Hello everyone. You may have recently seen a story on MSNBC extolling
the glorious future of liquefied coal. If they're right, it will soon
power the nation's automobile fleet. Apparently, it's cleaner, greener,
and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. OK, one of those things is true,
we have enough coal in this country to run cars for a hundred more
years without importing anything from anywhere.
But I promise you this, if we get ourselves dependent on liquid coal, things will not get better. This world cannot continue to burn fossil fuels the way we do now for another hundred years.
Liquid Coal is worse than a
band aid it's a step backwards. Liquid coal might be chemically
more pure, and thus cleaner when it burns, but it produces
significantly more carbon dioxide than gasoline, and the Coal to Liquid
plants produce huge amounts dangerous chemicals and huge amounts of
carbon dioxide.
But the biggest ecological difference between coal and oil is the
footprint. Oil is pumped out of the ground, leaving a relatively small
footprint. The most economic way to remove coal from the ground, on the
other hand, is to completely carve up a mountain, remove the coal, and
fill river valleys with the slag. Even the industry calls it MTR,
Mountain Top Removal Mining. And it's destroying the Smokey mountains
as you read this. The last thing our country needs is to further our
dependence on coal. It might be economically viable, and reduce our
dependence on unstable countries, but one hundred years of America
burning liquefied coal would solve one problem while creating many
more.
EcoGeeks move forward, not backward. MSNBC might think that Old King Cole is looking fine and fresh, but we know that he's just up to the same old tricks.
If you've got Google Earth, check out the damage that's already been done by MTR mining.
Hits: 17696
Comments (9)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Preston, December 23, 2006
You hit this one right on the head. We need to get creative and start thinking out of the box.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rob, December 23, 2006
I agree, liquefied coal is a terrible idea, replacing one polluting power source, with a worse one.
With the vast open spaces in the US, wind and solar should be concentrated on.
The Germans experimented with coal fuel in WW2, see here:
Next someone will suggest a return to coal gas powered vehicles, with the big bag on the roof.
With the vast open spaces in the US, wind and solar should be concentrated on.
The Germans experimented with coal fuel in WW2, see here:
Next someone will suggest a return to coal gas powered vehicles, with the big bag on the roof.
-
- +0
-
-
written by monotonehell, December 24, 2006
There's a lot of money tied up in the fossil fuels industry. We're seeing many examples of them trying to hold onto their monopoly with smoke and mirrors approach to "being green". In Australia they are spending loads of research money on CO2 sequestration. Which is basically about using more energy capturing coal burning polution, liquifying it and trying to bury it in the ground (where we dug it out in the first place).
Why are we wasting money on these technologies? Easy, the coal industry wants to keep selling the stuff they dig up. The industry doesn't want to die.
Some govenments are pushing nuclear energy, which has all the same problems as the coal industy (dig up a non-renewable resource, "burn" it and produce polution). Why? Because it's a finite resource that someone can have control over. Follow the money.
Why are we wasting money on these technologies? Easy, the coal industry wants to keep selling the stuff they dig up. The industry doesn't want to die.
Some govenments are pushing nuclear energy, which has all the same problems as the coal industy (dig up a non-renewable resource, "burn" it and produce polution). Why? Because it's a finite resource that someone can have control over. Follow the money.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Vivian Stockman, January 04, 2007
That's my / OVEC's photo. For more photos of mountaintop removal coal mining:
www.ohvec.org/galleries/mounta...ndex.html
West Virginia's Gov. is really pushing coal-to-liquid:
www.ohvec.org/links/news/archive/2006/fair_use/09_03.html
www.ohvec.org/galleries/mounta...ndex.html
West Virginia's Gov. is really pushing coal-to-liquid:
www.ohvec.org/links/news/archive/2006/fair_use/09_03.html
-
- +0
-
-
written by obewan, May 12, 2007
Many coal mine sites have been redeveloped into lakes, forests, farmland, and real estate developments. Also, some of the best plans for coal to liquid stipulate the use of nuclear power. Hence, it would be a cleaner source than ethanol or biodiesel, and cleaner than petro diesel. CO2 can be put back in the ground. If we want to keep the world eating we may have no choice once the 30 year oil supply is running out. Global warming can be fought by using less electricity, upping the the CAFE fuel standard, and ending SUV insanity. If we do that we can still have our fuel and lower carbon emmissions.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Suricou Raven, September 28, 2007
Nuclear is a good source, really. Its non-renewable, but the reserves are good for centuries - and as a political bonus, mostly in Australia, a very dependable country. Its waste products are a radiation hazard, but don't contribute to climate change at all. Disposal is expensive, but once they are buried deep enough they can be forgotten about.
-
- +0
-
-
written by David Smith, November 23, 2007
We have no choice. It's either liquified coal for our transportation fuels and nuclear power for out electricity generation, or the USA is heading straight into the dustbin of history in a very short period of time. Those folks who extoll solar and wind energy as a replacement for liquid hydrocarbon fuels just don't have a clue - do the math, it can't be done. The realistic ideal is for nuclear power to provide the process steam for the coal liquification - at least that way the cost burden of CO2 sequestration is transferred from the plant owners to the fuel users, an important consideration for those who risk their money for such projects. Besides, this whole notion of anthropogenic climate change will soon be reduced in stature to that of the existence of space aliens or the notion of a superior race, and as such it is foolish to invest long term in any technology meant to reduce CO2 emissions. In other words, you can be green and still be realistic about the inherent fraud of AGW.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ed hardy clothes, September 24, 2009
Many coal mine sites have been redeveloped into lakes, forests, farmland, and real estate developments. Also, some of the best plans for coal to liquid stipulate the use of nuclear power. Hence, it would be a cleaner source than ethanol or biodiesel, and cleaner than petro diesel. CO2 can be put back in the ground. If we want to keep the world eating we may have no choice once the 30 year oil supply is running out. Global warming can be fought by using less electricity, upping the the CAFE fuel standard, and ending SUV insanity. If we do that we can still have our fuel and lower carbon emmissions.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
DEC 22
"it is so great ,good job..."
View all Comments