"Clean coal" more republican lies

All resources heavily abundant in the thousands of asteroids right here in our solar system.

I sound like a broken record, but advancing new technologies for space travel and mining go a long way toward eventually leading to energy independence here. This also takes a heavy burden off of terrestrial population, creates new jobs, etc.

 

Coal Miners get black lung Disease from working in power plants?

I'll agree that "Clean Coal" is a bad term for what it is. But the process itself is certainly better than what they've been doing. It will be a long time before we are to the point of eliminating our coal dependency....longer that it should be. So till that day comes "clean coal" is a good thing. Again, not the best thing, but definitely an improvement.

 

"Slightly less nasty coal" would be a more honest description.

 

It does seem that burning cleaner coal is lowering Co2 levels significantly.

"US Carbon Emissions Hit 20-Year Low, No Thanks to Carbon-Trading Schemes"

http://blogs.the-american-interest....year-low-no-thanks-to-carbon-trading-schemes/

excerpt from Walter Russell Mead's sight:

 

This is good news, but your summary of it is wrong. This has nothing to do with "burning cleaner coal". All coal is extremely dirty and its use should not be encouraged. The drop in emissions has to do with a switch from coal to natural gas, mostly.

 

But "cheap and plentiful natural gas" is relying on Fracking, which leads to a whole other ball of wax.

 

Y'all need to stop entertaining ridiculous fantasies. "we need to do this..", "imagine if there was this...", "why don't we just get everything from meteors?!". Get real. it's all good sounding, albeit sincere nonsense that isn't grounded in reality at all. There's a reason why all of these alternative energy sources aren't prevailing in the market, because they aren't worth it. Do you have any idea what the costs would be to build the necissary amount of wind generators to satisfy our needs? And on top of that, you want to just arbitrarily do it in places that aren't that appealing to YOU, as if you're opinion is in any way authoritative. So some environments are ok to wipe out but others are not, depending on how pretty YOU find them? Who do you think would fit the bill for that anyway? It'd be us of course, the average person. The government only has money that it takes from the citizenry. Not to mention the price of energy we pay would sky rocket. When we pay more for energy, we become more poor. There'd be black outs, shortages, all kinds of awesome shit.In fact, we're already seeing that now. And what a few have said is absolutely correct, one form of pollution replaces another. You know the most developed societies are always the cleanest right? Cleanest air, cleanest water. People whine about cars, but if we were all trucking around in horse and buggies there'd be ALOt more pollution in our cities than there is now, just of a different variety. Pollution was plummeting long before harmful environmental regulations came around, which cause a kind of pollution of their own. What I like to call "unemployment pollution". As shown.. So you see, these heinous Environmental regulations and alternative energy sources that y'all are touting have all kinds of residual consequences, all of which end up effecting the average citizen. I do not find them worth it based on the murky, inconclusive science of "global warming". I enjoy my high standard of living. My inexpensive products produced by inexpensive energy. The real solution to pollution, as history has shown, is to let market innovation function. Natural gas has arisen not from the EPA or green people's whining, but because something that better serves the consumer (me and you) came along, as it always does, and is getting rid of much of our CO2 emissions. Actually, big oil companies and the like, lobby for regulations restricting natural gas form really taking root. So one side of the government is hurting the environment, while the other one is supposedly helping. That makes a lot of sense huh?
You guys serve your purpose, I'm not denying that, but if you actually had your way, it'd be a complete and utter disaster.

 

First off, I didn't say, "why don't we just get everything from meteors". What I promoted was the advancement of technologies so such a thing would not only be feasible, but preferable. Furthermore, it's not far fetched or "nonsense" if you pay attention to science and what many companies are already doing globally.

 

This is why I don't read your posts. There's never been a"know it all" that did.

 

Why should you be the only one fiddling while Rome burns? Here's what people like you don't get: it's going to happen, peak oil - has happened -, peak fossil fuel in general will happen. Population is exploding, energy is getting harder and more expensive to get. So, we've got to use what we've got, while it's still relatively plentiful and cheap, and devote all or most of it to finding a sustainable alternative that may or may not exist. If it doesn't, your great, great, grand kids are going to be eating each other and using the leftovers for lamp oil. Doing something now, solving the problem now, or vainly trying to solve the problem now, is the prudent and responsible thing to do, but we're not going to do that are we? No. So, you see I feel somewhat justified (albeit delusional) in using the computer in the vain hopes that I might actually change the misguided thinking of people like you.

 

Exactly. Not all solutions do less harm than the problem. Like I stated, that's a real bummer in my line of work. We come up with great ideas to deal with this or that, but then we find out that if we implement them we get a whole slew of new problems. So brainstorming what can go wrong before we try is so hard to do. Especially knowing the clock is ticking and we need to do something soon.

 

Look, it's easy to find negatives with wind and solar, but you must compare them to the much, much more serious negatives of nuclear, coal, and oil. For instance, I don't worry about some birds getting killed in wind turbines if that's the price to avoid the nuclear side-effect of higher cancer rates in a large group of people caused by radioactive waste getting into the ecosystem.

Solar and wind are very environmentally friendly, compared to the alternatives.

 

The worst big oil is doing now is FRAKING. It destroys the under ground water supply with poison. There are people that have allowed it to be done on their land, and now their water in their wells can be lit on fire. You can live without oil and gas, but you can't live without water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA"]Faucet Water Ignites! Natural Gas in Well Water! THANKS DICK! - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtgvwllNpg"]Ignitable Drinking Water in Candor, NY, Above Marcellus Shale - YouTube

 

Wow, that's fucked up ^

And in the second video he didn't allow anyone to drill on his land, it started when they began drilling in a nearby town. I bet the water companies are happy because now they'll have to pay for their water

 

People have been saying that we're on the brink of "running out of fossil fuels" throughout the entire 20th century, unfortuanately they have continuously been proven wrong. I really thought people like you had run out of steam after the "oil scare" during Jimmy Carter. Yall's doomsday dates keep having to be pushed back.Peak oil huh... Such theories only take into account known resources that are attainable with current technologies. We're not at any risk of running out of 'fossil fuels' anytime soon, your juvenile scare tactics don't work on this one here. However, even if we were, I still wouldn't be worried about it! Such fears arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets function. You act like one day all of a sudden we'll just run out of oil. No, it will be a very gradual process, and one in which the free market will invariably supply us with the next best alternative. When fossil fuel supplies do begin to dwindle, increased scarcity will cause prices to rise. The increased price will cause finding new deposits to become more profitable, Research and application of alternatives will become more viable as well. Things like nuclear, solar, or wind, and all the other things innovative people will come up with in the face of steadily rising energy prices will all be pushed into more favorable light. There is no need to rush this process, causing unnecessarily high energy prices for those in the present. Like i said earlier, the reason these alternative energies arnt currently prevailing in the market, is because they arnt needed or worth it! The best thing for the everyday man is to get the government out of the way, and allow for the market to supply him with the best, and cheapest form of energy available. It's what allows us all to enjoy this nice standard of living! Do you realize, if "fracking", natural gas, and/or coal were outlawed, that none of us could afford even a fracktion (pun intended) of the energy each of us consumes currently?
In cases where people are adversely affected by drilling, they should certainly be compensated for damages, however the science and proof of the above claims are murky at best, and you really should read both sides of the debate. Im almost positive if any sort of a descent case could be made, those people would be qualified for huge settlements from the drilling companies.
Anyway, stop worrying yourselves over ridiculous things like fossil fuel depletion and focus your attention onto more serious issues, like our ever-expanding, malicious federal government!
http://libertariantee.com

 

Read my post again. I never said we were on the brink of depletion, but as far as oil is concerned, we're half way there, at least and the price isn't going anywhere but up, and with the world population growing exponentially, that oil is going to be used up very fast. Just about every thing we have, use, consume can be tracked back to oil. 10 calories of oil go into the production and distribution of every 1 calorie of food in the country. That is not sustainable. What do you think is going to happen when a gallon of oil triples or quadruples in price?

Fracking pushes toxic gases (methane mostly) and minerals into water deposits. Go watch Gasland for the consumer side of the story, I didn't watch the clips in the earlier posts, but I'm guessing they came from that movie. Here's something you and apparently a lot of other people don't understand about the legal aspects of this practice. If you don't own mineral rights on your land, they do whatever the hell they want to underground. Most people do not own the mineral rights on their own land and therefore have no legal leg to stand on if Haliburton decides to come in and poison your well. Fracking is specifically exempted from much federal regulation, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 - so it's a loophole gas BOOM.

Here's another film I urge you to watch with regard to peak oil - then go research what this man claims for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7WLCEUi7vk

You can keep burying our head in the sand about this, and/or kicking the can down the road, but believe me our great-great grandchildren will be cursing us for our stupidity.

 

This post started to make me think you were catching on, sigh.

 

I'm with "this is why you're wrong". Ulimited oil,unlimited employment,unlimited happiness,no more fooling around with clean energy(that's not needed). And 98% of the scientists that believe in global warming are crazier than hell and are being paid under the table by "radical environmentalists" who then will make more money from--uh--from--uh--well--someplace. Why don't you juveniles wake up,go shopping and quit acting like resources are finite. Everything is being taken care of properly. Please return to your television sets. And BUY MORE. BUY MORE NOW.

 

Scratcho.... You forgot the [/sarcasm] tag at the end of that post...

 

Oh--was that sarcasm? Sorry. Kind of.