Durban cites "clean coal" on Matthews' show . . . . Dick, I love ya, but c'mon. "Clean Coal?"

[Stinky The Clown]

You wanna define that, please?

"Clean Coal?"

"Clean" coal?

Really?

[Radical Activist]

1. Durbin.

What was his response?

[Motown_Johnny]

2. there is always some new technology in the pipeline to save us...

Cold Fusion was one

Corn Based Ethanol was another

Clean Coal is now in vogue



It is just another way to continue kicking the can down the road indefinitely.

[Bobbieo]

3. Some lobbyist must have gotten to him.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. There's "Clean Coal" In Illinois

It's just anthacitic coal that's lower in other elemental artifacts. It's closer to pure carbon, so there's far less sulfur, far less phosphorous, and less asphaltics that burn less clean. The asphalitcs release more soot, more carbon monoxide and generate less total energy per unit mass.

I'm not supporting the idea, but that's what meant.

The bitumenous coal varieties are higher in sulfur and have more organic content, so they don't burn as clean per unit mass. In absolute fact, if we HAVE to burn coal, these are cleaner than others.

From a CO2 and climate change standpoint, the distinction is irrelevant. From a pollutant perspective, there is a measurable difference.

Doesn't make it better for climate change. But it does release less junk into the air.
GAC

[Motown_Johnny]

5. IMO "Clean Coal = Carbon Capture"

and carbon capture doesn't work


It seems that it will never work


If they are trying to make some other distinction about "clean coal" then it is beyond me.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. That's Not Right

Those are not synonmous. Again, i'm not defending the concept. But, that's not what the term really means.

Some people may be trying to co-opt the term to mean that. But, the actual concept has to do with getting higher energy output per unit mass at reduced low energy-value emissions.

What it really means and what some people want it to mean aren't the same thing. I'd rather we spend tax money on a full court press to developing fusion rather than burn cleaner fossil fuels.

But, i've met Durbin. Geez, i've voted for him 4 times. He's ok. He's smart enough to be talking about the real meaning of the term.

Yeah, the energy industry may be twisting the meaning for their own purposes, but there actually is a "cleanness" difference between different species of coal.
GAC

[Radical Activist]

9. The definition of clean coal is constantly shifting.

That's party of what's so misleading about the term.

Durbin is currently pushing a massive clean coal pork barrel project that would waste billions retrofitting existing coal plants and connecting them to a network of CO2 pipelines that would sequester it underground. So in this case "clean coal" clearly does mean a carbon capture project.

[Radical Activist]

8. No, Illinois coal is higher in several pollutants.

That's why over 90% of the coal burned in Illinois is imported from out of state. You've got it backward. Illinois has bituminous coal fields.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Not In The Deep Fields Southern Illinois

The older strip mines in northern and central IL were bitumen veins. The southern Illinois fields are anthracitic but are very deep. So, they did the strip mining because it was easier. I live in the area where all the strip mining was done. Those are all now giant fishing ponds with native names to make them sound natural.

The deep mines downstate and moving toward the mammoth areas of KY are anthricitic.
GAC

[Radical Activist]

16. There's a good reason over 90% of coal burned in Illinois is imported from other states.

It's because Illinois coal is dirtier. If you have a reference for there still being significant anthracite mines in Southern Illinois then I'd like to see that.

The entire reason Dick Durbin and the IL coal industry are pushing clean coal projects is that it's the only way they can burn Illinois coal without it being dirtier than coal from other states. Building new plants that remove all the pollutants is the only way IL coal will find new markets. You have things backward.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Whatever

I've got a good friend from college who is a geology professor. He disagrees with you. I'll trust him.

I would suggest that the coal from other states is here because their deep mines are fully developed while Illnois relied on strip mining for 100 years. Therefore, these more developed mines produce the coal more cheaply.

But, if you disagree, that's ok by me.
GAC

[Radical Activist]

21. Ok, me and the state of Illinois wil disagree with you.

"Illinois has a 250-year supply of coal. Illinois has the largest reported bituminous coal resource of any state in the United States."

http://www.commerce.state.il.us/dceo/Bureaus/Coal/

FYI, longwall is the preferred method for newer mines in Illinois.

http://www.nolongwall4us.com/

[ProudDad]

14. We not only don't HAVE to burn coal

but we MUSTN'T...!

