[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.39 MB, 1599x1059, 1296088666822.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2969142 No.2969142 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /sci/ hows it going?

I was just watching cable tv and saw about 4 commercials on Coal being clean burning and efficient energy. Now, I knew this would be an inevitable step after oil prices either got too high or were running low. However, is this really better for the environment? how long will this energy last? When do you think people will wise up to nuclear power after the ordeal with fukushima?

Amerifag commercials by the way

>> No.2969157

>>2969142
Coal is quite ample for the next 1`00 years.

Its that damn pesky CO2 that'll fuck us if fossil fuels will fuck us

>> No.2969167

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We should be using more of it.

>> No.2969176

>>2969167
well, it's still horrid and dirty shit. The clean part comes from scrubbers. Those scrubbers are required by the EPA, and arn't on all coal burners, only new one. Much of the industry was grandfathered in.

I'd say the acid rain is worse that the CO2 as far as environmental impacts go.

>> No.2969193

>>2969167
Nah, first we get Saudi Arabia to sell all their oil for pennies compared to what our coal will go for once they run out of oil.

>> No.2969201

>>2969176
I was under that impression as well, that it produces about just the same amount of pollution as oil. As for the scrubbers (I'm not really sure what that is to be honest, I'm going to guess its something that reduces the amount of harmful output that burning coal releases) only being on new coal burners, are we still going to use old coal burners much like we use old nuclear plants? or is the EPA going to make a mandatory initiative for companies to modify old coal burners to include scrubbers, since you stated that the EPA finds them mandatory?

>> No.2969220

>>2969176
So make em all use scrubbers. Burn it cleaner. Build new clean burning plants. I agree we need to prevent acid rain.

>> No.2969274

"Clean coal" is non existant, just as safe sex is non existant. There is only "cleaner" coal, in which the power plants are run more efficiently and release less CO2.

However, mercury and other toxins/pollutants still flow into the air- the reason why most fish has murcury in it now, and the main cause of acid rain and other shit which will make you seriously ill, and dead eventually.

>> No.2969283

>>2969274
>implying using a condom without failing is unsafe

>> No.2969292

>>2969283
>"Safe sex" = "clean coal"
>condoms = scrubbers

Hmm...

>> No.2969321

>>2969292
Maybe if your condoms are made out of fucking coffee filters, you dense motherfucker.

>> No.2969333

>>2969321
It was just an allusion.

>> No.2969338

>>2969333
A shitty one, safe sex does exist, you might as well have compared it to safety scissors or something.

>> No.2969403

>I was just watching cable tv and saw about 4 commercials on Coal being clean burning and efficient energy.

You were lied to.

>> No.2969442

I was under the impression one of the big things for legit 'green' energy would be liquid hydrocarbons manufactured from coal? Making clean green diesel.. But what the fuck do I know. If everything I read were true then solar cells would be around 1298464876348756% efficient by now lol.

>> No.2969499

>>2969403
well yea obviously, the commercials were from oil companies and shit.

>> No.2969693

Coal CAN be extremely clean. There was a plant that was going to be built in my area that would be completely self contained. All of the fumes/exhaust would go through a process to be converted into natural gas with relative efficiency, and natural gas is indeed quite clean. Specially compared to many other forms of combustion-based power. Never got built though, because it was so damn expensive to build. Would have really helped the area, too.

The real problem with coal is how we mine it. Which either involves stripping off the face of the Earth, or sending miners underground in minuscule mining tunnels. Then there's the risk of a coal fire or explosion in those conditions, some of which can't be put out (like the one under Silent Hill PA. I believe I heard correctly that the location was an actual place? (though obviously the rest is fiction)).

In any event, coal will last us a long time, even considering our expanding energy needs. Combine it with renewable energy sources, and we likely wont be running out any time soon. However, I still think this is fixing our alcoholism with a gambling problem. When the coal starts to run low, we'll be in the exact same situation. We're just hoping that by then, we will have smartened up enough to put some real research into renewable energies. But I think any progress we make in that regard will be superficial, if coal does indeed replace oil on a wide-spread basis.

>> No.2970256

hemp oil?

>> No.2970292

>>2969693
That's Centralia. What the games were modeled after, roughly.

>> No.2970334

>>2969142
You sure it was coal and not Natural Gas you were talking about?
'Cus I get natural gas commercials here, and thats much different from coal

>> No.2970360

A lot of households in Pennsylvania use coal furnaces. It IS pretty damn efficient.