Coal: Cleanest energy source?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Woah... this is all kinds of cool.

Chemically "heating up" coal, rather than burning it.

Researchers have discovered a stunning new process that takes the energy from coal without burning it -- and removes virtually all of the pollution.
The clean coal technique was developed by scientists at The Ohio State University, with just $5 million in funding from the federal government, and took 15 years to achieve.

“We’ve been working on this for more than a decade,” Liang-Shih Fan, a chemical engineer and director of OSU’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory, told FoxNews.com, calling it a new energy conversion process. “We found a way to release the heat from coal without burning.”

The process removes 99 percent of the pollution from coal, which some scientists link to global warming. Coal-burning power plants produced about one-third of the nation’s carbon dioxide total in 2010, or about 2.3 billion metric tons, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
'We found a way to release the heat from coal without burning.'

- Liang-Shih Fan, a chemical engineer and director of OSU’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory
Retrofitting them with the new process would be costly, but it would cut billions of tons of pollution.
“In the simplest sense, conventional combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat,” Fan fold FoxNews.com. “Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment.”

And simply put, the new process isn't.

Heating, Not Burning, Coal
Fan discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape. The only waste product is therefore water and coal ash -- no greenhouse gases. As an added benefit, the metal from the iron-oxide can be recycled.

“Oxidation” is the chemical combination of a substance with oxygen. Contrast this with old-fashioned, coal-fired plants, which use oxygen to burn the coal and generate heat. This in turn makes steam, which turns giant turbines and sends power down electric lines.

The main by-product of that old process — carbon dioxide, known chemically as CO2 — is released through smokestacks into the earth’s atmosphere.
Fan’s process, called “coal-direct chemical looping,” has been proven in a small scale lab at OSU. The next step is to take it to a larger test facility in Alabama, and Fan believes the technology can be commercialized and used to power an energy plant within five to 10 years, if all goes smoothly. The technology generated 25 kilowatts of thermal energy in current tests; the Alabama site will generate 250 kilowatts.

Can Coal Ever Be 'Clean'?
Some environmentalists are skeptical of the technology, and of the idea of clean coal in general.

“Claiming that coal is clean because it could be clean -- if a new technically unproven and economically dubious technology might be adopted -- is like someone claiming that belladonna is not poisonous because there is a new unproven safe pill under development,” wrote Donald Brown at liberal think tank Climate Progress.

Yet the federal Department of Energy believes that the process can create 20 megawatts to 50 megawatts by 2020, said Jared Ciferno, the agency’s director of coal and power-production research and development, in a statement.

The government plans to continue to support the project, as well as the concept of "clean coal" in general.

Meanwhile, Fan is exploring the possibility of establishing a start-up company and licensing the process to utilities, and has the potential to patent 35 different parts of the process.

Other scientists and experts are enthused about the prospects for this technology.
Yan Feng with Argonne National Laboratory's Environmental Science Division, Climate Research Section, called it “an advancement in chemical engineering. “It is very important that we act on CO2 capturing and sequestration as well as emission controls of other warming agents like tropospheric ozone and black carbon."

Adds Rebecca Taylor, a spokesman for Kingsport, Tenn.-based Eastman Chemical Company, a global Fortune 250 chemical manufacturer that works in clean energy, “researchers continue to uncover innovative ways to use coal efficiently/sustainably.”

Concludes Dawei Wang, a research associate at OSU, the technology's potential benefits even go beyond the environment and issues like sustainability.

"The plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America's natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with jobs,” he said.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Now to convince every coal power plant to undergo this costly transformation

**azazel the cat**

I'm skeptical (default setting) and think this one's going to go on the same shelf as cold fusion.

But I hope it works as advertised.

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
I'm skeptical (default setting) and think this one's going to go on the same shelf as cold fusion.

But I hope it works as advertised.

It may work... but, it may be impractical in terms of cost.

Just like it's impractical to sythetically convert coal to gasoline.

**rubiksnoob**

I can see it now:
"Duuuude, what if, like, I dunno, like how vaping gets rid of all the bad stuff, you did that with coal and got rid of pollution. It'd be craaazy."
"Duuuude, that's a fething awesome idea, dude. We should totally tell Dr. Fan about it in class tomorrow."
"Yeah man. When's the pizza gonna get here?"

You know that's how they how they came up with the idea.

**Frazzled**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Now to convince every coal power plant to undergo this costly transformation

Too late in the USA. The EPA has effectuively shut down coal powered electricity. Oh well.

**kronk**

Slightly off topic: My company uses natural gypsum and synthetic gypsum as a raw material. The only source of synthetic gypsum in sufficient quantities is Coal Power Plants. The older plants that haven't adapted to meet the increasingly stringent regulations have been shutting down. Those that have adapted and the newer plants are still running fairly strong, depending on localized electricity prices versus coal prices.

There's a reason you see a gypsum wall board factory within 5 miles of nearly every modern coal power plant.

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:
Slightly off topic: My company uses natural gypsum and synthetic gypsum as a raw material. The only source of synthetic gypsum in sufficient quantities is Coal Power Plants. The older plants that haven't adapted to meet the increasingly stringent regulations have been shutting down. Those that have adapted and the newer plants are still running fairly strong, depending on localized electricity prices versus coal prices.

There's a reason you see a gypsum wall board factory within 5 miles of nearly every modern coal power plant.

The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

**Albatross**

Sounds good. Now, if only we could come up with a way to make coal...

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:

The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

By them, you mean old coal plants, or gypsum wall board manufacturers?

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

By them, you mean old coal plants, or gypsum wall board manufacturers?

coal plants

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

By them, you mean old coal plants, or gypsum wall board manufacturers?

coal plants

So we can grow the coal, right?

**DutchKillsRambo**

Fun fact you actually receive more of a radiation dose living near a coal power plant than a nuclear power plant. And when we're leveling off the tops of mountains to get said coal that can hardly be described as clean surely?

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

The EPA's rules mean that the oldest coal plants have to shut down or be upgraded. It onny threatens the coal plants that put out really awful amounts of sulphur and nitrogen oxide.

The decline in coal in the last decade has little to do with regulation, and everything to do with the improving economic position of natural gas.

**Frazzled**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

The EPA's rules mean that the oldest coal plants have to shut down or be upgraded. It onny threatens the coal plants that put out really awful amounts of sulphur and nitrogen oxide.

The decline in coal in the last decade has little to do with regulation, and everything to do with the improving economic position of natural gas.

Not just the oldest dear boy. Pretty much all of them. But hey we have wind power and unicorn dust to sustain us right?

**d-usa**

As long as we have less sunlight than the Germans we are all screwed.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
Not just the oldest dear boy. Pretty much all of them. But hey we have wind power and unicorn dust to sustain us right?

Any plant put in place in the last decade that can't match the requirements was built by idiots with no ability to plan for future likely regulation.

And, as I said before, coal has been in natural decline for a decade anyway, with natural gas providing a clearly superior alternative. So you can post as much silliness as you like about wind power and unicorn dust, but the real world will just keep on marching forward.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
As long as we have less sunlight than the Germans we are all screwed.

That was incredible. FOX news just didn't give a gak anymore, do they?

**SagesStone**

This is a good step for now, but coal is finite. Where as stuff like solar and wind seems infinite due to the time frame we'll have compared to it. We just need to develop more efficient ways to harness it, but then there will still be a limit to it so it probably won't do alone.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
As long as we have less sunlight than the Germans we are all screwed.

O.o

I don't get it... What did I miss?

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
O.o

I don't get it... What did I miss?

FOX news was trying to invent reasons why the German solar program wouldn't work in the US. They, and I'm not joking at all, said that it wouldn't work because the US doesn't have as much sunlight as Germany. I think maybe they got all their knowledge of Germany from the Sound of Music or something.

And when you realise there's lots of actual, good reasons why the German solar program wouldn't work in the US (first among them that it doesn't really work that well in Germany) the whole just becomes the blackest of comedy.

FOX news - we just don't give a gak anymore, because if you're still watching you know you'll believe fething anything we say.

**whembly**

Thanks seb... shoddy reporting by Fox.

**Kilkrazy**

Albatross wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

By them, you mean old coal plants, or gypsum wall board manufacturers?

coal plants

So we can grow the coal, right?

That was a part of the original manufacturing process of coal, but it takes a long time to complete.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Thanks seb... shoddy reporting by Fox.

Not for the first time. They did a report on Holland a few years ago which used a load of lies and incorrect statistics to warn against the dangers of a liberal society.

A Dutch guy replied with correct information, and Fox tried to trash him by saying that statistics are calculated differently (and, presumably, better) in the USA.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/02/01/fox-versus-the-netherlands/

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back on topic, the drawback of this iron oxide method is that you need to mine the iron oxide -- iron ore, basically -- to put into the furnace and form it into correct size pellets, and so on.

However, given that we have to process a lot of ore for steel production, it could make sense to combine the two needs into one plant that produces energy and steel.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Better to switch to THORIUM instead.

**Squigsquasher**

This still doesn't solve the problem of what happens when we run out of coal.

**WarOne**

Squigsquasher wrote:
This still doesn't solve the problem of what happens when we run out of coal.

Easy...we take the entire country of Brazil, turn it upside down, compress all organic matter into dark lumps of fossil fuel, and then profit!

**d-usa**

There has to be a way to harvest the hot air coming from network news and Washington DC.

**kronk**

Frazzled wrote:
sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

The EPA's rules mean that the oldest coal plants have to shut down or be upgraded. It onny threatens the coal plants that put out really awful amounts of sulphur and nitrogen oxide.

The decline in coal in the last decade has little to do with regulation, and everything to do with the improving economic position of natural gas.

Not just the oldest dear boy. Pretty much all of them. But hey we have wind power and unicorn dust to sustain us right?

The coal plants we're "tied to" don't seem to have been affected. Half of our plants get material from power plants, and half from mining, for what it's worth.

I've been in our Sperry, Iowa mine. That was pretty neato, actually. 400' below ground. The mine opened 50 years ago. One of the foremen has been in the mine for 20 years and their are areas he's never set foot in. When they turn the lights off the little 6-wheel buggies they drive around in, it's the darkest dark you will ever experience. I want to D&D larp down there...

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
The EPA just popped a bunch of new regs that are shutting most of them down now, at least I have been told.

The EPA's rules mean that the oldest coal plants have to shut down or be upgraded. It onny threatens the coal plants that put out really awful amounts of sulphur and nitrogen oxide.

The decline in coal in the last decade has little to do with regulation, and everything to do with the improving economic position of natural gas.

Not just the oldest dear boy. Pretty much all of them. But hey we have wind power and unicorn dust to sustain us right?

The coal plants we're "tied to" don't seem to have been affected. Half of our plants get material from power plants, and half from mining, for what it's worth.

I've been in our Sperry, Iowa mine. That was pretty neato, actually. 400' below ground. The mine opened 50 years ago. One of the foremen has been in the mine for 20 years and their are areas he's never set foot in. When they turn the lights off the little 6-wheel buggies they drive around in, it's the darkest dark you will ever experience. I want to D&D larp down there...

When Grandpa escaped from Da Evil Kommies in Eastern Europe as a lad he went to work in the Pennsylvania coal mines. I was told he worked there about a week, then he went off to the merchant marine (civilian freighters - yea those guys). So as a young teenager he'd rather be on a tramp steamer with a lot of not shining examples of humanity than work in a coal mine.
I've been in a former copper mine. I understand completely.

**kronk**

Our mines are Gypsum mines, not coal. But I'd rather not work in a mine.

**chaos0xomega**

Link to original article in OP please (you would think that would be standard procedure at this point).

PS - I support Thorium Reactors