Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do those blasted "clean coal" ads make you puke, too!!!???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:14 PM
Original message
Do those blasted "clean coal" ads make you puke, too!!!???
I can't freakin' believe it on DU... There must be some kind of protest that can be made -- some kind of filter on the ads...

And to use Obama's misguided speech in Pennsylvana and take his words out of context to push this SHIT just makes the PUKE FLOW HARDER!!!

WTF do you have to have ads for in the first place. Hell, the Dems came up with more money than the pukes last election...

-------------------------------------

For anyone who believes this crap...

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL!

THERE AIN'T ENOUGH STORAGE SPACE FOR THE CO2 EVEN IF THEY SPENT THE TRILLIONS OF $$$$$ TO SCRUB IT OUT OF THE PROCESS!!!

TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NRaleighLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. All ads make me want to puke. We mute them all, when we watch TV (which is rarely)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Donate as little as $5.00 to DU, and the ads disappear
to your eyes.

I don't see them....ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Ah, so it's blackmail?
I missed that visit from the hairy-knuckled folk...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. I like the ads mocking the ads that say coal is clean.
Those are pretty good.

Other horrible ads - the high fructose corn syrup is good for you ads and the drill the shit out of the US ads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh, you mean the Clean Coal that's the sponsor of "Public" Television?
Along with Boeing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. I have former colleagues who are working on clean coal projects
It's not all bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Clean Coal (Hack Cough!)
Unmasking the truth behind "clean coal"

http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/campaigns/climate-c...

Clean Coal???

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clean_coal

Climate scientists and environmentalists have criticized carbon capture and storage (CCS), the main enabling technology for zero-emissions coal, as a "pipe dream" that distracted attention and resources from already existing solutions. Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming and Energy Program, argues that the term clean coal is misleading: "There is no such thing as 'clean coal' and there never will be. It's an oxymoron".<12> The most comprehensive set of arguments in opposition to CCS was advanced by the study "False Hopes: Why Carbon Capture and Storage Won't Save the Climate, published by Greenpeace in May, 2008. "False Hopes" argued as follows:

CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The earliest possibility for deployment of CCS at utility scale is not expected before 2030. To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, global greehouse gas emissions have to start falling after 2015, just seven years away.
CCS wastes energy. The technology uses between 10 and 40% of the energy produced by a power station. Wide scale adoption of CCS is expected to erase the efficiency gains of the last 50 years, and increase resource consumpton by one third.
Storing carbon undedrground is risky. Safe and permanent storage of CO2 cannot be guaranteed. Even very low leakage rates could undermine any climate mitigation efforts.
CCS is expensive. It could lead to a doubling of plant costs, and an electricity price increase of 21-91%. Money spent on CCS will divert investments away from sustainable solutions to climate change.
CCS carries significant liability risks. It poses a threat to health, ecosystems and the climate. It is unclear how severe these risks will be.

Other objections to the notion of "zero-emissions" or "near-zero emissions" coal include the following:

* Slow penetration. Because CCS cannot be economically retrofitted onto existing power plants, the technology will only be adopted as new power plants are built and old power plants retired. Since coal plants typically last for about 50 years, only about 2% of the fleet is ready for retirement in a given year. Even if CCS did become commercially available between 2020 (Electric Power Research Institute estimate) and 2030 (Greenpeace estimate), it would take several more decades--after 2050--for even half the coal fleet to capture its carbon. But James Hansen and other scientists have said that a phase-out of coal plants that do not sequester their carbon needs to take place by 2030, a full generation earlier.<13>
* Geographic limitations. The actual degree of penetration of the technology will be further restricted by geographic limitations, since not all power station locations are close enough to geologically suitable storage locations. For example, power producing regions of New South Wales and South Australia that produce about 39% of Australia's CO2 emissions are over 500 km from identified storage locations.<14>
* CCS fails a life-cycle analysis. Because of their high energy requirements, CCS requires large amounts of additional coal to be mined, and the mining, transport, and usage of the additional coal increases emissions of global warming gases, thereby undermine the benefit of CCS. One study estimated a CCS system that removed 85% to 98% of carbon emissions would actually only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 67% to 78% due to these additional emissions.<15>
* Fig leaf. By providing an illusion of safe use, CCS creates an excuse for allowing continued expansion of coal.
* Diversion of resources. By diverting scare R&D resources, CCS holds up development of cleaner energy sources.

The concept of "clean coal" focuses on reducing air pollution. But the increased energy requirements of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) mean more mining to provide the 10% to 40% energy penalty created by the carbon capture and sequestration process.

Adding carbon and capture technology to new coal plants makes electricity from coal more expensive than energy from solar thermal and wind power, even when "firming costs" are included for alternatives (see table).

Capturing and compressing CO2 requires much energy, significantly raising the running costs of CCS-equipped power plants. In addition there are added investment or capital costs. The process would increase the energy needs of a plant with CCS by about 10 to 40 percent. The costs of storage and other system costs are estimated to increase the costs of energy from a power plant with CCS by 30 to 60 percent, depending on the specific circumstances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. not as much now
that there are ads being run against them...

before there was a response tho, they used to make me VERY angry. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
8. Give a few pennies, bye bye ads.
Only Whine is cheaper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC