Is clean coal possible?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

Is clean coal possible?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Is clean coal possible?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 12:46:26 AM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

GQ has an article this month on an environmental disaster that happened in December of last year in Tennessee.

BLACK TIDE

By Sean Flynn; Photograph by Christopher LaMarca

"Just days before Christmas last year, an environmental disaster one hundred times the size of the Exxon Valdez (yes, you read that right) unfolded on a riverbank in eastern Tennessee. A wave of poisonous sludge buried a town…along with the myth of clean coal"

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_9277

(format edit)

< Message edited by Vendaval -- 5/26/2009 12:48:09 AM >

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

Post #: 1

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 1:09:19 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

Clean coal is obviously something of a misnomer. Coal will always produce ash and CO2 when burned. Cleaner coal, low sulfur coal burned in plants with some sort of CO2 sequestration and an ash disposal plan better than pile up big hills of the stuff and hope it stays put, is possible and in the short term has to be part of the nations energy policy. However long term coal needs to be abandoned, it will never be truly clean.

(in reply to Vendaval)

Post #: 2

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 2:08:43 AM

DemonKia

Posts: 5521
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Chico, Nor-Cali
Status: offline

FR, after read thru

Short answer: depends on what price point is acceptable. Energy is a matter of economics as much as geology & engineering & chemistry & physics.

My favorite resource for issues around energy production is The Oil Drum. The contributors come from energy resource extraction, refining, & trading industries, & from academia. The postings tend to be reasonably accessible to laypersons.The lengthy commentary that accompanies the articles can be as informative as the articles themselves . .. . . The emphasis is obviously on petroleum oil, but all topics relating to energy get addressed.

Here are some pertinent articles I pulled up from there:

China's liquid fuels future

Burning coal in place or in-situ gasification

Clean fuel from dirty coal?

The Coal Question and Climate Change

This one is a compendium of articles:
Forecasting Coal Production Until 2100

The Economics of Oil, Part I: Supply and Demand Curves

The Economics of Oil, Part II: Peak Oil and the Energy Supply Curve

One of the meta-frames I use for examining the issue of coal is as a 'finite mineral fuel'. This grouping would also clearly include petroleum oil & uranium, but I also lump in a large amount of the non-renewable 'natural gas' reserves. ('Natural gas' has the caveat that some of it is renewable, so it gets a little more complicated to discuss.)

I will say that from my researches the 'cheeriest' bit of news I can offer about coal, especially for those concerned about global climate change linked to increasing CO2 emissions is that 'clean coal' technologies will probably result in more rapid consumption of coal resources. At this point (& for the foreseeable future) techniques such as extracting liquid fuels from coal & coal-gasification & so on typically use up 4 to 6 times the volume of coal to produce the effects of one volume of coal used to produce energy in more conventional manners (ie, electricity generation via steam turbines).

&, just for the FYI of it -- I'm a freak in that I look forward to that point when we realize we 'used up' the bulk of the 'finite mineral fuels', & we start returning to lives of more thrifty resource consumption out of necessity. (*looks at nonexistent watch on wrist* Which is looking like the next 5 to 10 years with petroleum, especially the easy-to-refine stuff, FYI . . . . Coal's probably got a decade or two, with uranium & natural gas duking it out for last place . . ... .)

& after those transition cusps of changing over to more-expensive resources & energy, I suspect we'll be living lives on average nicer than the current global average. All I have to do is go look at the local dump to see how much waste is built into our systems of 'conspicuous consumption' & 'built-in obsolescence' & similar . . . . . . . & I'm pessimistic about us coming up with miracle technologies that will perpetuate lifestyles of over-consumption such as that birthed the Hummer, for instance, that will be sustainable in the long term . . . All in an optimistic way, if one can wrap one's brain around that concept . . . . . .

< Message edited by DemonKia -- 5/26/2009 2:13:48 AM >

_____________________________

Snarko ergo sum.

