'Clean Coal' - Fact Or Fiction

[Bobbieo]

IS 'CLEAN COAL' JUST A FANTASY?
By Kathy Helms
Dine Bureau
Gallup Independent

ATT: NNadir

http://nativeunity.blogspot.com

[PDJane]

1. yes, it's a fiction.

There is no dirtier fuel on the planet. Moreover, it's dirty from beginning to end; it pollutes the water table with heavy metals like mercury, kills wildlife, makes the area unstable, and continues to pollute at every step of the extraction process.

[Ozymanithrax]

2. I haven't seen any evidence for clean coal.

Even if they can develop a method to sequester CO2 (they are doing a pilot project now) dumped into the atmosphere mining coal is a disaster and coal ash is massively toxic.

In order for there to be clean coal, you would need to sequester the CO2, come up with ways to get rid of all the ash, and find a way to mine it that doesn't leave ecological disasters everywhere.

Until I can see some way of dealing with all the problems of coal, from mining to ash to CO2, it is a fantasy.

[joshcryer]

3. No such thing.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Why is everything either "black" or "white" is so many people's eyes?

We have made coal cleaner in the past. We can continue to make it cleaner in the future.

It will never be absolutely clean..

Honestly, this debate reminds me of BushCo:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040807.html

... Because of these steps at home and abroad, our country is safer than it was on September the 11th, 2001. Yet, we're still not safe. ...

Under this view, we will asymptotically approach "safe" always getting "safer," but never being "safe." The question should be, "When are we safe enough?"

James Hansen, and a whole host of environmental organizations believe we should be researching "Carbon Capture" and "Sequestration." Why? Because we're not going to stop burning coal overnight. We just aren't. Whether you're pro-nuke or anti-nuke, this is a simple fact that you've got to recognize.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/coal-power-warming-world-0151.html

October 15, 2008

So-Called “Clean Coal” Technology Offers Promise Along with Considerable Risks, New Report Finds

Government Should Back Demonstration Projects; Nix New Coal-Fired Power Plants that Don't Capture and Store Carbon Emissions

WASHINGTON (October 15, 2008) ...

The United States has significant coal reserves and likely will continue to generate power from it for many years to come. Climate projections, however, indicate that the United States must swiftly cut carbon dioxide emissions and ultimately reduce them by at least 80 percent of 2000 levels by mid-century to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Coal is the nation's largest source of global warming pollution, representing approximately a third of U.S. emissions, equal to the combined output of all U.S. cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats.

The UCS report, "Coal Power in a Warming World," proposes that the federal government fund five to 10 full-scale demonstration projects to test carbon-capture-and-storage technology's ability to cut coal power plant emissions. The report also calls for a halt in construction of new coal plants that do not capture and store carbon emissions, even though U.S. utilities are currently planning to build more than 100 plants without the technology. The country can meet its near-term energy needs and curb emissions, the report contends, using readily available renewable-energy and energy-efficiency technologies.

...

"Even if coal capture and storage works on a commercial scale, coal will still be dirty," said Steve Clemmer, UCS Clean Energy Program research director and co-author of the report. "The technology doesn't address the environmental threat posed by mining, transporting and disposing of coal." To make coal cleaner, he said, the government should ban mountaintop removal mining, strengthen oversight of mine waste slurry impoundments, and tighten and enforce mine safety laws.

Given that coal has significantly worse health and environmental consequences than other energy options that may prove less expensive, less risky and less harmful to public health and the environment, the report calls on the federal government to dramatically increase the deployment of energy-efficiency, renewable-energy and energy-storage technologies while it invests in carbon-capture-and-storage-technology demonstration projects. Doing so would help ensure that federal research and development funding does not unduly favor coal. It also would expand the nation's options for responding to climate change.

...

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/Coal-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf

[Statistical]

5. I would have less of a problem with it if they called it "low carbon coal".

The term clean coal is simply dishonest.

Carbon is only one of many problems that coal plants have.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. "The term clean coal is simply dishonest."

Yes, it gives a false impression, through over-simplification.

Of course, this is also true of the way "Nuclear Power" is presented:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address

...

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

...

Fans of nuclear power are wont to point out that a relatively small mass of fuel is used, producing a relatively small amount of waste, compared to coal.

Uranium (like coal) is mined. Unlike coal (however) uranium is generally found in very low concentrations, so to recover those small amounts of fuel, very high volumes of ore must be mined, and similar mining methods are used, and the mined ore must be processed, resulting in large amounts of waste/tailings.
http://www.gjem.energy.gov/moab/

"Nuclear Power" is not as dirty as some of its opponents suggest, but to call it "clean" is well... "simply dishonest." High-level waste is only one of the many problems nuclear power has.

Don't get me wrong. In my opinion, the sooner we stop burning coal, the better. However, I'm not crazy about burning uranium either.

[Statistical]

33. You seem like a fair minded person I just think you are not comprehending the scale.

A modern nuclear reactor gets about 60GWd/MTU (60 Gigawatt days per Metric Ton of Uranium).

A GWd is simply 24 GWh (just makes the numbers more manageable).
So 1440 GWh per metric ton. Of course that is thermal energy. Turbines in nuclear plant are about 35% efficient at converting thermal energy into electrical energy. So roughly 500 GWh e per ton. The energy density is off the chart it isn't even in the same league as fossil fuels. So lets work backwards from that.

Now the 500GWh is enriched uranium. Usually to 3%-5%. We will use the high end to be conservative. So 1 ton of LEU fuel requires 7 tons of natural uranium. Now enrichment isn't perfect. not all of U-235 is transfered to LEU thus more uranium is required. enrichment material losses are small (about 10%-20%). For the sake of argument lets say they are 30%. Thus is requires 10 tons of uranium ore to get 1 ton of 5% LEU.

Most dedicated uranium mines have 10% to 28% yield. Mines with less than 10% uranium are not economical by themselves. Uranium is often sound mixed in seams of other metals. All the metals are mined (gold, copper, rare earth elementS) and uranium seperated out. If it wasn't used as reactor fuel it would simply be radioactive waste rock. Since I don't have a global "average yield" lets use the most conservative number, 10%. To get the 10 tons of Uranium metal requires removal of roughly 10 tons rock containing uranium ore.

So working all the way backwards 1 Metric Ton of LEU = roughly 70 tons of rock. 500GWh (from above) per 100 tons of rock mined. You get roughly 5Gwh of energy per ton of rock mined.

Lets compare that to coal.

The energy density of coal, i.e. its heating value, is roughly 24 megajoules per kilogram.<42>

The energy density of coal can also be expressed in kilowatt-hours for some unit of mass, the units that electricity is most commonly sold in, to estimate how much coal is required to power electrical appliances. One kilowatt-hour is 3.6 MJ, so the energy density of coal is 6.67 kW·h/kg. The typical thermodynamic efficiency of coal power plants is about 30%, so of the 6.67 kW·h of energy per kilogram of coal, 30% of that—2.0 kW·h/kg—can successfully be turned into electricity; the rest is waste heat. So coal power plants obtain approximately 2.0 kW·h per kilogram of burned coal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Energy_density

2 kWh per kg = 2000 kWh per ton = 2 MWh per ton. Lets also pretend there is no waste rock in a coal mine (once again to be as conservative as possible).

Net result:
1 ton of coal/rock = 2 Mwh electrical power
1 ton of uranium/rock = 5,000 MWh electrical power

Now say you don't like my numbers (I went borderline stupid in conservative values), you could reduce it 10%, 20%, even 50% and uranium is a magnitude higher energy density than coal. They aren't even in the same league. It is like comparing a baby lifting a rattle and an Olympic weight lifter breaking the world record. They both "lift stuff". The scale isn't comparable. If uranium had an energy density that was 2x, 5x, even 100x that of coal we wouldn't be even talking about this.

So while both require mining to put them in the same category is a logical flaw. Is disregards scale.

Mining will exist (in some form for some resource) for next thousand years. The usable energy density of uranium based fission is roughly 2000:1 compared to coal. If all coal mining (for electrical power) was replaced 100% with uranium mining it would result in a 99.95% reduction in total mining.

This also ignores future reactor designs with higher burnup, reprocessing, and/or more effective enrichment.

[wtmusic]

8. Eliminating coal overnight was never the point.

The point is to not waste money on dead-end technologies when time is running out.

