-
Clean Coal
I remember a big discussion on this topic somewhere but I couldn't find it exactly. The term clean coal has always kind of seemed an oxymoron to me but I knew I did not know enough about the science behind it all to give an educated opinion.
I found this article however and it sparked again some interest in me.
Quote:
In reality, we can't really talk about clean coal — it doesn't exist. Though the coal industry is right to point out that it has improved filters on coal plants, sending less traditional pollutants like sulfur dioxide and mercury into the air, the toxic waste that remains behind is only growing.
-
Wow, this event is a MAJOR eyesore on the concept of "clean coal." the article claims the accident "...released 100 times more waste than the Exxon Valdez disaster..." and that's pretty significant, especially for tree-huggers.
:violin So much for the clean coal PR campaign
-
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
-
Based on this photo, clean coal has a very long way to go. Lakes of toxic sludge can hardly be called a clean energy source.
-
It really is a shame we can't figure out a way to use coal in a more environmentally sound manner.
I have read that if it were possible, the USA would be the new middle east of energy. Apparently the amount of coal in the US (probably in Canada as well for that matter) is enormous.
-
Not having researched this beyond the few stories I've browsed, is the issue with clean coal a matter of difficulty or a matter of interest? By interest I mean both interest as a whole and interest by companies who are able to fund research, but do not due to the attention directed to other energy sources, such as oil.
On a different note, I always thought it was strange that it is referred to as "clean" coal, when what is meant is "cleaner" coal. I know it is a bit of a semantics, but when you are trying to "sell" something like this to generate more support, wording can be the difference when convincing the masses, especially when opponents can twist the wording to present the idea as a terrible idea.
"Cleaner" coal sounds great while we are working to improve and perfect the other technologies available to us in the field of energy production. Between two evils, I would bite down and go with what is less detrimental while we work for a solution that eliminates both.
-
hmm I recently read this article in the local news here. South Africa has had many problems with power production over the last year and they say will continue for a few more years. Here is the link to the full article Power Saving Dream
Quote:
Two of these are renewable energy projects - one a concentrated solar power project, and the other a project in terms of which underground coal is converted into gas that is used to drive turbines and generate electricity.
Barry MacColl, Eskom's manager for technology, strategy and planning, says the utility is particularly positive about the underground coal-to-gas project.
"The trial project is already operational near Eskom's Majuba power station, and the results are very promising.
"In the process two shafts are drilled in underground veins of coal. The underground coal is then set alight. The burning coal releases flammable gas through the one shaft, which is contained and redirected to gas turbines. These turbines then provide electricity."
MacColl says the reaction is controlled by the quantity of oxygen pumped into the one shaft - and the process can be stopped at any time by cutting off the oxygen supply.
"The advantages are great. First, it becomes unnecessary to mine the coal. Second, atmospheric pollution is largely reduced and the problem of the ash with which coal-fired power stations usually have to contend does not exist. Third, coal previously regarded as impossible to mine can now be exploited."
I thought this sounded like a good idea. I never investigated anything more into it though.
-
Quote:
Originally posted by Jolen
"Cleaner" coal sounds great while we are working to improve and perfect the other technologies available to us in the field of energy production.
Does this ever actually happen? Or do we just become lax in our effort because a long lasting temporary solution?
-
Quote:
Originally posted by Pae
Does this ever actually happen? Or do we just become lax in our effort because a long lasting temporary solution?
Yes Pae, this can really happen. Free markets create an environment tempered with continual investment into technologies with hopes of increasing profits, will most likely present an opportunity to capture a long lasting solution. Unfortunately, we have liberals and many politicians who want to put government to heavily into the mix. This creates an artificial environment that doesn't promote long lasting solutions.
-
Quote:
Aristotle: It really is a shame we can't figure out a way to use coal in a more environmentally sound manner.
Quote:
Jolen: "Cleaner" coal sounds great while we are working to improve and perfect the other technologies available to us in the field of energy production.
I completely agree here, and I think it's incredibly unfortunate, and even self-destructive on the part of coal/energy firms, that misnomers such as "Clean Coal" are used.
I would love for American coal to dominate international markets - we NEED exports, and energy is NEEDED in more and more nations. Hell, it would be a pretty sweet deal if we could sell the "clean" or "cleaner" coal burning facilities and technology, and then sell the coal to burn in them. If a method was developed to burn coal without the volume of dangerous carcinogens, green houses gases and etc, this nation would benefit greatly.
Of course, I don't think any one product should have a choke hold on energy markets - atleast in America, if we include alternative energy sources, renewable energy sources or whatever name they're dubbed this week, as well as traditional energy sources such as oil or gas, along with the ability to burn coal safely - we have alot of competition, and alot of check on prices.
Quote:
Kailen: Free markets create an environment tempered with continual investment into technologies with hopes of increasing profits, will most likely present an opportunity to capture a long lasting solution. Unfortunately, we have liberals and many politicians who want to put government to heavily into the mix.
I'm not sure what Government action you're referring to, here. Government mandates that companies maintain liability over disasters such as the article we're discussing here, for example, and I think that's a good thing - it forces companies to invest in ways to operate safely (we hope), which ultimately saves them money. The Exxon Valdez disaster cost Exxon Mobil $2.5 billion in punitive damages, for example.
I don't know of any "liberals" who say we shouldn't have free markets, or that we should protect our markets from international trade, or that we should develop a command economy - so I guess I'm confused how this relates to anything at all, maybe you could clarify.
-
Quote:
Pae: Does this ever actually happen? Or do we just become lax in our effort because a long lasting temporary solution?
I think we have more of a track record of coming up with solutions in "Or Else" situations. Generally, though, progress is significantly slower if it is not pressing. From what I have seen, investment is not made into new concepts on a grand scale because companies do not wish to take the risk and spend the money for R & D on an idea that is not really needed right at that moment.
Sometimes I wonder if federally funded research is the way to go in the "in-between" times when progress is not pressing.
-
What people think when they hear clean coal...
-
It's easy to criticize the technology before it's finished.
Our last clean coal discussion was in this thread.
I gave a breakdown of the technology in the previous discussion, and will only repeat myself here to say that it's excellent, but still in development.
Clean coal and nuclear will together power our society for the next hundred years or so, and I'm looking forward to it.
-
*Checks Snrrub's portfolio*
-
Quote:
Originally posted by Cais
I don't know of any "liberals" who say we shouldn't have free markets, or that we should protect our markets from international trade, or that we should develop a command economy - so I guess I'm confused how this relates to anything at all, maybe you could clarify.
...seriously?
If I find at 10 self-professed, nationally published liberals from the last 6 months stating the free market is "broken" in its current form (e.g. that it must be abandoned in totality or essence) or that we expressly should engage in protectionist measures, will you recant?
Seriously?
Edit #1: Note - can I count both of Paul Krugman's faces as two separate people?
