Clean coal Companies

[kennedy]

The President of the United States of America along with the Department of Energy have been working on alternative ways to diversify our energy sources in an effort to help American homes and businesses. The Bush administration has been careful to see that much-needed funding has gone into research and development of such things as clean coal technologies.

The problem in the past has been that when you burn coal you'll also puts pollution into the atmosphere. Now with new clean coal technologies thanks to the President's alternative energy strategy and the Department of Energy working with private research and development companies and our top universities they have perfected clean coal-burning technologies.
Follow the link:http://www.lincenergy.us

[RecycleMichael]

Clean coal is a lie.

Adding a small amount of control technology to address minor concerns does not make a product "clean".

There is nothing "clean" about mining, transportation nor burning of coal. This is nothing more than a concerted public relation effort.

[OurTulsa]

I've read that clean coal is very relative.  Should we say 'a little less dirty but still dirty' instead?

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by OurTulsa

I've read that clean coal is very relative.  Should we say 'a little less dirty but still dirty' instead?

Clean coal is a theoretical goal for which we have yet to develop a technology.  
Putting a filter on a cigarette doesnt mean we can take up smoking.

[sauerkraut]

Clean coal is a great way to go, but the enviro-wackos won't have no part in it. The same goes for oil drilling in Alaska, we can drill safe & clean and get our nation off of OPEC oil but we can't do that. Clean coal is a reality not a hoax. We also need more nuke plants.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

Clean coal is a great way to go, but the enviro-wackos won't have no part in it. The same goes for oil drilling in Alaska, we can drill safe & clean and get our nation off of OPEC oil but we can't do that. Clean coal is a reality not a hoax.

(Whacks nose with rolled up newspaper)  

NO, NO

[sgrizzle]

Clean Coal is not just filtration, it has to do with burner the coal hotter and more thoroughly.

Imagine you have a ruler with "cheap energy" at the zero end of the ruler and "clean energy" at the 12 inch end.

Pick a number.

[Gaspar]

Lets actually have a conversation about this rather than spouting opinions.  

There are 5 items that make coal burning dirty, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter.

Clean coal technology is nothing more than a filtering and scrubbing process that reduces a little over 70% of these.  So use of the term "clean coal" is misleading and false.

Cleaner coal is a better term.  We are the only nation actively reducing the emissions in the coal plants that produce over 50% of our power.   All of the other countries that rely on coal for their power production have done nothing to curb pollution from the use of coal.

Until we bring the price down and embrace nuclear power, we are stuck with coal and oil.

Hydroelectric is clean but only capable of producing a very small amount of electricity.  

Solar is very clean, but an enormous land mass of solar panels is necessary to produce the power necessary to fuel even a small community and the efficiency of solar power equipment is dismal.  

Wind is also very clean but the sporadic generation and long distance transmission forces the need for concentration of wind power devices in a single region, and only offers a very small percentage of the power generation necessary for a community.

Wave power is both clean and plentiful, but the technology is not there and it would only offer efficient power to coastal regions.

Why can't we produce efficient clean power?  

The answer lies in our own arrogance. We look at inorganic methods of storing energy such as batteries, capacitors, and condensers and feel that we are technologically "advanced."  

We think that by producing more refined forms of silicon ribbon we can bring solar power up to 15% efficiency, or that by combining more volatile compounds, or thinner sheets of non-conductive capacitor parallels we can increase the preservation and distance that we can push electricity, however we are still left with the fact that nature has already perfected the science of energy preservation, and we simply cannot compete with that.  The amount of energy in a drop of oil or a lump of coal is phenomenal, and if you transport it a thousand miles over a hundred days you barley diminish its potency.

One ton of coal can be transported 400 miles on a single gallon of diesel fuel.  The average train car holds 117 tons of coal, and the average load is about 10,000 tons.  Coal and oil power plants can achieve 40 - 48% efficiency.  That is so far above solar, wind and all of the other clean energy forms that it is difficult for us to ignore.  Compounding that is the fact that energy from organic fuels does not need inorganic storage after generation.  The fuel source itself offers the most efficient storage media.

