"Clean Coal" Confrontation

[dgriffin]

Have you seen those ads touting "clean coal," and their counterparts claiming, "clean coal is a dirty lie"? Well, time to study up on the issue. Here's a decent primer from FactCheck.org, who is usually even handed on the issues.





"Clean Coal" Confrontation

January 22, 2009

Oxymoron or goal within reach? Industry and environmentalists get down and sooty.


Summary


On the campaign trail, President Obama embraced the coal industry's vision of "clean coal" technology. But even before he took office, a coalition of environmental groups (including Al Gore's) launched ads ridiculing the idea as a myth: "In reality, there's no such thing as clean coal."

We're sure to hear more of this debate in coming months. Burning coal creates large quantities of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent of the "greenhouse gases" that scientists say is heating up the planet and Obama has said he wants to reduce.

Is "clean coal" possible? Our answer: Probably, though it would come with a big price tag.

In our Analysis section, we try to shed a little light on the subject.

GoTo:

www.factcheck.org/politics/clean_coal_confrontation.html


A major issue is CO2 as a pollutant. Scrubbing it will be expensive, but sequestration of the gas underground also has it problems. Not an industrial accident, but "On Aug. 21, 1986 in Cameroon, 1,746 villagers were suffocated in their sleep when a huge cloud of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide that had been at the bottom of Lake Nyos erupted and blanketed the countryside."

Scary thought.

[Ralph]

And smoking "ultra-light" cigarettes won't kill you.........as quick.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

[frankcor]

Clean coal technology involves capturing the CO₂ released by the combustion of coal and sending it thousands of feet into the earth, trapping it and keeping it from entering the atmosphere.

While I do not understand how much of the technology is currently available and how much is yet to be developed, it's clear to me that the environmentalist lobby's claim that clean coal technology doesn't exist is false.

I once worked in the solar energy field. I understand the capabilities of solar and wind energy. They ain't gonna feed the bulldog.

[dgriffin]

Apr 22, 2009 6:15:58 GMT -5 frankcor said:

Clean coal technology involves capturing the CO₂ released by the combustion of coal and sending it thousands of feet into the earth, trapping it and keeping it from entering the atmosphere.

While I do not understand how much of the technology is currently available and how much is yet to be developed, it's clear to me that the environmentalist lobby's claim that clean coal technology doesn't exist is false.

I once worked in the solar energy field. I understand the capabilities of solar and wind energy. They ain't gonna feed the bulldog.

[/b][/quote]

That's the lie of some alternative energy sources, as I understand it. I can't remember the figure, but the number of windmills or square inches of solar electric panels ... even the amorphous crystal kind ... necessary match today's energy needs is a laughably huge number, inspiring thoughts of a windmill on every house. (Well, why not, come to think of it? There was a time when each house was topped by a TV antenna.)

At the very least, coal probably needs to be developed as a Price Deterrent (you know, like a Nuclear Deterrent.) The price of oil, after all, is today based almost solely on the market. That was shown last year when the price of a gallon of oil or gasoline swung up and down wildly without any Arab oil businessmen I'm aware of going bankrupt and shutting down his pumps. Most of the market pressure came from anticipation, rather than lost oil sales. So, when we have a cheap(er) source of energy such as coal "scrubbed" and ready to compete with oil, Mideast producers will bring their prices down to match it.

[Clipper]

The idea of a windmill on every home is not so far fetched. There is a home near Steuben Corners that has it's own windmill. I am not familiar with the efficiency of the program, but I do understand that this family has a bank of batteries to store the power, and when the power generated is more than their utilization rate, the excess is sold back to National Grid. The windmill is not all that unattractive. We should remember when every farmhouse had a windmill in the dooryard to pump water from the well.

There comes a point in time when aesthetics have to be weighed against survival, and the green teams may have to sacrifice a few "horizons" to windmills, in order to prevent some of the perceived horrors of the global warming problems caused by the use of fossil fuels.

Place a small windmill next to the microphone when Gore speaks, and he can "light the auditorium" with his windpower. Just think. Washington DC could power the world if we were able to harness all the hot air and wind generated inside the halls of our government office buildings. If not the wind power, the methane produced from the BS emanating from the halls of congress alone could heat New York City.

Clean coal IS the future of energy in the USA. I am confident that the science is there to make it feasible and efficient. It is people like Bush and the oil barons that have stifled such research and development for so long. I would think there would be a way to liquify finely ground coal dust and produce a suitable substitute for liquid petroleum.

I frequently stop to wonder if we are not pursuing a futile effort to eliminate greenhouse gases and to save the earth. Gee, maybe GOD has a different plan in mind, and no matter what the next few generations do, the earth will eventually evolve or succumb to global warming.

As long as there are countries like China on this earth that are not doing their part to cut down the pollution, we are wasting our time trying to bring the USA into compliance with an environmental program that will have any significant impact on the future of the planet.

[frankcor]

The best hope the planet has is somehow convincing China to skip the coal power-generation stage and go directly to nuclear power. China today is where the United States was in 1940, looking at a imminent, steep increase in industrial output. If they power that surge with coal, we could all be in trouble.

[dgriffin]

It seems we can do anything, even gasify coal. But it all comes with a price. The real culprit is overpopulation, I think. As more and more people come to "civilization," there won't be enough resources to support everyone at a high standard of living. If I live long enough ... and I hope not to ... life on earth will no longer contain all the perqs we Americans have been used to for so long. Unless you're a congressman.

[gearofzanzibar]

Apr 22, 2009 22:11:46 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

It seems we can do anything, even gasify coal. But it all comes with a price. The real culprit is overpopulation, I think. As more and more people come to "civilization," there won't be enough resources to support everyone at a high standard of living. If I live long enough ... and I hope not to ... life on earth will no longer contain all the perqs we Americans have been used to for so long. Unless you're a congressman.

Are you familiar with Paul Ehrlich's classic "The Population Bomb"? The 1968 book that prophesied a future filled with scarcity, starvation, and war because of the Earth's soaring population? A future that, despite being due in the mid-70's, somehow keeps moving to "in another decade".

And any discussion of overpopulation wouldn't be complete without this comedy classic. From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

"Critics have compared Ehrlich to Thomas Malthus for his multiple predictions of famine and economic catastrophe. The leading critic of Ehrlich was Julian Lincoln Simon, a libertarian theorist and the author of the book The Ultimate Resource, a book which argues a larger population is a benefit, not a cost. To test their two contrasting views on resources, in 1980, Ehrlich and Simon entered into a wager over how the price of metals would move during the 1980s. Ehrlich predicted that the price would increase as metals became more scarce in the Earth's crust, while Simon insisted the price of metals had fallen throughout human history and would continue to do so. Ehrlich lost the bet. Indeed such was the decline in the price of the five metals Ehrlich selected, Simon would have won even without taking inflation into account."

Investing billions in current biofuel, solar, and wind technology is like buying state-of-the-art piston engines for aircraft after the jet engine had been discovered. It's obsolete technology.

Spend those billions of dollars on drop-in, modular nuclear reactors and we could have pollution free energy coming out of our ears. 'Cause there's no such thing as nuclear waste- there's only raw fuel in need of a little enrichment.

[Clipper]

I agree with you Gear in the theory that nuclear power would be the ideal answer to the problems we face, but the paranoia and fear of nuclear accident is a hurdle that will be hard to get over.

Maybe a focus on safety measures and containment methods to prevent escape of radiation or massive explosions will make it a more comfortable alternative in the near future.

When nuclear power was at it's peak in popularity, it all came crashing down when the incident at 3 Mile Island scared hell out of the average American. Much of the paranoia is in the average Americans ignorance of the subject, but there IS a danger in nuclear power generation, and that danger must be addressed and workable remedies found before Americans will be comfortable with having nuke plants dotting the landscapes.

I know that when I was first working at the base, I was really overcome with a strange feeling of discomfort when I was assigned to stand by for an engine run on an alert bomber, knowing that there were nuclear warheads only about 50 yards away, or when we answered alarm malfunctions in the weapons storage area bunkers. I was always tempted to go in the bathroom, shut off the lights and see if my ass glowed in the dark after being in close proximity to the nuclear material, haha.

[gearofzanzibar]

About the only danger with modular, sealed, closed-cycle reactor designs is that they'll hit a water line digging the hole for it's installation.

The only reason people have a phobia about nuclear is because of the rampant scare-mongering of the "environmental" movement. Coal plants release far more radiation and nuclear waste into the environment than than any nuclear facility ever has.

[dgriffin]

Apr 23, 2009 2:31:47 GMT -5 gearofzanzibar said:

About the only danger with modular, sealed, closed-cycle reactor designs is that they'll hit a water line digging the hole for it's installation.

The only reason people have a phobia about nuclear is because of the rampant scare-mongering of the "environmental" movement. Coal plants release far more radiation and nuclear waste into the environment than than any nuclear facility ever has.

Coal plant nuclear waste? Whatever ... but I assume you mean under optimum operating conditions, and not when an accident is in progress. Perhaps the comparison between coal and nuke is more legitimately made when each is at its theoretically most dangerous point. I can't imagine a coal plant causing as much damage, injury, death and thousands of square miles quarantined as a Chernobyl.

I know the following is lurid, but I think it's something we should keep in mind.


I think nuclear is inevitable, and I believe it can indeed be safe.
I only hope the plants aren't built by the lowest bidder.

Paul Ehrlich .... Population Bomb ... boy does that reference bring back memories! I think you hit the nail on the head, Gear, with this: Investing billions in current biofuel, solar, and wind technology is like buying state-of-the-art piston engines for aircraft after the jet engine had been discovered. It's obsolete technology." But it won't be "too cheap to meter." Not until God wipes out the profit motive with an 11th commandment.

[gearofzanzibar]

Apr 23, 2009 17:03:32 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Coal plant nuclear waste? Whatever ... but I assume you mean under optimum operating conditions, and not when an accident is in progress. Perhaps the comparison between coal and nuke is more legitimately made when each is at its theoretically most dangerous point. I can't imagine a coal plant causing as much damage, injury, death and thousands of square miles quarantined as a Chernobyl.

I know the claim that coal is far more dangerous than nuclear in terms of radiation is counter-intuitive, but it's true.

Google around, in particular for the 1998 EPA Hazardous Emissions report, and you'll find that coal plants have, indeed, spewed far more radioactive waste, both in terms of total ionizing radiation dosages and actual volume, than nuclear plants. All coal contains trace amounts of uranium, thorium, and their decay products. The total amount of radioactive material ejected into the environment by coal-fired power plants is measured in the megatons.

Ah, I just found the report- www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t3/reports/eurtc1.pdf

The only way we can stop this devastating release of dangerous ionizing radiation is to start building safe, clean, third and fourth gen nuclear power plants as soon as possible.

[dgriffin]

Gear, I'm not disagreeing with you over the emissions record, and I realize coal smoke as well as 2nd hand smoke from Marlboro cigarettes contains radioactive substances (though the term "nuclear waste" is misleading.) I'm concerned about potentials. You can't compare an atomic bomb to a dishwasher and say as long as the right buttons are pushed they're equally safe, although it's true in a quite narrow sense.

My point is that Nuclear Power MUST be done right this time. The first country to blow up a plant by mistake and kill thousands, maybe millions, will lose its economy and, if it's a democracy, cease to be one. People will start looking around for a Hitler. And there's one on every corner. (Not Clipper's Busy Corner, of course. )

[gearofzanzibar]

Apr 23, 2009 20:00:23 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

My point is that Nuclear Power MUST be done right this time. The first country to blow up a plant by mistake and kill thousands, maybe millions, will lose its economy and, if it's a democracy, cease to be one. People will start looking around for a Hitler. And there's one on every corner. (Not Clipper's Busy Corner, of course. )

I don't think we're really all that different in our viewpoints. I just think we need to accept that we've horribly neglected nuclear technology based on hysterical fears. The video you posted is a good case in point- note the disclaimer included in it's description. Just from a casual viewing I can see at least one of the "Chernobyl victims" is suffering from elephantiasis, a disease caused by parasites that has nothing to do with radiation. That's exactly the kind of fearmongering that's produced an unreasonable fear of anything even remotely "nuclear".

And, yes, a nuclear reactor is no more inherently dangerous than a dishwasher. There's been a roughly dishwasher size reactor in use on the campus of Harvard for over 50 years that, amazingly, has only injured one person. Unfortunately, that one person did receive serious burns- because he spilled the teapot he was heating right on top of the reactor core on himself.

Of course I'm being snarky, but the truth remains that we have the technology now, proven by years of actual reactor operation, to produce small scale, semi-portable, sealed cycle reactors that could solve all our energy problems. In the future they might be even more innocuous, since there are some experimental results showing that carbon nanotubes are capable of turning alpha and beta particles directly into electrical power. That would be the holy grail of true "atomic batteries"- sealed reactors with absolutely no moving parts.

[dgriffin]

Yup, agreed. Good catch on the elephantiasis.

If I were superstitious, I'd have my fingers crossed.

And you've given me a great story idea ... a nuclear reactor in the kitchen. I'll call it, "Hotter Than Blazes; Thelma Gets a New Appliance."