Good to see that people are actively pursuing carbon emission reduction of fossil fuel burning plants and it's a good step but overall it's really just a bandage.
I would like to see more articles on alternative technologies like LFTR.

It's nice to see a dramatic photo of steam rising from chimneys when the topic is on carbon...

I always thought that methane was a "stronger" greenhouse gas than CO2.

Actually , Murray Smart, steam is invisible. So is CO2. They are both issuing from the stacks in the picture. As for LFTR technology, don't be fooled by the hype. The poisons produced by LFTRs are very very nasty.

for Murray - I think you're right : those are "chimneys", not cooling towers. In which case, that's not "steam", but smoke. Unless they're burning water in their furnaces ?

The visible emissions in that photo are water droplets condensed from steam and evaporating into the air. Allegedly water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but it wouldn't cost near as much to control the water vapor emissions and thus would not cripple the worlds economy to control.
re; nutcase
Since your position is different from the majority please show some evidence for your position on LFTRs.
re; duh3000
Unless they are not burning hydrocarbons water is a byproduct of the combustion. While the visible portion of the water being discharged is not technically steam in common usage visible vapor is called coming out of an exhaust pipe, a pot of hot water on the stove, or a mist rising from 'warm' water in a lake or stream in cold weather is called steam.

read this carefully and see if you agree with the conclusion. i don't. http://moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/ORNL-TM-3144.pdf
Also please explain how you are going to vitrify the water-soluable radioactive flourides that LFTRs produce as a waste product. Also how are you going to protect your workers from the high radiation fields and beryllium that LFTRs produce? Not so cheap any more is it?
Are you aware that only one LFTR has ever been built, an 8MW unit that cost 130 million bucks to clean up after the experiment was curtailed? Oh yeah thats right it was a political "conspiracy". Would you as a politician have made a different decision at the time?
Pikeman please provide evidence for your claim that a majority says LFTRs are harmless.

re; nutcase
The longest-lived radioisotope of fluorine is 18F with a half-life of 109.771 minutes which means that in less than 48 hours it is gone without any need to turn it into glass.
Radiation is not hard to stop a few meters of of water will do nicely and will contain the radio fluorine for the brief time it exists.
Beryllium is an industrial chemical with know safe handling procedures; follow them.
First prototypes are always expensive. When the first digital watch first went an sale you could buy a good used car for the purchase price today you can buy a more capable digital watch at the dollar store.

Who said anything about radioactive flourine? That stuff is bad enough without being radioactive. The waste must be kept above 100deg to provent F evolution. What about uranium hexaflouride? Flourides are soluble in water. Beryllium safety is one thing, Molten FLiBe safety is a bit more involved. Once your LFTR gets going the gamma radiation and fast neutrons given off by that stuff will be enough to make containment a challenge. I'm not against LFTR research but I'm sick of people saying it's cheap and easy.

Well I wish someone would hurry up and build a LFTR so we can stop guessing. Why do you think no one has? Comparing a digital watch to a nuclear power plant is hilarious.