The Trouble with Clean Coal

Chris Morrison at bnet.com says that clean coal technology is in real trouble. The bottom line is cost; an estimate (from a report released Thursday by the pro-CCS Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute) is that costs will increase 78%, on average, for electricity from burning coal. Chris also says:

Nevertheless, everything could work out perfectly and clean coal could be spreading in 2030. By that time, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere may be over 500ppm. That’s no problem if the climate change skeptics are right; if the 97% of climatologists who study climate change are right, that number would mean we’re in for some major upheaval.

In other words, we need better solutions, right now. For coal, there are already some available. Old, inefficient plants can be shut down in favor of new ones that operate at a much higher thermal efficiency, and work on new concepts like underground coal gasification could be accelerated.

The $2.4 trillion the International Energy Agency says we should spend researching clean coal could also be spent other ways; research and investment into renewables like geothermal and solar power come to mind, and it’s also enough money to buy several hundred nuclear plants.

Where I live, my electricity costs about $0.11 per kilowatt hour ((kwh)) and comes mostly from coal with a small amount of nuclear. An increase of 78% would bring my cost to approximately $0.20 per kwh. This exceeds the cost of most alternative energy cost projections, including solar (photovoltaic and thermal), wind, wave and tide motion and nuclear. Of course, natural gas is cheaper than the clean coal projection too, but it does emit carbon, although at a lower rate per kwh.

One interesting number for carbon counters is 3 billion tons. Chris says that is the amount of CO2 emitted per year by a medium sized, 1,500-kilowatt coal plant. He suggests that to reduce the amount of carbon emitted by generating electricity, modernizing existing coal burning plants and/or underground coal gasification would reduce (but not eliminate) CO2 production.

Comments

[john s. gordon:]

actual costs pf CCS remain to be demonstrated and not all sites are amenable to use of this technology. it helps to have a deep saline aquifer capped by impermeable shale. how long does CO2 stay down there once it is in place? - remains to be determined.
UCG demonstrations were performed in the late 1970's-early 1980's at 2 sites in wyoming - rawlins and hoe creek. these sites were made available for these tests because the local seams were considered unminable by conventional means. one of the sites (hoe creek i believe) turned into a superfund site due to coal-tar contamination of the aquifer (since has been cleaned up i was told). there has also been interest in UCG in poland & in china.
for efficiency improvement of existing coal-fired combustion plants the option of repowering using gasification/combined cycle is available. an example being the capacity increase at the Public Service Indiana terre haute plant using Destec (Dow) technology in 1992-95. such repowering of older plants provides significant reduction in sulfur & nitrogen-oxides emissions.
> jack

Nov 02 03:40 PM

[Tim Lloyd W...:]

Shooting from the hip here, I seem to remember that setting coal seams on fire (to gasify coal underground) should more likely be on the nightmare side of the carbon equation.
If I remember an editorial by the editor of World Oil correctly, coal seams are burning out of control at various locations and have done so for thousands of years. The CO doesn't stay put. It comes up for O. Not a pretty CO2 scenario.
May be advisable not to set light to more underground coal.

Nov 02 03:57 PM

[Mad Hedge F...:]

qto I wanted to get the low down on clean coal to see how clean itreally is, so I visited some friends at Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory. The modern day descendent of the Atomic Energy Commission,where I had a student job in the seventies, the leading researcher onlaser induced nuclear fission, and the administrator of our atomicweapons stockpile, I figured they’d know. Dirty coal currently suppliesus with 50% of our electricity, and total electricity demand isexpected to go up 30% by 2030. The industry is spewing out 32 billiontons of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year and the global warming it iscausing will lead us to an environmental disaster within decades.Carbon Capture and Storage technology (CCS) locks up these emissionsdeep underground forever. The problem is that there is only one ofthese plants in operation in North Dakota, a legacy of the Carteradministration, and new ones would cost $4 billion each. The lowestimate to replace the 250 existing coal plants in the US is $1trillion, and this will produce electricity that costs 50% more than wenow pay. And while we can build a wall to keep out immigrants, it won’tkeep out CO2. This is a big problem as China is currently completingone new coal fired plant a week. In fact, the Middle Kingdom is rushingto perfect cheaper CCS technologies, not only for their own use, butalso to sell to us. Since it appears that Obama is not willing to waiton anything, expect to hear a lot of sturm und drang about CCS thisyear. The bottom line is coal can be cleaned, but at a frightful price.For more on this see www.madhedgefundtrader....

Nov 02 04:13 PM

[john s. gordon:]

tim lloyd - yes it used to seem odd to some people that the u.s bureau of mines had a team going around attempting to extinguish underground fires while there was another group intentionally lighting them. in addition there have been various anthracite culm banks in pennsylvania smoldering away for years.
> jack

Nov 02 05:06 PM

[john s. gordon:]

mad hedge - livermore is probably not the best place to get your clean coal information.
better go see the folks @ NETL pittsburgh (bruceton) and/or the folks @ morgantown. it's their specialty.
you are quite right we will be swamped by chinese CO2 & don't forget the CO2 from india as well.
> jack

Nov 02 05:11 PM

[rooferguy:]

Clean coal is an oxymoron and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Before you invest in any Clean Coal system, take some basic engineering courses.

