Texans, I'm Madder Than Hell and You Should Be Too!

Originally posted by forestlady
You're right, I should have said the CO2 that is produced when you burn coal. I do know the difference, just didn't word it very well. But still, you didn't really address the problem that the CO2 creates. We have a majorly disproportionate amount of CO2 in our atmosphere - more than the trees can keep up with already.

OK, let's address those problems that CO2 creates.

1) Don't drive. Every form of transportation (drivable) creates CO2.
2) Live off the grid. Provide yourself with your own expensive solar panels or wind turbine (then fight the environmentalists on those).
3) Don't burn anything that would produce heat (burning releases CO2).
4) Stop breathing. You exhale CO2.


That should clear up the CO2 pollution problems.

Originally posted by forestlady
Also, you can generate electricity from water, i.e. dams, etc. The problem with that is that we will soon be running out of water.

I know of all the different forms of electrical generation. And as far as your water comment...


This thread revolves back to "global warming", which is a problem caused by the global pollution of CO2. With global warming, the polar ice caps are melting.... raising the levels of the oceans... giving us that much more water. What are you talking about!?

I must chime in here to say that the coal fired plants here in the United States are some of the cleanest and least poluting fossil fuel power plants on earth. To back this up I give you my personal experiences of traveling in the likes of Korea, China, India, and Cambodia. The plants in these places make little or no effort to mitigate the polution from the combustion of their fuel products. Pollutants that spew from them cover hundreds of square miles in nasty air and soot. Our plants are not the evironmental problem in the world. OUr plants are the example of how to use the resource properly.

It is untrue that one fossil fuel plant is significantly better as far as Co2 emmisions than any other. The lauded natural gas plants still burn fossil fuels for heat and produce copious amounts of Co2. While I have no problem with conservation of energy I think the whole "global warming apocolypse" is overblown. A few degrees of temperature does not mean the end of the world even if it does occur. In fact for some areas and ecosystems the increase in Co2 levels will mean increased crop production and growing seasons. I live in Minnesota and I think it would be great to be a couple of degrees warmer on average. Hence I hope we continue to use all the fossil fuels we can to create as much co2 as possible. Long live coal!

Originally posted by Infoholic
Everyone on here is whining and complaining about "let's save the earth" and "coal plants are bad"...

You know, Infoholic, I just lost a lot of respect for you because of that comment. I've been reading your posts for years, and I've never seen such a crass, uninvited, and ignorant statement on your part. It disgusts me. If you have nothing more of value to add to thread than to insult it's contents and members, as well as offhandedly insult anyone who has any environmental concern, then please find some other thread to void your bowels in.

You raise no valid points except for those expressed in ignorance with no supporting references. I'd call you a troll, but I'd like to give you a chance to redeem yourself first, since you've got a pretty long history at ATS of posts that WEREN'T complete and utter tripe. So please, try again, and this time, try not to make a complete arse of yourself in the process.

Originally posted by Infoholic
and you stay online to argue your point... which is justification for producing more and more and more electricity.

We need electricity to function in today's world, that's a fact of life. Trying to discredit this thread because we're using electricity to communicate is the weakest argument I've seen yet, and is the sort of BS I would expect to hear from Hannity or O'Reilly. What, you expect us to use snail mail and hand-write hundreds, if not thousands of letters to each other? Do you have any idea how much paper that would require, how much in transportation costs it would take to deliver these letters, and how much time it would take to even get one round of letters, much less, responses out? The exponential scale of waste involved would be horrific in both time and energy. The comparison would be like emptying a reservoir to put out a candle as opposed to a drop of water.

Please, if you're going to argue against something, put at least a fraction of a second of thought into it.


Yes. Of course we need electricity. However, we waste an incredible amount as it is, and the additional amount we need to obtain can be had from far cleaner sources than coal, and even if it were from coal, there are far cleaner methods than what TXU is proposing.

Originally posted by Infoholic

Originally posted by thelibra
Not coal-gasification, not clean coal, but the single worst possible polluting energy source even compared to nuclear power.

At the point of making the above statement, I would have ignored this topic.

And frankly, the thread would have been better off if you had ignored it, as you've contributed nothing other than insult, derision, and some half-arsed argument about using electricity to communicate on this forum. You really should have gone with your first instinct. At least then you wouldn't have looked so ignorant in the process.

Originally posted by Infoholic
What is your point of this "debate", "discussion", "rant", "argument", or "whatever" you want to call it?

Did you even READ the damn OP? The POINT of it is to get my fellow Texans motivated to fight the 18 new power plants while there is still time, as well as communicate the struggle to the rest of the world. If you couldn't glean that from the OP, you either didn't read it, or I gave you far too much credit in the past.

Originally posted by Infoholic
But in your opening statement, you mention, or insinuate, that "coal gasification" or "clean coal" would be ok.

No, actually my exact words were...

Is the hassel of clicking a link to change your energy provider so difficult nowadays that you're going to just allow 18 COAL-BURNING power plants.

Not coal-gasification, not clean coal, but the single worst possible polluting energy source even compared to nuclear power.

Since you appear incapable of understanding context, I'll simplify it for you.
Electricity may be produce from coal in various ways, and there are various types of coal that can be burned. None of them are as environmentally friendly as renewable energy like solar or wind, but some types of coal use are cleaner than others. Coal gassification, for instance, is much cleaner than burning pulverized coal. It is a comparative cleanliness though. Still dirty, but certainly better than what TXU is currently trying to install.

Originally posted by shooterbrody

Then you should, as in all things, do some reading on it. Here are six common myths about hybrids, including the one about "having to plug it in".

www.chevrolet.com...

Well, that would be an electric car, which isn't the same as a hybrid. Electric cars you do, in fact, plug in. By the way, in case you were looking to go all electric in your vehicle, and you have the cash, Tesla Motors is one sexy ride that gets 250 miles for about a penny per mile, is silent, and gets 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. It's my new dream car.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
web.mit.edu...
I'm glad they do this research. Does it say when it will be commercially viable?

Well there's yet another company whose name I forgot that just announced about a month ago that they've developed a battery using nano-scale kasmir plates that gets an insane amount of capacity that dwarfs even this MIT battery. Now if the scale of R&D to Production to Marketing and Distribution is still what it was back in my college days, we're talking about 7 years till the nano-battery hits the open market. However, things have probably sped up in the last fifteen years, so we might see it in the next 4 years or so. As for the MIT battery, expect to see it in the next Prius in either the 2008 or 2009 model.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Uh....no...I sleep well at night,and the wage I make keeps my family happy and healthy.

Fair enough. Like I said, we all gotta pay the mortgage. Just...always try to remain honest with yourself about what you're contributing to by working there. In essence, you're trading a paycheck today for the future your kids have to try and breathe in. Sometimes it's the only choice you have. I've reached a point in my life where I couldn't live with that on my conscience. That's why I'm fighting TXU so hard. Our grandparents and parents knew what they were doing, but the assumption was that they'd be dead by the time it was a problem, and that their kids could deal with it. Their kids passed it on to us, and now that we're finally having kids, I can either choose to pass the problem on to them, assuming they live long enough, or I can take ownership of the problem and do something about it. I choose the latter.

Originally posted by Infoholic
[sarcasm on]A good change that everyone could make.... plant a tree.

I'm not really sure where the sarcasm comes into play. It is a good idea to plant a tree, and trees DO take in CO2.

Here's where the problem comes into play. And please, pay attention, because this part is very important for people like you to understand.

Tree's don't magically make CO2 vanish from the world. It is stored within them. Basically, when you look at a tree, you are seeing the end-result of CO2, plus photosynthesis and mineral and water consumption all mixed together in one living form. A forest is not some giant magic wand that magically causes an equivolent amount of CO2 to disappear from existence, it is a forest-sized repository of inert, stored carbon.

Now, over millenia, the trees break down and become coal, or oil, or whichever fossil fuel they are most suited for under the appropriate conditions, and the carbon is still locked within them, now deep within the Earth.

When that coal is later dug up and burned, you are taking ancient carbon that had already been removed from the air once, and releasing it into the atmosphere adding it to the already existing CO2 in our air, which is already at climate-changing levels.

Originally posted by Infoholic
That should make for a lot of happy healthy trees.

[/sarcasm off]

Again, you joke around, but actually, you are depressingly correct during your attempt at sarcasm. What it makes for is a planet where animal life dies off from CO2 poisoning and the only living things remaining are plants and animals that don't mind the CO2 levels. That means no humans. Forests are being depleted exponentially faster than they're being planted.

The equivolent would be like digging up all the salt in the world and dumping it into the ocean. And why worry, right? They're saltwater fish. They live in a saltwater environment, there's an ecosystem to handle it... but in point of fact, once you over-saturate the water with too much salt, it kills off just about every life form in the water except for those immune to the negative effects of salt.

And, back to the real-world, what we find is that we've already begun to over-saturate the air with CO2, we're digging up "old trees" (coal) to release yet more CO2 into the air, while simultaneously and rapidly removing the living trees that can't even keep up with the CO2 levels we currently have. It doesn't take a genius to predict what will happen next, but it does take looking past one's own bubble of ignorance.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
TXU and the railroad vs. The Natural Gas Companies

I disagree with this assessment. The Natural Gas companies like "Lone Star Gas" might have their own beef with TXU, but the people who are really, truly angry about this have no affiliation with the gas companies, or any political agenda to further their goals. I couldn't give two hoots about them, myself. The reason that I, my friends, my family, and everyone I can get to actually READ on this issue is upset, are for altrustic reasons, plain and simple. We don't want that crap in our air!

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Electricity from coal is a third of the cost that electricity from (cleaner) natural gas.

A bit of disinfo there.

If it is a third of the cost, that is a third the cost to TXU, not to its consumers.

Green Mountain Energy (clean, renewable energy) stands at $13.95 per kWh at 1000kWh.

TXU (the coal-burning bastards) charges $14.5 per kWh at 1000kWh (plus a monthly charge of $5.17).

Clean energy is actually 55 cents cheaper than TXU. So the argument that "coal is cheaper" is, frankly, complete BS, unless you mean cheaper for TXU's bottom line, which frankly we could care less about. And Green Mountain doesn't use natural gas, so that pretty much invalidates your other argument.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Not that TXU is "right" about these plants, this year; but I wanted to point out the players, for out-of-town spectators.

I'm sorry, Dr, but you've bought into the lies. It's not about LSG vs TXU, and it never was.

Originally posted by Infoholic
1) Don't drive. Every form of transportation (drivable) creates CO2.

That'd be a good idea, if Texans would agree to mass transit. Unfortunately, their attitude towards mass transit is much like your idea towards environmental concern. That is to say, ignorant, sarcastic, and providing nothing more than weak jokes and half-baked arguments designed to distract away from the real issue at hand.

Originally posted by Infoholic
2) Live off the grid. Provide yourself with your own expensive solar panels or wind turbine (then fight the environmentalists on those).

You obviously didn't read my earlier response about trying to live off the grid in Texas. I'll repeat it.

My father tried to do this option. He'd selected a wind Turbine and found that first, you have to pay TXU/ERCOT an exhorbitant fee of several thousand dollars to get disconnected from the grid. Further, for your house to be in compliance with Texas Energy Code (which was more or less written by TXU), you have to buy a special inverter from TXU that costs in the five-figure range. FURTHER, they refuse to allow any excess power generated to be sold OR donated back into the grid to defray the energy demands of others who can use your power when you aren't.

TXU and ERCOT have made it financially impossible for all but the most wealthy and philantropic people to live "off the grid" in Texas.

Originally posted by Infoholic
3) Don't burn anything that would produce heat (burning releases CO2).

That's not exactly true. It only releases CO2 if the item had carbon in it to begin with. However, most things are carbon based, so meh. However, this is a fairly good point, don't unneccessarily burn things. However, I don't think the problem with CO2 saturation is due to civilian burning in the U.S. Now in South America, where they're burning miles of forest to get farmland, that's a problem. Or the wildfires started by careless campers in California, that's a problem. A couple having a candle-lit dinner together? Or a dad that uses a grill for 20 minutes on weekend a month to cook some burgers? Not really much of a problem. A rural house burning a massive mound of trash each week? That's a problem.

Originally posted by Infoholic
4) Stop breathing. You exhale CO2.

This contributes nothing, and only makes you look like an arse.

I'm not advocating the death of the human race, nor am I suggesting we return to the pre-fire days. I'm saying that, considering today's technology and the available resources at our disposal, that 18 coal-burning power plants is an unacceptable option, and that Governor Rick Perry's fast-tracking it through is criminal.

Originally posted by Infoholic
With global warming, the polar ice caps are melting.... raising the levels of the oceans... giving us that much more water. What are you talking about!?

I think what she meant is that we're running out of hydro-dam spots. Hydro-power has it's own can of worms as far as environmental impact goes, but chief amongst them is that you are limited by the number of rivers, and polar caps melting doesn't increase the number of rivers. The reason you're limited on rivers is because you don't just plug a hydro-plant into the water and magically have electricity. You need RUNNING water, such as a river. It operates on much the same principle as a water mill.

However, the increased melt factor DOES mean that any rivers that were glacier-fed will probably dry up in the next decade or three, and it does mean that we're about to lose a few miles of coastline in the near future.

That doesn't sound too bad, right? Except when you consider the fact that almost every major city on Earth exists near a river, lake, or a coastline. Oh, yeah, and there's still that small matter of being able to breathe.

I think, Infoholic, the real problem is this. You see the problem as so huge and apocolyptic that you just throw up your hands in defeat, waiting to die, and making crude comments to people actually trying to do something about it because it's the only choice you feel you have left.

In truth, there's still time for us to do something about it. Granted, there's a lot of damage already done, but Global Warming isn't some insurmountable problem that no one can do anything about. It is the consequence of a lot of little problems that are each within our power to solve. As soon as you realize and accept that, you'll be able to be a part of the solution, and not just some guy standing on the side shouting insults and generally being a smartass.

Hi Forest lady,

I don't want to get into it with you today. But I can't stop myself from asking you about this statement......

Originally posted by forestlady
Hi Libra, I know exactly what you're talking about. A long time ago, coal burning was banned in many places because it is so bad for the air quality and was causing alot of lung problems in people.

What are you talking about here? If you can clarify what you mean by this statement, I sure would appreciate it. I'm unaware or any ban on burning coal. Are you talking about 19th century Europe?

Originally posted by Johannmon
It is untrue that one fossil fuel plant is significantly better as far as Co2 emmisions than any other.

On what data set do you base this? Here's mine.

U.S. Department of Energy Statistics



In 2005, CO2 emissions from Coal Produced 2,141,000,000 metric tons.
Natural Gas produced only 1,178,137,000.

Also according to the DOE
In 2005, in Texas produced a combined 258,660,697 metric tons of CO2 from all power plants. Of that, over half (152,352,729 tons) was from coal plants. Natural Gas, conversly produced 104,132,955 tons.

While the DOE says Coal Gasification could, in the future, reduce CO2 emissions in coal plants by as much as 40%, if you replaced EVERY coal plant in Texas with the future CG technology, the with the 40% reduction in emissions IN ALL PLANTS, coal would STILL produce 8% more emissions than the CURRENT CO2 released by Natural Gas.

Not that I'm that hot on Natural Gas, but I think it's very important to put your claim in perspective with actual data and hard math.

To make matters worse, as I've said, time and time again in this thread, TXU isn't trying to add Coal-Gasification plants, they're adding coal-BURNING plants.

Originally posted by Johannmon
I must chime in here to say that the coal fired plants here in the United States are some of the cleanest and least poluting fossil fuel power plants on earth. To back this up I give you my personal experiences of traveling in the likes of Korea, China, India, and Cambodia.

Not to burst your bubble but...

According to the DOE, Of the 39.7 quadrillion Btu of total primary energy consumed in China in 2001, 63.4% was coal compared to here, where we find the U.S. gets 51.5% of its energy from coal.

So, let's do the math using the most recent dataset from the DOE, updated July 12, 2006. Now keep in mind this dataset ONLY represents the CO2 emissions from COAL plants. I wanted to be very specific on this, to disillusion you from what you believe to be true.

What countries did you say again? Ah, yes... (based on 2004 numbers)

North Korea (65.28 million metric tons of CO2 from coal power plants)
South Korea (193.96 mmt CO2)
China (3,808.83 mmt CO2)
India (741.37 mmt CO2)
Cambodia (ZERO mmt Co2 - they don't even rate high enough to register)

The United States (2,232.26 mmt CO2).

India, the Koreas, and Cambodia, all added together, don't even equal half of the United States's CO2 emissions from coal.

China produces more CO2 from coal than the United States, this much is true. However, according to this table the total CO2 emissions from energy consumption sources in both China and the United States are as follows:

United States: 5,912.21 million metric tons of CO2.
China: 4707.28 million metric tons of CO2.

Together, with these figures we now have enough to do the math.

Take the total CO2 released from one country, and multiply it by the percentage of energy obtained from coal, and you find a much, much thinner comparison.

United States 3044.79
China 3808.83

An average "cleanliness" differential of less than 21%.

So, while, yes, the coal plants in the U.S. are cleaner than those of China, on average, they are still the single-filthiest source of power, on average, across the nation, even with future improved technology of which there are no plans by TXU to implement.

