3 ms·

While I don't disagree with you, clean coal is not the only answer to a place like China. As you said, the cheapest energy will win in the third world, so makin

While I don't disagree with you, clean coal is not the only answer to a place like China. As you said, the cheapest energy will win in the third world, so making a renewable source cheaper than coal would also do the trick. I'm not claiming such an alternative exists at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should stop researching renewables and conservation and put all our eggs in the clean coal basket. The nature of innovation is that we try many things before finding something that works. If clean coal really is the best answer, then it will happen.

protomyth 17y ago
One of the big problems is that there is only the now for a lot of the world. China needs to power its modernization and expansion right now. Coal is proven, plentiful in China, and provides constant energy cheaply. I too believe that we need to work on a lot of methods. Backing any one horse is insanity. Wind is nice, but not a constant producer. Solar is nice, but also not a constant producer. We don't really do mass energy storage yet. Nuclear is great except for PR and waste (still irks me we spent all that tax money on a permanent solution and then we cannot use it). We need a whole list of sources that provide a secure blanket no matter what goes on. Conservation will work for the first world, but not the growing economies. They want a first world life and know how we got there. Also, the US needs to realize there is a large tax implication in switching from a liquid fuel economy for transportation. We need to work out these issues without killing the poor (GPS = big hit bills = poor with transport in large areas of country not serviced by mass transit) or messing up other areas of the economy.