<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Read it and Weep, Clean Coal. Except no one is reading it. Dang.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/10/02/read-it-and-weep-clean-coal-except-no-one-is-reading-it-dang/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/10/02/read-it-and-weep-clean-coal-except-no-one-is-reading-it-dang/</link>
	<description>Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 08:12:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marty</title>
		<link>http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/10/02/read-it-and-weep-clean-coal-except-no-one-is-reading-it-dang/#comment-68187</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Marty]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=6233#comment-68187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I came across this recent article in Scientific American.  An interesting and un-biased look at the plausibility of CCS.  Notice the caption to one picture in the article, &quot;Burning the future.&quot;

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=future-of-clean-coal-tied-to-success-of-carbon-capture-and-storage

Future of &#039;Clean Coal&#039; Power Tied to (Uncertain) Success of Carbon Capture and Storage

A new report confirms that coal has a large role to play in meeting the world&#039;s energy demands, but to avoid runaway climate change, technologies to sequester its carbon need to advance quickly

Excerpts:

Ultimately, it is such efforts to combat climate change that drive sequestration needs, and a 2006 M.I.T. poll of 1,200 Americans indicates that they are willing to pay an average of $21 a month for solutions to this global problem.  The conundrum is that there is nothing to pay for as of yet when it comes to coal. No &quot;clean coal&quot; technology has been demonstrated with carbon capture and storage and no large-scale sequestration projects have been undertaken. It also remains unclear where and exactly how much storage capacity the U.S. has. &quot;Pore volume that you can use to hold CO2 is a new natural resource,&quot; Friedmann says of the underground reserves that might be suitable to contain liquid carbon dioxide. &quot;What is the capacity? What does it look like? How fast can you inject?&quot;

In short, the report finds that coal will remain the electricity-generation king and geologic sequestration is the solution best suited to minimize the attendant carbon dioxide pollution. This will require building a liquid CO2 infrastructure comparable to the national highway system as well as assessing which coal-burning technologies work best with which carbon capture technologies. In other words, the way such carbon capture and sequestration will work remains as hazy as the smog coal-fired power plants produce but it needs to become clear quickly if the world plans to continue burning such fossil sunlight. &quot;How hard and how far can we push capacity in a safe, virtually riskless way?&quot; Moniz asks. &quot;There remains a scientific consensus on viability. Implementation is a different issue.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I came across this recent article in Scientific American.  An interesting and un-biased look at the plausibility of CCS.  Notice the caption to one picture in the article, &#8220;Burning the future.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=future-of-clean-coal-tied-to-success-of-carbon-capture-and-storage" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=future-of-clean-coal-tied-to-success-of-carbon-capture-and-storage</a></p>
<p>Future of &#8216;Clean Coal&#8217; Power Tied to (Uncertain) Success of Carbon Capture and Storage</p>
<p>A new report confirms that coal has a large role to play in meeting the world&#8217;s energy demands, but to avoid runaway climate change, technologies to sequester its carbon need to advance quickly</p>
<p>Excerpts:</p>
<p>Ultimately, it is such efforts to combat climate change that drive sequestration needs, and a 2006 M.I.T. poll of 1,200 Americans indicates that they are willing to pay an average of $21 a month for solutions to this global problem.  The conundrum is that there is nothing to pay for as of yet when it comes to coal. No &#8220;clean coal&#8221; technology has been demonstrated with carbon capture and storage and no large-scale sequestration projects have been undertaken. It also remains unclear where and exactly how much storage capacity the U.S. has. &#8220;Pore volume that you can use to hold CO2 is a new natural resource,&#8221; Friedmann says of the underground reserves that might be suitable to contain liquid carbon dioxide. &#8220;What is the capacity? What does it look like? How fast can you inject?&#8221;</p>
<p>In short, the report finds that coal will remain the electricity-generation king and geologic sequestration is the solution best suited to minimize the attendant carbon dioxide pollution. This will require building a liquid CO2 infrastructure comparable to the national highway system as well as assessing which coal-burning technologies work best with which carbon capture technologies. In other words, the way such carbon capture and sequestration will work remains as hazy as the smog coal-fired power plants produce but it needs to become clear quickly if the world plans to continue burning such fossil sunlight. &#8220;How hard and how far can we push capacity in a safe, virtually riskless way?&#8221; Moniz asks. &#8220;There remains a scientific consensus on viability. Implementation is a different issue.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