When we combust coal (by burning it) we break the molecules apart into CO2 (the green house gas) and H2O (water). We also create lots of heat. If you want to sequester the CO2 again it will take a lot of energy, as well as expensive equipment to do so.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically states that it is impossible to generate net energy from a system that you are trying to put back to its original state (perpetual motion machines are also a violation). So in principal it is thermodynamically impossible to get net energy out of burning coal if you also need to put the CO2 back into a permanently sequestered state.

Of course you could still pump the CO2 into the ground and hope it doesn’t leak out — but just the pumping equipment and energy to do so will also be quite expensive. And no one is every going to want to live near those underground CO2 reservoirs (In 1986, a tremendous CO2 “burp” from the lake Nyos, West of Cameroon, killed more than 1700 people and livestock up to 25 km away).

Nov 02 05:51 PM

[John Lounsbury:]

rooferguy - - -

Interesting comment. Actually the CO2 is not sequestered in the form in which carbon was removed from the earth. Coal is a material comprised primarily of elemental carbon with a number of impurities including nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sulfur plus many trace elements and compounds. So the there is a net positive energy obtainable from the process that includes sequestering CO2 after burning the free carbon coal.

If the CO2 could, be sequestered as a carbonate salt (like calcium carbonate), then the burping problem would exist. I have not heard of that as a possibility so I expect the energy requirements are not favorable compared to pumping the gas into some sort of containment media, such as saline water or large salt domes. I have read somewhere that the CO2 could be used to pressurize oil reservoirs to aid in pumping the oil. The CO2 could then be sealed in when the exhausted well is capped.


On Nov 02 05:51 PM rooferguy wrote:

> Clean coal is an oxymoron and a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
> Before you invest in any Clean Coal system, take some basic engineering
> courses.
>
> When we combust coal (by burning it) we break the molecules apart
> into CO2 (the green house gas) and H2O (water). We also create lots
> of heat. If you want to sequester the CO2 again it will take a lot
> of energy, as well as expensive equipment to do so.
>
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics basically states that it is impossible
> to generate net energy from a system that you are trying to put back
> to its original state (perpetual motion machines are also a violation).
> So in principal it is thermodynamically impossible to get net energy
> out of burning coal if you also need to put the CO2 back into a permanently
> sequestered state.
>
> Of course you could still pump the CO2 into the ground and hope it
> doesn’t leak out — but just the pumping equipment and energy to do
> so will also be quite expensive. And no one is every going to want
> to live near those underground CO2 reservoirs (In 1986, a tremendous
> CO2 “burp” from the lake Nyos, West of Cameroon, killed more than
> 1700 people and livestock up to 25 km away).

Nov 02 07:31 PM

[rooferguy:]

CO2 Belch, well EXCUUSE MEE -

The “burping” problem occurred in Cameroon (and probably elsewhere) when CO2 was dissolved in water at depth. The higher pressure at depth kept the CO2 dissolved, but convection currents started to bring up bubbles, and those bubbles brought up more water dissolved with CO2, causing all the dissolved CO2 to be released in the air. Suffice it to say that we should indeed be very skeptical of sequestration efforts that do not store CO2 in some kind of stable, solid form. Pumping it into a salt dome or underground structure sounds OK — but one big crack or leak and it all goes right back up into the atmosphere.

The impurities in coal do not release energy when they “burn”; these elements (nitrogen, sulfur) actually create more harmful gases (nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides were regulated since they created acid rain). I’d have to look up how much energy and equipment is required to sequester carbon in limestone.

My point is that to do a good, safe, permanent job of sequestration, the immutable laws of thermodynamics say that you don’t generate any net energy.

At best we should leave these ideas to “science projects” until pilot plants are built and operating that show favorable economics. The engineering reality is that we’re not even close with clean coal.

Nov 02 08:30 PM

[Freya:]

These are the Laws of Thermodynamics:

The first law of thermodynamics, which mandates conservation of energy, and states in particular that heat is a form of energy
.
The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or (equivalently) that perpetual motion machines are impossible.

The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.

Which Law is being violated?

When Coal is gasified and then 99% combusted leaving Little or No Residue when it is combusted 100%, which Law Of Thermodynamics is being violated? When you add filters which Capture 100% of the CO2 released, the result is Clean Coal.

The 99% Plants are being built/modified now. The 100% combustion has been done in a Lab. The Filters are available Now.

Prove it? I do not have to. I left a link to this new Tech in a Fitzsimmons Article. They are located on an online Engineering Website. Fitzsimmons Refused to read them. But, Just for Kicks, I'll hunt it down, so you can Refuse also.

After all, generating net energy is not the Issue, "Eliminating CO2 flow into the atmosphere and Coal Residuals". Is.

Nov 03 04:32 AM

[H. T. Love:]

I may be naive, but ...

It seems to me that we are ignoring the obvious. An accelerating deforestation combined with increased CO2 production presents a plethora of problems that contribute to the global warming issue.

Since plants use sunlight, water and nutrients from the ground and CO2 from the air to "sequester" the carbon and release water and O into the air, why is the solution not to get the system back in balance by planting?

Uses sunlight as the energy source, removes CO2 from the atmosphere, releases O, cools the atmosphere as water is released, would help reduce creeping "desertification", ...

Possible problems are insufficient ground water source for large swaths, depleted nutrients in the ground, local land use issues, ...

Some of these issues are solved as natural local ecosystems are restored as the new forests mature. Others would require our help.

Lots of side-benefits. Jobs created immediately. Reduced cost compared to toher solutions. Long-term solution with few downsides. Little or no capacity problems. Etc., etc., etc.

Overall seems a more desirable and practical solution to me.

HardToLove

Nov 03 05:23 AM

[Freya:]

HTL, We have already suggested that, it wasn't well received.

When Brazil was doing a number on its Rain Forests, the Environmentalists were up in Arms. But try to plant a few million trees!, they laugh at you.

If Johnny Appleseed could do it by his lonesome, we can too.

Nov 03 06:20 AM

[H. T. Love:]

That must mean that someone doesn't make enough $ out of it. Hell, think of the possibility if every person in every country that owned even a small piece of land bought a pack of seeds, or a seedling for a dollar or two and planted and tended the plantings.

Problem solved long-term and the big boys are left out of it.

Or maybe the problem is only "quick fixes", regardless of dubious value, are acceptable in todays world.

HardToLove


On Nov 03 06:20 AM Freya wrote:

> HTL, We have already suggested that, it wasn't well received.
>
> When Brazil was doing a number on its Rain Forests, the Environmentalists
> were up in Arms. But try to plant a few million trees!, they laugh
> at you.
>
> If Johnny Appleseed could do it by his lonesome, we can too.

Nov 03 08:53 AM

[jerrydd:]

The facts are if the health, pollution, other indirect costs were in coal instead of in our health care, income tax, RE would be far cheaper. Even now several RE techs are cost effective compared to coal and almost all RE are dropping in cost fast vs coal, oil, going up fast as the economy recovers.

Already because of costs, almost every new US coal plant has been canceled and many have been shot down or refueled to NG or NG cogen. Coal use in the US in the last 3 yrs has dropped 20%, now down to just 43% of us electric generation.

As a technical person coal can be burned/gasified with O2 producing only CO2 and water which can be safely stored in deep preferably old NG wells as they are proven gas tight. But the plants are 3x's the cost of RE and only 20% eff, so just not viable.

Great article except for the wave energy which too is not practical.

Tidal/river kinetic hydro is though at just $.02/kwhr. And the US, Europe has enough resource to completely replace both coal and nuke as baseline power. I've done tidal though engineers have been having a hard time scaling it up, it will be. They just need to learn how to deal with the marine environment.

Nov 03 09:12 AM

[john s. gordon:]

yes CO2 from beulah north dakota (the great plains gasification plant) is used in southern saskatchewan for enhanced oil recovery.
it was noted 40-50 yrs ago that supercritical fluids have great solvent power.
your instant coffee is made with supercritical CO2 as the solvent, it leaves no residue in the product. in the 1950's they were still using chlorinated organic solvents. who needs TCE in their coffee?
in sask the CO2 from the pipeline is injected into the oil-bearing formation & makes the oil more 'runny' so that it moves to the recovery well more rapidly. upon reaching the surface, the pressure is released & the gas is vented to atmosphere. there is essentially no 'sequestration' as long as operation of the oilwell continues.
> jack

Nov 03 10:10 AM

[john s. gordon:]

sequestration of CO2 as calcium carbonate would require a source of calcium oxide (i.e., lime).
the way you get lime is by burning limestone (calcium carbonate), you can use coal, oil or gas as fuel/
hard to see any net gain in this process,
> jack

Nov 03 10:19 AM

[H. T. Love:]

I erroneosly posted this link in the article itself. I thought you might find it interesting.

seekingalpha.com/insta...

HardToLove

Nov 03 11:03 AM

[John Lounsbury:]

Freya - - -

Good science discussion (recognized by an old science teacher). The comment does not deserve any thumbs down. Maybe they came from people who have a CO2/global warming perspective contrary to yours or who don't think coal ash is a problem. Anyway, I personally don't think people should vote on science, but just let the research continue to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the science of climatology is about as dismal as the science of economics - too many uncontrolled variables. Does that ever leave room for opinions of all sorts to thrive.

It doesn't help that centuries are necessary to confirm climate trends because of volatility along the way. Imagine the ridicule of the current generation by those in 2500 if a new ice age is starting by that time. Imagine the anger if there are only a few humans left because of the ravages of a "hot earth" disaster. The challenge we face for planet earth is to try to keep the vehicle we ride through space "in the middle of the road". Unfortunately, the number of environmental misjudgements in human history have been all too numerous. We will probably continue to make such errors - just hopefully nothing fatal.


