So, have you seen those "clean coal"" ads on MSNBC yet?

[eppur_se_muova]

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/one-year-later-tva-toxic-coal-ash-spill-tennessee.php#

[madrchsod]

1. the democratic debates were sponsored by big coal

[baldguy]

2. "Clean coal" is stil very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,

very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very dirty.

[FBaggins]

3. Trying to create a niche?

"Suddenly afraid of nuclear? Try coal!"


Ignoring that more people die in coal mine explosions/fires/collapses every year than are likely to die from Fukushima.

And that's entirely ignoring the impact of burning coal itself (on the environment and on human health).

[Ian David]

4. I believe in clean coal, because my shit doesn't stink. n/t

[OHdem10]

5. Being the Devil's Advocate here...If we stop Nuclear Power

and we stop Coal Power, how are we to cook, keep our
homes lighted,warm in winter and cool in summer, take
warm showers, and Oh yes, are we willing to get rid
of the internet. Experts have shown the New Energy
sources will not be enough to supply needed energy
for our country.

Just a thought might our mental and physical energy
be better spent HOLDING the Powers that be accountable
for making all sources SAFE.

For example right now the problem in Japan while horrible
had a very simple cause. The Earthquake knocked out the
general source of power to Reactor. The Tsunami knocked
out the back up generators. If they could get electricity
to the generator or reactor the problem would be solved.

Right now Activists could be demanding that experts go
to each of our Reactors doing a through assessment. Then
imagine every crazy situation that could arise that would
knock out the back up generator and start immediately doing
what it takes to make the backup generator as fool proof
as humanly possible. Demand that these generators be tested
so many times per year to ascertain they are in good working
order at all times.

My point is no matter how I feel about any of this, we are
not going to stop running the country therefore, Our Nuclear
Reactors will continue to run, the Coal will be mined and
Oil will be drilled. Being an absolutist gets me no where.
Saying No Fossil Fuel, Saying No Nuclear may make some of
us feel better. Consider for a moment, that you might
have a great impact by studying the best ways to provide
safety.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. I'm afraid “Clean(er) Coal” may be a necessary evil for a time

Existing coal plants can be retrofitted faster than they can be replaced.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/Retrofitting_Existing_Plants.html

Retrofitting the Existing Coal Fleet with Carbon Capture Technology

Before carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants can be permanently stored, it must be captured as a relatively pure gas. There are three technology routes to capturing CO2: pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxyfuel combustion. The Office of Fossil Energy's Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP) program is focused on post-combustion and oxyfuel combustion technologies that can be retrofitted to today's coal plants. Both technologies are feasible, safe and have the potential to be cost-effective. The challenge lies in developing the processes so that they can be deployed economically on a large scale.

While carbon capture is relatively new to power generation, it is not an uncommon industrial practice. CO2 is routinely separated and captured as a useful by-product from industrial processes such as synthetic ammonia production, hydrogen production, and limestone calcination.

Existing CO2 capture technologies are not cost-effective when considered in the context of large power plants. Economic studies indicate that carbon capture will add over 30 percent to the cost of electricity for new integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units and over 80 percent to the cost of electricity if retrofitted to existing pulverized coal (PC) units. A recent study from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) confirms that additional alternatives need to be pursued to bring the cost of carbon capture down. In addition, the net electricity produced from existing plants would be significantly reduced - often referred to as parasitic loss - since 20 to 30 percent of the power generated by the plant would have to be used to capture and compress the CO2.

…

[wtmusic]

7. I've seen no one address the problem of compliance

It's much easier to tell everyone you're capturing it, then let it escape. Without a trace. :shrug:

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Flue gas monitoring is the way to go

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/emissions/continuous-factsheet.html

[wtmusic]

9. What's to stop someone from redirecting it from the flue? nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. You’re joking. Right?

I mean, seriously, what’s to stop someone from dumping waste from a nuclear plant in a river somewhere?

[wtmusic]

14. Not at all, but nice straw man.

Nuclear waste would be detectable in a heartbeat. CO2, impossible to detect. But you knew that.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. CO2 is impossible to detect!?

How do flue gas monitors work then?
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/emissions/continuous-factsheet.html#what


However, let's assume for a moment that CO₂ is impossible to detect.

OK, I run a big ol’ dirty coal plant.
I generate X megawatt hours of electricity, burning Y tons of coal in the process.

Now, you’re mister regulator.
You’ve got a flue gas monitor. You know the CO₂ didn’t go up the flue. (But we’re assuming it's broken or something.)
You ask me. “Where’d the carbon go?”
I reply, “I captured it all and sent it to the sequestration facility.”
You say, “Let me see your books…”

Is the math really that hard?

[wtmusic]

18. Would they be sending it by FedEx or UPS?

First of all, we're skipping the flue, remember? Now...

As it turns out, it's very convenient for the "sequestration facility" (whatever that is) to say they received X tons of calcium carbonate and it's in the big pile over there.

Or they pumped the compressed CO2 deep into an abandoned salt mine.

You say, "But I could measure the *size* of the big pile!", or "I can see from their pressure gauge that *no* CO2 has been pumped into the mine!"

But of course, all of these checks are ridiculously easy to subvert. Even more in other countries with governments even more corrupt than ours.

It's a non-starter.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. OK, so I control the sequestration facility too?

Why doesn’t the EPA or someone? (Otherwise, I might cheat.) Or shouldn't they at least be monitoring my sequestration facility?

Seriously, the math is pretty simple. If I burn X tons of coal, for all intents and purposes, that’s X tons of carbon that have to show up on the books somewhere.


Does the nuclear power industry work entirely without monitoring? (Do you trust them?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6332669.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/09/italy.nuclearpower

Why not monitor the coal industry at a similar level.

It’s only a non-starter because you don’t want it to start.

[wtmusic]

23. How do you plan to get the CO2 to a sequestration facility?

What do you do if a plant can't show enough CO2 to justify their coal combustion?

Do different types of coal result in different amounts of CO2 production?

You're depending on a very flimsy front-end approach with no verification on the back-end - no way to verify whether or not CO2 was released into the atmosphere. Not to mention, no CCS technology which is economically practical has been demonstrated on a large scale. Like most of solar and wind, it's a pipe dream.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. I plan to pipe it there

http://www.google.com/search?q=carbon+sequestration+pipeline+site:energy.gov

[abqmufc]

10. Carbon Capture needs extreme event analysis as well......

In addition to all the issues you and I can discuss on coal technology and use (for me see Black Mesa coal mine operated by Peabody Coal) we need to ensure CCS programs that are underway have in their EIS and Risk Analysis scenarios like we see in Japan.

The questions that need to answer if not IF a sequestration can be breached. The question is what happens WHEN this occurs.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. It will spew nuclear waste into the environment

Oh! you were talking about Carbon Sequestration!

Are you imagining that “Carbon Sequestration” must perforce mean that the captured CO₂ will be stored in a large pressure vessel?
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/geologic/index.html
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/CO2_Use_and_Reuse.html

I'm not a fan of “clean(er) coal,” however, I believe it may be a necessary evil as a bridge technology.

[abqmufc]

15. Yes

I am referring to the plan to dump all toxins (it is not just co2 according to all action plans I've seen but includes mercury and other toxins not taken out via current technology at the source) form Michigan power plants into the ground under farmland in Iowa and Illinois. The plan also includes the shipping of toxins from the Coal fired power plants in the four corners through metal pipes all the way to Texas and/or S. Colorado (Southern Ute tribal lands) to store the CO2 and toxins. The furthest West power plant that in this plan would be on the AZ/CA border, over a thousand miles away from the source.

These methods of "clean energy" are deemed to be fool proof. However, I've always been a skeptic. A major event could release the entire load of sequestrated pollution back up into the environment. That could lead to a massive load of toxins all being released into the atmosphere and watersheds.

Modeling's 'worst case scenario' is often driven by economic concerns as a Cost Benefit Analysis is used rather than the precautionary principle.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. That would be the "Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership" I believe

http://fossil.energy.gov/sequestration/partnerships/2003sel_midwest.html

So far as I can tell, they plan to sequester CO₂.
http://216.109.210.162/userdata/Press/No_51_East_Bend_Injection_press_release.pdf

[abqmufc]

21. Yes that is one such group..

For five years I sat on EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee bringing Tribal concerns to the Agency's senior advisory board on CAA policy. I'v seen the maps and the plan is ready to be rolled out nationally. It is a massive farce in my opinion. Ironically (not really) is that University of Illinois has most of the R&D dollars. You see, CCS allows IL coal to be mined again and the President has to help out his home state (and my birth state). That has been a major issue since I worked for Illinois EPA back in the early 90s, how can IL mine its high sulfur coal and use it for energy. Some Tribes with energy development projects are also looking at becoming storage locations for CCS as a source of economic revenue.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. I hear you

However, I'm resigned. We’re not going to stop burning coal in the near future (whether it’s “Clean™” or not.) If that’s the case, I’d rather it be “Clean™.”

[Kennah]

13. Is this that Coal Executive Castration program? I'm all in favor of it.

[wtmusic]

16. CEC technology is ready today

[hunter]

24. Forget clean coal, the natural gas industry is ejaculating.

:puke: