That is exactly the question. Subject to constraints of the laws of thermodynamics, clean energy can be produced from almost any sorce -- if the subsidies are large enough. But it is the constraints of budgets that often get glossed over.

Coal is the enemy of the human race.
With blackened lung and darkened face
It chokes the land with toxic ash,
while filling the coffers of some with cash.
It poisons the fish in far away waters,
and frightens away Appalachian daughters.
It belches carbon into the air,
tips the balance towards chaos, despair
just how much can the climate bear?

Coal is the enemy of the human race;
left underground is the safest place.
With a high profit margin for cheap energy,
it tempts consumer-based society.

But the lobbyists disguised the coal
with taxpayer dollars that Congress stole.
So step on the gas, and keep up the pace,
chained to the enemy of the human race.

a liberal in redsville

If you assume that our current system developed and run by cheap fossil fuel energy is unsustainable, then you really have to question why we think we can sustain it by ratcheting up technology on a massive scale to plug in alternative fuels.  

We do have limited resources, energy and wealth.  How much of this are we going to invest in maintaining our current unsustainable system and does this rob from our ability to build a truly sustainable system?  

And does attempting to ratchet up the technology to maintain the unsustainable add to the cascading degradation of the ecological and environmental services provided by the earth?  And a consequential cascading effort to ratchet up more technology to substitute for dimished ecological services?  The vicious cycle of desperate housewrecking, like burning your house to keep it heated.    

I was hoping that Obama might provide some vision to get us off our fatal energy paths rather than serving as gear meister for our technocracy.  This 20% stuff is just bullshit.  Once we hit a real emergency and panic sets in all these paper safeguards are up in flames.    

Sorry, Birdboy, I cannot give this one more than a B.

My understanding is that coal-mining must be one of the most frightening and arduous jobs in all the world.  To say nothing of dangerous: If you can emerge to the surface of the Earth from one of those places still living and moving freely, that is enough of a miracle; if you can escape repeated visits down below without black lung disease, that is a still greater one.

Wherefore, those miners in the Appalachians are paid rather well, we are told.  Apparently they have no trouble finding and wedding "Appalachian daughters."  But everyone understands that that is an extremely difficult and dangerous life.

Probably the most famous "Appalachian daughter" is Loretta Lynn, who turned her autobiography into a wonderful movie, in which she is played by Sissy Spacek.  She never wants anyone to forget that that is where she comes from -- even though she hates remembering the hardships her parents had to endure.

Do you know this traditional song, sung memorably a cappella by Margo Timmins, female vocalist of the Cowboy Junkies, as the first track on their album The Trinity Session?:

MINING FOR GOLD
(Trad; arranged by James Gordon, of Tamarack)

We are miners, hard rock miners
To the shaft house we must go
Pour your bottles on our shoulders
We are marching to the slow

On the line boys, on the line boys
Drill your holes and stand in line
'til the shift boss comes to tell you
You must drill her out on top

Can't you feel the rock dust in your lungs?
It'll cut down a miner when he is still young
Two years and the silicosis takes hold
and I feel like I'm dying from mining for gold

Yes, I feel like I'm dying from mining for gold

My guess is, this really refers to coal-mining, and gold is ironically substituted.

By the way, I am not comfortable with DR's rhetorical slogan, "Coal is the enemy of the human race."  Whether he came up with it during one of his brief spells of reasonability, who can say? : )   Sure, we all know what he means, and have no quarrel with it.  But logically it is not accurate.  For one thing, human beings have all kinds of enemies; and in many regards, we are our own worst enemies.  For another, as you write in your poem, just leave the coal underground and it is not an enemy at all.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

While it's more apparent with CTL,
isn't it ALL about oppourtunity costs?

Hydrogen, BioFuels, CNG, Diesel

i.e. What is the quickest way to do the most-good for the short term and long term.

Which usually means what can be done with the least ammount of changes to the status quo.
_

And also one has to consider Externalities and Cheating into that oppourtunity cost.

For instance, one should make the assumption that the worst case scenario will be the norm.

_

This is why I prefer Electric so much.

Even if it's done with the most unsustainable way, it's still far more sustainable than what we got now, and some of the medium range performance of other solutions.

And we already have all the basic infrastructure we need for electric, and it's only going to get better.

Sorry, Canis, perhaps I have made light of the subject. But I still remember a conversation with someone who was applying for a miner's job, at the age of perhaps 20- he was fully aware of the dangers, and had relatives who suffered terribly from the evil dust, but it was the highest paying job he could get, and the money was, to him, worth the risk. As with the the military, as long as there are poor and uneducated youth, the dirty work will get done.

These days much of the coal is taken by blowing up the mountaintops and shoving them into the headwaters; it requires only a few people, lots of explosives, and monster machinery. This is what frightens away the 'Appalachian daughters'.

I rather like villifying the coal; it makes a good symbol for the easy way to prosperity- cheap and easy here and now, but at dire cost over there and later on.

Let me try again.

a liberal in redsville

Let's commend Obama on recognizing that coal should only be used if it can be done in a clean way.  But where has Clinton been on this issue?  What isn't anyone asking her?

And more importantly, shouldn't we look at each candidate's overall record on fighting climate change?  If so, shouldn't we ask Clinton why she has opposed higher CAFE standards in the past?

Lets assume that CTL can be produced with 20% reduction in CO2 compared with oil.  Considering the huge amounts of coal that could be converted, the total amounts of CO2 produced could be enormous and dwarf what oil would ever produce alone.  

Trying to find replacements to fill the tanks of our internal combustion engines is the wrong path.  We need to question the entire concept of burning liquid fuels to propel inherently inefficient means of transport.  Coal will never be clean.  Like war, it should be one of our last resorts (and it may very well end up hitching our wagons to the end).  

And making comparisons between Clinton and Obama does not elevate either of their positions.  

It's all about cost of transportation to financially strapped families.  CTL will cost more than gasoline does now.  As will any kind of ethanol or biodiesel (cooking grease biodiesel excepted, but it is a tiny fraction of demand).

Only plugin cars with 60 cent per gallon equivalent electricity powering the first 40 miles will save the family economy and motivate voters.  Obama and Hillary need to get that message and hit it hard.

How about a Volt for our team GM?  Lend them one for the campaign.  I am of course assyuming it will be hillary/obama coming out of the convention.  Rove's worst nightmare!!  Excellent.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog