Clean coal is...

cleaning out the files (4.00 / 2)

This has been sitting in my draft diaries for a while. I have another dozen or so links all along the same lines but decided I'll just go with what I've gotten cleanly formatted already.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 08:22:55 AM CST

Great post. (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for writing this.

---

by: wv voice of reason @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 09:43:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

comprehensive diary (4.00 / 1)

Will use for future references

---

by: JBdem4usa @ Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 10:25:30 AM CST

So what is YOUR definition (2.00 / 2)

If coal could be burned with less pollution than a typical current natural gas plant, would that qualify?
VC

---

by: viscount coal @ Sun Dec 13, 2009 at 21:00:09 PM CST

meaningless term (4.00 / 1)

I think the term has been rendered meaningless by industry marketing hype willfully aided by politicians. It's way too vague, shifting, and amorphous to be useful.

In order to have any meaningful conversation about a specific project or policy related to whichever technologies you are imagining, tell me what technology you have in mind and we can talk about that.

Just like you'd (rightly) give me a hard time if I started making statements about low sulfur coal that were only true for high sulfur coal, it's important to be clear about what kind of pollution and what kind of plant.

So, the short answer to your question is "no". That would just be coal burned with less pollution than a typical NG plant. (For what it's worth, it's a laudable goal but I'm skeptical such a thing could exist unless we cherry-pick which type of pollution... coal starts out with a larger array of toxins than NG and they all end up somewhere.)

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 03:40:56 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess my question (0.00 / 0)

is are there any conditions under which you would consider the burning of coal acceptable?  If not that is fine, but there really is no point in discussing further.  If the answer is yes, it just becomes a cost benefit analysis on whether or not it is practical to achieve the goal.  This is my issue with the people who advocate no new coal plants under any circumstances.  What if a new high efficiency plant was built to replace an old plant?  At least for the foreseeable future, I think diversity of power supply is desirable.  Given the general publics unwillingness to meaningfully consider new nuclear power, the significant price variability of natural gas and the significant leadtime before alternative energy makes much contribution, I think it makes a lot of sense to build new cleaner plants.
VC  

---

by: viscount coal @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 20:47:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Okay, does that mean take an old one off line each time? (4.00 / 1)

I think it makes a lot of sense to build new cleaner plants

Cleaner how?

But this is like throwing another billion after a canceled defense project because you don't want to waste that first billion you already spent on something that won't spec out and is way behind schedule and only the pols want it not the services.

But not me personally were those cheers for (1-6-7-5-2-8-3-4)--Sarah Palin

You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you--Zbigniew Brzezinski

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 22:09:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

VC - yes (4.00 / 1)

Yes, I could imagine conditions under which burning of coal was necessary and acceptable on a limited basis. I'm open to the idea of using any energy source.

I am in favor of continuing to do basic research on ways to generate energy cleaner and more efficiently from any source (including coal and nuclear)--as long as the funding is decided on scientific, not political merits... after all, who knows where the next major breakthrough will come from.

Unfortunately, that's not what the bulk of the 10's of billions of dollars proposed for CCS/CTL are for--they are primarily for commercial deployment of a technology that I see as having some obvious unsolvable flaws. Also, even if they were to work flawlessly at scale tomorrow for free (which would be a wonderful miracle!!), there's still a lot of other sources of pollution to deal with, too.

Looking at all of the life cycle costs and benefits, my conclusion based on immediately available technology is that the best long-term alternatives are efficiency, conservation, and residential/commercial micro-power generation (solar/geothermal, wind, water, roughly in that order). Obviously, there would still need to be some base load facilities, but our existing nuclear and hydro aren't going away any time soon and there are ways of storing renewal energy, too.

My belief is we have essentially run out of cheap carbon-based fuels--from here on out oil, coal, and NG will just get more and more expensive (at the least, prices will get more volatile)--and we ought to use that remaining natural resource wealth to build out a sustainable energy base.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 06:07:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Burning coal is acceptable under current conditions (0.00 / 0)

but only because there are not instantly available clean alternatives. I would not support any investment in new coal plants, or any energy source or manufacturing process, that produced waste - defined as end-products that cannot be used as input to another process. (Note this eliminates nuclear also.)

If CO2, particulates, and fly ash can be safely input into another process (and the coal is mined in a way that preserves the ecosystem and the human environment), then I would support new coal plants.

