I'm not sure I noticed this before, but it seems the Edwards people are making a point of saying the moratorium would block coal plants that aren't "compatible with" sequestration.

Translation: IGCC plants, where the CO2 is separated and (theoretically) easier to capture.

This is very, very different from a moratorium on coal plants without actual sequestration. It's going to be no help at all to the climate if we get a bunch of IGCC plants across the country and then have to wait 10-15 more years for scalable sequestration.

grist.org

It's going to be no help at all to the climate if we get a bunch of IGCC plants across the country and then have to wait 10-15 more years for scalable sequestration.

I can see why you say that, but I disagree. Practically speaking, mandating only the construction of IGCC coal plants means that new coal will be MUCH more efficient, so fewer will need to be built, and much more expensive, and thus probably more costly than wind.  It would mean an end to the old-style cheap-and-super-dirty plants, which is what has allowed coal to enjoy such an enormous capital cost advantage for so long.

Is it everything we want?  Of course not.  Is enough?  Probably not.  But is it something?  Oh, very much yes.

Mainly I wanted to note that I think Edwards' campaign is being a little slippery -- they mean mandating IGCC but they leave the distinct impression that they're mandating IGCC + CCS.

Or, translated to normal human being language, he's making it sound like he won't allow any more coal plants that cause global warming. But that's not what he's really saying at all.

grist.org

... now I'm suspicious. Look at this, from the press release: As president, Edwards will require that all new coal-fired plants be built with the required technology to capture their carbon dioxide emissions, so plants built today will be able to permanently and safely store their carbon emissions tomorrow.

The "required technology to capture their CO2 emissions" so they can "store their carbon emissions tomorrow"?

Still sounds like IGCC and a wish and a prayer for CCS to me.

grist.org

There is a big difference -- a rhetorical Grand Canyon -- between supporting coal plants that are "compatible with" CCS and actually requiring them to do it. "Compatible with", from the industry POV, could mean anything -- hell, there are plenty of people in the industry who argue that conventional coal plants are "compatible with" CCS -- of course, it might take a few decades to figure out how to do it, but hey, what's the rush?  I've been a fan of Edwards climate proposals, but I think somebody needs to press him hard for a clarification on this.  

I believe that, according to Grist, coal is the sole enemy of the human race, not merely one of several.

The Blue-Green alliance is a good example of what I think Edwards has in mind and also how unions are looking at this issue as win/win.

I don't find the mineworkers' endorsement of Edwards in conflict with his position on coal.  He is clearly the strongest candidate for organized labor and is getting lots of other union endorsements.

I don't understand how IGCC works, or doesn't, or hasn't been proven to, but it seems that if coal (and the UMW)have a future it has to be through some new technology.  So why not support the candidate who is most strongly calling for that, especially if that candidate is also strongly pro-labor?  

(From my perspective, I worry less about the candidates who are hoping that IGCC works, or at least works better, than I do about those who are willing to build new nuclear plants and hope "American ingenuity" comes up with a way to deal with the waste.)