Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

NickB79

(20,363 posts)

29. Coal's main byproduct is CO2

Reply to angrychair (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 28, 2026, 05:55 PM

Mar 28

It will take Nature hundreds of thousands of years to sequester it. It's impossible for us to bury it at scale using current technology.

It will also cause a global mass extinction event that will take out a sizeable portion of the planet's biosphere.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We may not need any stinking oil after all.. [View all] multigraincracker Mar 28 OP

Someone please explain how this doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics. harumph Mar 28 #1

it is harnessing a 'second' source of energy, in addition to the solar stopdiggin Mar 28 #2

Not if it's harnessing solar power, which is infinite as long as we have a source FakeNoose Mar 28 #7

'solar power' doesn't do anything like 'revising' thermodynamics ... stopdiggin Mar 28 #30

I have no science background Eddie Haskell 60 Mar 28 #9

No, that is thermodynamics. mr715 Mar 28 #18

cool Eddie Haskell 60 Mar 28 #21

I'm not buying any of this. To start with, there is no such thing as 100% efficency in any realm. flashman13 Mar 28 #12

The 130% number being bandied about in the article refers to quantum efficiency Shermann Mar 28 #16

I am always raising my eyebrows James48 Mar 28 #3

Why? mr715 Mar 28 #19

It isn't 130% efficient if it is 2 energy harvesting events. mr715 Mar 28 #4

I discussed this badly misinterpreted wishful thinking case in another thread on the topic. NNadir Mar 28 #5

No angrychair Mar 28 #6

Mercury in the exhaust smoke. BidenRocks Mar 28 #8

That is appalling and dangerous nonsense. When confronted... NNadir Mar 28 #10

I was just using it as an example angrychair Mar 28 #28

Again, the question is, did radioactivity from nuclear power plants kill as many people in 70 years as died in the... NNadir Mar 28 #32

So by your logic angrychair Mar 28 #33

poster said absolutely nothing of the sort stopdiggin Sunday #39

After coal is burned fly ash has to be disposed of. What goes into the air stays in the air. twodogsbarking Mar 28 #11

Coal ash has radioactivity and heavy metals IbogaProject Mar 28 #14

More people have died in coal processing, burning than nuclear. mr715 Mar 28 #15

Nonsense Disaffected Mar 28 #24

Coal's main byproduct is CO2 NickB79 Mar 28 #29

you could not be more completely misinformed - or wrong about a particular subject. stopdiggin Mar 28 #31

Hanford angrychair Mar 28 #34

Trade offs for any decision. mr715 Sunday #37

No. They do not. (say differently) stopdiggin Sunday #38

Isn't this a peer review journal? multigraincracker Mar 28 #13

Its a popsci distillation. mr715 Mar 28 #17

No. I accessed the paper on which this pop misinformation is based. NNadir Mar 28 #23

It's not a perpetual motion machine swong19104 Mar 28 #20

Link to the actual scientific paper mentioned in the press report JHB Mar 28 #22

The paper if not talking about energy conversion efficiency. Disaffected Mar 28 #25

Wait!?! H2O Man Mar 28 #27

Recommended. H2O Man Mar 28 #26

Violates the first Law of Thermodynamics Smells like BS Melon Sunday #35

Whatever bankrupts the wretched Saudi oligarchs, the better! Initech Sunday #36