Posted on 01/03/2009 5:33:48 AM PST by Kaslin
A good summary of coal’s benefits.
But what's this”
“save millions of lives.”
That's Obammie the Commie-type rhetoric. If we can't prove that coal plants cause disease, then we can't prove that clean-coal is ‘saving lives,’ especially by the millions.
But, like I said, otherwise an excellent article.
Why didn't “T Boone Pickins” or whatever his countrified name is, mention that in the ads for the wind-farms he's invested billions in?
The article is a good summary of coal’s benefits, and the rhetorical request for intellectual honesty from the environmentalists is well founded. In the end, however, the author does nothing more than beat a strawman’s dying horse to death. Anyone paying even a bit of attention knows how vital coal is to our energy security. But why does that make the Sierra Club’s criticism of the “clean coal” advertising campaign dishonest? It doesn’t. Indeed, after calling the Sierra Club lying liars who lie alot, there is no discussion of whether the coal industry’s clean coal campaign is deceiving—which it often is. In its current campaign the industry discusses zero emission, geosequestration technology in one sentence, and then states clean coal is already being utilized. But, in this bait and switch, clean coal doesn’t really mean the sequestration technology which it highlights, but instead clean coal means nothing more than “better than 1970 standards.” You have to read the fine print to learn that FutureGen is in trouble and geosequestration, pre or post combustion, on any serious scale is still a decade away. By focusing only on one side’s lack of candor, the article becomes no more useful then the propaganda which it criticizes. When it comes to full disclosure, I wish the author would take his own advise. I am a conservative, I think coal is a key part of our future, but I am sick of these half honest attacks by “conservative” shills of big coal.
Bernie Cohen, a health physicist at the University of Pittsburgh, in his book, “Before It’s Too Late”, makes a strong case for nuclear power, based in part on health benefits of nuclear versus coal. But he stresses that the health benefits of coal fired power vastly outweigh the costs.
Even though hard to quantify, the bottom line is that not only are we more properous, but live longer, healthier lives thanks to the taken-for-granted miracle of modern electricity.
Ya gotta die from something. I would rather die warm and well lighted ,breathing what little soot the coal plant puts out ,than in the dark freezing my buns off waiting for the wind to blow, or the clouds to move away from my solar panel.
The liberal philosophy: Never let science get in the way of one of our loony dogmas.
The liberal philosophy: Never let science get in the way of one of our loony dogmas.
Agree. But when deciding on the role of coal, as compared to nuclear for example, it annoys me when someone tries to sell me a magic elixir. If the point of the article was coal is dirty , but we still need it to keep the lights on, and preserve standard of living...I would have no issue.
bump
I think the clean coal campaign means much more than improvements over 1970s standards. However, I agree that the campaign is somewhat deceptive. I suppose the campaign is trying to counteract the lies of the other side with its own overstatements. The other side is despicable. The other side wants us to freeze and drastically reduce our consumption. I save the venom for the other side.
The use of coal to generate electricity should be phased out and replaced by nuclear fission plants, which are even more reliable. The coal production thus freed up should be used to replace imported oil through the production of "coal liquids". The eventual goal should be to have all our electricity generated by nuclear.
And the dogma is as ever changing as the wind.
My first request is for Al Gore to be put onto a wind-powered plane and sent from Washington DC to San Francisco to prove the viability of same.
I want Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Schumer, et al to accompany him.
Thank you, Santa.
Conservatives don’t use “Big” as a prefix for an industry to demonize it.
“Coal generates half of all US electricity” and does it at a price that is affordable. The green schemes all cost more and are only affordable with government subsidies. Subsidies are your tax dollars diverted to that rather than necessary public services.
Why? If it's not cost-effective, why must it play a role?
None of this makes any difference. It’s just reality and the envirowhackos can’t handle that. Because coal is plentiful in the US, making for less expensive electricity, IT MUST GO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.