The chemical pollutants can be radically reduced by active filters and other advanced pollution abatement controls.

This would make coal clean enough by reasonable standards. Of course there will be unreasonable people objecting. Like unscientific environmentalists. The only plausible negative argument would be the (local) impact of mining the coal. Underground gassification has advantages but also carries it’s own surface stability risks.

I don’t think such ‘clean enough’ coal could compete with electric markets (like wind), but liquid fuels might be useful for many purposes.

Underground methanization of coal deposits by bacteria is also being researched. Methane is very useful, also as a chemical feedstock.

Or there is a much improved grid. Or both.

A major R&D challenge ought to be development of transmission that can cross between continents – the transmission side of the old Space Power Satellite proposals used to send Australian solar power to Europe, African to China, Middle Eastern (some irony here) to the USA? And of course any excess US solar to wherever the sun’s not shining. HVDC is being used to link Europe and Africa but that’s not in the same league as crossing Atlantic or the Pacific. Can it be improved that much? Is it time to look again at superconductors – although refrigerating undersea cables to supercold temperatures and reliably keeping them cold does look daunting.

A Global grid may not bring energy independence but it could provide clean energy security. Meanwhile back in the present, I’d like to see more action worldwide on the development of utility scale storage so it’s lack isn’t an ongoing excuse to keep the coal fires burning and fail the Climate challenge.

And compressed air (CAES). No more than $0.08 per kWh, possibly half that. One site under construction as we speak.

Bet we get to affordable renewable w/storage before we get to affordable coal w/sequestering.

The means of sequestration you suggest are worth pursuing … although I believe we need a little more evidence that they are permanent, and as you note, they double the cost of coal derived power. This makes most forms of renewables less costly …

Concentrating solar and hot-dry rock geothermal are functionally base-load, their potential is huge, and they are less expensive than coal with CCS. With an intelligent grid, intermittent and on-site renewables such as wind and roof-top solar become viable replacements for coal. Add in off-shore wind, tidal and ocean thermal, all of which can ( or soon may) beat coal with CSS– mix in a 40 to 50% increase in efficiency across the economy, and I don’t see coal with CSS being a real issue …

And of course, if we do develop a cost-effective means of storing energy, ( the one place where we could actually use a breakthrough) it’s game game over for coal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink

mentions olivine as a possiblity.

The poster session pdf file I linked previously claims that the cost of the plan therein might eventually be as low as $14 per tonne of CO2 removed from the air; $52 per tonne of carbon.

I’m sure I’ll be told that switchable coal is too expensive, too technically challenging or just plain impossible. And that grid and storage that can provide reliable renewables-only energy is too expensive, too technically challenging of just plain impossible. In both cases I suspect it’s more a case of expensive rather than impossible – for storage, thermal style, the technology required is pretty basic, but, since there’s been an abundance of coal and nuke plants running 24/7 there’s never been a need to have utility scale storage at all. Because it doesn’t exist it’s easy to assume it must be unfeasible. Technically challenging for sure, to scale it up to get days or weeks of energy for a major city or industrial region. Lot’s of Nimbyers to persuade or ride rough shod over. But not by any stretch is it impossible.

Coal prices may have shot up but coal is an industry more than capable of carrying on when prices are low, so it’s not cost parity with high demand Carbon tax boosted coal that is ultimately required, but clean energy that’s cheaper and better than coal at any price.
International and nation specific incentives, disincentives, tax breaks and penalties and R&D, both private and public all belong in the mix. (In that last case I don’t think a real breakthrough or two would go astray even if they aren’t strictly essential or are longshots. I’d hate to see them missed for the sake of some R&D spending cuts. R&D, especially R, does tend to pay off and, even if specific aims aren’t realised, the increase of knowledge feeds and flows through to more incremental developments elsewhere.

So I don’t think any strategy is out of order to get a handle on climate change. Mmm, second thoughts on that last – wishing for a global recession and/or collapse of civilisation to do it is something I draw the line at; I think this challenge will take more civilisation than humanity has ever demonstrated ever. The current financial turmoil, even if it results in a temporary apparent reduction in GHG emissions (and probably result in CC Skeptics insisting the show’s all over, time to go home and stoke up the coal fire) is unlikely to add any impetus to fundamental change in how we make and use energy and will probably sap some of the momentum to do so. From a climate change matters point of view (my own, admittedly not that deeply knowledgeable, POV) it looks be a clear negative, making sticking with what we have look even better and make the funding of major new energy infrastructure a lot harder.

That’s a lotta rams!

Ain’t is how better we remember the old days to be than they really were?

And Nope.

I didn’t read your correction.

Having had a bit of experience with sheep on a farm. The goal is just barely enough rams for the ewes. Fewer rams the better….

Looks like we’re all experiencing some technical difficulties.