Clean Coal: Myth or Reality?

[muy_thaiguy]

Title kind of says it all, and brings in a new topic to debate over and to eventually fall into spam, like all the others.

Also to note, the University of Wyoming is and has been researching clean coal for a while now, with the backup of the state government.
About a year old, but here are some articles about it.
http://cbs4denver.com/local/Clean.Coal. ... 41068.html
http://www.uwyo.edu/news/showrelease.asp?id=34163

Also to note, coal is one, if not the lead producer of energy in the US, with Wyoming being one of the main sources.

[PLAYER57832]

Myth, particularly when you take the long-term environmental and social impacts for the regions. Some forms are worse than others, but none is truly "clean"..

Which is why China is investing so heavily in wind energy. They have a slow start only because they insist that at least 75% of all turbines, etc. be made in China. The US, of course has no such restrictions on trade. We are WAY behind.

[Baron Von PWN]

I think it's a possibility that if realized would do allot to alleviate our emission problems as well as our energy problems.

[tzor]

Back in the old days before this global warming nonsense, the biggest problem of coal was “acid rain” which really did kill fish in rivers and streams, hurt trees and impacted the entire chain of wildlife. That was caused by sulfur in the emissions.

Yes, you can scrub sulfur out of coal plant emissions. So yes “clean” coal is possible.

[PLAYER57832]

Back in the old days before this global warming nonsense, the biggest problem of coal was “acid rain” which really did kill fish in rivers and streams, hurt trees and impacted the entire chain of wildlife. That was caused by sulfur in the emissions.

Yes, you can scrub sulfur out of coal plant emissions. So yes “clean” coal is possible.

Suphur is just one small problem.

Removing mountain tops utterly and completely, irrevocably destroys the entire region. Rather than getting into this more, though I will reference a book:


Jeff Biggers, on the History of Destructive Mining in “Reckoning at Eagle Creek: The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland”

Or, for a synopse, the interview (from Democracy now):
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/26/a ... _coal_jeff

For those who don't want to follow link, a short excerpt:

(words by Jeff Biggers)
Sure. You know, what I found out was the decisions today to allow the coal industry to operate, in whatever cost it takes to get that coal, at whatever expense—you know, we know, of course, about mountaintop removal in Appalachia. But the rape of Appalachia, as Harry Caudill wrote in his great classic Night Comes to the Cumberlands, actually came from Illinois, in my neck of the woods, that we’ve been dealing with strip mining since the 1850s.


But Amy, if you go all the way back, when I looked at this amphitheater of death in my family, this massive strip mining thing that destroyed one of the most diverse forests in our nation in the heartland, I realized that our coal mining policies go all the way back to the removal of Native Americans, that we never talk about, with Thomas Jefferson. It goes back to legal slavery. Here we are in Black History Month, and no one ever talks about the fact that the coal industry, like the vicious tobacco industry, began with black slaves. And that stretched into Illinois. Even in the land of Lincoln, we had legal slavery working in the coal mines. And it was my people, in the backwoods, who was running the anti-slavery movement to stop it.


And for the next century and a half, we’ve been having to stand up to big coal, as well, through our workplace safety movements with the unions, of course—and Mother Jones is buried in southern Illinois—to now our incredible environmental movements, to now having to stop these horrible coal-fired plants, and of course the new bridge to nowhere, with the FutureGen carbon capture and storage plant.

[tzor]

Back in the old days before this global warming nonsense, the biggest problem of coal was “acid rain” which really did kill fish in rivers and streams, hurt trees and impacted the entire chain of wildlife. That was caused by sulfur in the emissions.

Yes, you can scrub sulfur out of coal plant emissions. So yes “clean” coal is possible.

Suphur is just one small problem.

Removing mountain tops utterly and completely, irrevocably destroys the entire region.

Ah, but "getting the coal" is typically not talked about when talking about "clean coal." That is how it is burned. I agree that mountain top removal is massively bad; on the scale of "you have to be insane to even propose continuing to do this shit."

[PLAYER57832]

Ah, but "getting the coal" is typically not talked about when talking about "clean coal."

Which is one part of the problem... ignoring the full picture gives a highly distorted vision.

[sully800]

Also to note, coal is one, if not the lead producer of energy in the US, with Wyoming being one of the main sources.

There's no question here - coal is by far the lead producer of electricity in the US, and a lead producer but less than oil for energy production (all transportation that is fueled by oil counts toward energy production and not electricity).

The difference between coal and oil? Coal is domestic and abundant and a necessary ingredient in sustainable energy production and energy independence. HOWEVER, "clean coal" does not currently exist, and further research and experimentation to improving coal power is vital.

[muy_thaiguy]

Also to note, coal is one, if not the lead producer of energy in the US, with Wyoming being one of the main sources.

There's no question here - coal is by far the lead producer of electricity in the US, and a lead producer but less than oil for energy production (all transportation that is fueled by oil counts toward energy production and not electricity).

The difference between coal and oil? Coal is domestic and abundant and a necessary ingredient in sustainable energy production and energy independence. HOWEVER, "clean coal" does not currently exist, and further research and experimentation to improving coal power is vital.

Which is what some places, including the University of Wyoming is doing. And the state even asked for Federal Funds from Obama about a year ago to help with the research.

[sully800]

Which is what some places, including the University of Wyoming is doing. And the state even asked for Federal Funds from Obama about a year ago to help with the research.

Right, and I think cleaning up existing technologies is a very important goal, and is necessary alongside investment in future technologies that are not fossil-fuel based and domestic in nature. Coal is such a large part of our current electricity production and such an abundant US resource that you cannot hope to cut it out but you can definitely try to mitigate the problems associated with it.

[spurgistan]

Which is what some places, including the University of Wyoming is doing. And the state even asked for Federal Funds from Obama about a year ago to help with the research.

Right, and I think cleaning up existing technologies is a very important goal, and is necessary alongside investment in future technologies that are not fossil-fuel based and domestic in nature. Coal is such a large part of our current electricity production and such an abundant US resource that you cannot hope to cut it out but you can definitely try to mitigate the problems associated with it.

You realize how windy and sunny this country is? Clean coal is a myth. We'll probably never be able to get rid of it because West Virginia will never vote themselves out of existence, but we need to be using less coal. Even if you don't believe in climate change, and think that we will be able to set effective guidelinesyou can't look at the irrevocable damage coal mining does to landscapes and think that this is what we should be focusing on.

[sully800]

Which is what some places, including the University of Wyoming is doing. And the state even asked for Federal Funds from Obama about a year ago to help with the research.

Right, and I think cleaning up existing technologies is a very important goal, and is necessary alongside investment in future technologies that are not fossil-fuel based and domestic in nature. Coal is such a large part of our current electricity production and such an abundant US resource that you cannot hope to cut it out but you can definitely try to mitigate the problems associated with it.

You realize how windy and sunny this country is? Clean coal is a myth. We'll probably never be able to get rid of it because West Virginia will never vote themselves out of existence, but we need to be using less coal. Even if you don't believe in climate change, and think that we will be able to set effective guidelinesyou can't look at the irrevocable damage coal mining does to landscapes and think that this is what we should be focusing on.

Indeed I do. I'm as big of a supporter of alternative energy as anyone I know. I ride my bike just about everywhere and I'm selling my car because I would much rather get places by walking biking or using public transportation. I currently live in a community called "Ecovillage" and I certainly plan to live my life free from fossil fuels when possible. But I also recognize that the majority of the country does not care as much as I do and is not willing to sacrifice as much as I am. I believe there is a future in carbon sequestration and the cap and trade for sulfur emissions were remarkably effective. The manner in which coal is harvested by clear cutting mountaintops is unthinkable to me, and I would never support such action despite the cheap energy that is available. I said that we will continue to use coal and I think we need to do it in an environmentally responsible manner which includes much better mining practices.

[PLAYER57832]

One fact that I find disturbing is how far ahead CHINA is in this. Even though they currently use a lot of coal, they will quickly be moving out to wind. It is the advantage of a rather authoritarian government that they can simply dictate what they want, and get it. China has dictated that 75% if any wind project be manufactured in China. This has meant a slow start, but once they get hte infrastructure up, they will quickly overtake us.

Meanwhile, the US keeps giving China our business!

[tzor]

You realize how windy and sunny this country is? Clean coal is a myth.

Technically speaking solar energy doesn't work well at night and the winds are not always 24/7. So we do need some off peak generation capacity. Ironically in the future age of the electric car (it's comming sooner than you might think) most recharges will take place ... at night.

[muy_thaiguy]

One fact that I find disturbing is how far ahead CHINA is in this. Even though they currently use a lot of coal, they will quickly be moving out to wind. It is the advantage of a rather authoritarian government that they can simply dictate what they want, and get it. China has dictated that 75% if any wind project be manufactured in China. This has meant a slow start, but once they get hte infrastructure up, they will quickly overtake us.

Meanwhile, the US keeps giving China our business!

Preaching to the choir on this Player. Wyoming already has tons of wind turbines up, and more to come. But like Tzor said, the wind isn't always blowing (even in Wyoming).

[tzor]

Preaching to the choir on this Player. Wyoming already has tons of wind turbines up, and more to come. But like Tzor said, the wind isn't always blowing (even in Wyoming).

The F'ing Progressive Elites killed wind power off of NYC / Long Island, just like they killed it off of Mass. There is a farmer around Riverhead with his own large turbine but it's not always running. There are three turbines on the north shore where the shell of the old nuclear power plant is but I have not seen them run in ages.

I have not checked yet on the progress of the new material invented at R.P.I. of carbon nanotubes that was supposed to absorb practically all of the light it receives (minus a very small fraction) in solar panel applications. It should come online any year now if things progress as they should. It would greatly reduce the cost of local home solar panels if implemented on a mass scale.

[sully800]

One fact that I find disturbing is how far ahead CHINA is in this. Even though they currently use a lot of coal, they will quickly be moving out to wind. It is the advantage of a rather authoritarian government that they can simply dictate what they want, and get it. China has dictated that 75% if any wind project be manufactured in China. This has meant a slow start, but once they get hte infrastructure up, they will quickly overtake us.

Meanwhile, the US keeps giving China our business!

Preaching to the choir on this Player. Wyoming already has tons of wind turbines up, and more to come. But like Tzor said, the wind isn't always blowing (even in Wyoming).

It is a laudable effort, but those tons of turbines are only producing ~1.7% of the state's electricity while ~95% comes from coal. Increasing efficiency and decreasing costs of wind turbines could help to swing those numbers a bit in the future, but without greatly increased conservation wind cannot provide nearly enough power. Keep in mind that 1.7% is only for electricity. If you are able to break away from oil and convert the entire state's auto industry into electric cars then there is much more electricity that needs to be produced.

It's certainly possible for a person to sustain themselves on wind power alone. It is not possible for all Americans to do so while continuing to use energy at the current rate. Conservation is essential.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.rene ... oming.html

[edocsil]

Others have brought up wind and solar, but what is wrong with nuclear?

And, please don't respond about the dangers of a meltdown. If the government spent the cash to properly maintain old ones, or build new ones that cannot meltdown it would not be an issue.

And also, a statistic was presented that almost 97% of electricity comes from coal and wind. That cannot be true, hydroelectric, solar and nuclear are a significant producers of electricity, far more then 3%

Hold up, that's only for Wyoming. The argument still stands however. Do they really have no solar, hydroelectric or nuclear?

[PLAYER57832]

Others have brought up wind and solar, but what is wrong with nuclear?

And, please don't respond about the dangers of a meltdown. If the government spent the cash to properly maintain old ones, or build new ones that cannot meltdown it would not be an issue.

And also, a statistic was presented that almost 97% of electricity comes from coal and wind. That cannot be true, hydroelectric, solar and nuclear are a significant producers of electricity, far more then 3%

Hold up, that's only for Wyoming. The argument still stands however. Do they really have no solar, hydroelectric or nuclear?

The biggest problem is definitely not meltdown, its storage. Right now, its all stored on site in what are supposed to be "temporary" storage areas.
Areas stored above ground are believed by some to be vulnerable to a small plane crash, which they say would ignite and disperse radioactivity. Some storage areas were not truly intended to be permanent and may be degrading (some debate on that). Currently, there is more spent fuel stored on sites than Yucca Mountain was evern designed to hold (and Yucca will likely never be used).

Remanufacturing it in various ways is supposedly not economically viable now.

I personally am on the fence. While nuclear has risks, so do other energy sources. I am not "sold" on nuclear, but I am not longer quite as against it as I was.

[muy_thaiguy]

Others have brought up wind and solar, but what is wrong with nuclear?

And, please don't respond about the dangers of a meltdown. If the government spent the cash to properly maintain old ones, or build new ones that cannot meltdown it would not be an issue.

And also, a statistic was presented that almost 97% of electricity comes from coal and wind. That cannot be true, hydroelectric, solar and nuclear are a significant producers of electricity, far more then 3%

Hold up, that's only for Wyoming. The argument still stands however. Do they really have no solar, hydroelectric or nuclear?

You obviously do not know much about Wyoming Geography and weather patterns.

But really, Wyoming weather is very unpredictable, in that we can have cloud cover for days, weeks, or even a couple months, and maybe get a little snow out of it, or just have cloud cover in the morning and have blizzard/whiteout conditions until that night.
As for hydroelectric power, most river systems are quite small in comparison to other places, and have a tendency to freeze over during the winter months. And Player already oulined the problems with nuclear.

[sully800]

The real surprise is the lack of natural gas use in Wyoming. Most states have coal as the biggest electricity producer and if they don't have nuclear or significant hydro then it is likely that natural gas and coal will make up ~95% of the total electric production.

Hydro is great and is producing a whole lot of great free energy already - but there really aren't that many cost effective locations for large hydro dams left.

[tzor]

Others have brought up wind and solar, but what is wrong with nuclear?

Simply put, the biggest problem has always been waste. The second biggest problem is structural decay which leads to more waste.

When people think of waste, they might just think of spent fuel rods. But everything that gets involved in nuclear power winds up getting some degree of contamination. The current process is to treat everything as waste and all that waste piles up rather quickly. Add this to the fact that radiation tends to degrade things over time (the most extreeme example I know of is from the old particle accelerators where radiation from the particle beam hitting the side of the vacumm tube would cause the rubber hoses that controlled the cooling portions of the magnets to become brittle and break. Back in the 70's the AGS at BNL would constantly be sprouting leaks. Fortunately this was a case of pure radiation; the beam could be shut down and in a short time the ambient rediation would be low enough to replace the hoses. In a nuclear reactor contamination is more of a problem than direct radiation. Still the life expectency of a nuclear reactor is not all that long and when that life expencty is over, the plant can no longer be used but also no longer be disposed of. They only fired up the core at the Shoreham nuclear reactor for testing purposes, but what is within the containment structure can never be removed. EVER.

[thegreekdog]

I think we need to spend some money developing tidal power. More regularly occurring than sun or wind. Better for the environment than coal or oil.

Yeah, that's my addition to this thread.

[PLAYER57832]

I think we need to spend some money developing tidal power. More regularly occurring than sun or wind. Better for the environment than coal or oil.

Yeah, that's my addition to this thread.

True, and I believe it is possible. However, It MUST be done in a way that does not destroy the balance of the tidal cycles. We cannot underestimate the value of those tidal fluxes, tidal regions on fisheries. Destroying those cycles means much more than "just" food ... and certainly much more than is even evident by the very abundant life in the tidal regions.

[thegreekdog]

I think we need to spend some money developing tidal power. More regularly occurring than sun or wind. Better for the environment than coal or oil.

Yeah, that's my addition to this thread.

True, and I believe it is possible. However, It MUST be done in a way that does not destroy the balance of the tidal cycles. We cannot underestimate the value of those tidal fluxes, tidal regions on fisheries. Destroying those cycles means much more than "just" food ... and certainly much more than is even evident by the very abundant life in the tidal regions.

I'm not sure we actually could destroy tidal cycles right? I mean that would take a gigantic undertaking. Perhaps I'm mistaken and it's easier than I think it is.