Suck on this, EPA....
 

Clean coal, no burning, produces energy...

Coal: the cleanest energy source there is? | Fox News

Here's what's interesting about the article:

The process removes 99 percent of the pollution from coal, which some scientists link to global warming. Coal-burning power plants produced about one-third of the nation’s carbon dioxide total in 2010, or about 2.3 billion metric tons, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Isn't that "most scientist?"

Then in the next sentence . . . Retrofitting them with the new process would be costly, but it would cut billions of tons of pollution.

So, the acknowledgement that burning coal currently produces billions of tons of pollution?

Yep, remove those mountaintops, BABY! Yeeeeah! Who needs clean rivers when we can have slag runoff streams instead? Awesome!

well then, northeners, freeze to death in the dark.....:cool:

From the article: "The clean coal technique was developed by scientists at The Ohio State University, with just $5 million in funding from the federal government, and took 15 years to achieve."

$5 M is a pittance... in the grant world...

There are alternatives. Nuclear. I prefer to glow than freeze. Why are we too pussy to use it, yet the French have the cojones to do so?

I like atom power, and yes, we are too scared to use it b/c of media hype and a minority of activists...

What got me is '15 years to develop'

Really? What was it just a little side project being worked on by a lone engineer in the back room? (Granted post-it notes got started like that but it didn't take over a decade to develop...)

Which means that the coal industry could have funded it with half a year's lobbyist payments, but that's not what they're into. :D

Regardless of where you are on the energy debate, don't you find it ironic that much of the vilification of coal mining practices aren't directed at the strip mining that produces batteries for the Prius?

I'm I the only one who sees that as a problem?

How many mines does it take to supply Prius batteries?

Nope ;) 3:34

Supercars: The One Gallon Fuel Crisis Race - Top Gear - BBC - YouTube

While many think nuclear is cleaner...look at the waste products from it. We still don't know what to do with the waste. We had a proposed sight for high level radioactive waste, but it was halted by the Obama administration.

Look at the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disasters. While technologically, we have a better handle on nuclear power, the potential for disaster is greater on a larger scale.

Coal and natural gas are safer and easier to control than nuclear, and can be made cleaner than it is now.

Until we have a the ability to safely store the waste somewhere, I don't see nuclear as being safe.

Except that statistics say you're wrong. I'm looking for the article, but all I can find is this at the moment.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.washingtonp ost.com%2F2011-04-02%2Fnational%2F35262119_1_nuclear-power-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-nuclear-accident&ei=yE8mUa7dN--F0QGQ5oDQDA&usg=AFQjCNEslaJ0KJlW3cd-_hX7yZa1-yq7rA

There was a study done last year showing that nuclear energy is by far the least harmful.