Global warming and climate change, is really about coal. We can’t address climate change without addressing coal. “Clean” coal does not address coal.

NETL’s comments about what to do with the CO2 would be comical if they weren’t so insulting. This is where are tax dollars go, ladies and gentlemen. For what it’s worth, we can already get plenty of CO2 as a byproduct of biofuel and concrete production, so there is no point looking for a “market” for CO2 from coal. It is a waste product, deal with it.

So when they bury CO2 underground in these structures, who will take the responsibility to monitor them and make sure they aren’t leaking for say, the next 10,000 years?

If we ever get China to capture the CO2 from their coal plants (ha!) who will make sure they don’t just cheat and vent it all anyway? (These are the same folks that kill 13 coal miners PER DAY.)

Hey! I got a great way of sequestering carbon underground. You use a substance which is solid, and made mostly of carbon. It is dense, and unlike a gas, it won’t leak out under any circumstances. What is this magic substance? It’s called “A lump of coal”. The best way to sequester carbon dioxide is to NOT BURN COAL.

This article basically says: “Yeah, coal is bad and can’t really be remediated, but we are going to burn alot anyway, so deal with it.” Well, if that’s the case, why are you fricking running building wind turbines and solar panels? Or worrying about the efficiency of UPS units at 365Main?

It is NOT a choice between evil and less evil. It is a choice between Primary CO2 contributor and Primary CO2 contributor.

The ANSWER, if there is one, is to develop an energy system that is less expensive to use than coal. Even less expensive than when the Chinese use coal. That’s our only chance.