The Verbossinator

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 3

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 6:38:31 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

I suspect that the roadblock in the stimulus package's funding in energy has to do with this concept of clean coal. Steven Chu, the energy secretary hasn't been talking to anybody- including congressmen. My guess is he's caught between a rock and a hard place because Obama also incorporated "clean coal" in his election platform and Chu is going to lose credibility if he incorporates it into the stimulus recommendations. Well, it's time to throw clean coal under the train.

Carbon sequestration is a sick joke and every scientist who still remembers thermodynamics can figure it out. Here's a blog that's discussing some of the calculations-

http://ambivalentengineer.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-are-there-no-gtcc-plants-doing-co2.html

DOE estimates (I'm using an industry source- this info is not easily found on the DOE website- I couldn't dig it out.) are that pulling CO2 out of a waste stream drops the efficiency of a coal plant from about 35% to 25%- basically by a third. The energy cost is due to entropy- it takes energy to separate stuff. There's no engineering that gets around this- its on par with perpetual motion. The energy cost can be reduced and some of the variability in the energy cost numbers has to do with the operating conditions- but it's always going to be significant. It makes no sense to build new coal plants with this "feature". The simplest and most reliable way to store CO2 underground is to leave it as coal- anything else is actually rather hazardous.

In terms of transition fuels- recently a combination of new methods of extraction and better modeling have shown that natural gas reserves in the US are much larger than previously thought. Natural gas is a wonderful transition fuel and possible long term liquid fuel replacement. GE (scum) will be delighted to build you a gas turbine plant that runs on natural gas- much cleaner than coal and with half the CO2 output per watt of a coal plant- if not higher. Plus, they're pretty good at on demand, meaning that they can integrate with sporadic renewables such as wind and solar. Natural gas would also work well in a fuel cell vehicle- dodging the problem of hydrogen storage. It's also potentially renewable using the bovine digestive tract (cow farts)- and cleaned up- its odorless.

This is a case of big money trumping science.

Sam

(in reply to DemonKia)

Post #: 4

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 6:51:35 AM

DarkSteven

Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline

We have to agree on what "clean coal" actually is. The classic definition is that the smokestack plume is clean after burning. The filters which much be disposed of are not taken into account.

If GQ is going to redefine "clean coal" as "pristine at the point of mining", they're whacked. Clean solar energy does not require that the photovoltaic plants' raw supplies be environmentally pristine when mined or manufactured.

One final point - risk analysis assumes risks from normal operations, as well as from accidents, weighted for the probability of those accidents. Nobody would assume that a once-in-a-hundred-year accident would define the risk of the entire operation.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 5

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 9:14:22 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

"We have to agree on what "clean coal" actually is. The classic definition is that the smokestack plume is clean after burning. The filters which much be disposed of are not taken into account.

If GQ is going to redefine "clean coal" as "pristine at the point of mining", they're whacked.

Actually, I thought the GQ article did a pretty good job of pointing out that "clean coal" is very much a marketing term and bears little semblance to reality. The mining companies have been claiming that they can pull coal out of the ground with little/no environmental impact. That their efforts when examined with a longer time scale aren't so successful certainly is worth some further consideration.

Clean solar energy does not require that the photovoltaic plants' raw supplies be environmentally pristine when mined or manufactured.

ROFL- this is absolutely silly. It's like comparing mouse droppings to elephant droppings. Even if the solar cells use some environmentally not such nice stuff like CdSe, its in a form which makes it easy to recycle and keep out of the waste stream. Most of the current cells use Si which is one of the most ubiquitous elements on the planet. But more to the point- a single coal plant uses what- 15,000 tons of coal-per year? Once the solar cell is produced- how much Si is consumed during its operational lifetime of a couple of decades?

One final point - risk analysis assumes risks from normal operations, as well as from accidents, weighted for the probability of those accidents. Nobody would assume that a once-in-a-hundred-year accident would define the risk of the entire operation.

Your assumption that the GQ article described a once in a hundred year event is deeply flawed. The point of the article is that the ash disposal of coal fired plants is a ticking time bomb. The volumes of ash continue to increase- this isn't a steady state. What the article didn't state, but allows the reader to infer is that as time goes on, we will have more of these ash slides unless the ash is disposed of properly. And since coal fired plant operators don't mine the coal cleanly, put up stacks to make sure that the heavy metals and other gases are diluted and spread elsewhere, and don't even dispose of their ash properly to date- why should we assume that things will get any better in the future?

Like a number of sectors of our economy- coal fired electricity is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The true costs are unknown since economists have yet to develop a decent model for a natural resource.

Sam

(in reply to DarkSteven)

Post #: 6

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 10:03:33 AM

Vendaval

Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

DemonKia and samboct,

Thank you for the additional information and resources.

_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE

http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 7

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 5:21:28 PM

sophia37

Posts: 1433
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline

clean coal. How bout clean cement? Cement factories are worse than coal as pollutants. And China is building them at a high rate of speed. Cement is number one as a pollutant.

(in reply to Vendaval)

Post #: 8

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/26/2009 7:28:07 PM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

Burning coal produces a pollutant...sulfur dioxide so2 and a greenhouse gas...co2. The sulfur dioxide not only affects human respiratory function but also creates a form of acid rain.

The co2 contributes to the formation of what is the glass...in a greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.

Clean coal is very possible on all counts with investment in technology. If one simply looks at how far we have come in 1 century, over the next, we will develop all of the alternatives determined only by the traditional market barriers. Except for the usual problem.

That problem is that investors will all too typically, sit back and wait for tax bennies and govt.subsidies and oppose compelling laws rather than truly take that risk of their own money as their propaganda would have you believe.

(in reply to sophia37)

Post #: 9

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/27/2009 6:34:05 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Sophia

While cement production is indeed a significant source of anthropogenic CO2, new cement technologies are reducing the amount of CO2 evolved. Also- coal plants produce CO2 daily. Once concrete has cured, it doesn't produce more CO2.

"Burning coal produces a pollutant...sulfur dioxide so2 and a greenhouse gas...co2. The sulfur dioxide not only affects human respiratory function but also creates a form of acid rain."

Anthracite coal is 99+% carbon. It's relatively easy to scrub out any sulfur- hence low sulfur coal and no sulfur dioxides. It's just more expensive, and thus the power producers didn't want to do it.

The co2 contributes to the formation of what is the glass...in a greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.

Clean coal is very possible on all counts with investment in technology.

No, it's not. If you read the DOE papers from say 1999 before GWB took the crown, you'll see that they considered carbon sequestration a truly radical idea. The problem with
1) burning the coal
2) separating out the CO2 from the waste stream (it's only a few percent- it's mostly nitrogen, unless you go to pure oxygen instead of the atmosphere as a fuel.)
3) Putting the CO2 into long term storage

Is that only #1 has been shown to be economical and achievable. In terms of #2- yes, we can separate out CO2 from the waste stream- but we don't know how expensive it's going to be- and there WILL be an energy cost. In terms of #3- this is an absolute joker in the deck. There is no known technology that can keep CO2 out of the atmosphere once its injected into either the oceans (a really dumb idea) or underground. Nobody's ever really tested whether the CO2 which is used to get oil out of shale actually stays there and for how long. Since CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere- (try decades)- storing it underground for 10 years accomplishes nothing. It's got to be stored for centuries. The best way we know how to do that is to leave it as.....coal.

If one simply looks at how far we have come in 1 century, over the next, we will develop all of the alternatives determined only by the traditional market barriers. Except for the usual problem.

That problem is that investors will all too typically, sit back and wait for tax bennies and govt.subsidies and oppose compelling laws rather than truly take that risk of their own money as their propaganda would have you believe.

(We might agree here although you ignore the need for the gov't to play the role of first customer- a customer willing to pay for performance.)

Actually, much of the problem is that natural resources aren't priced accurately by economists and supposed mature technology such as coal and nuclear have enormous hidden subsidies. At least with wind and solar- we know what those subsidies are, and they may well be lower than the "conventional" technologies.

