27 ms·

Is this good or bad news? I assume good for the environment, right? Or creating the alternative sources would generate more CO2?

• XCSme 7y ago
  Oh, it's probably bad news for the coal plant owners.
• FreeFull 7y ago
  Burning coal is generally known for being really bad for air quality. The ash is somewhat radioactive, and if there's any sulphur in the coal it'll cause acid rain. The exhaust from burning the coal nowadays ends up going through treatment to clean it up (remove sulphur and particulates), which is an added expense. In comparison, natural gas tends to be rather pure, so when burned it produces just carbon dioxide and water.
  • Ambele 7y ago
    Yes, greenhouse gasses and lung effects aside, the sulphur mixes with carbon dioxide and other airborne oxides to becomes sulpher dioxide. This makes rain water acidic and causes the erosion on the Statue of Liberty.
• mhh__ 7y ago
  Coal is probably the worst possible way to generate power at scale. People complain about nuclear power being dangerous but the air pollution from a coal power station kills people every single day. (yes)
• IAmEveryone 7y ago
  Natural gas is second-worst after coal among the major energy sources, releasing about half as much CO2. Leaving coal in the ground is both necessary as well as supremely effective to stave off the next global catastrophe. It also drastically reduces other emissions, some of which have been implicated in the current catastrophe. As a cherry on top, it upsets coal magnates, a self-selected group uniquely qualified to entertain us with their misery.