Should Existing Energy Sources Ever be Denied Further Development?

[Pangloss]

Discussion broken off from this thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37029

 

Certain technologies cannot be explored' date=' is that your position? [/quote']

No. That is NOT my position. Coal is not a "technology to be explored." We've been using coal for centuries, and it's a "technology" to be discarded. THAT'S my point.

 

That appears to be a "yes" rather than a "no". You appear to be saying that coal is a technology that should not be explored further.

 

I don't really understand that. Why not?

 

The argument seems to be "clean coal isn't really clean, so it shouldn't be used". Why can't it become more clean? Are we saying that there is no way to make it more clean, or that it's too expensive to make it clean? If it's the latter, how do we know it won't become less expensive with further development and research?

[ironizer]

There is already enough incentive for "new" energy. If anyone finds something practical, reliable, and clean, then I'm sure they wouldn't need some government bureaucrat to get him to develop his technology because he'd be rich anyways.

 

So this whole "government helping advance technology" is just hot water. Politicians use it to get into office and make themselves sound like "good people" to liberals.

[Ophiolite]

I accept there are no free lunches, but I should be interested to hear from iNow why coal should be rejected. With a proper carbon sequestration program, ideally initiated a site, coal could be an important component of the energy program through the end of the century.

[iNow]

That appears to be a "yes" rather than a "no". You appear to be saying that coal is a technology that should not be explored further.

I think the issue is the word "explore." I just think we should stop using coal as a power source. Explore it all you want. Find things to do with it. Find ways to make it so it doesn't choke us all when we burn it. That's dandy. But, we need to stop using it to power our civilization. Not only does stripping it from the earth cause problems, but so does burning it. Not only will we run out of it someday, but we might have killed ourselves using it before we figure out how to do so in a better manner.

 

What do you mean by explore? Does my above comment align us at all on this, or drive us further apart?

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is already enough incentive for "new" energy. If anyone finds something practical, reliable, and clean, then I'm sure they wouldn't need some government bureaucrat to get him to develop his technology because he'd be rich anyways.

This is spoken like someone who has never had to make a proposal to venture capitalists. People will NOT invest in something (on the scale needed for massive infrastructure change like this) no matter how good of an idea it is, if there is little to no guarantee that that status quo won't be challenged.

 

Having dudes in their garage inventing is great, but if they can't do proof of concept, scale up manufacturing, and get past the litany of lawyers out there protecting corporate interests, well.. then they're screwed. The idea is dead in the water, and we continue on with business as usual... no matter HOW good of an idea it was.

 

 

So this whole "government helping advance technology" is just hot water. Politicians use it to get into office and make themselves sound like "good people" to liberals.

 

Oh no, those "dirty liberals." I wonder where you got your talking points.

 

 

Your premise fails on two fronts. First, energy is regulated by the government, so they need to sign off on whatever comes down the pipe. Second, oil and coal interests have huge and powerful lobbies, with representatives in their pockets. They've been writing legislation for years which makes it more and more difficult for competition to find an in.

 

Basically, you argue that the government can't help advance technology, yet that's exactly what they've done for decades in the coal and oil industries. It's one of those "Hello, pot? Meet kettle." ... moments. The premise is flawed, and is hypocritical ta boot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I accept there are no free lunches, but I should be interested to hear from iNow why coal should be rejected. With a proper carbon sequestration program, ideally initiated a site, coal could be an important component of the energy program through the end of the century.

 

I concede, my stance is much more idealistic than practical on this. I don't really disagree with your point, but that's one monster sized "IF" statement you've made.

[npts2020]

Carbon sequestration is the best hope for the coal industry but it is similar to radioactive waste disposal for nuclear plants in that the harmful product will be around for many years and require constant monitoring. If there were no other options, this might be an acceptable situation but there are literally dozens of less environmentally destructive options: wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, piezoelectric to name just a few. This is the direction we need to be looking, IMO.

[Pangloss]

I think the issue is the word "explore." I just think we should stop using coal as a power source. Explore it all you want. Find things to do with it. Find ways to make it so it doesn't choke us all when we burn it. That's dandy. But, we need to stop using it to power our civilization. Not only does stripping it from the earth cause problems, but so does burning it. Not only will we run out of it someday, but we might have killed ourselves using it before we figure out how to do so in a better manner.

 

What do you mean by explore? Does my above comment align us at all on this, or drive us further apart?

 

Well on a short-term basis it's pretty clear that coal is going to continue to be used for a while (as I imagine you would agree).

 

But on a longer-term basis it's going to take a great deal of power generation to replace coal. We can certainly follow the advice of the Ed Begley types and cut per-capita consumption, but ultimately we want the economy to grow, not shrink, and making energy production more efficient only gets us so far.

 

So if science found a way to make coal "clean" (i.e. eliminate the current objections, e.g. sulfer content) then what exactly is the problem? Why wouldn't we just keep doing that until we run out of the stuff?

 

With surface mining, I only care WHERE they put it, not that they do it. We have room for wind turbines and trash dumps, so I guess we got room for surface mining. If there are environmental hazards that need to be addressed, let's address them. You know. With science. Is that a problem?

 

Which ultimately brings me around to my main objection, which is that all of this seems like an example of rejecting science for reasons that are actually socio-political in nature. We see a problem that is not solved by current science, we rally around the idea and then push for its elimination, regardless of how the science subsequently develops. Nuclear being a perfect example, but I think it applies in a lot of areas. I'm not saying there's no development of unpopular technologies, but those who pursue those advances are often admonished merely because of their association with industry. Every once in a while something will come out that all sides can agree on, but it seems more the exception than the rule.

 

So, as I asked in the OP, why can't we make coal clean? What are the scientific reasons? I know filters aren't expensive, as I used to work for a pollution filter manufacturer who lobbied the state to force Florida Power to buy pollution filters to control sulfur emissions at its coal plants (unsuccessfully). There's a disposal issue frequently raised by Greenpeace et al, but so what? We know how to dispose of physical material -- just throw it in the nearest landfill. If more is needed, well, why don't we figure out what that would be, and what it would cost?

 

Carbon sequestration is the best hope for the coal industry but it is similar to radioactive waste disposal for nuclear plants in that the harmful product will be around for many years and require constant monitoring.

 

Why?

[iNow]

With surface mining, I only care WHERE they put it, not that they do it. We have room for wind turbines and trash dumps, so I guess we got room for surface mining. If there are environmental hazards that need to be addressed, let's address them. You know. With science. Is that a problem?

 

<...>

 

So, as I asked in the OP, why can't we make coal clean? What are the scientific reasons? I know filters aren't expensive, as I used to work for a pollution filter manufacturer who lobbied the state to force Florida Power to buy pollution filters to control sulfur emissions at its coal plants (unsuccessfully). There's a disposal issue frequently raised by Greenpeace et al, but so what?

 

We can, but you should recall that the primary reason that we use coal is not because it's the best option, but because it's the most cost effective. For the cost of a few bucket cranes and trucks and conveyer belts, we power entire cities. Each day I grow more frustrated with people who fail to see that economics matter not if existence and health are taken off the proverbial table. [/soap boxey rant]

 

The "environmental hazards" to which you alluded ARE the problem. Again, it's like you're asking why I'm concerned about cigarette smoking, asking why we don't find ways to cure cancer instead so we can keep doing as we please.

 

Well... okay, yes. Let's try to find a way to cure cancer, but that's really hard. It might not be a bad idea to stop smoking also while we search for that cure.

 

 

Also, I think you might be willing to concede that you have a different view of the world than I do. I interpret your approach to be one of "the world is there for us to exploit." That's understandable, and also common, but you should try to recall that I don't see it the same way (also, I concede that I may not be offering a fair view of your actual perspective). In my reality, the world is something which supports my existence, and I should think that acting on intentions that are anything but symbiotic with said "world" is short-sighted, misguided, and wrong.

 

Have you heard of black lung? Guys who dig this crap up for us literally die from an inability to breathe so we can turn the lights on to our christmas trees whenever we want. The canaries in the "coal mine" keep dying, yet we keep replicating the parameters of those mines in our atmosphere.

 

Let's get the hell out of the mines. I don't know what else to say.

[npts2020]

Carbon sequestration is barely out of the "proof of concept" phase and has never been used on any scale for a long period of time to actually see if it works the way we think it should. If coal is going to be used over the long term it may be necessary to use it. I just think there are far better options insofar as they are cleaner, more sustainable, and close to the same price (maybe even cheaper if you don't count carbon emissions as zero cost).

[swansont]

The argument seems to be "clean coal isn't really clean, so it shouldn't be used". Why can't it become more clean?

 

Which definition or use of "clean coal" is being discussed here? Pollutants, or CO2?

 

It seems to be the latter, and since you're burning carbon, there really isn't any way to make less CO2 out of it — that's simple chemistry. If the discussion is about sequestration, then it should be called sequestration, IMO. Otherwise it's just spin.

[ParanoiA]

Also, I think you might be willing to concede that you have a different view of the world than I do. I interpret your approach to be one of "the world is there for us to exploit." That's understandable, and also common, but you should try to recall that I don't see it the same way (also, I concede that I may not be offering a fair view of your actual perspective). In my reality, the world is something which supports my existence, and I should think that acting on intentions that are anything but symbiotic with said "world" is short-sighted, misguided, and wrong.

 

Well said. I guess I find myself in the middle of those two views. The world really is there to exploit, in my opinion, but ignoring the symbiotic relationship hurts us as much as that which is being exploited, so I think that is the "check" on our exploitation. I think we ignore that at our own peril.

 

That said, I can't help but to appreciate Pangloss's point about dismissing current solutions, presuming no option for scientific advancement, while we turn right around and latch on to solutions that aren't even practical yet, with eternal investment in scientific advancement.

 

I love the idea of energy from the sun. No sun = no us, so I have no issue in robbing its energy until it's dead. I have an eternal hope for scientific advancement in harnessing that energy one day. But we're not very good at it yet, despite the solar energy movement.

 

Why do we not hold any hope for scientific advancement on coal? We're actually good at getting energy out of it, already. We have far less hurdles to deal with. Some biggies, sure, but we're not starting from scratch trying to roll out infrastructure, capital, marketing, trying to make it affordable and workable. All that's been done, more or less. All that's left is making it not contribute to climate change. That may be daunting, but certainly a narrow scope.

 

It would seem that we're closer to making coal actually "clean", than we are in making solar practical, and an absolute substitute.

[waitforufo]

Unless replaced by nuclear power, fossil fuels including coal will continue to provide a significant portion of our electrical power generation capacity for the foreseeable future. Even with significant increased nuclear power plant construction and operation, that will likely remain the case. Currently, wind and solar power generation is primarily used to reduce fuel consumption at conventional fossil fuel burning plants and to some extent hold water behind dams for later use. This energy consumption reduction is important and further wind and solar power generation should be encouraged and will likely naturally occur due to economic viability. To date however, I don't know of a single conventional fossil fuel power plant being decommissioned due to increased wind and solar power generation capacity. Wind and solar power are just not reliable power sources. If today we were to build wind and solar power generation systems that were capable when operating a peak output of matching all power generation created by fossil fuels, we would still need to continue operating the fossil fuel plants. We would likely not decommission any fossil fuel plants even under this scenario. The power generated just isn't reliable enough.

 

If you agree with the above, and believe man made CO2 emissions should be reduced, carbon sequestering technology must be encouraged. If you believe that man made CO2 emissions should be essentially eliminated, hope you are a very patient person.

[iNow]

Well said. I guess I find myself in the middle of those two views. The world really is there to exploit, in my opinion, but ignoring the symbiotic relationship hurts us as much as that which is being exploited, so I think that is the "check" on our exploitation. I think we ignore that at our own peril.

Indeed, but I also want to assume that the "exploitation" of which you speak is already a subset of (inherent in my use of the word) "symbiosis." It's like exploitation-lite or some soft version of it, but it's still there. Obviously, I kill animals to eat, and manage earth to grow food, and kill trees to build houses, and use animal skins to stay warm, etc., but I'm also not fishing with a 3 mile net and pulling in resources indiscriminately.

 

The same applies here. I'm not against using coal... but my caveat is that it must be done within reason. Our consumption and use surpassed the reasonable level (plausibly) in the 1940s, and I have zero qualms arguing to abandon fossil fuel technology altogether (unless significant advances are put in place first). I really don't.

 

 

 

I love the idea of energy from the sun. No sun = no us, so I have no issue in robbing its energy until it's dead. I have an eternal hope for scientific advancement in harnessing that energy one day. But we're not very good at it yet, despite the solar energy movement.

I here I find a fundamental fault in your assumptions. We're really good at it, and getting better every day. Not only is average performance and efficiency improving, but concentrating technology is improving gains by significant amounts. We've surpassed 25% efficiency in many applications, which is huge (as normal numbers have hovered around 6-12%).

 

 

Why do we not hold any hope for scientific advancement on coal?

