The scariest thing about a PR campaign of this magnitude is how quickly it becomes a conversational "fact".
The other day I was telling a relative about the new wind turbines Japan came up with, which produce energy cheaper and more efficiently than any current macro-grid option (including nuclear). His response was that nothing is cheaper than coal, and now that they can make it cleanly, we should all support it for the economy's sake. I asked what made it "clean" and got a blank stare.
Hmm... Well, it's not as good as No Country For Old Men, or The Big Lebowski, but I think as far as Coen Brothers pieces go this is about equal in quality with, say, The Hudsucker Proxy.
this is great. oh and i love that whole mountaintop mining thing where they blow up a whole mountain to get the precious coal from underneath it. until we can convince the powers that be that green energy can and will turn a profit once the proper measures are in place we're all gonna be choking on coal and gasoline fumes for the next 100 years.
ok first off im a coal miner from Karlan, im not here to preach how good coal is and "don't like coal dont use electricity" becuase there are other means of creating power. coal miners don't go underground risking there life every day becuase they hate Obama or they hate a clean planet. they do it to provide for there family's and earn a living. every day underground could be your last. but where im from its the best paying job. im proud to be part of the mining industry.
I have to disagree with you on the footprint of wind. 1 wind generator is rated at 1.5 MW's. But you can only count on a capacity factor of about 20%. So for a medium 500 mw CF unit you would need about 1100 towers. Plus you have to trench the whole area put in large footing, roads. You need a minimum spacing. Plus before you retire coal units you need NG units to replace them cause you can't rely on the wind, so you have to add that cost(1500/installed kw). 500 MW's of capacity is nothing.
@thinkingthingsthru 500 MW is a slightly-smaller than average coal plant, so I wouldn't call it "nothing." Also, no one is suggesting that the only source of power generation should be wind. There are many renewable options including wind: solar (thermal, concentrating and pv), hydro (as you've already pointed out), geothermal, tidal/wave, efficiency, storage, etc.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel so it should not be depended on as our primary replacement for coal - but it has a place.
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.
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 terrorism at its best.
@Rubenleesims ummm yeah we better put coal on the most wanted terrorist list. The sand at the beach contains the same trace amounts of mercury, lead cadium and all the other crap you had listed.
@thinkingthingsthru Except 1: This isn't true, and 2: you aren't burning the sand and releasing/transforming all those toxins. The coal is fairly harmless if you just leave it in the ground and don't burn it. It's the burning of it that creates the problem.
I thought the same thing when I heard the word clean coal. Clean coal is like saying clean dirt. Gotta love these Corporations who just lie and shove propaganda up our asses while they burn dirty coal and let there employee's die in the mines. Rich people and companies just don't give a fuck about us.
Substitute "wood" in this commercial - there are no emissions control on campfires or your neighbor's fireplace. There are on coal-fired plants - and coal is fossilized wood.
@lukecloss - your inability to discuss the composition of coal in an intelligent manner says much about what kind of schooling you received. Your personal attack and avoidance of the issue says much about your level of development.
"Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water..." Go look it up.
Is it inability, or is it a lack of desire to engage with you in this forum and in this topic? Seems you're jumping the gun to a personal attack on me and my schooling, rather than inquiring why I chose the communication I did.
I proudly support the coal industry. We have the technology to convert coal into gasoline; this coupled with the abundant domestic coal we have, means coal can help make us energy independent.
And if you renewable energy lovers think an industry that produces 60+% of the electricity we use is "on it's way out," I have a bridge to sell you.
actually the coal industry will have to pay more to clean the coal they only pretend to support clean coal to look good to the public. and since for the time being we need coal it can either be clean coal or regular, let the maker of this video choose
June 13, 2009 - Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced on Friday plans to restart the country's first clean coal power project, scrapped by the previous Bush administration as too expensive.
Now that's the stupid'est thing I have seen so far this year! Guess what America, the electricity you are currently using right now at this very second comes from COAL! Until a more cost effective way is found, quit whyning!
Geeze jtjjbannie, Since when does something being cheap and plentiful make it right? Stupidity is plentiful and cheap as can be. What if Eisenhower and Congress in the 50s had never funded the interstate highway system? How much do you think your Chinese goods would cost at Walmart if they had to be transported on aging state highways and back roads? Parting food for thought bannie: what if Obama and Bush had spent half what they gave to the banks on solar power, wind power and a smart grid?
Again.what if Obama and Bush had spent half what they gave to the banks on solar power, wind power and a smart grid? I think there is an overwhelming consensus in America that green collar jobs should go to the coal producing states. I know I support the idea 110% Forget the pointless argument on whether global warming is real or notthe skies are turning brown, our sons and daughters are being sacrificed at the altar of big oil....my son is a Marine Sergeant so I have a vested interest also.
@Bluzmann - "What if Obama and Bush had spent half what they gave to the banks on solar power, wind power and a smart grid?"
It would have been even more wasteful than had it gone to the banks. Look at Denmark; 6,000 wind turbines ($1.5m each) in that tiny country, yet it still uses fossil fuel. Claims to be anti-nuclear and anti-coal, yet imports nuclear and coal electricity from Germany and Sweden.
DarthCormac-absolutely correct - and there are wind farms in CA right now that need dismantling because they are no longer subsidized. They can take as much energy to operate as they do to produce and can have up to 500 gallons of oil in each one. I don't believe there is any such thing as "green energy" - it kind of goes agains the laws of physics - we never get more out of something than what goes into it - but some things, like wind power, are worse than others.
@Bluzmann - Furthermore, Obama already gave $100 billion in subsidies to the renewable energy industry in his porkulus bill earlier this year. Thanks to that money, renewable energy is expected to increase from 1% to 2% over the next 4 years. A 1% increase at a cost of $100 billion? Money well spent (sarcasm).
If the only way your "family" can make money is by destroying the earth and exploiting others then guess what - you don't deserve to make a living.
Coal is not cost effective. The only reason coal is considered "cheap" is because it has externalized the costs of environmental pollution/degradation and health complications for over a century. If the people who burned coal were held responsible for the pollution, coal would be BY FAR the most expensive form of energy - even more than nuclear.
You ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !!! RIGHT! RIGHT! BUT you forgot to turn off your light switch, You could have hung your clothes to dry instead of tossing them in your 5000 watt clothes dryer. You should not set your thermostat on automatic. You should wear thermal underwear even indoors.
and set your thermostat at 60 degrees . No, turn the damn thermostat off permanently.. Set your water heater on "vacation" dial. blah blah blah... This is the fastest remedy to your dirty coal headaches!@!! Just turn all of your damn widgets off!!
When did I forget to turn off my light switch? I use CFL bulbs, I often dry my clothes on a line, our thermostat is set at 80 in the summer. I live in Texas, we don't use thermal underwear ever, why would we?
Personal choices and practices in every day life are important, but they will not solve the problem. To truly solve the problem we need to get rid of coal plants. That doesn't mean we have to get rid of electricity. There are plenty of alternatives.
CFL bulbs is nothing!! Are you too ashamed to tell all that you dry clothes on a line? 80 is too high for a thermostat setting and this means you should lower it to 68 and start wearing thermal underwear. Texas is not warm round the year... Nor is California where I hailed from! I wear thermal underwear which is a must in the name of energy conservation!
@Pandonodrim , Well said and its destroying my country literally, good farmland is being ripped up to make mines, my whole country almost is selling out, dumbing down. We are going from very bright to alcoholic rednecks all dressed in high visibility shirts and as a land owner you have no rights to stop these people comming ont your land and drilling NONE: real progress
@Pandonodrim could you give some facts on coal pollution. Everything you are saying is heresay. Coal is burned very efficiently for the process of making steel and in large utility boilers. Precipitators, scrubbers, SCR's, ACI and baghouses eliminate any environmental threats. The CO2 emissions are inconsequential please visit the appropriate web sites for details and not the politically charges Al Gore/Nobel prize. Althought I think nuclear would be a cheaper option in the long run.
Coal burning is not efficient. Depending on the type of coal over 70% of the potential energy is lost in heat and light. This is called the heat (or thermal) rating and affects the BTU per kilowatt rating of a facility. Natural gas (for example) is far more efficient at converting its energy to electricity. But don't take my word for it, look this stuff up.
As for the scrubbers and baghouses, etc. the absolutely do NOT "remove any environmental threats." More...
