==It's not unlike E85 fuel which does burn cleaner==

Nope, it just burns different, not cleaner.
Or even more specifically, "not healthier".
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol2
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol3
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol9

________________________

Anyways, I would more liken it to hydrogen. Hydrogen is one of two elements that make up oil and natural gas.

What hydrogen offers is the message of "have your hydrogen energy, without the carbon!"

Catch being, it's extremely expensive and logistically near impossible to actually make that happen. And by the same measure isn't expected to really make much of a dent for decades and decades to come (if at all). As mentioned, too little, too late. The flipside of course being that it allows the perception of doing something, while not actually doing anything but prolonging the status quo.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen3.png

__________

Also remind me, who's livelyhoods rely on coal mines?
If anything coal is perpetuating a cycle of poverty.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/19/16232/9817

I heard figure the other day that the coal industry employs around 55,000 people in West Virginia, about half the coal jobs in the country. It has the third lowest per-capita income in the US and the lowest median household income in the entire country.

As coal jobs continue to decline, it is clear that the coal industry is not the answer to West Virginia's economic troubles. Imagine if West Virginia embraced the renewable energy sector like California, the jobs and the venture capital funds will follow. 

Renewables are at present a niche, even in California. Even if West Virginia chased renewables, coal would and will continue to supply the baseline power supply for a long time.

I'm going to look into that one. 

Cock the gun and put it in their Mouth

LOL. A greenie with attitude.

Make your Demands, the only acceptable answer is yes

LMAO. Living your life based on Steven Segal movies you've watched is never a good idea.

If they don't come up with the goods, pull the trigger.

You tell 'em big guy.

"Cock the gun and put it in their Mouth"

You might as well just put it in your own mouth. It'll beat slowly freezing in the dark, while you await starvation.

Paul S & Rob,

First, the Title was a quote from 'the Godfather', and AFAIK Steven Segal was not in any of the Godfather films.

Secondly, it seems abundantly clear that neither of you seem to read any real science, but consume 'science-lite' from junkscience and the gospel according to Exxon.

Thirdly, it seems pointless, but to point-out that my post was metaphorical. I suggest you google the big words, or use a dictionary, (that's a big papery thing AKA a book).

Fourthly, If you actually had read my post properly, you would have noticed that there was a plan 'B', to provide power without coal. So your stupid comments were - well stupid. But to notice that you would need to read. Unfortunately the SMOG readability index for my post was 17.49, which was far too high. I'll try harder to make it much lower in future, so that you can understand it.

Lastly, Your grasp of facts is tenuous, at best.

See? You should have stuck the gun in your mouth while you had the chance. Now look what you've done -- you've shot yourself in the foot.

Again.

Yup - good catch Sam-Hec. I wondered if anyone else would catch the irony there.

Another way to read that would be "free of near-zero emissions" - i.e. not possessing emissions that are near zero. Hmmmmm.

On a more substantive note, I too had previously read the ZECA website and it sounded intruguing. Dr. Klaus Lackner of Columbia Univ. put forward the idea. However it seems it never caught on, and the zeca.org website about it has vanished - the domain now just goes to yet another domain-parking page full of ads.

The really prominent coal+CCS project that also didn't take off was, of course, FutureGen (aka NeverGen). When that was unceremoniously cancelled recently, it made it clear how far we are from zero- or near-zero-emission coal. (Note I didn't add "-free" after emission there!)

The coal you burn in the U.S. to power half your power demand is triply harmful: CO2, smog and mercury. Remember how tuna is full of mercury and not recommended for pregnant women? That's coal. Here in Ontario we are working to close our last coal plants by 2014 (we slid from more ambitious goals of last year...) We still get lots of coal emissions blown northeast from the "smog belt" of midwestern coal-fired power plants.

The good news is that solar PV is getting ever closer to being cost-competitive, and there's a huge ramp-up in capacity taking place. Expect module prices to start to fall substantially over then next few years. There's also concentrating solar thermal (more real working CST plants today than there are coal+CCS).

Demand side is the first place we have to concentrate to allow reduction rather than growth in coal generation (since CCS for coal is still just a dream right now.) Ontario is banning incandescent bulbs by 2011 and other jurisdictions are looking at similar bans.