Comments on: SU mulls rebuking WU for its stance on clean coal power

By: econ 101

econ 101 — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:44:28 +0000

ditto to 2005 Alum

By: 2005 Alum:

2005 Alum: — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:25:40 +0000

Someone please prick the WU bubble and help students see whats actually going on in the world. Do the students have any idea of the quantum of financial costs that would be imposed on US businesses if “clean”coal was banned. Have people even done the research on the true costs of other “greener” fuels. Seriously – this is the superficial research that results in things like ethanol being touted as being green.

Also seriously guys – stop being so naive. Of course business interests support coal – but there are other business interests that support renewables. How silly would it be if my point for a protest was that WU was supporting corporations like FSLR etc. Someone needs to make a class on property rights and environmental law compulsory for everyone who wants to protest. If after that they still believe they want to protest – then power to them – at least it won’t be as ignorant as this article makes it seem.

By: whole nine yards

whole nine yards — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:49:07 +0000

Clean Coal is a marketing term. A more accurate description would be to call it “Cleaner Coal technology”
According to an MIT report by Ernie Moniz, professor of physics at MIT, a true clean-coal technology solution is evolving and will likely lie in a combination of several new technologies for capturing carbon dioxide and storing it to keep it out of the atmosphere.
Professor Moniz says “All of these approaches are promising and should be pursued as our resources in coal can take care of our energy needs for over 200 years. . All these technologies are amenable, at some cost, to highly reducing and sequestering carbon. There are several different avenues that should be pursued, and money is being poured into this technology from the private sector. ”

This should be supported not attacked as there are approximately 174,000 blue-collar, full-time, permanent jobs related to coal in the U.S.: mining (83,000), transportation (31,000), and power plant employment (60,000).

By: JM

JM — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 07:14:35 +0000

Tens of thousands of middle class jobs can be re-focused in renewable energy. The senate resolution was not to stop CCS research, it was to call it by a scientific term, not the marketing term, “clean coal”. Coal is certainly abundant, but it is by no means “clean”. This is exactly the type of misinformation that the senate resolution would work to fix.

By: whole nine yards

whole nine yards — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:32:31 +0000

Unfortunately the student union is being hijacked by a bunch of naive “cool aid “drinkers. There is nothing wrong with clean coal technology, as born out by our top scientists.
It’s easy for some affluent wana be lawyers “who joins the student union” to speak out against it, but it’s a clean abundant resource that the US has and it would cost tens of thousands of middle class jobs if it were eliminated.