OK, fake burn, I will answer your question and yes, 1) burning clean coal is a good start.
And do you know where most of the coal in the USA is burned? To make electricity. Where is most of the dirty coal burned in the world? China.
2) Use more nuclear energy. That will necessitate using Yuka Mountain as a repository for the nuclear waste. Another location may work, but as you said, WHY DELAY when we have studied that issue already. (Because the former leader of the Democrats in the US Senate, Harry Reid, happened to be from the state of Nevada.)
3) Continue to encourage more use of natural gas and conversion of coal fired plants to burn this cleaner fuel.
4) Continue to encourage use of renewable energy sources, such as
a)wind,
b) solar, and
c) geothermal.
BTW: The US led the world in Solar technology by development and use of photovoltaic cells.
NOTE #2 "Continue to encourage" has been done with good tax policy.
5) Consider the policy of using ethanol to reduce pollution and to cut use of petroleum. Some of those tax breaks has run out, as I best recall and know.
6) Consider use of bio-diesel fuel, and encourage more use of this fuel.
7) Keep in place requirements to improve mileage (MPG) requirements for fleets of vehicles and discourage use of big gas guzzling and CO2 belching large SUVs and pick up trucks. I think some of those requirements have been delayed.
8 ) Realize there is NOT one solution, but a diverse approach using many fuels and energy sources. Also realize there is NO perfect solution that has NO problems.
9) Devote more money to research fusion energy.
Let me think some more and I may come up with more solutions. (I JUS NOW added # 8 & 9, so my thinking can be productive, fake burn.
What do you have, fake burn? Why not read up on the proposals of your mentor and idol, the REAL Bernie Sanders?
BTW#2, I know ALL THESE things without having to "google it" now; these are things I have read about and recall. What do you recall, fake burn? How much gas you produce and belch? (and be sure to measure the gas farted out the other end; I am sure you have LoG, Lots of Gas....)
WoW, fake burn, too bad you don't have an son that can state all that from knowledge and not use profanity to explain and to denigrate someone.
oh geez.. Llama doesn't even understand the concept of Clean Coal.. something that has been around for decades..
I think the the 1st idea of reducing carbon emissions from burning coal first developed like back in the 1850's... ?
get out of the Igloo Llama.. quit fu*king the beavers. .
oh geez.. Llama doesn't even understand the concept of Clean Coal.. something that has been around for decades..
I think the the 1st idea of reducing carbon emissions from burning coal first developed like back in the 1850's... ?
get out of the Igloo Llama.. quit fu*king the beavers. .
For decades now, "clean coal" has been a political pipe dream.
jusplay4fun wrote:
7) Keep in place requirements to improve mileage (MPG) requirements for fleets of vehicles and discourage use of big gas guzzling and CO2 belching large SUVs and pick up trucks. I think some of those requirements have been delayed.
At the very top of the list, or close to it, is killing Just-In-Time shipping.
Do either of you understand why ethanol is added to gasoline? Do you understand the method (chemical reactions or chemical means) of how ethanol reduces pollution? Why not actually read up on the topic before making more superfluous and/or silly comments. Do you understand why the alcohol is usually only 10% in gasoline?
Attempt to understand before criticizing or even commenting; you are merely showing your ignorance. The same is true of clean coal, which apparently some did not understand either.
Bernie Sanders wrote:
hotfire wrote:Ethanol to reduce pollution... ummmmm. No. Ethanol to make farmers happy. Ethanol is a giant waste of resources.
jusplay4fun wrote:Do either of you understand why ethanol is added to gasoline? Do you understand the method (chemical reactions or chemical means) of how ethanol reduces pollution? Why not actually read up on the topic before making more superfluous and/or silly comments. Do you understand why the alcohol is usually only 10% in gasoline?
Attempt to understand before criticizing or even commenting; you are merely showing your ignorance. The same is true of clean coal, which apparently some did not understand either.
jusplay4fun wrote:Do either of you understand why ethanol is added to gasoline? Do you understand the method (chemical reactions or chemical means) of how ethanol reduces pollution? Why not actually read up on the topic before making more superfluous and/or silly comments. Do you understand why the alcohol is usually only 10% in gasoline?
Attempt to understand before criticizing or even commenting; you are merely showing your ignorance. The same is true of clean coal, which apparently some did not understand either.
Bernie Sanders wrote:
hotfire wrote:Ethanol to reduce pollution... ummmmm. No. Ethanol to make farmers happy. Ethanol is a giant waste of resources.
Exactly
We get our ethanol from corn. It is dirty and is heavily subsidized. Ethanol from sugar cane is cleaner and gives a very pleasant smelling exhaust...ask any Brazilian.
jusplay4fun wrote:Do either of you understand why ethanol is added to gasoline? Do you understand the method (chemical reactions or chemical means) of how ethanol reduces pollution? Why not actually read up on the topic before making more superfluous and/or silly comments. Do you understand why the alcohol is usually only 10% in gasoline?
Attempt to understand before criticizing or even commenting; you are merely showing your ignorance. The same is true of clean coal, which apparently some did not understand either.
Bernie Sanders wrote:
hotfire wrote:Ethanol to reduce pollution... ummmmm. No. Ethanol to make farmers happy. Ethanol is a giant waste of resources.
Exactly
We get our ethanol from corn. It is dirty and is heavily subsidized. Ethanol from sugar cane is cleaner and gives a very pleasant smelling exhaust...ask any Brazilian.
Corn is heavily subsidized for it's value as food (to keep soda producers and fast food happy), the ethanol is basically a by-product made from the food waste. Do you really want the middle of the country to replant everything to sugar cane? You sure we have the climate for that? Or are you suggesting we ship "clean" ethanol halfway around the world from Barzil because it's better for the environment?
WILLIAMS5232 wrote:
as far as dukasaur goes, i had no idea you were so goofy. i mean, you hate your parents so much you'd wish they'd been shot? just move out bro.
jusplay4fun wrote:Do either of you understand why ethanol is added to gasoline? Do you understand the method (chemical reactions or chemical means) of how ethanol reduces pollution? Why not actually read up on the topic before making more superfluous and/or silly comments. Do you understand why the alcohol is usually only 10% in gasoline?
Attempt to understand before criticizing or even commenting; you are merely showing your ignorance. The same is true of clean coal, which apparently some did not understand either.
Bernie Sanders wrote:
hotfire wrote:Ethanol to reduce pollution... ummmmm. No. Ethanol to make farmers happy. Ethanol is a giant waste of resources.
Exactly
We get our ethanol from corn. It is dirty and is heavily subsidized. Ethanol from sugar cane is cleaner and gives a very pleasant smelling exhaust...ask any Brazilian.
Corn is heavily subsidized for it's value as food (to keep soda producers and fast food happy), the ethanol is basically a by-product made from the food waste. Do you really want the middle of the country to replant everything to sugar cane? You sure we have the climate for that? Or are you suggesting we ship "clean" ethanol halfway around the world from Barzil because it's better for the environment?
You are really happy with diabetes increasing corn syrup. I don't remember the last time I chewed on a soda enough to call it a food.
I am sure all of the fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide and fungicide we use on said corn making our way into our waterways is helping our air quality immensely. I am sure all the chemicals used on said products are not having an effect on either water or air. I am sure all of the gasoline used to transport said products along with seeds beforehand and corn afterhand are much healthier for the air now. I am sure.
The main point of how ethanol blended into gasoline (10%) reduces air pollution is getting contaminated with superfluous and irrelevant comments. Let's look at facts and not opinions.
Emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Use of a 10% ethanol blend results in a 25-30% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions by promoting a more complete combustion of the fuel.
Ground-level Ozone
Ground-level ozone causes human respiratory problems and damages many plants but does nothing to increase ozone concentration in the stratosphere that protects the earth from the sun's ultraviolet radiation. There are many compounds that react with sunlight to form ground-level ozone, which, in combination with moisture and particulate matter, creates 'smog', the most visible form of air pollution. These compounds include carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, benzene, and nitrogen oxides (nitrous oxide and nitric oxide). According to Environment Canada (1998), the benefit of reducing smog has been estimated at a level of at least $10 billion each year. Ethanol use in low-level blends with gasoline results in an overall decrease in ozone formation.
In an effort to reduce automobile emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, the highly populated state of California has legislated stringent automobile emissions standards. It has turned towards oxygenated fuels as one method of addressing the issue. Several Canadian urban centres record similar hazardous exposures to carbon monoxide, especially during late fall and winter, and would be out of compliance if Canada implemented air quality legislation equivalent to the U.S. Clean Air Act. In Canada, southern Ontario, southern British Columbia, and parts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are prone to smog.
The emissions produced by burning ethanol are less reactive with sunlight than those produced by burning gasoline, resulting in a lower potential for ground-level ozone formation. In Canada, where the volatility of ethanol blends must match normal gasoline, the ozone forming potential of ethanol blends is even lower than in the U.S., where ethanol blends are allowed to have increased volatility.
Emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Use of a 10% ethanol blend results in a 25-30% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions by promoting a more complete combustion of the fuel.
jusplay4fun wrote:The main point of how ethanol blended into gasoline (10%) reduces air pollution is getting contaminated with superfluous and irrelevant comments. Let's look at facts and not opinions.
Emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Use of a 10% ethanol blend results in a 25-30% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions by promoting a more complete combustion of the fuel.
Ground-level Ozone
Ground-level ozone causes human respiratory problems and damages many plants but does nothing to increase ozone concentration in the stratosphere that protects the earth from the sun's ultraviolet radiation. There are many compounds that react with sunlight to form ground-level ozone, which, in combination with moisture and particulate matter, creates 'smog', the most visible form of air pollution. These compounds include carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, benzene, and nitrogen oxides (nitrous oxide and nitric oxide). According to Environment Canada (1998), the benefit of reducing smog has been estimated at a level of at least $10 billion each year. Ethanol use in low-level blends with gasoline results in an overall decrease in ozone formation.
In an effort to reduce automobile emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, the highly populated state of California has legislated stringent automobile emissions standards. It has turned towards oxygenated fuels as one method of addressing the issue. Several Canadian urban centres record similar hazardous exposures to carbon monoxide, especially during late fall and winter, and would be out of compliance if Canada implemented air quality legislation equivalent to the U.S. Clean Air Act. In Canada, southern Ontario, southern British Columbia, and parts of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are prone to smog.
The emissions produced by burning ethanol are less reactive with sunlight than those produced by burning gasoline, resulting in a lower potential for ground-level ozone formation. In Canada, where the volatility of ethanol blends must match normal gasoline, the ozone forming potential of ethanol blends is even lower than in the U.S., where ethanol blends are allowed to have increased volatility.
Emissions of Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Use of a 10% ethanol blend results in a 25-30% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions by promoting a more complete combustion of the fuel.
Nice copy/paste son.
We need to eliminate ethanol subsidies. This will cause ethanol production to collapse.
Better to use the farm acreage for food production and/or factories to mass produce blow up dolls to relieve tensions of farmers who will lose their Socialist hand outs.
jusplay4fun wrote:Do either of you understand why ethanol is added to gasoline? Do you understand the method (chemical reactions or chemical means) of how ethanol reduces pollution? Why not actually read up on the topic before making more superfluous and/or silly comments. Do you understand why the alcohol is usually only 10% in gasoline?
Attempt to understand before criticizing or even commenting; you are merely showing your ignorance. The same is true of clean coal, which apparently some did not understand either.
Bernie Sanders wrote:
hotfire wrote:Ethanol to reduce pollution... ummmmm. No. Ethanol to make farmers happy. Ethanol is a giant waste of resources.
Exactly
We get our ethanol from corn. It is dirty and is heavily subsidized. Ethanol from sugar cane is cleaner and gives a very pleasant smelling exhaust...ask any Brazilian.
Corn is heavily subsidized for it's value as food (to keep soda producers and fast food happy), the ethanol is basically a by-product made from the food waste. Do you really want the middle of the country to replant everything to sugar cane? You sure we have the climate for that? Or are you suggesting we ship "clean" ethanol halfway around the world from Brazil because it's better for the environment?
You are really happy with diabetes increasing corn syrup. I don't remember the last time I chewed on a soda enough to call it a food.
I am sure all of the fertilizer, herbicide, pesticide and fungicide we use on said corn making our way into our waterways is helping our air quality immensely. I am sure all the chemicals used on said products are not having an effect on either water or air. I am sure all of the gasoline used to transport said products along with seeds beforehand and corn afterhand are much healthier for the air now. I am sure.
Again your comparing corn vs growing nothing. How is sugar cane going to reduce use of pesticides? Reduce diabetes, give me a ducking break, It's SUGAR cane!!!
Both crops have problems/downsides. The proposition we change our corn for sugar cane as the "mass produced" crop in the USA is ludicrous. Nebraska is not going to be able grow Sugar cane:
"Sugar cane is a grass native to Asia and grows mostly in tropical and subtropical areas. In terms of the U.S. sugar cane production by state, it is mainly concentrated in the federal states of Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Hawaii."
For the record i'm not defending corn, I'm just saying Sugar cane is a stupid/crazy idea.
WILLIAMS5232 wrote:
as far as dukasaur goes, i had no idea you were so goofy. i mean, you hate your parents so much you'd wish they'd been shot? just move out bro.
We also want to eliminate sugar cane from Florida as it's causing blue/green algae in our waterways and it's also causing red tide in Florida coastal areas.