Look folks, I'm not some granola-eating hippy that plays bad folk music while spanging on the corner for weed money. I've done a fair bit of research into this, and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same instead of just randomly spouting wrong and misleading assumptions.


(edit: Corrections on formatting, and dataset)

[edit on 2/12/2007 by thelibra]

You have voted thelibra for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Give 'em hell! And lest anyone thinks this is only a Texas issue, I'll consider it such when Texas can keep their pollutants from crossing a state line. Makes as much sense as a no smoking section in a restaurant or a no peeing area in a pool.

You've brought up a number of interesting points. I had no idea Texas (or any other state) could that easily violate the federal regs. I'm going to do a little squeaking myself to my state delegation.

Originally posted by yeahright
Give 'em hell! And lest anyone thinks this is only a Texas issue, I'll consider it such when Texas can keep their pollutants from crossing a state line.

Thanks, and this is the other reason why I bring this to an international forum like ATS. If Texans end up dropping the ball on this, it's at least a warning to the surrounding states of what's to come...

Originally posted by darkbluesky
Hi Forest lady,

I don't want to get into it with you today. But I can't stop myself from asking you about this statement......

Originally posted by forestlady
Hi Libra, I know exactly what you're talking about. A long time ago, coal burning was banned in many places because it is so bad for the air quality and was causing alot of lung problems in people.

What are you talking about here? If you can clarify what you mean by this statement, I sure would appreciate it. I'm unaware or any ban on burning coal. Are you talking about 19th century Europe?

Yes, but also much more than that. London's coal-burning combined with the fog to create smog back in the 1200's and ever since then. But when I was in England back in 1969, many towns had banned the burning of coal because it was recognized to be detrimental to health. That's just one example and here's an URL for more info on that:

www.epa.gov...

If you google "coal-burning banned", you'll get alot of sources that talk about various places banning coal-burning.

Here's another URL:
www.hsph.harvard.edu...

"Boston, MA--Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, Trinity College and the Dublin Institute of Technology in Dublin, Ireland, examined the effect of a 1990 ban on coal sales and coal burning in Dublin on death rates in the city for six years before and after the ban was implemented. The study found that black smoke concentrations and non-trauma death rates were substantially reduced. The findings appear in the October 19, 2002 issue of The Lancet."

You can't get much more prestigious in reputation than the Lancet.

and a website that talks about coal-banning in China, as theLibra mentioned on page one of this thread:

www.china.org.cn...

Happy reading!

Hey,don't blame me!! I didn't vote for Rick Perry!! I voted for Kinky Friedman.

libra,

Are you judging coal power power plant "cleanliness" on only CO2 emmissions?
If so your logic is flawed as both the epa and doe formulas for calculating CO2 emmissions"assume complete combustion".
en.wikipedia.org...
"It should be noted that complete combustion is impossible to achieve."
"Incomplete combustion occurs when there isn't enough oxygen to allow the fuel (usually a hydrocarbon) to react completely with the oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water. The reactant will burn in oxygen, but will produce numerous products."
"Incomplete combustion is much more common and will produce large amounts of byproducts, and in the case of burning fuel in automobiles, these byproducts can be quite unhealthy and damaging to the environment."
"Quality of combustion can be improved by design of combustion devices, such as burners and internal combustion engines."
Gee whose power plants are going to have better design of combustion devices the US or China?
Does China even have an epa like department?
www.epa.gov...
"EPA uses six "criteria pollutants" as indicators of air quality, and has established for each of them a maximum concentration above which adverse effects on human health may occur."
OZONE-O3 is not emitted directly into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight.
NOx is monitored on a continual basis at every power plant. The epa has regulations on NOx and noncomplience results in at the least a heafty fine.
CARBON MONOXIDE-Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas produced by incomplete burning of carbon in fuels. CO is monitored on a continual basis at every power plant. The epa has regulations on CO and noncomplience results in at the least a heafty fine.
SULFUR DIOXIDE-Ambient SO2 results largely from stationary sources such as coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, pulp and paper mills and from nonferrous smelters. SO2 is monitored on a continual basis at every power plant. The epa has regulations on SO2 and noncomplience results in at the least a heafty fine.
PARTICULATE MATTER- Air pollutants called particulate matter include dust, dirt, soot, smoke and liquid droplets directly emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, cars, construction activity, fires and natural windblown dust. Particulate matter is monitored on a continual basis at every power plant. The epa has regulations on particulate matter and noncomplience results in at the least a heafty fine.

Hmmm...lets see which one of these is not like the others?
AHAH!! It is CO2!
CO2 is not monitored on a continual basis. Only recently has it been "in vogue" to bash large CO2 emissions; why you may ask ; because it has not been truely monitored and the formulas to determine the amount of CO2 are flawed as they are based on assumptions.

Also libra

Well, that would be an electric car, which isn't the same as a hybrid.

I will provide you the link again so you can read it; runs on gas and/or electricty.www.chevrolet.com... I believe that makes it a "hybrid".
I hope this an oversight on reasearch on your part,which I doubt as one can plainly read the registration date of a user on each post, and not an outright lie.

You know, Infoholic, I just lost a lot of respect for you because of that comment. I've been reading your posts for years, and I've never seen such a crass, uninvited, and ignorant statement on your part.

I'd call you a troll, but I'd like to give you a chance to redeem yourself first, since you've got a pretty long history at ATS of posts that WEREN'T complete and utter tripe.

Which one libra?

Face it, people need electricity. (that is for all houston chronic readers)

Honestly, where else is the great state of texas going to find its electricity if not from within? Oklahomo? Id be damned if I let a sooner control a texas city's grid.

Face it, we need electricity.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Are you judging coal power power plant "cleanliness" on only CO2 emmissions?

Not just on CO2, but so far CO2 has been the main focus of my criticism, because the other emissions that you named are already quite well known. However, the radioactive material released by coal power plants, which I linked to several times throughout the thread and even quoted from, should not be ignored. The other pollutants you listed, however, exist from coal power plants in spades, especially SO2.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
If so your logic is flawed as both the epa and doe formulas for calculating CO2 emmissions"assume complete combustion".
en.wikipedia.org...

In all honesty, I don't know exactly how the DOE calculates CO2 emissions, as it is not expressly stated on the DOE page (hence, I would also be leery of this particular wikipedia entry). After following the DOE's breadcrumb trail to find out exactly how they calculate the CO2 Coefficient, what they do say is:

from (DOE/EIA-0573)
Emissions coefficients for more than 20 petroleum products were derived from their density, heat content, and carbon share. These variables were estimated from the underlying chemical composition of the fuels and, where available, ultimate analyses of product samples.(192) For a more detailed discussion of how emissions coefficients for fossil fuels were derived please refer to Appendix A of the 1994 report.(193)

The 1994 Report it references (DOE/EIA-0573) has to be purchased by snail mail here. So, unless the author of the wiki entry has purchased the report, had it mailed to them, I'd be a bit leery in this particular case of the wiki entry. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of wikipedia, but when you're demanding an answer as specific as how the DOE calculates the CO2 Coefficient from the burning of coal in power plants, I think it's a safer bet to go with the source, and not the middle-man.

However, that said, I really don't care how they calculate it, as long as the same standard is used across the board. Realistically, they could have assigned letter-grades to it, like the way the UK rates energy efficiency. The point of the numbers themselves are to give the relative weight of each carbon footprint.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Gee whose power plants are going to have better design of combustion devices the US or China?

At the moment, the U.S. does. However, I would not expect that to be the case for long. Their cars are already twice as efficient and produce half as many emissions, on average. I've also linked to a few articles on China's role in the future of coal power plants. At the moment, it could go either way. At first, it looked like China was going to only use coal gasification. Now it seems a pulverized coal burning plant is going up every single week over there. As one source puts it, "having a coal power plant in China is like having a license to print money".

However, I feel compelled to point out that we here in Texas can do nothing about China short of electing federal officials who will work with China to alleve their energy crisis without them having to use dirty coal tech. You might just as well point out that the air quality in Tokyo is horrid.

We produce more CO2 emissions than any other country, and we can't do much about the other countries when we refuse as a nation to join any sort of international group to control global CO2 emissions.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Does China even have an epa like department?

Yes, of course they do, and they're just as flummoxed about what the "right" thing to do is versus the needs of an infrastructure growing at an insanely fast pace.

However, the question is still irrelevant. We can control the addition of plants in Texas, and to a lesser degree, the U.S. We can do almost nothing about China, especially when we won't even join the Kyoto Accord or propose a counter-group.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
CO2 is not monitored on a continual basis. Only recently has it been "in vogue" to bash large CO2 emissions; why you may ask ; because it has not been truely monitored and the formulas to determine the amount of CO2 are flawed as they are based on assumptions.

So I suppose you've got that DOE report then, that tells exactly how they measured the CO2 Coefficient? I'm not going to say you're outright wrong about it, but I would like to read it for myself, from a source other than a user-controlled content blog.

Further, I love how you just completely dismiss CO2 bashing as if it were something "in vogue" like cardigans, or pink flamingos.

CO2 is a new health and global climate hazard that has only been recently brought to light by the scientific community. Every single commonly accepted health and global hazard was, at one time, newly brought to light and faced the same public criticism from people whose interests were vested in industries that created the hazards on a massive scale.

Your comment is the sort of thing I would expect from the tobacco companies when someone suggested that smoking was bad for your health. They too would claim that there wasn't any real hazard to smoking, rather it was just "in vogue" to bash it.

Originally posted by shooterbrody

Well, that would be an electric car, which isn't the same as a hybrid.

I will provide you the link again so you can read it; runs on gas and/or electricty.www.chevrolet.com... I believe that makes it a "hybrid".
I hope this an oversight on reasearch on your part,which I doubt as one can plainly read the registration date of a user on each post, and not an outright lie.

Hmmm... (rereads), well, I still don't know that it technically counts as a hybrid, but I see what you mean about it being able to use any of the above. It's only a concept car at the moment, but it looks sharp and if it really can use electric, gas, biodiesel, that would offer a great array of options to the consumer.

However, I stand by my claim, present hybrids don't require "plugging in". That aside, this is largely a moot point. This thread is about dirty, unwanted coal power plants being forced on Texans, not a philosophical discussion on the nature of hybrid cars.

Originally posted by shooterbrody

You know, Infoholic, I just lost a lot of respect for you because of that comment. I've been reading your posts for years, and I've never seen such a crass, uninvited, and ignorant statement on your part.

I'd call you a troll, but I'd like to give you a chance to redeem yourself first, since you've got a pretty long history at ATS of posts that WEREN'T complete and utter tripe.

Which one libra?

Those were actually directed at Infoholic, not you. And if you were wondering which comments I was referring to, I believe I quoted them right before the statements made.... or were you wondering which post of Infoholic's wasn't trollish?

Actually libra I could care less what your "definition" of a hybrid is. Your inablilty to accept the fact that it is shows your obtuseness.

As far as the statements to infoholic I was pointing out the fact that either your lying or you dont read very well. You state you have read infoholics posts for years now and as we all can plainly read he became a member last october. That is not even a year less years. The fact that you put so much effort into that reasearch colors all your reasearch. When something is directly in front of your face to read and you intentionally mislead others in this thread speaks volumes of your integrity.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
Actually libra I could care less what your "definition" of a hybrid is. Your inablilty to accept the fact that it is shows your obtuseness.

Okay, first off, lose the 'tude. We had begun a pretty good dialogue, and it's starting to turn nasty again.

Secondly, the reason I wasn't sure if it was technically a hybrid is because it appears that the car has the ability to switch between various sources of power, rather than using them in conjunction at the same time, which has been my understanding of what a hybrid vehicle is. However, as I previously mentioned, this thread isn't about hybrid vehicles, so I didn't do a whole lot of reading into this one car.

In point of fact, the only reason hybrid vehicles were mentioned in the first place was in a very thinly veiled insult on your part in your very first response. So please, lose the attitude, and stop trying to derail the thread. If you want to start a thread on hybrids, please do so. I'm sorry that I didn't put as much research into your vehicle as I did into coal power.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
As far as the statements to infoholic I was pointing out the fact that either your lying or you dont read very well. You state you have read infoholics posts for years now and as we all can plainly read he became a member last october.

(blinks)...(scrolls up)...(squints)....

Huh... I guess I did put years. I honestly can't recall why I said "years", but I have been reading his post for months.

Let me get this straight, though... THIS is the best you've got?

You're trying to invalidate mounds of scientific proof, math, and sourced references directly from the DOE, by pointing out I mistakenly said I'd been reading Infoholic's posts for years when I meant months? You're casting judgment on me as a person, even, because of that kind of a ridiculous mistake? You somehow equate this to the debunking of the entire thread? Or are you just trying to derail it some more?

Wow. Man are you desperate. Did you have anything of value to contribute, or maybe some sort of RELATED subject matter? Or are you just going to keep up this kind of crap posting?

Wow... you go... This is the best example of proof and research I've ever seen on this forum.

When your opponenets are using ad-hominem attackes, you've won. Good job Libra.

I saw something about a hybrid, a hybrid car is any car that contains both gas and electric motors. No Hybrid that i'm aware of actually uses BOTH power sources at the same time. This may have changed recently. With the Prius, for example, you basically drive around with the electric motor until you ask for more power than it can make. Typically this means that during stops, heavy traffic, and light accel, the places where gas is sucked down the worst, the car will run on electric power. Once you push the pedal down farther, it will start the gas motor and use it as a gas 'turbocharger' of sorts. The braking of the car regenerates power, as does the unused power from the alternator when running on gas power.

[edit on 13-2-2007 by sp00ner]

Hey Mate, you said something about 'clean coal', 'coal gasification' etc. etc.

I don't quite get it: if I burn fossil fuel I produce CO2[fullstop]

What is the difference between clean coal and 'normal' coal?
Isn't the difference not CO2, but the other rubbish pumpt into the atmosphäre?

(I'm not going into renewal energie sources because U didn't either!)


Sammy

Originally posted by sp00ner
Wow... you go... This is the best example of proof and research I've ever seen on this forum.

When your opponenets are using ad-hominem attackes, you've won. Good job Libra.

Thanks man. Admittedly, the DOE has a very user-friendly interface and Google helped a lot in finding the docs I needed.

Originally posted by sp00ner
I saw something about a hybrid, a hybrid car is any car that contains both gas and electric motors.

See, there's a lot of defs for it, but it definitely looks like my definition of a hybrid was way too narrow. HowStuffWorks.com even broadens the definition to include mopeds, because they combine peddling power with a gas engine. Like I said, I really haven't done a lot of research into how hybrids work except to read the myth page and to check their mileage. That is a project for another thread, to be sure.

Originally posted by Aldolas
Hey Mate, you said something about 'clean coal', 'coal gasification' etc. etc.

I don't quite get it: if I burn fossil fuel I produce CO2[fullstop]

What is the difference between clean coal and 'normal' coal?
Isn't the difference not CO2, but the other rubbish pumpt into the atmosphäre?

Good question. Since I'm limited on time before I have to leave work, I'll give the abbreviated version.

First, let's address Coal Gasification.
Here's a diagram if you're really in a hurry.



In layman's terms, the coal's impurities are "washed" out and removed, what's left is a far more pure coal that is gasified by pressure and steam, the result of which is a much more pure and controlled "burn". The "rubbish" gasses are summarily trapped by other chemical processes which allow for much easier removal, recycling, or disposal. Used as an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) the other waste products, such as heat, are largely recovered for use, such as to boil water for a steam turbine. This recapturing of waste heat allows for a massive increase in efficiency.

The increase in efficiency means less coal is used to generate the same amount of power, which means a lower cost to consumers, as well as a significant (40%) reduction in CO2 emissions.

Now, with the addition of something like the soda-lime filters used in rebreathers, the CO2 could be further captured and even if it doesn't make it magically disappear, the result would be basically a filter than has captured and stored the carbon, much like the tree itself did before it became coal that got burned to release the CO2 it had captured.

Clean Coal Technologies (or, CCT) are a collection of various methods that produce cleaner, purer coal, and capture the waste, gasses, and pollutants, of which Coal Gasification is one method.

Carbon Capture and Storage is another type of CCT.



I hope that clears it up a bit, and thank you for the encouragement.

libra,

The 2 posts related to timeline involving infoholic speak to your intentional haphazzard reasearch stlye as to find (or make up) what ever "scientific" facts you choose to post.

FACT
CO2 is not a hazardous air pollutant

www.epa.gov...

FACT
CO2 is essential for O2 to be present in our atmosphere as O2 is not made anywhere except in nature from plantlife

biology.clc.uc.edu...


FACT
Biological effects of global change could vary substantially across the globe

www.ucar.edu...

FACT
Texas has 28 threatened and endangered plant species

www.endangeredspecie.com...

So according to these known FACTS, your new power plants in Texas will discharge CO2, which will be used to feed plantlife, as plantlife sees CO2 as both nutritious and delicious. Some of this plantlife will undoubtably be endangered as Texas has 28 species of endangered planlife. These new power plants could be key in providing life giving CO2 to these endangered plants and saving these plants from the brink of extinction. I believe anyone who is against saving endangered plantlife is an antiplantite.

Libra, are you an antiplantite?