Should the U.S. focus on ways to burn coal cleanly?

[AlternativeEnergy.com]

This is somewhat of a "hot" topic in politics today. Biden says he's always been for clean coal despite rumors to contrary. All the candidates express support. Yet, there's lots of opposition as well, partly because it is unproven in anything like the scale that would be required.

What do you think?

[David A. Kates]

It's clear that clean coal is far from a reality. We have abundant supplies of coal. But capturing and sequestering the carbon emissions has proved elusive for governments and utilities. ABC News did a good analysis report on clean coal. Some experts believe we should be building more efficient coal-fired power plants (that use much less coal) rather than putting lots of research and development funds into technology that might not materialize. And I think we have to be developing our wind and solar infrastructure: residential, commercial and industrial scale.

[Arnold L. Johnson]

The song by Sting is playing in the back ground about the promise of energy fresh and clean, grimy faces are never seen. So many sacrifice their lives for the comfort and convenience of American life, in war or the mines. Then you got to ship it to where it's used, burn it and breath it. There is too much overhead and consequence in the coal cycle.
I agree with David. Perhaps putting coal burning on the back shelf until better coal technologies emerge. Instead of mega-industry solutions we should be pushing smaller more adaptable, flexible and regional solutions. We have in America, sun belts and wind corridors we don't take full advantage of. Green is not just about a small emissions, a small carbon footprint, it's about not having grimy faces digging up coal in the first place. Green energy doesn't put us at risk of our lives.

[David A. Kates]

Arnold,
Thanks for your comments. We often don't think about the coal miners who risk their lives and health to extract our energy supply. And the residents of mining areas whose water supply is often compromised.

What's the title of the Sting song? I'd like to check it out. David

[Arnold L. Johnson]

Hey David,

The Sting song is called "We Work the Black Seam Together"

[David A. Kates]

Here's a video of Sting's "We Work the Black Seam Together"

Lyrics

This place has changed for good
Your economic theory said it would
It's hard for us to understand
We can't give up our jobs the way we should
Our blood has stained the coal
We tunneled deep inside the nation's soul
We matter more than pounds and pence
Your economic theory makes no sense

One day in a nuclear age
They may understand our rage
They build machines that they can't control
And bury the waste in a great big hole
Power was to become cheap and clean
Grimy faces were never seen
Deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen
We work the black seam together
We work the black seam together

The seam lies underground
Three million years of pressure packed it down
We walk through ancient forest lands
And light a thousand cities with our hands
Your dark satanic mills
Have made redundant all our mining skills
You can't exchange a six inch band
For all the poisoned streams in Cumberland

One day in a nuclear age
They may understand our rage
They build machines that they can't control
And bury the waste in a great big hole
Power was to become cheap and clean
Grimy faces were never seen
Deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen
We work the black seam together
We work the black seam together

And should the children weep
The turning world will sing their souls to sleep
When you have sunk without a trace
The universe will suck me into place


One day in a nuclear age
They may understand our rage
They build machines that they can't control
And bury the waste in a great big hole
Power was to become cheap and clean
Grimy faces were never seen
Deadly for twelve thousand years is carbon fourteen
We work the black seam together
We work the black seam together

[Arnold L. Johnson]

No matter how you look at coal, oil and nuclear, they are not green. It takes more energy and process to make them useful and the by products are toxic to humans and the environment. But because we have infrastructure and people who depend on them, they won't go away. Then ones who control the resources and processes are still drawing an income. A market has been created for the end users. There is a kind of marketing and psychology that makes this stuff a necessity. Politicians either see the truth but don't dare move toward greenness or have wholly bought into fossil fuels as a means for control, leverage, power, influence and money. The first oath of the medical profession "Do No Harm" is also the anthem of the Green movement. Don't harm the earth and don't harm the people on it. We do fossil fuels because ownership of land is power, everyone owns sunlight, air and water. The gov is begging us to stay the course down the fossil fuel road, even at the expense of sunlight, air and water. We are starting to question where this road is taking us.

[Bob]

Yes, the United States should focus on ways to burn coal cleanly. Once technology is developed it can be sold to other countries. Bottom line is the USA and other countries are already burning it dirty. Wouldn't burning it cleanly offer an improvement over burning it dirty?

The United States is sending almost 3/4 of a trillion dollars a year to other countries for oil. Moving the country from fossil fuels is a notable goal, however, it is in the distant future. Some have plans, likek Pickens and Gore, to generate 100% of our current electricity needs from wind turbines. But that only addresses our current electricity needs which is for residences, businessess and factories. We'll still need energy for transportation concerns.

High quality transporation fuels can be made form coal. We have significant resources in coal to help ease this energy deficit rather quickly. Yet too many of these resources are being placed off limits by partisan bickering.

And there's the 'Not in my backyard' thing. Bottom line, is if we're ever going to be energy independent, people are going to be willing to accept something in their 'backyard', whether that be wind turbines, solar plant farms, nuclear power plants or coal.

This energy crisis is one of the items hurting our economy and it's time to make energy independence happen. If we do this right, the USA could become a net exporter of energy rather than the net consumer it currently is.

There are bunches of interesting links on the following site: http://www.abornazine.com

[Arnold L. Johnson]

Hello Bob, glad to hear you weigh in.

There is a lot of stuff on the back shelf still being developed, like hydrogen. I also realize that dirty coal is already in use, but if we can get around the quantity of that usage by focusing on other alternatives, we could offer those alternatives too which makes the whole thing more attractive. Less is less. In Ohio we have a number of coal powered generating plants supplying both residents and industry. With wind and solar off loading some demand there is more capacity for industry without adding more coal burning plants. And there is local control of the energy source. But frankly and even though coal is popular, is the process to extract it, move it, and the aftermath of using it, a thing we should set our future on? And about coal fuel, ask anyone in Ohio or Pa, which would they rather do dig for coal or make moonshine and moonshine aka ethanol will win every time. Having something doesn't obligate you to use it, coal and oil have become a convenience food and we've forgot how to cook.

Energy independence depends on who is saying it. Being free from foreign oil is one thing, who will save us from American oil also? The things we can do now, we should do, not leave things the same on account of a promise 10 years down the road.

For transportation if you read your history, the auto began with electrics, then alcohol then petrol. I think a hybrid of electric and flex-fuel would be perfect. But I would burn 100% alcohol or ethanol. I think decent batteries are still on the way and fuelcells are too complex and expensive a technology for cars and trucks. Politics and promises both begin with "p".

We have one wind turbine in the area of downtown Cleveland, Ohio. It's not really an eye sore, though it is hard to imagine a string of them across Lake Erie. But with the proper education we could accept it.

[Arnold L. Johnson]

I just had a thought and this applies to many technologies. If we are able to offload a good portion of our dependence on fossil fuels it might accomplish a couple of things.
1. Decrease our carbon footprint and its after effects by using natural and organic sources.
2. Change consumption habits and products.
3. Give us a chance to explore new technologies and processes we don't have now.
4. Use the new technologies to revisit fossil fuels in a new light.
5. Having off loaded we now have more coal and oil because we didn't use it up killing ourselves.

Maybe we are trying too hard to turn coal into a diamond. How much technology is required to do that job? We have to think process and return and outcome. Even with all our technology the best we've done with nukes is boil water and make bombs. How to directly draw energy from fusion seems still a mystery. We can draw from for sun with solar cells, can't draw from fusion why? Heck, I would even suggest using the present nuke plants to make hydrogen if that what it takes, can we get on with it? And you wonder why clean coal and hydrogen is 15 years off, always.