http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9356757Oh my.
Disclosure: franksolich has always been grateful to the sparkling husband primitive, who while in the U.S. Navy patroling the coast off of South Carolina 1965-1967, made the world a safer place for the lilliputian little lad franksolich, and because of that bias, franksolich might always be presenting the sparkling husband primitive in a better light than what the sparkling husband primitive deserves.
Stinky The Clown (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-20-10 07:26 PM
THE SPARKLING HUSBAND PRIMITIVE, #05 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009
Original message
Durban cites "clean coal" on Matthews' show . . . . Dick, I love ya, but c'mon. "Clean Coal?"
You wanna define that, please?
"Clean Coal?"
"Clean" coal?
Really?
The sparkling husband primitive must've messed up on his medicines, or the sparkling husband primitive's wife slipped something into his drink, but anyway, the sparkling husband primitive's referring to Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), not that city down there in South Africa.
Motown_Johnny (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-20-10 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. there is always some new technology in the pipeline to save us...
Cold Fusion was one
Corn Based Ethanol was another
Clean Coal is now in vogue
It is just another way to continue kicking the can down the road indefinitely.
Bobbieo (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-20-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Some lobbyist must have gotten to him.
ProfessorGAC (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-20-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. There's "Clean Coal" In Illinois
It's just anthacitic coal that's lower in other elemental artifacts. It's closer to pure carbon, so there's far less sulfur, far less phosphorous, and less asphaltics that burn less clean. The asphalitcs release more soot, more carbon monoxide and generate less total energy per unit mass.
I'm not supporting the idea, but that's what meant.
The bitumenous coal varieties are higher in sulfur and have more organic content, so they don't burn as clean per unit mass. In absolute fact, if we HAVE to burn coal, these are cleaner than others.
From a CO2 and climate change standpoint, the distinction is irrelevant. From a pollutant perspective, there is a measurable difference.
Doesn't make it better for climate change. But it does release less junk into the air.
Radical Activist (1000+ posts) Wed Oct-20-10 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Could you fix your typo and spell Durbin's name correctly?
Would you like to answer what Durbin's response is or did you just abandon this thread?
Well, it looks to franksolich as if the sparkling husband did indeed abandon the campfire; probably went off to light a new one, in his relentless campaign to become
TOP DUmmie [PRIMITIVE] OF 2010.
