NASA director Says not building new coal plants the number one solution to global warming, what do you think?

Question

director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, has called for an end to coal burning. He said it’s the No. 1 solution to global warming
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17359704/

I'd suggest as a replacement solar and wind power used to produce hydrogen to use for auxilary power when it was night or the winds died down.

Answer 1

Uh what kind of affect does the space shuttle have on global warming. I would think the first sollution to global would be cars the majority people on this earth own at least one car. So what im trying to say is take the millions of cars and compare it to the few coal bruning plants that are in the world and I wolud think its pretty clear where the main problem is.

Answer 2

lets see i look on the energy bill to see how much solar and wind generation options are happening but the only thing i see is insulation falling off the power lines and smog belching puking and purging everyday and long term pollution not renewable solutions but instead big excuses lots of sun and lots of wind all along the coast were there is a land and sea exchange nope no taking advantage of that only few and far in between not to obvious unless you really want to know were not in your sight unless you go there to look for it makes to much sense just big trains full of coal all the time and long lines in the sky over the lake but for some reason thats the way people like it and lots of bike trails closed and restricted sorry closed due to big dependance on forgein energy why have no mow bike trails when you can be a handicapped person bunny hopping in your wheel chair trying to beat the traffic or an old person or a child big bumpy ride with your mountain bike even in the lowest gear its hard only isolated bike trails no easy access to point a to b but more of a frogger dodge the car game and when the cross walk lights are burn out and the thumbs up gives you a nanosecond and gives you the red hand when your foot hits the street cause you panic and look both ways and have no time to git across no pedistrian bridges all another chug o lug on the energy we git from places that do not like us go ahead heeman and try to olympic ride to the next place were the shoulder is cause you have to ride on the road and you have to have worms to fit on the side of the road were its paved cause there is no shoulder look at all the steril yards you pass for miles and say daaa i wonder how we could help global warming and cut down on it you dont need a nasa rocket scientists opinion to tell you these things look at the steril box were your kids go to school at the churches the parks on and on and on hours and hours of mowing ahh ya think humm

Answer 3

Burning of fossil fuels accounts for just 24% of all greenhouse gas emissions and coal is just one of the three main fossil fuels (the others are gas and oil). At best, coal accounts for no more than a tenth of the greenhouse gases by volume.

Even if coal ran out tomorrow and we never burned another piece it wouldn't be enough to stem the rising temperatures we've been experiencing for the last 250 years.

It will certainly help but the alternative would need to be a renewable energy source which, for the quantities being talked about, would be prohibitively expensive; the other option would be nuclear power.

The reduction in the burning of coal would need to be one of many changes that would need to be implemented to offset anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 4

Depends on your perspective. From one standpoint he's absolutely correct: most of the new growth projected over the next two decades in energy production will be coal fired powerplants--and they are, watt for watt, the worst producers of CO2.

But it's only part of the solution. We have to not only shift new energy production to clean alternative technologies, we need to reduce current emissions drastically. That means phasing out current coal powerplants in favor of solar, wind, and other alternative energies. It also means making cars more fuel efficient--and eventually power them by electricity and/or hydrogen (both owf which will ultimately need to be produced by those same alternative energy sources).

So he's right--but that's only part of the story.

Answer 5

Coal plants are so regulated ion the USA that they are quite clean. Cars/trucks/SUVs give off FAR more pollution associated with greenhouse gas, but he knows you can't say that. What does he want us to do, go nuke? What a good idea, the waste from that lasts and lasts and lasts hundreds and hundreds of years, and we don't have a completely foolproof place to store it now do we...maybe he is referring to the puke coming from coal fired plants in China and the third world.

Answer 6

It would help a lot. Coal is a nasty power source despite what its advocates might say. It is dirty dirty dirty! Not just greenhouse gasses are emitted but also Tons and Tons of lead and mercury.

Getting rid of all of them would help a lot, but it is not the cure.

Answer 7

PETA says not eating meat is the best solution for global warming. Who really knows?

Answer 8

Oh, sure libtard. Ask a rocket scientist about ecology. We can see clear through your bullschiesen. clinton ORDERED the Centers for Disease Control to declare gun ownership a disease, too, the commie bastard!

Answer 9

I wonder what type of generating plant he would suggest we use instead?

Answer 10

I'd rather live in a warm planet than a cold one.

Pass the coal please. I need some electricity.