CBS’s Pelley Blames Coal Industry for Global Warming

Photo of Kyle Drennen.
  • Bookmark and Share

Scott Pelley, CBS On Sunday’s CBS ‘60 Minutes,’ anchor Scott Pelley, who once remarked that global warming critics were the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, identified the American coal industry as one of the main culprits of climate change: "The future of our climate might be summed up in one question, what do we do about coal? Coal generates nearly half the electricity in the United States and in the world. But it is the dirtiest fuel of all when it comes to carbon dioxide, or CO-2, the leading greenhouse gas. A few days ago, the Obama administration declared, for the first time, that CO-2 is a threat to human health and it plans to impose limits."

Pelley’s story did feature a representative of the coal industry, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, who actually called for limitations on carbon emissions: "It's my judgment it is a problem. We need to go to work on it now. And it's critical that we start to act in this country...Our goal line is substantially to reduce our carbon footprint, to de-carbonize our business, by 2050." However, that wasn’t good enough for Pelley: "Four decades? That's a long time."

Pelley followed up by citing left-wing global warming activist Jim Hansen: "2050 is too late. We will have guaranteed disasters for our children, grandchildren, and the unborn." Pelley explained: "Jim Hansen is NASA's top climate scientist. He's credited with some of the earliest and most accurate projections on climate change. He thinks that Rogers plan leaves the Earth in the oven decades too long."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Hansen went on to call for an end to the coal industry: "We are going to have to phase out emissions from coal within the next 20 years if we hope to prevent climate disasters." Pelley asked: "Are you saying that we can't build any new coal-fired power plants in this country?" Hansen replied: "Absolutely, not only in this country, but in the world. This is not yet understood. That we are going to have to have a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants within the next few years, and phase out the existing ones over the next 20 years, or so, if we hope to preserve a climate like the one that has existed the last several thousand years."

Later, Rogers called for government investment in clean coal technology: "What we need in this country is what I would call a Marshall Plan...We need to rebuild our economy and transition it to a low-carbon economy. We can do that. But it's going to take trillions of dollars to do it." Pelley attacked Rogers’ own lack of investment in the new technology: "But come on, you admit to being the third largest carbon producer in the United States. You tell me that carbon sequestration is the future, because we can't afford to live without coal. But then you tell me you haven't invested any money in carbon sequestration."

Later, Pelley again expressed his displeasure at Rogers’ slow pace of adopting clean coal processes: "Now, Rogers has broken ground on his two new coal-fired plants, despite warnings from top scientists like NASA's Jim Hansen. So, when Jim Hansen says that to save the planet, we should stop building coal-fired power plants today, you say what?" Rogers replied: "I say, 'Mr. Hansen, can't get done, won't get done. We've got to keep our economy going. We've got to make the transition. And I'm going to do everything I can with the greatest sense of urgency to make the transition. But to do what you ask me to do now is just not doable.'"

Pelley concluded his report: "President Obama wants to speed up cleaner technologies by taxing utilities for the carbon they produce. But that idea is meeting some stiff resistance in Congress." Interesting that none of that "stiff resistance" from Congress was featured in the story.

Here is a portion of the segment:

7:21PM

SCOTT PELLEY: The future of our climate might be summed up in one question, what do we do about coal? Coal generates nearly half the electricity in the United States and in the world. But it is the dirtiest fuel of all when it comes to carbon dioxide, or CO-2, the leading greenhouse gas. A few days ago, the Obama administration declared, for the first time, that CO-2 is a threat to human health and it plans to impose limits. But making coal safe will come at an astronomical cost. After the economy, this could be the biggest debate in Washington. And one of the most influential people in all of this is Jim Rogers. Coal has made Rogers and his company rich, and that's why we were surprised to hear what this high-flying power baron has to say about what coal does to the environment. Jim Rogers wanted us to see America's enormous dependency on coal, so he flew us out to see one of his 20 coal-burning power plants.

JIM ROGERS: I remember the first time I took a helicopter to look down at a power plant like this. I was 41 years old and I said, 'oh, my goodness, I'm responsible for that!'

PELLEY: Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy, the nation's third largest electric utility. His smoke stacks pump out 100 million tons of carbon dioxide every year, which makes what comes out of Rogers' mouth so surprising. Controlling carbon emissions in the near future is inevitable, in your view? This is going to happen?

ROGERS: It's inevitable, in my judgment.

PELLEY: You're one of the biggest polluters in the world when it comes to carbon emissions.

ROGERS: We're one of the largest emitters. And it tells you how daunting the challenge is that we have in front of us.

PELLEY: You know, there are a lot of people, many of them in your industry, many people that who you probably know, who say that global warming is not a big problem.

ROGERS: It's my judgment it is a problem. We need to go to work on it now. And it's critical that we start to act in this country.

PELLEY: Like a reformed tobacco executive, Rogers says we can't survive the emissions his industry creates. He showed us what he means at a North Carolina power station that can light up one and a half million homes. How much coal does this plant burn in a given day?

ROGERS: Every day, this plant burns roughly 19,000 tons of coal. That's two train loads, and each train has about 100 cars.

PELLEY: This is what that looks like. See the train in the foreground and the train in the background? It's the same train, a mile long. The fact is, America runs on coal, and here's one of the reasons why. The Powder River Basin that stretches across Wyoming and Montana may be the largest coal reserve on Earth. We've got 200 years worth of reserves, cheap and right under our feet. No wonder coal generates half of our electricity. But here's the brutal part -- coal is twice as dirty as natural gas, and puts more carbon dioxide in the air than all of our cars and trucks. In short, we're caught between a rock and a hot place. You know, I notice all of this coming out of the stacks. What is that?

ROGERS: That's good news. When you see a plume coming out of a stack of a power plant, that's vapor. And it basically says that this is -- the emissions have been cleaned.

PELLEY: The power industry spent billions in the 1990s cleaning up much of the sulfur and nitrogen oxides that cause acid rain. But those pollutants are mere drops in a stream of carbon dioxide. Rogers says getting rid of the carbon will require a new federal law to limit emissions and a new technology to clean up coal. At the same time, he says, Duke will transition to more wind, solar, and nuclear power.

ROGERS: Our goal line is substantially to reduce our carbon footprint, to de-carbonize our business, by 2050.

PELLEY: Four decades? That's a long time.

ROGERS: Well, it took a hundred years to get to where we are, and we can't do this overnight.

JIM HANSEN: 2050 is too late. We will have guaranteed disasters for our children, grandchildren, and the unborn.

PELLEY: Jim Hansen is NASA's top climate scientist. He's credited with some of the earliest and most accurate projections on climate change. He thinks that Rogers plan leaves the Earth in the oven decades too long.

HANSEN: We are going to have to phase out emissions from coal within the next 20 years if we hope to prevent climate disasters.

PELLEY: Are you saying that we can't build any new coal-fired power plants in this country?

HANSEN: Absolutely, not only in this country, but in the world. This is not yet understood. That we are going to have to have a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants within the next few years, and phase out the existing ones over the next 20 years, or so, if we hope to preserve a climate like the one that has existed the last several thousand years.

PELLEY: You know, Jim Rogers will hasten to tell you he does share your sense of urgency.

HANSEN: Well, his plan doesn't match that.

PELLEY: In fact, right now, Rogers is building two new coal plants. You're talking a great game, but you're building coal-fired power plants.

ROGERS: I am following through on what is job one for me -- making sure my customers have affordable, reliable, clean electricity.

PELLEY: And if we abandon coal at this point?

ROGERS: We can't abandon coal. We have to find a way to keep it and use it in the future, and that means the ability to clean it up.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The idea that coal is

The idea that coal is dirtier than oil or natural gas because it has more carbon is complete poppycock.  

