Obama renews 'clean' coal and biofuels plan to reduce foreign oil
Nothing like a good old coal ash spillPresident Obama and a bipartisan coalition of governors plan to use 'clean' coal - still an oxymoron today - and biofuels as key resources to ween America off foreign oil dependence according to a White House press release.
Ironically, however, cost-effective clean coal technologies simply do not exist. And, according to a recent Oxford Study, even next gen biofuels will be significantly constrained by land-use issues.
So, why not natural gas?
Even if CO2 can be cost-effectively captured and managed, is coal technology really so much better for the environment than natural gas, for instance? Furthermore, natural gas doesn't require any magical breakthrough today to clean itself up compared to coal. More important, both natural gas and 'clean' coal - if such a thing ever exits - should be seen ONLY as interim technologies.
Is not an interim technology that is cost-effective and clean today better than an interim technology that might one day be clean and cost-effective? Are we being pragmatic, or just playing politics?
Labels: biofuels, clean coal, Foreign Oil Dependency, natural gas
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:48 AM
5 Comments:
why not Natural Gas?
Good Question!
From what I hear we have 100 years of Natural Gas - if used at the CURRENT LEVELS.
so.. how long will it last if we use it to totally replace coal?
I'm betting that number must be as small as 25 years or less.
True I did hear something like that like theres not enought to last that long??
i don't think you'd try to replace coal with natural gas. you'd just start using more natural gas instead of coal as wind, solar, nuclear, etc. can be implemented to replace either coal or natural gas altogher.
likewise, you'd try to get big trucks, buses, etc. converted to natural gas. maybe even cars where the pipeline already exists. that move alone could probably cut foreign oil dependence in half, minimally.
and, again, whether coal or natural gas, both should be seen as interim solutions.
according to some analysts, clean coal technology will never be cost-effective without massive increases in energy costs.
so, since we have cost-effective, cleaner, domestic natural gas right now. why not use it in the interim?
later, if coal becomes a cleaner and cheaper solution compared to natural gas, then use it.
we talk about the dangers of foreign oil dependence, yet we don't utilize the resources at hand.
what are we waiting for?
in his speech obama cited the need for a new philosophy on energy and energy dependence. i totally agree, but i don't agree with obama's philosophy.
i'd say that philosophy should be driven by the notion of ending foreign oil dependence as quickly as possible without increasing emissions.
no politics. no pork. no paybacks. just a pragmatic, aggressive revolution against foreign oil.
since obama doesn't believe in sending the US back to the moon, let's make our cultural moon mission a mission to end foreign oil dependence ASAP.
I think knowing the bottom line, i.e. what happens if you convert EVERYTHING to natural gas will give some boundary context to the issue though - especially if we are talking about a "bridge" to something else in the future.
I do agree that right now there is no such thing as Clean Coal but I'm also not convinced that it cannot be a lot cleaner than it is right now - at a cost - agreed.
Another thing to look at - is how many Nukes would we need to replace all the coal burners?
How many acres of wind or solar would be needed to replace coal?
we won't replace coal - one for one - with anything but knowing the context can help understand what are realistic directions and which are essentially not as promising.
I still think.. in the end - whenever that is.. that we will have a world without coal plants AND we will have electric cars that MIGHT be recharged by hydrogen "fuel".
patience! folks.
We did not get to where we are yesterday and we ain't going to get out of it by tomorrow.
you make some great points, larry. i often show little patience on this issue. and, obviously, rome wasn't built in a day.
i just believe there is still too much complacency regarding this issue, at all levels.
still, while you bring up good points about how natural gas can't replace coal, it could be a bridge to clean coal, while ending foreign oil dependence in the interim.
nonetheless, in many ways obamas is taking the pragmatic route here, because the ethanol and coal industries yield immense power on this issue. so you have to pander to them to some extent to move anything forward.
still, the solution to faster change requires, i guess, a cultural revolution. selling the idea that the faster america ends foreign oil dependence, the more jobs we can create, the stronger we can make our economy, the safer we can make the future for our kids, etc.
i truly believe such a sale is possible.
Post a Comment
<< Home