Next Question
RSS
http://z.about.com/d/environment/1/0/R/2/-/-/EarthTalkCleanCoal_Getty.jpg
Imagine a form of energy that is clean, cheap and safe and is found deep underground—energy that turns coal into a gas rich in methane and hydrogen that can be used to generate electricity, synthetic natural gas or liquid fuel such as the gasoline we put in our cars, energy produced by a process that can be used as a substitute for mining, bringing the heat and chemical energy of coal to the surface in a usable form, while storing the carbon dioxide used to extract the coal deep underground.
Clean coal supporters, including several members of Congress, claim that clean coal and liquid coal can help to free the United States of its dependence on foreign oil without damaging the environment. Critics, including leading environmental groups, say that so-called clean liquid coal is dirtier than the oil-based fuels it is meant to replace. Add to that the devastating environmental effects of coal mining, which is needed to extract the coal in the first place, and coal just doesn't measure up as a clean energy source.
Check out the following references for more details:
Carbon Capture, but Clean Coal?
http://earth2tech.com/2007/07/27/carbon-capture-but-clean-coal/
What is ‘clean coal,’ anyway?
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/10/17/what-is-clean-coal-anyway/
Coal is dirty!
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/how-clean-coal-cooks-your-brain
Permalink | Report
"Gasification avoids burning coal altogether. With integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems, steam and hot pressurized air or oxygen combine with coal in a reaction that forces carbon molecules apart. The resulting syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is then cleaned and burned in a gas turbine to make electricity. The heat energy from the gas turbine also powers a steam turbine. Since IGCC power plants create two forms of energy, they have the potential to reach a fuel efficiency of 50 percent" [source: U.S. Department of Energy].
This isn't the cleanest form of coal, but the cleanest form isn't yet commercial viable. It's so expensive to produce no one can afford it.
Source(s):
http://science.howstuffworks.com/clean-coal.htm
Permalink | Report
albanian
Hope it helps
Source(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WsCfgZMUZM
americannewsproject.com/videos/anp-investigation-how-clean-clean-coal
Permalink | Report
In the past the most obviously dirty parts of coal use were air pollution and land destruction. The air pollution included both particles and pollutants like sulfuric acid. The destruction of land includes strip mining and destroying mountaintops. These extreme environmental damages can indeed be reduced by sufficient expenditures on better coal plant equipment and better mining techniques, although in practice the improvements have been marginal.
But now scientists realize that man's greatest pollutant is CO2, carbon dioxide which is changing the atmosphere of the planet we live on. It is impossible for there ever to be a way to make coal clean burning because the entire purpose of burning coal, the energy source from burning coal, consists of turning carbon into carbon dioxide.
Can the carbon dioxide be sequestered? No. There is no current way to do it and it will not be possible to invent one. This is because of two factors, and can be seen by considering nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is a problem because it can last for thousands of years. Anywhere used to store it must be stable for such long time periods, and the containers must be such that they can last that long too. But nuclear wastes have a half life, they degrade over time, even if that time may be thousands of years. Carbon dioxide does not degrade over time, it is a stable chemical. It lasts forever. Where can you put something that will be stable forever? Nuclear wastes are somewhat bulky, but they are presently stored at the plants and a few similar sized facilities. The amount of physical material is manageable. Carbon dioxide is roughly three times as heavy as the coal burned. As a gas that is not noticeable, but if you are trying to store it in some sort of container it matters. Coal is burned by the hundreds of millions of tons. For example in 1982 about 616 million short tons (2000 pounds per ton) of coal was burned in the United States. How could the US conceivably store nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year? It can't. The idea is ludicrous. The current world wide production of CO2 overall is about 27 billion tons, an even more unmanageable amount.
In short, clean coal is physically impossible because of the huge amount of CO2 created and the fact that it would have to be sequestered forever.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$2
February 26, 2009 08:20 PM
How "clean" exactly is Clean Coal?
Interesting Question?
Yes (2)
No (0)
- In Environment |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| February 27, 2009 12:14 AM |
Imagine a form of energy that is clean, cheap and safe and is found deep underground—energy that turns coal into a gas rich in methane and hydrogen that can be used to generate electricity, synthetic natural gas or liquid fuel such as the gasoline we put in our cars, energy produced by a process that can be used as a substitute for mining, bringing the heat and chemical energy of coal to the surface in a usable form, while storing the carbon dioxide used to extract the coal deep underground.
Clean coal supporters, including several members of Congress, claim that clean coal and liquid coal can help to free the United States of its dependence on foreign oil without damaging the environment. Critics, including leading environmental groups, say that so-called clean liquid coal is dirtier than the oil-based fuels it is meant to replace. Add to that the devastating environmental effects of coal mining, which is needed to extract the coal in the first place, and coal just doesn't measure up as a clean energy source.
Check out the following references for more details:
Carbon Capture, but Clean Coal?
http://earth2tech.com/2007/07/27/carbon-capture-but-clean-coal/
What is ‘clean coal,’ anyway?
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/10/17/what-is-clean-coal-anyway/
Coal is dirty!
http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/how-clean-coal-cooks-your-brain
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (3)
February 26, 2009 08:35 PM
Wow! I wonder if that will replace Clean Linen as a popular room freshener/candle scent. "Gasification avoids burning coal altogether. With integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems, steam and hot pressurized air or oxygen combine with coal in a reaction that forces carbon molecules apart. The resulting syngas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, is then cleaned and burned in a gas turbine to make electricity. The heat energy from the gas turbine also powers a steam turbine. Since IGCC power plants create two forms of energy, they have the potential to reach a fuel efficiency of 50 percent" [source: U.S. Department of Energy].
This isn't the cleanest form of coal, but the cleanest form isn't yet commercial viable. It's so expensive to produce no one can afford it.
Source(s):
http://science.howstuffworks.com/clean-coal.htm
Permalink | Report
Reply
albanian
February 27, 2009 06:30 PM
This reply is extremely misleading because it presents only one side of the argument about only one aspect of coal. Whether a fossil fuel is burned as a solid, a liquid, or a gas, the end product is still carbon dioxide.
Tip albanian for this comment
Report
February 26, 2009 08:42 PM
In a single year, less than one in 100,000 Americans contract a rare form of blood cancer. In Pennsylvania coal country, the rate is nearly five times higher. Many suspect "clean" coal is the cause. As the 2008 presidential candidates promote the potential of clean coal as an alternative fuel source, and as Congress prepares to debate energy legislation, ANP takes a look at the controversial practice of coal-ash dumping. An investigation brought to you in conjunction with our partner The Washington Independent. The video explains Hope it helps
Source(s):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WsCfgZMUZM
americannewsproject.com/videos/anp-investigation-how-clean-clean-coal
Permalink | Report
Reply
February 26, 2009 09:04 PM
Europe’s power station owners emphasize that they are making the new coal plants as clean as possible. But critics say that “clean coal” is a pipe dream, an oxymoron in terms of the carbon emissions that count most toward climate change. They call the building spurt shortsighted.
“Building new coal-fired power plants is ill conceived,” said James E. Hansen, a leading climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “Given our knowledge about what needs to be done to stabilize climate, this plan is like barging into a war without having a plan for how it should be conducted, even though information is available.
“We need a moratorium on coal now,” he added, “with phase-out of existing plants over the next two decades.”
Coal’s Advantages
Enel and many other electricity companies say they have little choice but to build coal plants to replace aging infrastructure, particularly in countries like Italy and Germany that have banned the building of nuclear power plants. Fuel costs have risen 151 percent since 1996, and Italians pay the highest electricity costs in Europe.
In terms of cost and energy security, coal has all the advantages, its proponents argue. Coal reserves will last for 200 years, rather than 50 years for gas and oil. Coal is relatively cheap compared with oil and natural gas, although coal prices have tripled in the past few years. More important, hundreds of countries export coal — there is not a coal cartel — so there is more room to negotiate prices.
“In order to get over oil, which is getting more and more expensive, our plan is to convert all oil plants to coal using clean-coal technologies,” said Gianfilippo Mancini, Enel’s chief of generation and energy management. “This will be the cleanest coal plant in Europe. We are hoping to prove that it will be possible to make sustainable and environmentally friendly use of coal.”
“Clean coal” is a term coined by the industry decades ago, referring to its efforts to reduce local pollution. Using new technology, clean coal plants sharply reduced the number of sooty particles spewed into the air, as well as gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. The technology has minimal effect on carbon emissions.
In fact, the technology that the industry is counting on to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that add to global warning — carbon capture and storage — is not now commercially available. No one knows if it is feasible on a large, cost-effective scale.
Report
“Building new coal-fired power plants is ill conceived,” said James E. Hansen, a leading climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “Given our knowledge about what needs to be done to stabilize climate, this plan is like barging into a war without having a plan for how it should be conducted, even though information is available.
“We need a moratorium on coal now,” he added, “with phase-out of existing plants over the next two decades.”
Coal’s Advantages
Enel and many other electricity companies say they have little choice but to build coal plants to replace aging infrastructure, particularly in countries like Italy and Germany that have banned the building of nuclear power plants. Fuel costs have risen 151 percent since 1996, and Italians pay the highest electricity costs in Europe.
In terms of cost and energy security, coal has all the advantages, its proponents argue. Coal reserves will last for 200 years, rather than 50 years for gas and oil. Coal is relatively cheap compared with oil and natural gas, although coal prices have tripled in the past few years. More important, hundreds of countries export coal — there is not a coal cartel — so there is more room to negotiate prices.
“In order to get over oil, which is getting more and more expensive, our plan is to convert all oil plants to coal using clean-coal technologies,” said Gianfilippo Mancini, Enel’s chief of generation and energy management. “This will be the cleanest coal plant in Europe. We are hoping to prove that it will be possible to make sustainable and environmentally friendly use of coal.”
“Clean coal” is a term coined by the industry decades ago, referring to its efforts to reduce local pollution. Using new technology, clean coal plants sharply reduced the number of sooty particles spewed into the air, as well as gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. The technology has minimal effect on carbon emissions.
In fact, the technology that the industry is counting on to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions that add to global warning — carbon capture and storage — is not now commercially available. No one knows if it is feasible on a large, cost-effective scale.
February 26, 2009 09:05 PM
- New Source
source for my comment
http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2008/04/energy-versus-environment-tradeoff.html
Report
http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2008/04/energy-versus-environment-tradeoff.html
February 27, 2009 06:20 PM
There is no such thing as clean coal. It is not even in theory possible to make coal clean. In the past the most obviously dirty parts of coal use were air pollution and land destruction. The air pollution included both particles and pollutants like sulfuric acid. The destruction of land includes strip mining and destroying mountaintops. These extreme environmental damages can indeed be reduced by sufficient expenditures on better coal plant equipment and better mining techniques, although in practice the improvements have been marginal.
But now scientists realize that man's greatest pollutant is CO2, carbon dioxide which is changing the atmosphere of the planet we live on. It is impossible for there ever to be a way to make coal clean burning because the entire purpose of burning coal, the energy source from burning coal, consists of turning carbon into carbon dioxide.
Can the carbon dioxide be sequestered? No. There is no current way to do it and it will not be possible to invent one. This is because of two factors, and can be seen by considering nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is a problem because it can last for thousands of years. Anywhere used to store it must be stable for such long time periods, and the containers must be such that they can last that long too. But nuclear wastes have a half life, they degrade over time, even if that time may be thousands of years. Carbon dioxide does not degrade over time, it is a stable chemical. It lasts forever. Where can you put something that will be stable forever? Nuclear wastes are somewhat bulky, but they are presently stored at the plants and a few similar sized facilities. The amount of physical material is manageable. Carbon dioxide is roughly three times as heavy as the coal burned. As a gas that is not noticeable, but if you are trying to store it in some sort of container it matters. Coal is burned by the hundreds of millions of tons. For example in 1982 about 616 million short tons (2000 pounds per ton) of coal was burned in the United States. How could the US conceivably store nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year? It can't. The idea is ludicrous. The current world wide production of CO2 overall is about 27 billion tons, an even more unmanageable amount.
In short, clean coal is physically impossible because of the huge amount of CO2 created and the fact that it would have to be sequestered forever.
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- amandacastro_94, November 25, 2009 11:41 PM
- lorakolodny, November 25, 2009 11:21 PM
- annafrere, November 25, 2009 10:46 PM
- ghanafatherhood..., November 25, 2009 10:23 PM
- raj_mehta, November 25, 2009 10:18 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
