Coal Energy

So what is everyone’s take on the coal energy? I know it isn’t very good for the earth itself but it does seem from what I can see that there is quite a bit of coal to be mined that would produce electricity. So I was just wondering what everyone’s thought on this was?

If the so-called “clean coal” technology actually works as per the FutureGen Initiative, then I think this will be a viable resource for the future.

I read in a textbook that there is only enough coal left to mine until around 2060

I’ve often read that the U. S. has a 250 year supply of coal such as this source.

link

I know this figure is also disputed such as in the NY Tiimes.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/business/21coal.html?ref=science>link

It’s hard to know what to believe with dueling experts at hand.

But who actually sponsored the study? That to me would be the interesting part. Maybe they have a vested interest and don’t want to spread fear and panic…

I don’t know the answer…just playing devil’s advocate.

I really never know how to get proper information on these kind of issues. Who can you trust?

We will probably have to use coal to run power plants because coal is plentiful and cheap, but Big Coal must be put on notice; do it cleanly and capture all emissions!

It can be done for a reasonable price, it should be done for our health and for the environment, and we must insist that it be done. Remember though, Big Coal spends a lot on propaganda advertising and a lot on the political process, but we the people can reign them in through the political process!

It’s more expensive to retrofit an existing coal power plant than it would be to build a modern IGCC (gasification) coal power plant that is ready for emissions and CO2 capture.

The ten-year-old 250MW Polk power plant near Tampa, Florida is a proven ICGE design and captures all fly ash, 98% of sulphur emissions, and nearly all it’s nitrogen oxides. It does not capture any of its CO2 or mercury emissions because there is no requirement to do so but could easily be retrofitted with equipment to capture both.

I found this an interesting quote from a coal article: “…coal is as filthy as it is cheap and abundant. When burned, it releases three pounds of sulphur dioxide and four pounds of nitrogen oxide for every megawatt-hour of operation. The nation’s (U.S.) plants produce a total of about 48 tons of mercury annually.”

Interestingly enough, the article stated that it would also be relatively easy to capture the mercury emissions too; there is simply no requirement to do so.

Despite that, I think we must look at using clean coal technology to provide the base of our power supply pyramid. If the coal industry is to be believed, coal is very abundant and cheap. It may not be so cheap if we also implement rigorous mining safety and environmental standards.

To mine and use it cleanly, to capture the CO2 and other emissions, and to sequester them is a challenge and will make our electricity cost a bit more, but it will still be more affordable than most other power sources. However, it is imperative that we reduce the climate change effects we are now causing. Big Coal is going to fight us every step of the way on this.

We will probably have to use coal to run power plants because coal is plentiful and cheap, but Big Coal must be put on notice; do it cleanly and capture all emissions!

This is very important, yes. I remember using coal to heat the house when I was a little girl and the strongest memory I have is of the dirtiness and fumes of it. (Dirtiness in the house from it, I mean… I was too little to think about what it may have been putting into the air.)

An interesting program was on the other night. It discussed the Tar Sands ssue and in relation to the catastrophic pollution to come from the Tar Sands development it was presented that it costs 36 dollars to produce a barrel of oil. from that the revenues are easily 90 to 100+. The calculated cost to make the tar sands carbon/pollution zero is 2-3 dollars per barrel. It is already fast becoming the largest environmental nightmare and portends to be the largest single producer of pollution in North America owing to it’s consumption in the US which receives more than 90% and funds the majority of development with welcoming assistance from Harper and Alberta. A interview with Mr. Baird, the environment minister was honestly embarrassing to Canadians. There is not an active push for test data on the environmental implications according to the nonresponse the minister gave which was meaningless and actually said nothing. It will matter little if we shut down our coal plants since oil ssands produced 14000 tons of pollution in 2007 and will climb. I don’t imagine that business and the coal industry will move any quicker in the US to mitigate pollution and will falsely claim that capture technology is costly and not cost effective as well as a huge capital outlay in a short time. We should all remember that government and industry work on 20-100 year forecast models and corporations can amortise cost. The environment has no luxury to amortise the effect in any other terms than a negative change of the ecosystem

Sim

This is very important, yes. I remember using coal to heat the house when I was a little girl and the strongest memory I have is of the dirtiness and fumes of it. (Dirtiness in the house from it, I mean… I was too little to think about what it may have been putting into the air.)

Brown urged to resist coal rush

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

James Hansen has taken a very public stance on climate

The renowned climate scientist Dr James Hansen says the UK and Germany must resist new coal-fired power stations.

He wants Prime Minister Brown and Chancellor Merkel to block plants that have the potential to substantially increase carbon emissions.

The UK is considering a new coal plant in Kent; and Germany has plans for new stations in Hamburg and other cities.

The leading Nasa researcher is writing to the leaders to explain why he believes their decisions to be crucial.

“It appears that it is not recognised that we’re going to have to phase out coal use except where we capture the carbon dioxide; or we’re going to produce a different planet,” Dr Hansen told link.

coal is abundent and its something the earth makes faster then alota other resources… but it bursn dirty and to get it u gota blast giant holes in to the earth and u spread so much dust and coal itself into the atmosopher…even mining it is not earht friendly………. probably exagerating……iv got no hard source or evidence at the moment but when i have something emprical ill hook you up…

In my cruise through the morning news looking for the poop on the Bali Summit I read a few articles that caught my eye. I got to one in particular that quoted someone from Indonesia who claimed that the only real solution to avoiding the progressive use of coal given the growing demand for energy in the east is going to be nuclear. Keeping in mind that the developing world is hoping to achieve our level of development even faster than we got there. They are making up for lost opportunity.

It is a similar discussion I have heard in Ontario around the closing of the coal plants here. Is nuclear the lesser of the evils? In India and China and a dozen places more the coal is the fuel available and abundant. I think that if the numbers are correct that the tar sands production can be clean for 3 dollars a barrel. What is it worth to coal producers and energy producers to continue with a clean process or shutdown cold the dirty one. They still make trillions. Which way? Nuclear is the next available resource and can meet the demand curve. it’s not hard to recognize the method the energy companies would like to go and it seems to have a lot of support. There is a lot of propaganda out there. The important thing to note that will affect a lot of the developed world as climate change progresses and becomes more catastrophic and that is environmental refugess and displaced persons forced to migrate. These situations would inflate energy consumption and demand projections if in the near future there are millions of victims of the wasteland on our shores. You don;t hear a lot of this subject in planning and preparedness discussions. There are challenges we haven’t even consider possible.

Sim

This is a great overview of clean coal technology complete with diagrams by link.

An article in this issue of Discover magazine showcases the potential of the new ICGE design power plants. The ten-year-old 250MW Polk power plant near Tampa, Florida is an ICGE design and captures all fly ash, 98% of sulphur emissions, and nearly all it’s nitrogen oxides. It does not capture any of its CO2 or mercury emissions because there is no requirement to do so but could easily be fitted with equipment to capture both. Interestingly, the Polk power plant is very profitable too.

I here they have developed a brick using wood waste that will rival coal in BTU’s and has less emmissions