Al Gore, environmental terrorist

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: iFX
Al Gore has to be the biggest troll on the planet.

Why do people even pay attention to him?

Because he's right. That's why nobody pays attention to pissant small trolls like you. :laugh:

He is full of shit and you know it. Why go after new "cleaner" coal when there are TONS of old dirty coal plants already running? If he really cares about CO2 emissions he should be advocating "civil disobiediance" to shut down existing plants (energy and otherwise) that pollute far more then new proposed plants. Of course he can't do that because if he wins he loses. Wanna lose support for the green movement real quick? Turn off peoples lights.

Personally, I hope for the day that a large portion of our energy is created by wind/solar/geo but you guys are on the verge of losing a ton of support. The Gov is tapped out so they can't help out much and alternative energy simply costs too much. People will revolt before they stop running their air conditioners simply to produce less CO2.

The moment people do not have electricity at demand or it becomes to expensive due to renewables is the moment any serious move in the renewable direction will die.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: iFX

Al Gore has to be the biggest troll on the planet.

Why do people even pay attention to him?

Because he's right. That's why nobody pays attention to pissant small trolls like you. :laugh:

He is full of shit and you know it.

Wrong on both counts. He's right, and you have no way of knowing, let alone proving, that I "know" otherwise. :roll:

Why go after new "cleaner" coal when there are TONS of old dirty coal plants already running?

Did you miss the part where Gore only opposes so called "clean" coal if it didn't include carbon sequestration -- capturing the tons of CO2 that the process would release? Without that, "clean" coal isn't clean. :Q

Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?

(CBS)
.
.
But exactly what is the technology?

The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean because they don't burn coal exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas.

According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.

"And you can do it much cleaner than with the conventional coal technology," says Ramil.

That's the good news. But here's the problem.

"There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas.

There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major long-term pollutant," says Hansen.

But if carbon dioxide pollution is the problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there is a solution. They believe it's possible to recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground.

The idea is called "capture and sequester," and a global race is on to learn how it should be done. One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide in rock caves beneath the North Sea. America's efforts to sequester carbon have stalled. The Department of Energy planned to fund a plant, but pulled all funding when the price grew too high.

"They took seven years just to decide where they were going to make a pilot plant - and then they decided to cancel it," says Hansen.

And now, the failure to solve the carbon dioxide problem is a threat to coal itself. In the last five years, at least 63 coal-fired power plants have been scrapped or defeated by public opposition.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist helped pull the plug on the two clean coal plants because he says without a carbon solution, clean coal is not an option.

"Until that time comes, we want to develop more solar, more nuclear, more wind," says Crist.

Which is why the industry needs an ad campaign. Until the federal government funds the research on carbon dioxide, America's reliance on coal is in long-term trouble.

Did you do your homework to find out how clean, let alone practical, so called "clean" really coal is?

Didn't think so. :roll:

There's a lot to be considered and a lot of work to be done before coal can be considered a "clean," let alone an economical energy source. It may work, and it may happen, and if and when it does, it may still not be the best choice compared to renewable resources like wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power generation.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 40Hands

God forbid someone asks you to actually care about something other then yourself.

When it interferes with my freedom and liberty, it is crossing the line. Your enviroguilt ain't gonna work on me.

No. If any line is being crossed, you're the one doing it. Your "individual freedom" is not unlimited, and it carries responsibilities with it. Your rights end where another citizen's begins, and your failure to observe the individual and collective rights of others have consequenses.

Like any other citizen, you are subject to laws that define crimes you may not commit against others. If you do, you are subject to the sanctions defined by those laws.

Polluting our common environment is an assault against every other human being that threatens our very existence on this planet. You have no such "freedom and liberty" to do so.

Did you drive to work today? Or use any paper products? How about plastic products? Did you get your mail that had to be delivered? Did you mail anything out? Did you use electricity from a non nuclear/wind/hydro source?

Damn polluter infringing on my rights.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: 40Hands

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: 40Hands

God forbid someone asks you to actually care about something other then yourself.

When it interferes with my freedom and liberty, it is crossing the line. Your enviroguilt ain't gonna work on me.

