Alaska state legislature proposes fund to support alternative energy including coal 12

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Paleocon Posted 10:37 am
   10 Jul 2008

   Renewable, no. Transmutable, yes.Well...maybe not in the mind of the ardent alchemist, but the consumption of coal to produce energy that, in turn, runs factories where solar PV panels and wind turbines are produced isn't all bad.
   AGW Fundies don't want coal renewed even if it could be. It releases too much of the stuff that plants breathe.
   So let's figure out a way to use coal as best we can to get us to the next level.
   Oh yeah, and fission.
   I want cheap, abundant, clean and green energy. We may need to improvise until we get there, folks.
   Sustainability should equal cheap, so sustainable is one Holy Word I can genuflect to.
   
   Often misunderestimated

   Permalink

2. 

   BlackBear Posted 9:13 pm
   10 Jul 2008

   An ExperimentI can agree with the above sentiment that using coal to produce the means to generate sustainable energy looks like the way we have to go, but I wanted to look at something Paleocon posted.
   "It releases too much of the stuff that plants breathe."
   This is humorous to me. I would like to see what happens to a healthy human being that tries living in a 100% oxygen environment... I mean, we breathe that stuff, right? And no, I'm not saying that CO2 will become that saturated; I'm making a point that organisms do have upper tolerable limits even to the things necessary for their life.

   Permalink

3. 

   emerlyes Posted 10:33 pm
   10 Jul 2008

   Ahhh... NO!Sorry but coal is not the way to go.  The environmental and public health costs are far too high especially when alternative solutions are available now to meet our energy needs.  The US needs to phase out coal instead of trying to find excuses that justify our continued dependence on it.  The brilliant thing is that renewables and energy efficiency can deliver the sustainable energy we need to power our lives.  We just need to get off our bottoms and make it happen.  Turbines don't build themselves.

   Permalink

4. 

   davidACCCE Posted 11:03 pm
   10 Jul 2008

   According to the article..."The draft legislation says energy projects such as a plant that produces ultraclean fuels from coal would be eligible for funding."
   No more details were given in the story, but I'll bet we'll be hearing more about this soon.

   Permalink

5. 

   Sean Casten Posted 11:21 pm
   10 Jul 2008

   BlackbearGood point.  There's a wonderful saying in the medical community that "poison is dosage dependent."  Anything - from oxygen to pure water - is poisonous at the right dosage.  
   Not that the trolls need feeding here, but it's a good point to periodically remind ourselves when the idiot fringe gets going on how great CO2 is for plants.  I say we offer them a diet of nothing but fish oil for a month in exchange.  After all, if a little omega-3 is good, a lot of omega-3 must be awesome.

   Permalink

6. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 3:27 am
   11 Jul 2008

   Everything You Know About Oil Is Wrong
   
   http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2008/07/everything-you-k ...

   Permalink

7. 

   Paleocon Posted 3:46 am
   11 Jul 2008

   It was meant to be humorousI don't want to live on fish oil. LOL.
   Plants absorb CO2 and they are growing faster as CO2 is more available. But they eventually hit a wall when the nitrogen they need is not as available in the soil.
   Plants don't have lungs, and they don't breathe.
   And I am not a troll.
   The propensity to call names is directly related to a lack of cogent argument.
   It amazes me that folks can keep a straight face and use the term "denier". As long as that passes for intelligent conversation, I suppose my term "AGW Fundamentalist" is just as valid.
   My point: Fossil fuels should be used to get us where we need to be.
   Solar panels and wind turbines are not woven out of hemp in communes.
   
   Often misunderestimated

   Permalink

8. 

   Paleocon Posted 3:52 am
   11 Jul 2008

   Too much environmentalism can be toxicI agree that dosage is the key.
   That is why I contend that the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power as a bridge to green, clean, abundant, affordable energy should not be dismissed out of hand as though it were a heretical affront to AGW Fundamentalist dogma.
   
   Often misunderestimated

   Permalink

9. 

   Sean Casten Posted 3:58 am
   11 Jul 2008

   PaleoconCompletely agree that we need coal, and I appreciate you making the point.  (Fun fact: you can't make silicon without coal.  Nor steel.  Good luck making a solar panel, it's computer controls or the structure upon which it sits without that upstream coal use.)
   That said, while there's a valid argument to be made that honest science is always skeptical, there's not much to be gained in suggesting that gravity, evolution or AGW might be wrong - the science is simply too compelling, and those who have something to gain by arguing otherwise are rarely of a scientific bent.  Thus the name-calling.
   But ultimately, that's all sideways to this post.  Is coal renewable?  Nope.  Is coal alternative?  Only insofar as you're likely to find Brittany Spears in the alt-pop bin at Best Buy.  Worse, do we currently use coal efficiently?  Not at all, at least when it comes to power generation.
   Thus, while one can certainly make the case that our industrial materials will continue to depend on coal (and hence any argument to eliminate coal is specious), there is no reason that one ought to subsidize coal as a matter of clean energy policy, nor that we shouldn't try to use all our non-renewable resources - coal and otherwise - as if they were finite.

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 5:38 am
    11 Jul 2008

    Only one wayConvert the coal to natural gas.   Add 1 part biogas (from waste) for 20 parts natural gas.  That way a renewable  energy economy backed up with natural gas/biogas has a zero carbon footprint.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

11. 

    zqahtt Posted 11:26 am
    12 Jul 2008

    plantsActually plants absorb CO2 only in the presence of light to use in the process of photosynthesis and release O2 as a byproduct, but they also repirate absorbing O2 to metabolize the sugars made during photosynthesis and release CO2 as a waste product of that metabolization, and the respiration process occurs all of the time.That's why greenhouses stay warmer at night because the CO2 concentration increases, trapping heat.

    Permalink

12. 

    Wolverine Posted 9:57 am
    13 Jul 2008

    TrollsThe word "troll," as it relates to blogs, has a specific meaning.  A troll is "someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."  Wikipedia.  Paleocon, you are called a troll, along with several others here, because this is a website for discussion among environmentalists about how to solve environmental problems.  While we have differences among ourselves, making comments like calling those who've correctly identified global warming as a big problem "AGW Fundamentalists" is being a troll, because you add nothing to the discussion here.  Same for any other anti-environmental comments.
    This is a website for those of us whose priorities at least include protecting the environment.  If you are opposed to this or that's not your priority, and you make comments to the contrary on this type of website, you're a troll.

    Permalink