Skip to main content

View Diary: Clean Coal Night? An ashy conundrum (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Reality: no coal=a lot more nukes (0+ / 0-)

    Clean coal is better than a huge surge in nuclear power plants. Clean coal is CO2 capture and sequestration. It means less energy per ton of coal and a new generation of power plants.
    It is hard enough to get industry signed on to that.
    Then you start ranting about how radioactive coal ash is, which is only slightly more radioactive than dirt.

    I get it, you don't want any coal.
    We can't keep emitting CO2.
    What's the alternative?
    Nuclear?

    •  Let's see ... (0+ / 0-)
      1.  Clean Coal is an oxymoron, with about as much truth in it as "safe cigarette".  
      1.  Clean Coal, as advertised, is minimum 10+ years (and likely 20+) out from any possible significant implementation, at quite high cost and quite uncertain risk.
      1.  For that cost, we have the ability to implement many options ... and not necessitating "a huge surge in nuclear power plants.  
      1.  As to alternatives, I (and others) have presented many. There is Gore's 100% renewable in a decade, Eric Schidmt's (Google) 20 year plan ... here is another, roughly, 20-year plan:  How America Can Break Its Coal Addiction (Or: no, coal isn’t necessary)

      "Clean Coal" is a powerpoint monstrocity that might, or might, turn into something tenable. I don't think it sane to gamble our future with such heavy reliance on a "maybe".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site