http://www.greenlivingonline.com/Energy/clean-coal-promise/
(Jan 18, 2008)
Fans of clean coal club include President Bush, many scientists, and of course coal industry associations of all shapes and sizes. But is it possible?
Future needs
Even with our present level of energy efficiency, we will need more energy in the near future (especially if we start using plug-in hybrids and electric cars). But as experts are quick to point out, current solar and wind power can’t get the job done. That’s why clean coal along with nuclear energy is back in fashion.
No standards
Clean coal is a generic term. It isn't one particular process (or a certified set of standards). Rather it’s an idea embraced by the industry and governments that in the next 20 years or all existing coal-fired generating plants will be retro-fitted to pre-treat coal before it's fired. The results will be a clean, green emission free energy.
Looks good on paper
New demonstration sites are slated to come online between 2010 and 2012 and there has already been more than $5 billion dollars invested into the technologies. What's not to like? Plenty.
Claim #1: less sulphur dioxide
Let's start with washing the coal so there is less sulphur dioxide emitted. Great idea - oh but where to put the leftover toxic slurry and sludge so it doesn’t leak and poison the water tables? Emissions go down, toxicity rises.
Claim #2: no more mercury emissions
The next impracticality is the idea of capturing mercury emissions, which is said to cost about $750,000 per one kilogram. This is a steep price for any utility to pay, especially when they are now releasing tons of mercury, but they all claim it will be part of clean coal.
Claim #3: carbon sequestrian
Another popular promise is the idea of pumping CO2 into underground chambers for storage. But there are far better things to do with carbon dioxide that sweeping it under the rug. Turning it into algae for biofuel and non-petroleum based pharmaceuticals are just two uses.
Other problems
Despite the carbon dioxide and mercury being taken care of, clean coal remains a dirty fuel source. Radioactive thorium and uranium-235 is released from burning coal. In fact, enough uranium-235 is released annually to run a dozen or more nuclear power plants, What doesn’t waft away into the atmosphere is stored as ash outside, which then gets rained on and washed away.
Hopeful contender
There are some other companies developing alternatives to coal. US Companies in the US like Green Fuel, and the Canadian Global Green Solutions have built photobioreactors (PBR), which quickly turn CO2 into algae that can be then synthesized into a biofuel.
The algae consumes between 80-90 percent of the CO2 emitted and photosynthesizes sunlight (and CO2) 1,500 times faster than any other plant, yielding about 4,000 barrels of oil per acre. Palm oil yields a mere 11 barrels per acre. Algae, so far has been ignored by the clean coal family.
Plasma to the rescue
StarTech, recently won the Wall Street Journal's Best & Brightest Award. This Department of Energy (DOE) demo clean coal plant, FutureGen, is slated to open 2010 and will showcase the new plasma technology. Basically it's a chamber where they ionize the air to make it a good conductor energy conductor, and then blast a mini lightning bolt through the chamber. They can put stuff in coal, solid waste, even toxic waste that gets shot with a plasma arc of around 16,648.89 degrees Celsius (30,000 Fahrenheit). Everything disintegrates and what is left is a gas called syngas that can be converted into hydrogen.
Until these companies hit a critical stage of mass production, it looks like we will continue to use coal and the climate will keep changing.
Lee Schnaiberg is a green investigative researcher who has been following developments in the energy field since 1993.
The promise of clean coal
Image: istockphoto.com/Werner Stoffberg
Future needs
Even with our present level of energy efficiency, we will need more energy in the near future (especially if we start using plug-in hybrids and electric cars). But as experts are quick to point out, current solar and wind power can’t get the job done. That’s why clean coal along with nuclear energy is back in fashion.
No standards
Clean coal is a generic term. It isn't one particular process (or a certified set of standards). Rather it’s an idea embraced by the industry and governments that in the next 20 years or all existing coal-fired generating plants will be retro-fitted to pre-treat coal before it's fired. The results will be a clean, green emission free energy.
Looks good on paper
New demonstration sites are slated to come online between 2010 and 2012 and there has already been more than $5 billion dollars invested into the technologies. What's not to like? Plenty.
Claim #1: less sulphur dioxide
Let's start with washing the coal so there is less sulphur dioxide emitted. Great idea - oh but where to put the leftover toxic slurry and sludge so it doesn’t leak and poison the water tables? Emissions go down, toxicity rises.
Claim #2: no more mercury emissions
The next impracticality is the idea of capturing mercury emissions, which is said to cost about $750,000 per one kilogram. This is a steep price for any utility to pay, especially when they are now releasing tons of mercury, but they all claim it will be part of clean coal.
Claim #3: carbon sequestrian
Another popular promise is the idea of pumping CO2 into underground chambers for storage. But there are far better things to do with carbon dioxide that sweeping it under the rug. Turning it into algae for biofuel and non-petroleum based pharmaceuticals are just two uses.
Other problems
Despite the carbon dioxide and mercury being taken care of, clean coal remains a dirty fuel source. Radioactive thorium and uranium-235 is released from burning coal. In fact, enough uranium-235 is released annually to run a dozen or more nuclear power plants, What doesn’t waft away into the atmosphere is stored as ash outside, which then gets rained on and washed away.
Hopeful contender
There are some other companies developing alternatives to coal. US Companies in the US like Green Fuel, and the Canadian Global Green Solutions have built photobioreactors (PBR), which quickly turn CO2 into algae that can be then synthesized into a biofuel.
The algae consumes between 80-90 percent of the CO2 emitted and photosynthesizes sunlight (and CO2) 1,500 times faster than any other plant, yielding about 4,000 barrels of oil per acre. Palm oil yields a mere 11 barrels per acre. Algae, so far has been ignored by the clean coal family.
Plasma to the rescue
StarTech, recently won the Wall Street Journal's Best & Brightest Award. This Department of Energy (DOE) demo clean coal plant, FutureGen, is slated to open 2010 and will showcase the new plasma technology. Basically it's a chamber where they ionize the air to make it a good conductor energy conductor, and then blast a mini lightning bolt through the chamber. They can put stuff in coal, solid waste, even toxic waste that gets shot with a plasma arc of around 16,648.89 degrees Celsius (30,000 Fahrenheit). Everything disintegrates and what is left is a gas called syngas that can be converted into hydrogen.
Until these companies hit a critical stage of mass production, it looks like we will continue to use coal and the climate will keep changing.
Lee Schnaiberg is a green investigative researcher who has been following developments in the energy field since 1993.
1 Comment
posted Feb 13, 2008 - 1:16 am by eofu
Clean Coal is a term that many coal companies have adopted to make people think it's "Enviromentaly Friendly". Even if Clean Coal can be made more green, you still have to mine it. I don't think people realize all the pollution that is made from mining it.
Add your comment
Facebook
Digg It
del.icio.us
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Care2
RSS
.gif)
rss