Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,634,628 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Spending more for cleaner coal.


Spending more for cleaner coal

President Reagan, following throughon a commitment to cut back power-plant emissions that end up in Canada Canada (kăn`ədə), independent nation (2001 pop. 30,007,094), 3,851,787 sq mi (9,976,128 sq km), N North America. Canada occupies all of North America N of the United States (and E of Alaska) except for Greenland and the French islands of  as acid rain, last week announced that he will ask Congress to approve spending $2.5 billion over the next five years for the clean-coal technology program, to be administered by the Department of Energy (DOE). The announcement comes just weeks before a scheduled meeting between Reagan and Canadian Canadian (kənā`dēən), river, 906 mi (1,458 km) long, rising in NE New Mexico. and flowing E across N Texas and central Oklahoma into the Arkansas River in E Oklahoma.  Prime Minister Brian The name Brian (sometimes spelled Bryan) comes from an Irish backround. It is of Celtic origin and its meaning may be "hill" or "strong, noble, and high"[1].  Mulroney. Canadian officials had complained earlier this year that the Reagan administration Noun 1. Reagan administration - the executive under President Reagan
executive - persons who administer the law
 was not living up to the terms of a year-old agreement between the United States United States, officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area.  and Canada, which calls for a $5 billion program to test and demonstrate new technologies for burning coal more cleanly clean·ly  
adj. clean·li·er, clean·li·est
Habitually and carefully neat and clean. See Synonyms at clean.

adv.
In a clean manner.



clean
 (SN: 1/18/86, p.37).

The Reagan administration's proposalmarks a sharp increase in funding for clean-coal technology projects. DOE's budget proposal for fiscal year 1988 originally called for an increase of only $350 million over five years (SN: 1/10/87, p.21). About $400 million has already been appropriated and nine demonstration projects selected (SN: 3/1/86, p.132). For each selected project under both the old and new proposals, industry must invest at least as much money as the federal government provides.

Both the DOE and utilities representedby the Edison Electric Institute The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is the association of United States shareholder-owned electric power companies. Its members serve 95 percent of the ultimate customers in the shareholder-owned segment of the industry, and represent approximately 70 percent of the U.S. , based in Washington, D.C., are confident that industry can come up with its share of funding for clean-coal technology projects. A recent DOE call for ideas elicited e·lic·it  
tr.v. e·lic·it·ed, e·lic·it·ing, e·lic·its
1.
a. To bring or draw out (something latent); educe.

b. To arrive at (a truth, for example) by logic.

2.
 139 suggestions for projects, with total cost estimates adding up to more than $5 billion. In the nine projects selected so far, industry is providing almost two-thirds of the funding.

A Canadian assessment of the U.S.clean-coal technology program, however, suggests that most of the selected projects don't meet the criteria specified in last year's agreement. The report contends that to date, U.S. initiatives do very little to reduce air pollution flowing toward Canada. Although DOE has argued that all nine selected projects meet at least some of the criteria, the department is now establishing an advisory committee, including a Canadian government representative, to guide future selections by commenting on which technologies should be demonstrated.

Congress now faces a difficult choice. Itcan go ahead with legislation that places strict limits on air-pollutant emissions as a way of controlling acid rain, or it can increase funding for the clean-coal technology program in the hope of eventually achieving a similar result.
COPYRIGHT 1987 Science Service, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1987, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Peterson, Ivars
Publication:Science News
Date:Mar 28, 1987
Words:405
Previous Article:Rift Valley fever: long-distance diagnosis. (satellite data used to preict outbreaks of viral disease)
Next Article:Antibiotic-resistant VD on increase.
Topics:



Related Articles
Feuding over funds for cleaner coal.
Good king coal. (new form of coal that is high in hydrogen and low in sulfur, metal and ash) (Editorial)
Global Initiative to Generate Clean Coal Power.(Brief Article)
Clean coal? New technologies reduce emissions, but sharp criticisms persist. (Currents).
Energizing wood power: replacing fossil fuels in a "clean energy" economy.(Currents)
Blackening the skies: the Bush administration pushes dirty coal plants.(Currents)
Coal an essential energy producer, past and future: "public education," believes Kevin Mueller, Saskatchewan mining association industrial minerals...
Legislators jump on predicted surplus.(Legislature)(Education, public safety and other programs could benefit, as well as taxpayers awaiting kicker...
LETTERS IN THE EDITOR'S MAILBAG.(Letters)(Letter to the editor)
Improvement seen in Oregon's small-business growth.(Business)(An economist predicts an upturn in the U.S. economy will bode well for the state)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles