Are you for or against coal burning?

[akari_mizunashi]

They have the technology, but not the funds.

Do they really have the technology to do that? I didn't know that. That's cool. But coal is dirty even without carbon dioxide - it gives off filthy, health-hazardous coal dust.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by akari_mizunashi

Forfisimum's comment that "coal and nuclear are our salvation" makes little sense to me.

I can understand that statement if you are just here as a member of some anti-coal lobby,if you are not reading what has been said here by myself and others then you will have missed what we are saying and of course the odd sentence plucked from mid- air will not make sense to you.We have discussed the radiation remaining in the clinker etc left by incomplete burning of coal,we are fully aware of this .Why I think we even made refernce to the use of such clinker as a cement bulker,breeze block,which was all the fashion c1930.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by akari_mizunashi

Do they really have the technology to do that? I didn't know that. That's cool. But coal is dirty even without carbon dioxide - it gives off filthy, health-hazardous coal dust.

Well I never...who would have thought of such a thing...........coal dust,is this a new phenomenon ?

[kev67]

Originally Posted by akari_mizunashi

Do they really have the technology to do that? I didn't know that. That's cool. But coal is dirty even without carbon dioxide - it gives off filthy, health-hazardous coal dust.

I went to an Institution of Mechanical Engineers lecture delivered by someone from an oil company who talked about a carbon capture and sequestration project they completed in north Africa. When I went on a guided tour around a local power station, one of the engineers said that they already knew how to build carbon capture and sequestration, but to implement it would make their energy uncompetitive. Carbon capture and sequestration is not 100% efficient at removing all carbon dioxide emissions. I think it only about 85% efficient depending on the technology. Also, it reduces the efficiency of the power station by quite a lot. It's not a long term solution because there's a limit to the amount of CO2 that can be sequestered. In the UK it is reckoned we could store forty years worth of our emissions. There is research going on into what the leakage rates are like. I can't believe it could be bad, as natural gas has been trapped in these locations for millions of years. CCS is interesting because while it will take time to develop some of the renewable and nuclear technologies and then more time to install them, CCS is something that could be implemented much faster. We are not going to suddenly stop burning coal because we rely on it too much.