TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
'Clean' coal
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [58]  1  2
3

'Clean' coal:

 51 Deboss, Tue, 17th May '11 8:48:22 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
I thought they explained that? Well, one of the side effects of more common anti-depressants is a boost in energy. Since the pills might give you energy, but may not prevent suicidal thoughts, you know have someone motivated and suicidal.
 52 Usht, Tue, 17th May '11 8:52:44 PM from an arbitrary view point.
Lv. 3 Genasi Wizard
Erm, not normal anti-depressant pills. I'm thinking of a notorious case a few years ago where some company released pills that caused about 60% of the customers to kill themselves via suicide and didn't include that risk description on the bottle (yes, they knew about but didn't include it). I forget which company sold that product but Glaxo (another company that specializes in testing such products) found the trend and took them to court. That's unethical.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.
 53 Deboss, Tue, 17th May '11 10:40:24 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
Ah, my mistake. This was one of the reasons I heard about for explaining why "normal" anti-depressants could make suicide more likely.
Morven: I don't think that such things are yet an affordable way to provide continuous, guaranteed power — if I'm wrong, show me.
For the inevitable period where we will be reliant on atmospherically-polluting sources of power, I'd rather do some work on making those as minimally polluting as possible.
Er… Okay, here's my basic justification. Clean coal's challenge isn't “make coal cleaner, ” it's “for a given amount of money, make coal cleaner than any other thing that money could be spent on.”

Dollar for dollar, watt for watt, clean coal, nuclear, natural gas, and petroleum development are a waste of money. If every dollar being spent or proposed for being spent on them were redirected into conservation, wind, solar, and transport electrification (including hydrogen) we would be getting more energy, producing less pollution, creating more jobs, and quite simply earning more long-term money.

The transience issue is also irrelevant, since not all power is baseload. So long as there was enough conventional power to cover baseload, we could keep building solar and wind without any grid storage whatsoever and still receive full benefit. By the time there's enough wind and solar to completely fulfill both baseload and peak power requirements, and only then, we will finally have need for grid storage. By that time, I would be astonished if we hadn't built enough grid storage.

I'll dig up some figures later, but the point I'm getting at is that the things I want are a better deal for the money than anything else, including clean coal.

lord Gacek: Once upon a time while browsing survivalist websites, I found this: [1]
Ugh, neoagrarians, I hate them so much, hate hate hate.

Eric,

 55 lord Gacek, Wed, 18th May '11 12:32:47 PM from Kansas of Europe
KVLFON
Surely I can inquire you for an answer? For one, I can't see anything wrong with some basic energetic self-sufficiency on a household level. Then there is the Open Farm Project, another fun thing of this sort.
"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"
Mentions of "clean coal" had better have a long note attached to them describing just how it can be "clean".

Once it does, I will check to see if this includes local/regional pollutants (such as SO 2 and NOX) as well as carbon capture.

And then we'll talk.

All those "clean coal" ads on TV are loads of bullshit.

Now, I will not dismiss coal as an energy source. We will still need it, and we will still use it. We had better develop clean coal technology, because we will damn well need it. But that does not mean that we should be bandying around the term "clean coal" as if it were some magical cure-all along the lines of casting Esuna on a piece of coal.
It Just Bugs Me! - a place to discuss media, real life, and other topics.
 57 joeyjojo, Thu, 19th May '11 5:29:59 PM from South of Norway Relationship Status: Waiting for you *wink*
Too many bunnies
is there any proof that clean coal is actually feasible let alone practical?
Well, clean coal is definitely possible, as there exist various ways of capturing the various pollutants that coal burning produces.

It is technically feasible since most, if not all, of these pollutants have proven technologies for capturing them. Even carbon dioxide, the newest one.

However, economically feasible is probably the big question, since the combination of infrastructure costs, market forces on energy prices, and legal requirements (or lack thereof) to remove pollutants from waste streams have so far not forced truly clean coal.

Not to mention that the definition of "clean coal" varies from instance to instance and even person to person. At its best, it can mean that nothing is let loose other than energy and water. At its worst, it is nothing different from regular coal.
It Just Bugs Me! - a place to discuss media, real life, and other topics.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 58
 1  2
3


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy