Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Coal Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 18:18:07

Serial_Worrier wrote:totally devastating to the environment, yet unavoidable because of NIMBYism on nuclear energy. So tragic to be held hostage by the environmentalist wackos like this.



It's all the environmentalists' fault!!! :x :x

Ooooo! Those rotten enviro-loons!
User avatar
Ludi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 18586
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Darkest Dumfukistan

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 18:20:19

Shannymara wrote:Or, we could just USE LESS ENERGY.



Why do you hate America? :x
User avatar
Ludi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 18586
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Darkest Dumfukistan

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 18:39:17

Shannymara wrote:
Ludi wrote:
Shannymara wrote:Or, we could just USE LESS ENERGY.



Why do you hate America? :x

Because of mountaintop removal and nuclear power plants. :lol:

"I have to shoot heroin! They won't give me Oxycontin!" :roll:


Idiot, how do you propose America use less energy without stopping economic growth?
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby Ludi » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 18:41:17

Serial_Worrier wrote:Idiot



That's the best argument I've seen all day. :) Top notch debate technique there!
User avatar
Ludi
Master
Master
 
Posts: 18586
Joined: Mon 27 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Darkest Dumfukistan

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby dinopello » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 18:53:28

Shannymara wrote:
Serial_Worrier wrote:Idiot, how do you propose America use less energy without stopping economic growth?

I propose we have negative economic growth!


That's a good one. It's not stopping growth!

We could grow in an imaginary plane. sqrt(-1) * growth = igrowth.
User avatar
dinopello
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6093
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby mos6507 » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 20:56:06

Shannymara wrote:I propose we have negative economic growth!


We have negative economic growth right now. How do you like it so far? Keeps oil cheap at least. ;)
User avatar
mos6507
permanently banned
 
Posts: 9499
Joined: Fri 03 Aug 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Boston Suburbs

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby carrottop » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 21:53:28

i moved here about 11 years ago they were just starting to do mountain top removeal i sat on my porch and watched them cut huge trees & take two bulldozers shove up the trees & burn them . didnt take them to a saw mill just burnt them ! i watched helplessly as this little stream that goes by my house which was an aquatic wonder land die there is not anything in it now & never will be .i worked in the mines under ground & you can mine just as much coal but it costs more & is more dangerous ! and you dont have to remove 500 feet of mountain .
User avatar
carrottop
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri 08 Jun 2007, 02:00:00
Location: wv

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby Pretorian » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 22:13:43

Serial_Worrier wrote:
Idiot, how do you propose America use less energy without stopping economic growth?



Why does it have to grow? You worry about your 401k or something?
Pretorian
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4672
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Somewhere there

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby carrottop » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 22:21:23

start with i am not an idiot and i dont have a 401 k but you do miss the point &for that i am sorry for you !
User avatar
carrottop
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri 08 Jun 2007, 02:00:00
Location: wv

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 23:30:49

Serial_Worrier wrote:
Shannymara wrote:
Ludi wrote:
Shannymara wrote:Or, we could just USE LESS ENERGY.



Why do you hate America? :x

Because of mountaintop removal and nuclear power plants. :lol:

"I have to shoot heroin! They won't give me Oxycontin!" :roll:


Idiot, how do you propose America use less energy without stopping economic growth?

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

Unless we humans can come up with a lifestyle/economics that is not predicated on the continued use and abuse of our limited resources than we will continue to dig our environmental and spiritual graves.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26285
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Mountaintop removal for coal

Unread postby pstarr » Wed 29 Apr 2009, 23:32:06

Serial_Worrier you need to do something about your image. IT HAS GROWN TO LARGE FOR MY PUNY MONITOR AND IS THREATENING TO MELT THE SCREENNNNNNNNN!!!!!!
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26285
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Coal is a fossil fuel

Unread postby and also » Sat 23 May 2009, 09:16:13

Yes, coal is a fossil fuel. The least-refined-by-nature fossil fuel.
It is also abundant - and therein lies the rub.
It will go away only because we create superior alternatives
superior will be judged by society primariy through our elected representatives, but also through just how much the citizenry is willing to pay for electricity.
clean coal is indeed a trademark label, cleaner coal would be more accurate. And generally only cleaner in terms of air. Water actually suffers. (our nearby plant at Hatsfield Ferry just got forced by the state to install scrubbers. then the state realized it had to modify the plant's water discharge permit so that it could dump the crap they scrubbed out of the stakes into the Mon River. this is not BS!)
the technology is doable, but expensive, but still not so expensive (in concept) such that renewable become clearly "superior"
the technology is "bad" in that it makes the use of coal more sustainable.
that technology is undesireable not just for the effluents when burned, but also for the whole life cycle of impacts that starts with sending humans underground, ripping about landscapes etc.
that technology is desireable, since we are going to use this stuff anyway, it may as well be at least a little cleaner.
it is a complex discussion, is my point....


not just in environmental performance
and also
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri 22 May 2009, 22:14:33

Re: Coal is a fossil fuel

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 23 May 2009, 10:04:42

and also wrote:Yes, coal is a fossil fuel. The least-refined-by-nature fossil fuel.
It is also abundant - and therein lies the rub.
It will go away only because we create superior alternatives
superior will be judged by society primariy through our elected representatives, but also through just how much the citizenry is willing to pay for electricity.
clean coal is indeed a trademark label, cleaner coal would be more accurate. And generally only cleaner in terms of air. Water actually suffers. (our nearby plant at Hatsfield Ferry just got forced by the state to install scrubbers. then the state realized it had to modify the plant's water discharge permit so that it could dump the crap they scrubbed out of the stakes into the Mon River. this is not BS!)
the technology is doable, but expensive, but still not so expensive (in concept) such that renewable become clearly "superior"
the technology is "bad" in that it makes the use of coal more sustainable.
that technology is undesireable not just for the effluents when burned, but also for the whole life cycle of impacts that starts with sending humans underground, ripping about landscapes etc.
that technology is desireable, since we are going to use this stuff anyway, it may as well be at least a little cleaner.
it is a complex discussion, is my point....


not just in environmental performance


Poisonous mercury from coal poisons tuna and our mothers milk.

Mountain top removal of coal ruins streams, aquifers, communities, landscapes, ecologies, planets.

There is absolutely nothing relative, post-modern, ironic, or excusable about any of this.

We are wrong. We deserve out fate.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26285
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Coal is a fossil fuel

Unread postby and also » Sat 23 May 2009, 14:54:22

pstarr wrote:
and also wrote:Yes, coal is a fossil fuel. The least-refined-by-nature fossil fuel.
It is also abundant - and therein lies the rub.
It will go away only because we create superior alternatives
superior will be judged by society primariy through our elected representatives, but also through just how much the citizenry is willing to pay for electricity.
clean coal is indeed a trademark label, cleaner coal would be more accurate. And generally only cleaner in terms of air. Water actually suffers. (our nearby plant at Hatsfield Ferry just got forced by the state to install scrubbers. then the state realized it had to modify the plant's water discharge permit so that it could dump the crap they scrubbed out of the stakes into the Mon River. this is not BS!)
the technology is doable, but expensive, but still not so expensive (in concept) such that renewable become clearly "superior"
the technology is "bad" in that it makes the use of coal more sustainable.
that technology is undesireable not just for the effluents when burned, but also for the whole life cycle of impacts that starts with sending humans underground, ripping about landscapes etc.
that technology is desireable, since we are going to use this stuff anyway, it may as well be at least a little cleaner.
it is a complex discussion, is my point....


not just in environmental performance


Poisonous mercury from coal poisons tuna and our mothers milk.

Mountain top removal of coal ruins streams, aquifers, communities, landscapes, ecologies, planets.

There is absolutely nothing relative, post-modern, ironic, or excusable about any of this.

We are wrong. We deserve out fate.


pessimistic fatalism is SO last year.
Cheer up!! Yes, these are issues, but would you have rather lived in any other century?
and also
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri 22 May 2009, 22:14:33

Re: Coal is a fossil fuel

Unread postby pstarr » Sat 23 May 2009, 16:14:42

and also wrote:
pstarr wrote:
and also wrote:Yes, coal is a fossil fuel. The least-refined-by-nature fossil fuel.
It is also abundant - and therein lies the rub.
It will go away only because we create superior alternatives
superior will be judged by society primariy through our elected representatives, but also through just how much the citizenry is willing to pay for electricity.
clean coal is indeed a trademark label, cleaner coal would be more accurate. And generally only cleaner in terms of air. Water actually suffers. (our nearby plant at Hatsfield Ferry just got forced by the state to install scrubbers. then the state realized it had to modify the plant's water discharge permit so that it could dump the crap they scrubbed out of the stakes into the Mon River. this is not BS!)
the technology is doable, but expensive, but still not so expensive (in concept) such that renewable become clearly "superior"
the technology is "bad" in that it makes the use of coal more sustainable.
that technology is undesireable not just for the effluents when burned, but also for the whole life cycle of impacts that starts with sending humans underground, ripping about landscapes etc.
that technology is desireable, since we are going to use this stuff anyway, it may as well be at least a little cleaner.
it is a complex discussion, is my point....


not just in environmental performance


Poisonous mercury from coal poisons tuna and our mothers milk.

Mountain top removal of coal ruins streams, aquifers, communities, landscapes, ecologies, planets.

There is absolutely nothing relative, post-modern, ironic, or excusable about any of this.

We are wrong. We deserve out fate.


pessimistic fatalism is SO last year.
Cheer up!! Yes, these are issues, but would you have rather lived in any other century?
I don't do trends anymore. They are soooooo last century :)

As for centuries, the previous one was great for lots of folks (including me) for much of the time (ditto). Others did not fair so well.

But the current century will be hell for everyone involved. Or at least those not lucky enough to have lived a long life and died a natural death early on into it. I'll do okay (though I'm not too deluded to actually believe in my own exceptionalism) because I have prepared for the worst. And enjoy doing it. :-D
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26285
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Coal is a fossil fuel

Unread postby DrBang » Sun 24 May 2009, 01:03:44

Clean coal is a real engineering objective. The goal is to capture emissions as the coal is being burnt. Carbon, sulphur and sodium is captured and stored in a non gaseous form. It can then be stockpiled. The end result is aerosol matter emissions is only a few % of what they are now. the environmental impact statement of such a plant is different in several areas to the current broad brush design of a coal wash plant. Like so many things it comes down to how you define the fine print!

Mining companies worked out how to do it in the early 1990's. It costs money to their bottom line though. Their basic strategy is to lobby governments to hold up legal environmental restraints imposed. Then they will be offered tax breaks by the governments of the day. More money is made for longer. Remember, mining contains some brilliant examples of corporations behaving badly.

This is a stopgap solution to a big problem. The same fundamental issues are still in place. Digging giant holes in the ground to extract non renewable resources will never be sustainable or environmentally neutral.

Kind Regards

Dr Bang
For every question , there is a lie. For every lie, there is a truth. For every truth, there is a way. And for every way, there is a time. This is the time.
User avatar
DrBang
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu 14 Jun 2007, 02:00:00
Location: SE Qld Australia

Re: Scientists invent cheap way to make gasoline from coal

Unread postby Vogelzang » Tue 07 Jul 2009, 20:49:36

Excellent news. I'm all for CTL. Vote Republican!
User avatar
Vogelzang
permanently banned
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Where did the mercury in coal originally come from?

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 21 Aug 2009, 19:52:20

Coal-bed mercury must have come from plants in the Carboniferous Period, right?
Do present-day plants sequester mercury?

There must have been an abundance of mercury in soil and water during the Carboniferous for the plants to sequester, right?

So, fish back then must have had even higher levels of mercury than they do now, correct?
User avatar
Carlhole
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Mon 05 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Where did the mercury in coal originally come from?

Unread postby smallpoxgirl » Fri 21 Aug 2009, 20:11:14

Carlhole wrote:So, fish back then must have had even higher levels of mercury than they do now, correct?


Probably. But this was the most advanced creature around to eat them:

Image

Mammals and birds hadn't been invented yet. So yeah. Like many things, it's not actually a problem for the earth. It's just a problem for us.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Where did the mercury in coal originally come from?

Unread postby Carlhole » Fri 21 Aug 2009, 20:35:55

smallpoxgirl wrote:
Carlhole wrote:So, fish back then must have had even higher levels of mercury than they do now, correct?


Probably. But this was the most advanced creature around to eat them:

Image

Mammals and birds hadn't been invented yet. So yeah. Like many things, it's not actually a problem for the earth. It's just a problem for us.


Oh...

...

Smallpoxgirl, are there any contemporary authors that write stylistically as masterfully as, say, Henry James or Joseph Conrad?
User avatar
Carlhole
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Mon 05 Jul 2004, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests