Maybe it's because it is considered an invasive species in some areas. It's a tough little grass.
|
Personally I love the smeel of filthy coal pumping out of a locomotive, but i dont want it in my greens for dinner. Some country uses the sun to heat
a field full of pipes full of oil, not sure if its mirrors or what. Im thinking it might be Mexico since hot climate would be ideal. Fusion power will
be cool whenever its achieved, or maybe never.
|
No, what I mean is perhaps they are worried that it might spread to the neighbouring areas where things could grow. Outgrow indigenous species in the
areas surrounding.
Anyway, on topic with clean coal, it seems that clean coal technologies will be the bridge leading to the hydrogen economy.
Clean coal 'bridge' to hydrogen economy
Chris Shaddix, principal investigator for clean coal combustion at the Combustion Research Facility of Sandia National Laboratories' California lab,
believes the path to the hydrogen economy leads through the territory familiar to him and the members of his team.
We may some day be able to produce hydrogen by breaking up water molecules in association with the high-temperature heat from nuclear power reactors,
or through renewable energy technologies, but right now the most cost-effective way to produce hydrogen is with coal, he says.
Looks promising.
Experiments examine hydrogen-production benefits of clean coal burning
|
Having read the OP only: there is nothing wrong with burning coal, in fact it is encouraged. It supplies energy, and to evolve, we will need this
electricity (energy).
In 20 years it could very well be likely that the science and engineering of superconducters will allow the energy business to use superconducters on
a large scale in order to cut down on polution emmsiions.
|
If that's what you think you need to seriously go back and read my post on the first page. Coal plants produce more radiation than anything else on
earth. Including the nuclear tests in the 50s and 60s.
|
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Solar power is great but we need to be able to convert more of the suns energy to usable power. The sun beats down un us with about 1,000 watts per
square meter- that immense amounts of energy. Most solar cells only convert a fraction of that energy though. Its not a infinte power source but for
mankinds needs is pretty much is we have about a 4 Billion year supply left of the stuff.
I personally think a policy that used, Solar, Hydro-electric, Wave, Hydrogen and bio diesel and wind power would be best. Wave power for example is a
amazing power source, a tiny fraction of the energy created in ocean waves would meet all our energy needs.
If they could get fusion reactors working we wouldnt need any of that stuff for all practical purposes it would be a infinte energy source as long as
we had water. But its turning out to be very difficult to master. I have heard people say just keeping a fusion reaction contained in a Magnetic field
is like trying to hold jello with rubber bands. Since this stuff can be millions of times hotter then the sun you have to do it that way, no physical
container could contain it.
ShadowXIX i wonder if this is what your talking about?
energy from the ocean if his goes off the ground, this could change the world!
|
Who cares, it will be burnt by the Illuminati with the aid
of a carbon tax.
Just think if GE didn't stop all the upgrades from Tesla, Tesla
would make diamonds from the coal cheap enough for everyone
to have their closets full of diamonds.
You like that, anyone like that.
We play along with the Illuminati cause we have no other choice.
I hope we hear from Gore again, I know us chickens in the coop would
like to see where in nature the ice went but that we can't see.
|
