Clean coal mythology | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 hidden)
"Clean" coal is bullshit... (none / 0)

but can we ignore the literal Saudi Arabia of coal that we have under our soil?

It needs to be considered.

Mind you, if we advance solar technology, which we can, and cover just a fraction of the Mojave desert with solar panels, we can provide half of the nation's daily electicity.

But back to coal.  The carbon sequestration is the issue.  I don't think you can just bury the carbon underground and have it be no problem in the future.

However, the Science Friday podcast had a guy on over a year ago, a professor from Cal Berkley, who has been making methanol fuel cells for ten years.  Works like a hydrogen fuel cell, but  with methanol, which is stable, and transports in a stable, liquid form (similar to gasoline).  What does he need to make lots of methanol?

Lots of carbon.  Carbon captured from factory smokestacks, or, from sequestered coal-to-fuel processes.

People who know science way  better than I will point out the faults in these technologies.  But they are a fraction of the new, and tested ideas that are in our universities and small businesses.

For as bad off as we are, nobody innovates like Americans.  With the right leadership, we will drive our electric powered vehicles for long commutes within 10 years, and won't give a shit about anything in the middle-east, and their 20 dollar a barrel oil. 

by gdoud on 05/11/2008 01:07:41 AM EST

Except (none / 0)
I don't think you can just bury the carbon underground and have it be no problem in the future.

You can.  It goes right where the oil did, in fact.  Ken can tell you all about this, and he's a chemical engineer.

Clean coal is not actually bullshit.  It's good technology.  And it's RIDICULOUSLY more efficient and better for the environment to distribute energy in the form of electricity produced from clean coal than it is to burn gasoline in internal combustion engines.

by jarett on 05/11/2008 02:34:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Urmm... (none / 0)

It is BS because:

1. It still emits CO2 into the atmosphere

2. Look at the environmental damage in WV

3. Its unsustainable in the long run because it reduces airborne emissions, but poisions the land environment and creates a moonscape in the Appalachian region.

So I do not see how its better than oil.  

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 03:56:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't. (none / 0)
Carbon sequestration means it doesn't emit CO2 into the atmosphere.

What do you want to bet there are ways to get coal that don't involve destroying the environment, but are slightly more expensive?

by jarett on 05/11/2008 04:04:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Think (none / 0)
Who said I was talking about the actual generation of the energy? The CO2 emssions im talking about are these:

 Blast mining

 Transportation of coal from mine to processing, to the powerplant

The process of making the coal clean will send out poisonous waste into the ecosystem.

The loss of carbon sinks, like the forests of Appalachia, and other parts of the world should this become a worldwide phenomenon.

 Etc. Did you even watch the initial video? If not, what basis do you have to criticize me?

What is my point?

Why invest in dirty energy thinking it will ever be clean when we DO have alternatives. Solar (I know its not as efficient as we need it to be, but instead of spending hundreds of billions a year in Iraq...u get the drift) in the desert basins of the world like the Mojave or Sahara, wind, nuclear (which is problematic but less dirty, tidal power, hydrogen, etc. These technologies are either established and can  be exploited, or need further investment. Thus, this is my point, INVEST in new technologies in both implementation and R&D ,a new Manhattan project.

Why won't this happen?

Lobby groups in Washington representing the big energy producers, oil, coal, natural gas, will NOT allow this to occur. If they did, where would they get their income from in the future? Marx did say, capitalism is a anti-progressive system due to this very contradiction.

This is my point.
 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 05/11/2008 11:33:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I defended, btw (none / 0)
Now I'm just looking for jobs.

In order:

  1. Someplace at ND so I can take classes for free and eventually grab a PhD in EE now that I am done with CS
  2. Freescale
  3. Vague other opportunities here and there, including maybe working as a consultant for a politician or thinktank
  4. ... it turns out that sometimes things come full circle.  Apparently the Army is the only branch of the military that is expanding and they are DESPERATE for officers in general and engineers in particular.  I could end up with a nice SIGINT job somewhere and have the luxury of taking MAC flights (or is it AMC now?  I always forget) hither, thither and yon on leave.

The job market atm is Not Good<sup>TM</sup> for freshly-minted engineers with grad degrees, it seems.  Already the ND opportunities are getting eaten up by guys in their 40s and 50s with 20 years of experience and I haven't heard back at all from my contacts at Freescale.

by jarett on 05/11/2008 04:11:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Clean coal mythology | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 hidden)