Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,915
- 1,530
there is a difference.And where have we been talking about clean coal?
It's probably possible to capture all the CO2 from a coal plant but that will make coal more expensive.
It comes up because in addition to wind and solar, the other fielded "alternative" is biomass conversion" which is originally sold under your rubric of "net zero CO2" if you burn a "crop" like trees or even hemp.. And the question is -- how do you burn trees or hemp cleanly if you cannot burn coal cleanly? It's really no different in terms of REAL POLLUTANTS. In reality, MOST FIELDED biomass incinerators are now burning garbage, because "wood waste" is an oxymoron.. Nothing is really wasted in logging and lumbering.
Coal plants could use 40 years of improving stack scrubbing technology and owners have been WILLING to upgrade, but they cannot get the permits since EPA science and called CO2 a pollutant. The govt wont permit unless they include CO2 mitigation.
Not much diff between old carbon coal and trees. Not like those coal veins lying close to surface are ACTUALLY totally sequestered.. They naturally combine with benzene and other hydrocarbons and leak into the atmos all the time.. Either as CO2 or nat gas.. That's how you get "flaming ponds" and smelly tap water in certain areas near deposits.
Coal is sequestered carbon that will never make it back into the environment or the atmosphere.
a tree that decays in the forest releases its carbon just like it does when it is burned into the environment so the carbon in a tree is never really sequestered.