It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Palin's reference to "clean coal"

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:06 PM

Originally posted by Valhall Palin's statement of clean coal being an alternative energy is equivalent to rewinding over 20 years ago and some one saying "unleaded gasoline" is an alternative energy. No, it wasn't then and neither is clean coal. It is the next responsible and HOPEFULLY mandated step forward in common sense and technology.

I understand your point, but the term "clean coal" is very commonly used in the alternative energy discussions. Whether it's technically an alternative energy, or a matter of semantics, I think it's common for politicians to use this terminology.

As a matter of fact, Obama references clean coal in his website under "Green" jobs:

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.


posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:16 PM
As I see this, continuing to fight over oil is a world dooming affair no matter what.

It is in the end far more in our benefit to use our energy reserves now and let Asia fight over the last drops of oil and stay out of it, it would be majorly to our benefit to stay in power and strong through the coming oil wars.

Green, Clean Energy is under way from a myriad of directions over the next 20 years, it's a WHEN not an IF, the polution would be eliminated in a similar time frame. Using alot of coal for a couple of decades is a good idea.

In office, i'd cut ALL energy input and burn everything we have and definitely go with nuclear for now to supply our fuill national needs aside from cars

We have enough Oil includung alaska and our reserves to last 20-25 years, it's plenty. Now is the right time to cut the cord to the middle east entirely and keep our money to ourselves.

people talk of alliances in Asia..let them alone... they will fight and we will stay on top. United against us we are screwed.

If that sounds cruel...right now we are weaking our defenses and fueling the money to turn the region into a fireball anyway by making the purchases

I wouldn't spend one dime on foreign oil...

[edit on 6-9-2008 by mopusvindictus]

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by jamie83

Thanks for helping me to see how "they" see it. I prefer "greener" to "alternative", but that's just because of what I have already stated. Mandating a "greener" technology that can reduce emissions of a dirty fuel source is "greener"...not alternative.

I guess we could put it off to semantics, but I believe that would diminish the problem. As long as any politician references a non-renewable, polluting source of energy as an "alternative", it's more than semantics in my book.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by Valhall]

posted on Sep, 6 2008 @ 10:22 PM

Originally posted by mopusvindictus

If that sounds cruel...right now we are weaking our defenses and fueling the money to turn the region into a fireball anyway by making the purchases

I wouldn't spend one dime on foreign oil...

[edit on 6-9-2008 by mopusvindictus]

It doesn't sound cruel. It sounds stupid. And I don't think for a minute you understand the implications of your approach. With that, I'll leave it at that.

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 12:50 AM
reply to post by Valhall

Valhall Nice rude response, glad you have some skill at talking trash

Sadly I run the sales department for a Biodeisel company for the entire Southwest and your talking to someone who's knowledge of the subject would make a fool of you, and calling me names on top of that... for no reason btw.

#1 Sustainable Biofuel is already here and become relevant at aprox 5.75 a Gallon at the pump, it's not going to take close to 20 years for that to happen as we have reached peak oil and past it already

#2 We get most of our Oil from Canada that we do import

#3 Our reserves and Alaska and current holdings can sustain All America for 20-25 years by themselves if need be

#4 if we build even a handful more Nuclear plants we can make massive cuts in terms of both oil and coal use and extend our coal to last Hundreds of years.

#5 Shale becomes viable at the same price range as Biodiesel we have more shale than Saudi Arabia and Iran have Crude put together

The only issue is environmental impact and frankly there is NOTHING we can do about global warming except look for a way to eliminate it China and india are both going to vastly outstrip us in the pullution department in the coming years, if the USA were to eliminate all fossil fuels, the amount of polution wills till double in that time frame.

As a given our use of fuel would be the LAST of that type of polution we create on Earth because our alternatives work, we only need time to develop them and then we never need to use the stuff again, on a time line we would still eliminate it.

The rest of the world neither has the Coal or Shale or the Farmland available for all 3 options, we have the majority of the Shale and viable Farmland in North America

We have no problems other than economic costs we are Fine on the raw resources, the rest of the world isn't so lucky

But I have to say it's good for a laugh when Democrats and others like yourself NOT in the business of either Green Energy or OIL know more than those that work in the filed, Obama definitely has a leg up on someone who's Husband works in Alaska, He's busy worrying about the "environment of Alaska" when there are more national forests and parks and govt protected land in Alaska than all of America Combined, but he knows better than Oil companies an Alaskans as to what the Impact would be

And your response on my "ignorance" is just Huge of you sitting there at home... your way ahead of my curve on the subject, My boss is meeting with the Carlisle group to fund, Millions of Acres of Biodiesel in Arizona, turn the desert Green, build the pumps that bring fresh water from deep under ground and solve the Southwests water issue over this time frame and... LOl I don't even own a car and use the stuff lol

But you probably can't believe Republicans would do anything good for the environment right? Because we are bad with money?
huh? You think the investments aren't there to supply us with the same cash crop we had all these years with crude?

You can have faith in this: We won't need anyones oil when the time comes and that time can be here now... we don't need the Middle east and trust this, Republicans will own all the new energy alternatives in the long run too.

I actually find it amusing that, people think it's the Republican party holding us to mideast oil, when the reality is The Bible Belt is where all the farm land is and biodiesel is a huge alternative.

But...hey, Obama wants to sit down and talk to Iran
We can keep spending money out of the country forever lol, what an utter Joke!!!!

Btw... we didn't keep any of the mideast OIL, it's just some insane, bizzare thing G Bush did... that makes no sense unless his Saudi friends paid him off to do it.

No REAL republican wants to but a drop from anywhere in the region, they own the land the alternatives can be derived from.

Bush screwed us all, as soon as people get past that this whole affair was a group, within both parties and single out those criminals in a non partisan way, the better off we will all be.

My view on the subject is ignorant lol... I guess maybe you and every other hack with a PC should take over my job

[edit on 7-9-2008 by mopusvindictus]

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:08 AM
And oh sorry your Brilliant bit of info was that I was "stupid" not Ignorant

The plan to get rid of the dirty energy in the long run isn't already well underway... Companies don't decide these things the president does right?

It actually matters what the govt does right? because people aren't hard at work without Obamas incentives?

because you know your typical middle class American is going to get up Jan 1st and open a Alternative Energy company with Obmas tax refund and incentive program... that's why alternative energy sources are being created as we speak...

Joe shmo is going to go buy a few million acres with his grand tax rebate lol, because he will get tax incentives too lol.... How about you go down the bank and see if they will grant you a few hundred Million dollars to get into the energy game?
Alternative or otherwise

Niether president can do anything aside from decide if the land where we have Tons of fuel actually gets used and drill our own

and you know that's a great Liberal policy. don't touch our ground ever... let the Iraqis drill more, because they need the mess in addition to the depleted Uranium in the dirt right?

Huge move of caring about the environment.. just buy it from them ... because the crap doesn't end up in the whole worlds Air? because if we use Middle Eastern Oil China and India won't use coal to make up the slack right?

It will change the environment if we just let them do it instead of us...

[edit on 7-9-2008 by mopusvindictus]

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:24 AM
1. I work in the oil industry.

2. I'm a Republican

3. I stand by my former statements to you.

Have a blessed day.

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 01:46 AM
IF that is true, then I understand a blatant response of "stupid" to my post.

My thoughts, put you out of a job, no matter how much coal or oil we build up, the it would in the end be for the slow obliteration of much of the crude industry.

That being the case there is no need to elaborate as to why you think there would be such negative ramifications.

and frankly I will say, any republican involved in crude is not on the same side of the Republican party as I am...

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 02:03 AM
In addition to the fact you can't seem to find your cap button (jeeze louise), you can't seem to read the words on the screen either. You seem to like the words in your head better.

I'm not advocating ANY of the fossil fuels as " green alternative" energy. Not mine, not yours, not anybody's. And my point was directed to her comment of coal being a "green alternative". Coal being the dirtiest of the 3 fossil fuels is NOT the appropriate "green alternative" example for renewable, sustainable, green energy sources.

