Coal is simply too wasteful
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclearwater.png

A just-release report demonstrates that Australian are overwhelmingly eager to get on with the job of reducing emissions.

Some of the stats from second Annual Climate of the Nation report by the Climate of the Nation report Australian Climate Institute are as follows:

• Concern over climate change is high.  89% of Australians are now concerned about climate change, with 49% being either extremely concerned (17%) or very concerned (32%).
  
  
• For most people, ratifying Kyoto is just one part of Australia's continuing response to climate change.  Almost 78% of Australians believe that need to take further urgent action to deal with climate change.  17% have no opinion, and only 5% disagree that urgent action is still required.
  
  
• People are most concerned about the effects of climate change on drought (94% very concerned or concerned), and the consequence of less water for cities (93% very concerned  or concerned). Other highly rated concerns include impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, agriculture, and increased bush-fires and storms.
  
  
• Approximately 60% believe that addressing climate change might or will definitely impact negatively on the economy. About 20% think it will be beneficial.
  
  
• Even so, 78% of Australians believe that we should reverse growing levels of greenhouse pollution to achieve real reductions by 2012.
  
  
• 74 per cent believe that new electricity generation should come from clean energy.
  
  
• 88% believed that government should make large or very large changes in order to reduce emissions. 45% think that individuals should do likewise. Only 3% and 6% respectively thought that government and individuals should make no effort.
  
  
• 48% stated that they were willing to pay $10 to $20 extra for clean energy. 9% said they were willing to $30 to $40 extra. And 4% said they were willing to pay more than that.

Thanks for the WSJ link. Also found this tidbit:

Supply-chain woes are familiar to most energy sectors these days. Oil companies struggle to get rigs and other equipment for exploration. Wind turbine makers have been wracked by component shortages for years. Solar power makers are still struggling with a shortage of pure polysilicon.

But for the nuclear industry, the problem is more dire. Long lead times for plant construction can grow even longer thanks to bottlenecks of key components, while the safety issue is of more concern than, say, a faulty wind turbine

Must stock up on blankets! Or dust off those covers of "Atlas Shrugged"!

If only 10% of the CO2 was removed from current coal emissions, it would be more volume than all the oil consumed in a year!  Furthermore, it is doubtful that the coal-fired plants now operating can be retrofitted to be clean.  Finally, coal is at least 1/3 the cost of any other energy source, and it is reliably available domestically.  A moritorium on dirty coal-fired power plant construction is politically unfeasible, and mankind is currently opening about 3 coal-fired plants a week.

Soon 4th generation fuel production will be technologically feasible, where CO2 from the air is biologically converted into fuel ( http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morningpost/2008/week14/T ... ).  Furthermore, warming can be immediately reversed by dimming the sun slightly with a small amount of aerosol injected into the upper atmosphere.

In other words, CO2 in the air is a potential asset (fuel stock), and the warming it produces can be easily mitigated cheaply in the short run (  http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_brad_arn_080408_t ... ).

"I no longer care much about the science of global warming. To me, the central question, and the one that few are willing to discuss in depth, is: Then what? Fossil fuels now provide about 85% of the world's total energy needs. Even more important is this corollary: Increasing energy consumption equals higher living standards. Always. Everywhere. Given that fact, how can we expect the people of the world -- all 6.6 billion of them -- to use less energy? The short answer: we can't. The developed countries of the world can talk forever about the virtues of solar panels and windmills, but what the energy-poor need most are common fuels like kerosene, propane, and gasoline" --Robert Bryce, Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence

www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod  

Britain needs new coal-fired power stations because they HELP the environment, a minister claimed yesterday. And John Hutton accused green campaigners opposing them of "gesture politics". "We therefore will continue to need this backup from fossil fuels, with coal a key source." --Jake Morris, The Mirror, 11 March 2008

"Still as ambitious as ever, (Craig Venter) just announced at the TED conference: "We have modest goals of replacing the whole petrochemical industry and becoming a major source of energy, we think we will have fourth-generation fuels in about 18 months, with CO2 as the fuel stock." What's this fourth-generation fuel he's talking about? Biofuel alternatives to oil are third-generation. The next step is life forms that feed on CO2 and give off fuel such as methane gas as waste, according to Venter." - "Geneticist Craig Venter Wants to Create Fuel from CO2," TreeHugger.com

