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.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Fact: most of the world's energy comes form the burning of carbon (chemical). The remainder comes from removing energy from other natural sources (water flow, air flow, etc) which lessens the amount of energy in the system and therefore is finite.
"Clean coal" should be a MANDATE, NOT an ALTERNATIVE.
Just to clarify, you don't burn carbon. You burn carbon compounds, but not the element itself.
Also, Water/Wind etc is infinite energy. Using it to generate electricity doesn't "lessen the amount of energy in the system" because it is constantly being replenished.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
True enough that most fossil fuels are carbon compounds (hydrocarbons). Coal, however, is primarily carbon itself. Carbon can covalently bond with itself to form coal, graphite, or diamond.
From your post, I assume you already knew that though.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Alas, I must disagree with you here. While it is true that wind/water energy is under constant replenishment, that replenishment is limited in the rate at which it can be replenished. For instance, a river will continually supply water from upstream rainfall, but the amount of water as a function of time is limited by the speed at which that rain falls.
Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning.
TheRedneck
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by stumason
Coal (discounting impurities), graphite, or diamond do not contain hydrogen. They are pure carbon. The carbon-hydrogen bonds are prevalent in oil-based fuels (hydrocarbons), alcohols, and to a lesser extent in other organic carbon compounds.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Valhall
"Clean coal" should be a MANDATE, NOT an ALTERNATIVE.
OK, I did indeed misunderstand your position. I will agree that clean coal is much preferable to traditional coal use. I am a bit confused however, as I thought traditional coal was being phased out anyway?
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Valhall
"Clean coal" should be a MANDATE, NOT an ALTERNATIVE.
OK, I did indeed misunderstand your position.
But listing coal (of any kind - or for that matter any of the fossil fuels) as an alternative energy is an unacceptable nonunderstanding of the situation by a potential leader.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I would also hope that the 'God's will' comment about the pipeline was simply rhetorical. I do not see any Supreme Being interested in whether or not we build a new pipeline.
TheRedneck
Concerning the statement above - I'm afraid it was not rhetorical.