Coal Snags on Technology Lag

I would suggest that the EPA give industry reconsider their stance on the issues and assist in developing the technologies. If a utility is willing to risk the time and monies to develop a new technology, they should be "cut some slack" relative to achieving emissions goals.

In the absence of an energy policy, we are using buzz words to dictate direction. "spent fuel storage" has been declared a bad buzz word. "carbon capture/sequestration" have been declared good buzz words. The cloak of buzz words obscures the fact that a nuclear fuel rod will generate a tremendous amount of energy and require the storage of a very small amount of material at the end of it's useful life. "clean coal power" will require the capture and sequestration of a huge amount of material. The research is probably showing that the net energy output of the process is not too attractive.

The bottom line is that it costs too much and would increase the price of electricity. Why should my electricity costs, as a percentage of my earnings go up even as I do everything I can afford to do to reduce my usage?

One possible answer might be to run the CO2 through huge enclosed vats of algae to use the C and release the O into the air or to run it through greenhouses to stimulate the growth of the plants and release O into the air. The algae can be used to make a synthetic oil for fuel and the greenhouses could grow a lot of food. Since CO2 is not a pollutant, since people emit it and plants need it, is non-toxic and odorless, then why worry about it when there is so much real toxic, stinking pollution.

Climate change will occur even without Man, just as it always has. The Earth is still warming up from the Little Ice Age of the 1600's and is not as warm as it was during most of the last 10,500 years. The amount produced by Man is negligible when compared to that produced by nature.

I questioned this sequestration in an earlier thread when this idea was first proposed to sequester CO2. Turns out I was right.

Coal is dirty. It releases a lot of NOx and SOx emmissions when burned and it doesnt burn completely either. When burned it isnt a completly combusted and other chemicals like carbon monoxide and particulates are released. This is bad since it contributes to acid rain and smog levels. I would like to think the US isnt using coal because its bad, but I suspect that coal is their power reserve after oil is used up. Remember that its a race to use as much as possible

Sequestration is expensive because its new, its risky and its unproven.

As for the rest of your BS, go do reasearch and find out why CO2 is bad. You've been living in a closet if you dont know, or if you dont believe the 99% of scientists who agree.

The old way of burning coal produced some bad things, but modern forced draft furnaces produce much less NOx and SOx and the more complete combustion lowers the CO levels drastically, Acid rain turned out to be much less than the environmental extremists made it out to be. Sequestration is risky, because it may not work, it then may become a total waste of money and it will drive up the cost of electricity. Escaping CO2 can pool in valleys when there is no air movement and smother all animal life.

You emit CO2 by breathing, so stop polluting. The number of scientists supporting the CO2/Global Warming theory is actually nearer 20%, but the Leftist politicians and media only report on them for political reasons. My research says that the present change in climate is nothing new. The temperature records for the Holocene show that for 7,500 of the last 10,500 years the climate was warmer than now and when warmer it was wetter. More plants and animals in warmer times. There are about twice as many polar bears now than in the 1950's, due to the warmer climate allowing their prey animals to multiply; they have more food. The planet has been steadily warming since the 1600's when the Baltic Sea froze over in winter.

You -Guest - have been living in a closet, believing only what the politicians and media tell you, "Worship St Algore for the world is doomed!".

By the way, please tell me of any source of energy that could power our civilization at the present technological level and standard of living that is not opposed by some environmental group. Determine the total energy used, then check out the size of all the alternatives. Look at how much solar energy there is per square meter, then figure out how many square meters of land need to be covered with collectors to produce that much energy. Remember that hydrogen needs to be made using electricity and you have to make the electricity. What do you do for power at night so you can have light? How expensive would it be?

Some people are so "green" that they become totally impractical and irrational and would destroy our civilization and way of life just to fulfill their own preconceived notions of "The Way Things Should Be". Please do the research and read the opposite opinions that are out there.