I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation of everyones position here (at least mine). I am totally open to advancement, I'm also trying to be realistic that said advancement hasn't come for the centuries we've been using it, and that the investment would be better spent somewhere proven to be clean, sustainable, and available as a source regardless of location (like solar and wind).

 

 

We're actually good at getting energy out of it, already. We have far less hurdles to deal with. Some biggies, sure, but we're not starting from scratch trying to roll out infrastructure, capital, marketing, trying to make it affordable and workable.

Again, I disagree. It would cost more to research and retool coal burning plants than to scale up manufacturing of solar and wind tech. We can use existing computer/chip manufacturing approaches to crank out HUGE numbers of solar cells/panels in very short time, while continually driving down cost per watt.

 

Again, though, coal is not clean, and the technology is not there to make it so (as of right now). However, (as of right now) we do have viable alternatives that can extinguish immediately upon implementation all of the problems caused by coal. I know where I'm placing my bets and which boat I'm tying my dingy to.

 

 

It would seem that we're closer to making coal actually "clean", than we are in making solar practical, and an absolute substitute.

I think I covered this above, but I disagree strongly with the basic assumption you've made here. I'm open to reading articles and whatever technology you may be privy to, studies which indicate our "closeness" to clean coal, and what that even means. Until then, I'm working from the knowledge I do have, which is that solar is quick, clean, easy, and scalable for moderate cost, and it eliminates the need for centralized infrastructure and transport while also being good for the economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

To date however, I don't know of a single conventional fossil fuel power plant being decommissioned due to increased wind and solar power generation capacity.

All you need to do is look beyond your own borders to see exactly this happening. While there are countless examples, I encourage you to look right now mainly to Germany, who with the help of government assistance, subsidies, and intelligent taxation have become a shining example of just how feasible and simple solar/wind implementation can be, eliminating the need for multiple coal fired plants.

 

 

 

Wind and solar power are just not reliable power sources. If today we were to build wind and solar power generation systems that were capable when operating a peak output of matching all power generation created by fossil fuels, we would still need to continue operating the fossil fuel plants.

I'd be really curious to see some numbers in support of these claims. You seem to be making it up. I imagine you have some logical basis for asserting what you did, but it runs counter to everything I've read in the industry these past several years. Clarification is needed. You seem to be arguing more against storage/battery technology than solar/wind energy generation itself (but, I was really challenging your reliability comments more than anything else).

Edited December 20, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[waitforufo]

Good things happening in Germany? I googled "planned coal fired plants germany" and found the following. Seems to me that Germany likes burning coal and plans to burn more in the future.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,472786,00.html

 

http://www.projectfinancemagazine.com/default.asp?page=7&PubID=4&ISS=25186&SID=714556

 

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/19122008/323/factbox-german-coal-fired-power-plant-projects.html

 

I can't find anything on Germany decommissioning power plants in favor of solar or wind.

 

With regard to my statement below, lets just use a bit of logic.

 

Wind and solar power are just not reliable power sources. If today we were to build wind and solar power generation systems that were capable when operating at peak output of matching all power generation created by fossil fuels, we would still need to continue operating the fossil fuel plants.

 

Note that I said "when operating at peak output." Solar power operates when the sun is out, and wind operates when the wind is just right (high wind is definitely a problem). So for significant periods of the time these sources of power are providing nothing. Fossil fuel plants operate almost 24/7, with brief periods of downtime maintenance. You are just not going to replace that with wind and solar. Yes, you can reduce fossil fuel consumption and that in it self is a very good thing.

 

With regard to grid power storage using batteries, currently these plants are in the 10 to 40 MWh range. That would work out to what, minutes or perhaps an hour of back up? These battery systems are used to level out power fluctuation based on wind variability and clouds. Such batteries are not used for make it today and use it tomorrow or next week load leveling.

 

If batteries were so easy and such a good thing why are they not used more today? If one could store grid power during off peak times and put it back in during peak demand one could make money today. That is if the batteries were cheap to build and maintain. So why don't I see or hear about battery plants going up everywhere? Please don't give me that conspiracy theory BS regarding the oil companies suppressing technology.

[Pangloss]

I appreciate the responses on this and I think it, and similar recent discussions, has reminded me that there's a lot of level-headedness and sanity in this crowd, and not just political correctness. The main point I had really, which I think is accepted, is about keeping an open mind about potential scientific solutions. I accept that such solutions may not be forthcoming and we have to move in the most logical direction given what we CAN do.

