most popular:
2008 Holiday Gift Guides



most popular: Hot Home Wind Turbines


most popular:
$19k Electric Car in US


th comments
Willy Bio said: "I got a question for ya: Have you already been to all the wilderness areas of north america (accessible by train/car/bike) such that you no..." [read]

majortom1981 said: "Owning vs renting all depends on where you live. HEre on long island where taxes are $10,000 -$13,000 a year for just a small 3 bed house ..." [read]

said: "The pancake dispenser has been around for many years and has been used in restaurants. I'm supposing this is simply a model directed towards a wid..." [read]

said: "The automakers never asked for a bailout but for a loan. Chrysler got a loan back in the Lee Ioccoca days and they used it to restructure and paid..." [read]

Uncle B said: "Legalizing the growing of hemp in North America can take the pressure off of the world's forests. Hemp paper is more recyclable than wood paper, an..." [read]

Report Re-characterizes “Clean Coal” Program: Black As Ever

by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 03.16.07
Business & Politics (news)

futuregen%20texas.jpgJust when the “clean coal” mantra, having been echoed through the public relations hole a gazillion times, had even US presidential candidates from both parties arguing that more “clean coal” type technology was ready for prime time taxpayer subsidy, comes a contrarian's view from 13 MIT experts. In a nutshell: its not ready. Worse than 'not ready,' the current approach of the US Department of Energy FutureGen program increases the likelihood of financial waste and adds to the risk that energy supplies will be disrupted in the future. Don’t take our word for it, read the overview in Technology Review. Meanwhile, we’ve been making a similar point in our recent posts. So here’s another contrariwise idea from us. Next time the DOE cooks up a scheme that makes or breaks the prospects for life on earth, they might want to get a third party peer review from people with no economic interest in the outcome. Look below the fold for a few excerpts.

The volume of compressed carbon dioxide that will need to be captured and transported is similar in scale to the amount of oil consumed in the United States….

The report challenged the idea, argued by some energy experts, that a new type of coal plant--one that converts coal into a gas before burning it--will make it easier and cheaper to capture carbon dioxide, compared with collecting it from the smokestacks of conventional power plants.

As a result, the MIT researchers recommend that governments not support the new gasification plants over conventional plants. Instead, they say that governments should focus on large-scale demonstration programs that would, for the first time, capture carbon dioxide from coal plants, transport it, and store it at a large scale…Without such a demonstration, warns the report, a rush to cut carbon emissions would lead to spiking costs and further delays, and that would make it difficult for power producers to meet energy demand.

Image credit: FutureGen Texas.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

th ads
th top picks
th ads