@thinkingthingsthru They do remove SOME, but certainly not "any." These new pollution control technologies do reduce the air emissions of newer plants, but most of the older plants in the country have none of those control devices (look up "grandfathering"). And note I said reduce, they do not eliminate. Any new coal plant still has thousands of TONS of toxic emissions, including carcinogens and neurotoxins like mercury and lead.
@thinkingthingsthru And any pollutants "scrubbed" out of the air emissions don't disappear - they go into the landfill with the rest of the toxic waste from the coal plant... this simply results in a moving around of the pollution, not an elimination of it. And none of them address the massive health and environmental costs of mining coal. The only way to avoid the massive costs associated with coal plant pollution is not to use coal for energy.
@thinkingthingsthru For the cold hard facts I suggest you start with your state's regulatory agency that grants permits for these polluters. Their permits will all be on file and you can see for yourself how much pollution they are "allowed" to emit every year. For the actual numbers on what is emitted you can check out EPA's "Acid Rain" database on their website. All major sources of pollution like coal plants report to that program - there is data for every year these facilities operate.
@thinkingthingsthru CO2 is not "inconsequential." And no, I do not rely on Al Gore for my information. He is not a climatologist). Relying solely on him is as bad as relying on Glenn Beck or John Coleman.
Global warming science is solid, it has been affirmed over numerous scientific fields, and there are hardly any remaining climatologists who do not agree with the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Stop relying on News Corp and blogs for your information on this issue.
@thinkingthingsthru Finally: nuclear power is not the answer. The waste problem is horrendous (the high level, longest-lived waste will last practically forever as far as we are concerned) and nukes are extremely expensive. The operating cost (fuel cost once the facility is built) is competitive, but the cost to build them is astronomical. Every nuke I've ever heard of has gone massively over-budget and overtime.
@thinkingthingsthru The proposed STP expansion in Texas, for example, has already gone from an estimated $5billion to over $20 billion and they aren't even permitted yet!
The answer lies in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy storage. They have almost no related emissions, they employ more people per megawatt generated, and they just make more sense in every way.
@Pandonodrim Hydroelectric is definitely a good renewable, wind is not you have to supply power on demand and at a reasonable cost. Plus wind generation takes up massive amounts of land because their electrical output is so tiny for the massive size of the towers that are built iin Vietnam, the electrical products built in India and the generators built in Europe. States with significant renewable energy generation pay over twice for their power what coal states do. Check it out at the EIA
@thinkingthingsthru Hydro is limited, though there are a lot of newer, better technologies for more distributed, run-of-river systems. Big dams are not very good. Wind is fine - it takes up little actual land (base of the tower) and you can use all the in-between land for other uses: farming, raising livestock, etc.
You're last point is conjecture - and it also ignores the massive hidden costs of coal which are not reflected in electricity bills.
@Pandonodrim Canada has tons of hydro. I was talking to an engineer who worked at the utility in the central part of canada. The electric generation is over 70% hydo which means renewable. They had a major problem though when building dams the natural occuring mercury in the ground contaminated drinking water. They found this because they noticed a large number of children with birth defects that could be directly contributed to mercury. There has never been a direct link from coal like this.
@thinkingthingsthru That's great news for Canada, but I live in the US - in the southern US. We've maxed out our hydro development. As for mercury - the vast majority of industrial releases of mercury come from coal plants. It Texas (where I live currently) coal plants account for over 70% of anthropogenic releases.
Wind's capacity factor is actually far more often between 30-40 percent. This does not make it "unreliable." It is consistently at this level and thus is planned on at this level.
@Pandonodrim I could get a job at a wind farm, I know a lot of people working at them. They are people I used to work with. We discuss wind. They of course do generate power but iti s in such small amounts. When the turbines spin they can't cut into the grid until they hit a minimum wind speed as the back emf will brake the generator. The consesnsus of the people who work at them is that they are only being built because of state and federal subsides and mandantes for renewable.
@thinkingthingsthru I know about all this - minimum wind speeds, etc. It is not an issue of wind turbines being useless as you suggest - simply that they are a fundamentally different source of power generation than a "baseload" plant like a coal plant. Here in Texas the share of our power that comes form wind is increasing every year (though it is still quite small). Energy storage will solve all the issues wind power has.
@Pandonodrim Sorry for long response, lol. When states mandate renewables they go by installed capacity and with the horrible Capacity Factors(utilization factors) you really are only displacing 20-30% of the power and it is so costly. If you are going to force utilities to do this mandate the components are to be built in the US. Wind generation is very unstable because they use induction generators versus a synchronus. The country's we but the components from use coal to generate their power.
@Pandonodrim IMHO I think the intent of wind generation has very good intent. I just don't think it is efficient and effective for our economy. If we made investments in nuclear plants it would be a far better choice. It would create much more American jobs, take up extremely small footprints, and provide cheap reliable power. Look at France and Japan who have gone to Nuclear for the base and stuck with it. There is cheap, reliable energy for all, renewable mandates is driving up power costs.
@thinkingthingsthru Again, wind alone will not cut it - but it can be a significant contribution to a combined power system based in renewable, sustainable energy.
Nuclear is not the answer. The facilities are horrendously expensive to build and take forever to get up and running (usually at least a decade). They ALWAYS run over budget and overtime - and then there is the waste issue.
@thinkingthingsthru The reactors in Japan are mostly offline due to problems and the French reactors have had numerous leaks - contaminating groundwater in some communities to the point where they have to have all their water brought in in bottles. Google "france nuke leaks."
Renewables like wind, solar, etc. will be far more reliable and inexpensive in the long run.
Investors needed now , we have the technology here in Houston , James Tracy has it down . CO2 is not captured it is broken down .
byproducts are Clean Air and distilled water , Particle byproducts are pure Carbon , mercury arsenic and other metals that fall after going threw real Plasmification , not the Old Torch Technology that would work on a small scale . This means no pools of poison .
No need for scrubbing Coal . We go after the emissions and reuse the byproducts .
ever heard of conservation of energy dum ass ?? you cant yust reverse a process and do it again and hope you will get more energy ... coal is mainly carbon
We will need more clean coal to recharge our new plug in electric vehicles (EV).. Coal will start to compete against Big Oil at your favorite gas station! Think carefully before you holler like an idiot!
This whole ad campaign is a farce. Its worse then the storm gathering campaign. C02 capture works, C02 is the heaviest gas in the atmosphere. Even if there was a geographical mishap that would cause a deposit to possibly leak, very little would escape. These deposits are ussually empty natural gas veins so they've already been holding gas for millions of years.
although true this is an untested science capture and storage, while popular at the moment has ZERO proof that it will be safe come 50 years from now. It may make a bigger problem than it is trying to prevent. Putting the CO2 'dirt' under the rug is not a solution.
CO2 would be stored at pressures up to 2000 psia. A leak would cause a depressurization. While you are right about CO2 being the heaviest gas in the atmosphere, a leak would cause a suffocating blanket on the surface.
Carbon capturing technology is almost laughable. Here's why. Lets say a coal fired power plant burns 40 tons of coal per day. This number may be too high or too low, I'm not sure. One might say well the plant is releasing 40 tons of CO2. Not the case! 40 tons of combusted/gasified coal actually releases 322,700 pounds/day (161 tons/day) because the coal is oxidized to CO2. More simply, the O2 is attached to the carbon atom which makes the molecule weigh more...
That's an overly facile response, seeing as how the weight of coal and the weight of CO2 have nothing to do with how carbon capture technology works. If you actually want to compare the two, you would compare energy generated by oxidation to energy consumed in a separation process, whether idealized (dG = -TdS = -RTd(x lnx)) or by real methods.
Also, your math is a bit off. Considering that coal contains hydrogen in about a 1:1 ratio with carbon, the weight should be (44/13)*40=135 tons.
You're right my math was off. I noticed that after I posted it. I had the wrong MW for CO2. My point is that it would not be economically or thermodynamically feasible to capture 135 tons/day of CO2. Using the Gibbs free energy equation may be difficult in this non-ideal situation. I'm not sure how close the accuracy would be. Using a separation process would make a coal fired power plant less energy efficient, causing prices to increase.
Nuke is good too. The usa military has had no metldowns.
Solar is good but good panels (like on the Mars rovers) cost far too much to mass produce.
Wait.. if we mass produce the good panels the cost would go DOWN.
