: I don't think that such things are yet an affordable way to provide continuous, guaranteed power — if I'm wrong, show me.
For the inevitable period where we will be reliant on atmospherically-polluting sources of power, I'd rather do some work on making those as minimally polluting as possible.
Er… Okay, here's my basic justification. Clean coal's challenge isn't “make coal cleaner,” it's “for a given amount of money, make coal cleaner than any other thing that money could be spent on.”
Dollar for dollar, watt for watt, clean coal, nuclear, natural gas, and petroleum development are a waste of money. If every dollar being spent or proposed for being spent on them were redirected into conservation, wind, solar, and transport electrification (including hydrogen) we would be getting more energy, producing less pollution, creating more jobs, and quite simply earning more long-term money.
The transience issue is also irrelevant, since not all power is baseload. So long as there was enough conventional power to cover baseload, we could keep building solar and wind without any grid storage whatsoever and still receive full benefit. By the time there's enough wind and solar to completely fulfill both baseload and peak power requirements, and only then, we will finally have need for grid storage. By that time, I would be astonished if we hadn't built enough grid storage.
I'll dig up some figures later, but the point I'm getting at is that the things I want are a better deal for the money than anything else, including clean coal.
: Once upon a time while browsing survivalist websites, I found this:
Ugh, neoagrarians, I hate them so much, hate hate hate