The Future of Clean Coal

Comments

• 	CO2 Storage. DJTal on 02/07/2008 at 4:23 AM
  Posts: 116 Avg Rating:	Was storing CO2 deep underground EVER going to be economical ? Since there are an increasing number of ways to use CO2 productively the answer is obvious . Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: CO2 Storage. jpdemers on 02/10/2008 at 1:29 PM
    Posts: 34 Avg Rating:	Unfortunately, there really are no economical uses for CO2 that are remotely capable of putting a dent in emissions.  CO2 is a thermodynamic dead-end: you have to expend energy to turn it into anything else.  Producing that energy with a CO2-emitting plant, of course, only leaves you further behind. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: CO2 Storage. DJTal on 02/11/2008 at 3:39 AM
      Posts: 116 Avg Rating:	Take a look at the EPRIDA (www.eprida.com) process for converting CO2 and hydrated ammonia into ammonium bicarbonate on a substrate of charcoal , which can be used as a soil improver . Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Why burn coal? Viv on 02/07/2008 at 7:41 AM
  Posts: 8 Avg Rating:	Why burn coal in the first place should be the question, not how to burn coal cleanly and what to do with the resulting pollution, its far too valuable a feed-stock resource to just burn in such an uncontrolled and wasteful manner, burning coal for heat is a ridiculous waste. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Sorry, not convinced Eco Eco on 02/07/2008 at 9:31 AM
  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	So the project went from being a pure-research effort to generate new knowledge, to being a subsidy for CCS for Big Energy fearing having to actually do something to curb CO2 emissions before 2050.  If we really wanted to save TAX money, Congress would pass real ghg caps, and let the magic of the marketplace solve the problem. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Coal Cling-ons SVE on 02/07/2008 at 9:43 AM

  Posts: 44 Avg Rating:

  Clean Coal was never a good term. At the end of any process, carbon in solid form on the ground is turned to carbon in gaseous form (CO2) trapping solar heat. And all the Rube Goldberg ways of trying to capture the huge amounts of gas was just silly. We need a longterm non-carbon way of dealing with our energy needs for our stationary users (electricity) and our transportation users (bio? or electricity?). The government is right on focusing on giving financial inducements to the existing coal plants to make their stacks cleaner. We are going to be using a lot of coal for the near future. But government sponsored R&D should be directed towards more futuristic technologies research that are too far off to be financially justified by existing energy producers. These involve all the clean alternatives. Closing FutureGen is smart. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	cost per watt v240 on 02/07/2008 at 9:56 AM
  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	Does anyone know the cost per watt for clean coal? From the article it looked like 4 dollars a watt.  This seems to high. Current photovoltics can do better than that.  Nanosolar is claiming 1 dollar per watt. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Burn Biomass MakeSense on 02/07/2008 at 12:00 PM

  Posts: 79 Avg Rating:

  The best use of biomass is not ethanol, but burning it for electricity. It's the same stuff with fewer steps, less processing and less waste. Giant Miscanthus has been proposed as a prolific woody substitute or cogen for coal. Biomass electricity produces low net greenhouse gases and fewer pollutants than coal. Coal is very important. But if you want to reduce greenhouse gases, mercury, arsenic, etc..., then biomass is the way to go. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Burn Biomass oconnmic on 02/07/2008 at 5:37 PM

    Posts: 21 Avg Rating:

    I know biomass is deemed "neutral" because it sequesters co2 and then releases it when burned.  However, the same argument can be made for coal.  The co2 was just sequestered a long time ago!  Anyway, the earth's temperature has been going up since the last ice age, long before humans could have impacted temperatures.  I don't think the earth really cares what we do, it's going on it's merry way with or without us.  Since we don't know the consequences of our actions it seems insane to constantly demand changes in the way we live based on the theory de jour. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	Re: Burn Biomass MakeSense on 02/08/2008 at 2:00 PM
      Posts: 79 Avg Rating:	The harmful effect of CO2 released from coal comes the fact that the carbon was trapped millions of years ago followed by an equilibrium. Releasing the fossil carbon as CO2 changes this equilibrium. When plants are grown then burned, they cycle carbon over an extremely shorter timeframe; this does not affect the current equilibrium. Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • Re: Burn Biomass jpdemers on 02/10/2008 at 2:04 PM

        Posts: 34 Avg Rating:

        It's incorrect to think that the earth spins along, and we're just along for the ride: humans do have a foot on the accelerator, if not the steering wheel.  But there is no "equilibrium" between coal and CO2 -- natural coal fires aside, it's a one-way process. The planet has been slowly burying CO2 for a billion years, leaving a bit of coal and oil, but mostly quadrillions of tons of carbonate rock.  The danger in reversing that process is that the climate reverts accordingly, and -- at current rates of fossil fuel burning -- it's reverting too quickly for living things to adapt.  Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	IGCC and POPs JohnQPublius on 02/08/2008 at 8:09 PM
  Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	I remember reading somewhere that the IGCC process produces dioxins. Is this being dealt with by these next generation plants? If so, how? Thanks. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: IGCC and POPs mpolikoff on 02/28/2008 at 12:53 PM
    Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	You can remove dioxins, mercury etc. in the conversion process but they still require disposal; perhaps even worse, large amounts of mercury are released to the air and water in the mining process and there is no abatement for that. There is nothing clean about coal. Rate this comment: (Reply)