I say take all the money on the defunct 'drug war' (it is really a war on the middle and lower class's extra cash and PROHIBITION in any other instance of history) and give that money to the people.
with the carbon tax its just a new war on the middle and lower class, when your power bill triples your cost for everything goes up. AS it will effect every thing.
Wow, I really didn't know that the status of the high-tech equipment repair man gives you the right to abuse people and call them idiots. Actually, it's the one-track idiots like you that give Islam the bad reputation.
And there is no "Islamic" country. Some countries established the Sheriat (or Sharia) law, in which some of practices are, by our Western standards, questionable. But what you're talking about is stereotyping and generalizing, which is very typical for stupid people.
I'm surprised to see a liberal take the anti-liberal moron side. And don't tell me you're not ---> see Milton Friedman and Ron Paul liberalism.
According to gismotech, you're the worst enemy of freedom (besides "the Islam"). Hang on, aren't the liberals the foremost fighters for personal freedom? And I'm supposed to be the idiot? Rofl.
Well that's the general idea, isn't it? Liberty. But you do realize that 6.5 billion people have never read or even heard of your constitution.
American neoconservatives like you are nothing but "reformed" liberals who have moved to the more conservative right. The process is in fact very similar to the "reformed communists" that moved to the right and joined the Nazi party. We all know where that lead to. Be glad you elected Obama :-).
fighters for personal freedom? lets see Obama said you can't drive the car you want, eat what you want, heat or cool your house like you want and expect that to be ok. So much for personal freedom.
Obviously you are not aware of the fact that quite a part of "Arabic" world is Christian. It is exactly the (Arabic) Lebanese Christians Phalangists that slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. I bet they don't teach you that in Sunday school. Not to mention that Jerusalem is on Arabic soil.
And BTW, how many Mosques are in your town? There are Muslim extreme terrorist groups, but there are also Christian terrorists. Remember Oklahoma City bombing?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
you mean the lebanese civil war started by Islamic assholes. and as for the Oklahoma city bombing it had nothing to do with Christians you stupid hack and Jerusalem is not on Arabic soil it never was there has never been a country call palistine or a race of Palistinian
If these idiots told the truth about co2 they would be for logging as old trees die and rot they release co2 young trees take in much more co2 than old trees. Yet they will fight to block logging in old growth forest
It was in Obama's official platform during the campaign that the US should (And I quote) "Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology", in order to "Create Millions of New Green Jobs."
BEFORE you call somebody a dumbass, take 10 seconds to look it up.
Obam is not a scientist, and he is definitely not god. Just because clean coal has his tick of approval does not mean it is a good investment or remotely sustainable. Its just a ploy to keep the big fat energy companies making billions. Geothermal energy is the best possible hope we have for a green future. Thats what we should be investing in.
King Coal is currently countering this Coen Bros. video on TV with their own video, using "Clean Coal" soundbites from OBAMA'S speeches.
Unfortunately, Obama has been endorsing Clean Coal for years. There's articles about this dating (at least) back to 2007 from the Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)
Half the electricity that keeps America running comes from coal today. Do you see any smoke outside from coal? I don't.
This video is biased trash from people who want America's economy to suffer and for many moms and dads to lose their jobs. If an employer starts seeing the electric bill double, how long before people have to be let go, Einstein?
CO2 is colorless too you retard, that changes nothing. Just because coal provides energy and jobs doesn't change the facts about the dangers. And who fucking said this video wasn't biased? It's plenty biased, against the coal PR machine and their "clean-coal" initiative.
What will we do when the rolling brownouts cause people to die in the summer heat waves/evacuated from frozen homes in the winter time because there aren't enough power plants? How will solar work in cloudy winter months/regions? Windmills work when there's no wind?
I live in sight of some giant windmills. I appreciate the effort and hope for a cleaner future. I'm sure we will progress. I hope we don't kill what we may need for now, tho.
Coal is MUCH cleaner than it was. I hope we need it less.
Whats stopping you from investing in tidal power, solar power, wind farm? Ill tell you what, the coal industry, the nuclear industry. Same thing with electric/hydrogen cars and the oil industry.
Were gonna let these greedy, short-sighted motherfuckers drive us over a fucking cliff if nothing changes
Yes, Al Gore almost became your president and you almost finished high school. That really gives you the competence to judge who's idiot and who's not.
But then again, what else would you expect from a man whose motto is "Liberals and Islam are the enemy of FREEDOM". I'd call him a retard, but that would be an insult to the people with developmental issues.
care to name a Islamic country that is not ruled by nutcase fanitics that control what the people know? that kill you if you convert to another religion? that stones rape victoms? yea thats free. convert or die.
Have you even looked into the Wikipedia under "liberalism"? The term "liberal" comes from Lating "liber" or English "liberty", and you're saying these people are against "freedom"?
Liberals want to ban free speech? My god, I'm really amazed how dumb you can get.
lets see I repair hitech equip for more than a dozen companies. without Me and people like me you would still be just another loser with out a way to tell anyone
DontBeObamaZombies' comment - see above - reveals a moron who is devoid of the mental faculties required for critical analysis. YouTube advises that you ignore it.
Repeated comments of this ludicrous nature should be reported to the DisclaimerDepartment.
And Mr Disclaimer, if Global Warming if going to kill us all...- what is you alternative to todays fossil fuel that wont start global FAMINE in the Transition??
How about the Fact the Volcanoes produce more CO2 then humans-what are you going to do about that?? Put a Carbon Tax on them, because I doubt they will pay up....
DontBeObamaZombies' comment - see above - reveals a moron who is devoid of the mental faculties required for critical analysis. YouTube advises that you ignore it.
Repeated comments of this ludicrous nature should be reported to the DisclaimerDepartment.
Global Warming/Climate Change is caused by SUN CYCLES, and the amount of CO2 man put into the air is negligible compared to the amount Nature herself produces
Awesome! Great video that cuts through the PR blitz the coal industry is pouring cash into to confuse Americans. Let's face it: this is the time to put American ingenuity to work to create a new, sustainable industrial revolution and reclaim our economic dominance in the world.
You environementalists are all faggots. When were done chopping all the trees, we can just breath CO2. You dont beleive that liberal bullshit about lungs needing oxygen do you?
Instead of coal, burn biomass from sustainably harvested local forests to maximize fuel output in the long run and put carbon in the soils and large 200 year timber like white pine. Supplement with wind, PV, efficiency, and mass transit.
Buy local, grow your own food, bike, bus, carpool, all as much as you can.
Write your legislators and tell them what you want. There are MANY alternatives to fossil fuels and ways to drastically reduce our current use while losing almost nothing.
Would you please do a commercial for wind energy? You could have the lights dim and the boss call in in the middle of the night to say the factory has power again, please come in right away. Also the milk in the refrigerator could spoil, the kids take a drink and spit it out. Mom says, "Sorry kids, the weather just hasn't been cooperating lately..."
Another bit of fantasy brought to us by George Soros, Algrore, and the rest of the Carbon-Nazis who would use energy to control every detail of our dally lives.
Reminder: There's no proof CO2 causes global warming. It's just some people's theory. In fact, the science of the past few years suggests the inverse: That global warming causes increases of CO2.
Today almost all scientists agree on one thing: Algore is an alarmist, as he wildly exaggerates the problem, if one even exists.
How absurd you are. There is also no evidence saying sub-atomic sized martians don't land in our ears shortly after birth, colonizing in our brains and causing each of us to die 400 years prematurely. I and the IPCC claim they have been doing this for over 2,000 years, and SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PROVING ME WRONG, let's spend trillions of dollars eradicating the tiny invaders!
re: SaveWesternOhio - ===You don't seem to understand the concept of scienc=== - Wait a minute that last comment was stupid. - Anyways, the point being that every major National Academy of Science agrees on this. - They've gone through and disproved all other plausible theories, AND shown plenty of evidence we'd expect to happen if Greenhouse induced Global Warming were happening. - greyfalcon. net/ whatwouldittake
Unfortunately for you, and for all of us, the scientific problem of climate change has not been made up to control our lives. In fact, it happened due to our need to control our environment. Just read the latest copy of the new scientist to read for yourself. Scientists do not make up the problem, and most agree it is a serious problem. Also energy does control much of our lives, just because we are dependant upon it & at the moment we are using finite resources rather than sustainable ones.
