The dangers of "clean coal" and how the use of this term is Orwellian

[thestain]

Anyone else concerned about large quantities of arsenic, mercury and lead entering into our ground water?

There is no such thing as "clean coal". Just like there really is no such thing as "the taxpayer's money"

Anyone wonder why instead of spending billions on solar or wind or even natural gas as a transition fuel from coal, that the Obama Administration has chosen the dirtiest fuel source other than nuclear to move us into a "cleaner" energy future?

It would be nice to see biofuels, solar, wind and natural gas get more from this supposedly "green" President, that seems to be catering to the established interest of some of the United States greatest polluters all in the name of being "green", but in reality, how does this help cut the CO2 problem and help the environment all that much?

It is time someone calls the President and his Administration on plans that may hurt the environment much more than the so-called "clean" connected to "coal" implies... Hydro Electric and Natural Gas are much cleaner and better for the environment and Solar and Wind and biofuels are badly in need of encouragement... why not TAX coal, instead of reward it? Proceeds could be used to help with the development of other truly more "green" energy sources.

 

[Hacp]

Anyone else concerned about large quantities of arsenic, mercury and lead entering into our ground water?

There is no such thing as "clean coal". Just like there really is no such thing as "the taxpayer's money"

Anyone wonder why instead of spending billions on solar or wind or even natural gas as a transition fuel from coal, that the Obama Administration has chosen the dirtiest fuel source other than nuclear to move us into a "cleaner" energy future?

It would be nice to see biofuels, solar, wind and natural gas get more from this supposedly "green" President, that seems to be catering to the establish interest of some of the United States greatest polluters all in the name of being "green", but in reality, how does this help cut the CO2 problem and help the environment all that much?

Whats wrong with regular coal? Its cheap efficient energy.

 

[Craig234]

Fair enough. On the other hand, biofuels seem to be getting a lot less attention to the bad environmental impact they cause as well. Some say they're worse than fossil fuels.

 

[thestain]

Whats wrong with regular coal? Its cheap efficient energy.

The point is not so much to do with coal, most know it is a "dirty" but abundant fuel. But, rather, in how it is being marketed as "clean". Natural gas is much cleaner and under Obama, Coal burning plants are increasing compared to those using natural gas. This is a contradiction. If Obama is really in favor of a cleaner environment, why is he so in favor of the greatest of the polluters, the coal industry and why has he so embraced the term "clean coal"?

It is dirty, not clean, the whole use of the word "clean" is Orwellian and shows that many have been brainwashed.

The phrase "taxpayer's money" is one of those phrases, like "clean coal" that show how controlled the press is from one perspective or the use of talking points in another perspective. Who knows, but until citizen's actually get dividends from the Government's investment in GM or other companies, it is not our money as citizens, it is the U.S. Treasury's money. Using terms like these is misleading and really makes the old story about the emperor not having any clothes come to mind.

Why not support the other energy alternatives with a tax on Coal, like a tax on tobacco products, consider it an environmental tax on pollution or polluters and the proceeds can support bio fuels, solar , wind and improving the power grid ... and there really needs to be an energy policy to get natural gas filling stations and cars going throughout the United States to truly cut down our dependence on foreign oil.

Back to Dirty Coal.. some very bad things happen from this supposedly cheap fuel.. it is not that cheap and should be taxed to pay for cleaner energy alternatives, imo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal

http://nonewcoal.greens.org.au/coal/toxicity/heavy-metals/airborne-arsenic-and-mercury

 

[werepossum]

Anyone else concerned about large quantities of arsenic, mercury and lead entering into our ground water?

There is no such thing as "clean coal". Just like there really is no such thing as "the taxpayer's money"

Anyone wonder why instead of spending billions on solar or wind or even natural gas as a transition fuel from coal, that the Obama Administration has chosen the dirtiest fuel source other than nuclear to move us into a "cleaner" energy future?

It would be nice to see biofuels, solar, wind and natural gas get more from this supposedly "green" President, that seems to be catering to the establish interest of some of the United States greatest polluters all in the name of being "green", but in reality, how does this help cut the CO2 problem and help the environment all that much?

No such thing as "the taxpayers' money"? I suppose it's all government's money, comrade?

Obama has selected clean coal in addition to nuclear, natural gas, and solar to back as transition technologies. Perhaps you've not been paying attention? Biofuels have uniformly been miserable failures, and will continue to be such until new technology is perfected or more practical models are developed. Perhaps sugar cane in Louisiana and/or Mississippi or lower Alabama or Georgia might be viable. Biofuel companies are not in the energy business, but rather in the government teat business, and Obama has (in my opinion correctly) decided not to indulge in feel-good over practical industries during the recession. Wind is a net energy drain, and solar not much better but at least has a valid payback in energy costs if not in dollars. Until more of these technologies mature, coal is our best bet, and obviously the cleaner the better. Also support for coal producing states buys votes elsewhere, so it's a twofer.

 

[marincounty]

It's just like clean diesel, it's a dirty lie. Natural gas ftw.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's just like clean diesel, it's a dirty lie. Natural gas ftw.

You don't know what clean diesel IS do you? Natural gas is NOT a clean fuel, not even close to being as clean as many other fuels, i think you are confusing it with biogas which is a completely different thing.

 

[ElFenix]

it's cleaner coal, and that's a start. if current plants can be retrofitted then we'd reap a benefit for not much outlay. i don't see why that's a bad thing. coal is also a very inexpensive (from an accounting standpoint) baseline source. natural gas, not so much.

anyway, i bet if you take all the .gov spending or incentivizing on alternative fuels (excepting natural gas) and line it up against whatever .gov spending is done on cleaner coal, i'm going to guess cleaner coal spending is a couple orders of magnitude smaller.

problem with natural gas is that it's tied up with the oil industry, which probably is the second most hated industry in the US (behind the medical insurance industry)

 

[Drako]

I thought the US was shipping most of the evil coal to China and India these days

 

[Darwin333]

Anyone else concerned about large quantities of arsenic, mercury and lead entering into our ground water?

There is no such thing as "clean coal". Just like there really is no such thing as "the taxpayer's money"

Anyone wonder why instead of spending billions on solar or wind or even natural gas as a transition fuel from coal, that the Obama Administration has chosen the dirtiest fuel source other than nuclear to move us into a "cleaner" energy future?

It would be nice to see biofuels, solar, wind and natural gas get more from this supposedly "green" President, that seems to be catering to the established interest of some of the United States greatest polluters all in the name of being "green", but in reality, how does this help cut the CO2 problem and help the environment all that much?

It is time someone calls the President and his Administration on plans that may hurt the environment much more than the so-called "clean" connected to "coal" implies... Hydro Electric and Natural Gas are much cleaner and better for the environment and Solar and Wind and biofuels are badly in need of encouragement... why not TAX coal, instead of reward it? Proceeds could be used to help with the development of other truly more "green" energy sources.

Someone make a note of this, I am actually going to defend Obama.

Obama has been outstanding for the US solar industry. I know because its what I do and if it wasn't for provisions in the stimulus we would have never started our solar company.

The fact of the matter is, we still need other forms of energy for the foreseeable future. Maybe if we put up a modern power grid we can talk about removing the need for fossil fuel electricity being available at all times, regardless of how much wind and solar you have, but I doubt many of you have any idea what that will cost in terms of dollars and time. I personally think that the majority of the stimulus should have been rebuilding our power grid from the ground up. It would have provided a ton of jobs and we would have had something of real value to show for the debt we accumulated.

 

[werepossum]

Someone make a note of this, I am actually going to defend Obama.

Obama has been outstanding for the US solar industry. I know because its what I do and if it wasn't for provisions in the stimulus we would have never started our solar company.

The fact of the matter is, we still need other forms of energy for the foreseeable future. Maybe if we put up a modern power grid we can talk about removing the need for fossil fuel electricity being available at all times, regardless of how much wind and solar you have, but I doubt many of you have any idea what that will cost in terms of dollars and time. I personally think that the majority of the stimulus should have been rebuilding our power grid from the ground up. It would have provided a ton of jobs and we would have had something of real value to show for the debt we accumulated.

Quite true. Solar at the moment is only practical if someone else (like the taxpayer) pays for part of it, but the technology is always improving and best of all it's usually point of use. When solar cells become economically feasible most homes and many small businesses could provide most of their own daytime power and even feed power back into the grid to power businesses (like manufacturing) that cannot meet their energy needs with point-of-use solar.

The stress point for most electrical grids is at a midsummer afternoon; generation and grid capacity have to be sized for this load. All point-of-use generation helps this by reducing peak demand, but right now only solar is practical in anything more than a few situations. If we could provide more point-of-use solar installations then afternoon energy needs drop to closer to non-peak energy needs. Thus we need less central generation, which means we can choose the cleanest form of energy generation and retire dirtier and less efficient generation, and we need less aluminum to distribute the same amount of net energy usage. Conservation helps in the same way.

Our biggest technological needs at the moment are not clean coal or biofuels, but cheaper and more effective solar cells and more nuclear generation.

 

[thestain]

it's cleaner coal, and that's a start. if current plants can be retrofitted then we'd reap a benefit for not much outlay. i don't see why that's a bad thing. coal is also a very inexpensive (from an accounting standpoint) baseline source. natural gas, not so much.

Well played. I also agree with Darwin333 "I personally think that the majority of the stimulus should have been rebuilding our power grid from the ground up. It would have provided a ton of jobs and we would have had something of real value to show for the debt we accumulated." It does not make sense to get the solar and wind going and not be able to use it, but.. seeing the coal industry and utilities rewarded for using coal and allowed to perpetrate the fraud that it is "clean" just goes to far.

What did you think of the point that the way "Clean" Coal is being sold to us is just a little bit "Orwellian"?

and... considering dwindling water supplies and decaying water supply infra-structure and how nuclear and coal can and do eventually have a bad impact on the water supply, why not go with say Hydro-electric, even those newer on the side of river energy generators, and how about building up the dams in the United States for both power generation and to augment the water supply instead of coal?

and considering the taxes mixed in to the health plan by obama and the real environmental damage coal produces, why not tax coal just enough to make natural gas and other alternatives to coal more economically viable?

 

[Craig234]

I thought the US was shipping most of the evil coal to China and India these days

Maybe you mean tobacco. We're a great exporter of that around the world to big smoker countries.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

it's cleaner coal, and that's a start. if current plants can be retrofitted then we'd reap a benefit for not much outlay. i don't see why that's a bad thing. coal is also a very inexpensive (from an accounting standpoint) baseline source. natural gas, not so much.

anyway, i bet if you take all the .gov spending or incentivizing on alternative fuels (excepting natural gas) and line it up against whatever .gov spending is done on cleaner coal, i'm going to guess cleaner coal spending is a couple orders of magnitude smaller.

problem with natural gas is that it's tied up with the oil industry, which probably is the second most hated industry in the US (behind the medical insurance industry)

I think the problem is regarding tying up more money in an industry that is considered transitional today?

Natrual gas or oil are equal, and natural gas is NOT an alternative fuel, again, i think there is some confusion regarding natural gas and biogas.

 

[werepossum]

I think the problem is regarding tying up more money in an industry that is considered transitional today?

Natrual gas or oil are equal, and natural gas is NOT an alternative fuel, again, i think there is some confusion regarding natural gas and biogas.

Are you sure you aren't thinking of propane instead of natural gas? Natural gas is mostly methane, CH4; it CAN be a fossil fuel, but can also be produced from vegetation as a biofuel. Even fossil natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels and an excellent replacement for gasoline. LP on the other hand is mostly C3H8, pretty much liquefied gasoline.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Are you sure you aren't thinking of propane instead of natural gas? Natural gas is mostly methane, CH4; it CAN be a fossil fuel, but can also be produced from vegetation as a biofuel. Even fossil natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels and an excellent replacement for gasoline. LP on the other hand is mostly C3H8, pretty much liquefied gasoline.

Natural gas per definition is fossile, if it's not it's called biogas and THAT would be the most clean fuel while Natural gas is about as clean as oil.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Are you sure you aren't thinking of propane instead of natural gas? Natural gas is mostly methane, CH4; it CAN be a fossil fuel, but can also be produced from vegetation as a biofuel. Even fossil natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels and an excellent replacement for gasoline. LP on the other hand is mostly C3H8, pretty much liquefied gasoline.

I didn't read your post properly, yes, it's a better alternative compared to petrol but it's not even close to biogas.

Personally i'd like to see more development on nuclear options and use on place power stations to power most cars, naturally, we are not there nor even close to getting there but as an end result.

Hydrogen power cells have already been used though, problem is volatility but there are ways to work around that.

I mostly deal in nitrogen so what do i know.

 

[woolfe9999]

it's cleaner coal, and that's a start. if current plants can be retrofitted then we'd reap a benefit for not much outlay. i don't see why that's a bad thing. coal is also a very inexpensive (from an accounting standpoint) baseline source. natural gas, not so much.

Well played. I also agree with Darwin333 "I personally think that the majority of the stimulus should have been rebuilding our power grid from the ground up. It would have provided a ton of jobs and we would have had something of real value to show for the debt we accumulated." It does not make sense to get the solar and wind going and not be able to use it, but.. seeing the coal industry and utilities rewarded for using coal and allowed to perpetrate the fraud that it is "clean" just goes to far.