So how do we "clean up" without the total annihilation of our economy?  

We can pledge as a country to use less; however by doing that we give competitive advantage to China, India, Russia and a host of other countries.

We can pledge to use less as a planet; however we would depress and in most cases collapse the economies of developing countries that rely on inexpensive and efficient energy sources for survival.  Wars, famine, and disease would be the result we already see this to some extent.  

Over the last 40 years we have tried to clean up, first by relegating our oil production and refining off shore we have created imbalances in production vs. consumption and the result is wealthy powerful despotic energy barons; Secondly we have begun the process of punishing ourselves psychologically and economically for our consumption.  This produces a mythology that we are an evil society filled with evil companies, and greedy individuals.  Over time this poisons the very foundation of liberty and causes people to view free market economies and the opportunities they provide with distain.  

So what do we do?  Do we continue to develop inorganic energy production such a solar or wind, or do we attempt to clean up what we already have?  

I argue that we do BOTH.  

[Wrinkle]

Managed to leave out GeoThermal, which has distinct advantages over all the others.

See what Iceland has done to produce most of their energy needs. Only 0.1% of their energy is produced by fossil fuels.

Icelandic Geothermal Energy Production

Or, the Wikipedia Entry

We can do the same here since we are in a very active zone for thermal energy production:

REF: Geothermal Map of North America

Around 75mW/M^2

There is no such thing as 'clean' coal. There is, however, an enourmous abundance of the stuff in the USA, which is our Ace-n-hole backup. CO2 Sequestration may help to offset emissions, but also makes the cost exceed the cost of other methods.

Wind can provide 20% or more of our energy needs for electrical production, once the grid is improved to transmit more effectively/efficiently. Unfortunatly, the cost of wind energy has ceased declining and started to rise to competative levels based only on market conditions and no longer a cost base.

IAC, geothermal is inexhaustable, clean and cost effective.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Managed to leave out GeoThermal, which has distinct advantages over all the others.

See what Iceland has done to produce most of their energy needs. Only 0.1% of their energy is produced by fossil fuels.

Icelandic Geothermal Energy Production

Or, the Wikipedia Entry

We can do the same here since we are in a very active zone for thermal energy production:

REF: Geothermal Map of North America

Around 75mW/M^2

There is no such thing as 'clean' coal. There is, however, an enourmous abundance of the stuff in the USA, which is our Ace-n-hole backup. CO2 Sequestration may help to offset emissions, but also makes the cost exceed the cost of other methods.

Wind can provide 20% or more of our energy needs for electrical production, once the grid is improved to transmit more effectively/efficiently. Unfortunatly, the cost of wind energy has ceased declining and started to rise to competative levels based only on market conditions and no longer a cost base.

IAC, geothermal is inexhaustable, clean and cost effective.

I didn't realize we had any "hot rock" capable of producing enough energy.

Iceland is a great geothermal example.  Walking across the asphalt on some streets in iceland can melt your sneakers.  They do have quite a resource.  Many of the restaurants pipe steam directly from the ground to cook food in their kitchens.

I suppose we could run injection wells to deep rock.  Not sure how much power we could recover.  The deeper the well, the less efficient/productive the plant.  Our hot rock is deep and not as hot (about half of what Iceland's is).

[Wrinkle]

Our hot rocks are between 150-200C (302-392F) and twice as deep as Iceland's. Once boiling is achieved, the rest is efficiency.

The depth is the largest issue, 6 kilometers (20k feet), so isn't an easy or cheap effort, but still both possible and cost effective.

Depending on the plant design and location, one may not need to go quite that deep either.

[TeeDub]

Don't forget about the new study that says wind power trashes the environment around it...

Apparently the wind farms create extra turbulence in the wind patterns (no surprise) which leads to higher soil temperatures and less soil moisture.

Something along these lines....
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/~sbroy/research/comments/news.jsp.html

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Don't forget about the new study that says wind power trashes the environment around it...

Apparently the wind farms create extra turbulence in the wind patterns (no surprise) which leads to higher soil temperatures and less soil moisture.

Something along these lines....
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/~sbroy/research/comments/news.jsp.html

"Trashes" is somewhat extreme, and doesn't properly describe the situation.

Changes, perhaps. There certainly has to be some conservation of energy priciples applied.

And, less soil moisture is an extrapolated result of what was stated as higher soil temps. But, annual rainfall may be a better indicator.

All in all, it amounts to different, not trashed. Could be it benefits the production of different crops or supports another species better.

To delcare it negatively is premature and not related to the facts.

It's a kin to stating a number of large ships affect waves or sea level of the ocean.

[cannon_fodder]

Excellent perspective Sq.    Currently there are trade offs between all of the above.  I would love to see each source rated by:

Environmental Friendliness
Economic Efficiency  
Reliability

With 100 being the highest for each...

Frankly, we are currently stuck between a rock and a hard place:

Coal:

Cheap, plentiful, cheap, reliable, cheap... but even clean coal is the most polluting form of electrical generation available.

Oil:

Expensive, reliable, moderate polluting.

Gas:

Price is mediocre at some locations, reliable, low pollution.  Good for peak generation needs (low gas demand in the summer months).

Wind:

Not a realistic option.  I thought it was a winner, until a friend that works with the FERC told me wind power is so sporadic that you can not take other sources of power offline and supplement it with wind.  In the summer (read: when most power is needed) wind is at the low generation level, sometimes storms forces it offline, etc.  You can not replace a power plant with a wind farm, it can supplement it and we will probably get better at predicting it... but it is not a solution.  (not to mention the local nature of wind power, and that location usually not being near population centers).

Also ignores the environmental arguments:  wind patterns locally disrupted as well as large farms causing regional disruption.  The merits of which I am not familiar enough to judge.

Hydro:

A great fad that has gone to the wayside.  Our net hydro generation has been on decline for over a decade and 3 more hydro dams in Oregon are on the hit list.  What we gained in reliability and economic efficiency we lost in overall economic damage (in the perspective of some).  

Solar:

Currently, solar panels will NEVER generate enough power in their life spam to offset the energy used in creating them.  The efficiency is simply not there.  You can efficiently make solar panels if you burn coal to do so... but that is clearly not a real solution.  Perhaps a technology issue that will be solved, but currently small scale solar is not a real solution to the overall energy crisis.

Also ignores the sporadic, seasonal, and timely nature of solar.

Large scale solar, however, is somewhat more practical in some locations.   The sodium boil generation stations (mirrors focus sun on a pipe and boil sodium [or other source] for generation) is efficient on a large scale.  It also has the benefit of working best in the hottest parts of the year/day.   It could help with peak demand in Phoenix, LA, Vegas, etc.

Waive/Tidal:

Technology not up to par.  Would only work in some areas anyway.

Nuclear:

We are too stupid/too concerned with NIMBY to make a concerted effort to get rid of the waste.  Instead of storing it in a lead lined fortress carved into salt caves in the middle of an uninhabited desert specifically designed for nuclear waste, we leave it in the basements of nuclear facilities.  Smart.  Real smart.
- - - -

IMHO, more nuclear power plants need to be built.  We should also generate power as environmentally friendly and efficiently as possible near sources of water that can then be turned into hydrogen... essentially a battery for that power.  It would help smooth the peak nature of wind as well as the distribution efforts.  Nuclear plants could also use excess capacity to generate hydrogen.  Or whatever means is efficient and clean.

I am not a rapid global warming person, but understand the overall need to reduce pollution and even more important, find an electrical generation source that enables us to break our transportation oil needs.  Hydrogen could do that if we could generate enough efficiently.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Hydro:

A great fad that has gone to the wayside.  Our net hydro generation has been on decline for over a decade and 3 more hydro dams in Oregon are on the hit list.  What we gained in reliability and economic efficiency we lost in overall economic damage (in the perspective of some).  

Environmental groups will protest any new projects since a new dam/lake will displace wildlife.