Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Talk:Directory:Clean Coal

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:19 am.

  • One error has been found on this page. Administrator will correct this soon.
  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:Clean Coal

Image:Coal plant 27mw 95x95.jpg

The phasing out of coal as a polluting technology, in favor of a more clean, renewable approach.


No Such Thing as

On October 08, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Adrian Akau wrote:

There is really no such thing as "clean" coal. Even if you take all of the non-carbon contents out, the resultant burning still produces enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. We may be getting to the stage where we will have to be concerned about the amount of oxygen we have left in the atmosphere to breath. I read that the % of oxygen has decreased somewhat in the past century and that some sickness are enhanced because of this. I read that a research paper comparing the health of people living at low compared to high altitudes showed that it was the lack of oxygen that was harmful for certain ailments. Oxygen used to be about 20% of the atmosphere but today in some places, it is as low as 16%. Carbon dioxide is actually a fairly heavy gas (molecular weight 44 as compared to oxygen 32 and nitrogen 28) so that during times of little wind, it would have a tendency to settle in pockets. That is one reason cave exploration can be so hazardous.

People living in large cities in India have such a high incidence of lung disease that older diesel motors have been banned. I have not read any carbon dioxide studies but reducing the amount of oxygen available, certainly places a strain on the heart, especially for old people with weak hearts and those with any type of lung problems. I sometimes see older folk carting or carrying around a small tank of oxygen as they shop for food.

Carbon dioxide sequestering seems to be a stupid idea because the process also sequesters oxygen in the process. Someone needs to present calculations showing how the burning of coal, oil and natural gas is affecting our oxygen supply. The question really boils down to "how much oxygen would be left in the atmosphere if all fossil fuels were consumed?" Yes, people will say that trees and algae will take care of the oxygen production but the real concern is what level of oxygen is required to maintain a good healthy atmosphere for humans as well as for other living organisms.


On October 08, 2008, in response to the question, 'should we allow the ads from our sites, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Adrian Akau wrote:

If they're doing something novel, yes. If it's just a propaganda front, nukem...

Personally, methinks that if it ain't Karrick Low-Temperature Carbonization of Coal, it's just another welfare program for technocrats.

Karrick-LTC: 1 bbl oil/ton coal, free, plus 1500 lb smokeless char, & water-gas. No hydrogeneation, no additive chemicals. We paid for it in the 1930s, and it got suppressed. No other technology can compare with it. It can be done by "anyone" on any scale.

See also

Directory:Clean Coal


Directory:Oil - its impact

Directory:Fuel Efficiency Alternative Fuels

- Directory







There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1]