Even the most promising sequestration scenario assumes we have someplace to put 30 billion tons of calcium carbonate every year.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. You've missed the point entirely

It doesn't matter whether you want to build a fleet of nuclear plants, 1,000's of wind farms, 1,000's of square miles of solar collectors or some combination of these and other technologies. We will continue to burn coal for several years.

Take that as a given.

Now, the question is, do you want to pump all of the resulting emissions straight into the air? Or would you prefer to capture it and sequester it somehow?

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=51027

Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Appropriate regulations can guarantee the integrity of emissions reductions from carbon capture and storage

Because the transition away from coal and other fossil-based fuels will take time, EDF supports the development of technologies that substantially reduce emissions especially those that reduce carbon dioxide (CO2), a major cause of climate change. One technology in particular has the potential to make a huge contribution in reducing CO2: carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), also sometimes referred to as carbon storage.

CCS is a process that prevents CO2 from being released into the atmosphere through capture and storage underground in geologic formations. It is a proven, viable technology and ready to begin deployment today. Carbon dioxide has been captured from industrial processes for many decades. And for many decades, the oil business has injected millions of tons of CO2 per year for enhanced oil recovery, where oil not recovered in the initial withdrawal process is pushed to the surface by injecting CO2. (Learn more about http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/03/03/geo-sequestration/">geological sequestration.)

With a price on carbon we'll begin to see widespread deployment, but already many demonstration projects exist, most notably: In Salah in Algeria, Sleipner in the North Sea, and Weyburn in North America.

While there are many challenges to CCS – including an incomplete regulatory framework, high costs and in some regions, the challenge of finding suitable sequestration sites – there are also opportunities. With job creation and CO2 reduction, CCS has potential to be a win-win solution for the economy and the environment.

...

[wtmusic]

11. Thanks for the coal lobby POV, and the kindergarten primer on CCS

"EDF - We partner with businesses, governments, and communities to find practical environmental solutions."

Who's EDF's #1 partner? You got it - business. What kind of environmental solutions do they search for? Practical ones - ones that don't cost business too much money, ones that might very well be ineffective but have a marvelous green sheen to them.

Geological sequestration is preposterous on so many levels it makes Yucca Mountain look like kid stuff.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Sure, EDF is in the pocket of "Big Coal"

Just like the Union of Concerned Scientists, just like the Obama administration

Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously on the take.

http://www.wwf.org.au/news/wwf-joins-worlds-leading-environment-proponents-in-ccs-call/

WWF joins world's leading environment proponents in CCS call

15 Apr 2008

WWF has joined some of the world's leading environment proponents in calling for the rapid deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration plants.

The conservation organisation says it must be determined as a matter of urgency whether the technology works or not, and whether it will play a role in the world's response to climate change.

"If we reach a three-degree rise in temperature, 35 per cent of species will become extinct. WWF has a responsibility to try to prevent this from happening, which means supporting a range of climate change solutions," said WWF-Australia CEO Greg Bourne.

"Rapid deployment of demonstration plants is necessary to determine whether CCS is practical for broad application, and if it doesn't work we need to know even sooner."

...

[wtmusic]

15. You mean The Union of Concerned Scientists, whose president isn't a scientist?

:rofl:

Exxon-Mobil is spending $30M/year on lobbying, and that kind of money buys a lot of "truth". WWF has bought into the hype, and if you read your own link you'll see they're still trying to determine "whether it will play a role in the world's response to climate change".

There's nothing even on the horizon. Too late.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. And (naturally) the IPCC is on the take as well. (Right?)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-3-6.html

Climate Change 2007: Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change

4.3.6 Carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS)

The potential to separate CO₂ from point sources, transport it and store it in isolation from the atmosphere was covered in an IPCC Special Report (IPCC, 2005). Uncertainties relate to proving the technologies, anticipating environmental impacts and how governments should incentivise uptake, possibly by regulation (OECD/IEA, 2005) or by carbon charges, setting a price on carbon emissions. Capture of CO₂ can best be applied to large carbon point sources including coal-, gas- or biomass-fired electric power-generation or cogeneration (CHP) facilities, major energy-using industries, synthetic fuel plants, natural gas fields and chemical facilities for producing hydrogen, ammonia, cement and coke. Potential storage methods include injection into underground geological formations, in the deep ocean or industrial fixation as inorganic carbonates (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/figure-4-22.html">Figure 4.22). Application of CCS for biomass sources (such as when co-fired with coal) could result in the net removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere.


...

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf


But, then, any "climate change skeptic" could have told me the IPCC is on the take...

[wtmusic]

19. No, climate change skeptics use data that's five years old

and don't even read what they post, i.e. "Uncertainties relate to proving the technologies".

Have any of those uncertainties been resolved in the last five years? Hmm?

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. That's why organizations are calling for full-scale R&D efforts

(To resolve remaining uncertainties.)

Or, we could just do nothing...

https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2009/NR-09-11-02.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 4, 2009
NR-09-11-02

Report on U.S.–China collaboration on carbon capture and sequestration

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Julio Friedmann, in collaboration with the Center for American Progress, the Asia Society Center and with partner Monitor Group, today released the report, “A Roadmap for U.S.-China Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration.”

The report provides a framework for long-term bilateral cooperation in the development and use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies, and sets out the benefits of the job creation opportunities and consumer savings. In addition, CCS offers a potential pathway for helping achieve the scientifically required reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions that energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energies are unlikely to meet on their own.

CCS is a process that separates and captures carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial and power plant flue streams, then compresses the gas and stores it underground, most likely in geological formations. The process essentially captures the greenhouse gas emissions before they enter the atmosphere and stores them underground. The report identifies three areas of cooperation on CCS.

• Cooperation on sequestration pure CO2 streams from existing Chinese industrial plants. Approximately 100 industrial facilities throughout China are producing pure streams of CO2 that are vented into the atmosphere unabated. The vast capacity of geological storage across China points to geological sequestration projects as an ideal focal point for near-term collaboration. This phase would consist of five jointly funded geological sequestration projects in China that can easily capture this source of carbon. Each project would cost $50 million to $100 million, with a U.S. share of $20 million to $40 million. These five sites could sequester 10 to 15 million tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to taking 1.7 to 2.5 million cars off the road.


• Invest in research and development for retrofitting existing power plants. Much attention has been placed in both countries on producing a new generation of integrated coal-fired electricity plants, which combine power production, capture of CO2 and sequestration. But even with successes in this new technology both countries will maintain huge fleets of existing plants in the short to medium term, which must be retrofitted for capture and sequestration of CO2 as well. Under the auspices of an already planned U.S.-China joint clean energy research center, the report proposes a strategy for research, development and deployment of a series of pilot facilities for CCS retrofits for existing coal power plants.


• Catalyze markets for CCS. In order to mobilize private capital for the plants envisioned in step two, public funds must be stimulated to encourage public-private partnerships. This stage of the roadmap focuses on the development of financial incentives for companies to invest in cooperation initially through government-backed public finance structures that serve as a bridge to market mechanisms such as a carbon-offset regime that includes proven CCS facilities and the creation of a global market for carbon abatement.

“A rapid deployment program for CCS is needed if we are to address our continued dependence on coal while tackling climate change,” said Friedmann, leader of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Carbon Management Program and technical adviser to the roadmap. “This roadmap lays out a proposal that accelerates both the demonstration and commercialization of sequestration safely and economically. Because of how the Chinese use coal in industry, there are real opportunities for large-scale projects there at very low cost.”

The report argues that cooperation in these three areas with China could accelerate CCS deployment in the United States by five to 10 years.

Collaboration also will quickly help lower the cost of CSS deployment in the United States and such savings will be passed on to the American electricity consumer. The report estimates that a five-year acceleration of CCS deployment in the United States would lead to $5 billion in savings while a10-year acceleration would lead to $18 billion in savings.

According to the report, a proven CCS sector would create 127,000 jobs in the United States by 2022 under a business-as-usual scenario. A five-year acceleration of CCS deployment as a result of U.S.-China collaboration increases that figure to 430,000. A 10-year acceleration in deployment could create as many as 940,000 new U.S. jobs by 2022.

“The United States stands to gain more through collaboration with China than through the independent pursuit of developing CCS technologies,” said John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress. “The impacts on U.S. job creation and consumer savings would be immense and more than compensate for American investment in this roadmap.”

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a national security laboratory, with a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration.

[wtmusic]

21. Or we could invest in technologies which show promise.

There have been no uncertainties resolved with CCS.

There is one huge problem with sequestration, about which there's been very little discussion, and that is what will happen realistically when companies are required to go through the expensive, energy-intensive process of capturing, then piping CO2 to suitable locations for storage.

What will happen is this: they will turn those big pipes to the sky and dump that CO2 into the atmosphere, and charge the public to do it. There will be no trace, no viable way to check compliance.

CCS is a non-starter.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. Then we're at an end

Realistic estimates show that without some sort of Carbon Capture (in addition to other efforts) we're screwed:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2200

...

But while climate policy is finally moving forward, climate science is moving faster. One discovery after another suggests the world is warming faster, and climate damages are appearing sooner, than anyone had expected. Much of the policy discussion so far has been aimed at keeping the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ below 450 parts per million (ppm) — which was until recently thought to be low enough to prevent dangerous levels of warming. But last year, James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist, argued that paleoclimatic evidence shows 450 ppm is the threshold for transition to an ice-free earth. This would imply a catastrophic rise in sea levels, eventually flooding all coastal cities and regions.

To avoid reaching such a crisis stage, Hansen and http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2143">a growing number of others now call for stabilizing CO₂ concentrations at 350 ppm. The world is now around 390 ppm and rising; since CO₂ persists in the atmosphere for a long time, it is difficult to reduce concentrations quickly. In Hansen’s scenario, a phaseout of coal use, massive reforestation, and widespread use of carbon capture and storage could allow the world to achieve negative net carbon emissions by mid-century and reach 350 ppm by 2100.

...

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Hansen_etal.html

[wtmusic]

23. Hansen only believes in agricultural CCS as a temporary fix

Forestry and agricultural practices can help put on the brakes, but as a long-term solution his position is that there should be no new coal plants built without 100% CCS (in other words, none).

And there should be an unwavering commitment to 3rd- and 4th-gen nuclear.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. You're misrepresenting Hansen's position

He advocates research on 4^th generation nuclear power and CCS in the same breath.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20081229_DearMichelleAndBarack.pdf

...

(3) Urgent R&D on 4^th generation nuclear power with international cooperation.

Energy efficiency, renewable energies, and a “smart grid” deserve first priority in our effort to reduce carbon emissions. With a rising carbon price, renewable energy can perhaps handle all of our needs. However, most experts believe that making such presumption probably would leave us in 25 years with still a large contingent of coal-fired power plants worldwide. Such a result would be disastrous for the planet, humanity, and nature.

4^th generation nuclear power (4^th GNP) and coal-fired power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at present are the best candidates to provide large baseload nearly carbon-free power (in case renewable energies cannot do the entire job). Predictable criticism of 4^th GNP (and CCS) is: “it cannot be ready before 2030.” However, the time needed could be much abbreviated with a Presidential initiative and Congressional support. Moreover, improved (3^rd generation) light water reactors are available for near-term needs.

...

CCS also deserves R&D support. There is no such thing as clean coal at this time, and it is doubtful that we will ever be able to fully eliminate emissions of mercury, other heavy metals, and radioactive material in the mining and burning of coal. However, because of the enormous number of dirty coal-fired power plants in existence, the abundance of the fuel, and the fact that CCS technology could be used at biofuel-fired power plants to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide, the technology deserves strong R&D support.

...

[wtmusic]

25. From 2008 - his position has changed considerably since

In Storms of My Grandchildren (11/2009) his tone his far less encouraging on CCS (my copy is on loan so I don't have an exact quote).

And even Hansen doesn't address the "cheat factor".

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. Here's your quote

http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/climate_catastrophe_solutions.html

...

Coal

Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty. “Clean coal” technology does not exist and carbon capture is not economically feasible.

Developed countries will need to complete their coal phase-out by about 2020, if global phase-out of coal is to be achieved by 2030. If coal emissions are phased out this rapidly— a tall order, but a feasible one— the climate problem is solvable.

...

If his view is as firm as this suggests, it is certainly quite an about-face in a very short period of time. (About a year.)

[wtmusic]

27. I owe you one. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. I think his stance is a bit more nuanced than that quote suggests

http://climatetasmania.com.au/2010/03/13/hansen-interview/

James Hansen interviewed on Australian radio

...

Adams: Cannot we sequester?

Hansen: Well, carbon capture and sequestration is worth investigating, because we may need to use that with biofuels, because we’re going to need to draw down the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We’ve already passed into a dangerous zone. We can see that the ice sheets are going to be unstable even if we just stayed at 390 parts per million (concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). So we could burn biofuels in a power plant, capture the CO2, put it underground, then we would draw down in that way the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But I don’t think that using it with coal is going to work. It’s going to make the coal so much more expensive that other alternatives would be preferable.

...

His argument appears to be financial.

"CCS is worth investigating," but it's too expensive for coal.

My guess is that if an inexpensive enough solution was presented, he'd be in favor it of.

[joshcryer]

28. He is very hard line about coal, and he believes we have only a few decades to do it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. Right, I realize this

I also know that his policy has been opposition to coal plants that do not employ CCS but not to CCS itself, except to the extent that governments use CCS research as an excuse (cough, cough, Bush, cough...)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf

...

The proper course of action is clear, from the science and common sense. The geophysical boundary conditions dictate a course that causes coal emissions to be phased out expeditiously, although not necessarily coal use. There should be an immediate halt to construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture all emissions, including carbon dioxide. Mountaintop removal, with its blasphemous environmental damage, should be banned – it provides only seven percent of United States coal, less than our exports.

...

This is a problem that demands strong leadership. The only special interest that should be calling the tune is the public’s special interest. Mountaintop removal should be banned. We should move rapidly to terminate coal use except where all emissions are captured.

...

Of course, nuclear power poses dangers, but that is going to be true in any case – nuclear power is not going to disappear from the planet. The United States will be far safer if it takes a leadership role in helping assure international standards and controls on the nuclear industry.

The reason that I bring up this topic again, especially in connection with India and China, is continued over-emphasis on “clean coal”, i.e., carbon capture and sequestration. That technology should be given a chance, but it is doubtful, even if it worked, that India and China will be willing to go to the enormous costs of implementation. On the other hand, they are choking in air pollution. Standardized, replicable nuclear power stations seem a more plausible bet than “clean coal”.

...

[joshcryer]

31. Yeah, I read that, I've read all of his papers.

I think that his "opposition" to Coal-CSS stems from his belief that it simply cannot be "phased in" soon enough. It'd be cheaper and faster to build other energy sources than to attempt sequestering CO2.

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. OK, that's not how I read it

I read it as an economic argument, Coal + CCS = higher price than alternatives.

If it were a time argument I don't buy it. Which could you do faster, retrofit an existing coal burner, build a new nuclear plant, or erect the corresponding wind/solar farm? (I'm guessing it'd be the first.)

[wtmusic]

7. Fiction.

Mark Schiavoni has no idea what he's talking about.

Coal gasification occurs before combustion, and has no effect on the amount of CO2 produced.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. I believe you misread the column

http://nativeunity.blogspot.com/

...

Kee asked whether it was economically feasible to retrofit the newer units at Four Corners with natural gas.

“Gas saves you like 45 to 50 percent of your carbon, so it's not clean like everybody believes,” Schiavoni said. “But we did look at retrofitting and it would be cost-prohibitive.”

...

(I believe he was referring to reduced emissions as a result of burning "natural gas" instead of coal.)

[wtmusic]

12. Nope.

"It's not just the carbon that's being captured in the gasification process."

:silly:

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. I suspect he understands the IGCC process

It's quite possible the author of the article does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_gasification_combined_cycle

Integrated gasification combined cycle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is a technology that turns coal into gas—synthesis gas (syngas). It then removes impurities from the coal gas before it is combusted. This results in lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulates and mercury. ...

[wtmusic]

16. He's made it very clear he doesn't understand the process.

Give up, OKIIJM

[tinrobot]

17. What about the process of exctracting coal?

That's hardly clean and often fatal, as we sadly learned this week.

[Ready4Change]

34. It's a misleading label.

It should have been called 'cleaner coal.'

Personally, I'd rather have no new coal plants built. Realistically, I don't think politics will line up to build nuclear plants as quickly as needed.

And while I love the alternatives (solar, wind, etc...) I do not believe they are going to be technically sufficient any time soon. (I'm a big fan of building as much as we can, but the numbers aren't adding up well.)

So, to fill in the gap, we're likely to build more coal and NG plants. Each one, even if it is 'cleaner,' will be a further nail in our civilizations coffin.

But we, as a species, seem incapable of doing better.