It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Coal plants that are built today emit just as much CO2 as coal plants built 50 years ago (there have been some marginal gains in efficiency, but not much). Even worse, some of the measures that are taken to reduce conventional air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide actually increase CO2 emissions.
Originally posted by Harlequin
did you ever understand what was put? he wants teh coal companies to invest in carbon capture technologies - which right now they , dont.
so maybe your brother needs to be asking `why is this company wanting max $$$ and not trying to save taxes?` - the tax breaks are allready there for CO2 reduction but as an industry coal companies use them the least as they cant be assed.
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.
The technical requirements to do this, which scientists have spent decades developing, are immense. But the rewards, if Iter can be made to work successfully, are extremely attractive.
One kilogram of fusion fuel would produce the same amount of energy as 10,000,000 kg of fossil fuel.
Fusion does produce radioactive waste but not the volumes of long-term high-level radiotoxic materials that have so burdened nuclear fission.
Originally posted by CreeWolf
So, where do we put the nuclear waste from it? Can we ship it to France? Dump it in the world's oceans?
Source
Electricity generation consumes 40 percent of U.S. primary energy and is responsible for 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. In the electric power sector, coal accounts for 83 percent of the emissions. The bar graphs in the figure below show emissions from electricity generation apportioned among energy-use sectors.
Unlike fission reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than fission waste, the very short half-life makes the process very attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash.[7]
Originally posted by CreeWolf
I work at a Processing Plant and the cost of the emissions equipment to keep the environment clean is nearly as much as the production equipment itself.
Originally posted by CreeWolf
There are already EPA regulations in place to control plant emissions in the US. AND, we have a BUTTLOAD of coal resources.
Originally posted by detachedindividual
Wow, even more Republican Propaganda.
Notice how there's no dirty fighting from the other side?
That's because one party knows how to act like adults and allow people to think for themselves, and the other try everything they can to warp opinion, including outright lies, misinformation and propaganda.
I'm not even American, I have no vote in this, but I am already embarrassed for the Republicans. How do average Americans cope with all this BS being thrown at them to try to force people to vote their way!?
Leave people to make an educated decision, instead of telling them what they should do!
Now I really do believe the stories about McCain supporters trying to con people at the voting stations.
Shameful, truly shameful.
Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Quite frankly, I think that his middle class supporters are so politically and economically ignorant, that McCain could say "Obama wants to take money from the rich and give it to you", and they would still boo the idea. It boggles the mind really.