We've already nearly reached the tipping point...

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Never Suggested Otherwise

I'd go nuclear before i would approve of building more coal plants. As dangerous as nukes can be and as problematic as the waste stream is, at least there are no atmospheric emissions.

I'm hoping for a breakthrough in fusion in the next 30 years and an efficiency breakthrough in solar in the next 15. Just hoping i'm right.
GAC

[ProudDad]

23. You do realize that nuclear uses a depleting resource

even getting past the cost, safety and storage issues we would need 30,000 reactors of the largest size to replace fossil fuels for energy production. This would also deplete all known reserves of fissile material in less than 10 years.

Solar is already at 15-20% efficiency and you would need the surface area of California to replace the polluting energy production.

Cold Fusion anyone?

And ANY technology we could devise that could replace fossil fuels would also exploit resources and need energy to implement and maintain...

There are ALWAYS side effects when you postulate continual "growth" on a finite planet...

Face it...too many humans...not enough resources on our finite Earth to support "growth" or our current insane energy use...

Let go of your techno-fantasy...

Power Down...

Depopulate by giving women Choice; make ALL forms of birth control available ON DEMAND and discourage large families as being suicidal to the environment and people will naturally downsize...as they have in the affluent countries...

Remember that this technological revolution you're counting on was powered by a sea of cheap oil -- an anomalous situation that never occurred before nor ever will again.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Let Go Of Your Fantasy

You seem as determined to turn back progress as the Tea Party. Just in a different way.

And, i notice you're using a computer. Why haven't YOU powered down? Total duplicity.
GAC

[spanone]

6. it's the greatest oxymoran p.r. stunt ever.

take the dirtiest shit you can find and call it clean...it's so absurd it HAS to work

[Radical Activist]

10. Could you fix your typo and spell Durbin's name correctly?

Would you like to answer what Durbin's response is or did you just abandon this thread?

[DCBob]

11. Technology that allows utilization of coal in a way that minimizes damage to the environment.

"Clean coal" may be the best cure for our addiction to oil. Pick your poison.

[Radical Activist]

12. Clean coal is the most expensive way

to move away from oil. There are much more efficient, cost effective and commercially proven ways of moving off oil and reducing carbon emissions. In fact, coal to liquid fuel is even more polluting that conventional gasoline cars.

[DCBob]

19. We have enormous deposits of coal in this country. If we can develop better/safer/cleaner ways..

of extracting and utilizing it.. why not? As the effects of Peak Oil get worse and worse we may have no other choice. The other greener alternatives just dont add up on a large scale basis. I wish they did but they dont.

[Radical Activist]

20. We have even bigger deposits of sun and wind.

Endless deposits in fact. Harvesting those resources is cleaner and cheaper than carbon capture scams. Mining the wind and sun doesn't involved blowing up mountains, destroying farmland with longwall mining, poisoning waterways, giving miners black lung, mine accidents, or exposing people to carcinogens in coal ash like coal mining does.

Coal makes absolutely no economic or environmental sense for ANYONE except the coal industry. If you wish greener alternatives added up to more then it's time to support building more wind farms and solar plants instead of repeating the talking points of the coal industry. Wind and solar can be built even faster than a new clean coal plant anyway.

[ProudDad]

15. Neither -- Power DOWN!!!

Coal will render the Earth uninhabitable much quicker than oil...

But oil is already on the downslide -- we're past peak oil...

Fucking stupid bipeds!

[dionysus]

22. he typed on his electrically powered, petroleum based computer...

[ProudDad]

24. And how else in today's world

can I clue in so many of the clueless?

Just because I have to use technology doesn't invalidate the reality -- we're running out of resources that will NEVER be replaced. We MUST power down.

Does that mean losing all technology? Well, no. But unless we rationally powerdown and retain only the socially useful technologies we will be losing it all...

And we are simultaneously fouling our environment with the byproducts of that resource exploitation...

Sounds pretty freakin' insane to me...

What's your problem with reality? :shrug: