Why coal is a good energy source?

[Indofred]

At least you admit you lied and coal is a dirty, polluting source of energy.

Are you really that stupid? I didn't lie about anything. You failed once again to understand.

COAL ENERGY IS GOOD FOR AMERICA.

Wrong again.
Well, if you care about the environment and the lives/health of the American people.

If you only care about short term profit for the coal industry, you're right.

 

[Mr. H.]

If we insist upon going to great lengths to make the fucked up alternative/renewable industries viable, why no effort to make coal a clean and environmentally viable resource?

 

[Indofred]

If we insist upon going to great lengths to make the fucked up alternative/renewable industries viable, why no effort to make coal a clean and environmentally viable resource?

Because coal, whatever you do, must produce the by products it does and those are harmful in one way or another.

Renewable energy is still quite new so we can't dismiss it as useless just yet.
Very little works perfectly first time around so, unless you want to scrap all technology as useless, give it a chance.

If do would like to scrap new technology; the same logic would scrap all previous advances so coal wouldn't be required in quantity and the problem would be solved.
Of course, you'd still be on horseback.

 

[Mr. H.]

If we insist upon going to great lengths to make the fucked up alternative/renewable industries viable, why no effort to make coal a clean and environmentally viable resource?

Because coal, whatever you do, must produce the by products it does and those are harmful in one way or another.

Renewable energy is still quite new so we can't dismiss it as useless just yet.
Very little works perfectly first time around so, unless you want to scrap all technology as useless, give it a chance.

If do would like to scrap new technology; the same logic would scrap all previous advances so coal wouldn't be required in quantity and the problem would be solved.
Of course, you'd still be on horseback.

Oh do shut UP.

Renewables aren't "new". We know their limitations. That's why taxpayer money is heaped upon them without recourse.

Technology exists to burn coal more efficiently and cleanly. Yet monies are not directed toward those efforts. Those monies are diverted to "renewable" tech.

And with much resultant failure.

 

[Indofred]

If we insist upon going to great lengths to make the fucked up alternative/renewable industries viable, why no effort to make coal a clean and environmentally viable resource?

Because coal, whatever you do, must produce the by products it does and those are harmful in one way or another.

Renewable energy is still quite new so we can't dismiss it as useless just yet.
Very little works perfectly first time around so, unless you want to scrap all technology as useless, give it a chance.

If do would like to scrap new technology; the same logic would scrap all previous advances so coal wouldn't be required in quantity and the problem would be solved.
Of course, you'd still be on horseback.

Oh do shut UP.

Yes, clean coal tech is on the way but it's unclear how much this will increase the cost of burning coal.
However:
I wonder how many of the 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S. Mercury emissions from electrical generation continues to rise.

Mercury in mothers' blood and breast milk can interfere with the development of babies' brains and neurological systems and can lead to learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, problems with coordination, lowered IQ and even mental retardation.

The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung disease between 1992 and 2002.

49 U.S. states have issued fish consumption advisories due to high mercury concentrations in freshwater bodies throughout the country.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S.

Instead of traditional mining, many coal companies now use mountaintop removal to extract coal.

Coal companies are increasingly using this method because it allows for almost complete recovery of coal seams while reducing the number of workers required to a fraction of what conventional methods require.
Mountaintop removal involves clear cutting native hardwood forests, using dynamite to blast away as much as 800-1000 feet of mountaintop, and then dumping the waste into nearby valleys, often burying streams.

More than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been buried or damaged by mountaintop removal mining. At least 724 miles of streams were completely buried by valley fills from Appalachian mountaintop removal between 1985 and 2001.
400,000 acres of rich and diverse temperate forests have been destroyed during the same time period as a result of mountaintop mining in Appalachia.

The U.S. government continues to aggressively fund coal-related projects despite all that is known about coal’s impacts on health, climate and the economy.

The Department of Energy is currently seeking $648 million for “clean coal” projects in its 2009 budget request, “representing the largest budget request for coal RD&D in over 25 years.

Coal is Dirty | The Dirty Facts on "Clean Coal

Clean burning, assuming the clean up costs don't make the plants too expensive to be viable, won't cure many of these problems, including the destruction of the environment due to mining and the deaths of miners.

Comments?

 

[editec]

YUP....there's good things about coal, no doubt.

There's costs associated with its use that you neglected to mention, though.

Not to pick on coal, of course, there's cost associated with every other energy source, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Coal May Be the Energy Of the Future - YouTube

“The US Energy Information Administration estimates the subsidy cost of wind runs at $23.50 [dollars per actual megawatt-hour] and solar burns through a bit more at $26.00. Natural gas and petroleum, 25 cents. Coal, 44 cents. “Clean” coal, refined to environmentalist's standards, $29.81.”
Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.123.

 

[eagle1462010]

Coal power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

42% of our power comes from coal burning plants
There is over a 200 year supply of coal in our country

If the Left had their way, people like Obama who want Coal Burners out, then 42% of ALL POWER plants would have to be replaced.

Riddle Me This..............You LEFTIST IDIOTS.................
How much would it cost to replace that many Power Plants in pursuit of your Liberal Utopia?
Further more, how much more will it cost the consumer to pay their power bills?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU]Barack Obama Admits: Energy Prices Will Skyrocket Under Cap And Trade - YouTube[/ame]

Obama is here from the Government, and he wants to help you.

Be afraid, Be very Afraid.................................
You get the point. Who cares that if he had his way the people he SAYS HE CHAMPIONS couldn't afford their power bills. But he cares for them.

Sniff Sniff.........Anybody got a tissue?

 

[Mr. H.]

Because coal, whatever you do, must produce the by products it does and those are harmful in one way or another.

Renewable energy is still quite new so we can't dismiss it as useless just yet.
Very little works perfectly first time around so, unless you want to scrap all technology as useless, give it a chance.

If do would like to scrap new technology; the same logic would scrap all previous advances so coal wouldn't be required in quantity and the problem would be solved.
Of course, you'd still be on horseback.

Oh do shut UP.

Yes, clean coal tech is on the way but it's unclear how much this will increase the cost of burning coal.
However:
I wonder how many of the 24,000 people a year die prematurely because of pollution from coal-fired power plants. And every year 38,000 heart attacks, 12,000 hospital admissions and an additional 550,000 asthma attacks result from power plant pollution.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S. Mercury emissions from electrical generation continues to rise.

Mercury in mothers' blood and breast milk can interfere with the development of babies' brains and neurological systems and can lead to learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, problems with coordination, lowered IQ and even mental retardation.

The U.S. produces about 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.
Burning coal contributes 40 percent of U.S. CO2 emissions. Coal is the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. According to the United Nations Environment Program, coal emits around 1.7 times as much carbon per unit of energy when burned as does natural gas and 1.25 times as much as oil.

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 12,000 coal miners died from black lung disease between 1992 and 2002.

49 U.S. states have issued fish consumption advisories due to high mercury concentrations in freshwater bodies throughout the country.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of human-generated mercury pollution in the U.S.

Instead of traditional mining, many coal companies now use mountaintop removal to extract coal.

Coal companies are increasingly using this method because it allows for almost complete recovery of coal seams while reducing the number of workers required to a fraction of what conventional methods require.
Mountaintop removal involves clear cutting native hardwood forests, using dynamite to blast away as much as 800-1000 feet of mountaintop, and then dumping the waste into nearby valleys, often burying streams.

More than 1,200 miles of Appalachian streams have been buried or damaged by mountaintop removal mining. At least 724 miles of streams were completely buried by valley fills from Appalachian mountaintop removal between 1985 and 2001.
400,000 acres of rich and diverse temperate forests have been destroyed during the same time period as a result of mountaintop mining in Appalachia.

The U.S. government continues to aggressively fund coal-related projects despite all that is known about coal’s impacts on health, climate and the economy.

The Department of Energy is currently seeking $648 million for “clean coal” projects in its 2009 budget request, “representing the largest budget request for coal RD&D in over 25 years.

Coal is Dirty | The Dirty Facts on "Clean Coal

Clean burning, assuming the clean up costs don't make the plants too expensive to be viable, won't cure many of these problems, including the destruction of the environment due to mining and the deaths of miners.

Comments?

"Too expensive to be viable"? LOL
That is the very definition of alternatives/renewables.
Spend tax dollars more wisely, grasshopper - clean coal.

 

[Indofred]

"Too expensive to be viable"? LOL
That is the very definition of alternatives/renewables.
Spend tax dollars more wisely, grasshopper - clean coal.

New tech is always expensive.
It'll come; hopefully quickly.

I wonder if your grandkids will see this thread in years to come and comment about what a set of mindless prats you were to keenly promote interest groups at the expense of their world.

 

[Samson]

And the sulphuric acid produced when you burn it saves you having to slash and burn forests.

What does a picture from Mt. St Helens have to do with anything?

Here is another:

Maybe we should prevent volcanos

 

[Samson]

Many years ago, I used to install Aerial systems of various types.
Any antenna near a coal fire chimney would rot to nothing within a few years whereas the ones burning gas would last at least ten years; usually a lot longer.

Coal is really very dirty so the clean up and repair costs far outweigh the cheaper cost of burning the stuff.

Of course, those who want to make money from the coal industry try to keep that information away from the public.

"Many Years Ago" a lot of things happened.

Thats why we have the EPA.


Next.

 

[Cuyo]

Sequestering, compressing, and indefinitely storing emissions from a dirty combustion process of a finite resource is not the wave of the future. It's a patch. Bondo if you will. 'Clean coal' is a big, slightly lumpy, and slightly discolored patch of Bondo on an 89 Chevy Scottsdale.

That's not to say it's worse than driving the Scottsdale with a big hole rusted through the quarter-panel.

But it's important to keep in mind that you're going to need a new vehicle. soon.

 

[Samson]

Sequestering, compressing, and indefinitely storing emissions from a dirty combustion process of a finite resource is not the wave of the future. It's a patch. Bondo if you will. 'Clean coal' is a big, slightly lumpy, and slightly discolored patch of Bondo on an 89 Chevy Scottsdale.

That's not to say it's worse than driving the Scottsdale with a big hole rusted through the quarter-panel.

But it's important to keep in mind that you're going to need a new vehicle. soon.

Has anyone said Coal is a "Wave of the Future?"

No.

But its more than a cosmetic patch. Currently, it fuels about 20% on our energy needs. Eliminating it is more anagolous to saying we could take a tire off your '89 Chevy Scottsdale and keep driving.

The fact is there is no alternative, and there is unlikely to ever be one.

In the future, there will be fewer people, not more energy: Depopulation will be the Wave of the Future.

 

[Samson]

And the sulphuric acid produced when you burn it saves you having to slash and burn forests.

You're the biggest liar in the forum. Prove those trees were killed by emissions from a coal fired power plant.

As you wish

Acid Rain Facts, Acid Rain Information, Acid Rain Pictures, Acid Rain Effects - National Geographic

Now, an apology for calling me a liar, please.

How about we settle for calling you gullible.

Photograph by David Woodfall/Getty Images was taken around Mt. St. Helens a few years after the eruption

 

[skookerasbil]

This might well be the most irrelevant debate ever in this forum.

Coal is going to be around for a long, long time, and in abundance I might add. Any credible projections decades out has coal providing 20% to 30% of our energy needs.


Oh......and by the way........renewables AT BEST 10%.......and that figure is probably a stretch!!!


I always laugh when I see Mamooth telling us that the science matters........that people like me are part of a cult. LOL.....and she is 100% convinced of it!!!

But then there are graphs all over the internet...........LIKE THIS >>>>>>








And Im the fringe??!!!!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

The k00ks need to order some of these on late night cable........

 

[Cuyo]

Sequestering, compressing, and indefinitely storing emissions from a dirty combustion process of a finite resource is not the wave of the future. It's a patch. Bondo if you will. 'Clean coal' is a big, slightly lumpy, and slightly discolored patch of Bondo on an 89 Chevy Scottsdale.

That's not to say it's worse than driving the Scottsdale with a big hole rusted through the quarter-panel.

But it's important to keep in mind that you're going to need a new vehicle. soon.

Has anyone said Coal is a "Wave of the Future?"

No.

But its more than a cosmetic patch. Currently, it fuels about 20% on our energy needs. Eliminating it is more anagolous to saying we could take a tire off your '89 Chevy Scottsdale and keep driving.

The fact is there is no alternative, and there is unlikely to ever be one.

In the future, there will be fewer people, not more energy: Depopulation will be the Wave of the Future.

Actually, I agree. Not that it has to be, but indeed that it will be.

Fusion is the only thing that could cushion the blow of the impending exhaustion of viable fossil fuels. That said, fusion even under the best of circumstances, would only mitigate the energy facet of the fossil fuel spectrum. People don't think about the other petroleum-derived products we use every day, and in nearly every chemical and manufacture process on the planet.

But I think you're correct. A lot less people, and a much more localized economy, coming to a town near you.

edit: FYI I was referring to "Clean coal," not coal in general. And yes it's been heralded as a wave of the future by some in this thread... And Christ on a cracker I think the OP and coal need to get a room and mitigate some sexual tension.

 

[Indofred]

BBC News - China free coal policy in the north 'cut lifespans'

China free coal policy in the north 'cut lifespans'

The "free-coal" policy was in effect north of the Huai River in 1950-1980
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories
China orders firms to curb pollution
China outsources carbon emissions
China's policy of giving free coal for heating to residents in the north has contributed to shaving 5.5 years off life expectancy there, a study says.

It says air pollution from burning coal in the area north of the Huai River, with a population of some 500m people, was 55% higher than in the south.

The region also had higher rates of heart and lung disease as a result of the policy in force up to 1980.

The study was conducted by researchers from China, the US and Israel.

Coal = good?
I think not.

 

[Mr. H.]

Coal... it can be your friend, it can be your enemy.

Obama makes enemies of us, on his own volition, through executive orders.

He derails domestic tranquility, and foments derision.

He is the worst of both worlds.