This shows a complete lack of research into the matter by Student Life. A brief glance at the Clean Coal website would tell you that CCS is 1/3 of one of five goals of the consortium (geosequestration is the only thing on there that is capture or sequestration). Your idea is completely horrible. While I too don’t like the term “clean coal”, if you’re going to suggest a term to be used instead, at least be educated about it.

I think it is great that the University is working on many of the topics on the Clean Coal page. Many of them are great topics that combine basic research with applications that would really make the burning of coal a much cleaner business. Alongside, you can see how many topics of I-CARES relate to the Clean Coal research. For instance, Stud Life’s favorite person to hate, Richard Axelbaum, is researching not only oxyfuel combustion of coal, but using the same basic principles he is discovering about combustion and applying them to combustion of microalgae, a renewable, phototrophic organism, as a fuel. Sounds to me like they are already doing exactly what you suggest of having a balanced research program, looking to both clean up a major current fuel source and push forward renewable ones.

What I would suggest for current students is to not only research coal utilization, but the truth about how these researchers are spending their time. Stud Life seems to be presenting a very biased view on the matter and it is upsetting to me as an alumnus who worked on renewable energy sources (microbial fuel cells) while at the University, and saw the University invest internally through a Bear Cub grant to push the research forward toward being commercially licensed. The University and the researchers do care about renewable energy sources.

0  0