|
28 Dec 08 - 02:55 PM (#2526140) Subject: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Bobert Well, well, well... The coal industry is sho nuff pushing this "Clean Coal" PR... Hahahahahaha... Clean coal, my butt... Don't exist... B~ |
|
28 Dec 08 - 03:17 PM (#2526149) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Stilly River Sage You got that right! |
|
28 Dec 08 - 03:41 PM (#2526162) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: kendall Was it Hitler who said the bigger the lie the better its chance of being believed? |
|
28 Dec 08 - 05:12 PM (#2526203) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Janie The Coal lobby in West Virginia brooks no opposition. The billboards for coal as I drive up the WV Turnpike to my parent's home never fail to boggle. The Smithsonian Magazine recently did a really good article, Mining the Mountains on reasons for, and the far-ranging destructive implications of mountain top removal. |
|
28 Dec 08 - 07:20 PM (#2526263) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Bobert Well, daddy, won't ya' take me back to Mulenburg Country Down by the Green River where Paradise lay I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in askin' Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away... Not only is coal ***not clean*** but minin' it kills people and destroys our environment... And that's before any of it is actually burned... Like I said, "Clean coal... My butt"... B~ |
|
28 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM (#2526266) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: bobad From Wikipedia: "Clean coal is an umbrella term and public relations term used to promote the use of coal as an energy source by emphasizing methods being developed to reduce its environmental impact. These efforts include chemically washing minerals and impurities from the coal, gasification (see also IGCC), treating the flue gases with steam to remove sulfur dioxide, and carbon capture and storage technologies to capture the carbon dioxide from the flue gas. These methods and the technology used are described as clean coal technology. Major politicians and the coal industry use the term "clean coal" to describe technologies designed to enhance both the efficiency and the environmental acceptability of coal extraction, preparation and use,[1] with no specific quantitative limits on any emissions, particularly carbon dioxide. There are, however, zero coal-burning power plants in the United States that utilize any form of clean coal technology.[2] It has been estimated that commercial-scale clean coal power stations (coal-burning power stations with carbon capture and sequestration) cannot be commercially viable and widely adopted before 2020 or 2025.[3][dead link] This time frame is of concern to environmentalists because, according to the Stern report, there is an urgent need to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The concept of clean coal is touted as an environmentally acceptable solution to climate change and global warming by coal industry groups. Greenpeace is a major opponent of the concept because emissions and wastes are not avoided, but are transferred from one waste stream to another." |
|
28 Dec 08 - 07:35 PM (#2526268) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: JohnInKansas In sequence: 1. California attempted to impose reduced limits on CO2 emissions. 2. The Fed blocked the California rules. 3. Kansas refused a permit for a massive new coal-fired generating plant based on excessive CO2 emissions. 4. The US Supreme Court ruled that CO2 is a harmful pollutant that the law REQUIRES the EPA to regulate. 5. Among the rush to impose new regulations before the new administrations takes over is a regulation prohibiting the consideration of CO2 emissions in granting of licenses for new power plants. CO2 is just one of the most harmful emissions from coal-fired power generation, but is essentially unregulated. 6. Congressionally passed laws called for gradual reductions in particulate emissions, with the next step to have come about now. The current administration rushed through a new regulation to retain the previous limits for "average particulate emissions" (think coal-fired plants that operate 24-7) but imposed new limits on "peak emissions" that could, if enforced, allow fines of up to $25,000 for individuals using a wood-burning stove, for each day that they exceed the average for their area. This last bit put Anchorage Alaska on the "excessively polluted" list, along with about 40 other mostly low-average-emission areas; but exempted Houston Texas, where the average particulate contamination is very near the peaks for which people in Anchorage could be fined, from being required to do anything. John |
|
28 Dec 08 - 10:21 PM (#2526337) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Greg F. Yeah, "clean coal", "compassionate conservative", "military intelligence" - the list goes on. Then there's the "war on terrorism"......... |
|
28 Dec 08 - 10:41 PM (#2526344) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Janie One of the "justifications" for mountaintop removal, is it gets at high quality "clean" coal, usually found in narrow seams that may be only 18 to 24 inches in depth. Regardless of the future potential of technologies to reduce the CO2 and sulphur dioxide emissions from burning coal, the environmental damage caused by any large scale mining, but especially mountaintop removal, is probably going to be irrepairable. According to the Smithsonian article to which I linked above, this method produces 16 tons of overburden for each ton of coal. The overburden is dumped into the valleys and hollows, covering up the streams that are that ever important basic first link in the food chain. There is beginning to be some evidence that toxic things like selenium, mercury, arsenic and lead, formerly safely locked into the bedrock, iare making their way into groundwater, and downstream, decreasing insect populations whose larval stage occurs in the streams, and causing mutations in insects and fish. There are concerns that covering the streams as they fill valleys with the overburden, will eventually seriously disrupt the food chain and have a profound effect on the entire ecosystem of the central Appalachians. (That article, by the way, one of the most thorough articles I have read on the subject - it is long, but well worth the read, and I don't know how long the link will be good.) |
|
28 Dec 08 - 11:52 PM (#2526360) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Q (Frank Staplin) "Clean coal power stations" by 2020-2025. Back a few years, the major oil company I worked for bought up several coal mines. The argument was that coal was more readily available and cheaper than imported petroleum, so why not add coal to the company's energy portfolio. A laboratory was set was set up and staffed with excellent researchers, and all sorts of experiments and a pilot plant set up aimed at clean production of energy from coal. It could be done in the laboratory, but the methods were too expensive for commercial practice. The company has since sold the coal properties. Advances are being made, but research seems not to have produced an economic clean-up method. The environmental damage of coal-mining is always there. Reclamation only goes so far, and the more easily reclaimed lands are flatlands where agriculture is disrupted (e. g., Illinois, etc., where much coal is mined in open pits). The destruction of mountainous areas to get anthracitic coal is a crime. Lower coal grades, with some modification of plants, can and is used successfully. Overall, coal seems a bad choice for expansion. |
|
29 Dec 08 - 01:54 AM (#2526375) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: CarolC I used to know a woman who said she was told by a psychic that she would eventually have to power to move mountains. She expected that she would eventually have the psychic power to move mountains. Based on what I know about her and her current husband, I think she's moving mountains in the form of investments in mountain top removal mining. There's irony for you. |
|
29 Dec 08 - 01:55 AM (#2526376) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: CarolC Correction... "she would eventually have the power to move mountains" |
|
29 Dec 08 - 09:23 AM (#2526567) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: InOBU Hi FOlks... as you might guess, I voted for Barak Obama... even though he believes the myth of "clean coal"... so along with a few other ajustments, we have to work on the new pres, to get off the king coal band waggon. Cheers lor |
|
30 Dec 08 - 12:19 AM (#2527145) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Donuel Coal financial stocks are one of the few that have not suffered 50% losses. It was my pick last summer to survive the crash. Around here we get commercials from Reality.org that show a man giving a tour of an invisible imaginary clean coal plant. its very funny. |
|
30 Dec 08 - 03:13 AM (#2527185) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: catspaw49 I want to write a long post sometime called "The Dichotomy of Coal." All through its history in this country there have been issues both big and small about coal fromits mining to its use to its economic impact. Perhaps more than any other power source it haas had the most two-sided history of them all. For every strong pro there is a strong con and way too many of both. Coal has no easy answers but its easy to understand how good people can come down on both sides. I grew up in eastern Ohio where strip mining was and is part of life. My grandfather's "Home Place" was strip mined away so I understand something of Mr. Peabody. But there was a flip side to that history in Harrison County that's also a part of it and creates the dichotomy on that level. All something for another night...................... Spaw |
|
30 Dec 08 - 08:03 PM (#2527908) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Dennis the Elder Maybe a simple change in terminology, not "clean coal" ,but "cleaner coal" would be more accurate. This does exist!! A little note however from the Yorkshire coalfield, our coal is much cleaner, in total, than it was as we now produce very little. Some of the coal we do still produce for the Drax power station is however much "dirtier" than it ever was! |
|
31 Dec 08 - 08:50 AM (#2528226) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Fortunato On Mon., Dec. 22, at 1:00 am, a coal slurry impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston coal fired power plant in Harriman, Tennessee spilled at least 525 million gallons of toxic coal ash into the Tennessee River and surrounding areas. The Kingston spill is over 40 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska, if local news accounts are correct. This is a huge environmental disaster of epic proportions; approximately 525 million gallons of nasty black coal ash flowed into tributaries of the Tennessee River - the water supply for Chattanooga TN and millions of people living downstream in Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky. Good Thread Bobert and timely as well. best to Peavine and yourself happy new year chance |
|
31 Dec 08 - 09:38 AM (#2528254) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: Barry Finn It's (coal ash) being looked at now by the government as a non toxic hazard waste (what's that?) even though it contains mercury & arsenic. It's taken the authorities 28 yrs worth of studies to come up with that brillant decision. Who's feeding what crap to who? There's no guestion & there nevr has been that it's toxic, it's a hazard to the enviorment & the surrounding communities, the storage, which is not federally monitered & is state regulated, is still being considered safe. What's with that, this has happened 4 times. This is an eviormental disaster, how can it possibly be spun out any other way. The footprint alone, left by strip & mountain top mining methods are so harmful to the enviorment, the surrounding communities & society that who ever's making a buck from this is now better than a war proffiteer. I don't hold much hope in seeing anything changing much but I do hope that the new administation at least doesn't go the route of the present one & give the enegry industries "carte blanche" to do as they please as has been the case for the last 8 yrs. Barry |
|
04 Jun 11 - 01:00 PM (#3165248) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: GUEST,Cyril Refresh |
|
04 Jun 11 - 01:03 PM (#3165255) Subject: RE: BS: 'Clean Coal'??? From: kendall Jean Richie's song, Black Water comes to mind. |