|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
OKIsItJustMe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 12:25 PM Original message |
U.S. coal power boom suddenly wanes |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
poverlay (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 12:31 PM Response to Original message |
1. Music to my ears! n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 12:55 PM Response to Original message |
2. US net imports of natural gas total about 16% of consumption. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeFree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:04 PM Response to Reply #2 |
3. Lower emissions is the ticket |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NickB79 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:16 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. "If we can control nukes.....we can control emissions from coal" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeFree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:26 PM Response to Reply #5 |
6. See? There's one now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NickB79 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:41 PM Response to Reply #6 |
10. Actually, I'm not pro-nuke |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeFree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:46 PM Response to Reply #10 |
13. I'm defending coal? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NickB79 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:47 PM Response to Reply #13 |
14. The fact you think we can even clean up coal is in effect supporting it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 02:54 PM Response to Reply #14 |
16. It's impossible to burn coal without unacceptable pollution? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phantom power (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 02:56 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. Because coal's main pollutant is CO2, and it is the primary reaction product. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 03:03 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. OK I understand it emits CO2. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phantom power (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 03:31 PM Response to Reply #18 |
21. Every coal plant produces 4 million tons of CO2 per year. 250 pounds per second. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-05-08 01:27 AM Response to Reply #21 |
28. OK that makes sense. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 03:12 PM Response to Reply #16 |
19. The pollution that is hardest to deal with is CO2 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OKIsItJustMe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 04:59 PM Response to Reply #19 |
25. Yeah I don't believe the "pump it underground" proposals |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 05:55 PM Response to Reply #25 |
26. The problem with algae |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OKIsItJustMe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-05-08 09:51 AM Response to Reply #26 |
32. Or... you could bite the bullet, and bury the algae |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phantom power (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-05-08 09:58 AM Response to Reply #32 |
33. It's actually pretty hard to bury dead stuff and prevent it from decaying. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-05-08 10:00 AM Response to Reply #32 |
34. Or we could bite the bullet a bit harder, and start reducing our consumption. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OKIsItJustMe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-05-08 11:25 AM Response to Reply #34 |
35. Don't get me wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 04:33 PM Response to Reply #16 |
23. Investigate "Integrated Combined Cycle Gassification" to see the dream |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NickB79 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:14 PM Response to Original message |
4. Natural gas, you say? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeFree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:30 PM Response to Reply #4 |
7. In that case, they may burn methane. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phantom power (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:39 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. I don't get it. That's what natural gas is: methane. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BeFree (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:43 PM Response to Reply #8 |
11. Touche! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phantom power (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:49 PM Response to Reply #11 |
15. Decay-based methane is a trickle compared to what we use. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OKIsItJustMe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 03:18 PM Response to Reply #15 |
20. FWIW: Status of landfill gas generation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-05-08 08:11 AM Response to Reply #11 |
29. You really need to get a grasp of scale (not to mention reality) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NickB79 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:46 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. Methane derived from what? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 04:39 PM Response to Reply #12 |
24. NIck, are you aware of Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) as a means of increasing efficiency |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 01:41 PM Response to Original message |
9. What excellent news! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Lasher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-05-08 09:30 AM Response to Reply #9 |
31. So our electrical grid goes to hell while we wait for the wind to blow us into salvation? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 04:24 PM Response to Original message |
22. Actually I think 59 of 61 planned plants were dumped. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
losthills (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-04-08 09:07 PM Response to Original message |
27. So called "clean coal" is a myth and a greenwash. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Mar-05-08 08:35 AM Response to Reply #27 |
30. Yep. Leaving the coal underground is the best carbon sequestration we could ask for. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sun May 05th 2024, 06:47 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC