I came across something really interesting today. I know I have not been around here for some time, but I thought I would see what might come from starting this debate.

I recently read an article about new ventures regarding the use of Coal in Governing Magazine. The Online version of that article can be found: here



The idea of making fuel from coal is not new. Germany was doing it in WWII. However, technological advances have opened the door to many uses. We can convert Coal to "clean" diesel (clean meaning sulfur free) and aviation grade kerosene. We can "Gasify" coal, converting it into a gas that can be burned to generate power, as well as convert it into various liquid fuels used for a variety of processes.

The "Gasification" process also allows us to remove impurities like Mercury and others. This prevents them from polluting the environment and also creates another financial market for such plants as the chemicals can be sold to industries that use them.



Though many call the new technology "Clean Coal" there is still an environmental issue. CO2 emissions. CO2 is referred to by many as the primary component of "Green House Gases". This is a key in the potential problem of Global warming.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Global Warming is a real issue (and that is a topic for another debate). Though I personally remain unconvinced when it comes to Global Warming, I tend to believe we should err on the side caution and work to limit the "Green House Emissions" where ever possible (as a human being I personally like clean air so I am all for pollution controls so long as we do a cost benefit analysis and determine that the gain from the controls outweighs the costs).

There are options when it comes to the CO2 in such Coal plants. One is to capture it for industrial use (fire extinguishers are one example). That will only account for a limited amount of it. The Oil Industry uses CO2, pumped into the ground when then are recovering oil. That use, leads to several theories on the table for pumping the excess CO2 into the ground as an alternative to putting in the atmosphere. I have not found any scientific data related to doing this, so I can't say that it is safe, or unsafe for that matter.

One thing to consider here is that about 50% of our power plants in America burn Coal now. They are the old "Dirty Coal" process that puts a variety of pollutants as well as "green house gases" into the air. Moving to this far more green technology gives us a better option then we currently have with far less environmental impact then many of the current power plants. It also gives us a huge new source of oil that could break out dependence on foreign oil and potentially could result is us becoming an oil exporter.

I personally wonder if these is not a biological solution to the CO2. When we exhale, it is CO2. Plants feed off that CO2 (as well as CO2 from other sources) and convert it to Oxygen. That is the basis for how our planets air is "recycled" allowing life to continue. I would like to see some experimentation on this. Perhaps we can develop some form of Biological filtration system that can convert the CO2 to Oxygen. Then some of it could be released into the Atmosphere while much of it could be further filtered, then bottled and sold to industries that use oxygen (bottles for welders, for Ambulances, etc).



When you consider the environmental benefits over the current systems, the potential economic and national security benefits of becoming energy independent (not to mention the job creation possibilities), and the fact that these plants we actually clean up the environmental messes left behind by the coal mining operations of old, I personally believe that the positives significantly outweigh the negatives here. We often have to make compromises to develop better things. Perhaps this technology is the first step. Perhaps that first step will generate enough profits to propel us to the next step that could be an even cleaner technology.


Is the Key to our future hiding in our past? Do you think these new approaches to using Coal in America will benefit us more then negatively impact us? Why or Why not?

For all the talk about alternative fuels overlooking established forms is a waste.
Better and better utilization of existing forms is more than possible and because of the already established infrastructure may be a better choice for the short term or even long term.
Not just coal but Nuclear. We undertsand much more now and can design much better. We can even regulate the design.
Most alternate forms of fuel are a long ways away from not just pain free distribution, but being able to return more than it takes to create them.
What good and alternate fuel if it causes more waste than it gives out in value.
I am a devout believer in Alt fuels, but they have a long way to go. Hell i just saw a Popular Mechanics cover from the 50's touting how fuel cells will save us.
Anything we do that reduces our dependecy on peoples who supply those who hate us is good.

There are people that have an issue with the storage concerns when it comes to the waste generated by Nuclear power plants. This has been addressed with various studies and tests, also Nevada is begging to be allowed to establish a facility to handle it. However, it is understandable to still be concerned when you consider that the life of this stuff is measured in 1000s of years. There are others that fear melt-downs and the like. Personally, when looking at the over all history of the these plants they seem to be as safe as any other power plant. (more info).

The best motor vehicle option we have that combines reduced oil use, less emissions, and the option for long trips as needed is the "Plug-In" Hybrid IMHO.

American's will not buy a purely electric car. Even if then never travel more then 20 miles round trip many still want the option to travel cross-country if they choose to. The problem with hybrid technology currently is that the only thing that charges the batteries is the gasoline engine.

Many people have adapted Hybrids to add some batteries and allow it to be charged from your home at night. The result is that gas is used to start the engine, then the bulk of their daily commute is handled by the battery. check out this example

What this Coal plant does is allow us to produce both electricity and fuel from coal rather then oil. If plug-in hybrids are mass marketed, I believe we will see many more of them on the road. As our oil needs are reduced due to this and other innovative options (check out Americans for Energy Independence to see some other ideas), we can make more and more of it from coal as plants like the one in the governing magazine article pop up.

That is why I think this Coal Technology is a major key to our future.

Coal is worse then oil in regards to pollutants produced from using fossil fuels. The mining of such also produces its own environmental hazard. I mean I do not care being I live on Mars but the reality of it is sustainable energy also needs to be green, not just to save whales but most all livings if not all of them.

So much has to be thought of when it comes to energy, how much coal and how many plants and how much mining would be required to keep say the state of California running off of coal? I imagine like most things when you start to account for totals those amounts required are rather high, just imagine how much toilet paper is used in one year by say a million adults.

The challenges to newer or greener technologies are simply because there is not enough desire for them yet. Early automotive technology was seriously primitive to modern day standards, but giving modern infrastructure related to development of any technology hydrogen technology or electric cars could be something completely different in ten years, plus people are not limited to just hydrogen or electric for use of automotive power sources.

People or humanity in general is at a critical juncture in which to change to environmentally sound and long lasting energy options. Coal is not sound environmentally, not only that its limited, and would in the end just would end up another energy crunch or crisis.

In the the article linked in the first post of this topic it explains how the technology in question is very "green". The Gasification process allows then to remove ALL impurities from the coal so that the burn leaves nothing but CO2 emissions to consider. The current plan is to pump those emission into the ground rather then the air, a process that has been done by the oil industry for decades that I have yet to see a negative impact study on.



The deal with the state of PA that this particular plant has is that they clean up the environment along the way. Pennsylvania is littered with miles and miles of coal wastes, from mountains of coal, to pits of sludge. All of that waste is fuel for this plant and the plant has agreed to refill the holes with clean soil as the sludge eliminated, as well as replant the areas as the coal is cleared. In this way, the plant actually has a Positive environmental impact.

Coal mining is a major industry already because the majority of our electrical plants in America today still burn coal in the older, dirtier process. This version does it cleaner and allows us to create fuel and energy in the same facility. A nice marriage to the plug-in hybrid. Not to mention the fact that nearly everything people currently use is made of or with plastics. Even if we completely eliminated fossil fuel use, we would still need petroleum for the creation of plastics (until someone develops an alternative).



This is not the only solution for our future. However, it is one very viable and green component for the future. This not only operates as an extremely clean process, the cleaning process, rather than costing more money to operate, actually pays for itself as the impurities (minerals for the most part) are going to be separated and sold to industry.

The reason America is not moving forward on Solar and Wind technology is because after decades of research, some of the deepest pockets have determined that this form of power generation will never be viable for resale. It is simply a matter of the massive amount of real estate needed, and all the costs that real estate creates. Companies like Exxon-Mobile, who has been the countries largest investor in alternative energy research decided to refocus their efforts from wind and solar, to other technologies when then came to the conclusion that the technology would never be profitable. They strongly recommended development as an end-user product and even put their research in the public domain.

This "Clean Coal", combined with other options (like tidal power generation) and various ways that will reduce consumption (like plug-in hybrids) can all work together to create a brighter future. One place research dollars would be most effective here would be trying to develop biological filters to covert CO2 to O2 (as all our plants do now). If we develop this, then these coal plants become completely green (as opposed to the mostly green they are now) and we gain another way to generate power, based of resources we have at our disposal now.

Sorry for the double post.

I could not edit the previous post and I came across several other articles from several different sectors that I thought people might like to review:

The Boston Globe on "Clean Coal"
The Department of Energy on "Clean Coal"
General Electric (GE) on "Clean Coal"
Southern Illinois University on "Clean Coal"


IMHO this is a technology that can IMMEDIATELY be put into use to reduce the pollutants we put in the air from power generation as well as reduce our need for foreign oil. It is not the "ultimate solution", but it is a "Better solution" and one that we can get off the drawing board and into use right now!

I am not sure why this concept had attracted so little attention. Using a resource that is abundant in the United States to counter our need for foreign oil while also reducing air pollution would seem to be cause for celebration in my eye, not silence. There are a multitude of articles and papers on the subject (not to mention ground being broken on at least one plant), yet we have to dig to find info about it. I wonder why, with gas prices over $3.00 a gallon, this story has not gained more media attention.

Clean coal, that's a hoot.

We're talking about developing coal oil. This development leaves waste products behind of questionable worth in other industrial processes. Maybe you can make matches out of the sulfur. And the process itself takes energy to produce, so the net gain goes way down. All this amounts to is an alternative to other fossil fuels, and not a very efficient one at that. But, if all you've got left is coal, then it might make sense in the 1920s mode of thinking.

No, this isn't the key to the future. It won't get us off of foreign oil and will accelerate the release of ancient CO2 sinks into the modern atmosphere, turning the planet's biosphere clock back several million years.

