Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:31:16 -0400, Yogi of Woodstock
wrote:



With respect to ILL#6 and Pit#8, well guess what. Coal dust from these
types of coal create a condition called oxidative stress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

So you're anti-coal? You sure are coming up with enough arguments
against it. And here you were just calling Obama anti-coal.
I don't get it.
I didn't read about oxidative stress, got other stress to deal with.
The point of the FutureGen project is clean coal. That means
virtually zero emissions and useful byproducts instead of the crap
being put in the air and dumped in ash pits to run into rivers.
Chu says that a current coal burning plant puts 100 times more
radioactivity into the air than a nuke, which I've previously read is
the least of its ills, and we all know about acid rain.
Current coal is no free ride.
Another thing, like Cap and Trade, clean coal doesn't exist. Yet.
And I don't know if it will work, or be practical if it does.
I'm no expert on this stuff, just reporting what I read.
I like the idea of tapping all that coal. Anything that tides us over
until something else comes up - and doesn't make us captives of the
oil-rich countries.
And like I said, I think we will start building nukes. That's my
preference if they can't get enough juice from wind and solar, which
they probably can't without turning the country into wall-to-wall
windmills and mirrors.

Do you think that environmental groups are going to allow high volume
mining for gasification plants? Or that these types of coal also
affect pro-inflammatory genes that are not completely understood yet?

Every greenie group will have scare tactics. Nothing new.
"Pro-inflammatory genes?" WTF?
If we listen to every wacko theory about why not to do something,
we'll all melt into puddles of jelly.
I've seen plenty of those anti-coal ads here.
Look like pure greenie to me. They'd have me hand cranking a
generator to run my blender.
But they didn't stop this yet
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...l-project.html

Looks to me like the lefties are hammering Obama because of clean coal
power, and the righties are hammering him because of green power.
Part of the job.
I haven't looked deeply into the details of any of this.
I'll let the fanatics go after it. It'll work itself out - though it
might take the lights dimming out to make it happen.
That's about all I know. Or want to for now anyway.
You got me going on a spurt of "knowledge-seeking" but there's so
much self-serving crap on the net, it's tiring making heads or tails
of it.

--Vic

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:33:03 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Funny he tapped Chu, a nuke advocate, as Sec of Energy.
Obama's not against nukes. But it's a political hot potato, so it'll
be the last tapped. It'll happen. Polls have to get right.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...rst-nightmare/

Ahem... :)


You don't expect me to look at a blog for facts?
Might as well just listen to you (-:
I went to Wiki for Chu.
Better than a blog.
nana-nana-nana.

--Vic

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:22:27 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:31:16 -0400, Yogi of Woodstock
wrote:



With respect to ILL#6 and Pit#8, well guess what. Coal dust from these
types of coal create a condition called oxidative stress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

So you're anti-coal? You sure are coming up with enough arguments
against it. And here you were just calling Obama anti-coal.
I don't get it.

No - you misunderstood my intent - or perhaps I didn't make myself
clear.

I'm pointing out that there are many associated problems with
obtaining the right kinds of coal to make gasification work.

I didn't read about oxidative stress, got other stress to deal with.
The point of the FutureGen project is clean coal. That means
virtually zero emissions and useful byproducts instead of the crap
being put in the air and dumped in ash pits to run into rivers.

Again - my point is that there is no such thing as "clean" coal in the
sense that evironmental and NIMBY types accept.

Chu says that a current coal burning plant puts 100 times more
radioactivity into the air than a nuke, which I've previously read is
the least of its ills, and we all know about acid rain.
Current coal is no free ride.

Neither is "clean" coal.

And like I said, I think we will start building nukes. That's my
preference if they can't get enough juice from wind and solar, which
they probably can't without turning the country into wall-to-wall
windmills and mirrors.

Agreed - that would be my preference.

Hell, if France can do it, why can't we?

Do you think that environmental groups are going to allow high volume
mining for gasification plants? Or that these types of coal also
affect pro-inflammatory genes that are not completely understood yet?

Every greenie group will have scare tactics. Nothing new.
"Pro-inflammatory genes?" WTF?

Immunological disorders - which I'm something of an amateur expert on
as I have two of them - one a T-cell disorder and the RA.

If we listen to every wacko theory about why not to do something,
we'll all melt into puddles of jelly.

This isn't whacko science - it's a proven fact - medical science.

I've seen plenty of those anti-coal ads here.
Look like pure greenie to me. They'd have me hand cranking a
generator to run my blender.
But they didn't stop this yet
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...l-project.html

So on the one hand he wants to capture carbon dioxide but on the other
he's afraid of radiation.

Ok.

Looks to me like the lefties are hammering Obama because of clean coal
power, and the righties are hammering him because of green power.
Part of the job.
I haven't looked deeply into the details of any of this.
I'll let the fanatics go after it. It'll work itself out - though it
might take the lights dimming out to make it happen.
That's about all I know. Or want to for now anyway.

Well, look at it this way - you can tell what the crap is and what the
crap isn't. A self-aware citizen is what you want to be and if you
have to search through the crap to find the truth, that's what it
takes. It's not hard.

You got me going on a spurt of "knowledge-seeking" but there's so
much self-serving crap on the net, it's tiring making heads or tails
of it.

That's the whole point of discussion isn't it? :)

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:29:59 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:33:03 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:39:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

Funny he tapped Chu, a nuke advocate, as Sec of Energy.
Obama's not against nukes. But it's a political hot potato, so it'll
be the last tapped. It'll happen. Polls have to get right.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalca...rst-nightmare/

Ahem... :)


You don't expect me to look at a blog for facts?

And what facts were wrong?

Might as well just listen to you (-:

Funny - Mrs. Wave says that to me all the time. :)

I went to Wiki for Chu.

Stick with the blog - it's probably more accurate.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:00:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:34:42 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:27:42 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|I don't think there is going to be any sort of free ride on this. If
|you find one, let me know.... I'll be first in line....
|
|Sun power. Satellite mirrors in space - capture sunlight and transfer
|it via microwave to Earth. :)

That's ridiculous stuff of science fiction..... Roddenberryesque.

I'm thinking of something more practical, like maybe a Zero Point
Module.

True.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:22:27 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:


Speaking of which (discussion), I find *some* elements of U.S. Sen.
Lamar Alexander's proposals to build 100 new nuke plants in the next 20
years...admirable.

http://tinyurl.com/kwnlds

He presented it in much more detail yesterday at the NPC.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Captain Marvel of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:00:16 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:34:42 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

|On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:27:42 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|I don't think there is going to be any sort of free ride on this. If
|you find one, let me know.... I'll be first in line....
|
|Sun power. Satellite mirrors in space - capture sunlight and transfer
|it via microwave to Earth. :)

That's ridiculous stuff of science fiction..... Roddenberryesque.

I'm thinking of something more practical, like maybe a Zero Point
Module.

True.


All you need is the exciter from The Man with the Golden Gun and, of
course, a blonde who looks like Britt Ekland. The plot was only ok, but
the scenery (geographical, not just Ekland-ish) was spectacular.

And what's the name of Thailand's largest island? Don't forget to
pronounce it.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

H the K wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html


"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.


Indeed, Tom, we shouldn't do, try, or think about doing or trying
anything. After all, we wouldn't want to interfere in any way with the
dividends from your oil company stock.

Moron.

I just rented a car for a week, drove from Denver to Minneapolis. The
rental car company wanted to know if I wanted to buy carbon credits? I
thought to myself about their offer. What benefit do I receive from
purchasing carbon credits? None, nada, zero, zip. I still have to pay
the same money for the rental car. I still have to pay the same money
for gas regardless of where I purchase it. I get absolutely no economic
benefit from paying carbon credits.

Before you pass judgment I was driving where every gas station had a
sign on the pump stating that the "fuel" contained at least 10% ethanol.

Saw some very nice windmills out on I-90 and I-94. Not enough of them to
make a dent in anything but the farmers power costs to pump water around
his 5000 to 10,000 acre farm. Too far away from civilization to push any
volts to any city of any size. And, you can't burn a metal windmill when
it is 30 below zero.

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:40:59 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:22:27 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:31:16 -0400, Yogi of Woodstock
wrote:



With respect to ILL#6 and Pit#8, well guess what. Coal dust from these
types of coal create a condition called oxidative stress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress

So you're anti-coal? You sure are coming up with enough arguments
against it. And here you were just calling Obama anti-coal.
I don't get it.

No - you misunderstood my intent - or perhaps I didn't make myself
clear.

I'm pointing out that there are many associated problems with
obtaining the right kinds of coal to make gasification work.

Right. And they say similar about nukes, and automobiles, etc, etc.
This gets back to where maybe I haven't made myself clear.
Clean coal ain't here yet, and until they do more work all the
arguments against it don't hold water.
I did not believe that space shuttle contraption thing would fly.
I highly doubt the production model clean coal generating plants will
be worse polluters than what we have now. If it even happens.

I didn't read about oxidative stress, got other stress to deal with.
The point of the FutureGen project is clean coal. That means
virtually zero emissions and useful byproducts instead of the crap
being put in the air and dumped in ash pits to run into rivers.

Again - my point is that there is no such thing as "clean" coal in the
sense that evironmental and NIMBY types accept.

Yep.


Every greenie group will have scare tactics. Nothing new.
"Pro-inflammatory genes?" WTF?

Immunological disorders - which I'm something of an amateur expert on
as I have two of them - one a T-cell disorder and the RA.

My sympathies to you. But it wasn't clean coal that caused it.
Again, if the trade-offs are too great, and that includes public
health, it won't happen.
But it does look like there are more gassification plants in the
works. Non-co2 sequestering probably.
Which doesn't meet the Obama/Chu definition of clean coal.
BTW, I'm not advocating clean coal.
I'm content to let it all play out by means of the usual economic,
scientific and political arguments.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...l-project.html

So on the one hand he wants to capture carbon dioxide but on the other
he's afraid of radiation.

Ok.

As I said, I don't think he's afraid of radiation, except that from
glowing political hot potatoes. Easier to sell coal.
The anti-coal crowd is much smaller than the anti-nuke crowd.

Well, look at it this way - you can tell what the crap is and what the
crap isn't. A self-aware citizen is what you want to be and if you
have to search through the crap to find the truth, that's what it
takes. It's not hard.

No, as long as one's truth doesn't run up against another's, and it
ends up in endless politically-driven arguments.

You got me going on a spurt of "knowledge-seeking" but there's so
much self-serving crap on the net, it's tiring making heads or tails
of it.

That's the whole point of discussion isn't it? :)

Right.
After further googling, it came up tails. You lose (-:

--Vic

Green Choice? Well, not so much...
 

Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
This should be of interest to all of us, right, left and in the
middle.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...eenchoice.html

"Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may
need to be rolled into all users' bills."

Believe it or not, with Cap and Trade, that's what we're all looking
at. With the administrations known antipathy towards nuclear and clean
coal technology, all of us are going to be paying much more for energy
that cannot be delivered effectively and efficiently at a reasonable
cost.

Just think about it - that's all.
The first thing out of a socialist is taxation to solve problems...your
problems...mine...no theirs. Micromanagement using our money. They
haven't thought of what they would do when we run out of money to give them.
This Cap And Trade is a sham. They don't even know what everybody threw
into it.
It is a massive tax scheme and that's all.
Every special interest group that could afford a phone call has their
hands in it.