On 8/12/2014 10:07 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/12/2014 3:24 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "ImStillMags" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 12:13:27 PM UTC-7, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>> "ImStillMags" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:38:06 AM UTC-7, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you aren't a PR rep for the mining inudustry you are in the wrong
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> business.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was about to ask if he was employed as a propagandist for the
>>>>>> industry,
>>>>>
>>>>>> you beat me to the thought.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He's good, I'll give him that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one thing he fails to address in all the information he cites is
>>>> that
>>>> where does the funding come from? Follow the money. Who does it
>>>> benefit, this so solid sounding information? Too much disinformation
>>>> floating around out there.
>>>
>>> I would imagine that to properly build, line and then recover a 580 acre
>>> tailing pond 100 feet deep in toxic sludge would require more money than
>>> the
>>> mining project could ever produce.
>>
>> And once again you let your "imagination" lead you to conclusions devoid
>> of fact.
>>
>
> You're the one dreaming up "liners" for ponds so big they could cover Lake
> Erie. Do you think Home Depot carries them?
Do you need a reference for commercial membrane manufacturers?
Even Bridgestone (tires) does it, albeit not too well if Tempe's (AZ)
Town Lake failure is any indication.
>>> It is like "clean coal" technology the
>>> coal industry spouts. It simply does not exist.
>>
>> That's another lie.
>
> It does not exist. Period.
It does, and I proved it too.
> It is a term manufactured by the industry PR
> marketers. The extraction of coal is a horribly polluting and destructive
> business all on its own.
The extraction process is NOT what "clean coal" refers to.
You know that, don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal
Clean coal is a concept for processes or approaches that mitigate
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases that arise
from the utilization of coal, mainly for electrical power generation,
using clean coal technology. Currently, the term clean coal is used in
the coal industry primarily in reference to carbon capture and storage,
which pumps and stores CO2 emissions underground, and plants using
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC). IGCC involves coal
gasification, which provides a basis for increased efficiency and lower
cost in capturing CO2 emissions.[1][2][3][4] Prior to the current focus
on carbon capture and storage,[5] the term clean coal had been used to
refer to technologies for reducing emissions of NOx, sulfur, and heavy
metals from coal combustion.
http://seca.doe.gov/technologies/coa...pgfb_tidd.html
Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program (CCTDP) - Round 1
Advanced Electric Power Generation - Fluidized Bed Combustion
Please don't go tell those dedicated government scientists they were had
by the
PR boys, OK?
>> It existed as early as the mid 1930s in Germany - the Fischer/Tropsch
>> process.
>
> That is a proces Hitler used to convert coal into gasoline.
Ding!
You got one right.
> It isn't used
> now because of its enormous cost.
Then you got one wrong...tsk...
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9101HIE6.txt
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/o...5531373740.xml
The best bet right now for nonconventional fuel comes from South Africa,
experts said. The country has powered its airline industry for a decade
using a coal-based jet fuel blend developed by petrochemicals group
Sasol. It's technically a synthetic fuel, which means it can be used
without altering engines or other aircraft equipment.
> Clean coal it isn't.
Oh but it is.
>> Honestly, do you ever get tired of disseminating disinformation?
>
> You top Newt Gingrich with your fantasy plans of hyper engineering saving
> the world using technology that does not exist.
SASOL does not exist?
Huh?
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/A..._207896-1.html
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...omegrown_fuel/
Experts said the safest bet right now for non-conventional fuel comes
from South Africa in the form of a coal blend developed by
petrochemicals group Sasol.
It’s technically a “synthetic” fuel, which means it can be used without
altering engines or other aircraft equipment.
U.S. companies are quickly developing a variety of similar synthetics.
Airline experts say three companies in particular could provide as much
as three million gallons a day of synthetic fuel by 2012: American Clean
Coal Fuels of Portland, Ore., Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., and
Rentech Inc. (RTK) of Los Angeles.