coal industry praises Obama's reintroduction

During the campaign, Biden made the comment that "clean coal" was something for countries like China who are almost completely dependent on coal and are constantly building new plants.  It is a good solution for their addiction and rapidly growing demand.  It is not for us, we should move past this!

I agree with him, we are better than this, we are capable of better things.  I just can't imagine how coal could ever be clean enough to be acceptable by anyone who has the environment in mind.  Coal-to-Liquid is interesting, it is something they have been doing in other countries for decades, and we act like it is something so new.  Even if the emissions are lower when burned, what kind of energy is being used to make this transformation?  What about the horrible mountain top removal that we are having to resort to just to get to the coal these days.  It is such a destructive substance whether it is being removed from the ground or burned.  I think it is time to move in a new direction and begin phasing out the demand for new coal plants and eventually, somewhere down the line, we will be phasing out old ones too.  Small steps in the right direction are better than steping backwards.

I think that we have the right leadership in place to make smart decisions, but they seem to be easily swayed by the coal companies just like the local governments.  Very disappointing, I hope that Biden sticks to his word and that Obama listens.

I don't share your optimism or your sense of priorities.

First off, Congress is a completely corrupt institution, and that's who ultimately calls the shots - not Obama or Biden. The top priority of 99% of all congressmen is reelection which is predicated on appeasing their campaign donors. Last time I checked Mother Earth doesn't write checks.

Second, I would much rather see the end of oil first. The US does not have enough oil reserves on its territory. Don't buy any of the BS you hear from the Oil Lobby - they're lying. On the other hand, coal is cheap and plentiful for the mid-term (yes, it has environmental costs) but at least it can help power the electrification of the automobile which is preferable both from an environmental and a national security perspective.

Yes, in an ideal world we all drive EVs charged by solar panels and our homes are powered by wind, solar, hydro and biomass. But we don't live in an ideal world.

I'm with Biden on this one too.  I hope the idea is not to use this technology in the US, and even in China it's really not a good solution.  Joseph Romm's take on coal to liquid fuel:

First, the process is incredibly expensive. You need to spend over $6 billion just to build one plant, which would produce 80,000 barrels a day - hardly a cost-effective solution when the U.S. consumes more than 21 million barrels a day.

Second, coal-to-diesel requires lots of water, about five gallons of water for every gallon of diesel fuel - not a particularly good long-term strategy in an area that is dealing with drought and water shortages [referring to Montana, which was proposing to use the technology, but China is facing major droughts as well], which will only increase with global warming.

Third, the total carbon dioxide emissions from coal-to-diesel are about double that of conventional diesel. Half the emissions are from the plant, and while you can in theory capture and store that carbon underground, it is expensive. Also, permanent leak-free solutions are not yet proven. And even if the carbon is captured at the plant, you are still left with diesel fuel that is burned in a vehicle and emitted out the tailpipe. We need to reduce our carbon emissions, and coal-to-diesel will increase them. It is not a good use for billions and billions of dollars.

When you consider coal - you can't just consider how it burns in the plant, or how the "diesel" made from coal burns in a vehicle... Coal starts in the ground, is mined (open pit/mountain top removal is common), massive toxic run-off issues from these mines - contaminating our streams, rivers, and lakes - an ground water and oceans;  it is then transported by train, barges, and trucks to various locations... and so on and so on.  It is an amazingly energy intensive process - that is also very dirty by nature.  So, IMO, even if a coal power plant could sequester it's carbon, it is still impossible to even be rated by any green means - as it is sooooo not green in any way!  ...then should we talk about the mercury burning coal emits?  ...how about the radiation in the flyash that is 10 times worse than a nuclear power plant?

This is an interesting article about the clean coal ads and how misleading they are.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/126229/do_%22clean_coal%22_ads_violate_ftc_fcc_standards/

The coal industry has been running ads on TV here with snippets of Obama's speeches supporting clean coal.  ...I prefer the commercials that ask you if you want to see "Clean Coal", they open a door - and it's just empty desert on the other side... then go on to say that it is really just a fantasy at this point.

Several pieces of good news on this subject.

The University of Wisconsin’s Charter Street power plant will stop burning coal and convert instead to biomass by 2012.

In Pomeroy Ohio, plans for an American Electric Power “clean-coal” power plant have been put on temporary hold, although just for economic reasons.

Plans for a $5 billion, 1,500 megawatt conventional coal plant in Eastern Nevada were postponed due to “increasing environmental and economic uncertainties surrounding its development.”

More importantly the Obama EPA has agreed to reconsider a midnight memo issued by former EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson which sought to prohibit controls on global warming pollution from coal plants. This is seen as the first step toward regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.