Why is it so hard for our governments to accept burning dirty coal is the worst thing for our environment?
http://www.enn.com/net.html?id=2027...
Answer:
Most coal is contaminated with radioactive Uranium and Thorium.
The radioactive Uranium and Thorium escape with the fly ash and are concentrated in the ash that remains after the coal is burned.
Radioactive waste and contamination is the big threat caused by the burning of coal.
With respect to Global Warming, the best scientists agree that we would need to recuce carbon dioxide emissions world wide to less than one tenth of what they are today to have any chance at all of stopping Global Warming.
Even that amount of a reduction might not be sufficient to stop Global Warming.
A reduction that large in carbon dioxide emissions would essentially require that we shut down all of the economies of the world.
That will not happen voluntarily.
I was invited this past week to join a group of United States officials and business people to meet with a trade delegation made up of officials from The People's Republic of China.
One of the United States officials brought up the subject of Global Warming and the need of all countries, including The People's Republic of China to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.
The officials from The People's Republic of China were very offended and said they felt that it was very threatening to them to be pressured to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions.
In fact they stated very clearly that in their view they need to be able to increase their carbon dioxide emissions substantially in order to keep their economy going.
It is clear that The People's Republic of China will not voluntarily reduce it's carbon dioxide emissions.
The People's republic of China produces enough carbon dioxide emissions on its own to cause Global Warming even if the rest of the world shuts down it's economies.
We need to accept the fact that Global Warming is not preventable, and instead focus on what we need to do to mitigate the effects of Global Warming.
With respect to flooding of coastal cities, they can be protected with dike systems similar to those in Holland.
Hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent. We need to help poor countries with their disaster preparedness programs.
Droughts will become more frequent and widespread. We need to help poor countries with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants.
We cannot prevent Global Warming, but we can mitigate the effects of Global Warming.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that using electricity is the worst thing for the environment?
Quit using electricity and then maybe people won't have to find an inexpensive way to get it to you, pal!
a properly working nuke plant produces less radioactive contamination than a coal burning plant.
Simple--take a look at the amount of bribe money (excuse me, "campaign contributions) the coal industry hands out every year.
Long question, short answer ...
... you have an oil baron's retarded son for a president.
Quite simply because we have huge coal reserves and it's the cheapest fuel available. Thus it's extremely tempting to rely on it for cheap power production.
If we can develop carbon sequestration technology which captures the carbon as the coal is burned and pipes it underground where it remains trapped, then coal can be a reasonable fuel source. Some power plants already use this technology. The problem is that it's very difficult to retrofit old coal plants with this sort of technology, but any new coal-burning plants should use it.
Sometimes you just don't get what you want. Reality must be considered, even though it may not be the "best alternative". It is good, nice and feels good to propose these academic and lofty questions, but to present it in such simple terms is not responsible.
It is hard because WE have decided on a certain lifestyle that includes the use of electric power, and WE demand it be abundant and as cheap as possible. WE also, through our representatives in government, set the pollution standards the power companies must use when providing all this power.
Your question assumes WE are not in the picture. WE are. WE can vote. Your question assumes the government is operating in a vac um and must get the blame for actions YOU do not agree with. The problem is, WE are the problem, not the government WE elect them and re-elect them over and over.
Besides, if all the coal plants were shut down, What do you replace it with? Oil, Gas, & Nuclear? Don't tell me wind and solar, because that is impossible. Wind and solar is very unreliable and expensive because the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine all the time.
It's all about the DOLLAR! The government doesn't give an iota of a sh*t about the environment. Never have, never will. He who waves the most money gets what he wants.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: