Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
Will someone explain how coal is made clean?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Will someone explain how coal is made clean?
Will someone explain how coal is made clean?
Coal plants also emit large amounts of carbon 14 (a radio active isotope) in large quantities.
All coal is high in sulfur as well. Which is the reason industry moved away from it so fast when they had the opportunity.
We have a shit ton of Coal
We have a shit ton of Coal
Gonna call bullshit on that one.
What kind? Anthricite? Or useless lignite? In what amount? At what rates of consumption? Where are you getting your half-truthed information, and why are you so willing to buy into it on a surface level?
The president scrapped his clean coal mantra midway through his campaign. Some very smart people seem to disagree with your premise.
Richard Heinberg: Peak Coal and Blackout (book review) | Energy Bulletin
The best, that which is mined and therefore exhausted first, is anthracite. Next is bituminous coal of variable quality, then lignite and finally peat, which almost no one exploits to provide energy any longer. The poorer the quality of the coal, the less energy it produces per kilogram, to the point that there is no interest in transporting lignite over long distances because the energy needed to do this quickly exceeds that which would be produced by the lignite. And yet the official figures do not take these distinctions into account, or present them in an overly simplified fashion, something which creates a false impression of abundance.
In addition, estimates of reserves are very often revealed to be of poor quality. They have very often been created decades ago and, more often than not, are later greatly revised downwards. Notably this is what happened in Germany and in Poland where formerly important reserves were reduced to almost nothing once it was decided to take a slightly closer look. ...
The United States is the second largest global producer with more than a billion tons a year. They also have the most important reserves with 240 billion tons, in theory the equivalent of 250 years of production. These figures are misleading, however, because the quality of this coal is very uneven, and if American production continues to increase in volume it will decrease in energy value.
52% of the high quality coal is produced in Pennsylvania, in Kentucky or in West Virginia, yet production there is either stable or in decline. The anthracite in Pennsylvania is almost exhausted and the production in West Virginia will soon begin to decrease.
America’s reserves are mostly situated in Wyoming, in Montana and in Illinois, but they are comprised of coal either rich in sulfur (in Illinois) or of bad, or rather of very bad quality, and mining them would pose serious environmental problems. Added to that are the transport difficulties of a country whose rail network is in a poor state.
In fact, the capacity of the United States to nourish their economy with coal depends principally on their capacity to mine the reserves in Wyoming, which, let us remember, are of poor quality. The peak in production will be reached between 2025 and 2040 – 2060 in the most optimistic of scenarios.
They take the black out of it.Will someone explain how coal is made clean?
My point is the stuff that is efficient but dirty. Could theoretically be burned much cleaner with some of these emerging technologies.
That is not a half truth. It is a possibility. The theoretical principles behind capturing the emissions are entirely feesable. It should be pursued and not shot down by people who have no faith in our ability to do better.
Not quite. Obama got a quarter million dollars in campaign donations from the clean coal lobby and what do you know? A $20 billion clean coal bill went through the Senate this summer.My point is the stuff that is efficient but dirty. Could theoretically be burned much cleaner with some of these emerging technologies.
That is not a half truth. It is a possibility. The theoretical principles behind capturing the emissions are entirely feesable. It should be pursued and not shot down by people who have no faith in our ability to do better.
And my point is, it's never been done, and won't be, on any commercial scale. You can not "sequester" the poisons out of the process. It doesn't work. .... Just like you can't hurdle the basic laws of thermodynamics. Putting trillions of cubic feet of C02 underground isn't going to solve anything.
We CAN do better. But it doesn't start with disgusting coal.
And, to si modo:
Obama doesn't say much of anything about clean coal anymore. That was a campaign gimmick that he has backed off from entirely.
Not quite. Obama got a quarter million dollars in campaign donations from the clean coal lobby and what do you know? A $20 billion clean coal bill went through the Senate this summer.
That's a nice return on their investment.
No...that bill is The Recovery Act. It was only this summer that the monies started getting allocated to clean coal. Would you like the White House's link on the Recovery Act or the Thomas? I'd recommend Thomas, if you care to think for yourself.Not quite. Obama got a quarter million dollars in campaign donations from the clean coal lobby and what do you know? A $20 billion clean coal bill went through the Senate this summer.
That's a nice return on their investment.
That's quite the extrapolation. That bill was introduced by Rockefeller and Voinovich. Did it even pass Congress? Please link.
Regardless, no one disputes that clean coal didn't funnel Obama money during the campaign. The point is, he never talks about clean coal any more, and that's because he read "A Presidential Energy Policy" by Michael Ruppert.