What is "Clean Coal"?

[Wry Catcher]

Will someone explain how coal is made clean?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Anthracite burns with a lower level of ash and smoke.

However, it requires digging in mines, and is very difficult and dangerous to extract.

Most utilities use Bituminous coal, which generates lots more ash and smoke.

One railroad advertised it used anthracite exclusively, so that passengers could arrive at their destination not covered in soot

 

[JiggsCasey]

Will someone explain how coal is made clean?

It can't be explained, because it doesn't really exist.

"Clean coal" is a marketing gimmick. Because the technology does not remove the poisons from either the mining or the combustion, only (minimally) the exhaust gases. It has never been implemented commercially. ... Let me hit you all with that again, so it really sinks in:

Never in the process of commercial power generation has any so-called "clean coal" plant produced 1 KWh of electricity.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So who (besides the coal industry) touts 'clean' coal, and why? Jobs? at what cost?

 

[Charles_Main]

Will someone explain how coal is made clean?

It is various technologies being developed or already here. Some to treat the coal to burn cleaner and more efficiently, but the most promising are systems that will trap the bad emission created when you burn it, and separate them For use, disposal or storage. So that they are not released into the air at all.

It is entirely possibly theoretically to burn coal with Near 0 Emissions. Instead collecting the bad emissions for storage or even to be put to use in some cases. One idea is to store for example the Co2 Captured under ground.

I am not sure how far along they are with all this, If you believe some of the adds on TV, very far, but it is an idea worth perusing. We have a shit ton of Coal, and if we can find a clean way to use it that would be great. IMO.

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Which could be removed from the smoke stack after burning with these emerging Technologies. Do try and keep up.

 

[Si modo]

So who (besides the coal industry) touts 'clean' coal, and why? Jobs? at what cost?

Obama. That's who.

 

[Luissa]

I had no idea until a few years ago that rain can in one way or another cause coal to ignite.

 

[JiggsCasey]

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.​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Who needs coal? We have Obama as our one true source of energy!

 

[Charles_Main]

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.​

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.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Will someone explain how coal is made clean?

They take the black out of it.

 

[Si modo]

So who (besides the coal industry) touts 'clean' coal, and why? Jobs? at what cost?

Obama. That's who.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]YouTube - Cricket Sound[/ame]

 

[JiggsCasey]

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.

 

[Si modo]

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.

 

[JiggsCasey]

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.

 

[zzzz]

Clean coal on the surface is an oxymoron. Ther are a couple of plants (not comercially viable yet) that do sequester CO2 underground but they are strictly experimental. But the electricial generation industry (Half of all US electricity is generated by coal) has been trying through scrubbers and and other technological advances to get the emissions out of the atmosphere.

So the term "Clean Coal" is relative, compared with the past 40 years ago coal burning is a lot cleaner. It used to be that homes burned coal and the emissions on that were, well London back in the 1800's was black with soot. Some American cities were not any better.

 

[Si modo]

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.

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.

Some choose blindness, though.

 

[Si modo]

Boy, Wry dropped this fast.



I wonder why?