Expect to hear a lot more about “clean coal†in the coming months. The Washington Post reports that in response to increasing public skepticism about coal (the article points to Kansas’ Holcomb decision and public support for it), the coal industry is launching a $35 million advertising campaign in primary and caucus states to push coal as a clean, affordable energy choice.
The group’s newspaper ads say that new coal-fired plants are “70 percent cleaner based on regulated emissions per unit of energy produced.†That’s true when talking about pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. But the article notes that “clean coal†doesn’t apply to greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, the pollutant at the heart of the debate about new regulations. Coal-fired plant technology to capture and sequester carbon is still experimental and expensive.
57 Comments
70 percent cleaner coal – let me put that on a white filter paper and let’s see what shows up. :cool:
Why is the loud gulping sound never mentioned in articles about the two proposed Holcomb power plants? That would be the massive water pumps whooshing the water out of the pristine underground Ogallala stratas under those power plants.
So goes our quality drinking water.
“*Clean* coal” is an oxymoron along the order of “jumbo shrimp,” “civil war,” and “tight slacks.”
Having worked in the ‘clean coal’ area a quarter-century ago and seen the technology abandoned by industry I remain skeptical. Especially since at that time we didn’t even consider the carbon issue.
Exactly right, MH.
Clean coal is like “Conservative thinker” . . . you can’t have one and the other both.
The only clean coal is what’s left in the ground.
And if a coal plant is such a great idea, why doesn’t Colorado build it there since they’re going to be using the power?
Maybe because they’re not stupid?
I’m for a coal plant to produce electricity. Carbon issues is just a bunch of hype. Windmills are just a supplement. Greenhouse gases is a lot of BS that nobody really knows about.
Oil is too expensive and makes us vulnerable overseas. Wind and solar power will only contribute a small portion of needs. Ethanol is inefficient (and uses food). Nukes are scary.
I agree with those who oppose the Holcomb plants because of the water issue. But “clean coal” technology has to be considered as a significant part of the energy picture for the foreseeable future.
Outlander completely ignores the easiest and most available source of new energy–conservation.
Gov’t tax credits to stimulate major energy savings (like we had in the 70’s before Reagan gleefully gutted them) would be cost-effective and reduce energy needs almost forever.
The wind potential of the Great Plains could supply most of the country’s electricity needs. Couple that with nuclear and we could eliminate most carbon-based generation.
Natural gas is also a hydrocarbon, only it costs three times more than coal energy.
Let’s keep griping about coal until the poor people can no longer afford to heat their homes and they die off. That’s positive eugenics, isn’t it?
Or, better yet, let’s refuse to build any more coal plants and then shut down our oil refineries so we can be more dependent upon foreign energy sources.
That sounds like a good idea.
Ben, nuclear energy would work, no chance for wind energy to supply a fraction of what we need.
“And if a coal plant is such a great idea, why doesn’t Colorado build it there since they’re going to be using the power?”
I know I’ve posted this before, but…
By putting the coal plant just over the Kansas state line, Colorado gets a second gulp of water flowing from west to east. Colorado and Kansas have been litigating over water for what seems like centuries. Colorado has proven they will NOT give up a drop of water without the courts or a gun pointed at their collective head. So?
They let the water flow over the state line so they can say they complied with the court order du jur. Then?
They buy back the power, generated by that same water. Win win for Colorado. Lose lose for Kansas, which DESPERATELY needs the water. The need for power? Not so much. So we’ll trade something we need for something we dont need. WTF?
Too bad Kansans dont value their water supply as much as Colorado does. Joni had it right when she sang “dont it always seem to go that you dont know what you’ve got ’till it’s gone”.
Wave buh-bye to your water Kansas!
Off Your Rocker–
How about we use the energy we have better?
Why do we always need more, more, more?
Heh Cap’n. Follow the money…
Excellent point, KSFRMGRRL!
I hadn’t thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.
They make us use “our” water, and they get the benefits.
They’re not so dumb.
Too bad we apparently are, if we cave in to Big Coal.
If conservation is good, why do people have to be bribed with other peoples’ money (that would be the tax credits) do practice it?
I would say that given the cost of energy, people practice just about as much conservations as they feel suits them best.
RockOn – my fellow scientists and I disagree with you. Numerous studies have shown that wind can fill a large fraction; a fraction that will grow even further with improved ‘harvesting’ technologies.
Ben,
We shouldn’t put all our eggs in the wind basket. Energy always comes from someplace, and when we start diverting it to our needs, there’s less of it doing what it did before. At some point we will drain enough energy from wind that it will alter weather patterns and eventually climate.
