Your "facts" about clean coal are oversimplified and misleading--particularly on the subject of carbon capture. The technology for large scale carbon capture already exists, and is commercially available. And carbonate sequestration provides extremely stable storage.

http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/default.asp?dbcommand=DisplayRelease&ID=1351
http://sequestration.mit.edu/
http://www.powerspan.com/home/index.shtml
http://www.htcenergy.com/

While I am not well versed in clean coal (and yes it does sound like an oxymoron) I am willing to at least look at anything with an open mind if it reduces our dependents on foreign oil. I also believe we can find an environmental downside to almost every alternative from Atomic to Wind.

Also I believe, and all know I've been wrong before, Obama has come out before on clean coal. This is not a new position.

Are there any petitions up or other group action to try to get Obama to reconsider his position on this? I really find this quite troubling.

Crumbrye, I think your concerns are well placed! The issues facing us regarding coal as a domestic product are immense. The methods used to gather the coal such as mountain top removal or other methods must be managed at a high level to ensure little impact on the surrounding environment. And like my Sierra club meetings of late have been emphasizing the Fad that is "clean coal" (i.e. there is no such thing as clean coal). Unfortunately as in any democracy we have a public that is mostly uninfomred or unconcerned about the nuances of energy policies and we are also at the mercy of our existing giants in the energy sector who to a large degree dictate the platform for public conversation. I am also dismayed by Obama's policy regarding clean coal and would hope that given the right amount of effort we could change his outlook on this issue. Of course it would be troublesome and near-sighted not to realize that he is on the same side as all the other people in power who also have influence on this conversation. So it would be a disservice to single him out but it could be a good opportunity to position him and other Democrats towards a policy which is much more compatable with the agenda of energy, self-sustainable growth and the environment. These must together can be married to be immune from the predators who will scream of anti-competative and pro-regulation/tax crowd which is sure to rear it ugly head. Of course if I was smart of enough to package this just right I would probably be working from one of the bad guys!

You should really check your information before taking such an aggressive stance on a subject. Carbon capture is indeed available, and currently in use. As well, there are technologies, currently available, that can use captured CO2 to generate energy and other products for use as energy sources. We could do so much more if the people in power invested in using some of these technologies that are already available.

The biggest problem with energy/climate change argument is that people are looking for single solution. There is no single solution to our energy problem, and there is no single solution to climate change. There are 100's of micro-solutions that can be put together to form one macro-solution. Clean coal (which is an oxymoron) is but one solution. Ethanol CAN still be part of the solution, but not at the expense of our food stocks. Oil and natural gas are still major factors in our energy plan. But so are solar, wind, tidal, hydro, nuclear and emerging technologies. All that is missing from this macro-solution becoming a reality is some leadership and political traction. The solutions are staring us in the face, we just don't have a person in a position of authority to say, "This is our plan, and as a nation we will use every means to solve our energy challenges and become a leader in the answering the climate change problem".

If Obama WASN'T going to change Washington, he'd be pushing for more oil exploration, drilling in ANWR, and every other place in America or just off her coasts.

I'm not a big fan of "clean coal" but short of shutting all our coal factories down tomorrow, I would rather Obama encourage far more advanced geosequestration technology to help offset carbon emissions. Google artificial photosynthesis too.

Our energy future will employ a concert of alternatives, not just one. It's a mistake to look at any one alternative, like cleaner coal, in a vacuum. I don't think Obama looks at it this way.

To change the way politics is done in Washington is pretty ambitious. I'd rather have someone who tries in many ways successfully than one who tries in every way and fails.

There will always be those people who analyze everything he says and does just waiting to say "hey, what happened to changing politics, Obama's just a hypocrite."

I think it would have been a mistake for him to tell the folks of West Virginia that we shouldn't even try to make coal cleaner.

I would rather he be perfectly honest about it though. "Cleaner coal" is more truthful than "Clean coal".

Obama is hardly the Energy God come to Earth, and neither is Clinton, and surely neither is McCain. We have to press on this to whoever ends up in the WH, but more important to that effort is Congress. Obama looks to have the long coattails, both through organizational advantages, and through new, young voters.

Adding to the 100's of solution arguement, I have always thought there could be an opportunity for certain regions of this country becoming hotspots for R&D of specific energy technologies that relate to the environement. For example in areas where the sun has the most energy would have universities and grade schools who used their natural region as a catalyst for innovation, the same could be said for areas where rivers or water is plentiful and any other specific environment which suits a particular energy source. This could also be a platform which forms a greater partnership between the communities and their natural environment as well those ties between industry and education.

We can't just shut down the 440 plants already in operation, isn't it better to try to clean up what we already have?

The U.S. is, after all, the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more than 200 years of coal reserves at our current burn rate. There are 440 coal-fired plants across the nation, with proposals to build 153 more in 42 states over the next decade, at a cost of $137 billion, to provide electricity to 93 million homes and support our energy-guzzling lifestyles.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:suv1OUdB2ooJ:www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541270-1,00.html+coal-fired+plants+in+the+US&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

crumbrye: Just to be clear, I'm not an advocate of clean coal. But I'm not an advocate of artificially limiting your choices either. Carbon sequestration and carbon reuse are both very real solutions with the very real potential to change things for the better. We've got to explore all the options. We are currently headed towards the end of civilization as we know it. Obama's view is realistic, pramatic and forward-looking. He gets it. And he'll have a great team, which will include the best minds in the field. But his openness to clean coal as a possibility is to his credit, in my opinion.

Coal power plants supply half of America's energy needs, and it simply is not feasible to "do away" with coal in the near future.

The simple reason is that those coal plants are providing very cheap electricity and are all already in place. This isn't an amount of electricity you can replace with alternative energy sources like wind or solar or geothermal, we're talking half of ALL electricity produced in the USA.

The only quick fix you could do to replace that much coal power would be nuclear, which has its own severe downsides.

And let's talk Ethanol. Way back in its infancy the corn was used, it got a little energy, but was highly inefficient. It was always sold on the promise of great efficiency and ability to eventually use the by product as food. Now, it's more efficient, not as good as one could hope, but much better. Meanwhile, almost all of the byproducts are used as food for livestock. A little known fact being that their is as much protein in the by-products that is used as food for livestock as their was in the original crop. That is, and this is a fact, livestock still get the same protein out of the crop after ethanol extraction then they would get if no ethanol was produced. Will ethanol eventually be made from switchgrass and corncobs and stalks, probably. The technology continues to advance rapidly.

hrebendorf:

Carbon(ate) sequestration is all fine and good (and will need to be a part of our energy strategy no matter what), but the fact is that so-called "clean coal" is simply the wrong way to go about meeting our power needs.

Let's be clear on this: The single barrier to implementing a 100% non-transportation renewables energy strategy is PRICE. There are no theoretical barriers to meeting non-transportation energy demand using a mix of solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power. (Let's leave biomass and small hydro out of this for the time being, since those suck up other resources.) Solar in particular is scalable and will continue to approach market competitiveness as efficiency rises and production costs fall. Algae-based biofuels and cellulosic ethanol are real, practicable solutions.

What's the problem with all the above? They're expensive.

What's the problem with clean coal. IT'S EXPENSIVE.

Spending millions on R&D for an energy source that's not as clean as an actual renewable AND doesn't provide any theoretical price-performance advantage is, IMO, pointless except as a bone to the current coal industry. As you suggest, we have to get real about the problems we're facing, and we *need* serious conservation (and, ideally, population growth control) solutions to be put in place. But I think you're underestimating the ability of renewables to meet energy demand, as well as the price barriers that are faced by a strategy to develop liquid-fuel extraction from coal + carbonate sequestration. Just my thoughts as someone who works in this industry.

Im for Obama, against coal, clean and dirty, to resolve energy issues. And Im from Illinois, who stands to benefit, I think the state won a contract to build a clean coal plant.

Wind! Water! Lets invest in real clean energy answers.

I would be for clean coal, however, to replace dirty coal energy dependence for the short term until other technology capacity is ready. Im also not against nuclear per se to the extent economically justified. So, I am debating signing the petition, but leaning towards yes.

You were "thrown out"...?

LOL, now I know you are full of shit if you are claiming you got banned from dKos for simply "questioning his pro-nuclear power stand".

crumbrye-

Thanks for this post for which you seem to have taken some flak. I think your position is based more on policy than as a political preference. In any case it has generated a substantive thread on an important topic, a welcome relief. I'm afraid that in my limited knowledge of the subject I have nothing new to offer, but I am bookmarking this post to find out more from the references of all sides of the debate in this thread. I am an Obama supporter but do not view this as an attack on the candidate, simply a reasoned difference on a specific concern. BTW my hometown high school's mascot was a coal miner, the sports teams were the Miners. Coal was what the SW Indiana town was built on. My grandparents farm that I played on as a child now lies beneath a couple of hundred feet of shale. I am inclined to agree with your position, but must do the research and will still support Obama. On this issue there is no alternative in McCain.

I've got to say folks, I think Clean Coal SUCKS! (and any of you you think Brian Schweitzer would be a good member of the '09 Cabinet need to know that's his ONLY issue)

But I'd much rather support someone who's willing to look for alternatives than a President who's answer to future energy issues is to pose for photo ups PUMPING GAS INTO A FUCKING FORD F-250 while trying her ass off to sell a ridiculous ploy to keep Americans filling those gas guzzlers at the same rate!

Nothing could say HEAD IN THE SAND more to me.