Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clean coal? CLEAN COAL???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:22 AM
Original message
Clean coal? CLEAN COAL???
Wtf is clean coal? Who threw that in the speech?

Somebody get a transcript of her speech and do some fact checking on all of that bullshit she was spreading about Venezuela and 1/5th of the world's oil being in Iran. It's utterly bizarre what they had her saying. Lie upon lie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. Obama used it in his...
Edited on Thu Sep-04-08 12:25 AM by liberalmuse
speech last Thursday. Yeah, I know, but Obama has so many good policies, and listens to his supporters that I think we might be able to change his mind. It sounds like the 'pubs had to rip off some of his enviromental policies (they took a whole line from his speech) because they have zilch of their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yep. I noticed that too. He wants votes.
But unlike them, he knows better. I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. He did not say clean coal.
Here's what he said:

As president, as president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America.

Invest in clean coal technology. There's no such thing as clean coal. There are clean technologies that could be developed to keep coal from being burned as a dirty fuel.

But to refer to coal as clean coal is nonsense and disingenuous... they're simply saying "we're going to burn coal no matter what anybody thinks."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Wow. Your quote uses the words "clean coal".
parse away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Why are you arguing? Do you actually believe "clean coal technology" means "clean coal?"
Think about it. In "clean coal technology" the object is "technology" and the other two words are describing it.

In "clean coal" the object is coal, which is never clean.

Clean technology. Clean coal technology. NOT clean coal.

I'm not parsing. I'm pointing out that the Rethugs want to keep using coal in power plants JUST like we're doing now. Which is ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. I agree.
However, I was absent the day they talked about parsing words in class. Clean Coal Technologies implies (to me) that BURNING coal (unless there is some OTHER way of utilizing its energy) could somehow be "clean".

Clean Coal Technology. Can you point me to any kind of link that describes that term in ways other than burning it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Here ya go-- read the whole thing
Clean Coal" Technologies
(February 2008)

Coal is a vital fuel in most parts of the world.
Burning coal without adding to global carbon dioxide levels is a major technological challenge which is being addressed.
The most promising "clean coal" technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen.
The greatest challenge is bringing the cost of this down sufficiently for "clean coal" to compete with nuclear power on the basis of near-zero emissions for base-load power.
Coal is an extremely important fuel and will remain so. Some 23% of primary energy needs are met by coal and 39% of electricity is generated from coal. About 70% of world steel production depends on coal feedstock. Coal is the world's most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source. The International Energy Agency expects a 43% increase in its use from 2000 to 2020.

However, burning coal produces about 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year which is released to the atmosphere, about 70% of this being from power generation. Other estimates put carbon dioxide emissions from power generation at one third of the world total of over 25 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions.

New "clean coal" technologies are addressing this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal can be utilised for future generations without contributing to global warming. Much of the challenge is in commercialising the technology so that coal use remains economically competitive despite the cost of achieving "zero emissions".

As many coal-fired power stations approach retirement, their replacement gives much scope for 'cleaner' electricity. Alongside nuclear power and harnessing renewable energy sources, one hope for this is via "clean coal" technologies, such as are now starting to receive substantial R&D funding.

Managing wastes from coal

Burning coal, such as for power generation, gives rise to a variety of wastes which must be controlled or at least accounted for. So-called "clean coal" technologies are a variety of evolving responses to late 20th century environmental concerns, including that of global warming due to carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. However, many of the elements have in fact been applied for many years, and they will be only briefly mentioned here:

Coal cleaning by 'washing' has been standard practice in developed countries for some time. It reduces emissions of ash and sulfur dioxide when the coal is burned.
Electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters can remove 99% of the fly ash from the flue gases - these technologies are in widespread use.
Flue gas desulfurisation reduces the output of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere by up to 97%, the task depending on the level of sulfur in the coal and the extent of the reduction. It is widely used where needed in developed countries.
Low-NOx burners allow coal-fired plants to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 40%. Coupled with re-burning techniques NOx can be reduced 70% and selective catalytic reduction can clean up 90% of NOx emissions.
Increased efficiency of plant - up to 45% thermal efficiency now (and 50% expected in future) means that newer plants create less emissions per kWh than older ones.
Advanced technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Pressurised Fluidised Bed Combustion (PFBC) will enable higher thermal efficiencies still - up to 50% in the future.
Ultra-clean coal from new processing technologies which reduce ash below 0.25% and sulfur to very low levels mean that pulverised coal might be fed directly into gas turbines with combined cycle and burned at high thermal efficiency.
Gasification, including underground gasification in situ, uses steam and oxygen to turn the coal into carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
Sequestration refers to disposal of liquid carbon dioxide, once captured, into deep geological strata.
Some of these impose operating costs without concomitant benefit to the operator, though external costs will almost certainly be increasingly factored in through carbon taxes or similar which will change the economics of burning coal.

However, waste products can be used productively. In 1999 the EU used half of its coal fly ash and bottom ash in building materials (where fly ash can replace cement), and 87% of the gypsum from flue gas desulfurisation.

Carbon dioxide from burning coal is the main focus of attention today, since it is implicated in global warming, and the Kyoto Protocol requires that emissions decline, notwithstanding increasing energy demand.

Capture & separation of CO2

A number of means exist to capture carbon dioxide from gas streams, but they have not yet been optimised for the scale required in coal-burning power plants. The focus has often been on obtaining pure CO2 for industrial purposes rather than reducing CO2 levels in power plant emissions.

Where there is carbon dioxide mixed with methane from natural gas wells, its separation is well proven. Several processes are used, including hot potassium carbonate which is energy-intensive and requires a large plant, a monoethanolamine process which yields high-purity carbon dioxide, amine scrubbing, and membrane processes.

Capture of carbon dioxide from flue gas streams following combustion in air is expensive as the carbon dioxide concentration is only about 14% at best. This treats carbon dioxide like any other pollutant and as flue gases are passed through an amine solution the CO2 is absorbed. It can later be released by heating the solution. This amine scrubbing process is also used for taking CO2 out of natural gas. There is an energy cost involved.

The Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant is a means of using coal and steam to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide (CO) which are then burned in a gas turbine with secondary steam turbine (ie combined cycle) to produce electricity.

If the IGCC gasifier is fed with oxygen rather than air, the flue gas contains highly-concentrated CO2 which can readily be captured by amine scrubbing - at about half the cost of capture from conventional plants. Ten oxygen-fired gasifiers are operational in the USA.

Development of this oxygen-fed IGCC process will add a shift reactor to oxidise the CO with water so that the gas stream is basically just hydrogen and carbon dioxide. These are separated before combustion and the hydrogen alone becomes the fuel for electricity generation (or other uses) while the concentrated pressurised carbon dioxide is readily disposed of.

Currently IGCC plants have a 45% thermal efficiency.

Capture of carbon dioxide from coal gasification is already achieved at low marginal cost in some plants. One (albeit where the high capital cost has been largely written off) is the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in North Dakota, where 6 million tonnes of lignite is gasified each year to produce clean synthetic natural gas.

Oxy-fuel technology has potential for retrofit to existing pulverised coal plants, which are the backbone of electricity generation in many countries.

Storage & sequestration of CO2

Captured carbon dioxide gas can be put to good use, even on a commercial basis, for enhanced oil recovery. This is well demonstrated in West Texas, and today over 3000 km of pipelines connect oilfields to a number of carbon dioxide sources in the region.

At the Great Plains Synfuels Plant, North Dakota, some 13,000 tonnes per day of carbon dioxide gas is captured and 5000 t of this is piped 320 km into Canada for enhanced oil recovery. This Weyburn oilfield sequesters about 85 cubic metres of carbon dioxide per barrel of oil produced, a total of 19 million tonnes over the project's 20 year life. The first phase of its operation has been judged a success.

Overall in USA, 32 million tonnes of CO2 is used annually for enhanced oil recovery, 10% of this from anthropogenic sources.

The world's first industrial-scale CO2 storage was at Norway's Sleipner gas field in the North Sea, where about one million tonnes per year of compressed liquid CO2 separated from methane is injected into a deep reservoir (saline aquifer) about a kilometre below the sea bed and remains safely in place. The US$ 80 million incremental cost of the sequestration project was paid back in 18 months on the basis of carbon tax savings at $50/tonne. (The natural gas contains 9% CO2 which must be reduced before sale or export.) The overall Utsira sandstone formation there, about one kilometre below the sea bed, is said to be capable of storing 600 billion tonnes of CO2.

Another scheme separating CO2 and using it for enhanced oil recovery is at In Salah, Algeria.

West Australia's Gorgon natural gas project from 2009 will tap natural gas with 14% CO2. Capture and geosequestration of this is expected to reduce the project's emissions from 6.7 to 4.0 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Injecting carbon dioxide into deep, unmineable coal seams where it is adsorbed to displace methane (effectively: natural gas) is another potential use or disposal strategy. Currently the economics of enhanced coal bed methane extraction are not as favourable as enhanced oil recovery, but the potential is large.

While the scale of envisaged need for CO2 disposal far exceeds today's uses, they do demonstrate the practicality. Safety and permanence of disposition are key considerations in sequestration.

Research on geosequestration is ongoing in sevaral parts of the world. The main potential appears to be deep saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields. In both, the CO2 is expected to remain as a supercritical gas for thousands of years, with some dissolving.

Large-scale storage of CO2 from power generation will require an extensive pipeline network in densely populated areas. This has safety implications.

Given that rock strata have held CO2 and methane for millions of years there seems no reason that carefully-chosen chosen ones cannot hold sequestered CO2. However, the eruption of a million tonnes of CO2 from Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986 asphyxiated 1700 people, so the consequences of major release of heavier-than-air gas are potentially serious.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf83.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. I apologize. Clean coal technology is "cleaned-up coal." I thought it was gasification...
Here's an article on gasification, which yields totally clean hydrogen (and, unfortunately, carbon monoxide, which would have to be bound up (sequestered) in something else as it is a weak greenhouse gas and oxidizes into carbon dioxide after 42 months in the atmosphere.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #1
15. Joe talked about it today, and I think people
need to let them explore it. I know there are people that think it's not possible, but they want to find a way to make it CLEAN, as in sequestration.

So there are ways to get this done, and it's a technology that needs to be explored/expanded.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. It shows how clueless she and the GOP are. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. Obama also said he'd "find ways to safely harness nuclear power".
Frankly, I was shocked that no one picked up on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. If we can, that would be great
I'm comfortable with nuclear power plants, if we could figure out what to do with the waste. I've got no problem with that statement, or investing in clean coal TECHNOLOGIES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I have an idea
We invest in nuclear energy, and buy lead from the Chinese to encase it in once the fuel rods are spent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. I should rephrase
Not just do something with the waste, but figure out how to eliminate the radioactivity. I don't think it's possible, but I don't have a problem with trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. He didn't suggest that we would add new plants. He sounded to me like he was saying
that we'd find a way to deal with the waste without putting it in Yucca Mountain, which he opposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
11. Kerry and Hillary pushed "clean coal." It was first a Democratic thingie.
If Obama picked it up, it was only to pacify some part of the party, or it's a minor part of his energy plan. He's more into investing into alternative/renewable energies over fossil fuels. Altho natural gas and I guess clean coal techs DO play a part, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. BTW, I've ALWAYS had the opinion that there is no such thing as "clean coal" or
environmentally friendly oil drilling.

There can be cleanER coal and MORE environmentally friendly oil drilling. But the very nature of coal and oil drilling is that they harms the environment. Some harm is inevitable, tho, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. Coal contains lots of hydrogen, but it's hard to separate. It can be gasified and that will
burn more cleanly. Coal is a great source for gases because it's available in such abundance. It's a bad source if you're environmentally conscious... it must be mined and usually destroys the landscape. Ultimately we must pick our battles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malidictus Maximus Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. My concern with coal
is the destruction inherent in getting it out of the ground. Even if there was a way to get a huge percentage of the energy out of it without any added pollution, 'mountain to removal' is about as ugly a rape of the land as is possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Exactly. That's the biggest harm, IMO (to the extent I know about the process). nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endthewar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. The biggest harm is the pollutants released into the environment. That pesky global warming thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-04-08 12:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. Brian Schweitzer is an advocate of clean coal.
Of course, Montana has a big coal lobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC