<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Clean Coal is an Expensive Myth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://greennationtoday.com/clean-coal-is-expensive-myth-157.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://greennationtoday.com/clean-coal-is-expensive-myth-157.html</link>
	<description>Green Nation Today presents Green, Sustainable, Environmental, Eco-friendly Lifestyle News</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:46:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian N</title>
		<link>http://greennationtoday.com/clean-coal-is-expensive-myth-157.html/comment-page-1#comment-1556</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian N</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:30:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://greennationtoday.com/?p=157#comment-1556</guid>
		<description>Many people arguing for clean coal are not seeing the engineering fallacy of clean coal and the huge energy cost of significant CO2 sequestration. As an engineer, I look at these topics from a thermo dynamic efficiency point of view, and am critical of the material &amp; energy resources and life cycle of every idea. Its far easier to not make a mess in the first place with clean power than to clean up dirty power later.

Using a peaking energy to harness another peaking energy is not viable for very long because its a downward spiral in efficiency terms. The embedded energy gets worse and worse to the point of marginal parity such as with corn ethanol. Nuclear&#039;s embedded energy is about to reach the point where it will be at parity with just using natural gas.

Using a peaking energy to harness a renewable energy is the only way out of the downward spiral.
Uranium ore is finite, and thus subject to peak supply demand curve just like carbon fuels. Only the dates are different. As Uranium ore gets less rich it needs increasing amounts of fossil energy to extract, crush, transport, chemically process, enrich and make fuel rods. Building and decommissioning nuclear plants is massively tax payer subsidized in most countries so the real cost of nuclear kWh is thus hidden.

Only massive improvements in efficiency of all energy use and only new construction of renewable / sustainable power plants will ameliorate climate change impact.

Increased hydro, solar thermal home heating, solar thermal driven cooling, geo-exchange (ground source heat pumps), geo-thermal where viable, solar thermal electricity plants with heat storage, solar draft towers, seasonal energy storage, wind turbines, high altitude wind kites, wind assisted shipping, ocean thermal, ocean wave, tidal barrages, bio-mass gasification, co-generation gives us a lot of options.
Most of the worlds developed population can access some of these. Efficiency improvements are similarly plentiful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many people arguing for clean coal are not seeing the engineering fallacy of clean coal and the huge energy cost of significant CO2 sequestration. As an engineer, I look at these topics from a thermo dynamic efficiency point of view, and am critical of the material &amp; energy resources and life cycle of every idea. Its far easier to not make a mess in the first place with clean power than to clean up dirty power later.</p>
<p>Using a peaking energy to harness another peaking energy is not viable for very long because its a downward spiral in efficiency terms. The embedded energy gets worse and worse to the point of marginal parity such as with corn ethanol. Nuclear&#8217;s embedded energy is about to reach the point where it will be at parity with just using natural gas.</p>
<p>Using a peaking energy to harness a renewable energy is the only way out of the downward spiral.<br />
Uranium ore is finite, and thus subject to peak supply demand curve just like carbon fuels. Only the dates are different. As Uranium ore gets less rich it needs increasing amounts of fossil energy to extract, crush, transport, chemically process, enrich and make fuel rods. Building and decommissioning nuclear plants is massively tax payer subsidized in most countries so the real cost of nuclear kWh is thus hidden.</p>
<p>Only massive improvements in efficiency of all energy use and only new construction of renewable / sustainable power plants will ameliorate climate change impact.</p>
<p>Increased hydro, solar thermal home heating, solar thermal driven cooling, geo-exchange (ground source heat pumps), geo-thermal where viable, solar thermal electricity plants with heat storage, solar draft towers, seasonal energy storage, wind turbines, high altitude wind kites, wind assisted shipping, ocean thermal, ocean wave, tidal barrages, bio-mass gasification, co-generation gives us a lot of options.<br />
Most of the worlds developed population can access some of these. Efficiency improvements are similarly plentiful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
