rushmc 23 #1 February 20, 2013 If true, and we keep fracking, we may be headed toward the biggest growth we have seen in a while. One even Obama cant stop QuoteFan discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape. The only waste product is therefore water and coal ash -- no greenhouse gases. As an added benefit, the metal from the iron-oxide can be recycled. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #2 February 20, 2013 hmmm, needed government funding to produce the test experiement. Needs mroe government funding for full scale test. Wonder if we should suppoert this with tax dollars? After all if it is worthwhile it ought to be able to be done without government subsidies."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #3 February 20, 2013 Quotehmmm, needed government funding to produce the test experiement. Needs mroe government funding for full scale test. Wonder if we should suppoert this with tax dollars? After all if it is worthwhile it ought to be able to be done without government subsidies. Over ten years? Well, the gov does spend much with universities I wonder how much of the 5mil they got in the last 5 years?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #4 February 20, 2013 I admit that I laughed when I saw that fox news was the source. I'll read it now, I'm sure it'll be a gem."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #5 February 20, 2013 QuoteI admit that I laughed when I saw that fox news was the source. I'll read it now, I'm sure it'll be a gem.why bother BYW I think it says AP aided with the story Make a difference? Probably not to one with such an open mind"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #6 February 20, 2013 Yep - this absolutely should benefit from some of Obama's government funding - it seems it already is. In the same way that research into all sorts of alternative fuels and energy production methods should benefit, as well as research into cleaner transport etc.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #7 February 21, 2013 It should But is it?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #8 February 21, 2013 Correction I went back and looked I do not see that AP was involved with this story"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 284 #9 February 21, 2013 QuoteIt should But is it? From the article: "The government plans to continue to support the project, as well as the concept of "clean coal" in general."Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #10 February 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteI admit that I laughed when I saw that fox news was the source. I'll read it now, I'm sure it'll be a gem.why bother BYW I think it says AP aided with the story Make a difference? Probably not to one with such an open mind Ok, "open mind"? Coming from the person who couldn't help but try to link it's success or failure to Obama. And you're talking to a proponent of nuke power. Your open mind might actually be blown by how much I fucking love nuke power. The gems I refer to are how Fox, much like you, can't open their mouth without slanting every detail in a way that makes it an us vs. the enviro-pussies discussion. For example: "The process removes 99 percent of the pollution from coal, which some scientists link to global warming. " Some scientist link coal burning pollution to global warming, no shit? Well...isn't the entire premise of the story and purpose of the research to reduce pollution in coal use? Just a coincidence, right? In fact, I'm so open minded that I didn't vote for a Republican President in the last three elections, something I've done my entire life. Clean coal is bullshit with current technology but I look forward to seeing more about this research. Also, what does BYW mean? Urban dictionary suggests "Bitch your whack". I'm not sure how to bitch my whack."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #11 February 21, 2013 Glad to see you supporting government spending on energy research. Yep, if the coal fuel cycle can be made as clean as (say) natural gas, great. Everyone wins. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #12 February 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteI admit that I laughed when I saw that fox news was the source. I'll read it now, I'm sure it'll be a gem.why bother BYW I think it says AP aided with the story Make a difference? Probably not to one with such an open mind Ok, "open mind"? Coming from the person who couldn't help but try to link it's success or failure to Obama. And you're talking to a proponent of nuke power. Your open mind might actually be blown by how much I fucking love nuke power. The gems I refer to are how Fox, much like you, can't open their mouth without slanting every detail in a way that makes it an us vs. the enviro-pussies discussion. For example: "The process removes 99 percent of the pollution from coal, which some scientists link to global warming. " Some scientist link coal burning pollution to global warming, no shit? Well...isn't the entire premise of the story and purpose of the research to reduce pollution in coal use? Just a coincidence, right? In fact, I'm so open minded that I didn't vote for a Republican President in the last three elections, something I've done my entire life. Clean coal is bullshit with current technology but I look forward to seeing more about this research. Also, what does BYW mean? Urban dictionary suggests "Bitch your whack". I'm not sure how to bitch my whack. I too support nuke energy I just responded to the tone of you post"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 February 21, 2013 QuoteGlad to see you supporting government spending on energy research. Yep, if the coal fuel cycle can be made as clean as (say) natural gas, great. Everyone wins. Yes Everyone will win because coal has the concentrated energy to work Unlike wind and solar And the gov gives billions to universities Even a stopped clock is right twice a day"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #14 February 21, 2013 Yeah, I quit taking Fox seriously long ago. Except for The Simpsons."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #15 February 21, 2013 QuoteIf true, and we keep fracking, we may be headed toward the biggest growth we have seen in a while. One even Obama cant stop QuoteFan discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape. The only waste product is therefore water and coal ash -- no greenhouse gases. As an added benefit, the metal from the iron-oxide can be recycled. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/ The fox article is wrong. The process still produces carbon dioxide, it has to. If you read the original source information they make this clear. The process produces a stream of nearly pure CO2. They are just assuming that the CO2 is magically captured and stored. They are also neglecting NOx emissions from the air oxidation to regenerate the iron oxide. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #16 February 21, 2013 They made it incredibly clear that it's not a very efficient process. But neither were a lot of energy sources in their early stages."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #17 February 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteIf true, and we keep fracking, we may be headed toward the biggest growth we have seen in a while. One even Obama cant stop QuoteFan discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape. The only waste product is therefore water and coal ash -- no greenhouse gases. As an added benefit, the metal from the iron-oxide can be recycled. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/20/coal-cleanest-energy-source-there-is/ The fox article is wrong. The process still produces carbon dioxide, it has to. If you read the original source information they make this clear. The process produces a stream of nearly pure CO2. They are just assuming that the CO2 is magically captured and stored. They are also neglecting NOx emissions from the air oxidation to regenerate the iron oxide. Hey, it's twice as clean as cold fusion so what's the problem? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #18 February 21, 2013 >The fox article is wrong. The process still produces carbon dioxide, it has to. If you >read the original source information they make this clear. The process produces a >stream of nearly pure CO2. They are just assuming that the CO2 is magically captured >and stored. Yes, you'd have to implement 100% CCS to get this to work. Still, that's quite possible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
