Researchers have discovered a stunning new process that takes the energy from coal without burning it -- and removes virtually all of the pollution.
34 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 57 previous comments
- Helping to stuff the pockets of Billionaire Al Gore.Feb 22, 2013
- You know Trevor, if we could build some more nuke plants we could drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.Feb 22, 2013
- , 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?Feb 23, 2013
- 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.Feb 25, 2013
- , 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.
, 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?Feb 25, 2013
- 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.Feb 26, 2013