcoal Injection,etc
Environuts like to Pretend Protesting the Miles of Black Smoke and ash rain in the 70's and the EPA acting never happened
Obama is a "genius"
1 word Coal will be redeemd
TheRealArchAngel 2 years ago
wow, you are horribly wrong.
biology1234 2 years ago
Oh, and your fucking dipshit rebuttal with nothing to back up your opinion is better?
Keep looking for Manbearpig you floundering sheeple fuck stain.
leakystarfish 2 years ago
Well, global warming does exist. So does global cooling.
Natural cycle. My point is...the Earth is going to do what it is going to do. If we are to survive, they WE are the ones that need to change, because the planet is going to change regardless.
I fucking hate all these Al Gore doomsday retards preaching about a "problem" that is actually just a natural occurrence.
leakystarfish 2 years ago
how much do you really know? i mean your JUST posting a comment on youtube, anyone can do that.
biology1234 2 years ago
How much do you really know, when you cannot use the English language any better than an Autistic 5 year old?
leakystarfish 2 years ago
You are correct, there are natural cycles to the weather system that are beyond our control.
We work to live through these extreme events by preparing as best we can. The levies in New Orleans are a very well known example of us attempting to prepare for these events.
The point Al Gore makes is that if we didn't destroy the natural levies (swamps) we wouldn't need to put in an artificial levy.
killerbandit 2 years ago
this anti-clean coal campaign seems like a waste.
laxUO 2 years ago
Hey, fuck this shit. Of course there isnt any totally clean coal plants. The technology is still in development. This is like having a commercial where a guy is in an empty desert talking about all the people whose Alzheimers were cured. If all you do is naysay and give up you will never get anywhere. Plus America is chock full of coal. If we can find a way to burn it cleanly for energy, then why the hell not?
Naxwell 2 years ago
how much carbon is in your lungs, dorks!@! still burning firewood? , dorks!!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
there is no such thing as clean firewood, too...
junkyardnut 2 years ago
sure is...wood pellet stoves (aka, corn burners here). The very small amount of ash that it creates is recycled. so wait, haha, i guess your right in a way, only thing is the crap that it makes is recycled is all. so somewhat yea.
codemanrose 2 years ago
We should adapt to global warming scenarios.
leakystarfish 2 years ago
," he said. "The evidence can be seen in the graphic representation of geomagnetic activity plotted alongside world temperatures.
logan1776 2 years ago
Piers Corbyn of Weather Action, a company that provides long-term forecasts to UK industry, claimed the IPCC had quite simply got it wrong. Corbyn, like a large group of solar scientists, believes the UN body has underestimated some of the indirect effects of the Sun on the Earth's climate.
"Particles and magnetic effects from the Sun are the decisive influence that controls world temperatures
logan1776 2 years ago
The total mined mountain range area that has been dynamited forever into oblivion, covers an area the size of Delaware! The complacency of Coal advocates is astounding. Without changes in our energy consumption, our mountains will be "laid low" with Biblical efficiency ...
jerrysart 2 years ago
Professor David Unwin, an environmental scientist at Birkbeck College, London. He said the IPCC was guilty of glossing over many of the uncertainties in climate science.
"These uncertainties are never really made explicit," he said. "The IPCC will give you error bars but there are huge uncertainties to do with the science that goes into the computer models that predict the future."
logan1776 2 years ago
People don't understand how safe and recyclable nuclear energy is, it really would solve a lot of problems is the paranoia wen away...
Swansen03 2 years ago
France is run almost complete off nuclear energy.
awerner2007 2 years ago
They are a perfect example then, and most people probably don't even realize that.
.... also, my misspellings "is paranoia" should have been if and "wen away" should have been went... yes.
Swansen03 2 years ago
Yes, and no one wants their waste either.
busog97641 2 years ago
UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN.
logan1776