Yes, diversity is desirable - but there are wind, solar, and hydro - and natural gas, which produces half the CO2 and far fewer other toxins, is available for base load in the interim. We are also wasting a huge amount of energy, in buildings, agriculture, and manufacturing as well as transportation.

In 2008, investment in wind production facilities exceeded investment in coal plants. I don't have the details or a source at hand, but I believe this is largely because China is investing massively in wind. Both China and the U.S. could supply significantly more than their total energy use from wind - the US from off-shore Atlantic coast installations alone.  Wind facilities do not have the decade-plus build time that coal and nuclear do.

The price of solar panels dropped by half last year, and will continue decreasing.

There is only one group who has an absolute interest in the continuation of coal production, and who would not be swayed by a cost benefit analysis, because it would never be to their benefit. Consumers and manufacturers can switch energy sources or substitute efficiencies for energy. Coal miners and other industry employees can work elsewhere, perhaps at a cost of retraining or relocation. Industry suppliers can shift to supplying other industries. Those other industries will pay taxes - or perhaps in the worst case people will leave as they did McDowell County and fewer tax-paid services will be needed.

So - coal is a substitutable good for everyone but the owners of the coal, who have no way to make a profit except to sell what they own.  Any shift at all away from coal is an absolute loss for the owners of the coal, who then own a devalued asset (i.e. they have lost money).  

In the end, any economic or public welfare argument for the long-term continuation of coal is an argument for the importance of the coal owners' interests above all others.

---

by: JAWVMM @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:25:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

JAWVMM (4.00 / 1)

All of that is well said. I also want to stress, because it is worth repeating over and over again... any transition away from coal mining creates major short-term costs to communities dependent on coal mining income.

We see this all the time when layoffs happen because of transitions to new coal mining technology, or mines run out of coal, or there's a glut of coal in the market. It's going to be no less painful no matter what the reason is a mine closes.

So, in the short term there are some people making arguments for short term interests other than coal owners profits--otherwise, I agree with you about the long-term.

And, it is critical that people in coal mining communities are not forgotten in the transition. That's why I keep saying that we need a hand-up for coal mining communities and not yet another hand-out for coal mining companies.

Bailing out coal owners doesn't help displaced workers one bit. Trickle down economics does not work.  

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 08:45:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Agree absolutely on the hand-up (0.00 / 0)

and that people in coal mining communities should not be forgotten in the transition.  But I am not sure that "any transition away from coal mining creates major short-term costs to communities dependent on coal mining income."

A transition away from coal mining can be more gradual than a temporary layoff or a mine closing. There is more than enough available labor in the coal fields to start building businesses other than coal.  For example, most women in the southern coal counties, unlike almost everywhere else in the country, do not have paid employment.  I suspect that may be because there are no jobs for them, not because they don't want to work.  It means that their husbands must have higher-paying jobs, or work overtime (which is why miners are cited as making $60,000 a year in jobs that pay about $21 an hour).

In any case, there is room in the local economy for non-coal businesses to ramp up while coal mines are still operating, so that the transition need not be abrupt and painful. The coal owners, however, have a huge interest in fear-mongering and emphasizing the pain and cost of a transition - and in preventing any other businesses from competing for labor in the area. State and local government, especially, need to understand that and lower the barriers to other businesses that coal owners have an incentive to raise or maintain.

---

by: JAWVMM @ Tue Dec 15, 2009 at 10:53:25 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The cleanest coal fired plant.... (0.00 / 0)

is the one never built or the old one that's shut down but even in that circumstance you have to clean up the mess left behind. Coal has many different uses other than to be burned, let's begin the discussion at that point.  It won't be terribly difficult to transition the older plants to natural gas from coal.  Then non-food bio-fuels will replace nat. gas.  Buildings and homes will be built with energy efficiency, smart grid and renewables will conserve power once again and eventually we will meet our emission goals of 83% by 2050....otherwise things are gonna get kinda crazy.

---

by: JBdem4usa @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 22:28:38 PM CST

Did you nedd the oppos here? (0.00 / 0)

It won't be terribly difficult to transition the older plants to natural gas from coal.

Demand. Calif. brought down demand. The energy co. do not make more by selling more.

We have been better about turning everything off at a power strip lately.

But not me personally were those cheers for (1-6-7-5-2-8-3-4)--Sarah Palin

You know, you have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you--Zbigniew Brzezinski

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 22:35:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]