In the ads, happy families and intelligent scientists inform us that clean coal technology is out there, and we needn’t worry about losing the wonderful energy source that is coal just because it has a bad track record of being a health risk and contributing to global warming.

Follow the Link:lincenergy.us/

1% of the Sahara desert would power the whole world.
3% of Morocco would power all of Europe.
Solar thermal is already competitive at peak demand rates in sunny areas like California. Solar thermal plants can store heat to produce power at night and when clouds pass over. Storing energy as heat is at least 20 times more efficient than storing electricity. The heat can be stored in molten salt, water or oils. Solar thermal technology is so low tech that we could have done it 100 years ago. It doesn’t require any exotic materials, or anything more high tech than a steam electric generator.

Be sure to read the article at salon dot com mentioned in my previoius post.

2. The technology used in IGCC plants is newer. We’ve been burning coal for hundreds of years, so that technology is more reliable at the moment. That’s not to say that the operating reliability for IGCC plants won’t improve and eventually equal that of current coal-burning plants. Utility companies that would be the ones to venture into building IGCC plants are hesitant because their research shows that the plants have reliability issues — for example, the Canadian utility company EPCOR says this on their web site: “Demonstration plants built in other countries have experienced high capital and operating costs (at least 1/3 higher) and issues with operating reliability. ” http://www.epcor.ca/en-ca/social-responsibility/environmental-vision/ApplyingTechnologies/CleanerFuture/Pages/GasificationDevelopment.aspx.

If anyone knows of any studies that contradict the idea that IGCC plants have a lower operating reliability than coal-fired plants, I would be interested to see them.

3. Instead of attempting to confirm or deny whether it contaminates wastewater, I prefaced it with “environmentalists say.”

But we have lots of coal in the world. We have lots of coal in the United States. We have a few places in the US that could greatly benefit from a clean coal initiative. It is a socially progressive plan to develop this technology for possible export (including American technology sales to developing nations) and creation of jobs.

Of course, once we have our liquid coal, it burns well enough. We do it because coal in plentiful enough. Is is something greenies should be getting behind? Yes, once they realize that some concessions can be made for the good of their fellow man. The earth will heal. And it certainly will be here longer than we will.

That said, stay the hell out of ANWR. Alaska is one of the remaining environmental treasures of the earth. Do not drill there. There are many other places that we can drill. Do no drill off American coasts, though good luck trying. heh heh. I don\’t understand any progress has been made using wave turbine technology but the news Navy contract might make some difference. Just watch the plankton, algae, and plastic soup levels in the oceans. All of this temperature weirding has much to do with the oceans.

Solar and Hydro are the way to go.

“But gasification plants have issues with reliability and require more maintenance.
What independent engineering firm corraborates this assertion? Or is this just your opinion, and if so, based on what?

Environmentalists say it results in contaminated wastewater and that it’s too expensive to be practical.”
Again, what unbiased engineering or scientific study group support this claim?

These are but several examples of your bias and misinformation that permeates your article.
Jules

Strangely enough it isn’t branded “clean coal” in the UK but i think that’s just the way the US works. The simple fact is that the shear amount of time invested in developing the new technologies to make renewables viable means that there has to be some power source in the developmental phase. Clean coal is not the solution, it’s a stop gap measure until there comes a time when we have a viable renewable option, or hopefully at some time in the future fusion, but that’s a hell of a way off. In my opinion nuclear power is the true way forward for now, but that carries it’s own problems.

The idea is that renewables are slowly able to take over our energy production needs, but the point is it’s a slow process. A new off shore wind far was just opened in the UK, making the UK the largest producer of off-shore wind power in the world. The problem is it only produces enough power for 300,000 homes. A drop in the ocean, but I guess a step in the right direction.

People who think there are not enough resources to get America off of fossil fuels are victims of a massive disinformation campaign by the coal, oil, and gas industries. If we put our resources into researching alternative energy sources we could accomplish it. We can drill miles underground for oil, why can\’t we drill more geothermal power plants? We have offshore oil platforms, why not offshore wind farms? And as always, why is conservation not on the forefront?

(Nicely done, by the way Adrianne!)

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Clean_Coal