Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I have some questions about "clean coal" technology.

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 05:48 PM
Original message
I have some questions about "clean coal" technology.
caveat: "Clean" sounds great, but I have some questions about how it works.

1) What does "clean coal" really mean?
2) How does "clean coal" affect coal miners? Is it cleaner for their lungs, or is it a question of refining and usage?
3) I've lost some relatives to the coal mining industry (black lung, cancer, etc.) - Is this idea better for miners, worse, or more of the same?
4) In what way is it cleaner? (I'd prefer the answer of a chemist/scientist on this one)
5) Does "clean coal" mean that the techniques of coal mining are less environmentally detrimental? (destroying flora, fauna, rivers, and mountains?)
6) Why do candidates keep saying "clean coal" without bothering to define it? (I probably know the answer to this one...)

Thanks in advance, DU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. You stuff the CO2 exhaust from burning coal in an empty oil well and hope it doesn't leak out.
It's foolproof! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. You're closer than you think
They recapture the CO2 and use it to drive oil in wells to the surface.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CK_John Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. This term was made up at some Ad Agency to keep belching out noxious fumes. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kip Humphrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. it does not exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That's kind of what I thought.
Nobody, R or D, has ever been able to explain to me (in scientific language) what it means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
4. It means coal burning plants with less noxious or harmful outputs.
"Clean coal" is an umbrella term, which is why there's no one definition, but all the variations focus on reducing the pollutant emissions from burning coal for electricity, sometimes including CO2. That means removing impurities, filtering out harmful gasses, and if possible capturing and sequestering the CO2.

It has no effect on miners or coal mining itself.

Technically there's no such thing as truly "clean" coal, but "clean coal" is far and away preferable to regular coal, which we continue burning because we don't have the infrastructure for truly clean forms of energy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. So it should be "cleaner coal". Thanks for the info. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. There must be some ways to use coal that are less destructive to the environment.
I guess I'm wondering how it works.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-03-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
31. Well, on a technical level there's several different solutions.
There's gasification of coal, which allows you to extract the usable hydrocarbons without most of the other chemicals which make it hazardous. The downside is gasification is a lot harder than most of the other options, and it still produces copious amounts of CO2 which need to be seperately reduced or contained.

There's the use of scrubbers on the plant exhaust. This is basically filtering the smoke to remove as much as possible of the contaminents, specifically sulfer dioxide which causes smog. It's relatively easy to implement, but not fully effective.

There's also the possibility of using solvent baths on the coal before its burned, to leech out the pollutants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
6. Blowing up West Virginia's mountains, clogging their rivers with slag
..but if you can get some cute little girl to do a commercial saying it's great to use "clean coal", why not :eyes:

like a doctor saying you have a mild case of AIDS..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Yeah. They're still destroying entire landscapes and ecosystems.
If that's not bad enough, they're still killing the poor miners who have no other options for income in several areas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. To be fair, the blow up the whole mountain approach does keep the miners from having to go into...
the mountain, and is thus better for the miner's well being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. True, but...
it also puts miners out of jobs. It puts them out of dangerous jobs that are deleterious to their health, but how does one balance the pros/cons to health, jobs, environment, pollution, etc.?

I don't have an answer to that question, by the way. I can't even wrap my head around some kind of middle ground solution that would protect jobs, protect workers, and still conserve the environment. The easy answer is wind farms and solar, but how would affect people tomorrow/next year/etc when they're only trying to make enough money to send their kids to school with a healthy lunch? I'm not smart enough to think of a good compromise, and I'm not dumb enough to advocate a halt to all mining operations tomorrow.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Oh yeah, the companies do it because it's cheaper and not out of a desire for healthier working...
conditions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peanut2010 Donating Member (78 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Strip mineing is a lot better for miners health than underground
Most miner operate air conditioned and heated equipment above ground.As far as the enviroment I have lived next to and old strip job for the past 35 years.The grass trees and weeds grow just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL says RFK Jr:
Coal's True Cost
Posted November 29, 2007 | 09:31 PM (EST)

Last evening's GOP CNN/YouTube debate and the Democratic presidential debate on November 15 were jointly sponsored by a coal industry coalition comprised of mining, railroad and utility interests.

Their high profile civic involvement is designed to further confuse American voters about coal's true cost to our society. Many of the Republican candidates have endorsed massive new subsidies for King Coal and dutifully parrot industry talking points including earnest promises of cheap "clean coal." Given that climate change is the most urgent threat to our collective survival, it is shocking that no debate moderator has pressed the candidates to clearly state their positions on "clean coal."

In fact, there is no such thing as "clean coal." And coal is only "cheap" if one ignores its calamitous externalized costs. In addition to global warming, these include dead forests and sterilized lakes from acid rain, poisoned fisheries in 49 states and children with damaged brains and crippled health from mercury emissions, millions of asthma attacks and lost work days and thousands dead annually from ozone and particulates. Coal's most catastrophic and permanent impacts are from mountaintop removal mining. If the American people could see what I have seen from the air and ground during my many trips to the coalfields of Kentucky and West Virginia: leveled mountains, devastated communities, wrecked economies and ruined lives, there would be a revolution in this country.

Well now you can visit coal country without ever having to leave your home. Every presidential candidate and every American ought to take a few seconds to visit an ingenious new website created by Appalachian Voices, that allows one to tour the obliterated landscapes of Appalachia. And it's not just Arch Coal, Massey Coal and their corporate toadies in electoral politics who are culpable for the disaster. The amazing new website allows you to enter your zip code to learn how you're personally connected to the great crime of mountaintop removal. Using this website Americans from Maine to California can see these mountains and the communities that were sacrificed to power their home. The tool uses Google Maps and Google Earth as interfaces to a large database of power plants and mountaintop removal coal mines. A November 15, 2007 article in the Wall Street Journalhighlighted the site as one of the most innovative, cutting-edge uses of these powerful tools. The site puts a human face on the issue by highlighting the stories of families living in the shadows of these mines.

Each day the coal barons from companies like Massey and Arch detonate 2500 tons of explosives-the power of a Hiroshima bomb every week-to blow away Appalachian mountain tops to reach the coal seams beneath. Colossal machines then plow the rock and debris into the adjacent river valleys and hollows, destroying forests and burying free-flowing mountain streams, flattening North America's most ancient mountain range. According to EPA 1,200 miles of American rivers and streams have already been permanently interred and 470 of Appalachia's largest mountains have simply disappeared, leaving behind giant pits and barren moonscapes, some as large as Manhattan Island. I recently flew over one 18 square-mile pit - Hobet 21 - which you can now tour on Google Earth!

-snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/coals-true-cost_b_74738.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Al Gore: ‘Clean Coal’s Like Healthy Cigarettes’
Al Gore: ‘Clean Coal’s Like Healthy Cigarettes’»


At the Clinton Global Initiative, Al Gore ripped apart “clean coal,” the coal industry catch-all propaganda term for advanced coal technologies, both existing ones that reduce traditional pollutants and developmental ones, like carbon capture and sequestration. Gore was asked by Bill Clinton, “Do you believe that the current economic difficulties will make it harder or easier to pass good climate legislation?” Here’s Gore’s answer:

For the first time in all of human history, we, as a species, have to makea decision. If we make the right decision then the answer to the question you asked is, the economic crisis can provide an opportunity to make the right kind of changes.

What should we do? We should stop burning coal . . . without sequestering the CO2. The coal and oil companies have spent in the United States alone a half a billion dollars in the first eight months of this year promoting a lie that there is such a thing as “clean coal.” Clean coal’s like healthy cigarettes — it does not exist. It could theoretically exist. The only demonstration plant was canceled. How many, how many such plants are there? Zero. How many blueprints? Zero.

Watch it:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/09/28/gore-clean-coal-cigarettes/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. It's an oxymoron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
12. It's to help the people who are to stupid and ignorant to support nuclear power feel good about...
destroying the world through global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Why is Obama pushing it then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. To appeal to the stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. There were a ton of clean coal proponents here last week.
All of them anti-nuke. A big push toward clean coal will be good for me personally though.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rancid Crabtree Donating Member (138 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. People in the area are using coal stoves...
...grew up in a house with a big beast of a coal furnace in the basement, a stoker to feed the coal into the monster...dirty black men in a dump truck that delivered the coal...you picked it up and it made your hands black...but they've got coal for these new stoves that you can pick up and not leave a mark...thing is, it's not really much of a savings over what most of us have, natural gas, propane...a few still with fuel oil...don't know much about the mining of it...is mining ever not dangerous...great grandfather died in a mine, one of many...and how do you not disrupt the environment extracting any natural resource?...heard that coal mine operators were some of the biggest buyers of...machine guns...can I hear a hallelujah and an amen!...I dunno...did someone say something about the hardness of coal...maybe "clean" coal is the harder product...there may be a name for it...hard and soft coal...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MazeRat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
19. The only "clean" coal is unburned coal.
Edited on Sun Nov-02-08 09:13 PM by MazeRat7
But to your question, "clean" coal is a magical process where by the carbon that took millions of years for nature to capture will not be re-introduced into the atmosphere when it is burned. Or so they say. Not all that different from Santa Clause, the easter bunny, and trickle down economics.

Peace,
MZr7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
21. Here is some good info on the subject
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html

Coal gasification offers one of the most versatile and clean ways to convert coal into electricity, hydrogen, and other valuable energy products.

Coal gasification electric power plants are now operating commercially in the United States and in other nations, and many experts predict that coal gasification will be at the heart of future generations of clean coal technology plants.

Rather than burning coal directly, gasification (a thermo-chemical process) breaks down coal - or virtually any carbon-based feedstock - into its basic chemical constituents. In a modern gasifier, coal is typically exposed to steam and carefully controlled amounts of air or oxygen under high temperatures and pressures. Under these conditions, molecules in coal break apart, initiating chemical reactions that typically produce a mixture of carbon monoxide, hydrogen and other gaseous compounds.

Gasification, in fact, may be one of the best ways to produce clean-burning hydrogen for tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells. Hydrogen and other coal gases can also be used to fuel power-generating turbines, or as the chemical "building blocks" for a wide range of commercial products. <> Read more about hydrogen production.>

The Energy Department's Office of Fossil Energy is working on coal gasifier advances that enhance efficiency, environmental performance, and reliability as well as expand the gasifier's flexibility to process a variety of coals and other feedstocks (including biomass and municipal/industrial wastes).


Environmental Benefits

The environmental benefits of gasification stem from the capability to achieve extremely low SOx, NOx and particulate emissions from burning coal-derived gases. Sulfur in coal, for example, is converted to hydrogen sulfide and can be captured by processes presently used in the chemical industry. In some methods, the sulfur can be extracted in either a liquid or solid form that can be sold commercially. In an Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) plant, the syngas produced is virtually free of fuel-bound nitrogen. NOx from the gas turbine is limited to thermal NOx. Diluting the syngas allows for NOx emissions as low as 15 parts per million. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) can be used to reach levels comparable to firing with natural gas if required to meet more stringent emission levels. Other advanced emission control processes are being developed that could reduce NOx from hydrogen fired turbines to as low as 2 parts per million.

The Office of Fossil Energy is also exploring advanced syngas cleaning and conditioning processes that are even more effective in eliminating emissions from coal gasifiers. Multi-contaminant control processes are being developed that reduce pollutants to parts-per-billion levels and will be effective in cleaning mercury and other trace metals in addition to other impurities.

Coal gasification may offer a further environmental advantage in addressing concerns over the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. If oxygen is used in a coal gasifier instead of air, carbon dioxide is emitted as a concentrated gas stream in syngas at high pressure. In this form, it can be captured and sequestered more easily and at lower costs. By contrast, when coal burns or is reacted in air, 79 percent of which is nitrogen, the resulting carbon dioxide is diluted and more costly to separate.


Efficiency Benefits

Efficiency gains are another benefit of coal gasification. In a typical coal combustion-based power plant, heat from burning coal is used to boil water, making steam that drives a steam turbine-generator. In some coal combustion-based power plants, only a third of the energy value of coal is actually converted into electricity.

A coal gasification power plant, however, typically gets dual duty from the gases it produces. First, the coal gases, cleaned of impurities, are fired in a gas turbine - much like natural gas - to generate one source of electricity. The hot exhaust of the gas turbine, and some of the het generated in the gasification process, are then used to generate steam for use in a steam turbine-generator. This dual source of electric power, called a "combined cycle," is much more efficient in converting coal's energy into usable electricity. The fuel efficiency of a coal gasification power plant in this type of combined cycle can potentially be boosted to 50 percent or more.

Future concepts that incorporate a fuel cell or a fuel cell-gas turbine hybrid could achieve efficiencies nearly twice today's typical coal combustion plants. If any of the remaining heat can be channeled into process steam or heat, perhaps for nearby factories or district heating plants, the overall fuel use efficiency of future gasification plants could reach 70 to 80 percent.

Higher efficiencies translate into more economical electric power and potential savings for ratepayers. A more efficient plant also uses less fuel to generate power, meaning that less carbon dioxide is produced. In fact, coal gasification power processes under development by the Energy Department could cut the formation of carbon dioxide by 40 percent or more, per unit of output, compared to today's conventional coal-burning plant.

The capability to produce electricity, hydrogen, chemicals, or various combinations while eliminating nearly all air pollutants and potentially greenhouse gas emissions makes coal gasification one of the most promising technologies for energy plants of the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
24. "clean coal" - like "naval intelligence"
Is a clasic oxymoron. But the Insane McCain supporters howl with venom against Obama sayinh he wants to look at nucular power only if it's safe. McCain sounded like a school brat mimicking Obama's comment. Just pathetic. He just went the way of Colin Powel with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
25. SOLAR is clean. WIND is clean. Clean coal is bullshit.
You know it is. When will we stop buying the corporate lies????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
27. I don't know the answers, but this deserves a kick and a rec. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
28. And just for fun, the truthiness view of clean coal (link inside) ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
29. There's no such thing.
It's bullshit. Obama is just pandering once again to coal-mining states and/or corporations. Coal cannot be made "clean". Carbon sequestration is entirely unproven.

As for the miners, it is the same. Coal would still be mined the same way, from the ground and also by mountain top removal, which is incredibly environmentally destructive. So more coal automatically means worse for the environment and worse for miners. I wish Obama would educate himself about this shit and stop trying to sell it as some kind of new technology instead of the bullshit that it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-02-08 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
30. See this article from the Guardian:
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 Fri May 10th 2024, 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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