Discussions
Clean coal - Get a grip!
Posted by timethief • 5/13/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: clean coal, clinton, coal, obama, political rhetoric
Coal-fired power plants generate about half of U.S. electricity supplies, and account for about 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions -- the biggest single industrial source. Both Clinton and Obama are talking more about "clean coal" and less about global warming as they were wooing voters in West Virginia and Kentucky -- two states that sit at the heart of the nation's coal economy.
The point is that both candidates are promoting commercially untested and so far economically nonviable ways of converting coal supplies into electricity without spewing massive quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
"The candidates appear to be following a tried and true tradition which is telling the audience what they want to hear," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a nonpartisan environmental group. "It's politics as usual."
Do you think voters actually believe this nonsense?
User Comments
-
There are technologies to reduce emissions from coal, but the idea of sticking carbon into the ground is kind of ridiculous. Three technologies that make sense are co-firing-- using coal with biomass pellets, algae scrubbing-- Green Fuel Technologies, and Plasma ARC Firing Coal furnaces-- this would eliminate a lot of the carbon and emissions from coal power plants.
The sticking coal into the ground idea is pretty far fetched. There are other options. These are far fetched, but seems a little better than pumping carbon into underground reservoirs. -
You'd be surprised what the voters believe.
I'm more a fan of solar technology. The downside is the initial expense but after that it's free. Our power company is offering incentives to get people to install solar assisted water heaters. -
France uses nuclear and has had nothing but positive results for 20 years or so. Cleaner, more dependable, and as it is recycled, virtually no waste. Yet, we haven't even considered nuclear in many years.-
Um, that would kinda be because nuclear's dangerous. If France hasn't had an accident with it it's only because they're so anal about everything that to take a breath you have to fill out permission forms in triplicate. That's only a slight exaggeration--ask a French citizen about their bureaucracy sometime.
But it takes greenhouse fuels to dig the stuff out of the ground, it takes greenhouse fuels to build the reactor and maintain it, and then you have to bury the waste when you're done, because absent fusion technology you cannot recycle the stuff forever.
And they build reactors on FAULT LINES. Whose dumb idea was that??? -
West Virginia has nuclear power plants and West Virginia does keep going on about "clean coal." Here in WV there are so many people who use coal to heat their home the emissions can't be good for the environment. This is a poverty stricken state and coal is a livelihood. Coal miners get paid $50-60,000. Do I like coal? No. Would I like to see them go solar? Yes. Do I think that will happen? No. Not enough jobs in this state. I don't think any governor would take jobs from these people. They will just continue to promote coal.
-
-
How about coal gasification, a proven technology, seldom discussed?-
Last I heard, pricey, but that was back when gas was only $3.00 per gallon.
-
-
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I thought it was about funding research, not fooling the public into believing that clean technologies already exist. The one project in existence still hasn't brought a small plant online, but is it such a bad idea to fund such research? Last time I heard, the Bush administration was pulling the plug.
Or am I mixing up the carbon project with the other nasty pollution issues? One thing about coal that really bothers me is the particulate matter it spews, as that is a major contributor to asthma problems.
Anyway, seems to me that the energy problem needs investment in all kinds of areas of research. Dunno that we can really pick definitive winners yet. -
Ranks up there with Coca-Cola's campaign to convince consumers that drinking caffeinated beverages is just as good for you as drinking water.
We can't possibly go solar/wind soon enough. -
If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions, then gasification creates the same amount of carbon released in the form of gas. I thought the whole point was to reduce carbon emissions. The real problem is sequestering carbon is not that great of an idea. There are better solutions. If you can make the gasification process a lot cleaner, then it probably would be better than just sticking the carbon in the ground.
The three technologies I mentioned earlier already exist or are in the late stages of development. This is more than can be said of sticking carbon in the ground. A lot of the clean coal statements are along the same line as promising hydrogen cars and a hydrogen infrastructure a week from now. They are not that feasible.
Solar/wind are intermittent energy sources. The first thing that needs to be done is rebuild and improve our hydroelectric infrastructure. It is the most used form of clean energy. This means making existing infrastructure more environmentally freindly, and introducing distributed hydroelectric and microhydro plants which are much cleaner than the old giant dam systems.
The next obvious choice is expanding wind energy. It is proven.
After that is developing non-food forms of biodiesel and ethanol from switchgrass, algae, and waste products. I think biodiesel is a better choice to develop than ethanol.
Solar energy needs a lot more research and development. I can understand incentives to include it in all new construction.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
