Blowing Smoke

Exactly how does one "sarcastically" enter a door? That reminds me of the classic "I want your body," she hissed. Does no one proofread anymore?

Clean coal is the oxymoron that has replaced political science as most offensive in our vocabulary. Both coal fired and nuclear power generation require large amounts of cooling water,,, 10,000 gallons per minute for 1 GW facility. Better to spend the money and effort today on expanding the distributed renewables than to subsidize the concentrated exhaustables that exacerate power distribution problems.

Coal industry...investing millions in advertisment and marketing of a nonexistent technology instead of investing ,millions in the actual R&D to create the technology. All so they can turn a profit burning dirty old coal for another 22 years.

People always assume that we must use coal or nuclear to help solar and wind. This isn't true. Geothermal and hydroelectric are reliable 365/7/24 sources. Hydro can be pulled from ocean currents and tides. It doesn't require lots of new dams. Solar concentration allows solar to be turned into liquid sodium and stored as heat energy underground to be used in off-peak hours. All of this technology is here, today, and ready to go. There is no 30 year development curve like there will be with clean coal.

The coal industry is just the new car-company bailout if we remain reliant on them until we must stop their use to save our planet. Start the transition now. Let them develop their own technology.

And where was the counterpoint to the eviromentalist wacko? Wind and solar are not going to give us all the energy we need. And the cost is going to raise your electric bill at least 100%. But let's ignore our most abundant energy resource in favor of "global warming" which does NOT exist.

Unfortunately if you press most of the anti clean coal people you will also find they are anti nuclear. The other inconvenient truth is that you can't eliminate both and have a viable energy policy. Wind and solar are intermittent energy sources and a reliable base capacity is required to have a stable power grid. I agree that there are serious questions about the practicality of CO2 sequestration since it is many times the volume of the original coal that it came from. The best you can likely do in the near term is the Integrated coal gasification combined cycle plants, which by virtue of the fact that they are more thermally efficient than current coal plants will achieve a net reduction in CO2, and will also capture the sulfur and particulate emissions. Nuclear waste sequestration is actually a simpler probelm because the volume in much smaller. The volume of one beer can will contain the lifetime waste production for one person. France has shown you can do nuclear power safely and they have 1/3 the percapita CO2 emissions that we do. The probelms are political, not technological. The truth is that we will have to pick our poison here, and that's not a politically popular thing to say.

Why wasn't the other side of this argument interviewed by Newsweek? This is a some very biased reporting, if you call it reporting. Good thing there are some posters who are able to reveal the other side to the issue.

it is my opinion that the coal industry has been fixated solely on profits and not on the developement of more environmentally friendly use of an incrediblly abundant resource. i work for one of the largest railroads in the country which generates a huge amount of its operating revenue from the transportaion of coal. i believe that the utilities pay a premium for the delivery of this cheap source of fuel. why not set aside 5% of your rail compcity strictly for delivery of coal to projects that can begin to demonstrate the ability to devope this so called clean coal technology. this might require the mining industry as well as the railroads to deliver this 5% at cost but in my opinion these industries have the most to gain in the long run.

"Nuclear works" France.... Are they still dumping spent fuel in the oceans???

Being from Campbell County Wyoming, (largest coal producing county in the US,) I am obviously on the other side of this issue when it comes to clean coal technology. Wyoming has traditionally been a very conservative state, but is being progressive when it comes to clean coal technology. GE recently entered a contract with the University of Wyoming to build a clean coal (coal gasification) power research facility in Wyoming to study cleaner ways to burn Powder River Basin Coal. Wyoming has been on the forefront of CO2 sequestration legislation and research. Much to everyone surprise, Wyoming has a Democrat for a governor (one of the smartest people I have ever met and mind you I vote Republican 99% of the time) and he gets along very well with the large coal companies. It is in the coal companies??? and the State of Wyoming???s best interests to work together find better and cleaner ways to utilize coal. Coal accounts for greater than 50% of the electricity produced in the US. Renewable energy and clean coal technology are both endeavors we should pursue, but the technology to replace conventional coal fired power production within 10 years does not exist. Renewable energy sources can???t keep up with the world increases in power demands let alone replace coal as the leading producer of electricity. The answer lies somewhere in the middle. Saying that we can produce all of our electricity from renewable resources within 10 years is as ridiculous as saying that there is no evidence of global warming. Both sides are guilty of using partial truths from scientific data to further their agenda. Be realistic about the substance and time frame, work together and we may accomplish something. Sticking our collective heads in the sand and pointing fingers at each other will accomplish nothing.

Nuclear works (France!!!) and coal can be cleaned (Germany!!!) The nuts on the left want all of tehse boutique energy sources. They are the sources that are 30 years away!!!

Mr. Hardwick obviously hasn't been to North Dakota. This is where reality is actually reality. That's where the largest carbon capture and storage project in the world resides - at a coal gasification plant - the only one of its kind in North America. Next door to it is a coal-based power plant that, in the next two-three years, will be home to a large-scale CO2 capture demonstration project -- aimed at 90 percent capture. In Ohio, there is already a small pilot carbon capture project under way at another coal-based power plant. The reality is that work is being done for CO2 capture, but it takes time to commercial implement the technology.

The lefty fools who think that we can get 100% of our energy from renewables in ten years are in a fanatsy world. Nuclear has to be part of the mix. France gets 80% to 90% from nuclear. Coal can be cleaned, but these nitwits don't want to hear it.

I can't take seriously anyone who fails to mention nuclear as a noncarbon emitting technology. If anyone thinks that the U.S. can survive on renewables alone without clean coal and nuclear they are smoking something and contributing to the CO2 emissions they hope to eliminate.

I can't take seriously anyone who fails to mention nuclear as a non-carbon emitting power generation technology. If anyone thinks the U.S. can operate on renewables only without nuclear or coal they are smoking something and are contributing to the CO2 emissions they hope to eliminate.

you write an article based on a simplie question and proceed to provide only one side of a issue from a group that is oppose to burning any fosil fuel. Nice one newsweek, way to be balanced. there is a demostration clean coal plant up and running in germany and there are many way to burn coal cleanly, whether feeding the CO2 to bacteria or piping it deep under ground etc. for the uniformed there is a power plant in america that pipes its CO2 to a near by oild field where it is piped underground. i guess this doesnt count since that process helps with the extraction of oil. stop giving these envronuts a soapbox. we need energy and wind/solar won't cut it

I've never seen activists campaign against a technology rather than for implementing it before. Notice how they say there's nothing going on in the US with this, as if the fact that a 30 MW pilot plant in Germany operating now means nothing. The IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, the MIT report The Future of Coal, and McKinsey report CCS Assessing the Economics all state the barrier is political, not technological. FutureGen, which was supposed to be the first full scale US plant before it was cancelled, took two years just to select a site. The big delay the reports and activists say is inevitable, i.e it won't be in widespread use until 2030 is just due to the authors see a great difficulty in implementing a price on carbon high enough to force implementation of this technology. Its preposterous for the activists and Gore to be campaigning spreading disinformation about this technology. Its a religion. They want solar and wind and they don't care what it costs. Germany put in a 74 cent a kw/hr subsidy for solar and the activists and Gore love it. The IPCC says "clean coal" could be implemented for less than 8 cents a kw/hr compared to existing coal at 5 cents kw/hr and the activists and Gore say its impossible or not reality or too far away. Its too bad Gore has decided to become irrational on such an important issue.

Contact Colorado Springs Utilities... Newman systems is currently testing a technology at the Drake Power Plant in Colorado Springs that IS clean coal technology. Brian Hardwick is completely wrong.

you wirte an article on grounds of a single question then proceed to give only one side of the issue from an grow opposed to the burning of fosil fuels. way to be balanced! A clean coal demostration plant is up and running in germany, there are several ways to burn coal cleanly and capture the carbon either by feeding it to bacteria or stroing it underground. for the uninformed there is a power plant in america that pipes its CO2 to an oil field where it is pumped underground, but i guess this doesnt count becuase that process helps extract oil. stop giving environuts a soap box to stand on we need energy and wind/solar/bio isnt going to cut it.

Funny, until I read this article I didn't get the ad that's on TV now about the myth of clean coal. To me, the guy in the desert made it look like the clean coal technology was good for the environment because he was standing outside in an untouched landscape that appeared to be in good shape. It wasn't until the very end of the ad that I realized that the ad was actually against clean coal technology.