Coal is dirtier than oil and natural gas because it starts as solid and contains ash, i.e. impurities that are not burned and therefore are particulate matter that either falls to the bottom of the furnace or is carried by the air.  The ash and soot (carbon remaining from incomplete combustion) can be captured using scrubbers.  The burning of CH4 is more efficient because it starts as a gas not a solid as coal.

But back to the central premise of this falsehood.  Anyone who has taken high school or college chemistry knows the chemical reaction diagrams for a chemical reaction between a set of elements.  C + O2 = CO2, This formula is basically the same for oil and natural gas with some small variations.  Natural Gas CH4 + 2(02) = CO2 + H2O  The BTU content of any fuel is directly proportional to it's carbon content, the more carbon, the more BTU released.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Facts don't matter. 

Facts don't matter.  Oscamba wants to bankrupt the coal industry (and capitalism in general), and his little sycophantic weenie followers in the media are lining up to help him do it.

Don't Like Coal

There is an alternative, nuclear energy. It costs about 1.7 cents/kWh to produce.

Don't like coal or nuclear power, then you are in  Alice in Wonderland territory. Solar and Wind are intermittent sources not suitable for base load and expensive. Perhaps 15 cents/kWh to produce.

 

New facts on global warning!!!

Scientists (actually a pretend scientist, but credentials don't really maatter anymore do they...) have just proven that if Al Gore, Nancy Peloci, Harry Ried, and the rest of the Global Warming eco-nazis would just shut the h@ll up for 10 minutes per day, the world tempurature would revert back to the same levels as the 1850's.......

When will they ever look at

When will they ever look at solar cycles as part if not the whole reason for global warming? Is not the Sun a big part of the reason for global warming? If it is the Sun, their is precious little we can do so stop it, we can only do our best with coping/surviving with global warming. Can somebody enlighten me on this?

FOTR, here is a sample of a site that thinks the sun has no

effect on the climate..

Note all data is OVER 10 YEARS OLD..So what!  This is what CRAP & TAKE is based on.

And links like this are flushed. h/t PT

Science has nothing to do with it, ZERO.

Reagan VS 0bama

Good Time To Look Outside Your Window and See What's Going On

If Pelley blames the coal industry for global warming, who does he credit for the global cooling of the last 7 years?

When does exhalation get banned?

"...the Obama administration declared, for the first time, that CO-2 is a threat to human health and it plans to impose limits."

 I produce C02 when I exhale.. right? 

Is it not as simple as that?
Am I a threat to human health?

 

"everymorning and everyday, I bossa nova with you"

OSF.... When does

OSF....

When does exhalation get banned?

As soon as Walks on Water issues those orders dontcha know?

Carol Browner is looking into it...Never let a good crisis go to waste.

 Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

A solution

 "I produce C02 when I exhale.. right?"

 Bingo! All we need to do is convince the eco-religious tosave the planet by holding their breath ... and wait for the inevitable. 

Those narcissistic leftists are so against science.

Obama's [lane, algores airplane and prince charles plane tell us point blank the elite DO NOT care about a carbon footprint.  If Obama wants to talk about health and soot, he can show us he cares by getting off tobacco.

The other fraud is they love to show "smokestacks"  CO2 is colorless and the stacks show steam from heat exchangers. 

 

What Global Warming?

I understand the media pretending there is global warming going on and it's caused by man. They are empty shells without any common sense or independent thought of their own. What kills me is when a supposed intellegent person, like the CEO of Duke Energy comes out and agrees with those fools.  Is he just spineless, or does he think that be agreeing with them, that they will somehow think he's one of them and leave him alone. He's the enemy of them and his butt kissing just makes them hate him even more.  There is no global warming, the planet is cooling and those who are pushing it are doing so for their own personal gain.  Follow the money.

 

EW... Follow the $$$

EW...

Follow the $$$ indeed.

I am with you and your sentiments, Duke isn't the only one that has done this in the past....I shoot arrows out of my eyes when they do this...I am so weary of talking about all of this I just can't at the moment, just wanted to let you know you aren't alone, and you are dead on the mark.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Good Evening BT

That is a great thought about following the Buck$.....my first reaction when he came on camera is, who got to this guy? I mean, why else would he do this? I got to believe that a lot is going on that none of us are aware of to buy these people off.

Speaking of AGW, did you enjoy your effects this morning? And I am really looking forward to more tonight!

 

 

No warming indeed

...and what warming there has been in the past has been solar driven.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

------------------------------------- 

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Martin Luther King, Jr.

the unborn?

EvilCon555
Since when have any of the MOrons at 60 Minutes given a rats patooty about the "unborn"?

"All great change in America begins at the dinner table" Ronald Reagan, Jan 21, 1981

'See the train in the foreground'

See the cargo ships transporting oil to America? How many have spilled their loads into our oceans?

Coal provides almost have the electricity to our country, what will the cost be if the libs eliminate it?

How many lib states exist on coal? 

JDW

DAILY WAVE

When people fear their government there is tyranny. When government fears the people there is liberty.

Coal Powers Hybrid Cars

How a liberal thinks: "I love battery powered vehicles.  Zero emissions!"

Reality: An emission emitting power plant had to produce the electricity that charges your car's batteries.  Many of these are coal powered!  So you just went from a gas powered car to a coal powered car!  Nice job!  Not to mention the battery waste.

Not Even Horseshoes or Grenades

"Jim Hansen is NASA's top climate scientist. He's credited with some of
the earliest and most accurate projections on climate change".

Hansen's 1988 predictions are only accurate if you turn the graph upside down.

Accuracy must be a relative term

Yes, I would like this reporter to tell me exactly which of Hansen's projections were accurate.  Early or otherwise.  I myself can't recall anything he's ever said (or predicted) that wasn't utterly ludicrous on its face.

I wish I was amoral enough to be a lefty.  No competency requirement, no accountability requirement, no consistency requirement.  As long as you are virulent and vocal the left loves you.

Liberal: remove all that's Right, and this is what's Left.

In the midst of this global

In the midst of this global financial crisis, when so many blue collar workers are losing their jobs, let's be focused on the fact that it's the eco-parasites like James Hansen and their Marxist mouthpieces like Scott Pelley who have blood on their hands.  The whole financial disaster can be traced back to that slob Al Gore and his propaganda film.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston Churchill

Hansen's bluff

Jim Hansen is quoted as saying, "2050 is too late. We will have guaranteed disasters for our children, grandchildren, and the unborn."

He's better at misrepresenting climate data than at thinking before he speaks.  We already have a "guaranteed disaster" for the unborn -- nearly fifty million abortions in the U.S. alone since 1973. With the holocaust of the unborn, the culture of death has the upper hand these days.

Hansen's warm-mongering scam isn't hard to see, for anyone who bothers to take a skeptical look at his reports. I dug around the various research sites (esp. NOAA, MIT, USGS, USN) to get the annual-trend maps and charts for each continent from 2008, then compared to the global 'summary' report Hansen prepared for UN and press consumption.  Though nearly all the localities indicated a flat-to-slight-cooling trend, his 'summary' asserted an escalating catastrophic warming trend, worldwide. But see how eager the arrogant press is to concede the hand to him without calling his bluff.

What a steaming pile of nancypelosi.  None of the debates over coal, 'renewable' energy, 'peak oil', et al, really matters, when so many premises underlying Warmist doctrine lack even basic factual integrity.

no time to fact-check the fraud for yourself?

For any who are curious but lack the time to dig for themselves, the overall picture I found shows modest warming trends for oceans and cooling trends for continents and atmosphere, with the combined trend being flat-to-cooling.  These observations contradict Warmism's predictions.

What's happening to the planet's climate is far more complicated than the simplistic 'greenhouse warming' model being proclaimed by the prophets of Warmism. And what's happening is really out of human hands.

Until one of the high priests of Warmism can be bothered to address the temporal reversal in the historical record (i.e. why ancient ice-core records show that warming precedes a rise in CO2, not vice-versa), nothing they claim will have one iota of credibility.

Complexity defined

Nowhere have I encountered a single sentence that better explains how truly rudimentary our understanding of the climate system truly is than that of Professor Ian Plimer as quoted by Paul Sheehan in this article.  Plimer explained it this way:

"An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history." 

Pelle should be ashamed of himself.  He is a discredit to broadcast journalists everywhere.  

And James Hansen, who pretends to know all there is about our climate - what a blowhard!

RE:"...An understanding of

RE:"...An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history."

Wow, who woulda thunk it. I had no idea Gore was so smart considering he flunked out of divinity school. 

 Old news but, if you missed it in the MSM, check the third paragraph:

http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm

 

------------------------- 

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Martin Luther King, Jr.

Except Jim Hansen has been proven to have fudged the numbers

http://sarah-palin-2...

 Pelley followed up by citing left-wing global warming activist Jim Hansen: "2050 is too late. We will have guaranteed disasters for our children, grandchildren, and the unborn." Pelley
explained: "Jim Hansen is NASA's top climate scientist. He's credited
with some of the earliest and most accurate projections on climate
change.

 

 This was widely reported on Hansen got the numbers wrong-intentionally. So who is being dishonest now? 

 

 

 

Ban Cheesecake (no, the other kind)

"...Researchers in Britain announced that global warming is caused in part by overweight people. They say obese people release more carbon dioxide into the air...""... all this time you used to think it was caused by coal-burning factories. Turns out it was Cheesecake Factories.”
  — Jay Leno

------------------------------------- 

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --Martin Luther King, Jr.

The asswipes that tout this

The asswipes that tout this crap are full of it.  If we stopped all forms of so-called CO2 emitting today in America it wouldn't stop the increase of CO2 emittance into the planet's atmosphere.  Why?  There are a couple of countries that could care less about CO2 emittance.  They are China and India.  They have several billion people that they are trying to give a better live to.  In order to do so, they are building at record rates coal fired electricity producing plants.  

But I digress.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  Without it, life on this planet would cease to exist.  What is wrong with these people?  The earth has had many times the present levels of CO2 and survived just fine.  Scientists tell us that in tests that they have done, elevated levels of CO2 make plants thrive and grow faster than they do with the present levels. 

My favorite question of one of these nuts is what is the average temperature of the planet that you consider to be ideal?  I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.  The reason is that they really don't care.  It is not about reducing the temperature of the planet.  It is about slowing or stopping industry on the planet and in the United States in particular. 

This is the new communism.  It should be stopped.  

What energy source should replace Coal?

The fantasy delusions of alarmists do not deal in reality. We have no other sources of energy except Nuclear that can adequately replace Coal for electrical generation.

Wind power is a complete disaster (Financial Post, Canada)

"Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone)."

Obama: "Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates To Skyrocket"

BlackLight Power

What amazes me is there are some promising new technologies that the media and our Government refuse to publically discuss.

There is a company called Blacklight Power that is the pioneer of technology based on the patented process of releasing chemical energy from hydrogen called the "BlackLight Process.

They have completed the successful independent replication and validation of its 1,000 watt and 50,000 watt reactors based on its proprietary new clean energy technology on 10-20-2008.

In addition, they have signed two commercial deals to retrofit existing power plant turbines with a continuous capacity of 250MW with the Blacklight Power technology. They claim they can produce electricity at .01 cents a kilowatt and it produces no pollution.

They have a website with all the info and the patented chemical reactions for the chemists on this board: http://www.blacklightpower.com

Where are the global warming mongers on this technology that seems to answer their problems?
Why have they not backed these people instead of trying to tax us to death and force us to use less energy.

The Technology needs to be proven

and independently verified. There are too many companies over the years claiming to have discovered new sources of energy when they have done no such thing. If it truly works then you will hear about it.

Obama: "Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates To Skyrocket"

well pop tech

we know that we can get energy from hydrogen easily, so the question is can they 'farm' the hydrogen out of the atmosphere for less energy than is released from the hydrogen?

"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read"   ---Groucho

Hydrogen is not a practical energy source

All production methods take more energy just to create Hydrogen.

Obama: "Cap & Trade Will Cause Electricity Rates To Skyrocket"

well pop tech

According to Black Power, they are getting the Hydrogen out of Water and then recycle the Hydrogen gas back through the Black Power Process.

Scroll down on their web page to see the chemical reaction used in the new solid fuel reactor assembly.
http://www.blacklightpower.com/process.shtml

This new process has been validated by a one year study by Rowan University. They have a video showing one of their 50kw reactors being tested in the lab.

I just wish these people had a stock offering because their technology could revolutionize power production world wide.In addition, they envision using the same tech in automobiles.

 

 

A nicely done website,

A nicely done website, however, using technical chemistry terms and claiming there are no pollutants doesn't tell us the essential bottom line information.  They throw around the word catalyst to describe the chemical process.  Does the process liberate more energy than it consumes?  If it did, I would expect to see that boldly stated repeatedly, it's not.

The core problem with the so-called hydrogen economy touted by Bush early in his term was the gross inefficiency of converting water to hydrogen and oxygen (or splitting hydrogen from anything else).  Regardless of the great efficency of the fuel cell in energy conversion, the whole thing fell down on the gross inefficiency of obtaining hydrogen.  Does the blacklight process vastly improve the efficiency of splitting hydrogen off water or anything else?  Which is why they throw the term catalyst around to lead the reader into believing they have found a way to do it with less energy input.  I am skeptical of such claims unless they plainly state the energy inputs and outputs or the efficiency of the conversion process.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

dscott

I am not a physicist or a chemist but after reading, some of his papers I have been able to glean one statement made in the papers that might be what you are looking for. (I took 3 years of chemistry and physics 20 years ago)

According to his theory, “if atoms of hydrogen are heated and mixed with other elements, they can be persuaded to release over 100 times more energy than would be generated by combustion alone"

The energy released is considerably more than what is required to extract the needed amount of hydrogen from water. Thus, the BlackLight Power process could give access to a limitless energy source in the form of water.

On October 20, BlackLight Power announced that engineers at Rowan University (New Jersey, USA), led by Dr Peter Jansson, have been able to independently replicate the BlackLight Power Process. BlackLight Power quotes Dr Jansson in its press release:

"The ability to generate such tremendous power in this controlled process demonstrates that the claim by BlackLight Power that it is able to demonstrate repeatable heat experiments based on their technology can be replicated by independent scientists."
   
If you look at some of the people that invested into BlackLight is seems they see this new technology as a huge investment opportunity.

BlackLight Power has managed to raise $60 million in funding from individual, impressive investors: the company’s Board includes Michael Jordan, former CEO of Electronic Data Systems and Westinghouse, Neil Moskowitz, CFO of Credit Suisse First Boston, David Goodman retired head of Energy Banking at Morgan Stanley.

One last note is that Dr. Mills would like to produce home generators that could power our homes off the grid. (he calls them distributive generators) A 3kw generator using his catalyst and approx 7 liters of water would power a home for a year.

At .01 cents a kilowatt, I am ready to tell my power company to pound sand.

It sounds too good to be

It sounds too good to be true, that's the skeptic in me.  However, I hope it's true, that's the optimist in me.  We'll see...

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

If it's legit, private

If it's legit, private money will find it and it won't require government sponsorship or media promotion.  That's how capitalism works to benefit us all. By rewarding good and punishing bad. 

Liberal: remove all that's Right, and this is what's Left.

freecitizen

Oh I agree 100% but I am astounded that they have not received more press on their process that would completely change the power industry worldwide. Other than a few small stories in the Wall Street Journal and one on CNN there has been little publicity.

Sadly the Federal Government will tax it like oil or over regulate it  and kill the company before they get off the ground. 

The implications of Dr Mills discovery could stand physics on its head as well as provide cheap non polluting power.

Note- I am skeptical too but I have been following this company for 3 years and they have done everything they said they would do in their announcements.