Is 'clean coal' actually possible? by Niki2

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Is 'clean coal' actually possible?

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, February 8, 2010 12:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 844
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, February 8, 2010 8:49 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

What's the story on this? Can anyone tell me what the stuff about "clean coal" really means? I know they're trying to sell it, but I also hear it's bullshit.

Remember the Xmas "Coal Carolers"? It's to laugh:

Then again, I love this one:

And Britain seems to be claiming they can actually clean up coal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/default.stm

So what's real? How does this work, and DOES it work? I hear so many conflicting things...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 9:11 AM

BYTEMITE

Coal will always, ALWAYS have some sulfates in it. Most coal power plants nowadays claim to only burn 5% sulfate contaminated coal, but that's only when inspectors are watching. It's not uncommon that they burn upwards of 7% sulfates. Inspectors have actually seen coal power plant operators shovel coal from one pile during inspections, "leave," circle back around, and five minutes later the operators will be shoveling from a different pile. Which, when tested, exceed federal standards. The reason the plants use the richer coal is because it's cheaper (for obvious reasons, you're not SUPPOSED to use it, so it's kind of seen as bulk waste, and because coal often also has to undergo expensive processing to get it down below the 5% range).

Sulfates in coal causes acid rain. Coal powerplants are also actually why there's so much pollution in the midwest and on the east coast, because without scrubbers the powerplants put soot into the air. Soot (particulate matter) from coal creates cold weather London type smog.

Clean coal is something else entirely, it refers to Carbon Dioxide Sequestration. The combination of scrubbers and sequestration is hoped to bring emissions from coal to zero, but I think it's a pipe dream. Plus once you sequester the carbon, what do you DO with it? Then there's the issues of pollution from actually digging the coal UP.

Sorry, but as far as I know, solar power is the only "clean" energy with proved net neutral (manufacturing compared to impact from alternative technology) effect on the environment. I like wind power, but studies about long term health risks associated with living near the turbines and impact on bird populations are inconclusive. Storage capacity for wind power has improved phenomenally, however. Wind power and solar can now more than serve individual energy needs, especially in the western desert states.

Of course, it's also kind of stupid to build large solar panel arrays in the middle of nowhere, and this definitely has negative environmental impacts. It's possible to go too far with this.

I was reading an article recently that there's been some improvement in the chemistry of the processes used for geothermal that might make this more feasible (not have to dig 1,000s of feet or build in hotspots) in the future. Similarly, coastal areas mind want to consider ocean turbines.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 9:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Thanx Byte. The British video talks about ejecting the carbon dioxide back deep in the ground, but I can't help wondering, even if that's possible, how much of the stuff you can shove down there?

I, too, am in favor of solar and wind (tho' those are things to think about, where wind is concerned; thanx again), and it disturbs me to hear Obama talking about "clean coal". Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 9:18 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Yeah, from everything I've seen, "clean coal" is a misnomer, and it's being used on purpose, because nobody is going to get excited if they call it "cleanER coal". It's being used in ways that are generally cleaner than 1890s London's use of coal, but that's a long, long way from being CLEAN.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 9:28 AM

BYTEMITE

Depends. What I hear about most about Carbon Sequestration is about binding up the CO2 in limestone (CaCO3). Then I think you're saying they're proposing they bury the limestone?

I can't imagine it's a good idea to vent gaseous CO2 into large underground chambers. A collapse would be very bad. "Everyone within a few miles goes to sleep and doesn't wake up" bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 11:57 AM

PERFESSERGEE

Byte, you are correct on this: there ain't no such thing as "Clean Coal". Some kinds are just dirtier than others. Sulfur is the main concern in terms of air pollution and acid rain, but in terms of overall environmental contamination, mercury is an equally big worry - and it's much less variable than sulfur (meaning that there isn't really any low-mercury coal). Coal-fired power plants are the leading cuse of mercury contamination, and it ends up in soils, in water, we breathe it and eat it (after it moves from soils into our crops). Mercury causes developmental deficits in children, including cognitive and motor-control deficits, and damages immune systems, leading to opportunistic infections. Nasty stuff, and not nearly so much attention is being paid to it. I tell my students that when they hear someone talking about clean coal, that they need to start getting ready for the Big Lie, 'cause that's what they are about to get.

(and this is without even mentioning all the environmental and health disasters cause by mining the coal in the first place...........)

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 8, 2010 12:07 PM

BYTEMITE

Interesting. I think this is proof of the adage "we are what we're taught," because in Utah we are heavily reliant on coal, and I've never heard of the mercury connection.

My professors taught that the mercury contamination we see is the result of gold smelting in Nevada. Sounds like that explanation was just white coating the coal issue, coal makes quite a bit more sense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE