I swear to god if i see or hear the phrase "clean coal" again im climbing a bell tower

[mkultra]

Frankly, the idea seems preposterous. Does anyone have any good links on what the hell this bullshit is about?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. Well don't they wash the coal with clean water prior to burning

it?? That's what I had heard on the Victrola.

[DJ13]

2. Clean coal

Please wear a safety line.

:evilgrin:

[mkultra]

3. damn you.

[Hello_Kitty]

4. It's about using scrubbers to get some of the particles out of the air.

Only problem is it simply relocates the pollution to land and water.

[DCBob]

9. Or processing it prior to burning to remove the pollutants..

We have the technology but its not cost effective at the moment. Coal may be our only practical choice once Peak Oil hits us.. so we better figure out how to use is cleanly.

[Radical Activist]

13. Or carbon sequestration.

Clean coal has meant many different things over the years, but it has never really been clean. We already have more practical choices than coal. No, we don't need it even if we reach peak oil. It isn't cheaper than renewable energy once you remove all the subsidies.

[gateley]

18. If we really worked on it, we could have solar and wind and whatever as a

viable choice and we could stop even considering stuff like coal. Wouldn't that be nice?

Where is Nicola Tesla when you need him?

[EmilyKent]

5. First "clean coal" power plant went on-line in 2008 in Germany.

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

[Radical Activist]

11. The first "clean coal" plant was in the 1890's.

This bullshit marketing gimmick has been around in various forms for a long time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/how-green-is-chicago-8-ar_b_335373.html

[EmilyKent]

16. We didn't have the tech then.

Just Luddites.

[bluestateguy]

6. I know. The phrase is a little too Bushco-like

Much like No Child Left Behind, Clear Skies, Healthy Forests, and Ownership Society.

And yet quite a few people on the Left seem to be going along with it.

[gateley]

20. Energy Exploration, Scholarship Opportunities, Electronic Intercepts. I'll give him

this, Frank Luntz was GOOD at what he did! Does.

[Radical Activist]

7. It's about pork barrel handouts to keep the coal industry alive.

By comparison, wind and solar are cleaner and cheaper than the unproven carbon sequestration scams.

Check this site out.
http://www.thisisreality.org/

[mkultra]

17. This is very telling

"The coal industry is spending millions advertising "clean" coal, but not a single "clean" coal power plant exists in the U.S. today."

[Radical Activist]

19. They don't want to pay for clean coal plants. They want us the taxpayers to finance it.

Probably because they know its a giant waste of money.

The Illinois Commerce Commission determined that this proposed clean coal plant would cost 30% more for customers EVEN AFTER getting millions in taxpayers subsidies, loan guarantees, and fixed rate contracts. It's more costly than unsubsidized wind.

http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/Report-Questions-Taylorville-IGCC-Projects-Cost-Benefits-Timeline_2990.html

A report issued by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) last week to the state’s General Assembly lambastes the proposed $3.5 billion Taylorville Energy Center (TEC) as too costly “with uncertain future benefits.” The commission also questioned the 716-MW integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility’s construction timeline, concluding that uncertainties could “potentially add to already-significant costs.”

The commission’s report serves as an official analysis of the TEC’s facility cost report, submitted in February 2010. The commission was designated to carry out the analysis by the Illinois Clean Coal Portfolio Standard Law (better known as the Clean Coal Act). However, the report does not contain a recommendation about whether to proceed with the project; that decision will be made by the General Assembly, which must enact legislation before construction can begin.

The ICC alleged that the cost associated with power generated by the TEC was “substantially higher” than that associated with other types of generation facilities. “The TEC’s expected base case electricity cost of $212.73 per MWh (or over 21 cents per kWh) would cost significantly more than wind ($88.80 to $121.97), nuclear ($101.45 to $128.03), traditional coal ($141.08 to $153.03), or combined cycle combustion turbine ($154.05 to $160.78) facilities,” the report said.

[LWolf]

8. It's about marketing.

:grr:

[PDJane]

10. The Idea seems preposterous

Because it is preposterous. The stuff is dirty, from the mining through the processing through the burning to waste disposal.

The whole idea is to get the particles out of the air, yes. What is done with those particles afterwards is the problem. Yes, the heavy metals and arsenic can be removed and used, theoretically. Practically, most of the things like mercury and arsenic will end up in waterways and whatever fish are left.

It's long past time to go to renewable energy.....and learn to live more frugally.

[doc03]

12. Clean Coal, man. n/t

[mediaman007]

14. Like: quiet music, wise fool, jumbo shrimp, small crowd, military intelligence.

:-)

Clean coal is an oxymoron.

[Odin2005]

15. Clean Coal is the ultimate oxymoron.