FIND THE ANSWERS

Is it a good idea to build lots of coal plants equipped with carbon capture and sequestration? The new one in?

Answer this question

  • Is it a good idea to build lots of coal plants equipped with carbon capture and sequestration? The new one in?


Answers

Answer #1 | 23/12 2013 18:59
nature provided a solution to carbon capture- it's called coal. Natural gas has better efficiency and is cleaner, plus you can build them in cities and use the heat in co-gen applications.
Positive: 66.666666666667 %
Answer #2 | 26/12 2013 03:38
Why waste money on fantasies, just build the coal power stations as cheaply as possible.
Positive: 44.444444444444 %
Answer #3 | 23/12 2013 17:48
Stupid thing to do, lower efficiency increased costs, and will make no difference to global CO2 levels, with China and India blasting CO2 into the atmosphere at ever increasing amounts. Plus CO2 has very little or no effect on climate temperatures.
Positive: 42.857142857143 %
Answer #4 | 24/12 2013 05:24
Let the markets decide, as long as they are operated safely and dispose of the waste products properly I don't care if they use coal, methane, nuclear, wind, or solar. "Well if the plants could vote, they would be voting for the Republicans." I laughed so hard I nearly spilled my coffee, but I will leave it up to others to score that open goal.
Positive: 40 %
Answer #5 | 23/12 2013 17:58
With fracked natural gas being so plentiful in the U.S. right now, there is little reason to build coal fired plants of any type.
Positive: 33.333333333333 %
Answer #6 | 23/12 2013 17:38
No. Better to use natural gas We need to avoid coal
Positive: 33.333333333333 %
Answer #7 | 24/12 2013 01:17
Well if the plants could vote, they would be voting for the Republicans. But then if plants could vote, the Democrats would provide a free tank of CO2 to each plant, using taxpayer money, and who could turn that down? Then they would blame Bush for reducing the CO2 level.
Positive: 28.571428571429 %
Answer #8 | 23/12 2013 21:40
Well, it is a better idea to build lots of coal plants with carbon capture and sequester than to build them without doing so. Still, if you're asking where the greatest energy return for the dollar with the lowest carbon footprint is to be had, I'd say it lies outside the commercial realm. Residential solar, residential geothermal, small family farm hydroelectric and wind, that's the ticket.
Positive: 25 %
Answer #9 | 24/12 2013 18:58
No. Not really. Carbon capture and sequestration really does no good and helps little anyways
Positive: 25 %
Answer #10 | 23/12 2013 17:34
Just build them now with the upgrades and tech they have now . China does not . Carbon Monoxide is poison CO2 is not. The EPA is ran by eco fascist .
Positive: 0 %

Possible answer