 

That being said, why don't we filter coal plants today? I still don't get that. I don't mean to put you guys in the middle of a local dispute without the full background (which I don't know myself), but I just don't understand why we don't use low-cost interim solutions when we know about them and have the ability to use them without a lot of expense. Why aren't we mailing filters by the thousands to Chinese households? Why doesn't ever coal-fired power plant in the US have a filter on every smokestack?

 

Those might be better questions for one of the science sub-boards, I don't know.

[swansont]

Why doesn't ever coal-fired power plant in the US have a filter on every smokestack?

 

Those might be better questions for one of the science sub-boards, I don't know.

 

I suspect it's much more a political question than a scientific one. It would require tightening environmental regulations, and the outgoing administration has been relaxing them.

[Pangloss]

Well blerg! Seems like we really ought to do something about that, given that we all seem to agree that coal is going to continue to be used for the foreseeable future!

 

I appreciate the reply.

[Reaper]

That being said, why don't we filter coal plants today? I still don't get that. I don't mean to put you guys in the middle of a local dispute without the full background (which I don't know myself), but I just don't understand why we don't use low-cost interim solutions when we know about them and have the ability to use them without a lot of expense. Why aren't we mailing filters by the thousands to Chinese households? Why doesn't ever coal-fired power plant in the US have a filter on every smokestack?

 

Because it doesn't really matter. Coal technology has always been dirty and problematic from the beginning, and no matter what you do with it, it is very costly and difficult to mitigate any pollution or other toxins that result from their use. Certainly far more so than it is to just simply switch to cleaner solutions.

 

For instance, you mentioned "clean coal tech" on another thread. But there is no such thing, all they really mean is that they will just bury the CO2. Putting filters on them doesn't actually filter out any of the greenhouse gases being emitted, for the most part filters are only used to clean out dust and microscopic particles (not molecules or gases).

 

And then there is the fact that if we did start going back to coal on a large scale then you have the exact same problem that you do with oil, simply there just isn't enough to go around for very long.

 

Putting filters isn't going to solve any problems, it just simply moves the problems elsewhere. You still need to dispose of the waste (and believe me, the stuff that gets on industrial filters isn't something you can just throw out into the environment). You are still emitting greenhouse gases. And, you are not diversifying your energy sources, which by the way is something we need to do, and quickly.

 

In short, coal is just simply a dead end; any perceived benefits are far, far outweighed by the cons.

[Pangloss]

iNow touched on that above, talking about the cost of "retooling" coal plants. But it's really not that hard to stick a filter in a smokestack. I think the figure we used to bandy about was $10 million to outfit every single smokestack in the state of Florida with a stack of woven mesh that would catch most everything (this was 10 years ago).

 

I realize that doesn't deal with carbon disposal, but wouldn't that be a good thing to do while we're waiting for nuclear, solar and wind plants to be built?

[Reaper]

iNow touched on that above, talking about the cost of "retooling" coal plants. But it's really not that hard to stick a filter in a smokestack. I think the figure we used to bandy about was $10 million to outfit every single smokestack in the state of Florida with a stack of woven mesh that would catch most everything (this was 10 years ago).

 

All filters do is improve the quality of the air, they don't actually reduce the pollution produced by them. I certainly think that we should put filters on every smokestack we find, but it is very costly; while you can certainly justify their use in cities, I don't think they will put them on powerplants in remote areas (and again, you still have to deal with the waste)...

 

I realize that doesn't deal with carbon disposal, but wouldn't that be a good thing to do while we're waiting for nuclear, solar and wind plants to be built?

 

I think that we should not delay the switch any longer than we need to. We can certainly make the switch now, it's just a matter of political will. It will certainly take time, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that we should just keep on procrastinating. After all, in the time that we exchanged posts, tens of millions of tons of pollutants were released into the environment from those coal power plants...

[waitforufo]

iNow touched on that above, talking about the cost of "retooling" coal plants. But it's really not that hard to stick a filter in a smokestack. I think the figure we used to bandy about was $10 million to outfit every single smokestack in the state of Florida with a stack of woven mesh that would catch most everything (this was 10 years ago).

 

I realize that doesn't deal with carbon disposal, but wouldn't that be a good thing to do while we're waiting for nuclear, solar and wind plants to be built?

 

My understanding is that you are correct including your cost figure. Stack emissions can be scrubbed of fly ash, acid, and acid producing chemicals. Coal fired power plants primary waste product after that is fly ash which can be acid neutralized and buried. There is however a huge volume of this solid waste product. The technology for making all of this happen has been around for at least two decades.

 

[iNow]

And the CO2? Is that not a pollutant in your approach?

[waitforufo]

I was simply responding to Pangloss. In his last few post he has set aside the question of CO2. I have discussed CO2 in my other posts on this topic.

[Pangloss]

I'm not setting aside the CO2 question -- I'm agreeing that it's not met by filtering technology. I'm asking why we can't do filtering technology anyway, so that the air will be cleaner until such time as the coal plants are eliminated.

 

 

All filters do is improve the quality of the air, they don't actually reduce the pollution produced by them. I certainly think that we should put filters on every smokestack we find, but it is very costly; while you can certainly justify their use in cities, I don't think they will put them on powerplants in remote areas (and again, you still have to deal with the waste)...

 

Wait, what's the difference between "improving the quality of the air" (outputted from a smokestack) and "reducing the pollution produced by them"? I don't mean to get overly technical, but I'm confused.

 

Also, the point this guy used to raise (and it seemed to be supported by all the mechanical engineers I knew at the time, who were always talking about easy tower packing methods they learned in school) is that it's NOT expensive. They were saying that it's CHEAP. I mean relatively speaking, of course.

[Reaper]

Wait, what's the difference between "improving the quality of the air" (outputted from a smokestack) and "reducing the pollution produced by them"? I don't mean to get overly technical, but I'm confused.

 

Filters only keep microscopic particles, ash, and other toxins from getting into the air, or into your lungs, where ever they happened to be applied. They are used quite often and are common place, either in factories (where they remove little tiny metallic particles and ash), or sometimes in the household (removing dust). It doesn't actually make the source less polluting in and of itself though, all it does is divert the trash somewhere else. You still have to deal with disposal, and in the case of industrial filters, you can't always just dump it into the environment.

 

Also, the point this guy used to raise (and it seemed to be supported by all the mechanical engineers I knew at the time, who were always talking about easy tower packing methods they learned in school) is that it's NOT expensive. They were saying that it's CHEAP. I mean relatively speaking, of course.

 

Until you have to start replacing them. Filters get quite dirty very quickly, especially if you are going to put them in smokestacks. And its a lot harder to recycle industrial filters because of the types of toxins that get stuck on them, so most of the time they are just simply discarded. The costs can pile up quite quickly.

[waitforufo]

I'm not setting aside the CO2 question -- I'm agreeing that it's not met by filtering technology. I'm asking why we can't do filtering technology anyway, so that the air will be cleaner until such time as the coal plants are eliminated.

 

I was not trying to suggest that you had put aside the CO2 question completely. Prior to my last response to you however, your focus had been on stack emissions other than CO2. I was simply trying to respond to those posts.

 

The History Channel had a Modern Marvels program on power plants. If I recall correctly, a significant segment of the program was on coal fired power plants. For a program geared to the general population, I thought it presented all issues from CO2, acid rain, stack scrubbing, and fly ash disposal reasonably well. I tried to find a link to it, but failed. They rerun those programs ad infinitum so it should come up again.

 

With regard to CO2 and other emissions from coal fired plants, I do believe the two issues should be separated. Technology for removing traditional polutants and particulate from stack emissions exist. Waste solids can be processed and buried. (Disposing of these waste solids is a significant problem and should not be trivialized.) CO2 emissions are not a pollutant in the traditional sense and should not be treated as such. Isolating the CO2 emissions issue in this way does not mean they should be ignored. Isolating it could lead to greater focus, attention, and action.

 

The opening post included the following.

 

The argument seems to be "clean coal isn't really clean, so it shouldn't be used". Why can't it become more clean? Are we saying that there is no way to make it more clean, or that it's too expensive to make it clean? If it's the latter, how do we know it won't become less expensive with further development and research?

 

From this opening there seems to be two lines of reasoning; all-or-nothing, or incremental improvement. The environmental movement seems to be full of people in the all-or-nothing camp. They seem to hold that all pollutant concentrations should be zero. They also seem to fight the incremental approach because any approach that does not insist on zero is a waste of time. This fight does succeed in inhibiting incremental progress. I'm obviously in the incremental camp. I would like pollutant concentrations at zero, but will accept concentrations shown to cause no harm. Why am I willing to accept this? Well, I like the lights to come on when I flip the switch, and after paying my power bill I would like to have money left over for other things. Things like enjoying a comfortable standard of living.