By “Green” you imply Greenbacks ($$$) correct? A higher profit margin from mining coal as they generate two resource streams instead of only one.
Green or “clean” coal does not exist as carbon generated millions of years ago is locked in place until it is burnt, hence releasing all of that carbon. Sequestered carbon (carbon dioxide) would be pumped into coal seams to aid in the removal and collection of methane to be converted to more carbon dioxide, which would in turn be sequestered and pumped to collected even more methane to be converted to even more carbon dioxide. The end result is the same, carbon locked in coal & methane gas is converted to carbon dioxide and unlocked into the environment. What is the volume conversion from solid coal to carbon dioxide gas, let alone the reduction of surface area of coal holding methane gas as cited? Where are these immense subterranean storage “tanks” than can hold the this 1000 fold expanded volume of material?
This completely ignores the inability to collect the methane released from open pit surface coal mines that are exposed to open air.
There is no “clean, green” coal contrary the media barrage to we witness lately. All those willing to swallow “Green Coal” propaganda are encouraged to watch this Sundance Channel documentary about coal mining in West Virginia.
Digg My Best Articles!
Link to posts here
2 responses so far ↓
Darren Smith // October 24, 2008 at 3:47 am |
Hi there
Interesting entry. The same issue is on the tables here in Australia. There are some critical decisions coming up here in terms of Australia’s responses to climate change and renewable energy.
A proposal here is to introduce an “emissions trading scheme” that would likely involve $1.2 billion compensation to coal companies, which should really be invested in renewable energy as a matter of urgency.
You might be interested in this humorous take on this serious issue:
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/yourcalloncoal.
Keep up the good work!
Hans // October 25, 2008 at 7:46 am |
Hello Darren, welcome to the States!
I personally am in favor of a “Cap & Trade” system for coal, natural gas and other carbon dioxide releasing power generation. We used this system effectively & with great results in the 60s & 70s & 80s to greatly curtail Sulfur Dioxide emissions and for the most part to end acid rain.
The market based system works by imposing costs onto power producers for their overall impacts to produce power, not just the expense of infrastructure & getting the resource to the plant while considering the waste produced is not their problem, but rather that of society as a whole. It forces old & dirty plants out of the system through market forces, as it is too expensive to retrofit old technologies vs building new plants with modern technology.
That said, I would rather see more spend on renewables and stop giving corporate welfare to the fossil fuel producers in the form of subsidies and in the US particularly, the enormous unreported subsidy of a huge military to ensure we “receive” cheap resources.
I currently work for a company Next Generation Energy that is moving forward in a multi-pronged approach to supplying heat & electricity to homes, commercial & government facilities through Solar Thermal, Photovoltaic & Wind electricity. It works, and unlike “investing” into your home to add a third bathroom or an updated kitchen, it actually pays back on the initial investment at a much higher rate that one can expect from increasing home values.