The oil industry is ramping up its “clean coal†ad campaign, observes Diane Silver, complete with Kool and the Gang singing “Celebration†— and all three presidential candidates seem to be buying the coal industry’s line that “technology will fix everything.â€
But experts say carbon-capture technology is years away, and may never be viable, she notes. And the energy industry, one analyst says, is facing a “de facto moratorium on coal power.â€
The good times for coal might be coming to an end.
45 Comments
This thread from the WEBlog is luddite epitomized.
Oppose technology at all cost. It’s bad ya know.
However, 50% of our electricity comes from coal and it will be darn near impossible to eliminate it’s contribution. Sorry WEBlog and all if its readers, Coal will be around for a long time whether the new “clean coal” plants get built or not.
Just ask China.
John McCain called for further decomissioning of nuclear warheads by all of the nuclear powers a couple days ago. I agree - and go a step further. Weapons grade material is highly enriched; fuel grade less enriched. So, back-mix weapons grade with depleted uranium and use as nuclear fuel. This creates a nuclear energy scenario that generates ‘zero net new nuclear waste’. Call it recycling; swords to plowsheres, whatever. We have enough fuel ON HAND to last centuries.
Coal has been around for millions of years (thousands, for the prices), and will be around for millions more!
I know virtually nothing regarding this matter, but is it even remotely feasible to make gas from coal?
gster - yes, it is. A quarter-century ago we worked on some processes to do so at Gulf Oil. Hitler largely ran the Luftwaffe on Fischer-Tropsch fuel from coal.
Perhaps we need a five year moratorium on building new coal fired power plants to give time to come up with better solutions. I’m thinking we need to build a new nuclear power plant adjacent to Wolf Creek? Also develop wind power sources. And get serious about conservation of electrical use, especially in government buildings.
Listen to the guy who rides a bike calling us “luddites.”
The problem with “clean coal” is that there isn’t any, except for the coal you leave in the ground where it belongs.
Actually capn, there IS an interesting technology adaptable to some coal beds for in situ gasification. Then pump out the syngas and convert to diesel.
Even the GORACLE thinks coal gasification is a good thing…or at least he used to…he may be ‘agin’ it now.
Then pump out the syngas and convert to diesel.
How expensive is the process. What would a gallon run if mass produced? Could that be refined further into gasoline?
Sol - I’m not sure; it’s bee a while. As I recall it was appraoching cost-competitive back in 1982. And yes, it can be further refined to gasoline but why? Clean-burning diesel (and this would be a cleaner diesel fuel than we now have) sells for even more today. That, in turn, would allow a larger fraction of crude to go to gasoline.
For gasoline from coal SRC and SRC2 would be better processes than the syngas route.
“And the energy industry, one analyst says, is facing a “de facto moratorium on coal power.”
Keep it up libs - my XOM stock is going to be even more valuable as you cut off your noses…..
No coal.
No nuke plants.
No drilling anywhere new.
Guess that leaves us addicted to more oil price increases! That gas hose at the station is just like that heroin needle - going into our veins!
PS: You can buy ear plugs at Walmart cheap (made in China). Cotton balls are getting too expensive so I’d suggest the plastic ones made from oil.
You will need them, because these same people will be CRYING and WHINING about the high gas prices. Noise pollution is a very serious matter.
Clean coal, an oxymoron.
http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/57.jpg
Millions of tons of toxic waste, polluted rivers, polluted groundwater and that is before the coal even gets burned.
Bad coal. Nasty coal. My precious.
My oil supporters!
“No drilling anywhere new.”
I asked this yesterday, but didn’t get an answer: Why aren’t we drilling off the Gulf Coast of Florida?
” Gulf Coast of Florida?”
That is reserved for Cuba. But it could be the large number of senior citizens living in Florida too.
Can’t wait for babyboomers to rule.
“That is reserved for Cuba. But it could be the large number of senior citizens living in Florida too.”
Cuba is 90 miles south of Florida, they cannot drill off the Gulf Coast of Florida.
Can’t imagine what senior citizens would have to do with it.
But the answer is - Jeb Bush did not want to allow for drilling off the Coast out of environmental concerns and the possible impact on tourism. George WMD Bush acquiesced to his brother’s request.
“Can’t imagine what senior citizens would have to do with it.”
I think you answered it in your reply. Jeb Bush is doing what a large number of his states constituents want him to do. A large number of senior citizens are retarded (I mean retired) in Florida. They don’t want that nasty oil leaking anywhere near their homes or boats. There is no doubt that senior citizens affect the politics of the day - everywhere. They vote in large numbers, and have more time to dedicate to supporting candidates and getting involved.
When 77 million of us are all finally retirement eligiible, we will be the most awesome political force this nation has ever seen. Boom!
Great site for facts and news.
And watch their ‘Best Clean Coal Ad Ever’ video.
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/
Another funny video,
‘Coal: cheap, abundent, cheap’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71kckb8hhOQ
“I think you answered it in your reply. Jeb Bush is doing what a large number of his states constituents want him to do.”
And a large part of the American “constituency” does not want drilling in ANWR, as expressed through their representatives.
So, why are you blaming “liberals?”
Another thing to think on is how is coal mined. The safest way is strip mining w/ open pits but then you destroy the environment w/ erosion. The next is underground mining, remember the coal miners left buried in the West Virginia in 2006 and 2007 if I remember correctly. Not to mention the health problems associated w/ underground coal mining, black lung. The coal may be cheap and “clean” to burn, w/ new advances in technology, but the price in human life or to the environment may still be to high.
You didnt mention mountain top removal.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted May 29, 2008 at 8:52 pm | Permalink
You didnt mention mountain top removal
=========================================
Damn straight! What would Kansas be without Mount Sunflower: The Jewel of the Sunflower State!!!
psssttt . . . any coal up there?
“If I readabate what my brother, Jebadiah, votacated for, by not drillitatin’ for oil, then, dad gum it, I gotta honorate his wishes . . . commie bastied.”
PBS News had a story about the algae-to-diesel process. This is a fascinating RESEARCH project; it is the technology that Neufeld claims has already been commercialized. I repeat my challenge to Neufeld and to Sunflower: Build the algae plant at Holcomb. Scale the laboratory idea up to full scale. THEN lets talk about expansion.
Liberals tell us, constantly, that there will be “alternatives” for oil, and that “new technology” will replace gasoline.
However, when technology is proposed, to burn coal in a cleaner, more efficient way, liberals tell us that such new technology won’t work.
It is rather obvious that liberal greens are anti-capitalist and anti-growth.
How else do you explain how the same people can claim that “future technology” will work (regarding non-carbon based fuels) but that “future technology” will NOT work, when it comes to coal?
Scientists tell you that a new experimental technology needs to be scaled up to pilot plant and demonstration plant before we can say it is ready for production.
It is rather obvious that freshman economics students are ignorant about what it takes to apply science and technology.
The difference Paul is that technologies like wind HAVE been proven; algae has not. SRC was (unwisely IMO) abandoned by Chevron when it acquired Gulf. So were the Fischer-tropsch processes.
“However, when technology is proposed, to burn coal in a cleaner, more efficient way, liberals tell us that such new technology won’t work.”
Regardless the millions of tons of coal mine effluent continue to pollute the lands. It kills off all life in the rivers, makes water undrinkable, is a cause of cancer, etc.
As for burning coal the power plants have consistently been opposed to paying for upgrades to make their facilities cleaner. Back when there was a huge move to clean up sulphur dioxide pollution the energy companies whined about how it was going to ruin them financially and the environmentalists were anti-growth, etc. The government forced the technology upon the plants because acid rain was such a huge problem. Know what happened? The upgrades cost a tenth of what the energy companies claimed they were going to cost and the pollution was cleaned up.
If the problem is, as you say, that environmentalists are preventing the coal power plants from being cleaner then you are living in a dream world. It would be amazing if there was a technology that could be used to create clean coal, the environmentalists would support it. Yet there is none, and if there was the coal plants would oppose them.
bth
You are wrong.
Wind energy is great, to a point, but the wind does NOT always blow, and there is NO existing techology to STORE wind energy.
Wind Energy can NEVER replace coal.
Wind is, at best, a supplement to traditional power sources.
Also, wind energy is NOT, currently, price competitive with coal.
Wind energy costs more to produce, than coal.
Therefore, Wind has not been “proven” as you falsely state.
And, the United States IS using coal gassification techology, which IS clean:
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/gasificationpioneer.html
“Damn straight! What would Kansas be without Mount Sunflower: The Jewel of the Sunflower State!!!
psssttt . . . any coal up there?”
Ha Walker! I could take the top off mt sunflower with a shovel, and not a coal shovel like big brutus.
I think the only coal up there is of the kingsford variety.
Wassa matter Pauli? You cant sleep either?
I’m watching the weather. Fire in the sky, big thunder, and a whining titty baby cattle dog.
Big eye roll…
I LOVE THESE STORMS! Unless there’s hail.:(
“Wind energy is great, to a point, but the wind does NOT always blow, and there is NO existing techology to STORE wind energy.”
True enough Paul. If the government would support the research and innovation to perfect the algae diesel and battery technology and rooftop technology for wind, and if ALL fifty states, including Kansas, allowed for net metering, we could make some significant progress with just those three initiatives.
And I dont think all three together would be as difficult as it was to go to the moon in ten years in the 1960s
If stills were legal some of us could produce our own ethanol too, feed the mash to our own small scale livestock, and be liquid fuel self sufficient in a closed loop kinda way.
I have plans from Mother Earth News to run copper tubing through a big compost pile to get hot water! Just have to be careful not to rob too much heat from the pile. The even recommend putting raw eggs in the compost pile overnight and they are perfectly soft “boiled” in the morning.
A well run homestead can be a self sufficient closed system quite easily.
If you are not already fifty years old…
If coal producers and coal burners had to pay the cost of cleaning up their own environmental messes, they wouldnt be so cost efficient.
Tragedy of the commons. Privatize the profits, socialize the costs.
“Can’t wait for babyboomers to rule.”
Uh, how old are you anyway?
Baby boomers were born from 1945 to 1965.
We already DO rule. Both Clinton and Bush are baby boomers. So is Obama. Mcsame, well… grandpa not so much!
I must be the last insomniac standing tonight. Very unusual. Too bad you all are not here. I have all the windows and curtains open so I can watch the lightning go 360 degrees around my house. I’m just waiting for the tap tap tap of hail…
First semester fossil-fuel shill econ101 (aka ‘Franklin’), you are very, very wrong.
The variability of wind power is not a problem, until it is providing more than about 20% of the total grid power. Very large coal, nat gas, and nuclear plants also go offline — sometimes for months, or longer.
Wind power will be cheaper than coal in the future, when carbon taxes, higher coal transport costs, etc are factored in.
Running nat gas plants at 100% capacity will be cheaper in the future than building very expensive new coal plants, and paying the carbon taxes which are higher on coal than nat gas.
CCS is at least 15 to 20 years off, probably not economically feasible, and probably too expensive to retrofit existing coal plants.
Solar PV cell costs are dropping, with new, more efficient technologies.
Distributed generation has many cost, time, and other advantages, over the old-style centralized power system.
And higher end-use energy efficiency is the cheapest energy “source”.
Little ol’ Gove county is doing their best to cut down on consumption and promote efficiency.
http://www.hdnews.net/Story/govework052908
Paul whines about wind not being able to replace coal but there was a time when wind was exclusively used. Ships had sails and windmills drained water and ground wheat.
England’s oldest windmill is still in operation since it was built in 1665.
http://www.outwoodwindmill.co.uk/home.htm
For over 340 years the fuel costs for this windmill have been zero. Now I may not be a smart economist like Paul but if I have the choice between getting free fuel or paying for fuel, as in coal, I think the free option is cheaper.
But I’m just some wacky environmentalist like President Carter who thought getting off foreign oil and providing 20% of our nation’s power through solar power by the year 2000 is a good idea. The economic genius Reagan figured it was a bad idea. Dang liberals always wanting to be self-sufficient, clean, and having cheap electricity. Things like that will destroy America, better to sell off our nation to Saudi Arabia.
Franklin
Posted May 29, 2008 at 11:31 pm | Permalink
bth
You are wrong.
Wind energy is great, to a point, but the wind does NOT always blow, and there is NO existing techology to STORE wind energy.
Wind Energy can NEVER replace coal.
Wind is, at best, a supplement to traditional power sources.
Also, wind energy is NOT, currently, price competitive with coal.
Wind energy costs more to produce, than coal.
Therefore, Wind has not been “proven” as you falsely state.
Paul - you are WRONG on all counts. We have storage capability. The wind DOES always blow - over an area - which is why we use FARMS instead of single turbines. Think of it asdiversification. The only reason wind energy is not currently cost competitive with coal is that coal is not required to internalize all costs.
Your ignorance in science and technology is incredible.
“…there is NO existing techology to STORE wind energy…”
———————
Are you sure, Ben? Lots of hot air stored around here. That doesn’t count?
linda - that was Rosell’s claim that I copied. He is, as usual, wrong.
From Paul’s DOE link:
“In the 1970s, interest in coal gasification revived, due largely to concerns that the U.S. supply of natural gas was waning. The massive Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant in Beulah, North Dakota, was built with federal government support to use coal gasification to produce methane, the chief constituent of natural gas. When government price controls on natural gas were lifted, however, large quantities of natural gas became available, and no other coal-to-methane gasification plants have been built to date in the United States.”
Note two things: it was built by the taxpayers and no more have been built. There was refernce to a few others in conjunction with direct burn (combined-cycle). You will note, however, no liquid fuel which is what is in really short supply.
I remember the Great Plains plant. I was working in the field at that time. We thought they upscaled too fast (bypassing pilot plants); we were proved right. Having shepherded processes from lab to pilot plant to demonstration plant to full-scale I know the ilportance of all of those stages.
Algae is still laboratory. I’d like very much to see it move forward; the science behind it is sound. The engineering is what needs further development.
My concept of using nuclear to split water at very high temperatures (without goung via electrolysis) is another one that works on paper but may ot may not be engineerable. I’d like to see that one investigated.
First semester fossil-fuel shill econ101 posted
“Wind energy is great, to a point, but the wind does NOT always blow, and there is NO existing techology to STORE wind energy.”
‘High-performance battery can store the wind’
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=87639
Pumping water uphill to a reservoir, and compressing gas underground are also being used.