Clean Coal

I think most of these types of plants will be IGCC, which is a huge improvement over the old pulverized coal plants. The efficiency is considerable higher, so you get carbon reductions right away. Furthermore, they're cleaner in terms of non carbon pollution too, because of the gasification step. The gasification also allows for much easier seperation of CO2 from flue gases, allowing the stuff to be sequestered or pumped into say, algae tanks, for conversion to biodiesel and other products. It sounds like sequestering the carbon is pretty damn expensive however. IGCC adds about 10-20% to the cost of a coal plant. Considering that they're almost twice as efficient and cleaner than the old school plants, that's a cost I'm sure they're willing to pay. We really should, at the very least, put a moratorium on the construction of pulverized plants. Coal is just not a sustainable technology and we should be getting away from ASAP.

 

There is no such thing as clean coal. The extractive process ensures that no matter what you do during the burning process, it will always be dirty. Just ask the indigineous people whos land they regularly take it from or the citizens of the area whos valleys get filled with overburden and whos streams are now polluted with tailings.

Yes, "clean coal" is better than the normal process but it is still bad and continued growth in this sector would lead to drastically shortened lifespan in terms of using up our reserves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ May 15 2007, 10:04 PM) [snapback]443083[/snapback]</div>

Where is that? I'm going to assume it is incorporated with the oil shales (U.S.) and tar sands (Canada). Usually natural gas is a byproduct of oil extraction as it lies above the oil deposits. In a lot of cases it is burned of due to a lack of equipment to procure, transport, and store the gas. We here in the U.S. have a pretty good infrastructure to solve these problems but since gasoline is so cheap we have not expanded the market as much as we could I guess.

Natural gas makes up 23% of the global commerical fuel though (just after oil and coal) so it's not like it doesn't get attention. I read that it produces half the amunt of CO2 as an equivalent amount of coal.

Proven reserves in North America are about 250 trillion ft3, or 4.6 percent of the world total. This is a 10yr supply at current rates of consumption (I'm not sure if he is using exponential factors).

*edit*

I found the info: Copied directly from my Environmental Science textbook. Please excuse the typos, it is 1am and I use a wireles keyboard which misses strokes sometimes.


Here is what the book says:

"Vast deposits of coal, oil, and gas lie under the sage scrub and arid steppe of North America's intermountain West. Geologists estimate that at least 346 trillion ft3 of "technically recoverable" natural gas and 62 billion barrels of petroleum liquids occur in five intermountain basins stretching from Montana to New Mexico. These deposits would provide a 15yr supply of gas at present usage rates, and at least four times as much oil as the most optimistic estimates for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. About half of the gas and oil is in or around relatively shallow coal seems, which makes it vastly cheaper to extract than most other gas supplies. Drilling a typical offshore gas well costs tens f millions of dollars, but a coal-bed methane well is generally less than $100,000.The total value of the methane and petroleum liquids from the Rocky Mountains could be as much as $200 billion dollars."

This is roughly 2yrs worth of obesity related health care costs (($92.6 billion in 2002 dollars) (Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, 2003)). Just wanted to add that.

"Most coal-bed methane is held in place by pressure from aquifers. Pumping the water out of these aquifers releases the gas but creates phenomenal quantities of effulent that often is contaminated with salt and other minerals. A typical coal-bed well produces 75,000 liters of water per day. Dumping it on the surface can poison fields and pastures, erode stream banks, contaminate rivers, and harm fish and wildlife. Drawing down aquifers depltes the wells on which many ranchers depend, and aslo dries up natural springs and wetlands essential for wildlife. Ranchers complain that livestock and wildlife are killed by traffic and poisoned by discarded toxic waste around well sites. "It may be clean fuel," says on rancher, "but it's a dirty business."

"Another objection to coal-bed methane extraction is simply the enormous scope of the enterprise. In Wyoming's Powder River Basin, energy companies alread installed 12,000 wells and have proposed 39,000 more. Eventually, this area could contain as many as 140,000 wells, together wil the sprawling network of roads, pipelines, compressor stations, and waste water pits neccessary for such a gargantuan undertaking. The Green River Basin and the San Juan Basin, with three to five times as much potential gas and oil as the Powder River, have even greater probability for environmental damage."

In 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave its worst possible rating to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Powder River wells because of concerns over waste water disposal. Nevertheless, the Bush administration approved the plan and ordered federal land managers across the Rockies to look for ways to remove or reduce environmental restrictions on gas drilling. This order came in spite of a federal study finding that 63 percent of the natural gas in the five basins was completely open for drilling, 25% had some restrictions, and only 12% of the gas was totally protected, which was about what conservationists had been saying.

An unlikely coalition of ranchers, hunters, anglers, conservationists, water users, and renewable resource activists have banded together to fight against coal-bed gas extraction, calling on Congress to protect private property rights, preserve water quality, and conserve sensitive public lands. Lifelong Republicans, who once looked with suspicion and disgust at environmentalists, suddenly find themselves banding together with tree-huggers and off-the-grid hippie comunes to protect their way of life.

On the other side, producers argue that hey are helping to preserve the American way of life. if we want to be independent of foreign energy sources, they point out, we need to develop our own ebergy sources. A decade ago, environmentalists were promoting natural gas as a clean energy alternative because it produces far less carbon dioxide, and air pollutants such as particulates and sulfur oxides, than does burning coal. Disagreeable as gas well effluents may be, the aren't nearly as toxic and as long lasting asnuclea waste.

What do you think? Does having access to cleaner fuels justify the social and environmental costs of their extraction? If you had to vote in this issue, what restrictions would you impose on the companies carrying out these projects/. Could renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar, substitute for coal-bed methane?

What responsibility do those of us who consume fuel have for the way it's produced? How would you weigh the rights of a minority (a few thousand ranchers) against the needs of tens of millions of urban residents who would benefit from cheaper energy prices and cleaner air? Much of the land is rid and appears barren to those of us used to more verdant landscapes, yet it is loved and treasured by those who live there. How would you set a value on solitude, history, and harsh beauty of these places?"

~ Environmental Science, A Global Concern 8th Edition

 

When modest amounts of natural gas were found in this region (NW lower Michigan) we learned that there was enough of the stuff in the US to last for many years (don't recall how many, but MANY) and that it was not particularly expensive to extract, and cheap to transport and use. After a couple years the price was suddenly high (too high to compete with coal for power, for example) and not all that plentiful. What is the story behind this, one wonders?

In any case, it may not be like taking the top off a mountain to get to the coal, but it is still a messy, noisy and intrusive item if it is nearby. I am happy to report that high prices did not result in very many wells near us, probably due to an overestimate of the ease of extraction and quantity available here.

I will far prefer a wind turbine in my backyard. Well, in fact I have a wind turbine in my back yard, though not a big commercial one...

Jim

 

Oh, Yeah, and on coal...which is the real topic here. I tend to agree with the poster earlier that clean coal can't be really clean so long as the extraction is taken into account. That part is almost always left out of the discussion of coal power. The gasification is an interesting option, though, and while as I understand it the technology is not fully implemented at commercial scale yet, the larger demonstration facilities are showing promise. Much of what is now waste becomes resource...but the sequestration of CO2 is tricky and expensive. I am not sure that this is being gladly embraced by the power industry, and will become fully implemented only if people are willing to pay something for the future of the planet (in the form of higher electric rates) at least as a comfortable home for humans...

Jim

 

I think the utilities are wary because of the risk of carbon taxes making IGCC plants too expensive before they recoup their investment. Utilities are very conservative beasts and they don't seem to like having to think in new ways. They're starting to see the light on wind though, because NG prices are steadily moving up. As far as NG production in the west... it's going gang busters. There are drilling rigs all over the western part of Colorado. Wyoming is very active too. In fact, I've seen articles in the paper about how all of the roughnecks that have moved to these small towns are creating a new set of problems. On the other hand, the locals are raking in scads of cash (the workers don't have anywhere else to go, WY is LOOOONG way from anywhere).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ May 15 2007, 02:28 PM) [snapback]442250[/snapback]</div>

They don't give ANY details. It's like talking about antigravity....until it can be demonstrated, it's all hype.
Making it cleaner is probably doable; clean enough? Maybe not.