*
*
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Jul 28, 2014, 06:22:57 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search: Advanced search
657793 Posts in 9259 Topics by 3396 Members Latest Member: - vlozan86 Most online today: 75 - most online ever: 494 (Jul 01, 2007, 02:59:53 PM)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
Print
Author Topic: omg it's biden  (Read 10687 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
RavingLunatic
Registered user

Posts: 6408


« Reply #100 on: Aug 24, 2008, 03:06:15 PM »

Does it reduce CO2 emissions at all though? I'm not doubting that it's an improvement over existing regulations, and I'm not certain exactly what Obama's position is on clean coal, but if he advocates building new coal power plants, clean or not, I don't think that's part of any serious solution to global warming. The whole global warming situation is so dire it looks hopeless at this point. Radical steps are required and no one in power is willing to take those kind of steps. It looks as though coal is the power of the near future, especially for China and Russia, and it doesn't look as if there's any realistic way of stopping that. As I Understand it, the other countries of the world would have to pay China and Russia (and others with major coal reserves) not to use coal, and that's obviously not going to happen.
Logged

I will meditate and then destroy you!
Antero
Registered user

Posts: 7526


« Reply #101 on: Aug 24, 2008, 05:35:45 PM »

Coal is generally unacceptable as there are environmental costs to simply getting it in the first place.  Clean coal is still better than our current coal plants, though, and if a clean coal program is A) a small part of a much larger plan and B) coupled to strong regulation of coal power, it's fine.  The problem with clean coal is when people like Bush and McCain attempt to use it as a faux-green sop thrown out to placate those who don't know much about energy.

Sexism was certainly enough of an issue to explain the margin of victory.
Do you have any numbers on that?  We have polling data that shows that race issues gave Clinton a boost in Ohio greater than her margin of victory, not to get in to some sort of Oppressiolympics.
Logged

Quote from: nonotyet
this has been OPINIONS IN CAPSLOCK
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #102 on: Aug 24, 2008, 08:17:14 PM »

Aren't you too old to be drafted?

ha, by the time it became an issue I probably would be.

I'm trying to make a point here Greg

I was under the impression that I won't even be too old to be drafted until a few months from now. Blucas, you're... what, 27? That's not too old by a damn sight.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #103 on: Aug 24, 2008, 08:19:46 PM »

And re: clean coal, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The fact is, the technology for clean coal is at this point hypothetical, by which I mean that we can understand how to do it but no one's actually done it or even come up with a surefire way of doing it yet. In layman's terms--it does not yet exist. So there's no reason for anyone to turn to the idea of clean coal for any kind of a solution to anything. Meanwhile, let the record show that the only dudes I hear talking about clean coal seriously are Bush and Cheney, because they're bullshit artists of the first order.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #104 on: Aug 24, 2008, 08:23:40 PM »

Current dormant draft law on the books, the max age is 26, so I am already too old.

But obviously if they get desperate enough to reinstitute the draft they could easily raise the age to; there are a couple proposals out there for as old as 36.

In any case they'd start with the 20 year-olds.  Sorry jordanmichael! 
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
Antero
Registered user

Posts: 7526


« Reply #105 on: Aug 24, 2008, 09:52:13 PM »

Meanwhile, let the record show that the only dudes I hear talking about clean coal seriously are Bush and Cheney, because they're bullshit artists of the first order.
McCain pledged $2 billion a year for it.

I would like to suggest he instead pledges $2 billion for jetpacks instead, because they both don't exist yet and I'd really like a jetpack.

Edit: A hybrid jetpack.
Logged

Quote from: nonotyet
this has been OPINIONS IN CAPSLOCK
Ignatius
Registered user

Posts: 7082


« Reply #106 on: Aug 24, 2008, 09:57:07 PM »

Meanwhile, let the record show that the only dudes I hear talking about clean coal seriously are Bush and Cheney, because they're bullshit artists of the first order.
McCain pledged $2 billion a year for it.

I would like to suggest he instead pledges $2 billion for jetpacks instead, because they both don't exist yet and I'd really like a jetpack.

Edit: A hybrid jetpack.

come on, guys... unless you're out in space, personal jet propulsion is way less efficient and way less green than clean coal (even a hybrid jet pack). so quit with the grumbles and buy in.
Logged
girl
Registered user

Posts: 9144


« Reply #107 on: Aug 24, 2008, 10:02:36 PM »

I would also prefer a jetpack to clean coal. Also, I would prefer transporters to a jetpack. Also, I would like $2 billion.
Logged

this is a story and you're not in it
Ignatius
Registered user

Posts: 7082


« Reply #108 on: Aug 24, 2008, 10:04:22 PM »

I would also prefer a jetpack to clean coal. Also, I would prefer transporters to a jetpack. Also, I would like $2 billion.
Ok, now transporters, those I can totally get behind. Whose platform includes transporter funding? I hope Obama never watched The Fly...
Logged
jebreject
Registered user

Posts: 27071


« Reply #109 on: Aug 24, 2008, 11:42:43 PM »

Obama seems like he could be a Star Trek fan.
Logged

I'm not racist, I've got lots of black Facebook friends.
girl
Registered user

Posts: 9144


« Reply #110 on: Aug 24, 2008, 11:52:56 PM »

If it's a choice between transporters and $2 billion, I'd prefer $2 billion. Do you think Obama would give me $2 billion? That would be excellent.
Logged

this is a story and you're not in it
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #111 on: Aug 25, 2008, 01:27:03 AM »

And re: clean coal, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The fact is, the technology for clean coal is at this point hypothetical, by which I mean that we can understand how to do it but no one's actually done it or even come up with a surefire way of doing it yet. In layman's terms--it does not yet exist. So there's no reason for anyone to turn to the idea of clean coal for any kind of a solution to anything. Meanwhile, let the record show that the only dudes I hear talking about clean coal seriously are Bush and Cheney, because they're bullshit artists of the first order.


The technology for clean coal is certainly not hypothetical.  It's implemented at any number of coal plants worldwide.
Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
Ignatius
Registered user

Posts: 7082


« Reply #112 on: Aug 25, 2008, 01:34:09 AM »

This all sounds very dumb. Whose standards determine whether a plant is "clean" coal or not, and where are those standards listed?
Logged
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #113 on: Aug 25, 2008, 02:36:40 AM »

Yeah, the problem is with the term "clean coal."  It's not "clean coal," it's just, ya know, "upgraded since the 70s coal plants" Dave's point is basically that it's stupid that our coal plants aren't utilizing the latest technology.  It's one of those legitimately nonpartisan issues; it's a no-brainer. 

I get that RL thinks we shouldn't use coal at all, but come on.  Even if all sane people were raptured away tomorrow and Kucinich was consequently inaugurated in '09, you're not going to get rid of coal power by 2012.  You *can* drastically reduce emissions, improve efficiency, and save money for consumers by 2012.
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
DCDave
Registered user

Posts: 10387


« Reply #114 on: Aug 25, 2008, 03:38:28 AM »

Clean coal generally refers to plants which use gasification, that is, plants which refire the methane gas created by the combustion of coal in order to generate additional energy and get rid of a pollutant. 
Logged

But what the fuck do I know, I have a penis.
Ignatius
Registered user

Posts: 7082


« Reply #115 on: Aug 25, 2008, 03:45:08 AM »

what byproducts do you get from methane combustion?
Logged
Mike24
Registered user

Posts: 1086


« Reply #116 on: Aug 25, 2008, 03:47:19 AM »

co2 + h2o
Logged

she doesn't like it too hot, she doesn't like it too cold, room temperature, room temperature
Antero
Registered user

Posts: 7526


« Reply #117 on: Aug 25, 2008, 03:57:39 AM »

Clean coal generally refers to plants which use gasification, that is, plants which refire the methane gas created by the combustion of coal in order to generate additional energy and get rid of a pollutant. 
Yes and no.  It's ultimately a generic term, rather than referring to any one specific technology, and given the present political climate and concern with global warming you have Bush and McCain and similar shits advocating the development of clean coal technology that reduces CO2 emissions.  When sane people say "clean coal" they're suggesting that we fucking upgrade our power plants at some point.  When Republicans say it, they're suggesting that they're so opposed to a culture of environmental sanity that they'd rather burn money than see it go to solar and wind.

CO2-reduced coal is a technology that exists in theory but is impractical and expensive to make common, and accordingly will likely remain on the drawing boards until the oceans rise up and swallow us.

Much like, coincidentally, jetpacks.
Logged

Quote from: nonotyet
this has been OPINIONS IN CAPSLOCK
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #118 on: Aug 25, 2008, 03:59:10 AM »

Re:  Clean Coal

Hey guys, we should be on the cover of Modern Jackass.
« Last Edit: Aug 25, 2008, 04:01:45 AM by dieblucasdie » Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #119 on: Aug 25, 2008, 09:58:53 AM »

You all do seem to be er ah um experts on every single subject that comes down the pike
Logged

think 'on the road.'
Wally
Registered user

Posts: 9184


« Reply #120 on: Aug 25, 2008, 10:02:24 AM »

Welcome to the internet.
Logged

Thus begin the chronicles of the Self-Loathing Gay Commando.
Andrew_TSKS
Registered user

Posts: 39426


« Reply #121 on: Aug 25, 2008, 01:33:25 PM »

Clean coal generally refers to plants which use gasification, that is, plants which refire the methane gas created by the combustion of coal in order to generate additional energy and get rid of a pollutant. 

Oh, see, I always thought of "clean coal" as meaning "carbon capture/sequestration", which doesn't actually exist in real life yet. If you include gasification in the definition, you're right.
Logged

I just want to be myself and I want you to love me for who I am.
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #122 on: Aug 25, 2008, 01:40:54 PM »

I'm glad Obama picked such an articulate, clean, good-looking veep
Logged

think 'on the road.'
dieblucasdie
Registered user

Posts: 24493


« Reply #123 on: Aug 25, 2008, 03:20:13 PM »

hannah already made that joke
Logged

he was basically your only chance at making the world love you.
elpollodiablo
Registered user

Posts: 32624


« Reply #124 on: Aug 25, 2008, 03:44:45 PM »

I been gone for days, cut me some slack
Logged

think 'on the road.'
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9
Print
LPTJ | Last Plane Forums | Departure Lounge | Topic: omg it's biden
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Board layout based on the Oxygen design by Bloc