Clean coal is a scam.

[Radical Activist]

Even after billions in taxpayers subsidies, carbon sequestration will still cost more than better alternatives, like wind turbines. It doesn't produce affordable energy.

Coal creates fewer jobs per megawatt than wind power.

Coal mining never has been and never will be clean. It poisons water supplies with carcinogens. It destroys mountains and flat farmlands.

Coal mine employment peaked around 1920 and has gone down ever since. That's because of mine mechanization and not environmental regulation.

Coal is already the most heavily subsidized energy source. It's not cheap.

Coal kills miners. It's not just mining accidents. Black lung kills too.

Coal is the #1 source of man-made global warming pollution.

Clean coal projects are an idiotic waste of money. If your Congressman or Senator brags about clean coal projects, let them know that you don't want them wasting taxpayer dollars to subsidize companies that are destroying the planet. There are cheaper and better solutions.

[Bobbieo]

1. If you don't believe RA, ask the Navajos. Do stories on this subject all the time on my

Native Unity blog. Coal and uranium - Bah Humbug!!!

[Radical Activist]

6. It's no coincidence

that the coal and nuclear industries pick some of the poorest and most desperate parts of the country to operate in.

[sweetapogee]

11. most coal

Around here, there are coal mines in areas where there is coal, no coal mines where there is no coal. In both of these areas (coal/no coal), there are desprate people. Traditional Dem strongholds in Appalachia are in danger of turning puke over this issue. Speak softly.

[Radical Activist]

15. huh?

No, I won't speak softly. Coal companies keep coal mining regions poor. None of the money stays in the mining states. It all goes to outside owners. They like to keep coal states poor because no one would mine coal if they had better options.
It needs to be spoken very loudly that coal regions will never prosper until they find a different way to create jobs. Dem strongholds will continue to turn Republican until we get the balls to tell people the truth.

[maryf]

30. Natural gas too...

ask Dimock PA, and large parts of Colorado...

[rucky]

2. Wind would look even more affordable if the coal subsidies were lifted.

It's the one thing we could do now to push technology forward tomorrow if we wanted to.

[Radical Activist]

3. True. Wind is cheaper than coal

if you remove all the direct and indirect subsidies. That includes billions and the state and local level.

[stuntcat]

4. it's Just My Opinion but gas and coal energy should cost exponentially more

The cost per gallon of gas is immeasurable. but $3?? Yeah whatever :eyes: All our cheap energy is subsidized, keeping the masses happy.

[rucky]

8. Cars are just a small part of fossil fuel consumption.

Power plants, cement plants, paper mills consume industrial fuel in terms of Tons per Hour. Energy demands are increasing by double digits each year in rapidly modernizing countries like China, India, Brazil & South Africa. They're all planning for the day when coal will become prohibitive, and sliding back subsidies for industrial fossil fuel. They're also scrambling to upgrade existing systems and build new plants that are less dependent on fossil fuel (or at least more efficient). thanks to the coal lobby + Bush's order to build more coal-fired power plants, we aren't seeing the same sense of urgency here.

We're going to get our butts kicked in the race to develop affordable alternative energy, and we have the lobbyist-influenced wing (D & R) of Congress to thank.

[Tesha]

5. Of course it is. (NT)

[jgraz]

7. Could you please tell our president?

Obama Defends Clean Coal, Tells Renewables Activist "Don't Be Stubborn"
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/obama-defends-clean-coal.php

Obama Pushing Clean Coal, Green Jobs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/03/obama-pushing-clean-coal-green-jobs_n_447204.html

Obama Administration Pouring $1 Billion Into Clean Coal Project
http://politics.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2009/06/12/obama-administration-pouring-1-billion-into-clean-coal-project.html

[Panaconda]

9. I agree

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. And that’s because, as I said, it’s one of our most abundant energy resources. If we can develop the technology to capture the carbon pollution released by coal, it can create jobs and provide energy well into the future. So, today, I’m announcing a carbon capture and storage taskforce that will be charged with the goal of figuring out how we can deploy affordable clean coal technology on a widespread scale within ten years. And we want to get up ten commercial demonstration projects, get those up and running by 2016.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/26/as_obama_pushes_clean_coal_jeff

[Radical Activist]

14. Will you say something to your Congressman and Senator?

Obama isn't the only elected official in America.

[jtrockville]

10. Coal is FILTHY.

[spinbaby]

12. Let's not forget slurry

We had a major spill nearby recently:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/10/07/slurry-spill-has-left-trail-of-death.html?sid=101

That said, some huge percentage of our electricity comes from coal today, so we're stuck with it for some time. While we're moving to a better energy source, it benefits us to use coal as cleanly as possible. It's certainly possible to do it more cleanly than we are. Coal definitely needs more supervision.

[Radical Activist]

16. We can shut down most coal plants in a year or two.

You're repeating one of the industry's big lies.
First of all, wind farms and solar plants can be built FASTER than new coal plants. Those technologies are available and proven. By contrast, carbon capture is unproven and has never been deployed on a commercial scale. It makes no sense to use clean coal as a "bridge" because better alternatives can be deployed more quickly.

Second, we already have enough unused natural gas capacity online to shut down most of the nations coal plants. That would cut our CO2 emissions by more than half. That doesn't require building anything new. It's also cheaper than burning coal right now. Because energy use has been down since the recession, we have excess power capacity from all other sources which can compensate for coal plants we shut down.

And even supervised clean coal plants won't solve problems like the slurry spills. There really is no reason to delay getting off coal. We have the ability to do it quickly.

[spinbaby]

27. Gas is a possibility

Especially with the new gas reserves being tapped in the Marcellus Shale. But wind and solar are only a partial answer--because they're intermittent, they need backup power and that brings us back to coal.

BTW, I see those giant blades for the wind turbines being transported down the Interstate almost every day. Those things are HUGE!

[Radical Activist]

33. There's no reason why

natural gas can't be used as a base power supply as a replacement to coal. It's much more compatible than wind.
We're moving beyond the days when any single source is going to provide half of our energy supply.

[Radical Activist]

18. That article is bizarre.

I hope they did other articles on the potential for contaminating the water supply. Pretending that it's only a thread to fish and salamanders is grossly deceptive. It's a carcinogen that threatens human health, and it's grossly irresponsible for the paper to not report that fact.

[spinbaby]

28. Did you notice the company?

That's the same outfit that owns the Crandall Canyon MIne in Utah.

[w8liftinglady]

13. I'm curious to see my congressman's reaction-he has received a lot of money off of "dirty" utilities

http://www.grist.org/article/smokey-joe-rides-again/
Texas Rep. Joe Barton kills effort to clean up power plants

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-murdock/rep-joe-barton-waxman-doe_b_204004.html
Rep. Joe Barton: Waxman 'Doesn't Have the Nuts' to Pass Energy Bill

http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/05/congress-top-10-fossil-fools
Congress' Top 10 Fossil Fools

[Radical Activist]

17. Congressmen like him

need to know that there's push-back from his district. I'd be interested to know what response you get too.

[blindpig]

19. Yes, it is.

As is 'cap & trade.

[rucky]

20. I like the idea of creating a carbon market.

Maybe not the monetization aspects of it, as much as a way of tracking carbon output from mining & extraction, to transport, all the way to combustion/production

:shrug:

[blindpig]

22. Follow the money.....

We don't need a market for tracking output, just uncompromised scientist.

[Radical Activist]

23. When a majority of Congress

responds to uncompromised scientists then we'll go ahead and do something much better than cap & trade. What would you suggest in the mean time?

[VMI Dem]

21. Why is our President trying to scam us?

[ThomWV]

24. I worked at the facility that administered most of the Clean Coal Program since its inception

I worked at what was called, at the time, the Morgantown Energy Technology Center, which along with a sister facility in Pittsburgh, managed all of the Clean Coal Projects from its inception. It was what kept the doors open at both places, but it was just a heartbreaking scam for anyone who bothered to ask it if was worth the billions that were spent over the years.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

25. K&R

[upi402]

26. Yes it is, nuclear too

until they invent 'Nuke-Away!' it's insane.

[maryf]

29. gotta rec this

Clean coal is an oxymoron...

[spanone]

31. it's a pr oxymoron

[Motown_Johnny]

32. but the long term plan was to suck up all the oil in the world so we could sell coal at a premium

and if we go and admit that burning coal sucks ass then how will we sell it to all those stupid foreign types?


Just deal with the global warming until we sell all our coal. What is another 100 years or so? The world has been around for over 6000 years without any real problems (unless the flood counts) so why worry now?



Besides, the Rapture could come any day. Do you really want to lose out on some nice profits today when Jesus will fix everything anyway?













(do I really need this?) :sarcasm: