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.

 

Is burning coal bad?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's called Beach Grass. It's used to reclaim the land where the waste coal is dumped. The gob retains heat and burns off the native plants before they can be established. The Beach Grass thrives in those conditions, and allows other plants to grow, and the land where the gob, and the mining was done to recover.

www.erosioncontrol.com...


Excellant Article! I'll see to it that my local politicians see this. Maybe I can go rogue and just start planting the stuff around polluted sites. You think they can survive underwater? I doubt it but ya never know.


Maybe the reason people aren't using this is because they don't know about it.




posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Maybe it's because it is considered an invasive species in some areas. It's a tough little grass.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Maybe it's because it is considered an invasive species in some areas. It's a tough little grass.


Define invasive species in an area where nothing can grow.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
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



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Well the stuff I've read pretty much said the stuff starts to get choked out by indiginous life when a layer of clean topsoil forms.

There was a similiar experiment started in the 70s in the Columbian waste lands(S. America, not British Columbia), where a bunch of Spanish speaking scientists, ecologists, etc. relocated to that place to build a sustainable microeconomy.

The villa is called Las Gaviotas.

www.friendsofgaviotas.org...

www.friendsofgaviotas.org...

www.friendsofgaviotas.org...




The challenge to plant trees in Vichada is massive indeed. The soil is acid, very
acid, with a pH of 4. Then the extreme summer conditions with temperatures in excess
of 40 degrees for months in a row, with a dry soil, and nearly no rainfall for
several months limits the chances for survival of young trees. The choice of trees
is not very wide. After a careful analysis, it was concluded that the Caribbean Pine
(Pino de Caribe) would be an excellent -native- tree to plant and grow in the
savanna of the Llanos in Eastern Colombia. Las Gaviotas started cultivating its own
trees, and soon after the first two years of plantation, it was demonstrated that
this pine species had the right resistance in these tough climatological
circumstances.

By the year 2000, Las Gaviotas will have planted some 11,000 hectares but the
impact of the program is already obvious with half of the job done. The plantation
of 6.500 hectares has lead to some surprising results, successes for which you
cannot plan. The pine trees protect the soil from the harsh sun and the continuous
dropping of needles is resulting in the recreation of a rich humus cap. This has
improved the pH which lifted from 4 to 5 and this in turn has facilitated the
undergrowth and the arrival of many new plants and trees.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 7-4-2006 by sardion2000]



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   

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!



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
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.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join