Is the phrase "clean coal" an oxymoron?

[hedgehog]

IMO, no matter how you extract the energy from coal, just getting it out of the ground devastates thousands and thousands of acres. Here in New York we are recycling everything we can to avoid having 100 acre municipal landfills. Meanwhile, to our south entire mountains are being scraped level and out west huge pits are being dug. Given the reaction to the sight of landfills, I don't see any support for coal based energy once people see how we get coal out of the ground.

[mod mom]

1. YEP: Al Gore: ‘Clean Coal’s Like Healthy Cigarettes’»

Al Gore: ‘Clean Coal’s Like Healthy Cigarettes’»

At the Clinton Global Initiative, Al Gore ripped apart “clean coal,” the coal industry catch-all propaganda term for advanced coal technologies, both existing ones that reduce traditional pollutants and developmental ones, like carbon capture and sequestration. Gore was asked by Bill Clinton, “Do you believe that the current economic difficulties will make it harder or easier to pass good climate legislation?” Here’s Gore’s answer:

For the first time in all of human history, we, as a species, have to make a decision. If we make the right decision then the answer to the question you asked is, the economic crisis can provide an opportunity to make the right kind of changes.

What should we do? We should stop burning coal . . . without sequestering the CO2. The coal and oil companies have spent in the United States alone a half a billion dollars in the first eight months of this year promoting a lie that there is such a thing as “clean coal.” Clean coal’s like healthy cigarettes — it does not exist. It could theoretically exist. The only demonstration plant was canceled. How many, how many such plants are there? Zero. How many blueprints? Zero.

Watch it:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/28/gore-clean-coal-cigarettes/

[hedgehog]

7. I think we need to sidestep the trap of arguing over how we "burn"

the coal. It's too easy to get stuck discussing whether some proposed technology will actually sequester CO2. The damage done in the coal fields themselves should be enough to make us turn away from this energy source.

What happens if instead of building more power plants, we convert our lighting technology? Compact fluorescents are just a first step. What about better insulation for our buildings? What other energy conservation methods are out there to be developed?

[MADem]

10. My holiday lighting is all LED. Love the jewel toned retro-looking bulbs!

I've got little multicolored twinkling ones, ones that look like cut crystal...they're great! I've been a CFL person for eons--I was used to using them in Europe well before they hit the US, so I was an "early adapter" to that technology.

These LEDs are the Next Big Thing. A little tweaking, and that will help a LOT.

[mod mom]

12. Mine too. We had to go w a mixture of cool and warm white lights for the tree

which gives a wonderful effect. The rest of the led I used was the blue which is very vibrant!

[MADem]

9. I'm with Al. I think we need to take an entirely different approach to energy.

If we'd invest in this effort the way we invested in the space race, we'll be on the "moon" before ya know it, and selling our energy "Tang" around the world.

The coal industry makes you happy with cute little kids getting electricity from grandmotherly neighbors for their little tree houses...and coal makes it possible, you see. They do adorable ads with an orange extension cord plugged into a delightfully crisp chunk of coal, against a snow white (Ooooooh, that means it MUST be clean!!!!) backdrop.

Coal sucks. It keeps ya warm, it lights the lights, and if there's nothing else, well, it'll do that, but there's nothing swell or neat or jazzy or clean or new about it. Ask the northeast--all the fumes and particulate and SHIT from downwind of us winds up here, adding to the crap we already have to deal with.

We made it to the moon. Why can't we develop affordable, practical renewables? WHY? Are we too stupid? I don't think so.

We need some "national will" on this score.

[LisaM]

2. Yes.

And Obama needs to realize this.

[liberal N proud]

3. You have to ask, what they do with the pollutants taken out of the emissions

It doesn't simply go away.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

4. An oxymoron of the same degree...

as fucking for virginity.

[hedgehog]

5. Bombing for peace?

[sam sarrha]

6. NO IT ISN'T... its an F'n LIE.!!! CON JOB RIGHT NOW THE COAL INDUSTRY IS GETTING HUGE SUBSIDIES

FOR ALLEGEDLY SPRAYING SOME SNAKE OIL FAKE RESIN ON THE COAL, SAYING IT BURNS CLEANER.. NO PROOF, JUST LOTS OF TAX DOLLARS WASTED ON YELLOW RUNNING DOG FASO-CAPITALIST CRONYISM

[hedgehog]

8. C'mon, don't be shy. Tell us what you REALLY think!

:evilgrin:

[sam sarrha]

15. people need to get pissed off, bunch of sheep

[Dukkha]

11. completely asinine

There are few worse airborne pollutants than coal emissions. One of our primary goals should be to set Obama straight on this very wrong path he took.

[blues90]

13. I don't know how clean and coal can be used in the same

sentence without raising an eye brow. What is it , another if it's repeated enough times it becomes a reality and believable?

[SoCalDem]

14. Just a BIG FAT LIE

all dolled up and presented to us by cheerful, smiling people

[spinbaby]

16. We need cleaner coal

Coal is dirty but half our electricity is generated by coal so we're stuck with it for however long it takes to develop alternative energy sources. But if we have to burn it, we can at least be smarter about it and not, for instance, build huge mountains of coal ash.