She didn't have a clue what they were because she didn't name them. She apparently thought nuclear power plants and "clean coal" were the wave of the future. Those are the two dirtiest energy sources when they are taken in their total life (cradle to grave) that you can pick!

It was frightening.

No - you're clueless and you're acting like a troll (without a cap button). I'm not talking about advocating one fossil fuel over another. I'm talking about a vice-presidential candidate thinking that it's super-duper to throw nuclear power plants and "clean coal" out as the next uber-clean "alternative" energy source.

It's still frightening.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by Valhall]

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by Valhall

Well that's a bit better, actually a paragraph of something in there as oppossed to an entire childish rant. 1pp of 3 is I guess what you can do tonight.

I disgree and it doesn't warrent being called stupid. And I would think, that being in Oil you have your biases (as do I honestly)

What I disagree on is the level of filth and that the alternative of coming oil conflicts isn't worth the polution, polution issues CAN be solved, we will figure out an answer to Nuclear waste and to keeping coal cleaner, and as I said, the situation wouldn't be for another hundered years 20-30 tops

There is only so much oil, we have the resources to do other things, if we are consuming crude it is gone that much faster and inevitable war follows, if not than for the share we drink, othernations will resort to dirty fuels sooner...

and it's all the same air, it goes all over the world so I don't see how not diversifying changes global airpolution

Trust me I won't ever build a home next to a nuclear powerplant, and I'm not a fan of coal either, but I know the answers lay in keeping the lights on and fixing the problems over time and no answer is tomorrow, in the mean time we are involved in a far more dangerous situation for no reason, we have alternatives even if I don't like them

A single War with another genuine power over the oil would cause more harm than 20 years of coal ever could and franklyn I'd rather bet on a cure for lung canver in my lifetime than supply money to the mideast on any level or be involved in the region

I know it's no great alternative, I just believe when your backs against the wall you throw caution to the wind and make a move, Oil is finite, it's time to start cutting the cord, the immeadiate result is not a great set of options, understood, but that's real incentive to work in other directions, We can't sit here and pretend the competion for oil isn't going to lead to WW3, we should absolutely use every option we have and back out of the game.

There was apoint in my life I didn't like my job... I walked out, it sucked, no money not knowing where a meal would come from... you know what, I did some things that were worse and in the long run I am my own man... I see nothing different on a national level

posted on Sep, 7 2008 @ 02:24 AM
And you know I have read your posts, your not a person that needs to call names btw, just because you don't like the options doesn't mean we have to participate in something sick and that's going to leave us dead in the water no matter what we do.

And me saying it doesn't make me "stupid"

posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:07 AM

How carbon capture and storage (CCS) could make coal the fuel of the future

It has been condemned as one of the main causes of global warming but is coal about to enjoy an extraordinary rebirth as the fuel of the future?

The first power plant in the world that will take the toxic emissions from coal and bury them deep in the ground opens today, carrying with it the hopes of scientists and environmentalists around the world.

If the power station in Spremberg, eastern Germany, is able to produce affordable electricity without polluting the atmosphere, it could mark the start of a new era for a fossil fuel whose days appeared numbered.


See also:

'Emissions-free' coal plant pilot fires up in Germany

New German Facility Begins Testing CO2 Sequestration

[edit on 10-9-2008 by loam]

posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 03:58 AM
Coal-burning plants are the world's biggest producers of electricity. But as climate change worries mount, the billions of tons of greenhouse gases they emit each year have put in doubt coal's future as a cheap, home-grown source of electricity.

posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 05:20 AM
Every one believes that coal is a dirty fuel to burn. When coal was burnt it releases smoke and that smoke will move into the environment and leads to acid rains. But now scientists have developed ways to capture the pollutants trapped in coal before the impurities can escape into the atmosphere. Today, we have technology that can filter out 99 percent of the tiny particles and remove more than 95 percent of the acid rain pollutants in coal.

Here is a link that might be useful:

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:33 AM
The technologies have made a coal mining industry a high-technological affair that is equipped with computers and all the necessary machinery Nowadays thousands of men and women in the world are working in 2,560 mines in 26 countries to supply billions tons of coal.
Here is a link that might be useful:

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in