On Nov 03 04:32 AM Freya wrote:

> These are the Laws of Thermodynamics:
>
> The first law of thermodynamics, which mandates conservation of energy,
> and states in particular that heat is a form of energy
> .
> The second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of
> an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or (equivalently)
> that perpetual motion machines are impossible.
>
> The third law of thermodynamics, which concerns the entropy of a
> perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it
> is impossible to cool a system all the way to exactly absolute zero.
>
>
> Which Law is being violated?
>
> When Coal is gasified and then 99% combusted leaving Little or No
> Residue when it is combusted 100%, which Law Of Thermodynamics is
> being violated? When you add filters which Capture 100% of the CO2
> released, the result is Clean Coal.
>
> The 99% Plants are being built/modified now. The 100% combustion
> has been done in a Lab. The Filters are available Now.
>
> Prove it? I do not have to. I left a link to this new Tech in a Fitzsimmons
> Article. They are located on an online Engineering Website. Fitzsimmons
> Refused to read them. But, Just for Kicks, I'll hunt it down, so
> you can Refuse also.
>
> After all, generating net energy is not the Issue, "Eliminating CO2
> flow into the atmosphere and Coal Residuals". Is.

Nov 03 11:54 AM

[Jimbo:]

Mr. Lounsbury: Your last comment is most pertinent. The "science" of climatology seems to me to be quite speculative. I can't help but be suspicious of the motives of many of Al Gore's friends and admirers. In 1977, a gentleman published a book entitled: "The Coming Ice Age". But the ice age never came. It is my understanding that this author is now an advisor to President Obama. I have always been a "conservationist" and have advocated soil and water conservation and intensive reforestation. Man has historically caused regional environmental disasters in the Middle East, China, the United States and Central America. But I see the Climate Change folks as using this supposed issue to seize control of society to promote yet another Utopian Paradise. The Utopians have caused more death, agony, and suffering than any other movement in human history. In conclusion, the climate guys cannot accurately predict the weather next year, let alone in the next decades.

Nov 03 01:13 PM

[Freya:]

John: Rational debates are part of the learning process. I view Statements made without any link to the Subject, as suspicious from the Start.

Jerrydd: good comments. The US has abundant Nat. Gas, It shouldn't be building Coal plants. I believe NG plants with a good filtration Process are the route to follow.

China Does Not have the same resource. They are Replacing 100% of their current Coal plants with the New Coal Gasificaton Tech. And as a New Coal Plant is built an Old Coal Plant is shut down. I posted a link to this weeks ago. The only real source of Gas in China is Coal Bed Methane, they consider it as a byproduct.(this is my own opinion because NG plants are Not being built there)

Did you know that Coal Gasification Technologies have been Licensed to the Chinese by None other than Southern Company, the US based Utility, SO? Another link to that is also available.

Nov 03 01:17 PM

[Mayascribe:]

John: Learning quite a bit in this thread.

I figure you would enjoy learning about this, too. Egyptian pryramids the largest in the world? Not so fast. How about one bigger than downtown LA? One of my Mayan enthusiast pals sent me what follows (by the way, the video did not open up for me. Please let me know if it does for you.)

Dr. Richard Handson is one of those world reknowned Mayanists I've been lucky enough to share a few beers with on several occasions.

Get ready for your jaw to drop! I've known this fact for several years, and though not in mentioned in the article, the first emporer of China is buried underneath an earthenworks pyramid measuring ~ one mile on each side. The Mayans beat that one, too.

news.aol.com/article/m...

Nov 03 01:58 PM

[Mayascribe:]

Here is a link that does work:

www.cnn.com/video/#/vi...

Nov 03 02:05 PM

[searcher:]

So, the 2nd L of T applies here by essentially saying you cannot ‘round-trip’ at a net gain. That makes a lot of sense. If C(oal) + O2 = H2O + CO2 + Energy(heat), then I guess I’d want to try to capture that darned CO2. Gas is awful pesky as it tends to leave home; even if in a ‘tank’. If ‘dissolved’ under pressure, that’s still a ‘tank’. So, then I’d next look to make a stable substance (other than coal – the forbidden ‘round trip’) that could be formed by CO2 + XX + Energy (0 to much less than that which is the point of the exercise). If there were some way to use photosynthesis in a closed system that you could ‘bleed’ off the oxygen and ‘harvest’ carbon based products, such would be a great science fiction resolution.

Nov 03 02:38 PM

[coalcatalyst:]

Asia Coal Catalyst Company is a Clean Coal Combustion Catalyst company engaged in the worldwide development, commercialization and application of state-of-the-art proprietary technologies for air pollution control. Asia Coal Catalyst Company has installations on over 200 units worldwide, where coal, fuel oil, natural gas, wood and other solid fuels are utilized.
The Company’s CC-88 technology revolves around the unique application of a proprietary Clean Coal Combustion Catalyst that improves the efficiency, reliability, fuel flexibility and environmental status of combustion units by controlling slagging, fouling, corrosion, opacity and acid plume, as well as the formation of sulfur trioxide, ammonium bisulfate, particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon dioxide and NOx. This technology, in the form of CC-88 program has been applied to over more than 200 combustion units burning a wide variety of fuels including coal, heavy oil, biomass, and municipal waste. A breakdown of the nature of these customer units is posted on the Company’s website. Please visit www.coalcatalyst.com

Nov 03 04:41 PM

[Freya:]

Now this is a discussion. It is not being steered by the Author. I love it.

coalcatalyst: I know you are promoting your company but you are inviting people to visit, read, learn and then, make up their own minds.

People do have minds, they are able to use them. They do not have to be steered in a specific direction or be constantly told that there is No Other Direction.

Thanks John.

Nov 03 05:58 PM

[SmarTrader:]

Putting the cart before the horse and expounding upon the sequestration discussion; imagine if you will, the process that brings the greed-driven majority of those black diamonds out of the earth. I will not insult anyone with explanations of the 2 major forms of coal extraction, (under
ground & MTR - mountain top removal).

While harboring no opposition to underground mining, I find MTR abhorrent. The process in itself must compel any reasonably minded person to see that there is no such thing as clean coal from first shovel.

Place yourself [virtually] upon Coal River Mountain in Raleigh Co WV last week. Loggers appeared and began to denude the 6,000 acre surface of every sprig of virgin forest. Gargantuan bulldozers followed to level & push the over-burden into the valley, some 5600 ft below. These would be the valleys where the fresh water streams flow - the streams that supply clear mountain filtered water to the eastern United States. To date, over 2,000 miles have been buried.

Behemoth drag lines appear and blasting began on Friday. Notwithstanding the irreparable environmental destruction, blast force in a typical week is equivalent to 51 Hiroshima bombs. Fracturing chemicals containing benzene, selenium, mercury, etc., leach into the waterways, poisoning the citizen's wells and cumulatively endangering the whole water basin.

Imagine yourself now standing on the site of Massey's spent Eagle II MTR. The out of state corporation has finished flattening & ravaging the mountain range; taking their 32 jobs with them. You are viewing a moonscape, where vegetation will never grow, as there is nothing but rubble. It cannot sustain an airport or golf course; nor any other pie in the sky enterprise as the rock cannot be stabilized.

Mountains are not a renewable resource. They cannot be rebuilt.

To gain a real sense of the devastation, try this link:
ilovemountains.org

Nov 03 06:42 PM

[H. T. Love:]

On Nov 03 11:54 AM John Lounsbury wrote here:
seekingalpha.com/artic...

><snip>
> Imagine the ridicule of the
> current generation by those in 2500 if a new ice age is starting
> by that time.

Imagine if it is started because "phony science" caused us to successfully eliminate all the HR greenhouse gases they want to eliminate and that caused an out-of-balance in the ecosystem that led to the ice age.

Not likely, but ...

><snip>
> Unfortunately, the number of
> environmental misjudgements in human history have been all too numerous.
> We will probably continue to make such errors - just hopefully nothing
> fatal.

Hey John - you know how it goes. Given enough opportunities the laws of chance (random distribution) say we'll finally succeed and make a fatal one.

HardToLove

Nov 03 07:31 PM

[terravario:]

Jimbo. I don't want to get into an extended debate about whether meteorology and climatology are real science, but I also do not want them to be dismissed as junk science. Almost every theoretical meteorological equation is derived from Charles and Boyles Laws and the laws of thermodynamics. Meterologists are physicists, chemists, and mathematicians. So understanding the relationship between CO2 and infrared radiation in the atmosphere is not difficult. Understanding the relationship of CO2, water vapor, albedo, and other atmospheric parameters in a non-closed system is difficult. It requires modelling. We are not predicting weather (the everyday rain, wind, and temperature), we are using models to predict future climate, the longterm averages of everyday weather). The models are not perfect, but they are getting more accurate every day.

Those of us who were students of well known climatologists like Reid Bryson at the University of Wisconsin disagreed with him when he predicted global cooling in the 1960's and 70's as well as his later skepticism about global warming. There really aren't that many skeptics among meteorologists and climatologists.

I do not understand the logic that says climate scientists are all flaming liberals who are trying to form a new world order. We're not. We're mostly conservative scientists who are documenting what is occuring in the atmosphere and see the changes that have and are continuing to occur as problematic for the future wellbeing of earth's living inhabitants. It is a given that climate will change whether or not humans contribute to it, but the precautionary principle says that if we can avoid an unfavorable future by taking responsible scientifically and economically feasible measures to avoid the most unfavorable impacts of human contributions, we really need to consider doing so, especially when there are alternatives to spewing billions of tons of carbon dioxide, methane, and other green houses gases into the atmosphere. For me solar and wind are scientifically and economically feasible and can be deployed quickly to mitigate AGW--nuclear and clean coal, not so much.

On Nov 03 01:13 PM Jimbo wrote:

> Mr. Lounsbury: Your last comment is most pertinent. The "science"
> of climatology seems to me to be quite speculative. I can't help
> but be suspicious of the motives of many of Al Gore's friends and
> admirers. In 1977, a gentleman published a book entitled: "The Coming
> Ice Age". But the ice age never came. It is my understanding that
> this author is now an advisor to President Obama. I have always been
> a "conservationist" and have advocated soil and water conservation
> and intensive reforestation. Man has historically caused regional
> environmental disasters in the Middle East, China, the United States
> and Central America. But I see the Climate Change folks as using
> this supposed issue to seize control of society to promote yet another
> Utopian Paradise. The Utopians have caused more death, agony, and
> suffering than any other movement in human history. In conclusion,
> the climate guys cannot accurately predict the weather next year,
> let alone in the next decades.

Nov 03 09:15 PM

[Freya:]

terravario: while I may disagree on the methods and disagree again on the the history of climate change. (Greenland was Green a 1,000 years ago and Italian paintings describe a lush Italian tropical setting 500 years ago)

I fully believe that the current Industrial movements are exacerbating the conditions which occurred in the past. But I do not see a respite of those conditions without worldwide cooperation

The Developed World may be able to adjust but half of the planet is in the Industrial Revolution stage. They are cranking up their motors while we seek to forestall those efforts. I just don't see it happening.

India announced that they will have to have GDP grow at an annual pace of 9-10% annually over the next 10 years to lift its people out of poverty levels. I do not begrudge this effort. Unfortunately, this sounds too much like Brazil's Rain forests.

We can do what we can, but I do not believe it will be enough regardless of what we do.

Nov 04 02:05 AM

[Freya:]

Jerrydd: this is from a new article on SA,

This comes via MarketWatch (hat tip PapaSwamp):


Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s $44 billion deal to buy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. is basically a huge bet on coal, a fuel that powers Warren Buffett’s power plants at his MidAmerican Energy utility and plays a major role in the railroad business.

While regulatory delays and uncertainty over climate-change legislation has slowed the addition of new U.S. coal plants, plenty of new facilities are expected to come on line in the United States, becoming prospects for future growth for the railroads.

Nine new coal plants have been permitted in the United States and 25 are under construction for a combined generation capacity of nearly 15,000 megawatts, according to an Oct. 9 report by the National Energy Technology Laboratory.

How many contracts have been cancelled if this many are on their way?

Nov 04 03:48 AM

[tuj:]

Mountaineer is doing CSS right now, just started last month, 1300MW unit.

Nov 04 07:44 AM

[tuj:]

Also, where is IGCC? Much less carbon, still use coal.

Nov 04 07:46 AM

[oilsands:]

While the goal should be to eliminate coal as a basic fuel source,
I don't understand why there isn't a huge push to make the current stacks cleaner. Technology exists.

All of this discussion, which has been helpful, points to the one simple, immutable fact. Renewables, esp. hydro, are cost effective, and do not pose the cataclysmic problems of the coal and oil choices.

Converting coal plants to natural gas would be another good step, as the support for Picken's plan to power semis with natural gas does not seem to be there yet.

Destroying water supplies and mountains is inexcusable. Right now, the water on our family's New Mexico land is worth more than the natural gas. That differential will only continue to widen.

Next year should be the year of energy choices, as much of the health care debate will be behind us. (Unfortunately, since the focus in that debate should be on prevention and better care; the savings would be enormous and pay for extended coverage.)

Nov 04 10:31 AM

[Steven Hansen:]

the government today took yucca mountain off the table.

we are truly governed by a ship of fools.

Nov 04 12:42 PM

[jerrydd:]

Freya, Those plants don't make up for the ones shut down by a long shot as new wind was far more than new coal was. The Permitted ones probably won't be built and the ones being built will probably be changed to NG cogen before too long.

Cal just made a law that they won't buy anymore out of state from new coal plants, cutting more new planned ones that were going to be built..

Just here in Fla over the last 10 yrs we converted 5 coal plants to NG, most cogen ands canceled at least 4 new coal plants. So that is at least 9 plants just here not doing coal that were or planned.

Coal is dropping fast which is great. Maybe someday I'll be able to eat fish more than 1/wk from coal mercury poisoning. That costs me $50-100/month in free, good for my heart protein.

Nov 06 10:41 PM

[john s. gordon:]

tuj -

the mountaineer (new haven WV) project of AEP with Alsthom will process up to 0.3 percent of the stack production of CO2 (an acid) using refrigerated ammonia (a base) as reagent. there is significant energy consumption in providing the refrigeration. i do not have an energy balance around the plant in this configuration. do not imply to your readers that all 1300 megawatts worth of stack gas are presently being processed. results of the demonstration will dictate what happens next.
> jack

Nov 08 08:12 PM

[Andrew Butter:]

Sounds like Nuclear which is a well proven technology and doesn't cause any environmental hazard if managed properly is the way forwards (the waste is solid).

The key issue there is the capex; perhaps instead to throwing money at banks, throw it at building nuclear, if there were economies of scale and the environmentalists could agree that the unlikely risk of a nuclear disaster was less of a risk than CO2, capex could come down.

Nov 13 12:21 PM

[anarchist:]

yeah Jimbo and the earth is flat-right?


On Nov 03 01:13 PM Jimbo wrote:

> Mr. Lounsbury: Your last comment is most pertinent. The "science"
> of climatology seems to me to be quite speculative. I can't help
> but be suspicious of the motives of many of Al Gore's friends and
> admirers. In 1977, a gentleman published a book entitled: "The Coming
> Ice Age". But the ice age never came. It is my understanding that
> this author is now an advisor to President Obama. I have always been
> a "conservationist" and have advocated soil and water conservation
> and intensive reforestation. Man has historically caused regional
> environmental disasters in the Middle East, China, the United States
> and Central America. But I see the Climate Change folks as using
> this supposed issue to seize control of society to promote yet another
> Utopian Paradise. The Utopians have caused more death, agony, and
> suffering than any other movement in human history. In conclusion,
> the climate guys cannot accurately predict the weather next year,
> let alone in the next decades.

Nov 13 12:39 PM

[notsosmart:]

the asteroid will create a lot of energy & solve a lot of problems.

Nov 13 12:40 PM

[anarchist:]

I agree Andrew but public opinion is against nuclear and probably wont change until they can't afford their utility bills.


On Nov 13 12:21 PM Andrew Butter wrote:

> Sounds like Nuclear which is a well proven technology and doesn't
> cause any environmental hazard if managed properly is the way forwards
> (the waste is solid).
>
> The key issue there is the capex; perhaps instead to throwing money
> at banks, throw it at building nuclear, if there were economies of
> scale and the environmentalists could agree that the unlikely risk
> of a nuclear disaster was less of a risk than CO2, capex could come
> down.

Nov 13 12:44 PM

[Buckoux:]

The only way to accomplish clean electrical power generation by coal is to build a nuclear electrical power plant adjacent to the coal power plant to provide the necessary electrical power to cleanse the coal plants emissions. Including the radioactive Carbon-14 isotope present in all coal ore.

Nov 13 12:59 PM

[Wildebeest:]

On Nov 03 11:54 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

> Freya - - -
>
> Good science discussion (recognized by an old science teacher).
> The comment does not deserve any thumbs down. Maybe they came from
> people who have a CO2/global warming perspective contrary to yours
> or who don't think coal ash is a problem. Anyway, I personally don't
> think people should vote on science, but just let the research continue
> to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the science of climatology
> is about as dismal as the science of economics - too many uncontrolled
> variables. Does that ever leave room for opinions of all sorts to
> thrive.
>

"Unfortunately, the science of climatology is about as dismal as the science of economics - too many uncontrolled variables. Does that ever leave room for opinions of all sorts to thrive."

...and like economics, in climatology your opinions or theories tend to depend heavily on your politics.

Nov 13 01:24 PM

[westerner:]

Unicorns and clean coal. Two mythical beasts.

Nov 13 01:54 PM

[Shaftsinker:]

Rainforests are actually oxygen neutral. There is such a high rate of decomposition that the entire equation is neutral. The only time where the net equation is a production of O2 and consumption CO2 is during regrowth after a portion of the rainforest has been destroyed... not that I'm proposing destroying the rainforest and letting it regrow as a solution.


On Nov 03 06:20 AM Freya wrote:

> HTL, We have already suggested that, it wasn't well received.
>
> When Brazil was doing a number on its Rain Forests, the Environmentalists
> were up in Arms. But try to plant a few million trees!, they laugh
> at you.
>
> If Johnny Appleseed could do it by his lonesome, we can too.

Nov 14 08:46 AM

[fjd10595:]

Planting is a good idea and brings other benefits as well, i.e. wildlife, shade in summer, and more, but it won't allow enough carbon to be sequestered. It means slowing development of land more than society will allow, unfortunately (though in the US we are makiing progress in this area, in forcing developers to recognize LT environmental costs, climate, water, energy). The other thing about locking up carbon in plants is that it is less durable than the other long term storage devices, soil, oceans and fossil fuels. But those devices sequester carbon far more slowly than do plants. It does not look good for our kids. This will go down in history as "the selfish generation". Most of us put current needs over LT needs, the bill for today's use of cheap fossil energy is passed to our kids with hardly a thought (by most of us). By the way, great posts here, possibly the best comments I have ever seen.
Frank

Since plants use sunlight, water and nutrients from the ground and CO2 from the air to "sequester" the carbon and release water and O into the air, why is the solution not to get the system back in balance by planting?


On Nov 03 05:23 AM H. T. Love wrote:

> I may be naive, but ...
>
> It seems to me that we are ignoring the obvious. An accelerating
> deforestation combined with increased CO2 production presents a plethora
> of problems that contribute to the global warming issue.
>
> Since plants use sunlight, water and nutrients from the ground and
> CO2 from the air to "sequester" the carbon and release water and
> O into the air, why is the solution not to get the system back in
> balance by planting?
>
> Uses sunlight as the energy source, removes CO2 from the atmosphere,
> releases O, cools the atmosphere as water is released, would help
> reduce creeping "desertification", ...
>
> Possible problems are insufficient ground water source for large
> swaths, depleted nutrients in the ground, local land use issues,
> ...
>
> Some of these issues are solved as natural local ecosystems are restored
> as the new forests mature. Others would require our help.
>
> Lots of side-benefits. Jobs created immediately. Reduced cost compared
> to toher solutions. Long-term solution with few downsides. Little
> or no capacity problems. Etc., etc., etc.
>
> Overall seems a more desirable and practical solution to me.
>
> HardToLove

Nov 14 10:10 AM

[fjd10595:]

Absolutely, Greenland was green, and the ocens were much, much higher. We will have a green greenland, and we will lose florida, every island in the world and all development anywhere near present shores. Drinking water supplies will be destroyed by salt. Hundreds of millions of people will be uprooted, albeit over time.

Here is what you have to know: At one time there was more carbon in the air, and the planet was much different, closer to being a sauna than what we have now. All that carbon was locked up in long term storage by plants, changed to into a stable form in fossil fuels. This took tens or hundreds of millions of years. That same amount of carbon is being put back into the air in a few hundred years. You see the equation- it was removed in 100 million years, and it was put back in 300 years. We face extreme instability in our climate in the decades ahead. Woe to children, thanks to our selfishness in refusiing to stem growth to reign in this problem. And why? Unchecked growth is inherently unstable over the long term. It assumes infinite resources which is not reality. Do our policies take account of this? No, we still give tax credits to citizens to have children when instead we should be looking to level our population over the long term to take account of declining resources, destruction of our infrastructure and land, healthcare, etc. It is indiotic. Our children will pay a heavy price for our largess. Science told politicans about the problem of carbon, and little has been done.


terravario: while I may disagree on the methods and disagree again on the the history of climate change. (Greenland was Green a 1,000 years ago and Italian paintings describe a lush Italian tropical setting 500 years ago)


On Nov 04 02:05 AM Freya wrote:

> terravario: while I may disagree on the methods and disagree again
> on the the history of climate change. (Greenland was Green a 1,000
> years ago and Italian paintings describe a lush Italian tropical
> setting 500 years ago)
>
> I fully believe that the current Industrial movements are exacerbating
> the conditions which occurred in the past. But I do not see a respite
> of those conditions without worldwide cooperation
>
> The Developed World may be able to adjust but half of the planet
> is in the Industrial Revolution stage. They are cranking up their
> motors while we seek to forestall those efforts. I just don't see
> it happening.
>
> India announced that they will have to have GDP grow at an annual
> pace of 9-10% annually over the next 10 years to lift its people
> out of poverty levels. I do not begrudge this effort. Unfortunately,
> this sounds too much like Brazil's Rain forests.
>
> We can do what we can, but I do not believe it will be enough regardless
> of what we do.

Nov 14 10:20 AM

[fjd10595:]

You don't know what you are talking about, try reading some books on the science of climate change. It is many orders of magnitude more exact than economics


Anyway, I personally don't
> think people should vote on science, but just let the research continue
> to a logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the science of climatology
> is about as dismal as the science of economics - too many uncontrolled
> variables. Does that ever leave room for opinions of all sorts to
> thrive.


On Nov 13 01:24 PM Wildebeest wrote:

>

Nov 14 03:20 PM

[fjd10595:]

The science of climate is speculative? Where do you get your information, Rush Limbaugh.com? Read some books on it. It is not speculative.

On Nov 03 01:13 PM Jimbo wrote:

> Mr. Lounsbury: Your last comment is most pertinent. The "science"
> of climatology seems to me to be quite speculative. I can't help
> but be suspicious of the motives of many of Al Gore's friends and
> admirers. In 1977, a gentleman published a book entitled: "The Coming
> Ice Age". But the ice age never came. It is my understanding that
> this author is now an advisor to President Obama. I have always been
> a "conservationist" and have advocated soil and water conservation
> and intensive reforestation. Man has historically caused regional
> environmental disasters in the Middle East, China, the United States
> and Central America. But I see the Climate Change folks as using
> this supposed issue to seize control of society to promote yet another
> Utopian Paradise. The Utopians have caused more death, agony, and
> suffering than any other movement in human history. In conclusion,
> the climate guys cannot accurately predict the weather next year,
> let alone in the next decades.

Nov 14 03:23 PM

[altaman:]

The current CO2 frenzy it a load of crap served by no-nothings like Al Gore and others that seek to profit from this BS or crash the US economy or both. There is zero hard evidence of any connection between man-made CO2 levels and any climate changes either up or down. Someday people will look back at this pathetic herd mentality with mirth.

Nov 14 05:35 PM

[CLH:]

We will need coal until enough nuclear plants are built which are the safest and cleanest power sources.. However don't worry CO2 is not a pollutant. Only Democrats pollute.

Nov 14 07:42 PM

[Thomas Smic...:]

While I doubt that there will truly be "clean" coal, over the long haul my greater fear is that we continue our slide into an "old Europe"-style country. With China then free to become the dominant superpower, militarily and strategically, they will dictate environmerntal terms a decade or so in the future.

And I would be willing to bet that they will preach green (sustainably second-rate) economies on the rest of the world and do what they please internally to be Numero Uno, which will most certainly include burning coal, as their current energy policy indicates.

Therein lies a big problem.

Nov 15 04:23 PM

[centro:]

The trouble with clean coal is that it doesn't exist.

Nov 16 01:16 PM