I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."
Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.
Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.
But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?
In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.
It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.
Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?
We may never find out. Because if a company invests in UPDATING it's pollution controls for REAL pollution -- they won't get a permit for the operation unless they reduce CO2 (which contrary to the EPA is NOT a pollutant) at the same time.
Screw the legalities and regulations -- let's look at a couple things.
1) Multiple labs are working on nanostructure converters that actually produce ethanol from CO2. Basic premise had been confirmed. Small scale trials in a couple years. Imagine turning CO2 into a actual stored fuel for reuse.
2) Carbon Sequestration -- is the process of channeling CO2 from the exhaust back into the deep ground. Essentially in form of "Club Soda" within rock vaults. Could do it -- kinda expensive.
3) Scrubber technology for the REAL pollution -- not CO2 --- is much better than what's installed. So you could reduce those SOx, NOx, heavy metal, particulants, pollutants considerably. But with the permit snafu because of CO2 regs, the age of plants and the hostile political environment, you'd have to moron to put money into upgrading OLD plants.
When in doubt -- commission a "demonstration plant". Seek all those newer technologies, and start a process to test drive one. With a less hostile political environment -- we might end up SELLING them all over the world as well as here.
Personally I'd prefer to junk coal technology or export it. And instead build out 80 3rd gen nuclear plants. 40 to replace the old ones and 40 new ones. No CO2 issue either.
Very, very expensive electricity.
Third and Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors
Third and Fourth Generation Nuclear Reactors 
Third generation nuclear power reactors, which are replacing the older second generation reactors, have safety factors which operate automatically instead of relying on human action and have standard designs so the approval process is shorter. Like the second generation reactors, they produce nuclear waste which lasts hundreds of thousands of years. Both second and third generation reactors use water to cool the reactor core.
Currently scientists in many countries are working on fourth generation reactors which would use new technologies. Their design uses a variety of methods to enhance safety, to minimize radioactive waste by recycling and using waste in the generation process, and to eliminate proliferation of weapons grade materials. The aim is to have a reactor which produces very little radioactive waste which has a much shorter life span, a few centuries. The United States has research groups working on a sodium cooled fast reactor and on a very high temperature reactor. China, the USA, the UK, France, Japan, Canada, Argentina, South Korea, Republic of South Africa, Switzerland, and Brazil, are leading the development of the fourth generation reactors. They hope to have designs certified for commercial use by 2030. The lead laboratory for the U.S. is the Idaho National Laboratory. For further information, see the
Department of Energy's Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems.
By 2030, we can have a grid entirely from wind and solar, using grid scale batteries to make those sources of power 24/7. Without the inevitable cost overruns of the nukes.
Ray......trust me on this......there is a better chance of me being the head of the National Academy of Sciences in 2030. In 2030, we will still be getting our electricity from fossil fuels.......in at least the 70% range.
Wind Energy Takes Flight In The Heart Of Texas Oil Country
Georgetown, Texas, is a conservative town in a conservative state. So it may come as something of a surprise that it's one of the first cities in America to be entirely powered by renewable energy.
Mayor Dale Ross, a staunch Republican who attended President Trump's inauguration, says that decision came down to a love of green energy and "green rectangles" — cash.
When Georgetown's old power contract was up in 2012, city managers looked at all their options. They realized wind and solar power are more predictable; the prices don't fluctuate like oil and gas. So, a municipality can sign a contract today and know what the bill is going to be for the next 25 years.
That's especially appealing in a place like Georgetown, where a lot of retirees live on fixed incomes.
"First and foremost it was a business decision," Ross says.
City leaders say the debate over renewables never even mentioned climate change, a wedge issue in Texas politics.
.........................................................................................................
Already, the fastest-growing job in the U.S. is wind turbine technician. Though the absolute numbers are small — 4,400 in 2014 —
it's growing at more than double the pace of the next closest profession.
...................................................................................................................
renewable energy companies are hiring Ince's students, sometimes before they even finish the program — and the salaries are good, too: Median pay in 2015 was about $50,000.
.........................................................................................................
The income derived from leasing a single turbine varies. But Wortham, the former mayor, says $10,000 per turbine per year is a good estimate.
That's significant, says developer Monty Humble.
"For a land owner, a ranching family to have the opportunity to produce oil and gas or the opportunity to have a wind turbine or a solar farm, it may well mean that another generation can remain on the land," Humble says.
................................................................................................................................
Of course, this Texas wind revolution was begun before the Tea Party revolution, when it was easier for Republicans to buck strict conservative principles on a case-by-case basis. So Perry, as U.S. energy secretary, faces challenges at the national level that will make it much harder for him to expand what he did in Texas.
But if he does, it would be almost as surprising as what happened in his home state when a red-state, conservative guy from oil country managed to help build one of the biggest renewable energy systems in the world.
Now wouldn't be ironic if Perry actually becomes the person that switches our energy sources from fossil fuels to renewables.