Sam

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Post #: 10

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/27/2009 6:41:55 AM

Mezrem

Posts: 311
Joined: 11/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

Actually, much of the problem is that natural resources aren't priced accurately by economists and supposed mature technology such as coal and nuclear have enormous hidden subsidies. At least with wind and solar- we know what those subsidies are, and they may well be lower than the "conventional" technologies.

Sam

While I can not disagree with your points.. the elevation of solar and wind generation of power is not as produtive. You will get more from coal and nulear plants. I know it is not a popular stand but man made global warming is not a proven fact. I'm all for investment in clean forms of energy prodution but lets not handy cap our selves in the mean while.

Is there clean coal.. no.. but it is cleaner then it was 10 or 20 years ago.. and will become even cleaner still I'm sure. There is always room for improvement. Also the more wide spread use of coal would allow for America to be less dependent on other countries for our energy needs.

_____________________________

Happiness comes of the capacity to feel deeply, to enjoy simply, to think freely, to risk life, to be needed.

~Storm Jameson

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 11

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/27/2009 6:53:16 AM

Scheherazade

Posts: 41
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline

Oops

< Message edited by Scheherazade -- 5/27/2009 7:02:11 AM >

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 12

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/27/2009 12:49:48 PM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

"You will get more from coal and nulear plants. I know it is not a popular stand but man made global warming is not a proven fact.

In the science community, the science behind global climate change is accepted. Your viewpoint means you're arguing with physics. Plenty of people believe in perpetual motion too- see over unity magnetic power for example.

In terms of you'll get more... what? Power? Watts delivered by solar power, wind power, or geothermal energy are all functionally equivalent. In terms of pollution and messes- no argument you'll get more from fossil fuels. If you're talking about watts/dollar, I haven't seen any reliable figures on the costs of either nuclear or coal that account for the hidden subsidies of these plants -or as noted above, accurate pricing for the environmental damage done.

I'm all for investment in clean forms of energy prodution but lets not handy cap our selves in the mean while.

Since when is adopting new technology, i.e. progress- a handicap? In case you haven't noticed in telecommunications- China, India and Europe have better cell phone networks than we do- because we didn't commit to the transition of the new technology- needing instead to pass legislation to protect our "legacy" networks of copper wire in the ground. In other countries- the copper wire is being salvaged for its value as a raw material- yet we're still installing the stuff instead of fiber optic cable.

Continuing to use outdated power sources such as coal will only put us at more of an economic disadvantage in the future when these new technologies displace existing power generation. Wind is already cost competitive with subsidized coal and nuclear- and once the energy storage issue gets solved, it will become increasingly popular.

Is there clean coal.. no.. but it is cleaner then it was 10 or 20 years ago.. and will become even cleaner still I'm sure. There is always room for improvement. Also the more wide spread use of coal would allow for America to be less dependent on other countries for our energy needs.

A few facts to the rescue....the bulk of the US energy imports are oil for liquid fuel, which is used for transportation and synthetic purposes. Very little oil is used for power generation. As noted above, US natural gas reserves are much larger than thought a year ago and provide an economical and far more environmentally friendly alternative to coal. In terms of power generation, the US is pretty close to neutral (we import some hydropower from Canada-and I think we export some power as well- probably coal powered though. (I'm guessing here.)

Sam

(in reply to Scheherazade)

Post #: 13

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/27/2009 4:26:38 PM

DemonKia

Posts: 5521
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Chico, Nor-Cali
Status: offline

FR, after read thru

Samboct, good stuff you're posting here, thanks for laying all that out . . . . . . . My strong suit is more the petroleum end of the energy spectra . . . .

