Is the scientific community stupid?

Sure.

However, I still stand behind what I said about public consumption of science.

There isn't any indication that more science will change the minds of Americans on climate change, for example.

And, the same seems to be happening with issues such as vaccine acceptance.

Somehow, we're not a society that is ready to accept science - pretty much without regard to how certain the results may be and how incredible and all encompassing our progress has been.

 

Feel free to cite something.

Using coal means combining carbon with oxygen to form CO and CO2. That is the root source of the energy. And, attempting to capture that gas is not cheap in energy.

Also, coal depends on a supply chain from mining to final waste that is far from clean and includes emissions that have a death toll.

Building point source energy plants today requires a 20 year payback period. Investors have to be willing to bet that this entire process will pay out. As plant complexity increases, coal supply is rejected, and environmental concerns get recognized that has become an increasingly tough financial disencentive.

 

I already did....scroll up

 

Yes, you can cite that.

But, just giving a diagram from some unknown site is not even slightly good enough.

 

I also said I have pictures on Google of my old job at a pellet mill but for some reason I cant load them on here. (Edit..figured it out)

 

Past that crane that fell over in 2016, do you see the two huge scrubbers in the back ground?

Clean coal uses the same technology

 

That's a picture of something - not a cite.

A cite would be a link to the company or the "clean coal" technology so that I can know what it is that they are doing.

Saying "scrubber" doesn't mean anything. Numerous processing plants have "scrubbers" of various kinds.

 

It's my real life, not just posting opinions..do you know how messed up it is when your 150 feet up in the air construction this stuff and some person says it doesn't exist?

 

New technology, I know its complicated to burger flippers

 

Pelletizing doesn't solve the issues surrounding co2 emission.

Coal has carbon. The process that creates the energy is combining the carbon and oxygen - burning. The result includes heat plus CO2, some CO, and usually various other products depending on what else is in the coal - sulfur, dirt, whatever.

Some call it "clean coal" if it is washed so that it doesn't include dirt, rock, less sulfur (maybe), etc., etc. That reduces some of the emissions after burning - perhaps there is less particulate matter. But, that doesn't alter the fact that the coal contains carbon (C) which is combined with O2 to form CO2 + heat. Washing the coal doesn't change that at all.

Others suggest there is more than can be done.

If you cite your "clean coal" example, then exactly what is being done will be known, including what the emissions will be.

 

Coal and wood pellets have carbon it's the same thing

One is younger one is older, do you really want me to educate you on carbon 12 and carbon 13?

 

Far more cynicism than skepticism, a true skeptic can be convinced with facts. That isn't the case with the anti-science, anti-logic crowd

The problem is very simple. Unless you are willing to become an expert yourself, which means dedicating at least 12 years of your life before you can really start, you have to accept that you can't know. You can either accept the best information available from actual experts, or you can live in a fantasy world with no logical basis. Just believe whatever you want to believe. But this is where democracy gets in the way. We can't have people like that voting!

As for UFOs, there is a very long line of former military and intelligence officers, as well as government officials, who are the core of the leadership of the UFO culture. Some of the best evidence comes FROM the government. That is the real irony of the conspiracy theories.

Science is self correcting. And the success of science is undeniable. We all live in a world of technical magic because of science. We went from the bottom of the oceans, to the moon, Mars and beyond, and even sent a probe beyond the edge of the solar system, cured diseases, powered our homes, live in an incredible information age, and can feed billions and billions of people, because of science. Nothing else can compare to the successes of science. It is the most successful human endeavor in the history of humanity.

 

I'm not saying it doesn't exist.

I'm saying it's not even slightly clear what it IS.

Let's remember I'm interested in "clean coal" and so far you haven't suggested you are pelletizing coal. And, even if you were, I want to know the chemistry and emissions measurements - not a picture.

 

So you want me to educate you on a political forum? Google it or go to the library, I had to learn this in 2016

For my job.

 

Your message was perfect until the part that starts with "In other words". Complete nonsense after that point.

 

No, coal and wood are NOT the same thing.

 

Carbon wise?

Carbon-12 and carbon-13 are both stable, while carbon-14 is unstable and has a half-life of 5,730 ± 40 years. Carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 through beta decay. A gram of carbon containing 1 atom of carbon-14 per 1012 atoms will emit ~0.2 beta particles per second.

Wikipedia › wiki › Carbon-14
Carbon-14 - Wikipedia

 

Since I don't know what was said starting with "in other words" and it is not worth the effort to go back and try to figure out what you are talking about, I will only say it was just another one of your exaggerations. It is nearly impossible for a statement to be "complete".

 

So I really have to

They are both organic matter..

 

Who would of thought, a person would think wood and coal is not the same thing?

I am amazed.

 

The scientific community is comprised of nothing but human beings. Of course it is stupid. It is biologically impossible for it to be anything but stupid.

 

Science is a process that compensates for human error.

 

"Clean coal" pretty much means anything anyone wants it to mean.

The problems with coal involve a significant range of emissions. Coal power produces nearly half the airborne mercury in the US. It produces compounds of sulfur and nitrogen that form acid rain. It produces particulates that are traceable to increased deaths in regions that are downwind.

And, it includes production of more greenhouse gas per kwh of electricity than any other major fuel used for the purpose.

This is a very different profile than pelletized wood, and the scale is very different as well.

Big coal would like to use the word "clean". But, there aren't easy ways of solving all these problems. And, I see no indication of what THEY think "clean coal" means other than as a meaningless but catchy sales pitch.

 

No when you burn it and see harmless water vapor..

But I assume you never worked around it and seen it like I have?

Do you want more pictures when I worked around this dangerous technology?

 

It's just water vapor in the end game