Does the kit contain a gas mask?

for the planet that these people are destroying?  Maybe a bunch of life preservers for the polar bears...and the people?

5 rations of tort protection lawyers,

12 campaign contributions to key House committee members,

2 appointments to the VA SCC,

4 hours worth of tv ads showing your employees going fishing in pristine waters (note: do not eat the fish, mercury and sulfer levels 4 times the FDA-allowed amount)

What else?

...as long as their money last, at least.

I keep hearing that there is no way to "clean" coal, so to speak.  But I did some research and found two companies that, according to the articles, are doing just that.  Now, keep in mind, my level of knowledge on this subject is mininmal, so it would be interesting to hear what Lowell and Eileen think about this, as their knowledge on this subject is impressive.  

The first company is Evergreen Energy, Inc., based in Denver, Colorado.  According to their website:

At Evergreen Energy we are leveraging a vertically integrated, coal-based platform to deliver combined energy, environmental and economic solutions, producing clean, efficient and affordable energy. Evergreen Energy is meeting the specific needs of vital industrial, international and public utility market customers.

Our proprietary K-Fuel® process uses heat and pressure to physically and chemically transform high moisture, low BTU coals into a more energy efficient, lower emission fuel. A co-benefit of the K-Fuel® process is the removal of significant amounts of mercury and reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

http://www.evgenergy.com/index...

The second company is CoalTek, based in Tucker, Georgia.  According to their website:

CoalTek's patent-pending technology converts low-grade, raw coal-the world's most abundant energy source-into high-grade "clean coal" at, or below the cost of high-quality raw coal. The process increases the burn efficiency and BTU content of a broad range of raw coal fuels, while simultaneously improving the overall environmental quality of the processed product.

The CoalTek process transforms mine-run coals by applying highly-controlled electromagnetic energy. The moisture found in many low-grade coals is significantly reduced without changing the product's structural integrity and handling properties.

CoalTek's breakthrough technology can also dial in the desired characteristics of the end product, including BTU/lb and sulfur content, within a very tight range. This allows coal-fired power generators to optimize the burn efficiency, increase overall yields, and reduce harmful emissions.

Since every utility has different boilers, designed to handle different types of coal, it's important to our customers that we deliver a product that satisfies very particular requirements," explained Dr. Jerry Weinberg, Founder and Chief Science Officer at CoalTek. "Working with CoalTek, they can specify the desired properties, and we'll create a 'designer' coal that meets those individuals needs," he added.

Higher Energy Content, Lower Emissions of Pollutants

CoalTek patent-pending technology can reduce moisture, ash, and all three forms of sulfur, chlorine, and mercury. The feedstock's BTU content, or energy density, increases by as much as 50% as moisture content is reduced.

The CoalTek process itself is environmentally compliant. All byproducts are captured, filtered and separated, meeting the same Environmental Protection Agency standards as agricultural water for disposal into holding ponds.

http://www.coaltek.com/about.html

One interesting note about CoalTek - it recently made Inc. Magazine's "Green 50" list and was one of 10 clean energy start-ups chosen for California's Clean Energy Fund investment portfolio.

So, there is what I have dug up to date.  But, I have even more questions.  But how likely is it that you could get every company that burns coal to have their coal "washed" before burning it?  How expensive would it be?  Since half the electricity in this country is created by burning coal, what type of financial impact would this process have on consumers?

But the big questions is:  After "washing" the coal, how clean is it once it is burned?  Does it dramatically decrease emmissions that are acceptable to the environmental community?

I have such conflicting views on the issue of coal - environmental factors v. economic factors.  And those on each side of these issues seem so entrenched in their views and unwillingly to understand the others sides arguement.  

It seems to me like there has to be some type of compromise to clean up the air on our planet and save jobs at the same time.  Is the technology offered by these two companies a reasonable compromise?

   

...the issue is that those "ways" are neither economical or practical in the least.  That's why most energy analysts believe that "clean coal" on a wide scale will not be here for a long time (15 years? 20 years?) to come.

at the end of the day, burning coal is oxidizing carbon to CO2. There's no way to 'scrub out' CO2 emissions -- that's the essential chemical reaction taking place. Sure, nitrogen and sulfur and mercury emissions can be lessened (which is a good thing to force coal burning plants currently in operation to have to do), but there's no way to do that with CO2 emissions absent carbon sequestration (which doesn't exist in any economical or realistic form for the amount of CO2 emissions we're talking about).

If we want long-term energy and environmental security, we have to get off ALL forms of carbon-based fuels -- or create alternate technologies that take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and put them back in the earth.

Clean coal is just as bad wrt CO2 emissions as dirty coal, perhaps slightly better at the margins. It's more marketing than a useful improvement.  

The entire thing is a cynical ploy by coal and utility interests that assumes complete ignorance by the American public about basic science, among other things.