That is the ticket folks. Where is Stanley Kubrick when we need him? What we need to do is quit being so dour and earnest about climate change, and start producing dark comedies that will do for climate change, what Dr. Strangelove did for nuclear war. "Dr. Zarkov or How I quit Worrying about Global Warming, and Learned to Love it."  

I am waiting by my phone for Hollywood to call me for my script!

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

And seeing that Peter Sellers is no more available than Kubrick, I would cast either Streisand, or Whoopi Goldberg, in the title role.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

played by George C. Scott, inspired by Curtiss LeMay? In this movie we will need a character like Ripper to represent the coal industry in general:someone levelling Applachian Mountains. Maybe Robert Duvall would be available. Instead of saying "I love the smell of napalm in the morning." he could say something equally crazed about blowing the tops off mountains. Zarkov could be his reclamation specialist.

Somebody stop me!

Randy

Randy Cunningham

And another crazy man from the same movie ("Apocalypse Now") is Dennis Hopper.

Still, George C. Scott was a brilliant casting-against-type.  Whom else might we consider, with that range?  Billy Bob Thornton?  Patrick Stewart?  Tommy Lee Jones?  Jack Nicholson?

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

in Casablanca, I have to say to you caniscandida, "I think this is the start of a beautiful relationship."

Randy

Randy Cunningham

What is so special about coal in terms of grennhouse gases?  Any carbon-based fuel releases CO2 into the environment, including natural gas, bunker oil, gasoline, diesel, wood, scrap tires, and whatnot.  

If you're worried about fine particulate, acid rain, regional haze, and toxics such as mercury you might want to regulate large coal-fired power generation stations.

But the fact is carbon in, CO2 out.  I don't care what kind of fuel you use.  

Now there may be some technology to "squester" CO2 but I haven't heard of it, and I'm in the business.  I think what most people want to do is simply "turn the smokestack upside down" and inject the exhaust gases into the ground.  

I'm having a "duh" moment here because that just don't work, folks.  To inject any gas into the ground one needs enormous pumps that require HUGE pump pressure capacities of over 1000 psi.  Hey um, doesn't that require more power?  

Take a look at what the oil & gas folks use for "fracturing pumps."  That's one 6-8 inch diameter oil and gas well that require 4 to 6 of 1,000 HP diesel engines.

Now let's try the same thing with a stack several meters wide.  Sequester my arse, we spend billions of dollars converting toxic carbon monoxide into CO2, and now we have to inject it in the ground.  It is ridiculous, folks, simply ludicrous!  Show me how you can take a large power plant and turn the stack upside down ... or maybe reconsider your argument.
/Sammie

Onward through the fog

But when that water vapour does not condense any more, no more tea, no more cake and no more you.

Twiddle your thumbs, discount science and fantasise on into the coming desert.  Better take your hat and sunscreen, LOL, heat is nasty but nice, ah but what you forgot is that it is the cold at night that kills you in a desert.

It is coming as fast as a rowed boat across the bay, but just as surely.

Coal is the only way out, but the oil on the water MUST be removed SLOWLY

The overburden of heat in the seas will precipitate an ICE AGE, just like that!!!!

Hey GreenEngineer, they're developing the land next door so we saved some fairly rare Yellow Saphora, Palafoxia, and South Padre Blue Mist.  I feel better now ... OK, so I'm a butterfly nut!

Your point about carbon (as CO2) per unit of enery is well taken, and it is true that natural gas is possibly the cleanest in that regard.  However, when consumed, about 5-10 percent of the natural gas / mathane is not burned but is exhausted up the stack or out the tailpipe, and methane is a greenhouse gas.  

I like to appear fuel-neutral when is comes to any fuel, since to me it is the technology that is the key.  For example, natural gas engines and boilers can be very efficient, leading to high Oxides of Nitrogen (including nitric oxide, another GHG) as a trade-off.  So computer technology can be used to make these devices LESS efficient so as to moderate the emissions of certain contaminants.  Stack after-treatment catalysts can also help moderate the emission releases as well.

I DO think we can solve some of the problems with technology ... look at what we have done with gasoline car emissions over the last 25 years.  Sure, they have catalytic convertors and oxygen sensors to operated "stoichiometric" but the computer controller was key ... the air / fuel ratio was varied between rich and lean so as to optimize emissions in terms of cycles per second, really cool.  

That said, coal STILL sucks.  I fear its impacts on the environment, not just the air just what we have done to the land and our waters.  Much of the trace emissions found in Artcic ice core samples can be directly linked to burning coal (e.g., using Carbon 14 radioactive data as an indicator).  It is some really cool science but the results are quite depressing.  

Back to the butterfly garden, my friend.  :)
/sammie

Onward through the fog

Isn't it amazing that while we slap ourselves on the back about all the progress of mankind, we're still burning stuff to heat water (to make electricity).

I mean seriously, it's all just too primitive to even care...

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.

>> The strategy we need is to elect a government that will dedicate its focus to renewable energy sources,>>

Absolutely, SALT is the way forward, no footprint.

>> it's all just too primitive to even care. >>>

Indeed it is, but will anyone listen ?
And unless you are a big polluter who has the money to take these primitive practices to task.

The Big Oil group should be stripped of assets, and fined until skint, then that resource needs to be invested in salt.

I'd like to answer a G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan, about his accusations, since I think I'm a pretty fair fellow.  FYI, my "line of business" has been environmental consulting, emissions modeling, trend analysis, and retrofit technology.  I do not go around burning coal.  Sure, if you're looking over 10-20 years down the road, there may be some break-through technology out there.  My clients include some major ports and EPRI as well as Blue Water Action and EPA.  People like it because I work both sides of the fence and stay the heck out of policy.

I mean, I was a "green" hippie in 1976 so some of that hurt.

Hey, I enjoy the positive spirit of wanting to get into policy and to actually do something about this mess.  I just call them like I see them right now.  We are currently about 10 years behind the Europeans in promoting awareness, new energy sources, and even life-style changes.  Having a rather quirky Bush administration did not exactly help.  But it's incredibly complex and one simply does not "convert" a coal powerplant over to nuclear power.  Unfortunately, the Bush policy is to cap GHG emissions at the rate of population growth.  Like all business, it can be frustrating. /sammie

Onward through the fog

A nuclear power plant, I don't care how big, take about 10 years to get online.  Most tend to be very large, in units of at least 250 MW.  I am not aware of anyone permitting small nukes unless they are used for medical or research pruposes - not an electrical power generating facility.

And of course all coal-fired power plants can be converted to batural gas or oil.  How do you think they start one up?  That's right, natural gas is typically used for start-up purposes, before powerderized coal is introduced to the boiler.  
Sam

Onward through the fog