"Clean" Coal: I call it a scam

[ofro]

Today's NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/science/earth/11coal.html?ref=science) about a “near-zero emissions” coal plant in Illinois reminded me of John McCain's campaign clamoring for "Clean Coal."

I need somebody to convince me that this is not a cruel hoax.

If I understand it correctly, the goal is to collect all the carbon dioxide from the coal plants' exhaust and dispose of it such that it does not enter the atmosphere. Where is it supposed to go? I heard about turning it into dry ice (solid CO2) and burying it or simply injecting the gas underground into old oil wells, or deep into the ocean. Sorry, I have a hard time seeing this happening on an industrial scale. There is no way to keep the gas from escaping again into the atmosphere; maybe not in the next ten years, but how about 100 years?

Let's not forget: for every ton of carbon burned nearly 4 tons of CO are produced2 (more precisely for the chemist: for every 12 grams of C you make 44 grams of CO2)!

So someone please tell me why I should get excited about "clean coal" technologies.

[Ray Moscow]

Here's one project (http://www.statoil.com/statoilcom/SVG00990.NSF?OpenDatabase&artid=01A5A730136900A3412569B90069E947)where CO2 sequestering is working (at considerable expense, though).

[ofro]

Here's one project (http://www.statoil.com/statoilcom/SVG00990.NSF?OpenDatabase&artid=01A5A730136900A3412569B90069E947)where CO2 sequestering is working (at considerable expense, though).

OK, there is an aspect I hadn't thought about:

He believes that the formation is highly unlikely to leak for several hundred years. By then, the "carbon age" will be over and humans will have found cleaner energy solutions.

All in all, the signs are that carbon dioxide leaks from the Utsira formation will not be greater than seepage from natural carbon dioxide deposits elsewhere.

I may buy the idea of a temporary solution.

However, I am still skeptical about finding enough "hollow space" underground for all the mass of CO2 to be injected. In the case of an aquifer, you may be able to displace some of the water, but that won't work everywhere (the only other place would be old oil wells, I guess). At some point there will be enough pressure build up that the hundreds-of-years estimate won't be reasonable because of increase back leak.

[Joykins]

Nuclear waste takes up a lot less mass. Just sayin'

[Izmir Stinger]

So someone please tell me why I should get excited about "clean coal" technologies.

Because we, the US, are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Coal is what we have. If we can make it less damaging to the economy, we should try. If we can't, we need to ween ourselves off it.

The way public opinion is shifting, the coal industry is going to say they can make it less damaging to the environment whether or not it is true. Hence the ridiculous marketing term, viewed with justified skepticism.

[Izmir Stinger]

If we can make it less damaging to the economy, we should try.

Obviously I meant "environment" there.

[nygreenguy]

However, I am still skeptical about finding enough "hollow space" underground for all the mass of CO2 to be injected. In the case of an aquifer, you may be able to displace some of the water, but that won't work everywhere (the only other place would be old oil wells, I guess). At some point there will be enough pressure build up that the hundreds-of-years estimate won't be reasonable because of increase back leak.

About 2,800 tonnes of carbon dioxide are separated daily from Sleipner West's gas production and injected into the Utsira sandstone formation (aquifer)

CO2+H2O=H2CO3

Just sayin, acid in a CaCO3 foundation may not work out too good.

[dancer_rnb]

Today's NYT article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/science/earth/11coal.html?ref=science) about a “near-zero emissions” coal plant in Illinois reminded me of John McCain's campaign clamoring for "Clean Coal."

I need somebody to convince me that this is not a cruel hoax.

If I understand it correctly, the goal is to collect all the carbon dioxide from the coal plants' exhaust and dispose of it such that it does not enter the atmosphere. Where is it supposed to go? I heard about turning it into dry ice (solid CO2) and burying it or simply injecting the gas underground into old oil wells, or deep into the ocean. Sorry, I have a hard time seeing this happening on an industrial scale. There is no way to keep the gas from escaping again into the atmosphere; maybe not in the next ten years, but how about 100 years?

Let's not forget: for every ton of carbon burned nearly 4 tons of CO are produced2 (more precisely for the chemist: for every 12 grams of C you make 44 grams of CO2)!

So someone please tell me why I should get excited about "clean coal" technologies.

From the carbon standpoint, at first glance I don't see how it is worse than alcohol or biodiesol.

[nygreenguy]

From the carbon standpoint, at first glance I don't see how it is worse than alcohol or biodiesol.


Well, those are not using sequestered carbon. Coal is carbon taken out of the carbon cycle. It results in a net gain of carbon to the system. Biofuels use carbon from the air. Carbon which is in the cycle so there is no net increase in carbon.

[ofro]

Nuclear waste takes up a lot less mass. Just sayin'

I am afraid I came to the same conclusion, whether I am happy about it or not.
Provided we use the latest technology that produces primarily short-lived radio-isotopes.

That and wind+photons+biomaterial.

[nygreenguy]

I am afraid I came to the same conclusion, whether I am happy about it or not.
Provided we use the latest technology that produces primarily short-lived radio-isotopes.

That and wind+photons+biomaterial.

Short lived? You mean 25,000 years instead of 250,000 years? :dunno:

[ofro]

Maybe not quite as bad. A few years ago, I read an article in Scientific American about that. I don't have the issue any more, but I think here is the reference with abstract (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=smarter-use-of-nuclear-wa)

If developed sensibly, nuclear power could be truly sustainable and essentially inexhaustible and could operate without contributing to climate change. In particular, a relatively new form of nuclear technology could overcome the principal drawbacks of current methods--;namely, worries about reactor accidents, the potential for diversion of nuclear fuel into highly destructive weapons, the management of dangerous, long-lived radioactive waste, and the depletion of global reserves of economically available uranium. This nuclear fuel cycle would combine two innovations: pyrometallurgical processing (a high-temperature method of recycling reactor waste into fuel) and advanced fast-neutron reactors capable of burning that fuel. With this approach, the radioactivity from the generated waste could drop to safe levels in a few hundred years, thereby eliminating the need to segregate waste for tens of thousands of years.

(my bolding)