Comments on: The Dilemma Over Coal Generated Power

60 Minutes: Coal Power Plants Supply Power To Millions, But Cutting Carbon Dioxide Could Take A Long Time

[Macrophage33]

Or better yet, replace the furnaces of coal fired plants with pebble bed reactors like the Chinese HTR when they become available. We have not advanced out next generation nuclear technologies because the anti-nuclear crowd has been supporting the coal industry with its tons of annual heavy metal and radiation emissions. By the inflated numbers estimated by Green peace, the Chernobyl disaster will eventually kill around 4,000 - 12,000 people a year. This higher number coincidentally is the same number of deaths due to micro particulate pollution produced by coal plants in this country. Dead is dead, that is between 1 and 3 Chernobyl's PER YEAR. This is what the anti-nuclear crowd prefers, an obvious and unavoidable disaster that is not very dramatic vs an extremely remote, dramatic, but less dangerous disaster in the case of a modern nuclear reactor melting down. We had a primitive Western reactor melt down at 3 mile island, people still work at that same power plant, live within miles of the plant and extensive study has shown no ill health effects. The same can not be said for coal plants that are functioning normally.

[tblakeslee]

Here?s an idea for the stimulus program that solves our most pressing problems in one stroke: Take the billions of dollars slated for the Futuregen ?clean coal? research and spend them instead on converting our existing coal power plants to burn clean, renewable biomass. We already have 20 biomass power plants that were converted during the 1980s energy crisis. A recent government report shows that they are still running just fine and with reduced fuel and maintenance costs



Why spend money on a 10 year program to develop a technology that most scientists agree will never be economical when we can use proven technology to clean up our coal power plants NOW? Fast-growing elephant grass and giant reeds grow without water or fertilization on marginal land unsuitable for food crops. Harvesting machines chop the stalks into small pieces, leaving the roots intact to regrow in only six months. With minimal processing the biomass chips can be burned just like coal. The big difference is that the biomass produces less smog and has no mercury or sulphur, and is carbon neutral! All of the expensive pollution control equipment needed to clean up coal is unnecessary. Many coal plants today are long overdue for installing costly ($300 million!) scrubbers to control mercury. A biomass conversion makes this unnecessary.



Instead of blasting the tops off mountains and shipping the coal long distances, biomass can be grown locally, right near the plant, and tended by local workers doing clean farm labor. Recycled yard clippings and wood waste from the area can also be used. Burning waste gives a double bonus as it would otherwise rot and contribute to global warming. Fast-growing biomass crops are carbon neutral. The carbon they store in their roots can even make them carbon negative. Coal causes global warming because when it burns it releases carbon that was sequestered by nature over hundreds of millions of years. The bacteria that broke down the ancient plants to make coal introduced the sulphur and mercury that makes coal so damaging.



Coal was originally the cheapest of fuels but the environmental and health problems it causes have made it necessary to add more and more expensive pollution control equipment. The final nail in coal?s coffin is the CO2 that is causing global warming. Removing that will take another ten years of research and then will almost double the cost of coal power. We don?t have ten years! The polar ice caps are rapidly collapsing as we speak.



We can convert existing coal plants to biofuel now for a fraction of the cost of Futuregen. It will create good jobs and put us on a sustainable path to energy independence. The money saved on healthcare costs will be a bonus and our air will finally be clean. In time, it will be safe to eat fish again.



As the prospect of cleaning up the pollution of coal power plants becomes real, the power utilities have suddenly rediscovered biofuel. Georgia Power is planning to convert an existing 96MW coal plant in Albany Georgia to biomass power. The fuel cost compared to coal is expected to be roughly 30 percent less per year and maintenance costs are expected to be about 13 percent less. FirstEnergy is converting a 312 MW plant to biofuel and will thus save the $330 million cost of adding scrubbers to remove mercury. Ontario Power Generation is considering a similar move.



