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

Status
Not open for further replies.

BabyDemon

Est. Contributor
Messages
67
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
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.
 

kite

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
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.
 

Fire2box

Est. Contributor
Messages
10,934
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
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.
 

kite

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,936
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Carer
do you guys know the average amount of waste that is produced by a normal city nuclear power plant?
 

cais

Contributor
Messages
59
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.:sad:
 

BromeTeks

Est. Contributor
Messages
751
Role
Adult Baby, Babyfur
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.
 

d4l

Est. Contributor
Messages
955
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Other
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.:sad:
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.
 

cais

Contributor
Messages
59
...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.
 

d4l

Est. Contributor
Messages
955
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Sissy, Other
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?
 
Messages
520
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Incontinent
The only really safe nuclear power is the one earth has been using for the past 5 billion years. It is the only energy available to the earth and all other forms are just a conversion of the power the sun has radiated to earth.
Oil, gas and coal power are just really old sunlight. Wind and hydro are both driven from energy from the recent past. Solar energy uses current sun output and should be the one form to get the most support. If everyone had just one solar panel most of the polluting forms of energy would not be needed.
 

BabyDemon

Est. Contributor
Messages
67
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
... 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.
Climbing is not a real issue. The average EHV transmission line tower is between 90 and 200 feet tall. No matter what type of plant you have you will have people climbing off the ground to work.

Wind farms do fail yes but typically think of where you see wind farms. In open fields. So if you have a single turbine fail and it blows up the most harm it can do is shower the surrounding landscape with derbies. Sure there's a chance it might hit a car, a person or a house. But it would be less catastrophic then a nuclear melt down.

Copper Wire theft is a problem through all parts of the electric system. I've heard of people entering live 138,000 volt substations and stealing copper ground wires. It takes some brass balls or just shear stupidity or both too do that because at 138,000 volts you can hear the electricity humming through the line. :) So wire theft shouldn't rule out wind or solar because it happens at every stage of the system.

What our nation needs to think about are:
Investing in renewables like wind and solar, and biomass. While sometimes things like wind are not the most reliable source of power, they can be used to successfully as part of an overall energy scheme.

The public and government need to allow the investment in nuclear power. While the waste, and other aspects make nuclear power look scary it is one of the most stable power sources. Its not effected by cold temperatures, wet fuel, lack of wind, etc.

Most of all though the nation needs to allow power companies to invest in the aging and failing electric transmission system in the US. Allowing companies to build more, bigger, and better transmission lines. By doing this we will be able to utilize power sources from farther away from the major cities. Giant wind farms in Iowa and Nebraska can be used to feed cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. It will bring Mine Mouth Coal plants a chance to sell their power farther away from Montana, Wyoming, and Utah. Nuclear power plants can be built in areas away from large cities and the power shipped into them. And overall it will increase the competition between energy providers. Forcing them to produce the cheapest MW they can. Thus lowering your bill.

The key is that no one single source will be the answer. Its the combination of everything, Clean Coal, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Gas, and Transmission.
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
20,705
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
My son in law who was a conservative republican until he married my daughter, haha..says that if we had started right before Bush invaded Iraq, and instead of invasion, invested that money into alternative fuel sources, we would be much better off by now. I say...if you think of all the water in the ocean, all made up of oxygen and hydrogen, and found a cheap way of splitting it, you would have cheap energy forever. I suppose splitting water may be part of the fusion problem. Can you use less energy to make more energy.

Under the ocean are tremendous deposits of methane, enough to supply the earth's needs for thousands of years, I am told. The problem with that is getting it cheaply, but it's there none the less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top