EPA doing its job, no wonder so many panties in a wad!

[Old Rocks]

"This is not an emergency as organic mercury can occur naturally in the environment..."

Pretty damned obvious that you had plenty of mercury in your diet as a child.

 

[Intense]

"Clean Coal" Technologies, Carbon Capture & Sequestration

(updated April 2011)

Coal is a vital fuel in most parts of the world.
Burning coal without adding to global carbon dioxide levels is a major technological challenge which is being addressed.
The most promising "clean coal" technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen.
The greatest challenge is bringing the cost of this down sufficiently for "clean coal" to compete with nuclear power on the basis of near-zero emissions for base-load power.

Coal is an extremely important fuel and will remain so. Some 23% of primary energy needs are met by coal and 39% of electricity is generated from coal. About 70% of world steel production depends on coal feedstock. Coal is the world's most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source. The International Energy Agency expects a 43% increase in its use from 2000 to 2020.

However, burning coal produces about 12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year which is released to the atmosphere, about 70% of this being from power generation. Other estimates put carbon dioxide emissions from power generation at one third of the world total of over 28 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions.

Development of new "clean coal" technologies is addressing this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal can be utilised for future generations without contributing to global warming. Much of the challenge is in commercialising the technology so that coal use remains economically competitive despite the cost of achieving low and eventually near "zero emissions".

As many coal-fired power stations approach retirement, their replacement gives much scope for 'cleaner' electricity. Alongside nuclear power and harnessing renewable energy sources, one hope for this is via "clean coal" technologies, such as are now starting to receive substantial R&D funding.
Managing wastes from coal

Burning coal, such as for power generation, gives rise to a variety of wastes which must be controlled or at least accounted for. So-called "clean coal" technologies are a variety of evolving responses to late 20th century environmental concerns, including that of global warming due to carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. However, many of the elements have in fact been applied for many years, and they will be only briefly mentioned here:

Coal cleaning by 'washing' has been standard practice in developed countries for some time. It reduces emissions of ash and sulfur dioxide when the coal is burned.
Electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters can remove 99% of the fly ash from the flue gases - these technologies are in widespread use.
Flue gas desulfurisation reduces the output of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere by up to 97%, the task depending on the level of sulfur in the coal and the extent of the reduction. It is widely used where needed in developed countries.
Low-NOx burners allow coal-fired plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 40%. Coupled with re-burning techniques NOx can be reduced 70% and selective catalytic reduction can clean up 90% of NOx emissions.
Increased efficiency of plant - up to 46% thermal efficiency now (and 50% expected in future) means that newer plants create less emissions per kWh than older ones. See Table 1.

Advanced technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) enable higher thermal efficiencies still - up to 50% in the future.
Ultra-clean coal (UCC) from new processing technologies which reduce ash below 0.25% and sulfur to very low levels mean that pulverised coal might be used as fuel for very large marine engines, in place of heavy fuel oil. There are at least two UCC technologies under development. Wastes from UCC are likely to be a problem.
Gasification, including underground coal gasification (UCG) in situ, uses steam and oxygen to turn the coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
Sequestration refers to disposal of liquid carbon dioxide, once captured, into deep geological strata.

Some of these impose operating costs and energy efficiency loss without concomitant benefit to the operator, though external costs will almost certainly be increasingly factored in through carbon taxes or similar which will change the economics of burning coal.

Clean Coal Technologies | Carbon Capture and Storage | CCS

 

[Old Rocks]

We've got a real problem with coal fired electric generation, folks.

We need the electricity but the crap that spews out of the stacks is poisoning the water with mercury.

I don't really know if we can have clean coal, but I do know we can have cleaner coal than we typically have right now, much thanks to BUSH II's assinine Clear Skys legislation.

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

 

[Intense]

We've got a real problem with coal fired electric generation, folks.

We need the electricity but the crap that spews out of the stacks is poisoning the water with mercury.

I don't really know if we can have clean coal, but I do know we can have cleaner coal than we typically have right now, much thanks to BUSH II's assinine Clear Skys legislation.

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

You start factoring in maintenance costs and repair and things will change there.

 

[daveman]

"This is not an emergency as organic mercury can occur naturally in the environment..."

Pretty damned obvious that you had plenty of mercury in your diet as a child.

Really? I'm not the cultist here, Roxy.

Stop drinking the bong water.

 

[cutter]

If by "doing their job" means making sure all business relocates to a country where there are no epa regulations then yes, they are doing their job.

 

[Intense]

If by "doing their job" means making sure all business relocates to a country where there are no epa regulations then yes, they are doing their job.

Yes they are.

 

[bripat9643]

We need more mercury in our catfish, keep coal going!

Our catfish are perfectly safe to eat.

Apparently you don't mind freezing in the dark.

 

[bripat9643]

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

coal is already clean enough. What environmentalists call "clean coal" means the kind that doesn't produce any carbon dioxide. If it ever become feasible, the cost is likely to be several orders of magnitude greater than ordinary coal.

So-called "clean coal" is a boondoggle. Anthropogenic global warming is a myth, so "clean coal" is a complete waste of money and a sever financial burden on everyone who uses electricity.

 

[gslack]

We've got a real problem with coal fired electric generation, folks.

We need the electricity but the crap that spews out of the stacks is poisoning the water with mercury.

I don't really know if we can have clean coal, but I do know we can have cleaner coal than we typically have right now, much thanks to BUSH II's assinine Clear Skys legislation.

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

OLdsocks stop bullshitting!

You said " in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind." NEW ENERGY... As in NEW not overall. I know it and you know it you unconscionable propagandist... That is a dubious statement giving a very misleading idea of wind energy generation in this country and you dam well know better than to try ad pull this shit again..

Of the energy generation in the US...

Wind turbines: In the wake of the wind

According to the American Wind Energy Associations, wind energy made up 2.3 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of 2010, up from 1.8 percent a year ago.

2.3 percent of the US energy comes from wind power, thats it... Lets try and not be a deliberate weasel next time shall we.... Bullshit wordplay and dubious statements misleading people like that are why you people are no longer trusted, try and better your rep instead of making it worse...

 

[Old Rocks]

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

You start factoring in maintenance costs and repair and things will change there.

Bullshit. Coal plants are high maintenance installations. With a high output of dangerous byproducts such as fly ash, mercury, and lead.

Then you have to clean the site up once you are done burning coal. Not only that, the mining of coal is an environmental disaster where ever and how ever it is done. A windmill is good for twenty years, then you just pull down the nacelle, and put another in it's place, while the old one is rebuilt. And the whole time, it is so clean that they grow wheat right up to the base of the towers.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whenever you talk to enviromentalists about how inefficent solar and wind are they like to say that we Americans are inovators and inventors we can make it work. Why dont we take that inovation and make coal clean. Use science to make coal cleaner for all of us instead of using science to condem it. The truth is coal is a good source of cheap reliable energy that we can use to keep our country on top.

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

OLdsocks stop bullshitting!

You said " in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind." NEW ENERGY... As in NEW not overall. I know it and you know it you unconscionable propagandist... That is a dubious statement giving a very misleading idea of wind energy generation in this country and you dam well know better than to try ad pull this shit again..

Of the energy generation in the US...

Wind turbines: In the wake of the wind

According to the American Wind Energy Associations, wind energy made up 2.3 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of 2010, up from 1.8 percent a year ago.

2.3 percent of the US energy comes from wind power, thats it... Lets try and not be a deliberate weasel next time shall we.... Bullshit wordplay and dubious statements misleading people like that are why you people are no longer trusted, try and better your rep instead of making it worse...

Stupid ass, what in 'new generation' are you incapable of understanding. As stated before, take some reading comprehension classes.

2.3 % of US energy is wind. That's it?

At the end of 2010, there were 40,180 mw of installed wind power. In 1999, there were 2,472 mw in the US. Now just try projecting that growth curve.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations

 

[daveman]

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

OLdsocks stop bullshitting!

You said " in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind." NEW ENERGY... As in NEW not overall. I know it and you know it you unconscionable propagandist... That is a dubious statement giving a very misleading idea of wind energy generation in this country and you dam well know better than to try ad pull this shit again..

Of the energy generation in the US...

Wind turbines: In the wake of the wind

According to the American Wind Energy Associations, wind energy made up 2.3 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of 2010, up from 1.8 percent a year ago.

2.3 percent of the US energy comes from wind power, thats it... Lets try and not be a deliberate weasel next time shall we.... Bullshit wordplay and dubious statements misleading people like that are why you people are no longer trusted, try and better your rep instead of making it worse...

Stupid ass, what in 'new generation' are you incapable of understanding. As stated before, take some reading comprehension classes.

2.3 % of US energy is wind. That's it?

At the end of 2010, there were 40,180 mw of installed wind power. In 1999, there were 2,472 mw in the US. Now just try projecting that growth curve.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations

Gonna take a while to get to replace the 48% that coal provides of the almost 4 billion kWh we generate, isn't it?

Don't bust out the champagne just yet, Roxy.

 

[gslack]

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

OLdsocks stop bullshitting!

You said " in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind." NEW ENERGY... As in NEW not overall. I know it and you know it you unconscionable propagandist... That is a dubious statement giving a very misleading idea of wind energy generation in this country and you dam well know better than to try ad pull this shit again..

Of the energy generation in the US...

Wind turbines: In the wake of the wind

According to the American Wind Energy Associations, wind energy made up 2.3 percent of U.S. electricity by the end of 2010, up from 1.8 percent a year ago.

2.3 percent of the US energy comes from wind power, thats it... Lets try and not be a deliberate weasel next time shall we.... Bullshit wordplay and dubious statements misleading people like that are why you people are no longer trusted, try and better your rep instead of making it worse...

Stupid ass, what in 'new generation' are you incapable of understanding. As stated before, take some reading comprehension classes.

2.3 % of US energy is wind. That's it?

At the end of 2010, there were 40,180 mw of installed wind power. In 1999, there were 2,472 mw in the US. Now just try projecting that growth curve.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations

YOU need to take the comprehension classes asshole you know what you tried to do there.. You tried the same BS you try all the time. You try shuck and jive people into an inaccurate assumption you have done it here before and you just tried it again...

2.3 percent went up from 1.8 last years thats it.. Simply saying its 48% of new energy generation and leaving at that is misleading and you dam well know it. What does NEW energy mean then? You failed to explain that.. I know, it means new energy as in alternatives to current normal energy generation. Its an irrelevant number to give a bullshit idea of the amount of energy produced by wind power.

New energy generation as in what exactly? What constitutes "new energy generation" care to explain that at least? Would that be just wind, solar, and perhaps geothermal? Yeah most likely just those huh... And wind is 48% of those? Yeah maybe... Think moron... 2.3% of total energy generation, and you claim it makes 48% of NEW ENERGY GENERATION, with no explanation of what you mean by "new"... Get it tool? I know you do...

 

[Old Rocks]

All that to state that new generation means new generation. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

OLdsocks stop bullshitting!

You said " in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind." NEW ENERGY... As in NEW not overall. I know it and you know it you unconscionable propagandist... That is a dubious statement giving a very misleading idea of wind energy generation in this country and you dam well know better than to try ad pull this shit again..

Of the energy generation in the US...

Wind turbines: In the wake of the wind



2.3 percent of the US energy comes from wind power, thats it... Lets try and not be a deliberate weasel next time shall we.... Bullshit wordplay and dubious statements misleading people like that are why you people are no longer trusted, try and better your rep instead of making it worse...

Stupid ass, what in 'new generation' are you incapable of understanding. As stated before, take some reading comprehension classes.

2.3 % of US energy is wind. That's it?

At the end of 2010, there were 40,180 mw of installed wind power. In 1999, there were 2,472 mw in the US. Now just try projecting that growth curve.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations

Gonna take a while to get to replace the 48% that coal provides of the almost 4 billion kWh we generate, isn't it?

Don't bust out the champagne just yet, Roxy.

Renewable is over 10% at present. Solar and geothermal have yet to be a factor. Were we to get serious about replacing coal, we could do that in a generation. We won't, and our children and grandchildren will pay the price of the willfull ignorance and greed of the present generation.

 

[gslack]

Stupid ass, what in 'new generation' are you incapable of understanding. As stated before, take some reading comprehension classes.

2.3 % of US energy is wind. That's it?

At the end of 2010, there were 40,180 mw of installed wind power. In 1999, there were 2,472 mw in the US. Now just try projecting that growth curve.

Wind Powering America: U.S. Installed Wind Capacity and Wind Project Locations

Gonna take a while to get to replace the 48% that coal provides of the almost 4 billion kWh we generate, isn't it?

Don't bust out the champagne just yet, Roxy.

Renewable is over 10% at present. Solar and geothermal have yet to be a factor. Were we to get serious about replacing coal, we could do that in a generation. We won't, and our children and grandchildren will pay the price of the willfull ignorance and greed of the present generation.

Nice try... How about addressing my post now? Yeah busted again being a propagandist....

Now you are talking "renewable" ??? Changing the argument? Douchebag tactic...

 

[Old Rocks]

New generation means new generation.

 

[Intense]

Really? Wind inefficient? Right now, in the US, over 48% of new generation is wind. And, in many places, it is cheaper than coal. That is even without considering the cost of coal on the health of our citizens.

You start factoring in maintenance costs and repair and things will change there.

Bullshit. Coal plants are high maintenance installations. With a high output of dangerous byproducts such as fly ash, mercury, and lead.

Then you have to clean the site up once you are done burning coal. Not only that, the mining of coal is an environmental disaster where ever and how ever it is done. A windmill is good for twenty years, then you just pull down the nacelle, and put another in it's place, while the old one is rebuilt. And the whole time, it is so clean that they grow wheat right up to the base of the towers.

Bullshit. Coal plants are high maintenance installations. With a high output of dangerous byproducts such as fly ash, mercury, and lead.

I just love it when you talk dirty.

It is my understanding that if there is criticism of New Coal Technology, which I am referring to, it is over CO2 Emissions, which I personally do not consider a pollutant. If Clean Coal Technology and Construction is being obstructed for that reason, I find those responsible responsible for the consequences. I'm sure this is one area we disagree on.

Manufacture of motors, pumps, and related hardware, maintenance, loss of lubricant's, oils, hydraulics, Life Expectancy, also cause pollution. I do see he value in the technologies, the question is, do you, honestly?

 

[Intense]

Old Rocks, Seriously, concerning Geothermal, do you have any concern of the effects, consequences? You see no reason for concern?