For the most part, clean coal amounts to burninig coal like we do now, capturing the CO2, and burying it back in the ground. A fair enough concept, but it has a major weakness in that it still depends on burning a fossil fuel - a non-renewable resource.
Yeah - clean coal works fine for getting carbon emissions down, but that's really a different beast than sustainable energy.
Now, the Apollo Program came in at the equivalent of something like $135 billion, so it was only a tenth the size of what Gore's proposing.
Is that $135 after adjustment for inflation? Because if not, they might be a lot closer than that, even...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 11:33 pm (UTC)For the most part, clean coal amounts to burninig coal like we do now, capturing the CO2, and burying it back in the ground. A fair enough concept, but it has a major weakness in that it still depends on burning a fossil fuel - a non-renewable resource.
Yeah - clean coal works fine for getting carbon emissions down, but that's really a different beast than sustainable energy.
Now, the Apollo Program came in at the equivalent of something like $135 billion, so it was only a tenth the size of what Gore's proposing.
Is that $135 after adjustment for inflation? Because if not, they might be a lot closer than that, even...