The key to the future is to get off of burning fossil fuels altogether. Actually, we have a whole big ring of keys and the ability to implement them. Technology is not the roadblock. Economic/political resistance is.

On the bright side of this picture is that corporations are starting to see the light. Not the gas/oil/coal ones, of course.

Is the Key to our future hiding in our past? Do you think these new approaches to using Coal in America will benefit us more then negatively impact us? Why or Why not? Coal is another limited resource and polluter, yes we can put in scrubbers and make it better. But industry knows by the time the fines will kick in a change in government will be there for a small payoff and the fines are not enforced. So it is not a option to me and for cars the distribution is a problem.

Goooooooooooo nuke. The last data I saw France is about 80 percent nuke for its electrical generation. Canada about 20%. In my book the oil company shave made sure nuke has a black eye. As we know Chernoble was a breeder reactor and it had the worst thing happen. Today you could go live in that area if you are older without a problem People have been working their for years. Anyway we do not build these risky power plants in the US. And we are leapyears technologically ahead of where were were in the 70s with valves, control systems, piping sensors and so on. We need to go nuke. Build them in area 51, 100 of them. we already can not go there.

Is the Key to our future hiding in our past? Do you think these new approaches to using Coal in America will benefit us more then negatively impact us? Why or Why not?
The Nuclear Power option is definately the best way to keep the lights on after oil goes past $100/barrel. With a large geographic area, the only thing making nuclear waste disposal expensive is the "NIMB" mentality in most towns. Since Uranium is a limited resource, using nuclear power will only buy America time to get the renewable energy sources set up. It will not be a long term solution as far as keeping American civilization running for another 1000 years.

With the natural gas shortage in America, purifying and coking the coal may be expensive. One thing for certain though is that these alternative energy sources will not keep the Interstate system running after $100/barrel oil. As the other posters pointed out, electric cars can only travel a very limited distance before needing more juice.

Greetings all!

According to the dubious Union of Concerned Scientists, coal produces 54% of our electricity.

Someone I know http://www.thewatt.com/ has suggested that we should reduce the amount of petroleum derived fuel by switching to electric cars and encouraging the building of nuclear reactors to produce the majority of our electricity. The goal would be to: reduce foreign dependence for oil, reduce pollution/greenhouse gasses, free up petroleum resources for air travel, petrochemicals and heavy transportation needs.

It will be a long time before petroleum will be a scarce commodity, but it would be foolish to neglect starting down the path to longer term solutions. Unfortunately, the hysterical left stands in the way of the most viable and cleanest step we can make in that direction by their knee jerk opposition to nuclear power.

I find the Pebble Bed Nuclear Reactor to be an intriguing design.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/matzie.htm
Something like that may go a long way to overcoming the NIMBY barriers.

"France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 426 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. In 2005 French electricity generation was 549 billion kWh net and consumption 482 billion kWh - 7700 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year."-August 2006
http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

Here's how to deal with the CO2:

There are processes that you can have your Bio-fuel and fertility too.

This entire thread on 'Terra Preta' soils I feel has great possibilities to revolutionize sustainable agriculture into a major CO2 sequestration strategy. http://forums.hypography.com/earth-science...ra-preta-9.html

I thought, I first read about these soils in " Botany of Desire " or "Guns,Germs,&Steel" but I could not find reference to them. I finely found the reference in "1491", but I did not realize their potential .

The Georgia Inst. of Technology page:
http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/dday.pdf

There is an ecology going on in these soils that is not completely understood, and if replicated and applied at scale would have multiple benefits for farmers and environmentalist.

As you will see the Japanese work with these soils is impressive, Especially with trees.

Another finding that supports the need to develop Terra Preta soils on a large scale:
New Scientist News - Fertilisers give the lungs of the planet bad breath

Also, Terra Preta is on the Agenda at this years world Soil Science Conference !
http://crops.confex.com/crops/wc2006/techprogram/P16274.HTM

I've sent this thread to the researchers at M-Roots, who make Mycorisal fungus inoculations for acceleration of the reestablishment of the symbiotic fungal / root relationship. Here's the M-Roots site: http://www.rootsinc.com/


I also sent it to Dr. Jared Diamond, if he replies, I will probably have an orgasm!



Here is a great article that high lights this pyrolysis process , ( http://www.eprida.com/hydro/ ) which could use existing infrastructure to provide Charcoal sustainable Agriculture , Syn-Fuels, and a variation of this process would also work as well for H2 , Charcoal-Fertilizer, while sequestering CO2 from Coal fired plants to build soils at large scales , be sure to read the link "See an initial analysis NEW" of this technology to clean up Coal fired power plants.


Soil erosion, energy scarcity, excess greenhouse gas all answered through regenerative carbon management http://www.newfarm.org/columns/research_pa.../charcoal.shtml

Erich J. Knight