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