Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?

Coal Industry Launches Ad Campaign To Support Energy Alternative, But Some Say Technology Hasn't Caught Up Yet

(CBS)  Much has been made about the skyrocketing price of oil lately, with some saying that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas is a possible solution.

But, as CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports, utilities are testing technology to make one of America's most abundant fuel source - coal - a cleaner alternative.

Coal is, by far, the dirtiest way America makes its electric power, but a new ad campaign funded by the industry promises a future where clean coal is a viable option.

And it's not just the industry. Both presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, are pushing clean coal.

But exactly what is the technology?

The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean because they don't burn coal exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas.

According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.

"And you can do it much cleaner than with the conventional coal technology," says Ramil.

That's the good news. But here's the problem.

"There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas.

"There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major long-term pollutant," says Hansen.

But if carbon dioxide pollution is the problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there is a solution. They believe it's possible to recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground.

The idea is called "capture and sequester," and a global race is on to learn how it should be done. One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide in rock caves beneath the North Sea. America's efforts to sequester carbon have stalled. The Department of Energy planned to fund a plant, but pulled all funding when the price grew too high.

"They took seven years just to decide where they were going to make a pilot plant - and then they decided to cancel it," says Hansen.

And now, the failure to solve the carbon dioxide problem is a threat to coal itself. In the last five years, at least 63 coal-fired power plants have been scrapped or defeated by public opposition.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist helped pull the plug on the two clean coal plants because he says without a carbon solution, clean coal is not an option.

"Until that time comes, we want to develop more solar, more nuclear, more wind," says Crist.

Which is why the industry needs an ad campaign. Until the federal government funds the research on carbon dioxide, America's reliance on coal is in long-term trouble.

[rphull]

Since Al Gore is wrong on the co2 score--that makes clean coal a go!!!

[talk2chief]

Obviously the author of this article does not understand the industry. There are various methods and technologies used to burn coal a lot cleaner. Low NOx burners, flue gas de-sulfurization, selective catalyst reduction (SCR), etc. The coal fired electric power plant is not your fathers power plant. They are light years better than even 10 years ago. However, the only obvious other source is nuclear power, but nobody wants one in their backyard, and renewable energy like solar, wind and hydrogen have a long way to go (10-15 years) before we can capture that technology and keep up with todays demand for electricity.

[thought-er]

There seems to be an agenda in this story.

[thought-er]

There seems to be an enviro-flavored agenda in this story.

[thought-er]

There seems to be an enviro-flavored agenda in this story.

[luvcomments]

I remember as a child in London right after the terrible smog that killed thousands over 50 years ago, we were switched to using anthracite and coke - I guess these are coal in a different form. What''s the pollution factor on these?

[talk2chief]

we were switched to using anthracite and coke - I guess these are coal in a different form. What''''s the pollution factor on these?
Posted by luvcomments

It''s coal in a harder form and is classified as a metamorphic rock composed primarily of carbon and hydrogen along with small quantities of other elements and concentrations of sulfur. Coke is a solid carbonaceous material derived from low-sulfur bituminous coal.

[talk2chief]

What''''s the pollution factor on these?
Posted by luvcomments

Carbon Dioxide and sulfur. Today these can be removed to some degree by low Nox burners and flue gas desulfurization techniques.

[neobrian-2009]

There is Another " Coal-Gasification "plant operating ,..In West Terre Haute Indiana !
It has been running several years now !
This Technology works !

[ubrew12]

Article: "Coal Industry Launches Ad Campaign To Support Energy Alternative"

How come there are no ad campaigns for REAL alternative energy sources? Answer that and you''ll know why energy resources that use FUELS (that can be controlled and manipulated) will always win out over energy resources that dont. Until the American public recognizes what is happening, it''ll keep on happening. It''s just a more gentile example of the ''Enron phenomenon''.

[talk2chief]

How come there are no ad campaigns for REAL alternative energy sources?
Posted by ubrew12

What are the REAL alternative energy sources that can keep up with electric demand? They don''t exist yet. Wind and solar don''t produce enough megawatts to support the grid. It has nothing to do with politics. It''s an engineering, chemistry and physics problem.

[cyberus-2009]

---
"There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that''s the major long-term pollutant," says Hansen.
---
And nuclear power plant rods are *not* a long term pollutant? And then lets discuss the radioactive waste products that producing, handling, and storing said rods leaves.

At least CO2 is something that nature can deal with .. how about we start looking into ways to help that along?

[ubrew12]

talk2chief said: "Wind and solar don''t produce enough megawatts to support the grid. "
Yeah, funny thing about that. If you don''t build it, it doesn''t produce any energy! For some reason, no one told them about this in the 1930''s, when the only renewable energy resource available to them was hydropower. So, stupid people that they were, they built so many dams that they still generate 20% of our electricity today. The problem with that, if your an energy company, is that those dams paid for their construction cost 30 years ago. That means for the last 30 years they''ve been pumping FREE energy onto America''s grid.

That would NEVER happen today. We''ve ''learned'' better! LOL.

[talk2chief]

No, it is a population problem. Our energy woes are a direct result of an economic system that requires exponential growth to function. With less people you could burn as much fossil fuel as you like.
Posted by curse914

I agree. You are correct and our population the world over continues to grow. Excellent counter point.

[talk2chief]

Yeah, funny thing about that. If you don''''t build it, it doesn''''t produce any energy! For some reason, no one told them about this in the 1930''''s, when the only renewable energy resource available to them was hydropower.
Posted by ubrew12

What about damns? They are efficient. Renewable. Tell me why don''t we build damns?

[perrycbs1]

The problem with clean coal is that by the time you pay for building all the pollution controls - that the plant is comparable in cost to a similar sized nuclear power plant; and you still have to pay the high fuel cost of coal (compared to nuclear). The cost of electricity from such a clean coal plant would be much more expensive than nuclear.

Oh, another thing. The average coal fired power plant releases as much radiation to the environment each day as a nuclear power plant releases in a year. This is because coal (and everything) contains a slight amount of natural radiation. Burning 5000+ tons of coal a day releases much of this radiation.

[enlightenu]

my car doesn''t run on coal

[randynason]

"There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA''s expert on global warming.

Maybe the candidates had better get some better selling points on energy before they say some of the things they do.

[talk2chief]

The cost of electricity from such a clean coal plant would be much more expensive than nuclear.
Posted by perrycbs1

And to add to perrcbs1, it would not produce far less megawatts of power. Nuclear is the way to go, but to many people think steam coming out of the cooling tower is "radiation" they don''t understand it, therefor they fear it. Now to the non-nuclear Physicist defense; Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the movie China Syndrome may have had something to do with it, but nobody (who does not understand the benefits of nuclear power) wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard.

[talk2chief]

CORRECT POST:
The cost of electricity from such a clean coal plant would be much more expensive than nuclear.
Posted by perrycbs1

And to add to perrcbs1, it would produce far less megawatts of power. Nuclear is the way to go, but to many people think steam coming out of the cooling tower is "radiation" they don''''t understand it, therefor they fear it. Now to the non-nuclear Physicist defense; Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the movie China Syndrome may have had something to do with it, but nobody (who does not understand the benefits of nuclear power) wants a nuclear power plant in their back yard.

[smurfcrusher]

This is just an opportunistic plug for a dirty fuel that poisons the landscape and pollutes the environment with mercury and other toxins.

We are not so desperate to tolerate the carte-blanche pollution of the past. Modern scrubbers will help, but are not a total cure. We need to capture the carbon too, perhaps in sodium bicarbonate.

[whitemale08]

Until Republicans understand and so called Conservatives that the problem is the Federal Reserve System that has destroyed our currency then there is no hope.

Instead you scapegoat Hugo Chavez for calling Bush the devil...you scapegoat China for growing its economy when there useage has actually flattened or declined for the first time...or you blame it on a couple of thugs in Nigeria.

Can''t you see that that is called speculation. The Federal Reserve System prints all this paper backe by nothing so speculators can use it to bid up the price.

There''s plenty of oil on the market we''re just paying too much for it through hyper inflation.

[whitemale08]

Thomas Jefferson said it best: "paper is poverty"

Cheney couldn''t of said it any worse: "defecits don''t matter."

Could Republicans be any more stupid for putting these clowns into Washington.

[talk2chief]

Could Republicans be any more stupid for putting these clowns into Washington.
Posted by whitemale08

Hey I think you missed your turn. This is the Eye on technology post, not the eye on Politics post.

[it_oldtimer]

Population growth is indeed a HUGE factor in the energy equation.

The population of the planet last doubled in a mere 38 years, and each successive doubling takes roughly half as long as the previous doubling.

Oil and coal resources, on the other hand, are both finite and dwindling.

Sad to say, the only way to really tip the equation back toward cheap, plentiful fossil fuels would be reduce the population side of the equation by at least half.

If overpopulation reaches a certain critical mass either human nature (or sometimes mother nature) tends to balance things out again, through war, famine, disease epidemics or simply as a result of natural cataclysms effecting more people because there are more people to be effected.

Lets just hope that somebody comes up with some real solutions fo the long term before we reach that point.

[sparks224]

"Could Republicans be any more stupid for putting these clowns into Washington."
Posted by whitemale08

"Hey I think you missed your turn. This is the Eye on technology post, not the eye on Politics post."
Posted by talk2chief

Unfortunately the technology of power generation is a very politically charged subject. Conservatives will not support any technology that will allow people to be free from power bills (or gasoline bills).

[whitemale08]

talk2chief- I understand that this is about coal as an energy. The problem is is that it doesn''t make a ***''s worth a cent that we can produce all of the domestic sources of energy we want including offshore drilling but it won''t solve anything because we will be exporting these resources instead of consuming them.

Why? Because as long as the Federal Reserve devalues our currency the more we can''t afford it.

Obama has to shut down this beast called Federal Reserve System.

[sparks224]

Unfortunately the technology of power generation is a very politically charged subject. Conservatives will not support any technology that will allow people to be free from power bills (or gasoline bills).

That''s why they keep pushing ideas like this "clean coal" nonsense.

[whitemale08]

IT_Oldtimer- That kind of talk is the same type of talk from the Club of Rome and their ilk. this earth has enough territory world wide accomadate our current population many times over.

The problem is is that Central Bankers send out these "policy papers" and so called prince Bandabar from the Netherlands calling for the reduction of the population so they can keep making their money off debt through the Federal Reserve System and the IMF.

Can''t you see who the enemy is? Can''t you see who they are?

[sparks224]

Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?

How about The Next Big Pipe Dream.

[sparks224]

Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?

How about The Next Big Pipe Dream.

How can one write an article about coal plants and not mention the mercury that rains on our environment?

[CB_Brooklyn]

Clean coal???

Wake up people!

FREE ENERGY EXISTS BUT IS BEING SUPPRESSED!


The 9/11 Truth Movement, Free Energy Suppression and the Global Elite%u2019s Agenda

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=182&Itemid=60

[boyntonbe]

Wow...only 2 kids?? Is this China??? When you see those large families on TV, what nationality are they??? In fact, the American population is dwindling - until you add in immigrants and their kid raising family habits. No issue with that except they tend to be lower socio-economic and put a strain on the system. Latin and Black population growing, white not. Hmmmmm.
Also, TruUsa, your stupid antics are assuring a Republican pres...hmmmmm, maybe that is your goal. Why don''t you show your true colors instead of subtrefuge - ??? By the way, did you hear McCain is losing his hearing??? What?? What???

Good Fossil Fuels = Pipe dream to never happen!!!

[pollroller1]

Solar Panels are one of the best ways to produce power. It won''t happen because we wouldn''t need much outside power, so less profit for the oil, gas, and power people.

[pollroller1]

I would just like to add that I know solar panels will work because they are used on the roofs of RVs all the time to keep the batteries charged.

[fstop100]

maybe we can pre-heat the coal in the oven on mars

[pollroller1]

maybe we can pre-heat the coal in the oven on marsPosted by fstop100 at 09:15 AM : Jun 21, 2008
Now that is the best idea I have heard yet. LOL

[jlhuslig]

If for nothing else, Clean Coal is needed for the existing coal plants. Of course the enviro-nazis just want to carbon tax these plants until their energy is no longer affordable. Then the unreliable alternative energy sources would be cost effective, but only to provide enough energy for a substantially reduced standard of living.