Unfortunately the bipartisan back stabbing and the complete collapse of our union is not helping anything...the truth is we saw this coming, our dependency on coal is just another nail in America's coffin. This country does not have the will to change one damn thing if it makes them uncomfortable. The wake up siren is blaring now, and the truth hurts. I just love hearing the conservatives squirm on here despite everything else going down the tubes, their pain and anguish is music to my soul.
what is it with conservative fricking americans, i swear you are the most frustrating hypocrites, the whole bunch. Gotta spell it out for you forward thinkers...Nail=dangerous, polluting technology, whose mining and burning technique hasn't changed for years...like the ol combustion engine. This isn't a lump or leave it deal...it IS NOT working you poor blind simpleton...but fine hold your ground. This country has been defined by it's visionaries...do I have to spell that out for you...?
And changing our country's energy system's from these fossil burning fuel technologies wil be like trying to make Conservative Repub. admit their party is full of ridiculous, ignorant loud mouth lug-heads...NOT gonna happen. This change is going to happen, painfully slowly and our leaders are going to have to fight for every inch. Cause guys like Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh and the strange americans who listen to these guys...they will be willing the whole thing to fail. GOT IT? DUDE?
C + O2 --> CO2
It's not that hard people.
No matter how much sulfur you remove from coal to make it "clean", it's still carbon, and you're still putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
CharIesMarteI 3 days ago
The scariest thing about a PR campaign of this magnitude is how quickly it becomes a conversational "fact".
The other day I was telling a relative about the new wind turbines Japan came up with, which produce energy cheaper and more efficiently than any current macro-grid option (including nuclear). His response was that nothing is cheaper than coal, and now that they can make it cleanly, we should all support it for the economy's sake. I asked what made it "clean" and got a blank stare.
TheWanderingPrimate 3 months ago
Hmm... Well, it's not as good as No Country For Old Men, or The Big Lebowski, but I think as far as Coen Brothers pieces go this is about equal in quality with, say, The Hudsucker Proxy.
Vadergeek 6 months ago
this is great. oh and i love that whole mountaintop mining thing where they blow up a whole mountain to get the precious coal from underneath it. until we can convince the powers that be that green energy can and will turn a profit once the proper measures are in place we're all gonna be choking on coal and gasoline fumes for the next 100 years.
redape6870 6 months ago
ok first off im a coal miner from Karlan, im not here to preach how good coal is and "don't like coal dont use electricity" becuase there are other means of creating power. coal miners don't go underground risking there life every day becuase they hate Obama or they hate a clean planet. they do it to provide for there family's and earn a living. every day underground could be your last. but where im from its the best paying job. im proud to be part of the mining industry.
CuzFat 11 months ago
@CuzFat Get a different job just like the 4 billion other people on this planet have to do..
flyingpigstuff 6 months ago
I have to disagree with you on the footprint of wind. 1 wind generator is rated at 1.5 MW's. But you can only count on a capacity factor of about 20%. So for a medium 500 mw CF unit you would need about 1100 towers. Plus you have to trench the whole area put in large footing, roads. You need a minimum spacing. Plus before you retire coal units you need NG units to replace them cause you can't rely on the wind, so you have to add that cost(1500/installed kw). 500 MW's of capacity is nothing.
thinkingthingsthru 11 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru 500 MW is a slightly-smaller than average coal plant, so I wouldn't call it "nothing." Also, no one is suggesting that the only source of power generation should be wind. There are many renewable options including wind: solar (thermal, concentrating and pv), hydro (as you've already pointed out), geothermal, tidal/wave, efficiency, storage, etc.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel so it should not be depended on as our primary replacement for coal - but it has a place.
Pandonodrim 11 months 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.
jashby27 1 year 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 terrorism at its best.
Rubenleesims 1 year ago
@Rubenleesims ummm yeah we better put coal on the most wanted terrorist list. The sand at the beach contains the same trace amounts of mercury, lead cadium and all the other crap you had listed.
thinkingthingsthru 11 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru Except 1: This isn't true, and 2: you aren't burning the sand and releasing/transforming all those toxins. The coal is fairly harmless if you just leave it in the ground and don't burn it. It's the burning of it that creates the problem.
Duh.
Pandonodrim 11 months ago
-fischer-tropsch-process look it up!
Cleaner burning Diesel and Aircraft fuel from COAL!
USA has more coal than OPEC has OIL!
Big Oil is hiding this well, so are the Eco-Loonies because it is the answer!
MrBullseye61 1 year ago
This awesome ad was made by the Coen Brothers
proman84 1 year ago
I thought the same thing when I heard the word clean coal. Clean coal is like saying clean dirt. Gotta love these Corporations who just lie and shove propaganda up our asses while they burn dirty coal and let there employee's die in the mines. Rich people and companies just don't give a fuck about us.
flubno 1 year ago 2
It's called green wash =)
Charles2337 1 year ago
Does it really? Wow, you can infer a lot! Maybe I should be anonymous too, it's easier that way.
lukecloss 1 year ago
@lukecloss My moniker doesn't change the truth in what I've posted.
anonymous915 1 year ago
Substitute "wood" in this commercial - there are no emissions control on campfires or your neighbor's fireplace. There are on coal-fired plants - and coal is fossilized wood.
anonymous915 1 year ago
hahahah anonymous915 hilarious! You coalies are so cute. Keep on trying!
lukecloss 1 year ago
@lukecloss - your inability to discuss the composition of coal in an intelligent manner says much about what kind of schooling you received. Your personal attack and avoidance of the issue says much about your level of development.
"Coal begins as layers of plant matter accumulate at the bottom of a body of water..." Go look it up.
anonymous915 1 year ago
P.S. I still think you guys are cute for trying so hard.
lukecloss 1 year ago
Is it inability, or is it a lack of desire to engage with you in this forum and in this topic? Seems you're jumping the gun to a personal attack on me and my schooling, rather than inquiring why I chose the communication I did.
lukecloss 1 year ago
Why post anything if you have "a lack of desire to engage with" me "in this forum and in this topic"?
anonymous915 1 year ago
Good question! Keep your chin up, though. Perhaps your efforts here will win over some coal minds.
lukecloss 1 year ago
Coal gasification can make cleaner coal. I mean less acid rain and other polution.
Clean coal will cause more CO2
Clean coal opens the door to sythetic oil production so we burn even more coal to make a little bit of oil.
I work for VALE Inco your #1 source for acid rain and worker mistreatment.
northerbrewer 2 years ago
In reality, there's no such thing as clean energy.
save coal, burn kittens. they're renewable, i have done scientific studies.
1024zer 2 years ago
I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING....
tpaigeme 2 years ago
COMING SOON: CLEAN TURD TECHNOLOGY.
tpaigeme 2 years ago
I proudly support the coal industry. We have the technology to convert coal into gasoline; this coupled with the abundant domestic coal we have, means coal can help make us energy independent.
And if you renewable energy lovers think an industry that produces 60+% of the electricity we use is "on it's way out," I have a bridge to sell you.
DarthCormac 2 years ago
actually the coal industry will have to pay more to clean the coal they only pretend to support clean coal to look good to the public. and since for the time being we need coal it can either be clean coal or regular, let the maker of this video choose
aj19bcx 2 years ago
a video about clean coal on my page might make you think differently
xxPowerOnxx 2 years ago
Comment removed
junkyardnut 2 years ago
That commercial does make me choke... with laughter! I'm sort of neutral on this issue, but that was hilarious!
knowledgeable13 2 years ago
June 13, 2009 - Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced on Friday plans to restart the country's first clean coal power project, scrapped by the previous Bush administration as too expensive.
RuralFolk 2 years ago
Now that's the stupid'est thing I have seen so far this year! Guess what America, the electricity you are currently using right now at this very second comes from COAL! Until a more cost effective way is found, quit whyning!
jtjjbannie 2 years ago
Geeze jtjjbannie, Since when does something being cheap and plentiful make it right? Stupidity is plentiful and cheap as can be. What if Eisenhower and Congress in the 50s had never funded the interstate highway system? How much do you think your Chinese goods would cost at Walmart if they had to be transported on aging state highways and back roads? Parting food for thought bannie: what if Obama and Bush had spent half what they gave to the banks on solar power, wind power and a smart grid?
Bluzmann 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
jtjjbannie 2 years ago
Again.what if Obama and Bush had spent half what they gave to the banks on solar power, wind power and a smart grid? I think there is an overwhelming consensus in America that green collar jobs should go to the coal producing states. I know I support the idea 110% Forget the pointless argument on whether global warming is real or notthe skies are turning brown, our sons and daughters are being sacrificed at the altar of big oil....my son is a Marine Sergeant so I have a vested interest also.
Bluzmann 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
jtjjbannie 2 years ago
@Bluzmann - "What if Obama and Bush had spent half what they gave to the banks on solar power, wind power and a smart grid?"
It would have been even more wasteful than had it gone to the banks. Look at Denmark; 6,000 wind turbines ($1.5m each) in that tiny country, yet it still uses fossil fuel. Claims to be anti-nuclear and anti-coal, yet imports nuclear and coal electricity from Germany and Sweden.
Green energy doesn't work. At least not yet.
DarthCormac 2 years ago
DarthCormac-absolutely correct - and there are wind farms in CA right now that need dismantling because they are no longer subsidized. They can take as much energy to operate as they do to produce and can have up to 500 gallons of oil in each one. I don't believe there is any such thing as "green energy" - it kind of goes agains the laws of physics - we never get more out of something than what goes into it - but some things, like wind power, are worse than others.
anonymous915 1 year ago
@Bluzmann - Furthermore, Obama already gave $100 billion in subsidies to the renewable energy industry in his porkulus bill earlier this year. Thanks to that money, renewable energy is expected to increase from 1% to 2% over the next 4 years. A 1% increase at a cost of $100 billion? Money well spent (sarcasm).
DarthCormac 2 years ago
If the only way your "family" can make money is by destroying the earth and exploiting others then guess what - you don't deserve to make a living.
Coal is not cost effective. The only reason coal is considered "cheap" is because it has externalized the costs of environmental pollution/degradation and health complications for over a century. If the people who burned coal were held responsible for the pollution, coal would be BY FAR the most expensive form of energy - even more than nuclear.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago 20
Comment removed
jtjjbannie 2 years ago
Very mature.
Nowhere in your statement did you dispute anything I said. Congratulations.
I know exactly where the electricity I'm using comes from. I research electrical (specifically coal) power generation as my work.
Go ask the folks in Tennessee living downstream from the Kingston power plant what they see when they step outside.
I won't respond to any more of your posts so don't bother. I won't waste my time with someone as inane as you (unless you stop with the insults).
Pandonodrim 2 years ago
awesome, pando! well said!
sockosockosocko 2 years ago
Pandonodrim
You ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !!! RIGHT! RIGHT! BUT you forgot to turn off your light switch, You could have hung your clothes to dry instead of tossing them in your 5000 watt clothes dryer. You should not set your thermostat on automatic. You should wear thermal underwear even indoors.
junkyardnut 2 years ago
and set your thermostat at 60 degrees . No, turn the damn thermostat off permanently.. Set your water heater on "vacation" dial. blah blah blah... This is the fastest remedy to your dirty coal headaches!@!! Just turn all of your damn widgets off!!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
When did I forget to turn off my light switch? I use CFL bulbs, I often dry my clothes on a line, our thermostat is set at 80 in the summer. I live in Texas, we don't use thermal underwear ever, why would we?
Personal choices and practices in every day life are important, but they will not solve the problem. To truly solve the problem we need to get rid of coal plants. That doesn't mean we have to get rid of electricity. There are plenty of alternatives.
Pandonodrim 2 years ago 2
CFL bulbs is nothing!! Are you too ashamed to tell all that you dry clothes on a line? 80 is too high for a thermostat setting and this means you should lower it to 68 and start wearing thermal underwear. Texas is not warm round the year... Nor is California where I hailed from! I wear thermal underwear which is a must in the name of energy conservation!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
@Pandonodrim , Well said and its destroying my country literally, good farmland is being ripped up to make mines, my whole country almost is selling out, dumbing down. We are going from very bright to alcoholic rednecks all dressed in high visibility shirts and as a land owner you have no rights to stop these people comming ont your land and drilling NONE: real progress
1BustedMyth 1 year ago 2
@Pandonodrim could you give some facts on coal pollution. Everything you are saying is heresay. Coal is burned very efficiently for the process of making steel and in large utility boilers. Precipitators, scrubbers, SCR's, ACI and baghouses eliminate any environmental threats. The CO2 emissions are inconsequential please visit the appropriate web sites for details and not the politically charges Al Gore/Nobel prize. Althought I think nuclear would be a cheaper option in the long run.
thinkingthingsthru 1 year ago
@thinkingthingsthru Certainly.
Coal burning is not efficient. Depending on the type of coal over 70% of the potential energy is lost in heat and light. This is called the heat (or thermal) rating and affects the BTU per kilowatt rating of a facility. Natural gas (for example) is far more efficient at converting its energy to electricity. But don't take my word for it, look this stuff up.
As for the scrubbers and baghouses, etc. the absolutely do NOT "remove any environmental threats." More...
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@thinkingthingsthru They do remove SOME, but certainly not "any." These new pollution control technologies do reduce the air emissions of newer plants, but most of the older plants in the country have none of those control devices (look up "grandfathering"). And note I said reduce, they do not eliminate. Any new coal plant still has thousands of TONS of toxic emissions, including carcinogens and neurotoxins like mercury and lead.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@thinkingthingsthru And any pollutants "scrubbed" out of the air emissions don't disappear - they go into the landfill with the rest of the toxic waste from the coal plant... this simply results in a moving around of the pollution, not an elimination of it. And none of them address the massive health and environmental costs of mining coal. The only way to avoid the massive costs associated with coal plant pollution is not to use coal for energy.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@thinkingthingsthru For the cold hard facts I suggest you start with your state's regulatory agency that grants permits for these polluters. Their permits will all be on file and you can see for yourself how much pollution they are "allowed" to emit every year. For the actual numbers on what is emitted you can check out EPA's "Acid Rain" database on their website. All major sources of pollution like coal plants report to that program - there is data for every year these facilities operate.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@thinkingthingsthru CO2 is not "inconsequential." And no, I do not rely on Al Gore for my information. He is not a climatologist). Relying solely on him is as bad as relying on Glenn Beck or John Coleman.
Global warming science is solid, it has been affirmed over numerous scientific fields, and there are hardly any remaining climatologists who do not agree with the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Stop relying on News Corp and blogs for your information on this issue.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@thinkingthingsthru Finally: nuclear power is not the answer. The waste problem is horrendous (the high level, longest-lived waste will last practically forever as far as we are concerned) and nukes are extremely expensive. The operating cost (fuel cost once the facility is built) is competitive, but the cost to build them is astronomical. Every nuke I've ever heard of has gone massively over-budget and overtime.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@thinkingthingsthru The proposed STP expansion in Texas, for example, has already gone from an estimated $5billion to over $20 billion and they aren't even permitted yet!
The answer lies in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy storage. They have almost no related emissions, they employ more people per megawatt generated, and they just make more sense in every way.
Pandonodrim 1 year ago
@Pandonodrim Hydroelectric is definitely a good renewable, wind is not you have to supply power on demand and at a reasonable cost. Plus wind generation takes up massive amounts of land because their electrical output is so tiny for the massive size of the towers that are built iin Vietnam, the electrical products built in India and the generators built in Europe. States with significant renewable energy generation pay over twice for their power what coal states do. Check it out at the EIA
thinkingthingsthru 11 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru Hydro is limited, though there are a lot of newer, better technologies for more distributed, run-of-river systems. Big dams are not very good. Wind is fine - it takes up little actual land (base of the tower) and you can use all the in-between land for other uses: farming, raising livestock, etc.
You're last point is conjecture - and it also ignores the massive hidden costs of coal which are not reflected in electricity bills.
Pandonodrim 11 months ago
@Pandonodrim Canada has tons of hydro. I was talking to an engineer who worked at the utility in the central part of canada. The electric generation is over 70% hydo which means renewable. They had a major problem though when building dams the natural occuring mercury in the ground contaminated drinking water. They found this because they noticed a large number of children with birth defects that could be directly contributed to mercury. There has never been a direct link from coal like this.
thinkingthingsthru 11 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru That's great news for Canada, but I live in the US - in the southern US. We've maxed out our hydro development. As for mercury - the vast majority of industrial releases of mercury come from coal plants. It Texas (where I live currently) coal plants account for over 70% of anthropogenic releases.
Wind's capacity factor is actually far more often between 30-40 percent. This does not make it "unreliable." It is consistently at this level and thus is planned on at this level.
Pandonodrim 11 months ago
@Pandonodrim I could get a job at a wind farm, I know a lot of people working at them. They are people I used to work with. We discuss wind. They of course do generate power but iti s in such small amounts. When the turbines spin they can't cut into the grid until they hit a minimum wind speed as the back emf will brake the generator. The consesnsus of the people who work at them is that they are only being built because of state and federal subsides and mandantes for renewable.
thinkingthingsthru 11 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru I know about all this - minimum wind speeds, etc. It is not an issue of wind turbines being useless as you suggest - simply that they are a fundamentally different source of power generation than a "baseload" plant like a coal plant. Here in Texas the share of our power that comes form wind is increasing every year (though it is still quite small). Energy storage will solve all the issues wind power has.
Pandonodrim 11 months ago
@Pandonodrim Sorry for long response, lol. When states mandate renewables they go by installed capacity and with the horrible Capacity Factors(utilization factors) you really are only displacing 20-30% of the power and it is so costly. If you are going to force utilities to do this mandate the components are to be built in the US. Wind generation is very unstable because they use induction generators versus a synchronus. The country's we but the components from use coal to generate their power.
thinkingthingsthru 11 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru Sorry, I didn't quite catch all this, I think there's a typo in your last sentence. Could you rephrase?
Pandonodrim 11 months ago
@Pandonodrim IMHO I think the intent of wind generation has very good intent. I just don't think it is efficient and effective for our economy. If we made investments in nuclear plants it would be a far better choice. It would create much more American jobs, take up extremely small footprints, and provide cheap reliable power. Look at France and Japan who have gone to Nuclear for the base and stuck with it. There is cheap, reliable energy for all, renewable mandates is driving up power costs.
thinkingthingsthru 11 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru Again, wind alone will not cut it - but it can be a significant contribution to a combined power system based in renewable, sustainable energy.
Nuclear is not the answer. The facilities are horrendously expensive to build and take forever to get up and running (usually at least a decade). They ALWAYS run over budget and overtime - and then there is the waste issue.
Pandonodrim 11 months ago
@thinkingthingsthru The reactors in Japan are mostly offline due to problems and the French reactors have had numerous leaks - contaminating groundwater in some communities to the point where they have to have all their water brought in in bottles. Google "france nuke leaks."
Renewables like wind, solar, etc. will be far more reliable and inexpensive in the long run.
Pandonodrim 11 months ago
Investors needed now , we have the technology here in Houston , James Tracy has it down . CO2 is not captured it is broken down .
byproducts are Clean Air and distilled water , Particle byproducts are pure Carbon , mercury arsenic and other metals that fall after going threw real Plasmification , not the Old Torch Technology that would work on a small scale . This means no pools of poison .
No need for scrubbing Coal . We go after the emissions and reuse the byproducts .
This will save coal
sadhouse 2 years ago
ever heard of conservation of energy dum ass ?? you cant yust reverse a process and do it again and hope you will get more energy ... coal is mainly carbon
excuse my bad englisch its not my native language
ston932 2 years ago
We will need more clean coal to recharge our new plug in electric vehicles (EV).. Coal will start to compete against Big Oil at your favorite gas station! Think carefully before you holler like an idiot!
junkyardnut 2 years ago
This whole ad campaign is a farce. Its worse then the storm gathering campaign. C02 capture works, C02 is the heaviest gas in the atmosphere. Even if there was a geographical mishap that would cause a deposit to possibly leak, very little would escape. These deposits are ussually empty natural gas veins so they've already been holding gas for millions of years.
swissbones8mm 2 years ago
although true this is an untested science capture and storage, while popular at the moment has ZERO proof that it will be safe come 50 years from now. It may make a bigger problem than it is trying to prevent. Putting the CO2 'dirt' under the rug is not a solution.
Hamoct 2 years ago
CO2 would be stored at pressures up to 2000 psia. A leak would cause a depressurization. While you are right about CO2 being the heaviest gas in the atmosphere, a leak would cause a suffocating blanket on the surface.
egl118 2 years ago
aquaman would be impervious to such a suffocating blanket because he lives underwater with his gangsta thuggin fishies homes
swissbones8mm 2 years ago
Carbon capturing technology is almost laughable. Here's why. Lets say a coal fired power plant burns 40 tons of coal per day. This number may be too high or too low, I'm not sure. One might say well the plant is releasing 40 tons of CO2. Not the case! 40 tons of combusted/gasified coal actually releases 322,700 pounds/day (161 tons/day) because the coal is oxidized to CO2. More simply, the O2 is attached to the carbon atom which makes the molecule weigh more...
alwaysChE 2 years ago 2
That's an overly facile response, seeing as how the weight of coal and the weight of CO2 have nothing to do with how carbon capture technology works. If you actually want to compare the two, you would compare energy generated by oxidation to energy consumed in a separation process, whether idealized (dG = -TdS = -RTd(x lnx)) or by real methods.
Also, your math is a bit off. Considering that coal contains hydrogen in about a 1:1 ratio with carbon, the weight should be (44/13)*40=135 tons.
PSnugglesworth 2 years ago
You're right my math was off. I noticed that after I posted it. I had the wrong MW for CO2. My point is that it would not be economically or thermodynamically feasible to capture 135 tons/day of CO2. Using the Gibbs free energy equation may be difficult in this non-ideal situation. I'm not sure how close the accuracy would be. Using a separation process would make a coal fired power plant less energy efficient, causing prices to increase.
alwaysChE 2 years ago
Do you know of an example of Carbon Capturing Technology that can capture a sizeable fraction of the CO2 (135 tons) from the exhaust gas?
alwaysChE 2 years ago
In reality, there is no such thing as a true anti-abortionist....
fayettecounty48 2 years ago
I just love how pissed-off readnecks love to debate on youtube. Keep em' coming guys, we could love the laughs.
vidcritic27 2 years ago
I aim to please ;-D
Groucho7si 2 years ago
I'm gonna grill some hot links now.
xtremegt2 2 years ago
Geothermal is the best long-term wtg imho.
Nuke is good too. The usa military has had no metldowns.
Solar is good but good panels (like on the Mars rovers) cost far too much to mass produce.
Wait.. if we mass produce the good panels the cost would go DOWN.
I say take all the money on the defunct 'drug war' (it is really a war on the middle and lower class's extra cash and PROHIBITION in any other instance of history) and give that money to the people.
We have blown over 500 billion on it.
RooFx 2 years ago
with the carbon tax its just a new war on the middle and lower class, when your power bill triples your cost for everything goes up. AS it will effect every thing.
gismotech 2 years ago
Wow, I really didn't know that the status of the high-tech equipment repair man gives you the right to abuse people and call them idiots. Actually, it's the one-track idiots like you that give Islam the bad reputation.
And there is no "Islamic" country. Some countries established the Sheriat (or Sharia) law, in which some of practices are, by our Western standards, questionable. But what you're talking about is stereotyping and generalizing, which is very typical for stupid people.
Groucho7si 2 years ago
What about the one track idiots (like you)?
RooFx 2 years ago
I'm surprised to see a liberal take the anti-liberal moron side. And don't tell me you're not ---> see Milton Friedman and Ron Paul liberalism.
According to gismotech, you're the worst enemy of freedom (besides "the Islam"). Hang on, aren't the liberals the foremost fighters for personal freedom? And I'm supposed to be the idiot? Rofl.
Groucho7si 2 years ago
Wow you are a freak.
I thought it was kind of cute how YOU can call people 'stupid'.. Where are your credentials to allow YOU to call names while no one else can?
Oh wait.. you have none.
Too bad you aint got the seeds to meet in person, I could school you in about 0.8 seconds.
RooFx 2 years ago
Ah, the violence. The eternal refuge of the feeble minded.
I wouldn't waste my time meeting you even if you were my neighbor, which you are not, and I'm eternally grateful for it.
And yes, oh my God, I'm so afraid that I'll hide in a big hole and admire your superior intellect and musculature. : =)
Groucho7si 2 years ago
violence? wtf are you talking about?
It is something I would show you. Not DO to you, you self centered shit.
RooFx 2 years ago
oh yea, and do not tell me you are not at least partially liberal. ANYone that believes inthe US constitution is a liberal to some degree.
If ya dont like that document, I dont have to tell you where to get off.
RooFx 2 years ago
Well that's the general idea, isn't it? Liberty. But you do realize that 6.5 billion people have never read or even heard of your constitution.
American neoconservatives like you are nothing but "reformed" liberals who have moved to the more conservative right. The process is in fact very similar to the "reformed communists" that moved to the right and joined the Nazi party. We all know where that lead to. Be glad you elected Obama :-).
Groucho7si 2 years ago
Nazi party? was liberal. as are all left wing dumbass
gismotech 2 years ago
fighters for personal freedom? lets see Obama said you can't drive the car you want, eat what you want, heat or cool your house like you want and expect that to be ok. So much for personal freedom.
gismotech 2 years ago
you are a fool Islam earned its bad reputation, care to move to arabia and tell them you want to build a church?
fucking fool
gismotech 2 years ago
Obviously you are not aware of the fact that quite a part of "Arabic" world is Christian. It is exactly the (Arabic) Lebanese Christians Phalangists that slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. I bet they don't teach you that in Sunday school. Not to mention that Jerusalem is on Arabic soil.
And BTW, how many Mosques are in your town? There are Muslim extreme terrorist groups, but there are also Christian terrorists. Remember Oklahoma City bombing?
Groucho7si 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
you mean the lebanese civil war started by Islamic assholes. and as for the Oklahoma city bombing it had nothing to do with Christians you stupid hack and Jerusalem is not on Arabic soil it never was there has never been a country call palistine or a race of Palistinian
you leftist fucking hack.
gismotech 2 years ago
If these idiots told the truth about co2 they would be for logging as old trees die and rot they release co2 young trees take in much more co2 than old trees. Yet they will fight to block logging in old growth forest
so much for caring about co2
freaking morons
gismotech 2 years ago
Fuck Obama's plan for "clean" coal and nuclear waste.
KenCat1337 2 years ago
um, Obama doesn't support clean coal you dumbass.
HtroWniets 2 years ago
It was in Obama's official platform during the campaign that the US should (And I quote) "Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology", in order to "Create Millions of New Green Jobs."
BEFORE you call somebody a dumbass, take 10 seconds to look it up.
somecomputergeek 2 years ago 4
@somecomputergeek
Obam is not a scientist, and he is definitely not god. Just because clean coal has his tick of approval does not mean it is a good investment or remotely sustainable. Its just a ploy to keep the big fat energy companies making billions. Geothermal energy is the best possible hope we have for a green future. Thats what we should be investing in.
JETP1L0T 1 year ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@JETP1L0T
I had to look it up, but I said that in response to this comment:
"um, Obama doesn't support clean coal you dumbass. "
I hope the context clarifies what I was saying.
somecomputergeek 1 year ago
Yes he did, here's one of the videos of him completely bragging about "clean" coal:
YouTube d0t c0m /watch?v=fRs_9CYjMBU
Dumbass.
KenCat1337 2 years ago
King Coal is currently countering this Coen Bros. video on TV with their own video, using "Clean Coal" soundbites from OBAMA'S speeches.
Unfortunately, Obama has been endorsing Clean Coal for years. There's articles about this dating (at least) back to 2007 from the Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)
keeperspring 2 years ago
Half the electricity that keeps America running comes from coal today. Do you see any smoke outside from coal? I don't.
This video is biased trash from people who want America's economy to suffer and for many moms and dads to lose their jobs. If an employer starts seeing the electric bill double, how long before people have to be let go, Einstein?
duterium1 2 years ago
CO2 is colorless too you retard, that changes nothing. Just because coal provides energy and jobs doesn't change the facts about the dangers. And who fucking said this video wasn't biased? It's plenty biased, against the coal PR machine and their "clean-coal" initiative.
harteryan 2 years ago
What will we do when the rolling brownouts cause people to die in the summer heat waves/evacuated from frozen homes in the winter time because there aren't enough power plants? How will solar work in cloudy winter months/regions? Windmills work when there's no wind?
I live in sight of some giant windmills. I appreciate the effort and hope for a cleaner future. I'm sure we will progress. I hope we don't kill what we may need for now, tho.
Coal is MUCH cleaner than it was. I hope we need it less.
vllmer 2 years ago
CO2 IS NOT BAD PLANTS NEED IT DUMBASS
gismotech 2 years ago
wow nice fun fact, now do me a favor and wrap your lips around the tail pipe of a car and tell my how long you live off of CO2, I'll wait here
harteryan 2 years ago
hay dumbass you so worried about co2 put a fucking bag over your head. don't worry we will not miss you
gismotech 2 years ago
What we need is a Solar Tower
podsednik22 2 years ago
The music at the end is kinda creepy to me for some reason. That solid weird sound is scary.
codemanrose 2 years ago
i love how most of the comments on this video have little to nothing to do with this video.
osborneddotcom 2 years ago
There's much misinformation and disinformation floating around youtube about climate change.
The scientific consensus is it's real and man made.
You'll find many of the standard denier arguments debunked on Greenman's channel; user/greenman3610. Check out the Climate Denial Crock of the Week.
frankodelic 2 years ago
so how does he debunk the FACT the temps have not gone up since 2000 and in FACT the last two years have gone down
just another idiot just like al gore
spread lies is all you do
gismotech 2 years ago
You fucktards think electricity comes from some magical solar or wind farm.
Coal makes the power you use to vlog about this nonsense.
jewlSecond 2 years ago
Actually most of Quebec's electricity comes from hydro-electricity
motormouthfrenchie 2 years ago
Great! It's good to hear you are blessed with that natural resource.
We use coal here for about 50% of our power. It's our natural resource until we find something better.
Nuclear is my choice, but the greenies demonized it for so many years we stopped making new plants.
So Coal is still king!
jewlSecond 2 years ago
Whats stopping you from investing in tidal power, solar power, wind farm? Ill tell you what, the coal industry, the nuclear industry. Same thing with electric/hydrogen cars and the oil industry.
Were gonna let these greedy, short-sighted motherfuckers drive us over a fucking cliff if nothing changes
motormouthfrenchie 2 years ago 2
how much coal power does it take to make an ingot of silicon?
OR make the carbon fiber and aluminum for windmills?
OR the copper windings for the generators?
OR One Hydrogen car? (if one existed)
A LOT. That's why it'll take a long time and until then we can't crash the economy killing coal right now.
BUT someday yes, you are right.
watch?v=v8Qkww3XBMc&feature=channel_page
jewlSecond 2 years ago
Coal is king?
You didn't get the memo about global warming, did you.
If we don't act now to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions we risk more than you know.
frankodelic 2 years ago
Comment removed
jewlSecond 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
More than I know?
Typical condescension.
I never said you had to like it, but it's still a fact that the world runs on coal.
The wimpy little wind and solar alternatives can't do the heavy lifting YET.
jewlSecond 2 years ago
YEA we risk having to hear bullshit from idiots like you and AL gore.
gismotech 2 years ago
Yes, Al Gore almost became your president and you almost finished high school. That really gives you the competence to judge who's idiot and who's not.
Groucho7si 2 years ago
But then again, what else would you expect from a man whose motto is "Liberals and Islam are the enemy of FREEDOM". I'd call him a retard, but that would be an insult to the people with developmental issues.
Groucho7si 2 years ago
care to name a Islamic country that is not ruled by nutcase fanitics that control what the people know? that kill you if you convert to another religion? that stones rape victoms? yea thats free. convert or die.
Liberals wish to ban free speach and gun rights
fucking retard is just what you are
gismotech 2 years ago
Have you even looked into the Wikipedia under "liberalism"? The term "liberal" comes from Lating "liber" or English "liberty", and you're saying these people are against "freedom"?
Liberals want to ban free speech? My god, I'm really amazed how dumb you can get.
Groucho7si 2 years ago
Maby you could try understanding what liberal meant when the Constitution was written. Alot of Wiki is new school bs.
I still know that clean coal is BS and that is the bottom line.
RooFx 2 years ago
THAT CUTS IT ANY FOOL THAT BELIVES WIKIPEDIA IS A FREAKING DUMBASS
I Guess you have not heard of the fairness doc. ? baning free speach
typical idiot flapping your lips about shit you know nothing about.
gismotech 2 years ago 2
We all stand in awe as the intellectual speaks. You would get a better result wit a monkey and a typewriter.
