100% clean coal... VERY real possibility

[bik0]

From a Thomas Friedman editorial today in the NY Times...

Vinod Khosla, the co-founder of Sun, set out several years ago to fund energy start-ups. His favorite baby right now is a company called Calera, which was begun with the Stanford Professor Brent Constantz, who was studying how corals use CO2 to produce their calcium carbonate bones.

If you combine CO2 with seawater, or any kind of briny water, you produce CaCO3, calcium carbonate. That is not only the stuff of corals. It is also the same white, pasty goop that appears on your shower head from hard (calcium-rich) water. At its demonstration plant near Santa Cruz, Calif., Calera has developed a process that takes CO2 emissions from a coal- or gas-fired power plant and sprays seawater into it and naturally converts most of the CO2 into calcium carbonate, which is then spray-dried into cement or shaped into little pellets that can be used as concrete aggregates for building walls or highways — instead of letting the CO2 emissions go into the atmosphere and produce climate change.

If this can scale, it would eliminate the need for expensive carbon-sequestration facilities planned to be built alongside coal-fired power plants — and it might actually make the heretofore specious notion of “clean coal” a possibility.

In announcing in December an alliance to build more Calera plants, Ian Copeland, president of Bechtel Renewables and New Technology — a tough-minded engineering company — said: “The fundamental chemistry and physics of the Calera process are based on sound scientific principles and its core technology and equipment can be integrated with base power plants very effectively.”

A source says the huge Peabody coal company will announce an investment in Calera next week. “If this works,” said Khosla, “coal-fired power would become more than 100 percent clean. Not only would it not emit any CO2, but by producing clean water and cement as a byproduct it would also be taking all of the CO2 that goes into making those products out of the atmosphere.”

John Doerr, the legendary venture capitalist who financed Sun, once said of Khosla: “The best way to get Vinod to do something is to tell him it is impossible.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07friedman.html

[joeybee12]

1. Tell that to a destroyed mountain...n/t

[bread_and_roses]

8. exactly (n/t)

[Richard D]

10. +1

[TheMadMonk]

13. Agree 100% that mountain top removal is not a good way to obtain coal.

However, the mountains of West Virginia are not the only places coal can be found.

And if we accept that mankind will inevitably cause significant change in his environment, we might, rather than impossibly demand thar every thing be put back exactly the way it was (with the inevitable half arsed results we get), instead choose a synergestic approach whereby: decommisioned open pits are lined with clays and used to capture and store fresh water; overburden is piled high in places where it can advantageously catch moisture laden winds and encourage precipitation on farmlands, or be used to backfill drift mines; CaCO3 from the sequestration process described in the OP is compressed into artificial limestone blocks (a process the Egyptians perfected millenia ago) for buliding materials.

[abqmufc]

35. No is Tribal lands who don't consent or public lands which are under BLM control

One need to look no farther than the history around Black Mesa, Navajo Nation, the Hopi Partition Land (HPL), and Peabody Coal to see what clean coal looks like when it is mined on Tribal lands. Often the tribal majority is left out of the loop by the few elected officials who will see economic benefit from allowing the continued raping of land for coal (uranium and natural gas).

http://blackmesais.org/
http://www.aics.org/BM/bm.html
http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2010/01/hopi-and-navajo-stop-peabody-coal-mine.html


One must also realize that many of the "protected" areas out in the West, are not as protected as you think. There is a LOT of coal in the Kaiparowits Plateau, part of the Grand Staircase National Monument (UT)
http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/gsekcoal.htm


The monument was created for "protecting" the scenic beauty for future generations under President Clinton and Sec DOI Babbitt, 1996. However once the Monument was created it was not transferred to NPS. It is still to this day a National Monument under BLM's authority. This was a first of its kind, but now it is not the only Monument run by BLM. Most are in the Colorado Plateau's rich coal and uranium seams.

This is a major concern when one looks at the mission of the National Park Service and that of the Bureau of Land (mis)Management. BLM's purpose is most beneficial use. For the past decade or two this has meant 'eco tourism' in the Southwest and on the Colorado Plateau, an area rich with coal, uranium, and natural gas. However, BLM's most beneficial use is changing to energy development. Grand Staircase has the richest untapped coal seam in the USA outside of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Lands (the HPL). Personally the Monument was only set up to secure the coal reserve that is why BLM kept control, if the NPS took authority of the Park no mining would be allowed in the boundaries of the Park/Monument.

So I am done arguing about "clean coal"....I don't buy into it I've seen the technology for years now and it does not taken into account of how to deal with any of the waste (that now lies in a pool of sludge or underground rather than in the air) nor the mining...but I respect those that do.

But before you are sold on "clean coal" please answer me who will address the environmental justice issues, the violation of Federal Indian Law, Executive Orders, and environmental laws which have plagued mining on the Colorado Plateau in the past and are sure to become an issue again?

Who will ensure that our "protect lands" (National Parks and Monuments) are not impacted from extensive coal and uranium mining for our new "clean" burning fuels? One such uranium mine is less than a few miles form the South Rim entrance to the Grand Canyon Park.
http://www.indigenousaction.org/uranium-mining-begins-near-grand-canyon/comment-page-1/#comment-3683

Who will ensure that sovereign Tribal lands are not taken over in the interest of securing our Nation's energy supply?

These are all factors that must be included to the equation of "clean coal" and "nuclear is clean burning".

[HeresyLives]

2. Hoo, boy, here we go again. LOL

[Oregone]

3. Why clean coal? Buy my perpetual motion to energy device instead

And Ill throw in some prime ocean front Nebraska property too

[valerief]

4. Would you die for coal, Mr. Miner? nt

[annabanana]

5. "And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Tx6vrUcBlg

[xchrom]

6. Only a part of the problem lies in burning coal. Nt

[RC]

7. How suitable is this sea water to be returned to the sea?

[bik0]

9. Calera FAQ

Will the Calera process only work with seawater?

A. This is a common misconception due to the fact that Calera’s initial process was demonstrated at a site in California where seawater was used as one of the potential sources of alkalinity and divalent cations. The Calera process is well suited to locations that do not have access to seawater. In fact, it is easier to use waters such as geologic brines due to the significantly higher concentration of calcium than in seawater. The testing at laboratory, pilot scale and demonstration scale has proven the robustness and flexibility of the CMAP process to effectively use a variety of hard water and alkalinity sources.


What is the intended use of the water product?

A. It is possible to produce fresh water from the Calera process in a similar way to desalination. Since the hardness is removed from the water by the CMAP process, the remaining soft water stream is ideal as the feed for a process that requires lower energy than a typical seawater desalination process. In certain areas of the world where there is a water shortage or drought conditions (e.g. Australia), the production of fresh water for sale will be an added benefit. A pilot scale test unit is already in operation at Moss Landing Cement Company to develop and scale up this technology.


http://www.calera.com/about/glossary

[LaserSpot]

34. What goes in and what comes out?

I don't know if the chemistry is legit, or just a green-washing scam.

Any chemists here? See:
http://cleantech.com/news/4327/you-say-caldera-i-say-caldiera
http://groups.google.com/group/climateintervention/browse_thread/thread/7b5ff4ee64ce759d
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2009/03/climate_change_2.html

[Statistical]

11. You may someday be able to have CO2 free coal but you won't have clean coal.

Clean Coal = oxymoron.

Ever.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. (See below)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234686&mesg_id=234747

[drm604]

12. 100% clean?

That assumes (wrongly) that CO2 is the only problem from coal. If coal is going to be burned then the CO2 should be removed and this may be a good way to do that, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we are then eliminating any environmental consequences of coal. We need to move away from fossil fuels.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. No, it appears you (and others) are the one(s) making mistaken assumptions...

http://www.calera.com/about/glossary

...

Q. Can the Calera process handle the other pollutants in a typical coal flue gas such as mercury?

A. At the pilot plant at Moss Landing, we have evaluated the flu gas emissions from several different coal types from a coal-fired boiler simulator and can confirm that most of the other pollutants (e.g. SO_x and mercury) present in the flue gas are removed at very high efficiencies.

...

Q. How robust is the Calera process?

A. The Calera process is applicable to any stationary point source of carbon dioxide and provides a solution other pollutants as well.

...

[drm604]

19. Does it address the damage done by mining the coal?

Does it address the disposal of coal ash?

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Clearly, it cannot (for example) put the tops back onto mountains

But, that's not what you asked.

It would seem that it captures much of what is objectionable.
http://www.calera.com/what-we-do/technology-attributes-of-technology/

Attributes of Technology

CMAP

The heart of the Calera process is the technology associated with carbon capture and conversion to stable solid minerals. We refer to this new process as Carbon Mineralization via Aqueous Precipitation or CMAP for short. In its simplest form CMAP involves contacting gas from the power plant with water (aqueous) containing hardness and a base buffer (alkalinity). When the water chemistry is properly selected the carbon dioxide in the power plant gas is absorbed into the water and reacts with the water hardness to form solid mineral carbonates, which are very similar to fine limestone particles. These solid mineral carbonates now contain carbon dioxide that would have been emitted into the air. After removal from the water and appropriate processing the solids have value in a number of construction applications. The versatility of CMAP also allows the generation bicarbonates using half the amount of input materials but still mineralize carbon dioxide that can be pumped into any underground saline zone for storage without the possibility of leakage of carbon dioxide.

CMAP Inputs – Carbon dioxide

The CMAP process needs a few key inputs in order to work. First is a source of carbon dioxide. In our pilot scale studies have found that the carbon dioxide capture process is not sensitive to the other constituents in the stack gases. We have very similar capture performance at pilot scale for either gas or coal fired combustion gases. This finding is in stark contrast to other carbon technologies such as amine and chilled ammonia scrubbers that are negatively impacted by sulfur and other acid gases forcing the need for cleaning of the gases before carbon separation. Our studies have shown that we can capture carbon dioxide from a wide range of stacks including coal-fired boilers, gas turbines and other industrial processes without the need for pre-cleaning the gases. In fact, the same conditions that we use in the CMAP process for carbon dioxide control also allow control of other http://www.calera.com/what-we-do/technology-multi-pollutant-control/">air pollutants

...

http://www.calera.com/what-we-do/technology-multi-pollutant-control/

Multi-Pollutant Control

The Calera process has been proven to be very robust and insensitive to flue gas composition.

Unlike other technologies, CMAP actually removes sulfur dioxide compounds and other air pollutants using the same basic absorption and conversion techniques used for CO₂.

Based upon pilot scale data the Calera plant is able to readily achieve SO₂. capture efficiencies in the range of 95-98%. The CMAP process also can capture other components with aqueous solubility including mercury, trace metals, NO₂., ammonia, HF and HCl.

I'm no expert. I'm just someone who took the time to do a little reading.

Based on that, I expect the "coal ash" would likely be captured and become part of their concrete.

[drm604]

25. How is it not what I asked?

I mentioned other environmental consequences. I mentioned the effects of mining. I didn't specifically mention mountain top removal but, to me at least, that seems to fall under what I said.

I don't take a mindless knee-jerk position against things like this. If we can totally clean up the flue gases (and maybe we can), that would be great. If we can deal responsibly with the resulting ash (ideally by recycling useful components and SAFELY AND PERMANENTLY sequestering the rest) that would also be great.

If would can get it out of the ground safely and in an environmentally responsible manner, that would also be great.

Can we do all of those things? Who knows? If we REALLY can (and not just claim we can via corporate PR) then I'd probably be a big supporter. But for now I'm skeptical.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. What you said was...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234686&mesg_id=234699

That assumes (wrongly) that CO2 is the only problem from coal. ...

Clearly, that assumption was not made by Calera. There are other schemes that have dealt only with CO2 but that is not the case with this scheme.

[Statistical]

20. That doesn't nothing about the ultra toxic and radioactive fly ash.

The sheer volume of coal required to run a coal plant is staggering.

A 1000MW coal plant will require 3.5 million tons of coal every year.
Sometimes this is hard to visualize so
a) an average US home powered 100% by coal (just electricity not heating) would burn 19,680 pounds per year.
b) every 6 years we burn the equivelent of a cubic mile of coal. Imagine a block of coal 1 mile x 1 mile x 1mile.

That 3.5 million tons of coal becomes 9 million tons of CO2 (2.44 tons of carbon combines with oxygen in combustion).

So even if you remove the 2.44 million tons of carbon in the CO2 that leaves behind nearly 900,000 pounds of fly ash and particulate.

Nor does it do anything about the vast ecological damage necessary (mountain top removal) to keep coal prices low (and thus coal power competitive).

Coal can never be clean.
Emissions can be reduced. Amount of CO2 pumped into atmosphere can be reduced. However coal is death.

I would rather see coal eliminated and this technology used on substantially cleaner nat gas.

Capturing 90% of the CO2 from natural gas would make it comparable to nuclear, wind or solar in terms of CO2 emissions.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. (See above)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234686&mesg_id=234770

[Statistical]

23. Once again THAT DOES NOTHING ABOUT MILLIONS OF TONS OF FLY ASH!

There is nothing in the press release which indicate fly ash tonnage will go from millions of tons to 0.00000000 tons.

"Cleaning coal" is like putting a smiley face band-aid on cancer and saying it makes it all good.

If the company wants to reduce carbon output of natural gas I am interested. I am not a purist I understand fossil fuels will still be burned. If for nothing else they will be needed for peaking plants and to equalize rapid changes in supply and demand.

Making nautral gas (cleanest fossil fuel) even cleaner is a win. Making coal slightly less toxic is a loser. It will just continue the length of time coal is burned and kill millions more people in the process.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. It's not a press release

And, yes, it addresses fly ash as well

http://www.calera.com/what-we-do/inputs-waste-remediation/

Waste Remediation

We can remediate industrial by-products like fly ash, cement kiln dust, iron slag and bauxite residue by mixing them with CO₂ to form stable carbonates.

Honestly, do a little reading before claiming to know what it will (or won't) do.

[Statistical]

27. Yeah we already use fly ash in industrial material and it should be banned.

Many companies make bricks out of fly ash, they also use it for land leveling. It is used because it is FREE. It is worthless waste, coal companies will give it away for free. This lowers the cost of the material and increases profit margins.

It is a horrible practice. Just because you make something out of toxic waste doesn't mean it isn't toxic waste. Just because you trap arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, radium, selenium, thorium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc into a stable structure doesn't make it safe.

Would you build your house out of bricks made from fly ash? Should it just be poor people or people in the third world who get the opportunity to live inside solidified toxic waste?

Would you propose making building material out of spent reactor fuel? Both spent nuclear fuel and spent coal plant fuel are dangerous and toxic. The only difference is while nuclear is compact less than 20 tons per year coal waste is in the millions of tons for the same amount of power. It is also far more difficult to contain and would require a magnitude more space to store. Most of its killers don't have a half life so they will still be toxic in a billion years.

So either the solidified waste will be used as building material which is bad or it will need to be stored.
Storing 20 tons annually or storing couple million tons annually. Which is easier?


Coal is death. Pure and simple. There is no reason for burn coal for any reason except $$$. It is cheaper than nuclear, wind, solar, and natural gas. So it gets burned and people die.

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. Remediation is the first step

I won't complain in the slightest the day we shut down the last coal-fired plant. If it were tomorrow, that would not be too soon for me.

However, I realize that a first necessary step is to try to limit the damage being done by the plants which exist. (We won't replace half of our generating capacity overnight.)

This system can be retrofitted. It is a kludge, but it appears to be a better kludge than others.

[Statistical]

29. I just take offense to the term "100% clean".

The system as described is more like 70% efficient and even then the toxins don't go away they must be stored safely forever. Given the sheer amount of fuel used and waste created this is a nearly impossible task. You gain all the disadvantages of nuclear with none of the advantages and your waste disposal problem just grew by a magnitude. US nuclear plants will produce less waste in a millennium than coal plants do in a single year.

You can't rip out a cubic mile of material from the earth every 6 years, burn it, scoop up the ashes and ever think it can be clean.

I mean just visualize that for a second. A cubic mile! Imagine standing at the corner of a cubic mile of coal. Look to your left it goes for a mile into the distance (length), look to your right and it goes another mile (width), look up and it disappears into the coulds (height).

A cubic friggin mile! We as a country burn that every 6 years. The world burns one of those cubic miles every year.

Coal will never be clean. Coal will always kill. Coal will always wreak horrible destruction on the earth, water, and air. Nothing can change that. We can hope to make it less lethal but it is still lethal

Now should we look to minimize the damage? Sure. To call it "clean" is insulting though. It would be like someone killing a million people in a concentration, sparing the last 100,000 and then calling themselves a hero because they saved 100,000 lives.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. Yes, "100% Clean" is hyperbolic

Worse yet, in the Friedman piece, it's called "more than 100 percent clean."

On the other hand, I didn't notice it used on their site. The figures they use are clearly short of 100%.

[wtmusic]

14. "Clean coal" might be a stretch, but for oil/natural gas

this looks very promising (oil is a bigger source of electricity in some European countries than coal).

K&R :thumbsup:

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. (See above)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234686&mesg_id=234747

[wtmusic]

30. There are existing technologies which can efficiently remove SOx,

mercury and fly ash.

But coal waste is radioactive, toxic, and carcinogenic, and of course it has to be disposed of. And the volume for a family of four over 20 years, for example, is several orders of magnitude larger than a cigarette lighter.

[Statistical]

31. Yeah it truly is staggering

Coal contains about 8700 kWh of energy per ton.
Take 30% efficient coal plant.
6150 kwh t * 0.3 = 1845 kWh e

Average household uses 8000 kWh per year * 72 years = 576,000 kWh e.
576,000 / 1845 = 312 tons * 2000 pounds = 640,000 tons

"Luckily" only about 25% of coal ends up as fly ash or particulate in the atmosphere. The rest becomes global warming causing CO2.
640,000 pounds coal in * 0.25 = 160,000 pounds fly ash (and particulate) out.

2 pounds of spent nuclear fuel vs 160,000 pounds of toxic fly ash waste.

Which does anyone think is easier to safely store?

[Greyhound]

15. Sure, I believe this because Tom Friedman has such a great record...

for being completely wrong 100% of the time. If he predicted the sun will rise tomorrow, bet on Sol going nova. If he wrote a stop sign, he'd manage to completely miss the point.

The man's a walking anti-truth whose only discernible talent was in finding a huge trust fund to marry.

[NNadir]

26. This is another example of how Tommy, a dilettante trust fund kid, extraordinaire, is oblivious.

n/t

[kristopher]

36. Question on chemistry of process raised in Laserspot's post 34

This is Ken Caldiera's post from the google discussion group he started on the topic. I'd like to hear any comments by those with knowledge to evaluate the statements.

It is well known that the dissolution of carbonate minerals in the ocean
causes CO2 to be transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean through a
process characterized by the net reaction

(1) CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 --> Ca2+ + 2HCO3-

A number of authors have discussed ways to accelerate these reactions to
store carbon in the ocean, neutralize carbon acidity, or both (e.g. Rau,
Kheshgi. Harvey, etc). The idea of diminishing atmospheric CO2 content by
dissolving carbonate minerals is discussed in the IPCC Special Report on
Carbon Capture and Storage which has been reviewed by many people including
prominent marine chemists. Reaction (1) is a well established net reaction
involving dissolution of carbonate minerals in the ocean.

It is also well known that the formation of carbonate minerals from
seawater, such as in the formation of coral skeletons, drives a flux of CO2
from the ocean to the atmosphere, essentially driving reaction (1) in
reverse:

(2) Ca2+ + 2HCO3- --> CO2 + H2O + CaCO3

Furthermore, precipitating carbonates from seawater tends to lower ocean pH
and thus exacerbate the ocean acidification problem.

Against this background it is surprising to see the company Calera claiming
to sequester carbon dioxide by forming carbonate minerals where the cations
are taken from seawater -- trying to drive the above reaction in the
opposite direction to what would diminish atmospheric CO2.

Calera, in an exhibit at the California Academy of Sciences describing their
process (see attachment) claim that the CO2 coming into the carbonate will
be fossil fuel derived. One can only surmise that the net reaction,
considering both reactor vessel and oceanic parts of this reaction can be
characterized as follows

(3) CO2 + Ca2+ + 2HCO3- --> CaCO3 + H2O + 2CO2

That is, they would drive approximately two CO2 molecules into the
atmosphere for each molecule they sequester. The result is that they would
increase CO2 more than that which would have occurred by venting the power
plant directly to the atmosphere.

So, from the publicly available information it seems that Calera's process
goes in the wrong direction and will tend to increase and not decrease
atmospheric CO2 content.

Furthermore, when I raised these concerns to Calera, they would not respond
openly to my critique, asking me instead to sign a non disclosure agreement.

I think it is obvious to every marine geochemist that taking cations from
seawater and using them to precipitate carbonate minerals will end up
driving CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.

*I call upon the California Academy of Sciences to withdraw the Calera
exhibit until such time that Calera demonstrates (i) that its process does
not remove cations from the ocean in a way that will ultimately drive a CO2
flux from the ocean to the atmosphere that exceeds the amount of fossil fuel
stored in the carbonate mineral and (ii) that its process does not acidify
the ocean.

I believe that Calera should not represent itself as having an effective
carbon sequestration technique unless it responds publicly and clearly with
the chemical formulas representing their process, including quantitative
information on what they intend to remove from seawater and what they intend
to add to seawater.

I am not sure whether Calera is ignorant or intentionally misleading, or
whether they actually have a basis for their claims. If they do have a basis
for their claims they should state them now. If not, the California Academy
of Sciences should remove their exhibit from the museum.

*I believe Calera and the Academy of Sciences are now misinforming
schoolchildren, and that is not a good thing to do.

Regards,

Ken Caldeira

[Nihil]

38. Thanks for posting that.

> I believe that Calera should not represent itself as having an effective
> carbon sequestration technique unless it responds publicly and clearly with
> the chemical formulas representing their process, including quantitative
> information on what they intend to remove from seawater and what they intend
> to add to seawater.

Please keep us informed on updates.
:thumbsup:

[NobleCynic]

37. 1 kg of coal -> ~6 kg of CaCO3

That is an awful lot of CaCO3 to dispose of.

~5 billion tonnes of coal per year would mean ~30 billion tonnes of CaCO3.

The primary use, concrete, as an output of ~3 billion tonnes per year, of which a substantial part but not all, is CaCO3.

This leave ~27 billion tonnes of excess CaCO3. This could reduce CO2 production by coal and concrete, but by no means eliminate it altogether unless we find a way to dispose of 27 billion tonnes of waste CaCO3 every year. Not a comprehensive solution by any means.

Edited to add:
See post 34 (There is a high likelihood this is just a greenwash scam anyway, and has minimal effect on coal's carbon footprint.):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=234686&mesg_id=234964

[wtmusic]

39. In two years you could pave over the entire state of Nevada.

Not sure we need THAT much concrete :silly:

[Nihil]

40. Hmmm, but there again it *does* have a certain appeal ... (n/t)

:hide: