Now they’re talking about the problems with clean coal in Florida.   Who knew we were so influential?  But seriously folks, we’re on a roll with this campaign, let’s keep it up.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080102/OPINION/801020440/1030

HERALD TRIBUNE

‘Clean coal’ is still coal

Conversion process could create new environmental problems

Several Democratic and Republican presidential front-runners are touting”clean coal” technology as part of the solution to the nation’senergy woes. Congress and President Bush have devoted funding to research anddevelop the effort. And coal companies, of course, are all for the concept.But some electric utilities appear to be losing enthusiasm for the idea becauseof uncertainty about costs, regulatory requirements and the reliability of akey part of the technology.In the past year, at least eight proposed clean-coal plants have been canceled,rejected or postponed, according to USA Today. That’s one-third of suchprojects in the works.Advocates of clean-coal plants see tremendous potential in the process, whichconverts coal into a gas and cuts down on harmful emissions of mercury as wellas pollutants linked to acid rain and smog.One of clean coal’s biggest selling points has been its ability to reduceemissions of carbon dioxide, widely viewed as the chief contributor to globalwarming.But the technology’s promise may not be as clear as proponents contend.Environmental regulators and even electric utilities are expressing concernabout a key element of the process, which involves capturing the carbon,liquefying it and pumping it into the ground.Critics fear that a massive expansion of underground carbon storage, in use inonly a few parts of the world, could create new environmental problems.In October, Tampa Electric Co. dropped its plans for a $2 billioncoal-gasification plant in southwestern Polk County, about 40 miles northeastof Bradenton.Company officials cited several reasons for their decision, including anexecutive order signed by Gov. Charlie Crist last summer that calls forutilities to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2025.Even with the clean-coal technology, the plant still would have emitted about 4million tons of carbon dioxide each year.Another factor in TECO’s decision was uncertainty about the risks associatedwith underground storage, according to company President Chuck Black.If the carbon “leaks out of the ground some place like HardeeCounty,” he told the St. Petersburg Times, “what have weaccomplished?”A similar question might be asked about the entire movement to expand the useof coal-fired plants, which already generate 40 percent of U.S. carbonemissions.Even if those emissions are reduced and the storage concerns are minimized, the”clean” effort does nothing to address the environmental damagecaused by a now-prevalent type of mining known as mountaintop removal.America’s policy-makers and utilities would be far wiser to invest their energy– and our tax dollars — in the development of renewable energy resources.Investing more in coal, a relic of the past, will accomplish little. _______________________________________________

Powered by ScribeFire.