Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ThirdEye who wrote (175041)	8/27/2001 9:10:50 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

As I said before, there is no technology that reduces the emissions of CO2 when burning coal. If your burn more you get more CO2 and if you burn less you get less CO2. Their is no technology to reduce CO2 emissions. Coal is carbon contaminated with sulfur and other stuff. The other stuff and sulfur is removed by scrubbing. mindfully.org Now their is a 20 years to develop process that requires 6 ton of rock for every ton of coal. That's silly. So as the ignorant of America resist Nuclear the only choice is coal that will work today. But Possible Solutions for Now 'Clean Coal' Remains an Oxymoron, Unlikely to Change for Years to Come John J Fialka / Wall Street Journal 18may01 mindfully.org Conservation groups are only expert on how evil producing energy is. Power companies are expert on producing power. If you don't understand the difference between talkers and walkers then you are condemned to think the way you do. tom watson tosiwmee