But is this super highway type grid project really necessary?  Only in a limited way, because with distributed renewable generation and storage the present grid has many times the capacity needed.  But to carry wind and solar power from regions with excess power to those needing backup, it's a great idea to use a buried HVDC grid.

As far as CCS for coal, forget it Jim.  But he disses coal to liquid and other unconventional fuels, excellent.

The point about the UK, US, and Germany leading the coal moratorium before China is a good one.  We did start it, this fossil fuelish, nuclear mess.

Good interview considering the usual confusion of this interviewer especially, maybe he learned something?  We can only hope.

Anyway, this interview shows that Hansen's culture hero status is well deserved.  I still wish he would get onboard with the better solutions discussed here in grist so often.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Hansen realizes that it is important pursue CCS because, as he's written before, CO2 from Coal is 80% of the problem.  And yet there is no near term replacement for coal.  

i believe solar thermal and wind will become successful in the US (and have invested in these companies), but we need CCS urgently.  

CCS technology can also be transferred to India and China which are also on a path to build man more coal plants.  

Check out the WESTCARB consortium and its members to see progress being made on this front.

there is no near term replacement for coal

our energy mix includes about 800GW of coal. an older estimate of our real (not nameplate) onshore wind potential is greater than 1200GW. we now have 50m depth offshore capacity to tap immense wind energy in the northeast and off california -- hundreds more GW. we have hundreds more GW waiting when we get past 50m depth.

wire it together smartly across regions and across the continent, to include canada's eastern and western hotspots, and just that resource, combined with concurrent demand reduction, could replace coal well inside of hansen's original 2025 deadline for developed countries.

CCS is a business gamble. a geopolitical gamble. as a safety gamble it's unnecessary. and it doesn't pay off. china and india stand to lose everything under climate pressure. food, water, weather. really devastating. they're using coal now because it's cheap. CCS won't fall out of heaven and maintain coal's cost advantages in their eyes.

what's your feeling on the odds that CCS will fit their budgets? what's your plan if it doesn't?

they need to go green. solar, geothermal, offshore wind, high altitude wind. you want to give them cheap technology give them something that will really be feasible.

you didn't say how much money you have invested in coal companies.