by Goldy, 02/26/2009, 10:30 AM

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJVbdiMgfM[/youtube]

25 Responses to “Clean coal”

1. slingshot spews:

Is that guy doing his Bobby Jindal impression? Imitation is the cleanest form of flattery.

2. Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

Goldy, last fall Puddy remembers FactCheck.org wrote Obama Biden supported clean coal, after Biden stepped in it over clean coal. In fact Obama ran ads back in 2007.

The late 2008 ad…”Obama-Biden will invest $150 billion over 10 years to promote renewable energy, energy efficiency, biofuels, commercial plug-in hybrids, a new digital electricity grid, and to “invest in low emissions coal plants.””

Obama-Biden energy plan from the 2008 web site: Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

Are you saying by this parody above you disagree?

Don’t worry Puddy knows you hate me and won’t answer. I’m glad not to be a pet. :)

3. cyrano spews:

I’m impressed with their ads! They’re frequent and, I assume, effective! Which brings me to another dilemma: How many worthy organizations can we (the not-rich) contribute to without going broke?

4. Darryl spews:

Puddy,

“Don’t worry Puddy knows you hate me and won’t answer.”

I don’t think Goldy hates you…. I suspect he skips over your comments.

“Are you saying by this parody above you disagree?”

I don’t think Goldy is taking a stand on Obama’s/Biden’s energy platform. I think he is pointing out that “clean coal” is, at present and as offered by the coal industry, little more than a B.S. advertising campaign to re-image plain ol’ coal. There is a body of research developing “clean coal” technologies at several levels (reduced particulates, scavenging of CO2 following combustion, minimizing environmental damage caused by mining, etc.), but these are largely still “in the lab” and not in production on any real scale. Hence the cynicism about consumer-targeted advertising by the coal industry.

That the coal industry is trying to give their product an Orwellian spit-shine (and thereby worthy of mockery), doesn’t mean that Obama/Biden, Goldy, or anyone else believes coal is uniformly evil. Like most issues, coal-based energy currently has trade-offs. For example, if one’s goal is to increase U.S. energy independence and/or reduce the trade deficit then coal has some advantages. Yet, it comes with several well-known environmental disadvantages of extraction and utilization. In other words, it isn’t a simple black and white “coal-i-ness is next to Godliness” versus “Coal is the handmaiden of Satan” issue. Eventually, coal my prove to have fewer disadvantages than other competing fossil fuels, so the development of clean coal technologies should be considered good by people of all political persuasions. Coal-industry propaganda…not so much.

5. Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

Interesting take Darryl. Too bad you have to carry Goldy’s water.

Anyway when I came across a site like this… Kind of makes you wonder

And then the scramble over Biden’s comments… What’s the real Democratic position…

Yet when I visited the Moonbat! site Stinky Progressives… Words from a lefty:”Even our “savior” Barack supports it.” And Dr NotRight chastised me on Puddy’s use of savior.

Priceless.

6. slingshot spews:

“I don’t think Goldy hates you…. I suspect he skips over your comments.”

As does everyone else here.

7. Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

slingshit@6, That’s why many of Goldy’s pets are clueless and factless…

Remember it’s Puddy and a few friends against the vast left wing conspiracy here.

8. Ekim spews:

Unfortunately for ButtPutty and his very few friends, nobody in the “vast left wing conspiracy here” cares what he has to say.

9. ArtFart spews:

If there is to be such a thing as “clean coal”, that implies that the “dirty” stuff has to end up somewhere. Maybe there’s a way to take care of that, but the energy biggies might do us the courtesy of explaining it.

At one time, General Electric and the state of Montana were making a fair amount of noise (GE was running prime-time TV spots) promoting some way to get a gasoline substitute from coal. Whatever that was, they don’t seem to be talking about it any more.

Some things seem at the outset like the greatest thing since sliced bread, but somewhere along the way to large-scale implementation they don’t pan out. Cases in point: corn-derived ethanol and biodiesel.

It does remain, on the other hand, that as long as we’re using coal at all that every means be employed to minimize the adverse impact of doing so. It also remains that the United States still has vast coal reserves, and if we’re going to haul more carbon out of the ground and pour it into the atmosphere, it might as well be our carbon as carbon from imported petroleum.

10. Darryl spews:

Puddy,

Interesting take Darryl. Too bad you have to carry Goldy’s water.

Yeah…I carried Goldy’s water in Denver once…while he was paying for my lunch. Fair’s fair!

“Anyway when I came across a site like this… Kind of makes you wonder”

Kind of makes you wonder what? I have no idea what you are getting at. The article also points out the distinction between the “clean coal” propaganda campaign and the not-ready-for-prime-time “clean coal” technology that I mentioned above.

“And then the scramble over Biden’s comments… What’s the real Democratic position…”

This article is a great example of the confusion between “clean coal” the rebranding of ordinary coal, and “clean coal” the research agenda. Biden specifically said:

“We’re not supporting clean coal. Guess what? China’s building two every week. Two dirty coal plants. And it’s polluting the United States. It’s causing people to die.”

The context makes it perfectly clear that Biden was referring to coal as used right now in China and the U.S. This specific use of “clean coal” says nothing about the administration’s position on funding research and development of clean coal technologies.

“Yet when I visited the Moonbat! site Stinky Progressives… Words from a lefty:”Even our “savior” Barack supports it.” And Dr NotRight chastised me on Puddy’s use of savior.”

Ummm…Puddy…you saw a comment in a blog comment thread by someone who is almost certainly not a “lefty.”

As if comments in blog posts have any bearing on the matter anyway…Come on, Puddy, don’t argue like a child. I took one of your comments seriously, provided a nuanced analysis…you can do better than to respond by mis-citing a fucking blog comment.

11. Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

Oh Darryl, the third link was Gore’s gang going against Obama’s position. Surely you’d come to the same conclusion.

BTW, that was a lefty commenter. No mis-citing needed. You missed his opening statement:

I think it would be humorous to ask some of the right wing’s dumb Rush-bots and assorted lickspittles what they think the term “clean coal” really means,

One other thing I remember the commentary over China and the Beijing Olympics and their need to stop burning coal. There was discussions around China building nuke plants. http://blog.taipanpublishinggroup.com/2008/06/03/swat-team-looks-to-cut-china%E2%80%99s-addiction-to-dirty-coal/

See ya.

12. Steve spews:

@5 Puddy hates context. It never seems to work in his favor. He quotes an anonymous blog commenter:

”Even our “savior” Barack supports it.”

Look at the full quote below and you can see the author’s use of quotation marks to denote a lie, such as “clean coal”:

“Many republicans and democrats support “clean coal”. Even our “savior” Barack supports it. I, like most republicans and democrats I know, realize that “clean coal” is a lie.”

Puddy must have very little ammo left for him to have to resort to such tactics, and on such an insignificant point at that. Of course, Puddy was properly chastised by Correctnotright. The only people calling our President a “savior” or “Messiah” are right-wing lunatics.

13. Marvin Stamn spews:

8. Ekim spews:
Unfortunately for ButtPutty and his very few friends, nobody in the “vast left wing conspiracy here” cares what he has to say.

 
Strange that you would write about someone that you don’t care what he says.
 
You see the disconnect between your words and actions don’t you.

14. dutch spews:

Goldstein and CO. I’m not sure if you have a lack of cognitive complexity or you are just too hung up on the “clean coal” terminology. Clean Coal is a term used to explain it to the scientifically challenged …but you remember you touched a lump of coal once and got some dirty fingers….
And then you see some video claiming there is no clean coal. Well…there is no clean mode of transportation either …which might be a surprise to all you Prius/Hybrid/horseriding citizens out there.
As Obama puts in his budget: “…develop Low-Carbon Emission Technologies. The recovery Act provides funding to meet the President’s campaign commitment to build five commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage technology through public-private partnerships.” 3.4 Billion Dollar is allocated for it. That’s clean coal…carbon capture and storage…something they do in North Dakota already and store it in Canadian Oil wells/stone. That’s clean coal (plant). The video is fake and misleading…but that should not be a surprise on this site.

15. Michael spews:

@14
Ever seen a clean, eco-friendly coal mine?

The current “clean coal” campaign on the tele is nothing more than a re-branding effort by a dirty industry still using 1930′s technology in an effort to continue to keep doing what its been doing

Coal is abundant and cheap and hopefully some of the clean coal plants (using modern technology) will work out, but that remains to be seen.

Well…there is no clean mode of transportation either …which might be a surprise to all you Prius/Hybrid/horseriding citizens out there

Good point.

16. Darryl spews:

Puddy @ 11

“Oh Darryl, the third link was Gore’s gang going against Obama’s position. Surely you’d come to the same conclusion.”

No…the satirical ad DID NOT contradict “Obama’s position.” The ad is mocking the “clean coal” propaganda campaign offered by the coal industry. It is not mocking the research and development of clean coal technologies.

After all the discussion you and I have had on this, YOU STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS DIFFERENCE?????? Yikes!

“BTW, that was a lefty commenter. No mis-citing needed. You missed his opening statement:”

Wrong. The commenter took potshots at both the left and the right before advocating for nuclear energy. But again…that comment did not seem to have anything whatsoever to contribute to the discussion.

17. ArtFart spews:

The whole “carbon sequestering” thing impresses me as a half-baked idea. If we burn fossil carbon, then pump it into the ground or to the bottom of some oceanic trench, we’re burying an oxygen molecule that came out of the atmosphere for each carbon atom safely tucked out of sight. It’s also been pointed out that carbonating the oceans will render them more acidic, which potentially creates a lot of other problems.

Seems to make more sense to do one or both of:

(1.) Burn less fossil carbon (by introducing other energy sources) and burning what we do as cleanly as possible.

(2.) Plant trees and stuff. Lots and lots.

18. Chris Stefan spews:

The coal industry is trying to polish a turd. They fear regulations that would require all coal plants be brought up to current emissions standards. They fear having mountaintop removal mining regulated or banned. They fear having mercury emissions regulated. They especially fear cap & trade or other limits on carbon emissions.

Is there some coal that is cleaner than the worst practices of the industry? Yes. There are mines that fully restore land contour and flora. There are plants that fully meet all current emissions standards. There are integrated gasification combined cycle plants which promise lower emissions and easier carbon capture.

Still coal is not clean, even compared to natural gas or fuel oil, much less nuclear, wind, geothermal, solar, or biomass.

The cleanest power technology of all of course is greater efficiency on the consumption side. Even today the low hanging fruit in conservation can save roughly 15-20% of overall electric consumption.

19. Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

Golly Chris Stefan,

did you steal these thoughts?

Glenn Hurowitz: Big Coal’s Big Green Turd

20. Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

Darryl, we’ll disagree okay?

“Senator Obama truly is a friend of the coal industry,” Rick Boucher, a Democratic congressman from Virginia’s coal country, told reporters. “His record … and his position in terms of the coal industry’s future give us confidence.”

So Gore is mocking the coal industry and he’s mocking this congressman and Obama, just like this on Technorati.

21. Darryl spews:

Puddybud,

“Darryl, we’ll disagree okay?”

Maybe…it is unclear, because you still don’t get it! You are still confusing two different concepts, and your comment demonstrates your confusion, once again.

The satirical “clean coal” ad does NOT contradict Boucher’s statement.

Once again, you are confusing criticism of a blatant propaganda campaign with Obama’s support for R&D of clean coal technology. Hence, “his position in terms of the coal industry’s future give us confidence.”

