A proposed coal fired electric plant in South Dakota has been scrapped. Details: http://watthead.blogspot.com/2009/01...sed-south.html
A proposed coal fired electric plant in South Dakota has been scrapped. Details: http://watthead.blogspot.com/2009/01...sed-south.html
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Pssst....it's 2009, not 1909.
Thanks.
They will not be satisfied until we are all riding bicycles. They don't care what effect their decisions make on regular folks or domestic industry, as long as it is the "green" thing to do.
Or maybe driving this:Originally Posted by Condescending Sooner
You do know that you have to burn coal to make that car run, right??
You still gonna be singing the praises of socialism while standing in front of the abandoned mass transit station, selling Chinese pencils and Cuban-like cigars?haha
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
No worries, The One has promised to have us off all hydrocarbons in 9.5 years.
So start buying your dilithium crystals NOW!
Paradigm shifts are hard. I get that.
The same type of thing can be said about the other side. They don't care what effect their decisions make on future folks, as long as it's the easy thing to do.
There has to be some middle ground.
La ola es mía.
You give me a sticker price under 13,000, and we'll talk. Also, would you mind asking the people to quit making those batteries because it's poisoning my world?Or maybe driving this:
There is. The problem is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the nutjobs on either side squeak (squawk!) loudest.
No. I'm still not sure that's the answer, but it doesn't necessarily take coal to make it run (other than the coal it takes to build the car).
http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/lvvwd/27686/
Eh, hydrogen fuel cells are just a way of storing energy.
You could make the car run by burning coal, but you could also make it run by nuclear power, solar power, geothermal power, hydroelectric, tidal, or good old natural gas. Basically, any mechanism we might have for making electricity can be used to power a hydrogen fuel cell.
In the United States, that often does mean coal. But that's because that's what we have in terms of infrastructure; that's not actually the way it has to be.
Which kind of wraps around to the original article.
And personally, I don't much like hydrogen as a fuel. The energy density is crap, and storing it is difficult.
I'd much rather find a way to efficiently synthesize gasoline and diesel, and have technology that scrubs emissions clean.
haha, the obligatory moral equivance argument.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
If the War on Coal is as effective as the War on Drugs, we'll soon be up to up eyes in coal.... and blood and corruption too!
You tell me it's the institution. Well, you know, you'd better free your mind instead.
(Shoo-bee doo-wah)
Do yourself( and me) a favor....invest in solar.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
Finding an equivalent to inane babble is hard, just sayin'.
Boomer Sooner
I finally figured it out (and it was always so obvious):
ANY public policy you don't like is "socialism."
It certainly does simplify the discussion!
Last edited by TUSooner; 2/2/2009 at 03:18 PM. Reason: speling correctiom
You tell me it's the institution. Well, you know, you'd better free your mind instead.
(Shoo-bee doo-wah)
The solutions for (haha)"global warming" are to grant the govt. more control over the economy. Maybe that's not socialism to you, but it quacks like a duck.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Posting Permissions
