overcomming disadvantages of coal?
930478
One way to overcome it, is by burying it. It sounds ridiculous, but its true. Over time, the buried Co2 will convert into rock. For example, the walls of the Grand Canyon is made of Co2 rock. I read this in a Scientific American issue, and I think it may have been in a 2004-05 edition.
398509
To much of anything is bad.You can over do it,if you are asking you are doing enough! Good Luck!10 miles for to long could do serious damage.
1166099
considering ur trying coal or other burning material as fuel.\n\nif the ash content is more means then the heat conductivity will be less from core of the fire.\n\nash is formed due to loosely packed material and has very less heat in it.\n\nash has less sp.heat capacity.
339908
A nuclear plant is efficient and very clean. They probably dont cost that much more than any other sort of plant. The disadvantages are straight forward, if anything goes wrong then they go very wrong.
1185253
One of the realities of the energy debate is that it really does take a portfolio of technologies.  Nuclear clearly has a part to play, as does wind, solar and other renewables.  Coal certainly isn't going away anytime soon either.  \nThere simply aren't enough resources to cost effectively build just one kind of power generation plant for all the world's needs.\nthe National Renewable Energy Laboratory has some great discussions about this if you're interested enough to find them.
334577
Well, if you're considering burning fossil fuels like coal and oil, then it wouldn't pose much danger because they only release carbon dioxide and water vapours into the atmosphere and this release of CO2 apparently helps to maintain the CO2 cycle.\nHowever, there are organic compounds (some used as fuels), including polymers like 'polytetrafluoroethene' that are non-biodegradable and so cause a litter problem in landfill sites. And if we burn them, they release toxic gases like carbon monoxide which can cause cancer and hence damage the environment.
775364
There are no real advantages, only perceived ones! \n\nThere isn't enough space to list all of the disadvantages.\n\nIf some one was to do an honest cost/benefit analysis, very few would own one.
768291
Nope, it's a load of crap.  If such a thing existed, we wouldn't be paying miners to dig coal out of the ground.
56424
coal produces CO2 and global warming/ fumes that create air polution(mercury and such) it is also a fossil fuel, meaning that it cannot be renewed\n\nnuclear produces nuclear waste that can be made into weapons although we now have technology that can use 99% of the fuel and the remaining waste will be of such low grade not even a dirty bomb can be made. This is promising for nuclear power since it lasts the longest and is highly productive\n\nsolar is that the panels take up lots of space and that space would be unusuable for anything else(solar fields)\n\ngeothermal is that it can be only placed in certain areas and fumes from the inside of the earth such as Hydrogen Sulfide have to be taken care of otherwise air polution will result.\n\nwind is that there is no constant wind, you have to sit and wait for the wind to come, these also take up lots of space but technology has made it even more efficient\n\nhydroelectric energy is that dams damage the enviroment, fish cannot migrate upstream as a result, and tidal versions are still in development.\n\ni think you might have wanted to say fuel cell so ill answer anyway- fuel cells (hydrogen) currently take more energy to create the hydrogen than the energy the hydrogen can actually release, GM is currently testing wind as a potential energy generator for the hydrogen to be split from water to make hydrogen fuel, however hydrogen technology has become more efficient, currently some machines can generate 70-80% efficiency\n\nnatrual gas is abundant, but there are risks such as explosions involved, it also releases greenhouse gasses such as CO2 when burned although it is cleaner than gasoline and desiel when properly used. like coal natrual gas is also unrenewable since it too is a fossil fuel
362433
an power plant will consume more input than it will produce in output.  even fusion power plants will not be 100% efficient due to transmission loss and transfer loss.
105991
I believe in the long run it will be cheaper than fossil fuel based applications. Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive to build and control and the deposit of waste costs a lot. But in the long term, i think the costs saved from cleaning up pollution caused by fossil fuels, and costs saved from the transportation of fuels (uranium generates way more energy than an equal amount of oil or coal) will be more beneficial than using fossil fuels.
1139312
Difficult to find any specific references to address your question ....\n\nSulphur is an abundant element in nature and is essential to life, so in some places there is quite a lot of it.  Factors within the swamp  when the coal is being formed such as oxygen supply and bacterial activity affect the peat.   Inorganic sediments (clay, silt and sand) are carried by streams and by wind into the peat swamps, particularly near their margins. These and other factors determine the nature of the coal seams mined today, especially their ash (inorganic matter) and sulphur content. \n\nThese links may help.
66484
Problem State: \n68 million acres of forest damaged or destroyed by acid rain \n\nAcid rain is caused primarily by the emission of sulfur dioxide from coal-fired power plants. There are a number of remedies, including: switching fuel sources to natural gas, oil, or renewable energy sources; switching to low-sulfur coal; removing the sulfur from the coal before burning; using fluidized-bed combustion processes to burn the coal; and removing the sulfur from the smoke stack after combustion through the installation of pollution control equipment such as "scrubbers." \n\nCosts/Benefits \n\nA combination of tax incentives, government regulations and direct assistance that results in pollution-control equipment being placed on all coal combustion sites, increases in efficiency of industrial processes, transportation and appliances would cost approximately $8 billion per year for ten years. This is about 1% of the world's total military expenditures.
1020736
Coal power plants release more radiation than nuclear power plants (because of Carbon-14, and the fact that they do not include shielding for radiation).  So, replacing coal burning plants with nuclear plants would be better for humanity.
23831
It has been in short supply since last year.\nManufacturers are rushing to get new plants on line to utilize by-products/waste from fossil power plants to catch up demand.\nIt is only going to get worse.\nPlans for a couple of new plants here in W. PA
1117649
several things are at work:\n\n1) the mass of the trees & coal in any area is comparatively insignificant when contrasted against the mass of the earth\n\n2) conservation of matter (which roughly translates in this instance to conservation of mass): the involved processes are not nuclear in nature\n\nfor instance, a pound of coal is taken from the Black Mesa, AZ and burned in New York, NY.  in New York, it leaves behind 0.8 ounces of Mercury, 1.2 ounces of carbon black and 0.5 ounces of material retained in the formation of ash: 13.5 ounces were converted to components of exhaust gases -- commonly, carbon dioxide and water.\n\nNow imagine the total mass of the earth is 2000 tons and the average density is 4 g/cm^3 (just over 249.71 lbs/cu ft): the average radius of the earth would then be very slightly less than 15.638 feet (roughly 27,680,013 cu ins).\n\n\nWithout going into the slight deformation of our oblate spheroid, and imagining the pound of coal had an average density of 1.5 g/cm^3, the extracted coal had a volume of roughly 18.453 cu ins.\n\nThe distance those 18+ cu ins were moved amounts to just under 93 inches along a great circle route describing a 1179.07-inch circumference (almost 28.387 deg).\n\nObviously, this is going to have negligible effect on the mass of the overall body, even with it rotating at 1/4 deg per minute (1 revolution per 24 hours). \n\nthese gases disperse, and are usually absorbed by various organisms.  however, some of these gases are further converted (for instance, lightning can separate water and other compounds into their constituent atoms, and provide the energy for reforming other compounds such as ozone).\n\nfor those unfamiliar with it, ozone is the triatomic form of oxygen (which is why i get a kick out of ads like the one for the "ionic breeze" that "converts ozone to oxygen")\n\nthe point is that the masses of the constituent elements never changed: they were simply redistributed -- arguably, in a way that mitigates against the creation of even a very slightly unbalanced condition.
806968
. Coal is formed by heat and pressure over millions of years on vegetation deposited in ancient shallow swamps . It varies in density, porosity, hardness, and reflectivity.