Let's fight climate change by burning more coal.

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,664
Location
The Golden State
Plan to fight climate change will mean more coal burning

WASHINGTON _ Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of the heat-trapping gases that cause global warming, but President Obama's plan to fight climate change would actually result in the nation burning more coal a decade from now than it does today.

The administration's plan, the centerpiece of a 700-page legislative package dealing with energy and climate-change, proposes to set strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide.

But to attract vital support from congressional Democrats representing states or districts that depend heavily on coal mining or on coal-fueled manufacturing, authors of the legislation have made a series of concessions that substantially soften its impact on coal _ at least over the next decade or so.

As a result, the Environmental Protection Agency projects that, even if the emissions limits go into effect, in 2020 the United States will still use more carbon-dioxide-heavy coal than it did in 2005.

I suppose this one belongs in the irony section, or perhaps the unintended consequences forum.

Maybe it can now be included in the list of wars:

war on poverty = more poverty.
war on drugs = more drugs.
war on terror = more terrorists.
war on greenhouse gasses = more greenhouse gasses.

Maybe we can get the government to wage a war on common sense, or is it already?
 
Werbung:
Yeah, that's a big problem with environmentalism. For instance, if we used electrical cars, assuming they wouldn't be solar or nuclear, then the electricity used to run then would still have to come from burning fossil fuels. However, I did mention solar energy as a good way, so I still think environmentalism has hope.
 
Can't lay hands on it right now but a team of MIT scientists have a new take on a couple existing technologies that doubles the effiency of coal energy output. And it USES co2.
Because it's mature tech we could see commercial level energy production in 2 v years.
 
Yeah, that's a big problem with environmentalism. For instance, if we used electrical cars, assuming they wouldn't be solar or nuclear, then the electricity used to run then would still have to come from burning fossil fuels. However, I did mention solar energy as a good way, so I still think environmentalism has hope.
I will agree with your analysis (and I am tree-hugging environmentalist!) At this point in time, we still need a massive source of energy to keep the world running. This will require finding a stable energy source that is cheap to obtain, has buy-in from the public, and has a long future. Once that source of energy is found, then the hard part begins...transitioning the world to actually use it.
 
Werbung:
Find a cheap way to isolate hydrogen and burn it in our cheaply converted internal combustion engines.

Till then make liquid coal and burn that
Or natural gas.

No shortage of any of that stuff.
 
Back
Top