Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: I Don't Think This Is What Defines "Clean Coal"

  1. #1

  2. #2

    Default

    Things like this happen. EPA, DEQ's and groups such as the sierra club have put coal plants under tremendous pressure to clean up their smoke. While I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing what ends up happening is we have more waste to deal with.

    Sucks for everyone involved but unless you want unreliable expensive power, coal will have to be mainstay until we can find a suitable replacement fuel source.

  3. #3

    Default

    it just sucks because what people don't realize is that coal waste is more toxic and radioactive than nuclear power yet it's played off as "meh..." by the industry.

  4. #4

    Default

    I think that we should focus a LOT more on nuclear power then coal, natural gas,wind and solar power sources. Nuclear power is pretty safe compared to the others even wind turbines can have pretty bad failures. Not to mention you got to climb pretty high up them to work on them and people steal the copper wiring for them.


    anyways heres the real wiki for clean coal. Clean coal technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I don't think it sounds as cost productive as nuclear power does and that's the main reason I prefer nuclear over everything else. It just seems to be cheaper to go nuclear then go any other way. And I know some people may not like having a nuclear power plant in their area but really there's been way more problems with oil, coal etc then there is with nuclear.

    As for wind and solar power safety compared to the nuclear sure those are safer but we can barely capture the amount of energy they can really provide. I think Solar Panels can only capture like 10% of the energy from the sun. not sure about the wind farms though.

    Anyways nuclear power track records have been pretty solid, transporting nuclear waste by railway has been pretty damn successful at least a lot more then crude oil and coal.

  5. #5

    Default

    do you guys know the average amount of waste that is produced by a normal city nuclear power plant?

  6. #6

    Default

    Here is a link to an article which is about the development of 2 friends' (one with a Physics degree) nuclear fusion project. That's right NUCLEAR FUSION is the answer. Their design isn't near perfected yet, but they are, from what I understand, "tied" for the lead in the race for nuclear fusion. The cool thing is they made their own method instead of copying all the existing methods, and best of all ALL the waste has a half life of ONLY 12 years...That means 12 years later the waste is a different substance that's clean enough to just toss. I'm looking forward to these guys getting appropriate funding like federal and university projects - Though this infinate, cleaner energy seems to be 16 years away.

  7. #7

    Default

    I agree with Cais- I belive that nuclear fusion is the answer. Though of course, If we manage to create a reliable power source that involves the complete 100% transfer of matter to energy, (which is very far off as of right... now.), then at the current level of consumption, the entire human population on Earth could be powered on less than 5 kilograms of matter for a year. And the good news is, The Earth is putting on weight. Micro Meteorites add several thousand metric tonnes of mass to the earth each year. So, running out of matter is a non issue.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by cais View Post
    Here is a link to an article which is about the development of 2 friends' (one with a Physics degree) nuclear fusion project. That's right NUCLEAR FUSION is the answer. Their design isn't near perfected yet, but they are, from what I understand, "tied" for the lead in the race for nuclear fusion. The cool thing is they made their own method instead of copying all the existing methods, and best of all ALL the waste has a half life of ONLY 12 years...That means 12 years later the waste is a different substance that's clean enough to just toss. I'm looking forward to these guys getting appropriate funding like federal and university projects - Though this infinate, cleaner energy seems to be 16 years away.
    Half life means that in 12 years HALF the substance will be a different possibly safer substance. The other half is still radioactive. Depending on the amount then it can still take a long time for it to be safe. Though it is till better than a couple thousand year half life on some elements currently used in nuclear power.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by d4l View Post
    ...Though it is till better than a couple thousand year half life on some elements currently used in nuclear power.
    It's not perfect, but it sounds damn near the best thing we're gonna get.
    Edit: the waste of nuclear power plants is like 2,400 years or something around there, I think...

    P.S. Anyone who read about nuclear fusion, but fears a "nuclear meltdown", the worst that can happen might as well be a plasma clean-up where the reactor is located.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by cais View Post
    P.S. Anyone who read about nuclear fusion, but fears a "nuclear meltdown", the worst that can happen might as well be a plasma clean-up where the reactor is located.
    You do know the hydrogen bomb is powered by nuclear fusion right?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-Jan-2009, 18:44
  2. "Obama" now substituting "hey" "yo" "sup"??
    By mm3 in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-Nov-2008, 05:29
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 23-Jul-2008, 00:40
  4. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 24-Apr-2008, 03:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.