<?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: Mike Brune on the Politics of Clean Coal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://understory.ran.org/2008/10/15/mike-brune-on-the-politics-of-clean-coal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://understory.ran.org/2008/10/15/mike-brune-on-the-politics-of-clean-coal/</link>
	<description>The Understory is the official blog of Rainforest Action Network.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:33:44 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JRT</title>
		<link>http://understory.ran.org/2008/10/15/mike-brune-on-the-politics-of-clean-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-253951</link>
		<dc:creator>JRT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://understory.ran.org/?p=1647#comment-253951</guid>
		<description>Your definition of &quot;Clean Coal&quot; is not what most you state.  It means what you say it used to mean before you changed the definition to serve your purpose.  What is this, the Humpty Dumpty school of semantics?

&quot;Clean Coal&quot; should actually be called &quot;Cleaner Coal&quot; but now actual &quot;Clean Coal&quot; is being developed.  The most advanced &quot;Clean Coal&quot; is IGCC which is actually clean -- except for the Radon, it is as clean as a natural gas fired plant.  Still has problems though since it isn&#039;t as efficient and emits more CO2 per Watt.

But, you need to consider that according to your new definition, there are no &quot;Clean Natural Gas&quot; yet either.

Your cost comparison is not correct because you fail to consider the fact that a coal fired plant runs 24 hours a day, every day.  Solar and wind have a problem, they don&#039;t do that so they require some backup source of energy.  Seems that nobody ever considers that unfortunate fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your definition of &#8220;Clean Coal&#8221; is not what most you state.  It means what you say it used to mean before you changed the definition to serve your purpose.  What is this, the Humpty Dumpty school of semantics?</p>
<p>&#8220;Clean Coal&#8221; should actually be called &#8220;Cleaner Coal&#8221; but now actual &#8220;Clean Coal&#8221; is being developed.  The most advanced &#8220;Clean Coal&#8221; is IGCC which is actually clean &#8212; except for the Radon, it is as clean as a natural gas fired plant.  Still has problems though since it isn&#8217;t as efficient and emits more CO2 per Watt.</p>
<p>But, you need to consider that according to your new definition, there are no &#8220;Clean Natural Gas&#8221; yet either.</p>
<p>Your cost comparison is not correct because you fail to consider the fact that a coal fired plant runs 24 hours a day, every day.  Solar and wind have a problem, they don&#8217;t do that so they require some backup source of energy.  Seems that nobody ever considers that unfortunate fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