What did you think of the point that the way "Clean" Coal is being sold to us is just a little bit "Orwellian"?

and... considering dwindling water supplies and decaying water supply infra-structure and how nuclear and coal can and do eventually have a bad impact on the water supply, why not go with say Hydro-electric, even those newer on the side of river energy generators, and how about building up the dams in the United States for both power generation and to augment the water supply instead of coal?

and considering the taxes mixed in to the health plan by obama and the real environmental damage coal produces, why not tax coal just enough to make natural gas and other alternatives to coal more economically viable?

Because the coal industry employs/supports several hundred thousand jobs in the U.S., and we're in a recession. Obama views coal, nuclear, and further drilling as stopgaps until other technologies reach prime time. It's better to subsidize the R&D and infrusture for things like solar than to tax coal because it produces a less jarring tansition that won't have such bad short term economic impact.

And its cleanER coal, not clean coal.

- wolf

 

[K1052]

and... considering dwindling water supplies and decaying water supply infra-structure and how nuclear and coal can and do eventually have a bad impact on the water supply, why not go with say Hydro-electric, even those newer on the side of river energy generators, and how about building up the dams in the United States for both power generation and to augment the water supply instead of coal?

and considering the taxes mixed in to the health plan by obama and the real environmental damage coal produces, why not tax coal just enough to make natural gas and other alternatives to coal more economically viable?

Dams are also ecologically destructive and generally opposed in most places where we could put them anymore. Periods of prolonged drought can reduce generating capacity as well.

Nuclear is currently the only viable option to (economically) replace the bulk of the coal fired base load plants. As a major bonus they produce no emissions, have long lives, and have low fuel costs.

 

[FaaR]

Whats wrong with regular coal? Its cheap efficient energy.

If it's cheap, how could it ever be anything wrong with it???

Oye vey...

You're right, there's nothing wrong with regular coal, assuming you completely discount the sulphur emissions, and the ash particulates, and the heavy metals, and the CO2 (which even if you don't believe in GW, still adds to ocean acidification).

Then there's the pollution, destruction of nature and habitats associated with coal mining.

But other than all of that, there's nothing wrong with regular coal.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Comes out of ground, goes into ground... what's the big deal?

 

[Ozoned]

Anyone else concerned about large quantities of arsenic, mercury and lead entering into our ground water?

There is no such thing as "clean coal". Just like there really is no such thing as "the taxpayer's money"

Anyone wonder why instead of spending billions on solar or wind or even natural gas as a transition fuel from coal, that the Obama Administration has chosen the dirtiest fuel source other than nuclear to move us into a "cleaner" energy future?

It would be nice to see biofuels, solar, wind and natural gas get more from this supposedly "green" President, that seems to be catering to the established interest of some of the United States greatest polluters all in the name of being "green", but in reality, how does this help cut the CO2 problem and help the environment all that much?

It is time someone calls the President and his Administration on plans that may hurt the environment much more than the so-called "clean" connected to "coal" implies... Hydro Electric and Natural Gas are much cleaner and better for the environment and Solar and Wind and biofuels are badly in need of encouragement... why not TAX coal, instead of reward it? Proceeds could be used to help with the development of other truly more "green" energy sources.

Your knowledge of coal must be very limited. It is the most abundant fuel stock on the planet. Research and developement $ need to go into what the private sector will pursue and can actually sustain our growing energy needs. We will be using coal for at least another 300 years. Bank on it.

start your coal education here
.
.
.
.

 

[Hacp]

Your knowledge of coal must be very limited. It is the most abundant fuel stock on the planet. Research and developement $ need to go into what the private sector will pursue and can actually sustain our growing energy needs. We will be using coal for at least another 300 years. Bank on it.

start your coal education here
.
.
.
.

I'm all for research and development but it needs to be private funds. No government handouts should be given to the big energy corporations. Let them develop their own coal technology.

 

[Ozoned]

I'm all for research and development but it needs to be private funds. No government handouts should be given to the big energy corporations. Let them develop their own coal technology.

Large pools of money may not work as efficiently as small pools, but they do have superior results.

Also, the coal industry (for energy) is a bit different than what you are thinking. You have the mines, the miners, the railroads, and the power plants. Different entities. It isn't like big oil.

 

[BudAshes]

They just blow the tops off of mountains in west virginia to get that coal. Mining it is in no way clean. Destroys local ecosystems and pollutes and blocks streams and local water supplies.