Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions

Posted by timothy on from the soon-you-will-have-to-register dept.

sbszine writes "Australian newspaper The Age has an interesting story on squeezing coal before burning it in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The process, discovered by Victorian scientists, is expected to make brown coal (lignite) burn 30% cleaner. Good news, as Australia is the world's number one exporter of coal."

1 of 107 comments (clear)

  1. stop-gap by nusratt · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Let's stop trying to find Band-Aids for energy resources which are inherently finite and time-limited. Short of global population-control (NBL--Not Bloody Likely), eventually we'll have no choice but to go with unlimited sources (e.g., solar, hydrogen, nuclear). And the only choice which is ready *today* is nuclear -- which today is much more advanced, safety-wise, than most people realize.

    This isn't an argument for "nuclear forever". But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacity to COMPLETELY eliminate our dependence on petro sources which are actually or potentially volatile or unreliable -- e.g., the Middle East -- think of how fast we could in advance in alternate-source technology, using all the funds and human resources we'd save by COMPLETELY removing ourselves from trouble-spots around the world.

    Not to mention the funds, etc., we'd save by not needing such a high level of anti-terrorism preparedness:
    despite the pap which the Gang Of Bush tries to feed us -- "They hate us because they hate liberty and democracy" -- the fact is, the fanatical Islamics wouldn't care enough to leave their region to bother us, if we were COMPLETELY disengaged from their part of the world -- which we COULD be, if not for our petro-addiction.

    Isn't that basket of benefits worth the cost of tolerating a few years of nuclear?