Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Lewis Gardner" <lgardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4660e92d$0$16279$d94e5ade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Robert Green wrote:
>
> > Today, as a result of these technological advancements, the concept of a
> > pollution-free, highly efficient coal-fueled power plant is no longer
> > confined to an engineer's drawing board. The basic equipment for this
new
> > breed of coal plant is being developed and tested, much of it at large
> > scales.
>
> Coal is a DIRTY energy source. It's extraction, transportation and
> preparation cause extreme environmental damage. These factors tend to be
> left out of the discussion.

That's a good point.  It's a reminder that these problems are extremely
complex, involving many factors that are often conveniently ignored so as to
muddy up the waters even more and make clear analysis very difficult.

> There is no clean way to extract energy from coal or to deal with the
> vast amount of waste it creates.

Ship the waste back to the mine sites in the empty coal cars it came in?
Seriously, though, there are new technologies that make coal cleaner, but
they aren't going to forced on the industry for years, if not decades.
That's too late.

>"Clean coal" is at best a relative term, at worst it is just more of the
>  BS we are flooded with by the corporate tools that run our government.

Perhaps "cleaner coal" would be a more accurate description.   As long as
the true costs are masked (the environmental damage from mining and
transport, as you've noted) the cost equations are always going to be easily
manipulated.

I still think it's critical to reduce, in any way we can, the noxious
material that coal produces.  Since coal isn't going away anytime soon and
in fact is now burned in China at record levels, we need more than just
nibbling at the demand with CFL's in the hopes that demand will decrease
markedly.  It's sad that the DOE appears to be another toothless Federal
agency, existing primarily to spout the industry party line.  One can only
hope they're doing a better job than the Feds have been doing with spinach,
peanut butter and dog food but I doubt it.

--
Bobby G.