Actually, yes it does explain that about Clean Coal Emissions.. It provides both sides of the argument. Its the Discovery Channel ffs, they explain EVERYTHING (well, usually) about what they're talking about

Seriously though, go watch it and you'll see what i'm talking about.

In all honesty, I've been searching for the show since you mentioned it, but I can't find it. Please provide very specific details about the show. Searches I've tried so far:
"ecoplanet"
"ecoplanet tv"
+"ecoplanet" +"ecopolis"
+"ecoplanet" +"Australia"
+"ecoplanet" +"clean coal"
I've done many more with related terms on Google, YouTube, and Discovery Channel's website; but I have come up with zero results. I cannot make the assumption of what you and/or the program is advocating is correct or incorrect without seeing it firsthand and comparing it with other data.

In fact, I can't even find it on Discovery Channel's TV schedule:
The day you said you "just watched" the show.
Or the day before...
Are you sure this show was on Discovery Channel? Are you sure it was called Ecoplanet? This is incredibly difficult for me to find the show, please provide some link to its existence.

Ehem...
The best way to defeat energy waste is to design more efficient uses of the energy. We don't really need much of the random crap we have now. It's sad that people still depend on creating more energy to solve their energy needs than simply revising their needs.
Costing a total of $3,000 I told my dad that we should add more insulation to the house, which we added this last autumn. Right now we've had a drop in heating costs around roughly 20%. Of course this is Alaska, and heating costs are probably a bigger problem for us than most elsewhere, but I'm still surprised that nobody buys Heat Pumps to heat their houses. They are ignored by most people, which is ridiculous, because they are roughly 160% efficient. Yes they produce more heat than the energy to run them. They do so by taking unused heat from the surroundings rather than heaters, which have to produce all of their heat.

Or why is there no national recycling program? Most energy costs could be reduced by reusing the canisters of used products.

Another important way to reduce costs, which is really not pushed, would be to have more intelligent process lines. If your town had a factory that could be changed to manufacture a number of things, rather than simply one item, you could not only eliminate shipping costs of many items, but also custom build most anything.

Also, there is little to no research towards a room temperature superconductor, which would solve for any sort of shipping problem. Why is there no research? because after getting substances that are superconducting at -70ºC people stopped funding the research.
How could this help? Levitating transports would make it possible to travel thousands of miles on a gallon of gas.

It just disappoints me that there is no research actually being done into ways to cut back on energy costs, and only looking towards more energy production.

On the subject though, I am just waiting for those guys in Canada to finish their Fusion reactor, and then the rest of the world to jump on board and maybe give them a bit of money. Michal Laberge needs some funds world.
Oh and solar energy would work if we were in space, but on a planet, it sucks balls.

Maybe it was Econoplanet or something, I don't exactly remember. And I thought it was on the discovery channel, maybe its on the science channel (i'm not sure cause my friend was the one messing around with the remote and his cable's DVR)

I'll find it and get back to you with some links.

Sorry folks, we have another decade until we can start making new nuclear power plants. Three Mile Island was only 30 years ago, and it killed the nuclear industry for 40 years.

You also realize that had the reactor ruptured, the entire Chesapeake area would be devoid of life for 10,000 years. There's a damn good reason for being scared of it. Of course, Chernobyl was caused by poor Soviet design, but also human error. Sure, we learn from our mistakes, but if the mistakes are this severe, there has to be a better way.

Nothing will ever replace coal or petroleum in this century. We will still use it, but due to the crazy people we will start to greatly decrease our rate of energy use. Solar technology isn't that hard to use. I mean, how hard is it to make a solar water heater? Obviously you can't depend solely on the solar part; that's exactly why we have hybrid cars, and why the electric cars didn't pan out. I think the key is to gradually replace anything we can with some sort of renewable energy in the small scale. I've always believed that micro-management is vastly superior to macro-management.

You should look at Penn & Teller's example of describing our energy issue, I think they used the perfect metaphor:
Skip to about 5:45.
Of course there are dangers in nuclear power; but as long as we're careful, we shouldn't have to worry. We shouldn't be forming an opposing opinion based on the extremely unlikely, worst case scenario where the reactor ruptures and a meltdown occurs. If we have incredible engineering today and the opposition can only bring us two out of—I don't know—six nuclear reactor disasters that have occurred, why should we stop development that probably and most likely solve almost all of our energy problems?

Fusion would solve our energy problems, and they've been working with it for some time now. Tokamak Fusion Reactors.

"solve our energy problem"
the only thing that will solve our energy problem is to dramatically reduce the amount of energy we use.

It's not clear from my post, but I'm for nuclear energy. Just not right now. Look at all the advances we have made in nuclear energy, without the continued use of those advances.

One of the main reasons Three Mile Island was so bad was that the engineers suspended caution for hopeful optimism, which is exactly what you're doing right now HolySin. If we start increasing the number of nuclear reactors, the chances of a meltdown are going to rise. People don't like to take risks, but what's important to know is that they are 1000 times more likely to accept those risks if it is voluntary. Driving a car, for example. People will drive cars voluntarily, even though it's much more dangerous than flying. The same goes for a nuclear reactor. What's really important is to weigh the pros and cons of the situation. With such a huge con, it's understandable that people are against it. In any case, nuclear power isn't going anywhere. We still have the technology and we will use it when we are desperate enough.

Ad Hominem is never a good way to debate, good sir.

Pros and Cons of Nuclear power in my view:

Pros:
- Generates massive energy
- Is an evironmentally friendly
energy source.
- Inexpensive compared to
other rescources
- Makes energy costs lower
for residents
- Little Polution
- Reliable fuel force, lasting
average 10-20 years with no
problems.
- Safe way to harvest energy.

Cons:
- Not allowed near some residential areas
- Radiation from fuel rods spreads
- Uses uranium, a radiactive substance
- Nuclear waste is dumped into the ocean
- Possible chance of a meltdown

In my opinion, Nuclear energy is a very safe and effecient way to get energy. It's more reliable and more powerful than wind energy and solar energy, and it's not hard to come by. Solar energy needs the sun, which is useless for nearly 10 hours of the day. And wind energy needs wind, which would work best in a hurricane or tornado, or huge, wide, long, open, flat field with lots of wind constantly. But it costs so much to transfer that energy to cities, that it loses some its energy along the way.

The entire planet would need over one million wind turbines to power it without any help from other recources. And we're at what globally... 11,000? 12,000? Nuclear energy costs so much less for 1 power plant than a thousand wind turbines. Plus the management costs for other recources.

And lets not forget the greatest energy of all time that could revolutionize the world's look at energy:
Nuclear Fusion. The power of the sun.

Uhm...

Neither is ignoratio elenchi.

The point is those accidents occurred on poorly constructed and poorly managed reactors. What's more disturbing is that rather than develop new nuclear reactors which would be safer and extremely less likely to burn up in radioactive flames, we continue to use outdated reactors which aren't as safe and reinforces the fear of nuclear power. I'm not saying nuclear power is the only way, it's just one of the better options in my opinion. Fusion and fission would also be nice.

Uhm... Nuclear Power is Fission, dude.

Lemme rephrase that: Fission is one way we can use Nuclear Power.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 26 2009, 10:43 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: Eliminating spammy portion

Woops, meant to say hydropower. Accidently said fusion and fission.

Well there are means of using Hydropower (more like steam) in Nuclear Fission, so you're not too far off

So far hydropower has been a great savior in the power industry, but it floods necesary habitat of animals and humans. It kills while giving power to nearby cities.

Not necessarily. Niagara is an example of non-destructive hydropower.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 26 2009, 10:43 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: Cleaning up thread

That is one example, majority of all the dams we use are diminshing water supply for wildlife and flooding their habitat. The dams along the Colorado River is a perfect example. All the dams diminish the river everytime it passes one. This effects the wildlife of the entire habitat around the river.

Victoria Falls in Africa is another.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 26 2009, 10:47 pm by Dapperdan. Reason: fixing quotes