"The Panel (on Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming) calculated that adding stratospheric aerosol dust to the stratosphere would cost just pennies per ton of CO2 mitigated."  -"The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering"

The Greens' resistance to geo-engineering sits very uncomfortably with its message that the planet is screwed and we're all going to die. It suggests that Environmentalism has less to do with saving the planet than it does with reining in human aspirations. It suggests that they don't actually believe their own press releases, and that they know the situation is not as dire as they would like the rest of us to think it is. And that Environmentalists are cutting off their noses to spite their faces - "we'll save the planet our way or not at all." It suggests that Environmentalists regard science and engineering as the cause of problems, and not the solution.  --Climate Resistance, 24 March 2008

Those assets, namely coal and gas assets, are going to go way down in value as they go into fire sale mode.  As the price of coal and gas goes up  and the government subsidies for coal and gas dissappear, capital will be salvaged and reinvested in GHG free energy assets.

Sorry dimbulb limboob wing nuts, the corporate leaders you idolize are selling off your favorite dirty energy equipment, it will be melted down in wind and solar powered recycling mills.


http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

There is no way you can stop coal from being burned even if half the planet is having to wear an oxygen tank to breathe.

A project on the order of the Manhattan Project is needed to learn how to clean coal up. I believe science can come up with some viable processes. I would rather go solar, wind, geothermal and hydro but neither will be practical in the short therm either.

A Michael Moore type film showing the country where half of our coal comes from would force them underground in East Kentucky and W.Va at least. Mountain Top Removal is a peripheral issue I know to this conversation but by the time it gets moved up to the front burner we may not have a mountain or a valley left.

The deep seams of coal will have to be degasified, degasification will produce large amounts of methane gas that can be used as fuel until the seam is safe to mine. I know that is also a carbon fuel but at least it is better than coal until we can figure out other alternatives.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

Governnment researchers have found naturally occurring bacteria, similar to the kind in biogas plants, that break down coal underground and yeild natural gas.  

That could make the energy from the coal available as a very clean fuel, decades of backup power, a fuel of last resort, as you put it.  Leaving the toxic heavy metal coal mess underground in the coal seam and ending underground or open pit mining.

Providing energy to backup a renewable smart grid, under emergency conditions, that normally  uses biogas for backup.  For instance: A weather event, like a volcano impelled cloud cover, could cause disruption of a renewable grid if it lasted for months.  Having the coal derived natural gas as an ultimate emergency supply would be good.

The national natural gas pipeline grid is already built out.  That's makes this a really cheap solution.  

Distributed generators, existing natural gas power plants, and smaller farm and landfill located biogas plants can utilize the natural gas to support the whole grid if needed.  Solid oxide fuel cell/turbines and cogeneration would make these distributed generators very efficient and produce very low GHG emissions.

This gas from coal underground fuel source also makes the transition from the present centralized fossil/nuclear grid, to a distributed renewable smart grid, much easier.  Smoothing out any temporary mismatches or growing pains.

And it's a way to shut "clean" coal CCS out of the subsidy loop.  Just look at how much more efficient and cost effective it is to collect and transport the natural gas energy source from the coal. Than it is to mine, transport, burn the coal, (and allegedly)separate the cO2, pump it over pipelines, and pump the cO2 underground.  No comparison.

What percentage of mined coal actually produces a net energy gain after all that mining and transport?  50%?  Maybe.  With huge diesel fuel use.

Natural gas derived underground used in solid oxide fuel cell/turbine cogeneration power plants?  Much better.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I am irritated because the coal companies could have been using the degasification fracturing process 10 years ago, it has been proven to degasify a coal seam in order to make it safe to mine. Instead of this Mountain Top Removal and Valley filling they are doing in order to stay competitive with western coal. They also strip because it is much cheaper to comply with federal regulations than the regulations for underground mining, that does less environmental damage.  

They could have been selling off the gas and paying for the degasification process. Instead they will send coal miners down below the water table to dangerous gassy mines and put their lives in danger.

This method would be a godsend if we could produce the gas from the coal seam and not have to send miners down to mine a dirty fuel source.
As a former coal miner myself and one who lost his father in the mines, the peripheral safety obtained from the method you outlined would make the effort worth it. Compensation and insurance has gone through the roof also the cost of compliance with MSHA regulations for underground mining...this would also give us the added benifit of making it more cost effective than conventional mining.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.