Big Coal Predicted Climate Change...In 1966

Wm Polk has over 50 years experience in Syria..

 

And...?

 

And still let Obama screw things up that bad???

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...yria-from-pre-civil-war-to-post-assad/281989/

 

Obama had NOTHING to do with Syria. Hillary believed Assad was a reformer so the US didn't get involved until 2014.

 

otoh... there is more clean and less clean...

 

. ^

Not denying it. But the impression given that wind and solar are all fairies and light is a patently false one that doesn't help the debate

 

“Clean coal”.... it seems like a nebulous term. What do you think is meant by “clean coal”. Would it be fair to expect “clean coal” would be approximately as clean as solar and wind.

how are we coming on the clean coal alternative? I mean... I see wind turbines scattered all over the place... I see solar panels on lots of houses..... what about Clean coal? As far as I can tell, it is, so far, mostly hype? Am I wrong?

 

Obama was President in 2014. He drew a red line and then put his tail between his legs when the line was crossed.

 

Clean coal means that emissions from coal fired plants met all EPA requirements.

 

No there isn’t. Emissions that meet EPA requirements is clean.

 

Damn... exactly

 

So you except to see million dollar clean coal scrubbers on peoples houses?

Lol

Uhm yes wind and solar farms take up alot of land, why is that?

 

Do you know who Wm Polk is?

Understanding Syria: From Pre-Civil War to Post-Assad
How drought, foreign meddling, and long-festering religious tensions created the tragically splintered Syria we know today.

William R. Polk December 10, 2013

https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...yria-from-pre-civil-war-to-post-assad/281989/

excerpt:

Most is desert—some is suitable for grazing but less than 10 percent of the surface is permanent cropland.


Except for a narrow belt along the Mediterranean, the whole country is subject to extreme temperatures that cause frequent dust storms and periodic droughts. Four years of devastating drought from 2006 to 2011 turned Syria into a land like the American “dust bowl” of the 1930s. That drought was said to have been the worst ever recorded, but it was one in a long sequence: Just in the period from 2001 to 2010, Syria had 60 “significant” dust storms. The most important physical aspect of these storms, as was the experience in America in the 1930s, was the removal of the topsoil. Politically, they triggered the civil war.

 

There are two conversations going on here about reversing desertification and the results of overgrazing.

And the dust bowl of Syria's agricultural lands from2005 thru 2011.

 

So is it logical that I can post links from Mark Twain's adventures into the middle east if this is where the thread is going?

Side note I went to a grade school named mark Twain

 

With regard to desertification ? I think I have read all of Twain...

Are you talking about Twain's Innocents Abroad?

 

I simply asked to learn more about what was meant by clean coal....
and what is the progress getting there since it is less obvious than progress n alternative cleaner energy

since you choose not to define clean coal.... and since tou compare it favorably to solar and wind energy.... I guess we can agree that clean coal will remove substantially all emissions

and since you choose not to tell us how this effort is going.... here is my research

With just two coal plants in the world that make significant reductions in all air pollutants, anything approaching clean coal is happening on an extremely small scale. In fact, the carbon capture systems at both plants are only running on a portion of the total coal that is burned. ​

At Boundary Dam, the total capacity of all the units is 672 megawatts, but the single carbon capture unit is capable of about 120 megawatts. It is often down for repairs or running below capacity. At Petra Nova, carbon capture is applied to 240 megawatts of the 654 megawatt unit. That makes Petra Nova the largest coal CCS project in the world — an impressive feat. But given that the country’s total coal-fired power plant capacity tops 250,000 megawatts, it still means that less than 0.1 percent of American capacity uses the technique. Will we see more?​

“With the price of natural gas being as low as it currently is, there is relatively little interest in building new coal plants of any sort
​

And, unless there are added regulations (which I doubt you would support), it seems unlikely that there will be expensive retrofit efforts, So again we get back to my question about where we are with clean coal?

 

Instead of talking about Global Warming or Climate change .. perhaps we should be looking at breakdowns in ecosystems or the degradation of an ecosystem..

Like desertification.. or dramatic change of the water table in a hydrolic basin. or the loss of grasslands.

There are sometimes cascading effects even from small degradations in a given ecosystem.

 

Yes I know that.

IMO he should have at least flattened the Palace in Damascus (the Assad's were not living there) to let them know he could.

Nothing has changed for the better in Syria. The country is in ruins, 6 million Syrians are living in exile and Assad is still in charge.

Hardly a victory for Putin ..who prepared a new constitution for Syria.. Assad told him to pound sand.

 

There are radical differences in the emissions from burning coal...depending what kind of coal you burn. The far rarer anthracite (sometimes called "hard coal") from extremely deep underground in eastern coal mines burns pretty cleanly without even much smoke.

The far more common bituminous (soft) coal from across the U.S. produces the huge plumes of oil black smoke and other emissions. But even within the bituminous coal family there are major differences. Bituminous coal from the huge mines in the Powder River Basic of the Western U.S. burns far more cleanly than bituminous coal from the Eastern U.S.

 

Yes, I think that is why this coal is preferred for making steel

yes... I agree. And with out meaning to rudely quibble ....
it seems to me like you might have missed the point that I was trying to discuss

I think it was you who had pointed out that all energy has a pollution profile,.. and for that reason you disliked representing wind and solar as “clean energy”

my point is that by in large coal is not cost effectively clean.... of course various coal sources and various use cases will have different profiles of associated pollution issues. And while it is true that there are also various pollution problems associated with so called clean energy.... by in large those problems are dramatically less.

btw... in raising these points, I do not deny that we need coal ...
I do think that we should start making the effort to reduce our reliance on coal to the extent possible
Thx
Ardy

 

I have always thought that dirty coal meant coal with a lot of sulphur, with clean coal having a low sulphur content.

 

at one time that likely was true
Now it tends to refer to a rather extensive collection of technologies that are used to mitigate the various perceived problems with coal. These include pre washing the coal, using scrubbers to remove toxic gasses after The coal is burned, and using various carbon capture technologies to mitigate so called green house gasses.

depending Upon the level of technology applied... you wind up with cleaner coal
Although, realistically, you seldom wind up with halcyon dream that is usually implied in reference to clean coal

 

Regardless of the type of coal the EPA regulations must be complied with.