It is necessary to find cost-effective ways to replace coal with renewables or to be able to use coal and lignite in a climate-friendly way (clean coal technologies, methanol economy, carbon capture, storage, and recycling) to make decarbonization not only an alternative for rich countries, but a truly global option.
There is no transition. This is “all of the above” i.e. build more of everything, green or dirty, the only goal is growth.
Downvote to hell is the answer here.
Huh, this is the second pro-clean coal post I’ve seen on lemmy in the last few days… and it looks like you posted the other one🤔
Report, as disinformation/propaganda/not news, hoping mods are not looking the other way
I think it’s funny to imagine that it’s just some guy who is REALLY into clean coal.
Yep, expansion of coal is a failure on all levels all right.
More expensive than even natural gas, let alone solar, is only financially viable with government handouts, dumps more carbon into the air than any other mainstream type of energy, renewable or not, creates vast open ponds of radioactive fly ash, and since all mining has moved to new open pit low sulfur coal in the eighties it doesn’t even employ more than a handful of people.
Poor German Green-party. Either a willing participant, or what happens when you want to be an environmentalist, but also want to defend the status quo at all costs.
Just to make it clear: there is no such thing as clean coal.
What if we could keep doing exactly what we have been doing for the past 150 years, but we just reframed the externalities into a friendly sound byte, and also lobbied the government to make us exempt from the environmental regulations that were targeting us?
This is environmentalism in Late-stage-Capitalism.
