Coal is hardly "relatively...clean".  Where do you get such a wacky
notion?  And "inexpensive" only if you value clean air, water, and lung
health at zero dollars.

Nuclear is only "clean" if you discount the environmental effects of mining
and the carbon footprint of the U3O8 enrichment plants, and ignore the fact
that there is no long term solution in sight on where/how to handle the

Geothermal, wind, and solar are the cleanest by far.

On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Curly McLain via Mercedes <> wrote:

> Coal is the most underutilized resource in this country
> The elektrojuicity I like best is hydro
> Second best is solar, but it is impractical on a large scale.  Great for
> life "off the grid"
> THird is coal.  Relatively inexpensive, clean, as you say, and abundant
> An added benefit from old coal plants was that they provided sulfur to the
> soil as a plant nutrient.  Now farms have to add sulfur to the normal NPK
> so fertilizer is becoming NPKS.  I had to add sulfur to the garden this
> year as the last few years I could grow much of anything.  Depleted sulfur
> and high pH together meant no food.
> If those small nuke plants ever become reality, that could move up the
> list.  The problem with nuke now is that they are very large, and very
> expensive to build, and operate, and contribute to terrorist concerns.
> No terrorist ever tried to steal the clinkers form a coal plant.
>  Don't forget all the nice clean electricity created by nice coal fired
>> plants.
>> RB
> _______________________________________
> To search list archives
> To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:

To search list archives

To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:

Reply via email to