The planet has a lot of coal, however coal pollutes like a mother fucker. If coal could be made into a cleaner burning fuel like methane we would have an abundant fuel source that we could tap into. Biogasificaitoin could do just that using microbes to break down coal into methane.
https://energynews.us/2016/03/14/midwest/researchers-biogas-could-provide-new-life-for-illinois-coal-mines/
>The coal in the Illinois Basin has been there for about 300 million years, but it has not just been sitting beneath the earth inert. Billions of microbes are slowly feasting on the coal. And as this decomposition happens, methane gas is released.
>Scientists have been figuring out how to speed up the release of methane from coal, by introducing new microbes or feeding the ones that exist, so that the methane can be better harvested as a source of power.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): E4C1046BF49176EC24E5F2248FC0337D-23869.jpg (23.3 KB, 390x237, 1-s2.0-S0166516213000244-gr1.jpg)
Seems like it could give coal miners their jobs back and give the U.S. more natural gas to export. What's not to like?
Nuclear is the future of energy. It doesnt emmit any carbon gas, except for water
>>200389
>carbon gas, except for water
>carbon gas
>water
Nigga what?
I agree that nuclear is a better option, but methane has more uses than just fuel. Anti-freeze, plastics, fertilizers all can use methane.
>carbon gas, except for water
>carbon gas
>water
Nigga what?
I agree that nuclear is a better option, but methane has more uses than just fuel. Anti-freeze, plastics, fertilizers all can use methane.
>>200390
I assume that he was trying to type something about it having zero carbon emissions, and that it only emitted the greenhouse gas of water vapor. Then he dropped his spaghetti while typing.
I assume that he was trying to type something about it having zero carbon emissions, and that it only emitted the greenhouse gas of water vapor. Then he dropped his spaghetti while typing.
>>200389
Yeah, great, now that yucca mountain has been shut down, WTF do we do with the nuclear waste? How about your backyard?
Yeah, great, now that yucca mountain has been shut down, WTF do we do with the nuclear waste? How about your backyard?
File (): 0B6840C594F4148A0B2875AEDEFA7A67-64508.jpg (63.0 KB, 900x704, MLP - Bored Rarity.jpg)
burn the coal, pay the toll
File (): 099071A15E62667696FC8FBD9F66DA40-617886.png (603.4 KB, 1875x2021, 1500739702363.png)
>>200465
Pollution is a real thing. It's in everyone's interest to stop Jews from poisoning our water.
I hate how leftists have hijacked environmental issues to advance their own interests.
Pollution is a real thing. It's in everyone's interest to stop Jews from poisoning our water.
I hate how leftists have hijacked environmental issues to advance their own interests.
File (): E3575C4EFB191AA6A129B2F578091D61-314717.png (307.3 KB, 1800x1200, 1546788306183.png)
>>200516
>>200465
The problem with environmentalism as it exists is that the globalist left has hijacked the issue and uses it to push a bureaucratic/nu-corporate takeover of industry and farming. They hype up climate change like it's this huge concern despite the fact that so far none of the predictions they've made about it have come even close to being accurate, yet bluepilled lefties keep taking the bait. Most of the left-wing solutions to "climate change" involve massive amounts of industrial regulation and wealth redistribution to the third world.
They also direct a lot of their ire towards farmers and ranchers, particularly the cattle industry, which I suspect has less to do with the environment and more to do with taking a giant shit on rural America. The Democrats pin all of the blame for the overhyped climate change scare on large corporations and manufacturing, despite the fact that most manufacturing has moved to other countries with considerably more lax environmental regulations, and most of the large companies doing the most damage support the Democrats. The leftist urban hippies who pay extra for hybrid cars and non-GMO anal lube are just NPC retards who follow programming and are generally dumb enough to believe that cattle farts are causing global warming or whatever the fuck. They take the bait and go along with it, failing to realize that the government policies they support will do absolutely fuck-all for the environment while actually helping large and generally ill-intentioned companies hollow out the center of the country.
The right sees through this and calls bullshit, which makes the establishment types screech and call us "climate deniers" or whatever the lemon-scented fuck, and their NPC followers go along with it. The problem is that the reaction to this on the right is to double down and dismiss all concerns about environmental destruction, despite that some concerns are quite valid. You don't need to make up a narrative about polar ice caps melting to point out that burning thousands of tons of coal per day and pouring smoke into the atmosphere is probably not the most efficient way to generate electricity.