Several new companies are planning to produce direct coal replacements called E-coal or BioCoal, which can be sold and shipped just like coal. By heating biomass without oxygen available, the biomass is torrefied to produce black pellets that burn exactly like coal (but without the pollutants!). Existing coal power plants can just order trainloads of E-Coal and substitute it directly for their normal coal supply without modifications. Powerful coal interests don?t like this idea at all. Can the Obama administration stand up to them and act in the people?s interest? We will soon find out.



Georgia power: http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2466

E-Coal: www.newearth1.net

149 page gov report on 20 plants http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26946.pdf

[tblakeslee]

Re Scott Pelley's coal story:
There is a way to clean up coal now! Convert existing coal plants to burn locally-grown biomass. This also cleans up the acid rain and Mercury mess as biomass is carbon neutral and very low in sulphur and mercury. This also creates many good jobs!
You can also ship the biomass just like coal if you torrefy it. This is similar to the coffee roasting process and it makes a compact coal-like substance.

[CDDD4]

See the blog entry as http://www.grist.org/article/coal-the-culprit-in-rising-emissions-intensity/ . It makes an interesting point about optimizing the existing stock of coal units to reduce CO2 emissions.

[Macrophage33]

konstk, I have found many reputable sources highlighting the benefits of Thorium utilization vs. Uranium in a variety of paradigms, the LFTR, which you have admirably documented, pebble bed reactors, which the Chinese and the South Africans are nearing commercialization, and the Radkowsky seed and blanket design being commercialized by a company in Virginia. It amazes me that no major news outlet has ever mentioned this. The IAEA, Westinghouse, AREVA, the world nuclear association have all stated that Thorium is a viable alternative fuel stock with all the benefits you mention, what gives? Switching to Thorium based designs would greatly reduce the waste burden (which is already minor compared to coal), increases safety margins of operation, and decreases proliferation risks. It seems to me like it should be a big deal.

[toobigtofail]

konst

just visited the blog you recommended. .thorium molten salt reactors T MSRs very impressive

[eQuarterback]

The Kocol U.S. Energy Independence Plan:

convert CO2-to-Methanol (CTM) via the Singapore Institute of Biotechnology and Nanotechnology CTM process, then convert Methanol-to-Gasoline (MTG) via the
ExxonMobil MTG process.

John M. Kocol, Founder & CEO
CO2toMethanol.com, an eQuarterback.com company

[konstk]

There is a much cheaper, faster, and more efficient way instead of wasting money on coal plants and carbon sequestration and that is to get our energy for LiFTR nuclear reactors.

These are Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors and they are about 300 more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors.

LiFTRs can provide enough energy to last a very long time as they use thorium as a fuel in a closed fuel cycle.
LiFTRs are proliferation resistant and produce very little waste, a tiny fraction of the waste of conventional reactors, and not long lived waste like conventional reactors.
LiFTRs are safe and don't melt down as they are different than conventional reactors.
LiFTRs can be built for as little as $1 billion for a 1 GW reactor. That's $1 per installed watt. They can provide low cost electricity to the consumer, much cheaper than solar or wind turbine energy including coal plants.
LiFTRs can be factory produced mass produced. They are much simpler than conventional reactors.
LiFTRs can safely and cleanly dispose of our existing nuclear waste and make electricity in the process.
LiFTRs can make hydrogen to synthesize vehicle fuels from recycled waste CO2, reducing foreign oil dependency.
LiFTRs can convert air and water to ammonia for fertilizer.
LiFTRs were developed in the United States at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee since 1960.

As is usually the case, this technology developed in the US is being advanced and implemented in countries such as France, China, India, Russia, and Finland. But here in the US there's a deafening silence about them.

Here's some links with a summary about LiFTRs:

This is the AIM High proposal:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/aim-high-plan-for-factory-mass-produced.html

Here is a presentation given at Google headquaters by Dr. Joe Bonometti:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8
The slides for his talk:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/LFTRGoogleTalk_Bonometti.ppt

Here is a website and forum where nuclear engineers and other professionals are discussing LiFTRs:
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com

And here is a document from France
http://hal.in2p3.fr/docs/00/18/69/44/PDF/TMSR-ENC07.pdf

[wellused]

You need to check your statistics. Check those for the Dirty airplanes.