Posted on 05/03/2005 6:48:26 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
PARIS - U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman called for more international efforts to develop coal as an alternative energy source as ministers met Tuesday to address concerns over the future of the world's energy supplies.
Bodman, attending his first major international meeting since he took office in February, also sought to deflect criticism that the United States is not doing enough to improve its own energy efficiency and reduce both consumption and greenhouse emissions.
Speaking on the second day of an International Energy Agency meeting of energy ministers in Paris, Bodman said the energy watchdog should be "more proactive" in promoting the development of so-called clean coal. The technology, which is still at the research stage, promises to reduce greenhouse emissions that contribute to global warming.
The 26-member IEA could "put some milestones on this as to just when we expect investments to be made, when we expect certain tests to be done," Bodman said.
Industrialized countries are looking for ways to reduce their reliance on imported oil, and U.S. President George W. Bush pledged $2 billion for clean coal technology during last year's election campaign.
The European Union also plans to invest in clean coal research — but that's in addition to plans to increase the share of renewable energy sources such as wind turbines and hydroelectric dams to 22 percent of all electricity generated by 2010. The United States has no such targets.
By combining clean coal technology with new techniques for trapping and storing greenhouse gases — also many years away from commercial feasibility — the United States hopes to achieve "significant reductions" in emissions from coal plants, Department of Energy Spokesman Mike Waldron said.
Among other IEA members, there was little sign of open enthusiasm for a return to coal at the Paris meeting, which called for efforts to combat the environmental effects of "growing dependence on fossil fuels," such as coal, petroleum or natural gas, which are nonrenewable.
"The Americans are keen but not all the other members of the IEA," said Rupert Krietemeyer, the EU's energy spokesman. Nevertheless, Brussels believes investment in clean coal would set a "good example for countries like China, which still have lots of coal," he said.
Members of the IEA voiced concern about persistently high oil prices, which they said "are a drag on economic activity and growth and penalize the poor."
Oil prices have remained around $50 a barrel despite signs of mounting supplies and slower economic growth.
Push clean coal, natural gas and new oil exploration. Oh, and add new nuke plants too!
It's a good strategy to push Coal. The U.S is the Saudi Arabia of coal, having more reserves than just about any other country.
Clinton put the largest supply of US clean coal off limits, so his campaign supporter Moctar Riady would own the single large supply of clean coal in the world.
Bill & Hillary Clinton, the gift that just keeps giving!
Oh, and then the church itself went out and bought something like 30 million dollars worth of surplus 308 ammunition on the international markets, which gets the attention of people like Janet Reno like right now.
There is no reason to think there was ever any love lost between the Klintlers and Utah and the thing Slick pulled with Grand Staircase may well have been revenge as much as anything else.
Exactly. Bush is on the right track.
This will mean the US has a great future in the energy business.
And get rid of the Clinton National Monuumental payoff to the Riyadi family known as Escalante.
It's too bad the environuts don't retool their attacks on energy sources that they say aren't clean enough.
New technology has made major advances in emissions management.
Of course, in counterbalance, Utah was the only state to vote for the reelection of Robert Taft.
One would hope the Mormons would still have enough spine to stand up against Big Fed; no one else seems to meet that qualification.
I LOVE it!!!
BTTT!!!!!!!!
For real?
I grew up in the 1950's in NYC, when coal was still used to fire the boilers of apartment buildings. We kids always loved watching the coal truck unload big shining mounds of coal into a room in the basement. And I actually liked the smell of a coal fire (and I still do).
However, it's good to know the technology for cleaner burning and control of emissions is there. But I'm curious about the technology of modern coal furnaces. One of the problems of the coal furnace was that it required a lot of maintenance and tending. In addition to needing to be fed constantly, at least once a year the super had to let it cool down (a long process) and then climb into it and chip the clinkers and glass off the walls. Does anyone know if modern coal burning furnaces are easier to maintain?
That is what I've heard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.