Proves my point. Granted I'm not a huge proponent of coal because the ash is dangerous, but the point remains
Coal certainly had it's problems - there's really no way to burn it cleanly. That's what nuclear is for.
I'll have to find the video later tonight when I have a bit of time. There's a college physicist who explains a lot of these energy things for laypeople. His college operates a clean coal plant. It's pretty amazing to see how clean we can get them. Granted at that level the cost competitive nature goes downhill, but still, I'd trust domestic coal over other forms of nondomestic
I'll quantify my statement. There's no way to economically burn coal in a clean way. Perhaps if delivery and distribution was near perfect...
This is kind of the lightbulb thing. Sure, I can make you an LED lamp that's going to last for 50 years. It's going to cost you $10k because of all of the special hand engineering that goes into making it. The $3 unit you get at the store that lasts for 5 years is a major compromise in engineering to get cheap manufacturability.
Nuclear still wins when it comes down to it.
In the US coal plants require ash capture. This removes the bulk of the radioactive material. What is emitted is basically background levels. Coal is reasonably safe these days.
Obviously nuclear expansion must continue and these "green"-anti-green technologies must be out. They are scams.
(post is archived)