The Candidates on Coal

Energy is the theme on the campaign trail this week.

While McCain was stumping in the Midwest and touring a nuclear plant, Obama on Monday declared this week as “Energy Week,” and announced his energy plan. Both candidates’ have voiced their support for clean coal technology, and their respective energy plans include funding for more research and development.

And while everyone is focusing on oil and offshore drilling, we would point out that America has more coal than oil. Converting to hybrid plug-in cars and powering them with electricity from clean coal is a path to energy independence. The next president will have to be firmly committed to provide the resources needed to get us there.

We believe, as many experts do, that $2 billion a year is needed to fund carbon capture and storage research. Once carbon capture and storage is deployed, our coal-generating plants will be close to emissions free.

That means we can use an abundant American resource for affordable electricity – and use it more cleanly than ever before, and rely less on foreign energy sources.

But what are you hearing in the candidates’ plans that you like or don’t like? Are they giving enough attention and focus to our most abundant energy resource and the technology we need to use it more cleanly?.

What would you say to them?

Comments

[Suzanne Bailey]

Sen. McCain is a big advocate of nuclear. I'd say that since we need to build more than 50 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2030 just to MAINTAIN nuclear's 20% energy share of electricity production and building nuclear is so expensive it is clear that we need to rely on other sources -- including renewables. But, because our need for electricity is growing at such a fast rate, I'd like McCain to focus on how he intends to include American coal in the mix and exactly what he intends to do to make sure that we clean up this important domestic energy source so we can continue to use it. It is vital to our economy.

To Sen. Obama -- who is from a big coal state, by the way -- I'd say that it is great that his energy plan calls for $150 Billion over the next 10 years for clean energy but I'd like to know specifics about how much of that he will spend on the advanced technology we need to make coal clean. That is important because he's said he would put a moratorium on new power plants that use coal until cap and trade legislation is passed. That seems inconsistent to me. On one hand he supports clean coal technology and creating green jobs (including in clean coal), but if he opposes new plants as older ones retire, he is opposing coal jobs. How does he balance jobs and protecting the economy as we transition to a low carbon world?

[John]

The stakes are too high to promote special interests over the genral welfare of the planet. Of course, clean coal is an important part of the energy mix that we need, but we should all examine and develop all alternative energy sources, as well as conservation measures.

The amount of money being spent by the coal industry trying to sell the public on getting them more government money might better be spent on reseach. The public aren't as dumb as you PR people may think!

[Carl Mc Williams]

In the upcoming (2009) CAP & TRADE Legislation, CO2 reduction credits should be given to coal-fired electric power plants that have obtained CO2 emissions geological storage capacity, CCS.

The technology to capture CO2 (Post Combustion) is 3-5 years from being "On-the-Shelf". By Congress ascribing CO2 reduction credits to geological CO2 storage capacity now, the development of the final burial site of CO2 will begin expeditiously.

Therefore, Congress should act on the Geological Sequestration of CO2, by awarding credits to coal-fired electric power generators who act now to acquire geological storage space for their CO2 emissions.

Keep up the great work!

[Joe Pallisade]

Does ACCCE support placing a windfall profit tax on big oil companies to give consumers a $1,000 energy rebate?

Yes or no?

[Jon]

maybe you all should post some commentary by climate scientists. you realize that clean coal technology still isn't developed yet? and that it will be exorbitantly expensive? there's also no guarantee that the carbon can remain sequestered.

the real 800 pound gorilla is how you're going to get China and India to deploy CSS. the West can afford it. those countries can't, and probably won't listen to the West.

you're baking this planet into oblivion.

[Darryl]

Sequestration an 'illusion' and is it worth contaminating our precious water aquifers for this dubious application? I say keep existing coal plants but put NEW dollars into renewable energy and Conserve like my parents conserved in World War II, or will we just keep being the self-absorbed, non-reflective unsustainable consumer society my elders - who farmed - survived without?

[Chris]

Understand that clean coal is one of the dumbest ideas we have had in a while. Only corn based ethanol beats it. It is a financially and environmentally unsound. Instead use geothermal (we have 3,000 the amount needed to power the US), wind, solar and tidal.

Devote the nations coal resources to other industries that need like steel production. Ex. We don't have enough steel production to produce all the vehicles wanted by the army and marines.

Let coal miners keep there jobs, just step up other core industries with what should be an ample supply of coal.

[GEO]

When folks talk about the time and expense of implemennting nuclear, they need to be cognizant of the element of bureaucratic cost involved. governmental and business systems can abet technological progress in speeding deployment of next-generation nuclear generation and post-generation support infrastructure. Once again, political will and leadership mke all the difference in the world.