Congress pours more money down the “clean coal” drain 17

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   kduble Posted 7:20 am
   25 Apr 2005

   No doubt?There is indeed doubt that coal is going to have to be a part of America's energy future.  The decision to turn to coal for future energy needs is a political choice rather than a scientific necessity.
   While renewable fuels may cost more in the short term, coal costs more in the long run.
   
   Ken Duble

   Permalink

2. 

   chris@organicmatter Posted 10:47 am
   25 Apr 2005

   Coal at DailyKosThere's a stupendous piece on the coal industry as a whole (with essential historical perspective) written by devilstower - a lifelong employee of the industry - floating in the DailyKos echo chamber.  Check it out.
   
   Organic Matter: Blogging the environment

   Permalink

3. 

   jdhlax Posted 5:55 pm
   25 Apr 2005

   "Energy" Or Life?Not only is continuing the horribly destructive effects of coal mining and burning a political choice, but so is the choice to destroy the Earth for electricity, something that didn't even exist 150 years ago.  A proper plan for an "energy future" would be one that only allows electricity to be generated by the most harmless means, which at this point are solar and wind, and in the future will probably be tidal power.  We must all simplify our lifestyles, both individually and as a society, so that we don't demand or use so much energy.

   Permalink

4. 

   praktike Posted 10:56 pm
   25 Apr 2005

   well, I live in pittsburghAnd I've actually done a bit of work on this issue. There's simply no way, with current technology, that this region can power itself using anything less than 50% coal. There aren't enough spots for wind farms or large-scale solar arrays, nobody wants to build more dams, and the existing ones could only fit in a few hundred MW of power. There isn't enough good farmland that is suitable for switchgrass, either. So we're stuck with coal, at least in this area of the country.

   Permalink

5. 

   Environmentman Posted 10:59 pm
   25 Apr 2005

   Praktike Lives In The Real WorldYour assessment was informative and practical.  This shows the vital importance of developing clean coal technologies.
   
   Environment Man

   Permalink

6. 

   Environmentman Posted 11:02 pm
   25 Apr 2005

   Jdhlax Lives in Fantasy LandWind and solar alone can NEVER provide all of the electricity we need in America.  It is a good supplemental source of power.  Get a clue. Join us in the real world.  Do you live in the woods by candle power?  I bet you do not.  I will bet that you are on the grid.
   
   Environment Man

   Permalink

7. 

   praktike Posted 11:05 pm
   25 Apr 2005

   by the waythanks for the link to dKos, Chris. Good piece. I think I've seen devilstower write about coal before, but I had forgotten he was in the industry.

   Permalink

8. 

   enki Posted 6:19 am
   26 Apr 2005

   The TRuth About "Clean" CoalHI,
   
      I saw this story line and had to comment. It just so happens that I wrote a piece explaining the mechanics of the technology being called "Clean Coal" a few months ago. I would like to direct readers attention to that story on my blog:
   
   http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=enki&static=316026&search=clean%20coal
   MJ

   Permalink

9. 

   sisyphus Posted 6:41 am
   26 Apr 2005

   Renewables?In thinking about alternatives to fossil fuels, it's important to realize our potentials. An alternative energy system wouldn't just be made up of large windfarms and tracts of land gleaming with solar collectors. It will consist of 1) new levels of energy efficiency to reduce the growth in demand, and 2) a very diverse mix of energy resources and technologies. For example, DOE's goal is to produce "net zero energy" buildings in the not-too-distant future -- buildings that produce as much or more energy than they consume. In effect, every building would become a power plant. We'll see PV panels on rooftops and integrated into the building envelopes; bio-refineries in rural areas that are cost-effective because they produce not only biodiesel and biogas, but an array of products now made from petroleum; routine use of landfill methane; more use of geothermal in the West for thermal and power production; more widespread use of geo-exchange technology elsewhere; low-impact hydro; windpower brought closer to urban areas to reduce transmission costs, made possible by efficient low-wind-speed turbines. We'll see more and better hybrid cars; more use of combined heat and power, raising generation efficiencies from their currrent 35% to 90% or more; distributed energy systems that generate power close to their point of us, eliminating transmission losses. And yes, eventually hydrogen. Will all of this bring us to a coal-free future? Don't know. But one could argue that since coal companies are a mature industry that can generate its own R&D, the money now being spent by the federal government on clean-coal research is pure corporate welfare and would be more defensibly spent speeding our transition to higher efficiency and greater use of renewables. One could argue, too, that the $100 billion the gas industry plans to spend on infrastructure to import LNG would be better spent developing sustainable domestic energy resources rather than buying dependence on yet another imported fossil fuel. That $100 billion is 100 times DOE's annual budget for energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. We probably will need responsible use of coal, oil and gas for some time as we make a gradual transition to renewables - but that transition will be far faster and smoother if we begin investing in it earnestly today rather than dismissing renewables as either inadequate or "fuels of the future".

   Permalink

10. 

    jdhlax Posted 5:33 pm
    26 Apr 2005

    Electricity Is NOT A NecessityAs traditional Native Americans say, one should not dig into the Earth, which means, among other things no coal or uranium mining.  Environment Man, your comments show one of the main things wrong with the human race: you're perfectly willing to destroy whatever you have to in order to satisfy your DESIRES (as I said, there was no such thing as electricity 150 years ago, and it's far from being a necessity).  Instead of killing everything around in order to have needless crap, why not try to live more simply and quit using so much electricity?  I didn't say we have to live without electricity, though that wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it sounds.  I said we must cut way down on how much we use.
    Praktike, you look for the wrong solutions.  Building centralized power sources creates more environmental and ecological problems from destruction of open space and from the mere existence of power lines.  How about solar panels on the roofs of all buildings and windmills behind each home?  Couple that with cutting down on usage and you'd probably have all the electricity you need.

    Permalink

11. 

    jdhlax Posted 5:50 pm
    26 Apr 2005

    The Actual Problem & Real SolutionHowie Wolke, co-founder of Earth First!, just wrote an excellent article in Lowbagger responding to the lame Death of Environmentalism garbage.  The article outlines what the real causes of our environmental problems are and what needs to be done to solve them.  The article can be viewed here:
    
    http://lowbagger.org/humanoutbreak.html

    Permalink

12. 

    kduble Posted 4:06 am
    27 Apr 2005

    Rooftop solarI also weary of tales about land purportedly required for solar.  Among the most significant energy uses in U.S. homes are space and water heating, both of which are ideal for passive solar.  This is not a scientific problem but a political one.  We need legislation providing incentives for passive solar and energy efficient design.  The square footage of America's rooftops exceeds the area of some small countries!
    
    
    
    Ken Duble

    Permalink

13. 

    praktike Posted 5:38 am
    27 Apr 2005

    you gotta think about the logisticshow long would it take to get distributed solar propogated?

    Permalink

14. 

    David Roberts Posted 6:37 am
    27 Apr 2005

    Make it a hip, profitable status symbolHow long did it take the iPod to get propogated?
    
    www.grist.org

    Permalink

15. 

    praktike Posted 6:47 am
    27 Apr 2005

    Hmmm, that's a good ideaHollywood! Somebody needs to convince those folks that Hummers are lame and carbon-neutral renovations are the shizznit.
    But who?

    Permalink

16. 

    Chris Schults Posted 6:57 am
    27 Apr 2005

    Ed Norton!Ed Norton!
    
    Win a trip to Iceland: http://www.grist.org/signup

    Permalink

17. 

    praktike Posted 7:04 am
    27 Apr 2005

    aha!It pays to read the magazine, I see! Brilliant!

    Permalink