Predisent Donald J. Trump: Drone Wars Episode IV: A New Button

[Byrthnoth]

Coal can be clean in approximately the same way that your car's catalytic converter means you burn clean gas.

It is just coal/energy interests rebranding the modicum of social responsibility imposed on them by the clean air act to try and avoid further regulation. The coal still isn't any normal person's definition of clean and that isn't a liberal misunderstanding.

[Ksandra]

The misunderstanding is what the term "clean coal" means.


It does not mean coal that doesn't pollute.

It does refer to the technology being done to reduce pollution of coal.

There is technology that has reduced pollution of coal.

The technology is inefficient and expensive and shouldn't be wasted on.

But it does exist.

It's stupid.

But it does exist.

He currently did not use the term "Clean Coal" incorrectly.

[Deftscythe]

It's happening.

[Gredival]

The misunderstanding is what the term "clean coal" means.


It does not mean coal that doesn't pollute.

It does refer to the technology being done to reduce pollution of coal.

There is technology that has reduced pollution of coal.

The technology is inefficient and expensive and shouldn't be wasted on.

But it does exist.

It's stupid.

But it does exist.

He currently did not use the term "Clean Coal" incorrectly.

Clean coal's only utility is for Obama and Biden to demonstrate that they "care" about coal workers and the coal industry. Which apparently was kinda useful because Hillary being honest about coal was bad for her.

[kuronosan]

Clean Coal is just about as real as low risk invasive brain surgery.

[Eurell]

Clean Coal is just about as real as low risk invasive brain surgery.

But thats true!

There are brain surgeons in Britain that do super noninvasive brain surgery! Stop trying to shit on Ben Carson

[shepardG]

So it's expensive to create the means to process and use coal in a clean manner? More so than other alternatives. However, where do those other alternatives come from? i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most clean energy (solar, wind, um...natural gas, what else?) comes from other countries? So we pay more to ensure that America's natural resources are kept valuable. Also the methods to clean that coal creates more jobs, and comes from American companies? Is this correct?

I'm all about clean energy, don't get me wrong, but we didn't build America on a shit load of uranium or oil. So wind and solar are great, but we didn't invest in those techs 30 years ago and we don't have the labor force to pay people pennys on the dollar to work and build them (like china can). So we make the best of what we have?
Am I wrong on these statements? I'm asking cause i'm trying to see it in another light. Trump's an asshole, but ya know what. So am I, I'm wrong about a lot of things, but i'm right about a lot of things also. Just trying to get some clarification

[Fiye]

What?

[shepardG]

Hey useful comment, thanks for the clarification....

[Ksandra]

Clean coal's only utility is for Obama and Biden to demonstrate that they "care" about coal workers and the coal industry. Which apparently was kinda useful because Hillary being honest about coal was bad for her.

I have to repeat myself constantly and say I am not a proponent of clean coal.

I am a proponent that we attack the things that should be attacked and not be so ignorant while doing so.


Yet again, the phrase “clean coal” since the 80s has meant coal technologies to reduce pollution and not “coal that is clean”.


By all means attack the funding/effectiveness but if you want to not sound ignorant don’t just say “clean coal doesn’t exist” because the term is referencing the technology being done which does exist.

Attack the right for it being a waste of time do to cost and much better alternatives.

I had lost it yesterday but my response was to this being spread around on my FB:

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPoli...8967683468046/


I seriously doubt the average lib knows that when he and the right say clean coal they mean clean coal technologies and not coal that’s clean.

[Byrthnoth]

Coal is a convenient, high-energy thing to burn. Burning coal produces, even in the best possible cases ("clean coal"), CO2. There are some wacky Europeans doing things with CO2 byproducts like piping them into greenhouses to try and increase crop yields, or just piping it way deep underground, but last I checked it wasn't even energy efficient, let alone economical. Recapturing and sequestering 50% is possible and not that hard. Recapturing 90% is very hard. When you go to recapture 99%, you might as well just not have burned the coal.

