Clean Coal vs. Nuclear Energy

[Frodo]

Just thought I'd ask, since I couldn't help but notice that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seem to think it safer to trumpet their support for expanding clean coal technology, but say virtually nothing about nuclear energy (unless you dig down deep into their campaign websites).

[dead0man]

Indy/3rd Party Nuclear.  It's already "clean".

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

no technology is totally clean, but we've already worked out most of the problems with nuclear energy and have a reasonably certain estimate of the costs and risks.  Clean coal on the other hand makes some questionable assumptions about how easy it will be to sequester the CO₂, such as how do we get it to where we intend to sequester it on a large scale and how long will it stay sequestered?

Actually, the best idea for reducing CO₂ emissions may not be sequestration but conversion to methanol or hydrocarbons.  The energy used for doing so could be provided by renewable sources such as solar and wind and thus act as a way to smooth out the peaks and valleys of those sources.  Temporary storage to store the gas until it was converted is quite doable.  It is not currently done much because of the expense, but as the cost of CO₂ emissions increase due to carbon taxing and/or cap and trade programs, such systems become workable and don't require us to develop an infrastructure to move large quantities of CO₂ around.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We've been having this debate in Australia for a while - since we have no nuclear power stations.

My view is that clean-coal is a good long-medium term option. People hear the world 'nuclear' and have some kind of breakdown - I think as long as we have clear waste management processes. I don't object to nuclear as a cleaner short-term solution.

[MasterJedi]

Nuclear Energy please.

[Padfoot]

nuclear energy.

[Lief 🗽]

Neither, preferably, but if I had to pick, nuclear, because it would actually reduce CO2 emissions unlike "clean" coal, which is a misnomer.

[2952-0-0]

Nuclear, as it's the devil you know.

"Clean" coal could become a fiasco like growing corn for fuel.

[Bono]

Nukular, but clean coal is worth looking into.

[opebo]

Coal.  I'm not too worried about the 'clean' aspect.

[Ebowed]

Clean coal

[dead0man]

Coal.  I'm not too worried about the 'clean' aspect.

This maybe stupid on my part, but can you elaborate here?  You're not concerned with the pollution caused by coal plants?  acid rain?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Person Man]

Yes, Ethanol is a good analogy to the clean coal thing. It just appears to be another technology that just re-invents the bycylce. Fission power has been around for decades, but now is cheaper, cleaner and provides more power mol that Carbon.

[AkSaber]

Nuclear energy for me.

[Storebought]

Coal, being a hydrocarbon, has better use as a raw material than as a combustible. And, in any case, I prefer coal being converted into "gasoline" rather than being burned in an inefficient generator.

[Hash]

Nuclear energy.

Reminds me of a Segolene Royal screwup "What % of French energy is nuclear". Her answer "around 7-15%". Correct answer: high 70s.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Coal, being a hydrocarbon, has better use as a raw material than as a combustible. And, in any case, I prefer coal being converted into "gasoline" rather than being burned in an inefficient generator.

Actually coal-fired plants are more efficient than internal combustion engines.  They just aren't suitable for running a car.

[Platypus]

Clean coal. Coal will be with us as a, if not the, primary means of electricy production for a LONG time. Let's accept this but minimise the danger it has on the environment.

Also, look into geothermal energy.

[muon2]

Both need significant investment in the US.

Advances in nuclear power have continued forward since Three Mile Island in the 1970s. However, the state and federal standards have not moved forward since the implementation has been outside the US. Technological advances in France have greatly improved the fuel cycle, reducing waste to a fraction of that produced by US plants. Other new designs are being prototyped elsewhere in the world to reduce risk compared to earlier generations of reactors. The US should increase its investment in the research and update standards to match our best knowledge.

Clean coal tends to include a large group of new technologies. The US should certainly step up it's support for coal plants with carbon sequestration. This has the best chance to reduce emissions of any type from coal burning, and conceptual design work has been complete. Unfortunately the primary initiative in this area, FutureGen, has been caught up in political infighting. A prototype may take a decade to show its promise, so the fighting should stop, and the project should get full funding and siting approval.

[Person Man]

Both need significant investment in the US.

Advances in nuclear power have continued forward since Three Mile Island in the 1970s. However, the state and federal standards have not moved forward since the implementation has been outside the US. Technological advances in France have greatly improved the fuel cycle, reducing waste to a fraction of that produced by US plants. Other new designs are being prototyped elsewhere in the world to reduce risk compared to earlier generations of reactors. The US should increase its investment in the research and update standards to match our best knowledge.

Clean coal tends to include a large group of new technologies. The US should certainly step up it's support for coal plants with carbon sequestration. This has the best chance to reduce emissions of any type from coal burning, and conceptual design work has been complete. Unfortunately the primary initiative in this area, FutureGen, has been caught up in political infighting. A prototype may take a decade to show its promise, so the fighting should stop, and the project should get full funding and siting approval.

Hey, so what we need now is a scandal to discredit the regulators.

[Nutmeg]

Calling it "clean coal" is like marketing "reduced-fat lard" - only slightly better of a still-bad thing.  It's a PR campaign by industry stakeholders.

That said, most of the effects of burning fossil fuels could be ameliorated with time, but nuclear waste would be around for thousands of years, so I'll go with ever-so-slightly-less-dirty coal.