Abundant energy, even at today''s high prices, is one of the greatest bargains that is responsible for the improving standard of living worldwide. Until alternative energy is cost effective (without govt. susbsidies) and capable of reliable 24/7 substantial amounts of power, it cannot be even considered an alternative energy supply. It is an alternative energy supply in name only and by decree of politicians. That is reality!

[ubrew12]

jlhuslig said: "Until alternative energy is cost effective (without govt. susbsidies) and capable of reliable 24/7 substantial amounts of power, it cannot be even considered an alternative energy supply."

Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, followed by ocean thermal, solar, clean coal, wave, ordinary coal and oil, and wind. Yes, wind is the lowest cost form of energy out there today.

The economist magazine (no enviro-nazi rag) estimates that improvements in solar will lower its cost by a factor of 5 in 10 years, making it one of the lowest cost sources out there.

Just because powerful corporate forces have spoon fed you the idea that alternative energy isn''t for ''right now'' but for some fuzzy future, doesn''t mean you have to swallow.

''Evil'' government subsidies built our many dams sixty years ago. They paid for themselves 30 years later, and today pump free energy onto the grid: 20% of what we actually use. Sure, renewables are expensive undertakings in the short term. In the long term (terms too long for corporations to profit from), they pay dividends that last for decades. And if its not right for Exxon, they''ll convince you that its not right for you either.

[downsteamjim]

James Hansen is Al Gore''s big buddy. He is as objective as Rush Limbaugh.

[luvcomments]

talk2chief

Thank you so much for your answers re anthracite and coke vs. coal. Sounds like you really know your stuff.

[djconklin]

I know solar panels will work because they are used on the roofs of RVs all the time to keep the batteries charged.

RV''s don''t need much power. Would you like to live in that cramped space all the time?

[djconklin]

"We have solar, hydro and Wind potential coming out our buttsides, why don''''t we USE it?"

Solar panels are ab''t 20% efficient. A wind turbine that produces 400 KwH costs $5400 and then the 120'' tower cost over $15k. That''s why we don''t use it.

[pollroller1]

djconklin solar panels may not be the whole answer, but they would be a good start in the right direction.

[denn034]

Pipe dream it is. Let''s just be honest about it.

[nordeck52]

""There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA''s expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO''s, still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas."


Right about clean coal being an oxymoron. Wrong about carbon dioxide being the most dangerous greenhouse gas. Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. The remaining percentage is where the CO2 and methane come into play.

[terrorislami]

30,000 SCIENTISTS SAYS BS TO GLOBAL WARMING GOREBAGE,,,

http://www.google.com/s
earch?hl=en&q=30000+scientists sign petition global warming

30000 Scientists Sign Petition on Global Warming - by Diane Carol ...The claim that the debate about the severity and cause of global warming is.
www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId

=23387 - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

StreetInsider.com - ADVISORY: Dr. Arthur Robinson (OISM) to ...i think the whole global warming thing is a load of *** and people like al gore are ... Anyone who claims to have a science degree can sign this petition. ...
www.streetinsider.com/.../3654512.h

tml - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

30000 Scientists Sign Petition on Global Warming - Care2 News NetworkThe claim that the debate about the severity and cause of global warming is "settled science" has taken a beating with the release of the names of 31072 ...
www.care2.com/news/member/309734972

/783977 - 57k - Cached - Similar pages

Newsmax.com - 31000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global WarmingMay 19, 2008 ... 31000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming ... (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition stating: ...
www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_g

lobal_warming/2008/05/19/97307.html - 160k - Cached - Similar pages

[djconklin]

"Right about clean coal being an oxymoron. Wrong about carbon dioxide being the most dangerous greenhouse gas. Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor. The remaining percentage is where the CO2 and methane come into play."

1) Coal could be clean if they''d run the flue gases through columns of water with algae in them. The algae will capture 20-40% of the CO2 and over 85% of NO (which is a worse greenhouse gas).
2) There is no evidence that water vapor is a greenhouse gas.