<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Coming Soon To A Gas Station Near You &#8211; COAL!</title> <atom:link href="http://www.tanveernaseer.com/coal-and-cars/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.tanveernaseer.com/coal-and-cars/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=coal-and-cars</link> <description>Business Coach and Writer</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:37:20 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /> <item><title>By: Tanveer Naseer</title><link>http://www.tanveernaseer.com/coal-and-cars/#comment-10</link> <dc:creator>Tanveer Naseer</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:50:37 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://tanveernaseer.wordpress.com/?p=21#comment-10</guid> <description>&quot;Burning coal can be much cleaner than you think.&quot;
Really?  Then why the need to add &quot;clean&quot; before it?  Simple - because the burning of coal is not clean.  Even those coal plants which don&#039;t actually burn the coal end up releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere, something I&#039;m sure you&#039;ve heard is a bad thing.
Regardless, your statement doesn&#039;t really address my point here which is the creation of additional nuclear power plants and spending what undoubtedly will be billions of dollars on developing this so-called &quot;clean coal&quot; technology won&#039;t resolve the issue of oil prices for consumers and businesses.  If both of these candidates want to show true leadership on this issue, they need to look forward, not backwards.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Burning coal can be much cleaner than you think.&#8221;</p><p>Really?  Then why the need to add &#8220;clean&#8221; before it?  Simple &#8211; because the burning of coal is not clean.  Even those coal plants which don&#8217;t actually burn the coal end up releasing millions of tons of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere, something I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;ve heard is a bad thing.</p><p>Regardless, your statement doesn&#8217;t really address my point here which is the creation of additional nuclear power plants and spending what undoubtedly will be billions of dollars on developing this so-called &#8220;clean coal&#8221; technology won&#8217;t resolve the issue of oil prices for consumers and businesses.  If both of these candidates want to show true leadership on this issue, they need to look forward, not backwards.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: grandweepers</title><link>http://www.tanveernaseer.com/coal-and-cars/#comment-9</link> <dc:creator>grandweepers</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:57:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://tanveernaseer.wordpress.com/?p=21#comment-9</guid> <description>There is a big difference between minimg coal and burning coal.  Mining coal is definetly messy.  Burning coal can be much cleaner than you think.  Especially, with new technologies to capture wasted heat and dramatically reduce pollution.  But, because coal has such a bad reputation in this country we haven&#039;t invested in any of this technology.  Upping the use of coal in this country immediately would be negative, but investing in greater infrastructure to use this cheap resource more effectively is a great idea.   If you want an example of effective and clean coal useage take a look at the scandinavian countries which use hydroelectric and coal for 90% of thier energy demands.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a big difference between minimg coal and burning coal.  Mining coal is definetly messy.  Burning coal can be much cleaner than you think.  Especially, with new technologies to capture wasted heat and dramatically reduce pollution.  But, because coal has such a bad reputation in this country we haven&#8217;t invested in any of this technology.  Upping the use of coal in this country immediately would be negative, but investing in greater infrastructure to use this cheap resource more effectively is a great idea.   If you want an example of effective and clean coal useage take a look at the scandinavian countries which use hydroelectric and coal for 90% of thier energy demands.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
