Why coal is a good energy source?

[bripat9643]

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.

Your article didn't prove jack shit. It was nothing but a collection of baseless claims environmentalists have made about acid rain. There wasn't a shred of evidence to support them.

Acid rain is bullshit. It always has been.

In 1990, the federal government completed a 10-year, $537 million study to determine whether or not acid rain posed a threat to the environment and human health. This study, called the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), involved 700 top scientists, and was one of the largest studies ever undertaken. This study found that special interest scare-mongering over “acid rain” was not based on facts, that acid rain caused very little damage to the environment, and that it posed virtually no risk to human health. In fact, Dr. James R. Mahoney, the director of the study, said that: “The more extreme views in both directions expressed by individual scientists and the media have been rendered unlikely to be correct.”

The NAPAP study found that in the entire United States less than 5 percent of lakes and 10 percent of streams had high levels of acidity, and that some of this occurred naturally. While a small number of fish were affected by acid levels in lakes, only about one third of this was caused by any kind of acid rain. The study found that forests were barely affected. Only one species of tree affected by acid rain was identified, and even these trees experienced only “a reduction in cold tolerance...at high elevations.” As for the rest of America’s forests, the study found that “the majority of North American forests are healthy.” In terms of damage to crops and buildings, the study found that “there is currently no widespread forest or crop damage in the U.S. related to [acid rain]” and that the effects of acid rain on the condition of buildings could not be determined because so many other factors, such as the quality of routine maintenance, were involved.

Most importantly, the NAPAP study found that “acid rain” posed virtually no threat to human health. The study also found that special interest groups had simply assumed that there was a threat to humans, but that this had not been clearly demonstrated. The director of the study stated that any effects on human health “appear to be important only in isolated, unusual cases.”

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If you don't care about poor children shivering in the dark because their parents can't pay the electric bill, then support Obama and his war against coal.

However, don't go prancing around like you are some kind of friend to mankind. You aren't. You're a callous piece of shit who places eliminating undetectable emissions into the atmosphere against the welfare of people.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The only problem with that claim is that turds like you can't produce a shred of evidence of harm being caused to anyone.

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.

The laws of physics indicate the "renewable energy" will always be an unreliable and grossly more expensive form of energy.

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.

You can spend all of your own money you want on new technology. What I object to is you forcing me to pay for this shit and forcing me to use it.

 

[bripat9643]

"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.

"New tech" never requires government subsidies. People adopt it because it's cheaper, not more expensive. Comparing government "renewable energy" boondoggles with other technologies developed in the past is a joke.

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.

Perhaps, but they will be referring to you and your ilk.

 

[bripat9643]

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

I knew that picture was a fraud.

 

[skookerasbil]

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?

Barack Obama Admits: Energy Prices Will Skyrocket Under Cap And Trade - YouTube

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?

The left NEVER factor "costs" into their thinking. NEVER!! It is the one certain common theme in the fcuked up thinking of people on the left. "Costs" don't matter......"well deal with them later!!"


Fortunately for the rest of us who do have the "costs" factor predominate in the thinking, coal will be a huge factor in providing cheap energy for decades to come!!!







Which also means.............

 

[American_Jihad]

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.

what toxic chemicals are in solar panels - Google Search

http://www.google.com/search?source...z=1T4GGLL_enUS324US325&q=wind+power+downsides

...

 

[Wyld Kard]

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.

All you have been doing is whining about how BAD coal is, so I thought I would take the time and show you just HOW WRONG YOU ARE ABOUT COAL, and how much of a gullible idiot you are who has bought into lies and misinformation, rather than facts.


Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?
By Gene J. Koprowski
Published February 20, 2013
FoxNews.com

At a research-scale combustion unit at Ohio State University, engineers are testing a clean coal technology that harnesses the energy of coal chemically, without burning it. Here, doctoral student Elena Chung (left) and master's student Samuel Ayham (right) display chunks of coal along with pulverized coal (bottle, center) and the iron oxide beads (bottle, right) that enable the chemical reaction. (Jo McCulty / Ohio State University)

At Ohio Stateâs Clean Coal Research Laboratory, Liang-Shih Fan (left), professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering, examines a sub-pilot scale combustion unit with Dawei Wang (right), a research associate and team leader in the lab. (Jo McCulty / Ohio State University)

Researchers have discovered a stunning new process that takes the energy from coal without burning it -- and removes virtually all of the pollution.

The clean coal technique was developed by scientists at The Ohio State University, with just $5 million in funding from the federal government, and took 15 years to achieve.

“We’ve been working on this for more than a decade,” Liang-Shih Fan, a chemical engineer and director of OSU’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory, told FoxNews.com, calling it a new energy conversion process. “We found a way to release the heat from coal without burning.”

The process removes 99 percent of the pollution from coal, which some scientists link to global warming. Coal-burning power plants produced about one-third of the nation’s carbon dioxide total in 2010, or about 2.3 billion metric tons, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


'We found a way to release the heat from coal without burning.'
- Liang-Shih Fan, a chemical engineer and director of OSU’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory


Retrofitting them with the new process would be costly, but it would cut billions of tons of pollution.

“In the simplest sense, conventional combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat,” Fan fold FoxNews.com. “Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment.”

And simply put, the new process isn't.

Heating, Not Burning, Coal
Fan discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape. The only waste product is therefore water and coal ash -- no greenhouse gases. As an added benefit, the metal from the iron-oxide can be recycled.

“Oxidation” is the chemical combination of a substance with oxygen. Contrast this with old-fashioned, coal-fired plants, which use oxygen to burn the coal and generate heat. This in turn makes steam, which turns giant turbines and sends power down electric lines.

The main by-product of that old process — carbon dioxide, known chemically as CO2 — is released through smokestacks into the earth’s atmosphere.

Fan’s process, called “coal-direct chemical looping,” has been proven in a small scale lab at OSU. The next step is to take it to a larger test facility in Alabama, and Fan believes the technology can be commercialized and used to power an energy plant within five to 10 years, if all goes smoothly. The technology generated 25 kilowatts of thermal energy in current tests; the Alabama site will generate 250 kilowatts.

Can Coal Ever Be 'Clean'?
Some environmentalists are skeptical of the technology, and of the idea of clean coal in general.

“Claiming that coal is clean because it could be clean -- if a new technically unproven and economically dubious technology might be adopted -- is like someone claiming that belladonna is not poisonous because there is a new unproven safe pill under development,” wrote Donald Brown at liberal think tank Climate Progress.

Yet the federal Department of Energy believes that the process can create 20 megawatts to 50 megawatts by 2020, said Jared Ciferno, the agency’s director of coal and power-production research and development, in a statement.

The government plans to continue to support the project, as well as the concept of "clean coal" in general.

Meanwhile, Fan is exploring the possibility of establishing a start-up company and licensing the process to utilities, and has the potential to patent 35 different parts of the process.

Other scientists and experts are enthused about the prospects for this technology.

Yan Feng with Argonne National Laboratory's Environmental Science Division, Climate Research Section, called it “an advancement in chemical engineering. “It is very important that we act on CO2 capturing and sequestration as well as emission controls of other warming agents like tropospheric ozone and black carbon."

Adds a spokesman for Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Company, a global Fortune 250 chemical manufacturer that works in clean energy, “researchers continue to uncover innovative ways to use coal efficiently/sustainably.”

Concludes Dawei Wang, a research associate at OSU, the technology's potential benefits even go beyond the environment and issues like sustainability.

"The plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America's natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs,” he said.

Coal: the cleanest energy source there is? | Fox News

 

[Mr. H.]

Do you have a link to all that? ^

 

[Wyld Kard]

Do you have a link to all that? ^

I put a link at the end of the article.

 

[skookerasbil]

More k00k losing...........

Fuel Fix » Texas pumping more oil than some OPEC countries


But we deniers are the flat earthers!!!


20 years of bomb throwing and the climate crusaders haven't moved the goalposts even a single foot. Coal.....oil......and now natural gas. All fossil fuels are kicking bootang!!

So.....who are the flat earthers exactly??

 

[Mr. H.]

There is a fix for coal.. clean coal. It's attainable across the board, regardless of quality.

In its early stages, ethanol blend tests emitted far greater than the then mandated EPA standards.

Were farmers denied? Fuck no, the EPA re-wrote emissions standards to accommodate ethanol blends.

Who has the votes in this country? Farmers, or hydrocarbon producers?

It's as simple as that.