Redstate

Keep doing that, thanks.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Question:

Am I missing something here?

There are new technologies under development that make coal a far cleaner technology (in terms of soot, especially) than in the past. However, Harry Reid and his Democrats buddies want to abjure all use of coal.

Others here at RedState more expert than I have written on these advances in coal technology and will probably do so in the future. If you really want to learn rather (assuming you are not here simply to heckle) then check out our archives and keep posted on ongoing discussions.

For instance, I believe there is this whole new coal liquification process that is a vast improvement.

And don't forget the U.S. has huge coal reserves, so coal use would definitely impact world energy supplies.

And Rightly So!

I have looked into "clean coal" technology and found it to be basically not very clean at all. I have read up on coal liquification, but the fact of the matter is that all it is is substituting coal for petrol. Currently, if we were to do this with out the "clean coal" technology, the disasterous environmental effects would be even WORSE than if we were to just use petrol. If the "clean coal" technology even does work, it will still be only a marginal improvement over petrol. Further, the process involved in procuring coal for energy use is monstrously bad. It is a process called mountaintop removal. First of all, removal of an entire mountaintop is bad no matter how you look at it. And I'm not talking about a small part of a mountaintop. I'm talking about a huge, massive chunk of mountaintop. Very bad for the environment. Second, what happens to the mountaintop once it gets removed? I'll tell you. The mountaintop removers, dump it into a nearby valley? Can you really comprehend the effect this has on the nearby habitat and ecological system? Please tell me you do.

Anyway, I guess it seems like trading your bed for a really crappy pillow.

ps. I can't get italics to work. It says use underscore, but it's not working for me. Like _this_?

---

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I really need to defer to the RedState experts on coal. I've read much of what you're quoted here (especially the environmental consquences of mountain top removal) a number of years ago (and was duly horrified), but I also am under the impression that the current state-of-the-art environmental impact of coal has much improved.

But I really haven't read up too much myself recently and have relied on my recollections of past RedState discussions on energy and coal as the basis for this impression.

The larger issue, though, is that we really don't have a practical alternative for fossil fuels in the next twenty to thirty years (and even then, probably not without massive subsidy or higher taxes, which are essentially the same approach). Even nuclear, which is the most available source, can only substitute for electrical usage, which is only a minority of the total demand for fossil fuels. And if we want to reduce our dependence on foreign sources, coal deserves a look at since the U.S. has so much of it.

I've got to go for now, but as far as italics, use this html code, substituting < and > for { and }:

{em}message in italics{/em}

For more html help, go find Neil Steven's member page and link to his html help articles.

Thanks for stopping by RedState and joining the discussion.

And Rightly So!

I really need to defer to the RedState experts on coal. I've read much of what you're quoted here (especially the environmental consquences of mountain top removal) a number of years ago (and was duly horrified), but I also am under the impression that the current state-of-the-art environmental impact of coal has much improved.

But I really haven't read up too much myself recently and have relied on my recollections of past RedState discussions on energy and coal as the basis for this impression.

The larger issue, though, is that we really don't have a practical alternative for fossil fuels in the next twenty to thirty years (and even then, probably not without massive subsidy or higher taxes, which are essentially the same approach). Even nuclear, which is the most available source, can only substitute for electrical usage, which is only a minority of the total demand for fossil fuels. And if we want to reduce our dependence on foreign sources, coal deserves a look at since the U.S. has so much of it.

I've got to go for now, but as far as italics, use this html code, substituting < and > for { and }:

{em}message in italics{/em}

For more html help, go find Neil Steven's member page and link to his html help articles.

Thanks for stopping by RedState and joining the discussion.

And Rightly So!

Unlike Pelosi - who, I am forced to admit, showed some real skill in the way she gutted opposition to FISA - Reid is the quintessential placeholder. I would not be surprised at all if it eventually comes out that the Democratic leadership agreed to let McConnell run things behind the scenes in exchange for giving Reid the figurehead position*.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*Because you can only count to 51 in the Democratic caucus if you're counting Lieberman, that's why. What a marvelous turn of events that election was, no?

Congress isn't so far fetched. People seem to have noticed that the ineffectiveness of the 110th Congress did less overall harm than initially feared. Not that it's any kind of good omen for energy policy, of course...

lesterblog.blogspot.com