"Clean coal" can refer to anything from these recapture plans to, more commonly in the US, just making sure they aren't pumping stuff like SO2 and NO/NO2/NO3, mercury, etc. into the atmosphere. There are sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury impurities in coal, which go up and become acid rain (sulfurous acid = SO2 + H2O = H2SO3, nitric acid = NO2 + H2O = H2NO3) so even if you make sure you burn it completely (catalytic converter reference), you end up with these oxidated sulfur and nitrogen compounds along with water and need to stop them from making it into the clouds.



Quasi-related, but people don't really go to China for a cheap, unskilled labor force anymore. They go there for a cheap-ish skilled labor force. If you want to employ ten thousand mediocre technicians to run your assembly lines, China is the place to go.

[Salodin]

Man, we really discussing the definition of clean coal like people actually think they mean cleaning the physical piece of coal? Is your argument really that people think the coal itself is physically clean?

This is so asinine wtf is going on. Coal is dirty cause it releases lots more co2 then other energy production means we have access to. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, cause that shit is energy dense, but it has very real and dangerous drawbacks. Drawbacks we are now conscious of and are working around. One of those work around is not using it at all.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Eurell]

Yeah like, the term clean coal exists. Everyone's point is that its a stupid fucking term, no matter how long its been around. "Cleaner" doesn't mean clean.

[tyven]

what if you guys would shut the fuck up about coal and bring me the memo

[Byrthnoth]

Also, I'll say that the "failure" of the US to invest in clean energy infrastructure is partially a misunderstanding, because some states really have invested. The problem here is that we can't just elect a Democratic president and go, "Okay Obummer, where's the solar and wind?" because the federal government can only implement national incentives, disincentives, and regulations. Nothing Obama could have done would have gotten Republican states to invest in solar power. He couldn't even get them to take free money and extend Medicare.

If we get another democratic president and congress, it's possible that we might do something like:
1) Reimplement the Clean Power Plan
2) Eliminate some of the subsidies given to fossil fuel producers
3) Carbon Tax?

The transition might suck, but you would see a lot more renewable energy fast.

[Day]

what if you guys would shut the fuck up about coal and bring me the memo

i mean ffs

[Byrthnoth]

PS. Mitch was so much more in touch with the Republican base than I realized at the time when he swore off working with the first black president come hell or high water.

PPS. I hope history remembers him for placating his racist supporters, like a 1940s southern Democrat.

[Zetanio]

what if you guys would shut the fuck up about coal and bring me the memo

mah man

[Day]

i'm actually only looking forward to reading it myself, i dread the 5000 hot takes from either side tbh

[archibaldcrane]

So it's expensive to create the means to process and use coal in a clean manner? More so than other alternatives. However, where do those other alternatives come from? i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that most clean energy (solar, wind, um...natural gas, what else?) comes from other countries? So we pay more to ensure that America's natural resources are kept valuable. Also the methods to clean that coal creates more jobs, and comes from American companies? Is this correct?

I'm all about clean energy, don't get me wrong, but we didn't build America on a shit load of uranium or oil. So wind and solar are great, but we didn't invest in those techs 30 years ago and we don't have the labor force to pay people pennys on the dollar to work and build them (like china can). So we make the best of what we have?
Am I wrong on these statements? I'm asking cause i'm trying to see it in another light. Trump's an asshole, but ya know what. So am I, I'm wrong about a lot of things, but i'm right about a lot of things also. Just trying to get some clarification

As far as "energy security" goes, the US produces more natural gas than it consumes, so it's no less "secure" to use natural gas than coal. Most solar panels installed here are manufactured overseas, mostly in China, but that's simply because of lower labor costs and less environmental controls (its kind of a dirty business tbh). Not sure where most wind turbines are manufactured.

We use more uranium than we mine, as far as nuclear power goes, but there are dozens of uranium mining countries and securing supply isn't really a concern. We also use fissile materials from decommissioned nuclear weapons (mostly from Russia) to power nuclear plants, so that's another source of fuel.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk