[Platform] MLEV takes a stand against coal gasification!

[John Walsh]

Very interesting.
I still cannot figure out why geothermal is never added into the mix.
There is actually a geothermal plant in western MA and I would love  
to see it some time.
john walsh
p.s. I hope people sign up to get missives from Nader/Gomez.   
WWW.VoteNader.com



On Mar 10, 2008, at 11:59 AM, Jill Stein wrote:

> Thought you might be interested. See below. -jill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters
> [mailto:MLEV at mail.democracyinaction.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:43 AM
> To: jstein at massmed.org
> Subject: MLEV EcoPolitics: Election Victories; Climate Change;
> Greenwashing
>
> Skip to <>  main content
>   _____
>
>
> Greenwashing Clean Coal
>
> You can't watch presidential debates this year without seeing an ad
> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=iSh3Gzy% 
> 2FDLGSNP
> A5BaPE1Wrm52SeOUoM>  for "clean coal", America's power. So what's the
> deal? Can dirty coal become clean and help us reduce our dependence on
> foreign energy sources? Or maybe this is just putting lipstick on a  
> pig.
>
> The development of new technologies has made coal a hot topic these
> days. Clean coal is a term for many technologies from scrubbers that
> reduce sulfur dioxide to capturing carbon dioxide. Advocates claim  
> that
> through a process known as "capture and sequestration", the carbon
> emitted from coal plants can be captured and contained on site to be
> transported and stored deep into the earth. Scientists believe that  
> this
> could certainly work to reduce CO2 emissions, but the question is for
> how long and at what cost? Carbon from smokestacks is difficult to
> capture and must be done through a process called gasification, which
> concentrates the CO2 emissions of the plant. Unfortunately, about 25
> percent of the energy created through this process is needed to  
> operate
> the plant, making it inefficient and extremely costly.
> And then there is the issue with transport and liquidification. Since
> the coal cannot simply be pumped back into the earth below the  
> plant due
> to the incapabilities of coal rocks to store carbon, it must be
> transported to an area with these capabilities. Then it must be
> liquefied before it is pumped into the ground. Again, this process is
> extremely expensive and uses about 20 percent of the energy  
> generated at
> the plant in the first place.
> Okay, so even the federal government that has been giving out billions
> of dollars in loans to coal-fired power plants has decided to suspend
> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp? 
> v=2&c=UDHubbFWf127uo%2
> B9184TsQ9gr21MIlz%2F>  the program until further analysis can be done
> due to environmental concerns and the rising costs of construction.
> Maybe this clean coal thing isn't as great as it appeared at first
> blush. Currently, a conference committee in the Massachusetts
> legislature is ironing out final details of an energy bill that  
> included
> support for liquefied coal in the House version. We urge the conferees
> to not include liquefied coal as a renewable, clean resource. This is
> not a viable solution right now to reducing our greenhouse gas
> emissions.
> C2005 Massachusetts League of Environmental Voters - info at mlev.org -
> Site
> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp? 
> v=2&c=I9yZPysjKp46luxJ
> IKAmvGrm52SeOUoM>  Map
> website by cdeVision
> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp? 
> v=2&c=Iewg4tKfCRXfuOD0
> xFOzUWrm52SeOUoM>
>
>   <http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/TrackImage?key=553918099>
> _______________________________________________
> Platform mailing list
> Platform at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
>

John V. Walsh, MD
Professor of Physiology
University of Massachusetts Medical School
508-856-3360 (Office)
508-868-1653 (Cell)
john.walsh at umassmed.edu