Shared publicly  - 
Researchers have discovered a stunning new process that takes the energy from coal without burning it -- and removes virtually all of the pollution.
Iron Patriot's profile photoMichael Wiseman's profile photoRandy Alexander's profile photoMark Marcy's profile photo
Awesome!  With this - you can own a coal mine and NOT go bankrupt!
Democrats already thinking up new ways to tax it.
Sounds awesome, I hope it works out.
Hmm, maybe my power bill will go down once Alabama is full force lol.
The Obama nut huggers will say he invented this.
Obama this, Obama that. Dude give it up. Clearly you love the guy, just dumb to see it.
He's our saviour. He's the Messiah. He saved the world.
Coal is abundant, lets get back to mining it.
Yeah dude^. Belladonna is the original basis for the dilation drops your eye doctor uses in an exam.The "poison" has become useful.
No one believes in global warming anymore. Greenpeace kiss my ass..
OK, so we've addressed the burning of coal, that's a good start. Can we then address the health and environmental impacts of mountaintop removal mining practices? I'm all for cheap energy, but I draw the line at poisoning the air and water for private profit.
Liberals are tree huggers. We ain't had no tories here since we kicked the King and his sorry redcoats out way back in the late 1700's.
Yeah, Liberals are tree huggers. They're also air breathers and water drinkers - some of the few traits they share with Conservatives. Clean air and water should be a concern for all, but interestingly enough, that's not the case.
Have they blamed President Obama yet?
+Крыстафер Гомес Your "Scientific American" article is not relevant to this topic.  It discusses the radioactivity of coal ash if it's just dumped into the local rivers and streams, and gives no consideration to the possibility of containment and safe disposal of such ash.

The comparison is of the "by-products that get into the environment" -  you would have us believe that coal ash is more toxic than nuclear waste material.  You're full of crap.  The article compares coal ash dumped into the environment, with tiny amounts of "leaked" radiation from an operating nuclear facility - NOT the nuclear waste that is created and contained as a byproduct of nuclear energy creation.

If you ever made it to read page 2, "So why does coal waste appear so radioactive? It's a matter of comparison: The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they're just somewhat higher for the coal ones. "You're talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants," Christensen says. "And it's one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants."" - and that's assuming that there is zero attempt at containment or proper disposal. 

Coal seems a far easier disposal problem than real nuclear waste.
Back to the subject at hand...coal can be mined cleanly and burned with less pollution than diesel. Natural gas is also an option. Green power such as wind turbines and solar collectors/cells are years from bring a viable source of power. Nuclear power is great, but too many folks are against it. 
Trouble is, it's English, not Latin, which applies.  The meaning of "liberal" in the U.S. vernacular has changed over time though.  "Liberal" used to mean what today most commonly we call "libertarian."  I think the Wikipedia page on "liberal," especially the linked page "classical liberalism," explains it fairly well.  I can only tell you about the U.S. scene; for all I know, "liberal" might retain that meaning elsewhere.  Contemporarily though, liberal means something more along the lines of advocating for more and bigger government, not less...also under the label "progressive."
Who the hell cares what the root meaning of liberal is? It doesn't have a damned thing to do with whether coal is clean or not. If you want an English lesson find a topic relevant to language usage.
I am home and you are a troll, please move on, nobody cares.
Nice +Tim Pearcy thanks..  But I can't resist...

+Крыстафер Гомес  As before, you're an idiot.  The language is what it is regardless of roots.  If you don't understand what an American means when they refer to policians as "liberals" versus "conservatives" or Dems vs Republicans, is your problem, and doesn't give you any right or reason to insult people because of the roots of their language.

BTW getting back to the topic:  I am thinking critically.  You're an idiot.  That's being critical. Anybody here can read the article.  It's a good article.  But it doesn't say what you say it says, as any critical thinker who cares to read it would easily discover.
And how is the definition of "liberal", relevant? Twit.
Great to see the Obama hate wagon is in full swing...even when he has nothing to do with this, CHEERS...ask half of these fucktards why and what he did they wouldn't know! Except the fact that he's black...but they won't say it!!!
Clean coal simply does NOT exist. Thanks for the lies though, Fox.
Ron N
Many of us know the root of liberal. But an American liberal has a desire to control. Which we all know is a complete opposite of freedom. You either fail to understand that or do not wish to acknowledge it.
Sorry, now you're equating one language to another just because they have common roots.  I guarantee you that you will have all kinds of trouble if you attempt to speak Spanish to someone who only understands Italian (or Portuguese).  Yes, there are many similarities, but one is not the other.

You're also ignoring regional cultural differences.  I'm just cluing everyone who might come across this discussion that your idea of "liberal" is not what it's like here in the U.S.  Before you start calling me foolish, I can just tell you I've been a lifelong (more than 47 years) resident of the U.S. and I doubt highly from what you're writing you could say anything similar.

Anyhow, Ob coal comment:

This is kind of exciting news, as we're supposedly sitting atop a WHOLE lot of it.  The consumption part has been problematic, but if this newfound chemical process can help a lot with that, that'd be terriffic.  So much for 0bama's promise to put the coal industry out of business: "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them." (San Francisco, CA, US, January 2008).  We'll see.
Sorry, no, not a Tory, more like libertarian, and no, "liberal" does not mean "to liberate."  That's why they're separate words, as "liberty" is a separate word as well.

Another Ob coal comment:  I wonder if this will serve to increase coal mining or not.
Ron N
George Washington was a classic liberal. Quite different than today's modern liberal. He fought for freedom then and today they fight for control.
Well, yeah, that's what I tried to explain, Ron, but a little less succinctly I guess.  great job of summarization.
Baffling how you can think that calling people stupid can make you appear intelligent.
That's easy, +Tim Pearcy .  Everything is relative, so beating down your opposition make you appear "taller."  The difference is substance.
I've explained the difference between liberal and libertarian earlier in this discussion with respect to contemporary U.S. English.  Sorry you didn't quite understand.
Somebody here doesn't speak English (American) as their native language.
Y'know, +Tim Pearcy, I'd have to guess that'd be someone whose name appears to me to be spelled in a Cyrillic script.  I dunno...just guessing of course.
+Joe Philipps Don't waste your time talking to the twit. Words such as elitist come right out of Karl Marx.
Go Away"Troll Krackpot"American English and American politics have been separate a couple centuries now.
English is Germanic. Just saying.

But, conservatives do incorrectly use the word liberals. Liberals defend liberty. They usually mean progressives. 
The mischaricterization of progressives as liberals can be blamed on our over simplified "political spectrum" which pits the left v. the right. It is not that simple. Timothy Ferris, a renouned political scince author, suggests using a pyramid instead of a simple left v. right line. The pyramid would be characterized by conservatives, liberals, and progressives at each of its points. An individual's polical standing could be plotted at some point within this pyramid.
I'm afraid you may be over simplifying your case. There will always be conservatives. Even if you live most of your life as a progressive and manage to enact some form of progressivism that you will somedy have to defend, you will in a sense become a conservative.

It seems silly to demonize any political party/stance as conservatives preserve traditions worth preserving, liberals fight for liberty and embrace science, progressivess have gained victories such as woman's rights and even the abolishment of slavery and Jim Crow laws.

To be fair, the biggest complaint I have with progressives is that they, at their core, value equality more than liberty, and are willing to abridge liberty in the name of equality.

Ultimately, I think nations should strive for equilibrium between all three; conservatism, liberalism, and progressivism. Then, and only then, can we have all of the benefits of all three stances.
Your reference to conservatives was mostly correct, minus the condesening reference to outdated. 
Q: What's the last thing you hear before a pubic hair hits the ground?
A: Крыстафер Гомес
If you choose not to acknowledge in definition "3" the conditional; "often."

Then you would be right.
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.

This intelligent conversation would be nicer if I didn't have to wade through the childish comments of +Darin Walker and +Scott Williamson 
did you say detract bro?
You are implying that liberals ARE progressives. Today's typical conservative means progressive when they say liberal. "Liberals" (AKA progressives) do not want freedom, they want equality. 
And no, not all (or probably any) conservatives comply with all the same beliefs of the conservative party of the late 1700's. That would be rediculous. Try not to be silly.
I already told you what liberty means. Libertarians object statism, I'm aware. The trade off for more liberty is more personal responsibility.

