Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Finishline42

(1,117 posts)

7. Nope - I only post under Finishline42

Reply to Nihil (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 25, 2014, 07:44 PM

Apr 2014

NatGas is better than coal - easily.

Gasland 2 was a real eye opener - with regards to fracking. I once thought that fracking could be safely done if it was by other than fly by night operators. Not so sure now. Especially when considering keeping our water clean enough to drink.

Better than Natgas I think solar is the way to go. Instead of having utilities providing centralized power plants - all in a cost plus model, solar panels on houses and buildings makes more sense for a lot of reasons.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Duke - Removing Coal Ash Dumps From Watersheds Would Cost $10 Billion, Take Decades; Guess Who Pays? [View all] hatrack Apr 2014 OP

It's wrong OLDMDDEM Apr 2014 #1

Please don't over react... Finishline42 Apr 2014 #2

Oh look ... another Rip Van Winkle supporting fossil fuels ... Nihil Apr 2014 #6

Nope - I only post under Finishline42 Finishline42 Apr 2014 #7

imma keep asking this till someone can explain it like i am 2. mopinko Apr 2014 #3

Trace amounts of those elements Finishline42 Apr 2014 #4

and? mopinko Apr 2014 #5

one of those "externalities" conveniently not included in the price of coal. Bill USA Apr 2014 #8