Groucho7si 2 years ago
oh look the dumbass tried to make a joke
when the joke is you
gismotech 2 years ago
lets see I repair hitech equip for more than a dozen companies. without Me and people like me you would still be just another loser with out a way to tell anyone
fucking idiot
gismotech 2 years ago
That's great, stop trying to tell people it's "clean", because it's bullshit and you know it
harteryan 2 years ago
COAL IS DIRTY!!!
HAPPY?
But you tell me what isn't!
jewlSecond 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
^
|
|
Click here to see these funny t-shirts!
One says "Where's MY Bailout?!" another says "Obamanomics - Trickle Up Poverty for All"! LOL
Another says "TOO BIG TO FAIL!" and my favorite is "Rick Santelli 2012" for President!
Come take a look at "WallStreetMarketNews(DOT)com
and "Friend Me"! --- lol
webxsuccess 2 years ago
Global Warming is Gonna get us all !!!
AAAHHHH !!!!
DontBeObamaZombies 2 years ago
Hopefully just you.
cjd2112 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Global Warming is Gonna get us all !!!
AAAHHHH !!!!
What a Freaking joke
DontBeObamaZombies 2 years ago
YouTube Disclaimer:
DontBeObamaZombies' comment - see above - reveals a moron who is devoid of the mental faculties required for critical analysis. YouTube advises that you ignore it.
Repeated comments of this ludicrous nature should be reported to the DisclaimerDepartment.
- The YouTube Disclaimer Team.
DisclaimerDepartment 2 years ago
Incorrect.
And Mr Disclaimer, if Global Warming if going to kill us all...- what is you alternative to todays fossil fuel that wont start global FAMINE in the Transition??
How about the Fact the Volcanoes produce more CO2 then humans-what are you going to do about that?? Put a Carbon Tax on them, because I doubt they will pay up....
ROFL
DontBeObamaZombies 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YouTube Disclaimer:
DontBeObamaZombies' comment - see above - reveals a moron who is devoid of the mental faculties required for critical analysis. YouTube advises that you ignore it.
Repeated comments of this ludicrous nature should be reported to the DisclaimerDepartment.
- The YouTube Disclaimer Team.
DisclaimerDepartment 2 years ago
Volcano's produce more CO2 than humans? Are you kidding me? That argument was debunked ages ago.
99% of all climate scientists and scientific organizations agree that climate change is happening and man is the cause.
frankodelic 2 years ago
"99% of all climate scientists and scientific organizations agree that climate change is happening and man is the cause."
Prove it
"Volcano's produce more CO2 than humans? Are you kidding me? That argument was debunked ages ago."
Prove it
DontBeObamaZombies 2 years ago
The burden of proof lies with you, bitch. Tell us all why you know more than the worlds scientists, etc...
frankodelic 2 years ago
No matter what anyone tries to tell you folks,
REAL science is not determined by "Consensus",
Global Warming/Climate Change is caused by SUN CYCLES, and the amount of CO2 man put into the air is negligible compared to the amount Nature herself produces
DontBeObamaZombies 2 years ago
Awesome! Great video that cuts through the PR blitz the coal industry is pouring cash into to confuse Americans. Let's face it: this is the time to put American ingenuity to work to create a new, sustainable industrial revolution and reclaim our economic dominance in the world.
lesismore8888 2 years ago 3
You environementalists are all faggots. When were done chopping all the trees, we can just breath CO2. You dont beleive that liberal bullshit about lungs needing oxygen do you?
motormouthfrenchie 2 years ago
Because coal comes from trees.
JSErwine 2 years ago
"Because coal comes from trees. "
Yes, i saw it on fox news.
motormouthfrenchie 2 years ago
Instead of coal, burn biomass from sustainably harvested local forests to maximize fuel output in the long run and put carbon in the soils and large 200 year timber like white pine. Supplement with wind, PV, efficiency, and mass transit.
Buy local, grow your own food, bike, bus, carpool, all as much as you can.
Write your legislators and tell them what you want. There are MANY alternatives to fossil fuels and ways to drastically reduce our current use while losing almost nothing.
quicksilverzxc 2 years ago
Comment removed
quicksilverzxc 2 years ago
Superb!
kkuchenb 2 years ago
Would you please do a commercial for wind energy? You could have the lights dim and the boss call in in the middle of the night to say the factory has power again, please come in right away. Also the milk in the refrigerator could spoil, the kids take a drink and spit it out. Mom says, "Sorry kids, the weather just hasn't been cooperating lately..."
SaveWesternOHIO 2 years ago
???
Swansen03 2 years ago
Another bit of fantasy brought to us by George Soros, Algrore, and the rest of the Carbon-Nazis who would use energy to control every detail of our dally lives.
Reminder: There's no proof CO2 causes global warming. It's just some people's theory. In fact, the science of the past few years suggests the inverse: That global warming causes increases of CO2.
Today almost all scientists agree on one thing: Algore is an alarmist, as he wildly exaggerates the problem, if one even exists.
petefrt 2 years ago
re: petefrt
1) Al Gore's a pundit, not a scientist.
2) There are zero scientific institutions worldwide that say that manmade actions aren't a primary cause of the warming trend over the past 4 decades.
3) If you think it's not primarily caused by greenhouse gases.
Then would you care to explain what is causing it?
Since we know it's not increased solar irradiation.
greyfalcon. net/ solar.png
Also the stratosphere is cooling.
greyfalcon. net/ forcing.png
greyfalcon. net/ forcing2.png
greyflcn 2 years ago
How absurd you are. There is also no evidence saying sub-atomic sized martians don't land in our ears shortly after birth, colonizing in our brains and causing each of us to die 400 years prematurely. I and the IPCC claim they have been doing this for over 2,000 years, and SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PROVING ME WRONG, let's spend trillions of dollars eradicating the tiny invaders!
SaveWesternOHIO 2 years ago
re: SaveWesternOhio
-
You don't seem to understand the concept of science.
Science can't prove anything to be true.
It can only prove things to be false.
-
So all you can really do is to disprove all plausible alternatives.
greyflcn 2 years ago
greyflcn 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you, and for all of us, the scientific problem of climate change has not been made up to control our lives. In fact, it happened due to our need to control our environment. Just read the latest copy of the new scientist to read for yourself. Scientists do not make up the problem, and most agree it is a serious problem. Also energy does control much of our lives, just because we are dependant upon it & at the moment we are using finite resources rather than sustainable ones.
helala 2 years ago
If you are such a firm believer that mankind is the source of global weather changes. Why do you continue to use what you claim is the source?
I'm willing to bet there is far more evidence that the changes we are seeing have happened many times before. And that it's a natural occurance.
I have read recent articles that also suggest that the other planets are warming. I am sure we are to blame for that as well.
JSErwine 2 years ago
Unfortunately the bipartisan back stabbing and the complete collapse of our union is not helping anything...the truth is we saw this coming, our dependency on coal is just another nail in America's coffin. This country does not have the will to change one damn thing if it makes them uncomfortable. The wake up siren is blaring now, and the truth hurts. I just love hearing the conservatives squirm on here despite everything else going down the tubes, their pain and anguish is music to my soul.
Larryjclarke 2 years ago
"coal is just another nail in America's coffin"
How is there any truth in this comment?
And your right, I'm not changing a damn thing. Coal has been working just fine for decades.
"This country does not have the will to change one damn thing if it makes them uncomfortable"
Step up to the plate dude, take yourself off the power grid. Your the one criticizing the power source, why are you using it?
JSErwine 2 years ago
what is it with conservative fricking americans, i swear you are the most frustrating hypocrites, the whole bunch. Gotta spell it out for you forward thinkers...Nail=dangerous, polluting technology, whose mining and burning technique hasn't changed for years...like the ol combustion engine. This isn't a lump or leave it deal...it IS NOT working you poor blind simpleton...but fine hold your ground. This country has been defined by it's visionaries...do I have to spell that out for you...?
Larryjclarke 2 years ago
And changing our country's energy system's from these fossil burning fuel technologies wil be like trying to make Conservative Repub. admit their party is full of ridiculous, ignorant loud mouth lug-heads...NOT gonna happen. This change is going to happen, painfully slowly and our leaders are going to have to fight for every inch. Cause guys like Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh and the strange americans who listen to these guys...they will be willing the whole thing to fail. GOT IT? DUDE?
Larryjclarke 2 years ago
Dude, I'm