2007-04-28 09:28:17 · 6 answers · asked by Stan S 1 in Environment
Zero emissions would certainly help. Coal is actually a very dirty fuel. It emits more carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated than any other current fuel source, although tar sands are close behind because of the extra processing it requires to be made usable. Also coal releases a considerable amount of radioactive particles into the atmosphere. There are trace amounts of radioactive materials mixed up in coal and when it is burned they are released. Even though the amount of radioactive material in coal is very very tiny, because we burn such a huge amount the total amount of radiation released by coal is far greater than the amount released by nuclear power. Interesting fact. So reducing coal emissions is defiantly a good thing.
However, even with zero emissions coal is bad for the environment. You still have two big issues. One is the mining of coal, which makes a huge mess. The currently most popular method in the Eastern United states is the bulldoze off the top of a mountain that covers coal dig out the coal and then leave the mess behind. Not at all good.
Secondly there will be the problem if what do you do with the millions of tons of emissions that you have some how captured? Millions of tons of anything will very probably cause an environmental mess and unintended consequences no matter how cleverly you deal with it.
We would be best off phasing out coal and switching to solar based energy sources, wind and solar (both PV and thermal) primarily.
2007-04-29 08:17:59 · answer #1 · answered by Engineer 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
New Mexico have had coal fired plants for years and with the scrubbers on the stacks they have worked fine. The problem is with u and thinking that CO2 is bad. CO is bad not CO2. The plants love the CO2 and the more they take in the faster they grow.
2007-04-28 10:30:13 · answer #2 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im sorry, but this is like asking if it would be okay to produce power from nuclear fusion if it weren't for the radiation or the highly radioactive waste it produces.
I'm sure if you really think about it, you can come up with a better question.
2007-04-28 09:37:02 · answer #3 · answered by Tommy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is an important point about coal power, or any fossil fuels that you should consider. if the combustion is completely clean and fully realized, the prducts are carbon dioxide and water. carbon dioxide is not some side effect, it is the product of using any fossil fuel.
2007-04-28 13:02:28 · answer #4 · answered by hanumistee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
..nuclear fusion doesn't produce radioactive waste it combines two smaller particles like H into a larger one like He.... we cant control nuclear fusion, it occurs on stars....very hot! your thinking of nuclear fission
and about the coal, there are better renewable resources like wind, solar, geothermal, and tide power that should/will replace coal....
2007-04-28 09:40:14 · answer #5 · answered by Jefe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am okay with it if they would simply reduce CO2 and mercury smoke stack emissions
2007-04-28 09:36:50 · answer #6 · answered by Durai 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