What the hell are you talking about? How does using greener energy, green products, and recycling interfere with your freedom or liberty? We only have one Earth. Why don't we work to protect it instead of raping the hell out of it for profit?

Why don't you do my share?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Did you drive to work today? Or use any paper products? How about plastic products? Did you get your mail that had to be delivered? Did you mail anything out? Did you use electricity from a non nuclear/wind/hydro source?

I work from my home, I drive a Honda Civic with a five speed stick shift that gets a real 30 mpg in the city, and I combine my trips as much as possible, and I use recycled paper products when I can. Los Angeles has separated trash collection, and I recycle paper, metals and plastic I use as much as possible.

As far as the rest of your list goes, we're all captive to using the system as it is, but that's not an excuse for building new sources of pollution, especially when, as in the case of "clean" coal, carbon sequestration is a solution for the CO2 it would release. See my previous post. I included links.

Carbon sequestration would add to the cost of new facilities, but the "added" costs aren't added, at all. Not including carbon sequestration in the process would just defer them, and the real costs of dealing with the resulting damage, after the fact, would be far greater than the cost of preventing the problem from the start... if we didn't destroy the planet before we could fix it.

Good planets are hard to find.

 

[Kirby]

Clean coal cost more and doesn't burn as good. Keep it dirty until something else comes along better.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: iFX

Al Gore has to be the biggest troll on the planet.

Why do people even pay attention to him?

Because he's right. That's why nobody pays attention to pissant small trolls like you. :laugh:

He is full of shit and you know it.

Wrong on both counts. He's right, and you have no way of knowing, let alone proving, that I "know" otherwise. :roll:

Why go after new "cleaner" coal when there are TONS of old dirty coal plants already running?

Did you miss the part where Gore only opposes so called "clean" coal if it didn't include carbon sequestration -- capturing the tons of CO2 that the process would release? Without that, "clean" coal isn't clean. :Q

Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?

(CBS)
.
.
But exactly what is the technology?

The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean because they don't burn coal exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas.

According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.

"And you can do it much cleaner than with the conventional coal technology," says Ramil.

That's the good news. But here's the problem.

"There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas.

There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major long-term pollutant," says Hansen.

But if carbon dioxide pollution is the problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there is a solution. They believe it's possible to recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground.

The idea is called "capture and sequester," and a global race is on to learn how it should be done. One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide in rock caves beneath the North Sea. America's efforts to sequester carbon have stalled. The Department of Energy planned to fund a plant, but pulled all funding when the price grew too high.

"They took seven years just to decide where they were going to make a pilot plant - and then they decided to cancel it," says Hansen.

And now, the failure to solve the carbon dioxide problem is a threat to coal itself. In the last five years, at least 63 coal-fired power plants have been scrapped or defeated by public opposition.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist helped pull the plug on the two clean coal plants because he says without a carbon solution, clean coal is not an option.

"Until that time comes, we want to develop more solar, more nuclear, more wind," says Crist.

Which is why the industry needs an ad campaign. Until the federal government funds the research on carbon dioxide, America's reliance on coal is in long-term trouble.

Did you do your homework to find out how clean, let alone practical, so called "clean" really coal is?

Didn't think so. :roll:

There's a lot to be considered and a lot of work to be done before coal can be considered a "clean," let alone an economical energy source. It may work, and it may happen, and if and when it does, it may still not be the best choice compared to renewable resources like wind, solar, geothermal and tidal power generation.

I said CLEANER coal not "clean" coal but you obviously misunderstood my entire point.

The sad part is I am on your side. I just think the way you, and Gore, are approaching the problem is flat out retarded in the real world. As I said earlier, the best way to lose the game is to restrict access to or jack up prices on energy when people are hurting the most.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

I said CLEANER coal not "clean" coal but you obviously misunderstood my entire point.

OK, but it's still the same problem with the same questions.

1. How clean is "cleaner?"
   
2. What would it cost for the power it delivers?
   
3. Are there alternative power sources that would provide better returns on the same investments of the same resources?

The sad part is I am on your side.

Nothing sad about that. :thumbsup:

I just think the way you, and Gore, are approaching the problem is flat out retarded in the real world. As I said earlier, the best way to lose the game is to restrict access to or jack up prices on energy when people are hurting the most.

Gore's high profile allows him to reach large groups, and he's using it to try to motivate them to needed, immediate action. I respect what he's doing because I believe he's right that the problem is real and immediate, and we can no longer afford the luxury of coddling the those who profit from not taking action.

I'm not "approaching the problem" in any way near what he can accomplish. All I can do is try to minimize my own negative impact and encourage others to do the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

Gore isn't well liked. He remind people what imbeciles they were to vote for Bush and how 5 assholes stole the election and they said it was good. People don't like to be reminded how stupid they are.

So all the real feelings they have about themselves and pretend not to, they dump on Gore.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Darwin333

I said CLEANER coal not "clean" coal but you obviously misunderstood my entire point.

OK, but it's still the same problem with the same questions.

1. How clean is "cleaner?"

1. 
   
   Cleaner than we have now is better.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]What would it cost for the power it delivers?

   
   Anything cleaner than what we are currently using at a competetive cost is outfreakingstanding. People simply are not going to allow their electric bills to sky rocket due to green energy. Thats my point. Energy prices are already shooting up. Instead of protesting a cleaner plant then we are already using we should be using every last ounce of that wasted effort to bring renewable generation online. Protest the assholes that are preventing wind farms, protest the assholes that are preventing delivery methods for that wind power, protest the assholes that are blocking solar in the dessert..... That might actually work in our favor but the nonsense Gore is talking about is just that, nonsense. If the people need power and a new coal fired plant is the quickest and most economical way to get it then that is what they will do regardless of the protest. Power is like water in the modern world, people can not live without it.
   
   

   Originally posted by: Harvey
   [*]Are there alternative power sources that would provide better returns on the same investments of the same resources?

See above. This energy should be invested in making alternatives more economical. People will DEMAND renewable energy when it becomes cheaper than fossil fuels. We are well on our way to that day technologically but the same courts that hold up new coal plants hold up new wind and solar farms.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Anything cleaner than what we are currently using at a competetive cost is outfreakingstanding.

Evaluating such costs has to include the cost of building and maintaining building new facilities over their projected useful life, the value of what will be left after they've run their course and the costs and return on investing the same time and resources in alternatives. If we build new, "cleaner" polluting facilities, we're on the hook for them and dealing with the pollution they generate for decades. If they pollute beyond sustainable, livable levels, we'll have to write them off sooner.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Anything cleaner than what we are currently using at a competetive cost is outfreakingstanding.

Evaluating such costs has to include the cost of building and maintaining building new facilities over their projected useful life, the value of what will be left after they've run their course and the costs and return on investing the same time and resources in alternatives. If we build new, "cleaner" polluting facilities, we're on the hook for them and dealing with the pollution they generate for decades. If they pollute beyond sustainable, livable levels, we'll have to write them off sooner.

That is simply not realistic and its a waste of effort to advocate it.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Anything cleaner than what we are currently using at a competetive cost is outfreakingstanding.

Evaluating such costs has to include the cost of building and maintaining building new facilities over their projected useful life, the value of what will be left after they've run their course and the costs and return on investing the same time and resources in alternatives. If we build new, "cleaner" polluting facilities, we're on the hook for them and dealing with the pollution they generate for decades. If they pollute beyond sustainable, livable levels, we'll have to write them off sooner.

That is simply not realistic and its a waste of effort to advocate it.

We disagree on what is realistic and how ill considered and destructive your ideas are.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Anything cleaner than what we are currently using at a competetive cost is outfreakingstanding.

Evaluating such costs has to include the cost of building and maintaining building new facilities over their projected useful life, the value of what will be left after they've run their course and the costs and return on investing the same time and resources in alternatives. If we build new, "cleaner" polluting facilities, we're on the hook for them and dealing with the pollution they generate for decades. If they pollute beyond sustainable, livable levels, we'll have to write them off sooner.

That is simply not realistic and its a waste of effort to advocate it.

We disagree on what is realistic and how ill considered and destructive your ideas are.

We disagree on how important cheap and abundant energy is to the average joe.