A side note about natural gas. Natural gas is not very portable & mostly gets consumed within the continent its produced from (ie, it can be compressed, but it costs extra to do that) . . . . . . Outside of portability, tho', natural gas is both relatively 'clean' pollution-wise, & is both reasonably 'energy dense' & useful as a feedstock for a variety of industrial materials (plastics, pesticides & other chemicals, & so on) . . . . . . . It has a much more limited ability to be a renewable resource -- capturing cow farts, for instance, promises to have price tag . . . .. .

(Just for the FYI of it, I posted an 'intro to peak oil' on another thread: What Do You See In the Near Future? )

The following is mostly an amplification on my answer of 'it depends on the economics' . . . .

To pull back for the 'big pic', we humans, especially industrialized, wealthier countries have been living on an 'island' of 'cheap energy' for much of the last century, an 'island' which is going away with the petroleum . . . . . .

Petroleum oil has been a rather unique finite fuel source, very 'energy dense' as compared to virtually all the other fuel sources, extremely portable, amenable to spot generation of power (as opposed to centralized power generation), & 'crackable' into a variety of important industrial materials in addition to the fuels pulled out of it . . . .. .. Frankly, none of the other 'finite mineral fuels' comes close in terms of usefulness . . . .. Petroleum has been both so useful & so 'cheap' to extract & process that it has 'skewed' the economics of energy towards the seemingly 'low cost' end, but I'm unpersuaded that energy will stay 'cheap' during the rest of this new century.

A big chunk of why I say we're moving from a time of relatively cheap energy to a time of relatively expensive energy is because of the increasing need we're feeling to incorporate environmental & other long-term factors into pricing structures. Effective technology exists to defray all kinds of environmental effects of technology, they just generally have price tags, sometimes significant ones. Similarly, tech exists to do for us what petroleum has done, but less conveniently & / or more expensively . . . . . . If we'd acted like timelines longer than quarter-to-quarter & year-over-year results mattered, we'd have started pricing energy more expensively in the 1970's when the US hit its petroleum peak & domestic oil wells started experiencing production declines . . . . . . ..

& with the both the increasing sensitivity of the general population to environmental matters, & the increasing adverse feedback we'll be feeling from the onset of global climate change & other ongoing pollution & resourced depletion issues, pricing in ecological costs is gonna be the emerging model . . . . . . & that means it'll cost more money to do everything, just as it takes more work to, say, cook in a kitchen & leave it clean at the end of the cooking process than it does to make a big huge mess while cooking . . . . . . . .

For instance, that disaster illustrated in the GQ article is more an artifact of industrial practices that low-ball environmental protection costs than anything else . . . . . . People, especially from the affected communities & the environmental movement, have been fighting to get the various industries to behave more responsibly for decades now. It just doesn't necessarily make front-page news until there's some huge disaster, & then it's typically just a blip. The flip of that, tho', is that industry has reached all kindsa places & radicalized all kindsa people that might not otherwise have considered themselves 'environmentalists'. Until the local industry fucked over their community in the pursuit of 'greater profits' -- those kinda stories have been on a gradual but decided upswing from Love Canal forward . . . . . .

(The non-mainstream media can do a 'better' job of covering this stuff . . . . . I've been reading Mother Jones off & on since my childhood, & they generally are covering stuff long before the mainstream sources start their chorus of 'why hasn't this been noticed before', hehehehe . . . . Alternet & Common Dreams can get a little rah-rah cheerleader for the left, for my tastes, but they do adequate coverage on their issues of concern . . . . . I also have good things to say about the Utne Reader & The Progressive; Utne in particular is dedicated to an optimistic viewpoint, which makes it more pleasant to read on average . .. . . . )

To my eyes, one of the most important paradigms of energy production is centralized versus de-centralized. In general de-centralized is to be preferred. Centralized power production is more amenable to being monopolized, & de-centralized power production (such as photo-voltaics on every roof) makes if much tougher to monopolize electricity & manipulate it's costs for profiteering purposes.

De-centralized power is also more robust in the face of adversity. One power plant getting knocked out can leave thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of households without electricity. But if all those houses draw their electricity from a combination of rooftop solar, solar 'farms', wind farms, some centralized production, & possibly even some regional or local source such as geothermal or cogeneration from the municipal dump, then if the power station goes down there's still power flowing . . . . . . . .

A kinda side note about energy & subsidies: one of the most significant 'invisible' subsidies, especially around petroleum, has been the military. Basically, US policy has had a heavy component of militarily supporting (typically) dictatorships which sell us their resources at the prices we like. It's a monetary subsidy that doesn't show up at the gas pump in much the manner that its moral consequences don't show up in our collective psyches. But since our domestic production peaked in the early '70s we've been committed to getting 'cheap' resources from other sources by whatever means we can get away with . . .. . . .

Frankly, I lean towards saying that 'cheap' energy has been 'bad' for us -- witness the Hummer & related SUV arms-race manias, & enormous & growing mountains of garbage, built-in obsolescence, & a host of other trends that seem, to me, to be 'subsidized' & otherwise supported by 'cheap energy' . . . . . I grew up reading those Little House on the Prairie books, & the wastfulness of modern life has always bugged the heck out of me, so I don't think that relatively 'expensive energy' is gonna be terrible for us. We can probably use the discipline, lol . . . . . .

Okay. Given all of the above context, 'clean coal' is just the application of new & existing tech to the problem of getting electricity out of raw resources while 'dealing' ever more stringently with the inevitable pollutants. Coal is far & away the 'dirtiest' of the finite mineral fuels by volume of pollutants produced. Typically the more pollutants removed the more it costs to do the removing. While North America does have considerable coal, China both has more, & has laid diplomatic & political hands on far more, so clean coal is probably gonna be way more of a Chinese tech evolution than a US one, in my prognostications . .. . .. & since the 1.3 billion Chinese quite rightfully want their wealthier, more industrialized lives, they're probably gonna use up quite a bit of their coal before we all get to the place that we collectively don't wanna do that massive polluting stuff anymore. I'm very pessimistic about how powerful the 'do as we say, not as we do' approach works for much of anything; statecraft seems very similar to parenting to me, lol . . . . . . . So telling China to not develop their wealth probably isn't gonna go anywhere. The best bet for concerned US citizens is that we start being the change we want to see in the world, I think that'll prolly work better, lol . . . . . .. . With the number one way to reduce one's impacts on all of this is simply consuming less. *gasps of horror, hahaha*

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 14

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/27/2009 8:32:42 PM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Hi Kia

Interesting post- very thoughtful. Permit me to offer some areas of agreement and some dissent however.

Agreement-

Peak oil is over- I've heard this stated publicly from heads of companies like Shell, Chevron, and Halliburton-probably a few more. Yes, oil is going to become more expensive. Your comments about the military subsidy of oil is bang on- hell Japan's attack on the US was precipitated by oil (our cutting off the Japanese supply)

Coal- full agreement on the upcoming problems with China and the fact that it's the dirtiest fuel going.

Agreement on a smart grid which would involve decentralized power- effectively using the internet as a model rather than a central computer.

Minor disagreement on natural gas transport- I thought a fair amount was moved around as liquified natural gas- LNG.

NG is also a great feedstock for both polymer and fine chemical synthesis- the chemical industry won't have too much trouble.

Disagreement on the upcoming costs of energy. Using current technology, if you used wind power-even with no subsidy, to drive 100 miles in your Prius, it would cost a fraction of what gasoline would. Wind is getting to be a pretty mature technology, and in terms of generation, it's already quite competitive with fossil fuel plants- and that's absent real environmental costs. Add in the environmental costs and wind will very likely be cheaper- probably by at least 25% (WAG).

Solar is not a mature technology and there is no reason why we can't have 50% efficient solar cells- we've got them in the lab. With more efficient cells, the cost/watt will drop further- and I suspect that the argument that solar cells are a cheaper way to power your Prius compared to gasoline also holds water.

So I think the renewables- even with today's technology, are already barking at the door of fossil fuel plants. Given a decades development- they'll be cheaper. Rather than coming into an era of expensive energy, I think we're looking at an era of cheaper energy- and that may be what scares the existing power producers most of all, because energy consumption and GDP aren't tied together- and it's quite possible that we could consume less energy, even if it's lower cost- and have a better standard of living. This means that the power producing industries will shrink, and we know how businesses feel about that prospect! Recall that the steel industry has certainly shrunk from its heyday, and we now have more versatile and low cost materials to replace steel. Polymers are less than $1/lb, while steel has been $2/lb for a long time.

Sam

< Message edited by samboct -- 5/27/2009 8:34:10 PM >

(in reply to DemonKia)

Post #: 15

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/27/2009 10:29:08 PM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Kia, Sambo, Great posts!
Yes, I agree that with advances in technology that 20 years from now coal will be much cleaner. Fifty years from now probably a hell of a lot cleaner! I remember reading some articles about "re-burning" coal fumes caught in the smokestacks and re-routed to special machines or something like that. And research into filtration systems.
And the U.S. has hundreds of years of coal supplies.
As for "wind" it can make a huge differance too if certain idiot senators from Massachusetts will stop blocking it because; "it'll spoil my view."
I drove cross country last fall and saw shitloads of windmills out in Wyoming, Utah and Nevada.

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 5/27/2009 10:31:44 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 16

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/28/2009 6:21:44 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Hey- if we're throwing out a crystal ball prediction-

1) US oil consumption is at its peak. Within 5 years it'll be dropping slightly, and we'll see a double digit decrease in a decade. If we're really going to transition, it's probable that it will happen quickly- you make more money that way. However, wood --> coal, coal --> oil, and horse --> auto actually did take decades, so maybe I'm wrong here.

2) The power industry will probably take a bit longer, but it's already getting to be practically impossible to build a new coal plant given the permitting process and public disapproval. Hence our coal consumption as also probably maxed out, but it may take longer for it to decline. This depends heavily on legislation which will change the economics of coal burning plants. I still think its much saner to not waste money on coal technology and throw it at renewables and a better grid. There's new technology from American Superconductor that will allow long haul DC power (and its underground!)- and will allow it to be tapped along the way. It'd be a billion $ plus project to run a line from the Midwest to NYC, but it would allow Midwestern wind farms to sell their power to the Northeast where its needed. I'd rather see my dollars go to Oklahoma or Kansas than the Mideast. (note- if we transition to electric vehicles-then this happens.)

3) Popeye- you left out Pennsylvania for wind turbine farms. Last time I checked, PA also had lots of coal too, so it seems as if wind turbines can replace coal even when it's plentiful. I hope...please, please, please....

Sam

(in reply to popeye1250)

Post #: 17

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/28/2009 7:04:10 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

I thought I'd throw out some numbers for the cost of charging an electric car-

http://www.oemtek.com/faq.html#g-q1

These guys are selling a lithium phosphate pack to extend the range of a Toyota Prius on pure electric power which is pretty miserable at 10 miles. With their pack, the car goes about 30-35 miles without kicking on the gas engine. It's a 9 kilowatt hr pack which at $0.08 per kW hr from the power company costs $0.81. So the cost to go say 300 miles is $8 give or take. In CT, we have some pretty high rates approaching $0.20 kW/hr, so we're looking at closer to $20.

Is this really cheaper than an internal combustion engine? Debatable-If the battery pack costs $4 k and last 100,000 miles (WAG), that's an additional cost of $.025/mile so there's an additional $7.50 tacked on to the cost of driving those 300 miles. So we're under $30 for driving 300 miles. Current gas cost- lets assume your wheels get 30 mpg- hence 10 gallons or somewhere between $25-28 depending on gas prices and exact mileage. Basically, it's a wash.

However, if we look at the direction of future prices- wind turbines cost between $0.05-0.06 per kW hr. Even if it's $0.10, that's still only $10 for 300 miles assuming the power company doesn't gouge you like we get in CT. And the likelihood is that price isn't going up- and might fall slightly. Battery prices are going to fall as well as production increases. It's probable that on electricity, a car will cost $15 to go those same 300 miles in a decade- maybe less. Anybody wanna say that gasoline prices are going to fall? We've already seen gas prices double last summer. Seems to me that gas prices can accelerate faster than improved mileage using an internal combustion engine- the more folks move to electrics, the lower the demand on gasoline, and the more stable pricing is going to be although with China building cars at a fantastic rate, what we do in terms of gas consumption isn't going to matter as much as you might think.

Clearly, electrics are essentially break even with internal combustion even with current pricing- and with future pricing, it's going to tilt that way even more.

Sam

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 18

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/28/2009 7:57:38 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I thought I'd throw out some numbers for the cost of charging an electric car-

http://www.oemtek.com/faq.html#g-q1

These guys are selling a lithium phosphate pack to extend the range of a Toyota Prius on pure electric power which is pretty miserable at 10 miles. With their pack, the car goes about 30-35 miles without kicking on the gas engine. It's a 9 kilowatt hr pack which at $0.08 per kW hr from the power company costs $0.81. So the cost to go say 300 miles is $8 give or take. In CT, we have some pretty high rates approaching $0.20 kW/hr, so we're looking at closer to $20.

Is this really cheaper than an internal combustion engine? Debatable-If the battery pack costs $4 k and last 100,000 miles (WAG), that's an additional cost of $.025/mile so there's an additional $7.50 tacked on to the cost of driving those 300 miles. So we're under $30 for driving 300 miles. Current gas cost- lets assume your wheels get 30 mpg- hence 10 gallons or somewhere between $25-28 depending on gas prices and exact mileage. Basically, it's a wash.

However, if we look at the direction of future prices- wind turbines cost between $0.05-0.06 per kW hr. Even if it's $0.10, that's still only $10 for 300 miles assuming the power company doesn't gouge you like we get in CT. And the likelihood is that price isn't going up- and might fall slightly. Battery prices are going to fall as well as production increases. It's probable that on electricity, a car will cost $15 to go those same 300 miles in a decade- maybe less. Anybody wanna say that gasoline prices are going to fall? We've already seen gas prices double last summer. Seems to me that gas prices can accelerate faster than improved mileage using an internal combustion engine- the more folks move to electrics, the lower the demand on gasoline, and the more stable pricing is going to be although with China building cars at a fantastic rate, what we do in terms of gas consumption isn't going to matter as much as you might think.

Clearly, electrics are essentially break even with internal combustion even with current pricing- and with future pricing, it's going to tilt that way even more.

Sam

I own a Prius with a plug in conversion, although not this one. Your numbers are not quite accurate. The range of a standard Prius in EV mode is 10 miles if you drive at constant speed the entire distance and never brake for any reason. Regenerative braking extends that range significantly. The same applies to the battery pack added after market.

I rent the garage where I park the car and pay the electric bill. My electricity costs for charging the car is pretty minimal, less than $100 for the first 4 months of this year. I've filled the car up once all year as well.

Even at present gas prices I save money over a conventional vehicle and last year when gas prices went crazy it had minimal impact on my use of the car.

(in reply to samboct)

Post #: 19

RE: Is clean coal possible? - 5/28/2009 10:17:54 AM

samboct

Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline

Hi Ken

I must admit, I don't understand why regenerative braking would add to the distance traveled on a charge- I'd figure that the constant velocity trip would use the least energy.

Note that although the standard Prius can go 10 miles on the pack alone, this company is installing a larger pack which I think effectively tops up the smaller NiMH pack that comes with the Prius. It's not really a very efficient system*, but it may not void the warranty and doesn't require any new motor/battery electronics/algorithms.

*The reason its not very efficient is that lithium phosphate batteries have a very efficient charge/discharge cycle- NiMHs do not- they lose probably around 30% or more. Going to lithium ion cells would easily boost mileage in a Prius to 70-100 mpg, but charging is a bit problematic.

Sam

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Is clean coal possible?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125