The Truth about "Clean Coal"

Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
273
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
" Evegreen State"
All coal firing plants emit thousands of of (tons) of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas),
sulfer dioxide (an acid rain ingredient), nitrous oxide and mercury into the air. Clean-coal technology proposes storing some of the carbon dioxide underground in a liquefied form.
The technology is called carbon capture storage. It is anticipated that this will take an additional 25 percent more energy above and beyond what is being produced for normal use.
Also the mountain top removal issue which is a disaster all it's own.

The cost of constructing such technology would double the cost of a new plant. Storing this
liquefied CO2 is setting the table for additional environmental problems.
This technology is not environmentally wise, since there is no guarantee that the underground storage will not leak.

The technology can not be retrofitted to an existing plant, at least not economically.
Thus, current coal-fired facilities will run until their 50 year retirement age is reached.
 

RGR

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
123
Points
83
Location
Denver
What is your point?
It appears that my point is, all the name calling and pointless claims to knowledge regarding this topic from the defenders of this
out dated technology, are unseen and heard.:eusa_whistle:
Why would defenders of CO2 geologic sequestration need to defend it? It was happening years ago in various and sundry oil fields around the globe, it is happening today, it will be happening tomorrow. It is no more outdated than is the wheel.
 

RGR

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
123
Points
83
Location
Denver
And it is often very leaky.
Sure. Residual trapping of CO2 is an interesting topic in and of itself, not that this idea is the original posters intent. The issue will, as usual, probably boil down to basic economics rather than the technical difficulty of the process.
 
OP
Disenchanted61
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
273
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
" Evegreen State"
What is your point?
It appears that my point is, all the name calling and pointless claims to knowledge regarding this topic from the defenders of this
out dated technology, are unseen and heard.:eusa_whistle:
Why would defenders of CO2 geologic sequestration need to defend it? It was happening years ago in various and sundry oil fields around the globe, it is happening today, it will be happening tomorrow. It is no more outdated than is the wheel.
And by applying your logic, just continue on the path we are headed because learning from our mistakes is out of the question.
Is fouling our nest something we teach our children? Because what I am witnessing here is very irresponsible thinking.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,755
Reaction score
15,474
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Seems like your nose-picking habit might warp your view of "CLEAN"..

There is the PRIMARY concern of NOx, mercury, SO2, radioactive ash, and other honest to God pollutants. These all have serious health consequences.

And then there is CO2.. Which has NO serious health consequences.

So your dire statements about the cost and complexity of CO2 sequestration only fogs the definition of "clean coal" just as the eco-frauds intended it to do. Clean Coal combustion is VERY doable. Certainly with new plant designs, improved scrubbing and better attention to complete combustion. After all -- you'll find "biomass conversion" on MANY lists of econaut "alternatives" and you can't tell me that burning plant pulp is green but burning coal can't be.

The whole CO2 mitigation (as a pollutant) is still very much debateable. Especially to any incurred real enviromental costs.
 
Last edited:

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,472
Reaction score
23,485
Points
2,180
What is your point?
'Clean coal' is not a termed based in reality, it is political propaganda.
That's true, but so-called "dirty coal" includes CO2 as one of the pollutants, and CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants need it to live.

Coal is as clean as it needs to be.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
130,472
Reaction score
23,485
Points
2,180
And by applying your logic, just continue on the path we are headed because learning from our mistakes is out of the question.
Is fouling our nest something we teach our children? Because what I am witnessing here is very irresponsible thinking.
CO2 is not a pollutant. Coal fired power plants are not "fouling" anything. Many of them are located within a few hundred feet of residential areas. Coal is already clean enough.
 

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
16,829
Reaction score
2,492
Points
245
And by applying your logic, just continue on the path we are headed because learning from our mistakes is out of the question.
Is fouling our nest something we teach our children? Because what I am witnessing here is very irresponsible thinking.
CO2 is not a pollutant. Coal fired power plants are not "fouling" anything. Many of them are located within a few hundred feet of residential areas. Coal is already clean enough.


Toxic Air: Time to Clean Up Coal-fired Power Plants _______________________________________________
Did you know that the coal-fired power plants, found across the country, emit health-threatening toxins into our air every day? Toxins like arsenic, mercury, acid gases and lead. The American Lung Association’s new report Toxic Air: The Case for Cleaning Up Coal-fired Power Plants, reveals the hazardous air pollution emitted from power plants and why now is the time to clean them up and protect ou health.

The report highlights the long list of uncontrolled pollutants from these plants including dangerous pollutants such as arsenic, mercury, dioxins, formaldehyde, acid gases and PAHs, just to name a few. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required on March 16 to issue a proposal to finally clean up these hazardous air pollutants. This comes more than twenty years after Congress added requirements to the Clean Air Act—with strong bipartisan support—that these toxic emissions must be stopped.

Hazards revealed

The Lung Association’s report reveals the real public health threat from coal-fired power plants.

>> Coal-fired power plants that sell electricity to the grid produce more hazardous air pollution in the U.S. than any other industrial pollution sources.

>> More than 400 coal-fired power plants located in 46 states across the country release more that 386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants into the atmosphere each year.

>> Particle pollution from power plants is estimated to kill approximately 13,000 people a year.

“Power plant pollution kills people,” said Charles D. Connor, President and CEO of the American Lung Association. “It threatens the brains and nervous system of children. It can cause cancer, heart attacks and strokes.

“It’s time that we end the ‘toxic loophole’ that has allowed coal-burning power plants to operate without any federal limits on emissions of mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride and other dangerous pollutants,” said Charles D. Connor, president and CEO of the American Lung Association.

“People living closest to these plants, especially children, seniors, pregnant women and those with chronic disease face the greatest risk, but it doesn’t stop there. Pollution from coal-fired power plants takes flight and travels far into other states—threatening public health.”

Time for EPA to act

The Clean Air Act requires that hazardous air pollutants from coal-fired power plants be controlled. Because EPA is overdue in delivering its proposal for cleaning up these plants, the agency is under a court order to propose these regulations by March 16. Without the new rules, no national standards exist to limit these pollutants from these plants.

The Lung Association report identifies modern pollution control technologies that that are currently in use in some plants, which are readily available for installation at other plants. The law sets the cleanup requirements based on actual performance facilities, but each power plant will select the specific pollution control strategies to reduce their emissions.

“The American public has waited long enough—more than two decades. We are counting on EPA to protect all Americans from the health risks imposed by these dangerous pollutants once and for all.”

More
 

RGR

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
123
Points
83
Location
Denver
Is fouling our nest something we teach our children? Because what I am witnessing here is very irresponsible thinking.
Fouling our nests is something humans invented before we began practicing slash and burn agriculture. Pretending that it is a recent invention is disingenuous.
 

Mr. H.

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
44,171
Reaction score
9,806
Points
2,030
Location
A warm place with no memory.
Suggested thread:

"Clean Solar" ...

BEIJING (AP) — Hundreds of villagers in eastern China have demonstrated in recent days against pollution they say is caused by a solar panel factory, with some protesters storming the compound and overturning vehicles, local authorities and residents said Sunday.

Over 500 villagers protest China factory pollution - Yahoo! News

Ahh but wait- we just import that solar shit anyhow.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
I'd settle for LESS DIRTY COAL_FIRED electricty.

That is do-able.
 

Bill Angel

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
168
Points
130
Location
Baltimore Maryland
So your dire statements about the cost and complexity of CO2 sequestration only fogs the definition of "clean coal" just as the eco-frauds intended it to do. Clean Coal combustion is VERY doable. Certainly with new plant designs, improved scrubbing and better attention to complete combustion. After all -- you'll find "biomass conversion" on MANY lists of econaut "alternatives" and you can't tell me that burning plant pulp is green but burning coal can't be.

The whole CO2 mitigation (as a pollutant) is still very much debatable. Especially to any incurred real environmental costs.
Also, if society wishes to significantly reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, it has to address the amount of CO2 contributed by motor vehicles.
According to the article titled U.S. Emits Nearly Half World's Automotive Carbon Dioxide

"The United States has five percent of the world's population and 30 percent of the world's automobiles, but the country contributes 45 percent of the world's automotive emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide...Transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions account for about a THIRD of total carbon dioxide emissions"
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Natural gas prices up due to trend away from coal...
:eusa_eh:
Coal Exodus Props Up Natural Gas Prices
9/28/11 - -- Natural gas prices ended a two-day rally Wednesday, but were expected to be propped up by a switch to natural gas from coal and tropical storm activity.
November futures were slumping 0.8% to $3.872 a million British thermal units as speculators cashed out of their positions after prices hit an intraday high of $3.926 the previous day. To maximize their gains, speculators will often resort to buying back contracts when the market rises -- forcing it as high as possible -- and producing a short-covering rally.

Once the market achieves key resistance levels of between around $3.80 to $3.90, speculators will take profits and reinstitute short positions to try to take prices down as low as possible on heavy momentum -- as exemplified by Wednesday's move. All part of the strategy to make money off of a commodity that has really flat-lined since the markets became inundated in shale supply over the last three years and much of the speculative "froth" was driven out by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Dodd Frank rules. "If you have a commodity that is just flat-lining and not doing anything ... your risk reward potential is very ambiguous," says WeatherBELL Analytics' energy analyst Alan Lammey.

Over the last few weeks, natural gas prices have plummeted to 10-month lows -- but they've not yet hit rock bottom given the support they're been receiving from the big switch among electricity generators to natural gas from coal, as well as an extra hurricane risk premium. "We typically see natural gas prices hit almost their lowest points of the year during the fall," given that it is that mildest season of the year, says Lammey. "So from that perspective, you typically will see these providers trying to lock in what they are paying to run their facilities. This is good time to hedge the fuel costs."

"When you have cheaper fuel that is knocking down emissions, they will start doing this switching," leading to some bullishness for natural gas. Natural gas has also been more attractive for electric generators across the eastern and northwestern U.S. -- where most of them are concentrated -- given that it's a clean-burning fuel. The potential for more hurricanes late in the tropical storm season is also lending support, providing natural gas with a risk premium that won't go away until the threat completely disappears. "There are still a few bullets left," says Lammey.

MORE
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top