Solar has a similar burden in that it diverts the solar energy that was originally reflected into space or absorbed by the earth and plant life. Solar farms get big enough and they too will cause changes in climate and flora. Geothermal energy removes necessary heat from our planet itself.
We need to learn to use energy in much more efficient ways rather than search for more and more cheap tappable sources to use the way we always have. Something about the non-existence of unpaid-for midday meals…..?
Jed – I agree. No ‘one basket’ – that is why I also include solar, nuclear, and ‘future technologies’. Also, obviously, conservation and efficiencies.
Ben
Surprising that no one builds the wind turbines in the states, the guys up in hutch should do well — that has got to be a growth industry. Have seen the home wind turbines, can see 2-3 of those providing for most if not all the energy needs for the resort.
Capn is correct.
Our greatest untapped source of energy is in conservation of what we already WASTE.
This is why I like Senator Clinton’s talk about green collar jobs.
Jed is ALSO correct. I am on record myself with questions as to whether massive wind farming might alter climate. I have been assured the alteration to climate by burning of fossil fuels has a MUCH greater potential to affect climate.
george posted January 22, 2008 at 8:25 am
“Carbon issues is just a bunch of hype. … Greenhouse gases is a lot of BS that nobody really knows about.”
Looks like george believes the garbage compilied by Rush Limbaugh’s ex-producer and ex-reporter… and/or other very non-scientific sources.
outlander posted January 22, 2008 at 8:30 am
“But “clean coal” technology has to be considered as a significant part of the energy picture for the foreseeable future.”
Coal will not be a significant source in the future, unless they can cheaply and reliably do carbon capture and storage (CCS).
That seems very unlikely, since you need to literally store “mountains” of carbon.
J R,
A climate model was run with an 100 by 100 array of wind turbines spaced 1 kilometer apart. That’s 10,000 turbines.
The main influence was during pre-dawn hours.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041016/fob7.asp
“Large groups of power-generating windmills could have a small but detectable influence on a region’s climate, new analyses suggest.”
Micro-climate will likely be effected. Just like we do today in orange groves with powered wind generators. Macro climate though? Not very likely – however it should be watched.
Coal will not be a significant source in the future, unless they can cheaply and reliably do carbon capture and storage (CCS).
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html
Oh course it will Cosmos. How could it not be? Magic bullets are hard to come by.
There is nothing ‘magic bullet’ about wind etc.
There is a program on the discovery channel where two guys are driving a waste oil vehicle across the United States, and taking a hard look at new and/or improved energy technologies.
One of the inventions looked at was a new wind energy device, way smaller than the ones in use now, and way different in that it has more of a squerral cage design. It maxes out at something like 170 rpm, likes the variable winds associated with large buildings, and is in use on many tall buildings producing most, if not all, of the energy requirements for the building. Quite a space saving unit.
The designer is getting many orders from foreign countries that want to use it. This unit can be built to just about any size specs, requires less maintenance, and can stand up to major wind changes. That, in my opinion, makes it an extremmely viable option for use from the average home to large buildings including manufacturing.
An infusion of government funds in the form of rebates could get this one into the mainstream. And it doesn’t kill birds. Win/win all the way.
That is just one example. There are many, many more out there. But like I said in other posts relating to this, it will take major backing by the government to accomplish a change.
Coal is NOT a viable energy source for the simple reason coal can never be really clean. All the hype about clean coal is just that: hype.
True Ben. i think that Holland has the biggest percentage of their energy provided by wind at about 20%. Everyone else is significantly less.
I’d like to see nuclear as a big part of the solution, but I don’t know that it will be political possible. That may be changing.
“The state has the potential resources to generate as much as 7,000 megawatts of wind power, he said.
The state’s current generating capacity is about 11,000 megawatts, mostly from coal and nuclear power.”
In other words, we could generate 64% from wind.
http://www.kansas.com/news/state/story/288284.html
And, I think you are correct on nuclear – there are those on ‘my side’ who support appropriate nuclear development (I still like my ’swords to plowshares’ approach)
As do I, Ben.
Some interesting stuff about transmission lines in western Kansas.
I notice you all are for wind, as long as the eyesores and dangers are out in the west. When they wanted to put a wind farm in the Flint Hills, eastern Kansas loved wind, eh, not so much.
Note also that Shulte is closing in Plainville. Why?
Not enough workforce to meet demand for their product.
Demand is up, but they couldnt get enough workers to make the plant run in the black. I’ve been telling you that the population decline and worker shortage was the biggest problem out here and would lead to the end of the few industries in western Kansas. I knew this was going to happen sooner or later, I just didnt know it would be Shulte.
http://www.hdnews.net/
Oh yeah, and I think in addition to putting the wind farms in eastern Kansas, they should also put the ethanol plants there where the water is available.
Or does eastern Kansas just want the “good” industries while the trashy ones go out west?
Heheheh. And where are the workers for these plants going to come from? See above.
ksfg – The Flint Hills are getting some wind farms and I would guess some other areas in the eastern half will as well. However, western KS has the best wind (as does the rest of the Plains up and down the country’s mid-section.
Note also that Hays declined to put a windfarm on the western edge of town. It seems like most folks LOVE windfarms… until it comes to their town.
I wasnt aware that the Flint Hills would see wind farms. I thought they fought the governor on that issue and won. Where will these new Flint Hills farms be located?
And how about putting the ethanol plants in the east, closer to water and workers?
outlander,
If coal is such a wonderful energy source for the future, why is a $35,000,000 deception campaign needed?
‘Carbon Risk, Coal, and Higher Electricity Prices
Why coal-generated electricity will cost more than utilities claim’
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/carbon_risk.html
Not sure where – the name Beuamont comes to mind. And as for ethanol I have lots of doubts there for a number of reasons. I do know of at least some plants coming east – Sedgwick County included.
I’ve posted this really funny video before, but it’s worth watching again. Only a minute and 31 seconds.
‘Coal: cheap, abundent, cheap’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71kckb8hhOQ
ksfarmgrrl
Great article on page 35 of this week’s Economist: Depopulation. The Great Plains Drain.
Addresses many of the issues you refer to daily.
Thanks Dennis, I’ll check it out. Nice to know you read my posts…. daily…. heheheheh!
If coal is such a wonderful energy source for the future, why is a $35,000,000 deception campaign needed?
————
Who said it’s wonderful. I just said that “clean coal” technology has to be considered as a significant part of the energy picture for the foreseeable future”. Fact dude. Some of them are still going to be operating when we’re dead, cosmos.
“outlander” responds to:
If coal is such a wonderful energy source for the future, why is a $35,000,000 deception campaign needed?
…with (and you’re gonna love this):
“Who said it’s wonderful. I just said that “clean coal” technology has to be considered…
Why stop there, “outlander?”
Why not include “Fairy Dust” from “Peter Pan?”
Just think lovely thoughts.
Dear MonkeyHawk; Why didn’t you use my entire quote? So that you could disingenuously try to make a point? BTW, what was that point??
Could it be that you are a windbag who’s got nothing intelligent to write?
I’m thinking so. Nothing personal.
Because, “outlander” –
*Clean* coal doesn’t exist.
Neither does Peter Pan’s “fairy dust.”
Anyone who posted, “Fairy dust technolgy must be considered…” would be revealed for the blind partisan idiot they most certainly would be.
Anyone who posts “‘Clean coal” technology must be considered…” is in the same category.
Don’t make me go all sci-fi on your ass. “Anti-gravity technology would solve the airlines’ fuel problem and should be considered.” “Faster-than-Light Travel technology would solve the problem of visiting the Planet Zoltar and should be considered.”
“Clean coal” is a concept that, to anyone who knows anything, is absurd as “sweet-tasting s#it.”
That’s why.
Outlander is going to feel that one tomorrow.
Ouch.
And well played, MH.
Moneyhawk, a teleporter could solve all the worlds thirst for motorized transportation, (but I could see where Al-Quida would just use it against us!)
“The Phantom” –
You make as good a point as “outlander” did.
Perhaps we could all get together in the Bahamas this evening and discuss it in person. We could fax ourselves or something.
After all, according to “outlander’s” “Clean” Coal fantasy, faxing ourselves around the world should be considered.
First round of Pina Coladas on me.
MonkeyHawk, very well said.
outlander posted January 22, 2008 at 4:41 pm
“I just said that “clean coal” technology has to be considered as a significant part of the energy picture for the foreseeable future”. Fact dude. Some of them are still going to be operating when we’re dead, cosmos.”
Here are a few facts to “consider”, dude.
Reducing demand with higher end-use energy efficiency (negawatts) is cheaper and faster than building new dinosaur-style central power plants.
Distributed generation is cheaper, faster, and more responsive than building huge central plants with excess capacity.
Coal is not well suited to handle peak loads — nat gas is. Nat gas can also to used in small units, and more efficient co- and tri-generation.
Higher efficiency and renewables can reduce the demand (and price) of nat gas.
Carbon taxes are coming, and will hurt coal more than nat gas (coal emits more carbon).
Coal transport costs are rising, and will rise again with carbon taxes (diesel fuel, etc).
People are willing to pay higher rates for “green” energy.
Each new coal plant will cost BILLIONS of dollars — and construction costs are rapidly rising. Investing those funds in efficiency and renewables is a much wiser, sustainable choice — smart utilities are cancelling their proposed coal plants.
We need roughly an 80% cut in global carbon emissions in about 4 decades — shutting down coal-fired plants is an obvious solution.
Also, coal mining releases methane, a potent GHG.
“Clean Coal” – has anyone here other than me actually worked in the coal utilization (”clean coal”) field? We looked at a number of things – the SRC systems, coal gas/reforming/Fischer-Tropsch and others. I invented a cobalt carbonyl based catalyst that improved that last process – a very old process that Germany used during WW2.
In none of these did we even consider the carbon issue.
My point here is in support of cosmos and others – the magic formula does not exist. If the coal people have this ‘magic algae’ they claim then let them demonstrate it on an existing plant. However, don’t pretend that it is there – it is not.
Dear MonkeyHawk:
Did I say that I think coal plants are the ideal? The answer to that, so you don’t have to strain is no. But the point is that they are a here, and no matter how much of your “fairy dust” you use they will continue to be for the foreseeable future. And there is nothing that we can do about it.
And let me ask you this. Is “clean coal” technology an improvement? Sure it is. Look it up. Should research continue in that vein? A no brainer.
That’s all for now Monkeyhawk. Thanks for your continuing demonstration of the left’s well meaning, but idiotic, lack of practicality.
Regards,
outlander
cosmos: Why have you set me up as a proponent of coal power? Are you missing “Kansas” and Hank so much that you are looking around for an argument? I was just pointing out where you are kidding yourself if you think China and India are going to shut down their plants. Unfortunately, they are going to continue to build them.
Were you having fun debating yourself?
I’ve seen the coal ads all over the TV AND heard them on the radio.
No coincidence that I think.
Big coal knows the Dems are gonna win BIG in November. They know the American public is embracing conservation and alternatives.
Think about it. Who in the world makes an advertisement for freaking coal? Unless they are damned scared they are about to take a BIG hit?
Hey coal?
BOO!
outlander posted January 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“But the point is that they are a here, and… they will continue to be for the foreseeable future. And there is nothing that we can do about it.”
Please define “foreseeable future”? The next 5 or 6 decades? That’s the future lifetime of new coal-fired plants.
Coal plants will probably be shutdown during the next 2 or 3 decades, to reduce GHG emissions.
Just because we burned coal in the past, and now, does not mean it’s the best energy source for the future.
And there are many things “we can do about it”. End-use energy efficiency, passive solar, cheaper renewables, more efficient and versatile nat gas, etc. will replace coal.
From wiki:
In a study conducted in 2003 by the IEA GHG, “the capital cost of building a Shell-designed IGCC could cost $1371 per kW-electric without carbon capture and $1860 with it.”
If coal-fired plants were built in Western Kansas, and a CO2 capture system were installed, where would the CO2 be pumped underground? Seems to me the aquifer would lie just beneath the plants. I wonder how well corn crops for ethanol grow using carbonated water? Think we’d need burp-bags in our gas tanks?
JR,
” I have been assured the alteration to climate by burning of fossil fuels has a MUCH greater potential to affect climate.”
While quite true for the immediate future, in a dynamical system such as a climate, small changes such as those provided by wind or solar generators have a way of cascading and triggering much bigger changes. Odds are that the climate will continue to change no matter what we do, just as it did countless times before we came along. Our hopes for survival depend on conserving the energy sources we have and adapting ourselves toward flexibility in coping with such changes.
Jed posted January 23, 2008 at 5:05 am
“While quite true for the immediate future, in a dynamical system such as a climate, small changes such as those provided by wind or solar generators have a way of cascading and triggering much bigger changes.”
The “immediate future” re the GHG’s humans have added will last for many centuries — unless we can quickly find a way to reduce GHG’s to their pre-Industrial Age levels.
Or below those levels, to correct an already warming ocean (heat content), loss of thick Arctic sea ice, etc.
Wind farms are unlikely to have a global effect, since the main problem seems to be turbulence downwind, mostly during predawn hours. Future designs may reduce that effect.
And consider the total energy of Earth’s wind, including the height of the atmosphere, jet streams, etc.
Passive solar and photovoltaic basically imitate nature. “Green” roofs and other solutions can reduce the urban heat island effect.
More about ABEC in Arizona and Pennsylvania,
‘Americans For Balanced Energy Choices Pennsylvania “Clean Coal” Campaign Revealed’
http://www.desmogblog.com/americans-for-balanced-energy-choices-pennsylvania-clean-coal-campaign-revealed
“ABEC has even taken to deploying children as spokespeople to sell their message.
Attached is ABEC’s request for proposal for public relations work in the State of Pennsylvania.”
See link for more.
3 Trackbacks
greatings…
wow…
Eric…
I love this web stuff!…
coal…
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok?….