The right needs a cohesive platform that addresses the (real) concerns about the environment, puts forward actual solutions that solve problems without creating new ones (ie clean, efficient nuclear power instead of faggy windmills), helps family farms over corporate factory farms, and above all, exposes the leftist-globalist hypocrisy on the issue.
>>200465
The problem with environmentalism as it exists is that the globalist left has hijacked the issue and uses it to push a bureaucratic/nu-corporate takeover of industry and farming. They hype up climate change like it's this huge concern despite the fact that so far none of the predictions they've made about it have come even close to being accurate, yet bluepilled lefties keep taking the bait. Most of the left-wing solutions to "climate change" involve massive amounts of industrial regulation and wealth redistribution to the third world.
They also direct a lot of their ire towards farmers and ranchers, particularly the cattle industry, which I suspect has less to do with the environment and more to do with taking a giant shit on rural America. The Democrats pin all of the blame for the overhyped climate change scare on large corporations and manufacturing, despite the fact that most manufacturing has moved to other countries with considerably more lax environmental regulations, and most of the large companies doing the most damage support the Democrats. The leftist urban hippies who pay extra for hybrid cars and non-GMO anal lube are just NPC retards who follow programming and are generally dumb enough to believe that cattle farts are causing global warming or whatever the fuck. They take the bait and go along with it, failing to realize that the government policies they support will do absolutely fuck-all for the environment while actually helping large and generally ill-intentioned companies hollow out the center of the country.
The right sees through this and calls bullshit, which makes the establishment types screech and call us "climate deniers" or whatever the lemon-scented fuck, and their NPC followers go along with it. The problem is that the reaction to this on the right is to double down and dismiss all concerns about environmental destruction, despite that some concerns are quite valid. You don't need to make up a narrative about polar ice caps melting to point out that burning thousands of tons of coal per day and pouring smoke into the atmosphere is probably not the most efficient way to generate electricity.
The right needs a cohesive platform that addresses the (real) concerns about the environment, puts forward actual solutions that solve problems without creating new ones (ie clean, efficient nuclear power instead of faggy windmills), helps family farms over corporate factory farms, and above all, exposes the leftist-globalist hypocrisy on the issue.
>>200640
Right. How about...
A new government thing. Fill out a form, submit it, and you get a kit mailed to your door that helps you install solar panels on your roof to help out the power grid.
When your house generates power, you get paid per kilowatt hour, and when your house generates no power due to cloudy seasons, no payment given.
Right. How about...
A new government thing. Fill out a form, submit it, and you get a kit mailed to your door that helps you install solar panels on your roof to help out the power grid.
When your house generates power, you get paid per kilowatt hour, and when your house generates no power due to cloudy seasons, no payment given.
>>200640
>despite the fact that so far none of the predictions they've made about it have come even close to being accurate
It has been pretty much on the right track so far. Increased average temperatures, increased precipitation (see "the Antarctic ice sheet is growing!") and more extreme weather events with all kinds of records being broken point to this.
I wish nationalists could cut ties with mainstream conservatives on this issue, it would make us more attractive to people that are undecided and there's no reason for us to defend the coal and oil industries.
>Most of the left-wing solutions to "climate change" involve massive amounts of industrial regulation and wealth redistribution to the third world.
>They also direct a lot of their ire towards farmers and ranchers ... which I suspect has less to do with the environment and more to do with taking a giant shit on rural America. The Democrats pin all of the blame for the overhyped climate change scare on large corporations and manufacturing, despite the fact that most manufacturing has moved to other countries with considerably more lax environmental regulations
This is all true though. The solutions that are being proposed by the "green" advocates don't address the problem, they are just things that seem attractive to lefty boomers in the west who are the ones funding them. Plenty of people have come out and said what we're doing is not going to make any difference but these green advocacy organizations are afraid of changing the message and having their funds dry up. This won't change until there is a generational change and we can start looking seriously into things like nuclear energy and maybe even protectionism to keep trade national/local.
>>200670
>install solar panels on your roof to help out the power grid
Grid-tied solar PV doesn't help the grid, it makes the whole system harder to manage when you have to counter-balance all those megawatts coming on and going out all at the same time. Same thing for wind but to a lesser degree. The exception would be a grid that relies heavily on coal, which could move towards gas which is cleaner and also useful as something that can respond quickly to changing load. (Guess why Germany has been pushing so hard for the Russian gas pipeline.)
It's great for off-grid systems though.
>despite the fact that so far none of the predictions they've made about it have come even close to being accurate
It has been pretty much on the right track so far. Increased average temperatures, increased precipitation (see "the Antarctic ice sheet is growing!") and more extreme weather events with all kinds of records being broken point to this.
I wish nationalists could cut ties with mainstream conservatives on this issue, it would make us more attractive to people that are undecided and there's no reason for us to defend the coal and oil industries.
>Most of the left-wing solutions to "climate change" involve massive amounts of industrial regulation and wealth redistribution to the third world.
>They also direct a lot of their ire towards farmers and ranchers ... which I suspect has less to do with the environment and more to do with taking a giant shit on rural America. The Democrats pin all of the blame for the overhyped climate change scare on large corporations and manufacturing, despite the fact that most manufacturing has moved to other countries with considerably more lax environmental regulations
This is all true though. The solutions that are being proposed by the "green" advocates don't address the problem, they are just things that seem attractive to lefty boomers in the west who are the ones funding them. Plenty of people have come out and said what we're doing is not going to make any difference but these green advocacy organizations are afraid of changing the message and having their funds dry up. This won't change until there is a generational change and we can start looking seriously into things like nuclear energy and maybe even protectionism to keep trade national/local.
>>200670
>install solar panels on your roof to help out the power grid
Grid-tied solar PV doesn't help the grid, it makes the whole system harder to manage when you have to counter-balance all those megawatts coming on and going out all at the same time. Same thing for wind but to a lesser degree. The exception would be a grid that relies heavily on coal, which could move towards gas which is cleaner and also useful as something that can respond quickly to changing load. (Guess why Germany has been pushing so hard for the Russian gas pipeline.)
It's great for off-grid systems though.
>>200782
>there's no reason for us to defend the coal and oil industries.
Except that oil and coal are both abundant and useful.
>there's no reason for us to defend the coal and oil industries.
Except that oil and coal are both abundant and useful.
>>200874
This. Also subsidies to "green" industries just give our money to more Jews. If you actually care about the environment watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9WM6BgtB8
Fighting (((them))) doesn't mean we should shoot ourselves in the foot economically.
This. Also subsidies to "green" industries just give our money to more Jews. If you actually care about the environment watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9WM6BgtB8
Fighting (((them))) doesn't mean we should shoot ourselves in the foot economically.
>>200874
Abundant, useful, but unfortunately also polluting and risky. If we could get rid of those two last adjectives it would be great. I do agree that fossil fuels have been a great boon to humanity as a whole and have helped build the modern world.
I personally favor nuclear since it's pretty much a direct replacement for coal as a baseload power source, doesn't pollute, and is very safe. The main drawbacks is that it's expensive, with very large up front investments, and makes people worry it's going to blow up and kill everyone no matter how much statistics you show them.
Renewables look good at small scales, but when you start looking at the scale of countries and continents and having them as a significant share of energy produced you quickly realize they're not all that good for the environment. Things like "green collar jobs" make for good PR for politicians though, and wind turbines have become the icon for "look at us, we're green", so we're going to see more of them whether it makes sense or not.
>>200876
>subsidies
The same could be said for any industry. And consider that subsidies for wind/solar are also indirect subsidies for natural gas, since renewables need backup generation and that is what gets built in nearly all cases. It's an upgrade as far as pollution goes at least.
Abundant, useful, but unfortunately also polluting and risky. If we could get rid of those two last adjectives it would be great. I do agree that fossil fuels have been a great boon to humanity as a whole and have helped build the modern world.
I personally favor nuclear since it's pretty much a direct replacement for coal as a baseload power source, doesn't pollute, and is very safe. The main drawbacks is that it's expensive, with very large up front investments, and makes people worry it's going to blow up and kill everyone no matter how much statistics you show them.
Renewables look good at small scales, but when you start looking at the scale of countries and continents and having them as a significant share of energy produced you quickly realize they're not all that good for the environment. Things like "green collar jobs" make for good PR for politicians though, and wind turbines have become the icon for "look at us, we're green", so we're going to see more of them whether it makes sense or not.
>>200876
>subsidies
The same could be said for any industry. And consider that subsidies for wind/solar are also indirect subsidies for natural gas, since renewables need backup generation and that is what gets built in nearly all cases. It's an upgrade as far as pollution goes at least.
File (): 869B38A73442345C0FA73E820E0EE7C1-23040.jpg (22.5 KB, 200x301, Power-hungry.jpg)
>>201128
>indirect subsidies
That is, with a pork excess of millions, even billions of dollars. I'm not a fan of subsidies of any kind but if they were directly for gas there would be significant savings. Also, nuclear power is the future but needs more innovation.
>indirect subsidies
That is, with a pork excess of millions, even billions of dollars. I'm not a fan of subsidies of any kind but if they were directly for gas there would be significant savings. Also, nuclear power is the future but needs more innovation.
Is no one going to mention jobs? How west Virginia is basically just a coal miner state. tons of people not just in the appalachians, but also throughout the rust belt worked in coal mines, and these are high wage, low skill jobs these communities depend on. If clean coal is clean (does not pollute) then it should be very high on the list of possible sources of energy. THEN one can consider the construction costs vs future energy savings.
Maybe not for the whole country but at least in the states that rely on coal.
Maybe not for the whole country but at least in the states that rely on coal.
>>201332
>How west Virginia is basically just a coal miner state. tons of people not just in the appalachians, but also throughout the rust belt worked in coal mines, and these are high wage, low skill jobs these communities depend on
Not sure these will continue to be low skill jobs. Biogasification is going to require a lot of biologists, chemists, geologists, engineers, ect.
>How west Virginia is basically just a coal miner state. tons of people not just in the appalachians, but also throughout the rust belt worked in coal mines, and these are high wage, low skill jobs these communities depend on
Not sure these will continue to be low skill jobs. Biogasification is going to require a lot of biologists, chemists, geologists, engineers, ect.
>>201335
>Biogasification is going to require a lot of biologists, chemists, geologists, engineers, ect.
If for "Biogasification" you mean to switch to natural gas, then I have to tell you those jobs you just mentioned are not needed.
A gas company comes with its crew, build the pipelines, and all is needed in the future are some technicians to regulate the flow.
>Biogasification is going to require a lot of biologists, chemists, geologists, engineers, ect.
If for "Biogasification" you mean to switch to natural gas, then I have to tell you those jobs you just mentioned are not needed.
A gas company comes with its crew, build the pipelines, and all is needed in the future are some technicians to regulate the flow.
>>200380
But that would cause coal to lose a great deal of stored energy and would decrease transportablity because methane is essentially natural gas and requires a lot of energy to make a liquid. Removing the sulfur from the coal would make it better, and the 42000 dairy farms in the U.S. alone would produce a fuck ton of methane available for use from biodigesters
But that would cause coal to lose a great deal of stored energy and would decrease transportablity because methane is essentially natural gas and requires a lot of energy to make a liquid. Removing the sulfur from the coal would make it better, and the 42000 dairy farms in the U.S. alone would produce a fuck ton of methane available for use from biodigesters
>>200782
>It has been pretty much on the right track so far.
Except for how they used to be proclaiming an oncoming global ice age, and continually distort the evidence about the primary cause of climate change.
youtube-dl 52Mx0_8YEtg
>It has been pretty much on the right track so far.
Except for how they used to be proclaiming an oncoming global ice age, and continually distort the evidence about the primary cause of climate change.
youtube-dl 52Mx0_8YEtg
>>212680
>used to be proclaiming an oncoming global ice age
That's just not true. If you mean what was going around in the 70s (80s?) then that was just sensationalism by journalists, not something that was supported by the scientific community.
>used to be proclaiming an oncoming global ice age
That's just not true. If you mean what was going around in the 70s (80s?) then that was just sensationalism by journalists, not something that was supported by the scientific community.
>>200640
If anyone wants to arm yourself with information on how not let right wing jews turn our side into an environmental laughing stock I would watch this playlist. It goes over a bunch of proven hoaxes.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
If anyone wants to arm yourself with information on how not let right wing jews turn our side into an environmental laughing stock I would watch this playlist. It goes over a bunch of proven hoaxes.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
31 replies | 6 files | 22 UUIDs | Archived