Hint: the coal industry’s future is NOT simply calling coal “clean”. It is new technology to reduce particulates, sequester CO2, and development of more environmentally prudent mining methods. The latter is what Obama supports. The former is simply Orwellian doublespeak.

22. Chris Stefan spews:

@19
My thoughts are my own, for better or worse.

Saying someone is trying to polish a turd is a fairly common expression.

I stand by my assertion, the coal industry is trying to greenwash and polish a turd.

23. Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

How am I confusing the two concepts? The ad uses black coal dust and it’s a poor parody. Clean coal burning is removing various pollutants in flue gas emissions. The clouds are white. The carbon dust spray isn’t what comes out of the flues. That is what comes out from coal extraction. That’s why I object to the parody you seem to love. So that’s my confusion?

Electostatic precipitators have been around for years. They had to put one in in lower Manhattan where my older bro lives. They’ve been used in the northeast for a long time due to the sulfur dioxide acid rain problem. Wet scrubbers have been around for a while too. The newer technologies such as coal washing and nitrogen oxide burners came later. These actions are already in place now.

The only thing the coal users have to work on is the CO2 emissions.

Since burning coal supplies much of our electricity, let’s live by candlelight again!

24. Puddybud, Hey it's the new year... spews:

Chris they seem so close to Glenn Hurowitz!

25. Darryl spews:

Puddy,

“How am I confusing the two concepts?”

How? Can’t really say. Perhaps because you are not paying attention? Maybe just being obstinate? What do you think?

Recap: the term “clean coal” is being used in two different ways. You seem to be unable to differentiate between the two uses.

First use: Obama’s support for research and development for “clean coal” technology that may one day make it feasible to use coal with a much lower negative environmental impact.

Second use: a rebranding campaign by the coal industry trying to sell Americans that we have “clean coal.” We don’t.

“The ad uses black coal dust and it’s a poor parody.”

That is not really relevant, Puddy, is it? The issue we are discussing began by your question about whether Goldy disagrees with Obama’s energy policy, based solely on the fact that he posted the parody (“Are you saying by this parody above you disagree?”).

My point has been that you are confusing two uses of the phrase “clean coal”. One can strongly support R&D that will someday make coal a viable technology, and still find the coal industry’s attempts at rebranding coal as “clean” appalling. The two positions are not inconsistent.

“Clean coal burning is removing various pollutants in flue gas emissions.”

Particulates are only one component of coal being “dirty”. The list of negative environmental impacts is long and includes carbon dioxide production (over twice as much emission as natural gas for equivalent power production, for example), excess carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, cadmium and mercury, toxicity of the sludge and ash waste products. Coal burning is a major source of uranium and thorium isotopes in the atmosphere–and that’s bad shit! Of course, there are numerous negative environmental impacts of mining, including groundwater disruption and contamination, and semi-hidden health costs for miners.

“That’s why I object to the parody you seem to love.”

Two points. Nowhere in this comment thread have I expressed either a “love” or a dislike for the parody. I view my feelings about the parody as entirely irrelevant to the issue you raised. (I have, of course, made disparaging remarks about the coal industry’s cynical campaign, but those feelings predate and are independent of the parody).

Likewise, while I will note your objections, they do not bear on the issue here.

“Electostatic precipitators have been around for years…..

Great strides were made in cleaning up particulates, particularly over the last 50 years or so. (I drove through the choking smoke of Gary, Indiana numerous times as a child).

“The newer technologies such as coal washing and nitrogen oxide burners came later. These actions are already in place now.”

Even with these incremental technologies, coal is still dirty relative to other forms of energy. It is also relatively inexpensive, which has led to a proliferation of coal-based facilities.

“The only thing the coal users have to work on is the CO2 emissions.”

CO2 is definitely a major part of coal being “dirty”, but by no means the only factor. (See the list above.)

“Since burning coal supplies much of our electricity, let’s live by candlelight again!”

Suit yourself. My preference is to improve on existing technologies and develop cleaner ways of generating electricity.