My point is that you are taking advantage of the oversimplified left v. Right spectrum to argue with those who do not understand the differences.
The political pyramid answers that question perfectly. It is clear that one could travel between socialism and fascism, and never approach liberalism.
The US produced the least pollution in the 1800s when the majority of energy was produced by burning wood.
Of course it is not a viable option for today's needs and technology, but my point was that sometimes the things we believe to be most harmful can be the solution to many problems if considered in moderation. 
+Trevor Curnow , thanks for your interpretation of the political makeup. I especially like how it didn't have any footing in reality, just how people see it. Here is the thing. This clean coal thing could work, and is worth further testing. Coal is an abundant resource. If we can continue to utilize it, in a clean way, it deserves some attention. Why abandon coal, and all the jobs associated with it. Imagine the impact on the economy if all those people in the coal industry lost their jobs all because of the bullshit you are proposing. 
You know Trevor, if we could build some more nuke plants we could drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
+Trevor Curnow , thanks for your response, and I too enjoy the intelligent side of conversation. Realistically, coal is the number 1 energy source in the country. We can't just simply do away with coal. Coal is cheap, and we already have the infrastructure. Now, I am with you on the need to clean up energy, but there is nothing as cost effective, really available, or developed as much as coal. I do not know a lot about this clean coal thing, but if it is cleaner, and feasible, it is a step in the right direction.

And, typically speaking of course, conservatives aren't pro dirty energy. Don't be ridiculous. Left v. Right can almost always be boiled down to big v. Small government. If there weren't so many subsidies, and the private sector could develop these technologies without government intervention, the way capitalism should work, then conservatives would be all over it. But that is not the case. The government has tied itself to green energy. The bigger green energy gets, the bigger government gets.

Also, I believe the second largest energy source is nuclear (not absolutely positive). What are your thoughts on that?
+Trevor Curnow Chasing whatever the current environmentalist fad happens to be.

Nuke power is clean and safe.

Solar is a joke. You can visit two decommissioned solar plants in Death Valley. Can't a sunnier place on earth and they generate a fraction of a percent of what nuke can do without covering the landscape with mirrors and class tubes.

Wind turbines are devastating the bird population.

Conservatives want a clean world for themselves and their progeny. They just don't want to chase every environmental fad that comes along.
+Jay Carlson , I am with you on nuclear being the way to go, but please don't use the bird arguement. As a conservative, who indeed thinks any for of on-land wind is a waste of everyones time (off shore is a little different, and nowhere near as infrequent), birds are not a reason to worry about wind power. Thats grabbing at straws.

+Trevor Curnow , nuclear is incredibly safe. How many people have been injured in nuclear power related accidents. None in Japan. The Soviet Union chose to ignore any form of safety precautions, three-mile wasn't bad. Nuclear gets a bad wrap for the word "nuclear." Uranium isn't going to explode. It isn't that type of material. As seen in Japan, even a drastic meltdown where the cooling fails, back up cooling fails, and radiation escapes, it isn't a bid deal. Nobody died of radiation. Nobody. We are exposed to radiation everyday. Hell, our blood is radioactive, and if you have granite counter tops in your house, guess what? They are radioactive. Navy crews sleep feet away from nuclear reactors with no issues at all.

Also, it is worth mentioning that every nuclear acccident has been in a time of deregulation. Despite being conservative, nuclear should be regulated so that private organizatons do not push the lives of nuclear reactors just to save a nickel or two.

Its clean, its safe, and we have enough to produce enough energy for practically ever. Why not?
+Daniel Ganoung The bird problem is a real issue, if oil companies killed as many birds they'd be fined out of existence  There have also been a number of people killed by wind mills, if someone died in a nuke plant there would be no end to the "news" coverage. Typical liberal hypocrisy, However inefficiency is the biggest issue. Flying into Germany last year, the landscape is covered with windfarms, but even from the plane you can see that very few are even turning. How about the Keystone Pipeline? Safest, cheapest way to move oil, but Soros is adding to his massive fortune moveing oil by truck and rail.
Add a comment...