Coal — The Other Alt Fuel 135
This Wired piece is really a round-up about Coal: The Other Alt Fuel. One of the main stories is about an initiative to convert low-grade coal to other uses — like diesel fuel and so forth, but of course that nasty issue of carbon production comes up again.
Write much? (Score:5, Funny)
English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!
Re:Write much? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is not the pollution (Score:3, Insightful)
In the meantime, coal will have to do, but we need to keep an eye on the clock because the longer we push off the transition to sustainable fuel sources, the sooner we'll hit the limits of our environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You've overstated your case: the problem isn't all carbon-based fuels; the problem is only fossil-based fuels. There are two very significant alternatives -- ethanol and biodiesel -- that are carbon-based but do not result in a net increase in carbon dioxide, nor which have the "limited availability"* problem.
*Yes, there are those who claim we don't have enough farmland, but that's because they're
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've spent a bit of time reading around this area, and I think you can divide the problem into a couple of areas
1. Depletion of reserves
A big problem. Oil will run out, its really a question of when. If you believe the Peak Oil [wikipedia.org] proponents, we may well be in a depletion phase already. Certainly May 2005 was a peak
Re:The issue is not the pollution (Score:5, Interesting)
With oil reserves limited, attention is turning to other energy sources. Natural gas and Nuclear Power are the obvious choices.
Unfortunately, natural gas isn't infinite, and while it will last a while, its loss will be accelerated by oil substitution. In other words, it will peak not long after whenever oil peaks.
Nuclear power is contentious, difficult, and actually not in infinite supply. The world would consume all the nuclear power in a couple of decades; and there isn't any easy way to make its energy available for transportation.
Have you ever heard of fuel reprocessing? Have you ever heard of breeder reactors that use U-238? How about using thorium? Estimates are that we have anywhere from 10,000 to 5,000,000,000 years worth of nuclear fuel remaining with these technologies that are largely already available. If by "contentious" you mean "NIMBY" then I suppose people will have to consider whether or not they'd rather accept a lower standard of living or nuclear power. I choose the latter.
Geothermal, hydro and tidal power all have much promise, but many parts of the world have no access to any of these options.
Some people think that hydro power winds up dumping almost as much greenhouse gas into the air (mainly methane) as a coal plant does. Why? Decaying vegetation in the reservoirs. In any case hydro and tidal are hardly eco-free options (and we've already used most of our hydro resources in the West) and geothermal spots eventually go cold.
Energy is going to get more expensive. Transportable energy for cars, trucks and planes will be really difficult; and nobody is going to be flying around cheaply in 10 years time.
I liked the idea of the hydrogen economy for transportable energy and nuclear fission/fusion for the backend (i.e: the grid). Whether or not hydrogen would scale (odds are it works for a SUV -- will it work for a 747?) is another matter and outside my area of expertise.
In any case I don't see why nuclear isn't being seriously considered as an option. We know that renewables won't scale. We also know that nuclear technology works and properly used is safe.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have no great contention with what you are
Re: (Score:2)
Breeder reactors certainly overcome this limitation, but as I understand it are a much newer technology. I'm not saying they won't work, just that I'm not sure how well they will work in the long term.
They aren't a new technology. Using them to create nuclear fuel to generate electricity would be a new use but breeder reactors have been around since the Manhattan Project. Where do you think the plutonium for nuclear weapons comes from?
Bear in mind, nuclear won't fly planes or probably drive trucks. T
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Planes: We can have them carry fewer passengers and we can make them out of lighter materials. As a last resort we can just fly slower - which would really save fuel. The problem is it would make it more expensive to fly - like it was 50 - 60 years ago.
Ships: There are some plans for using giant kites to replace sails and reduce fuel consumption. Also, we used wind power long before we knew how to make t
Re: (Score:2)
Planes: We can have them carry fewer passengers and we can make them out of lighter materials. As a last resort we can just fly slower - which would really save fuel. The problem is it would make it more expensive to fly - like it was 50 - 60 years ago.
Well that might not be a bad thing. One wonders if the current cost of air travel is at all realistic with the way the airlines are losing money left and right.
Ships: There are some plans for using giant kites to replace sails and reduce fuel consumptio
Re: (Score:2)
I have serious problems with nuclear power, but I'd be interested in any real facts that might address my problems. It's been ten years since I investigated the issue, so maybe some advances have been made.
I don't consider nuclear reactors terribly risky, my main problem comes from pollution. I'm also not particularly worried about a nuclear plant being in my backyard.
The original push for nuclear power was mostly motivated by the defense industry. It provided a good smokescreen and a friendly motiv
Re: (Score:2)
The original push for nuclear power was mostly motivated by the defense industry.
The original push for a lot of things came from the defense industry. That doesn't mean they are bad ideas or that we dismiss them. For better or worse it seems that our greatest achievements come out of the desire to kill the other guy before he kills us. Despite nuclear weapons can you honestly say that mankind is worse off for discovering how to split/fuse the atom?
From what I understand, obtaining the fuel for nucle
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you are correct, and I apologize if I gave the impression this is what I was saying. Hell, I'm using the internet aren't I? As a researcher myself, I'm perfectly aware how much great research and development comes out of defense spending. It's an issue I do find lamentable, leaving physicists across their country scratching their heads and thinking "now how can I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry...there are MUCH more important uses [thottbot.com] for thorium and the cost of it is ridiculous. How else am I going to make my Runic gear [thottbot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is that those greenhouse gases are already in circulation while burning fossil fuels takes carbon that has been locked up for millions of years and adds it back into the carbon cycle.
Decaying vegitation, burning trees, growing trees, none of these things actually change the amount of carbon in the environment, they
Re: (Score:2)
The big difference is that those greenhouse gases are already in circulation while burning fossil fuels takes carbon that has been locked up for millions of years and adds it back into the carbon cycle.
Decaying vegitation, burning trees, growing trees, none of these things actually change the amount of carbon in the environment, they just move around the carbon that's already there.
Which would be a decent point if I was making a hydro to coal comparison. But I was making a hydro to nuclear comparison
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, my mistake
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It costs too much (in terms of both dollars and energy) to produce, compress, and transport.
That's probably true today when the energy that you use to produce it comes from fossil fuels. Why not just burn them directly to power your car/ship/airplane? But if the energy used to produce hydrogen comes from low cost nuclear fission/renewable/nuclear fusion/insert_favorite_future_energy_source_here then it becomes much more economical. How else do you purpose to provide a portable (carbon neutral) source
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the problem of radioactive waste is still unsolved. The radioactive waste will be dangerous for literally thousands of year, we have no means to store it safely for even a fraction of that time. We actually don't even have means to convey the message that there is highly dangerous radioactive waste to people living in 2000 years.
Chemical waste is dangerous forever (no half life on a lot of that stuff) but nobody is shutting down the plastics or fertilizer industries. Reprocessing can take a larg
Re: (Score:2)
Launching into space (the most rational destination is Luna) is both incredibly expensive and unnecessarily risky. I don't understand why people keep mentioning this as an option.
Nuclear waste is extremely dangerous for only a few centuries. This is even more true if the (not all that dangerous) plutonium is removed by reprocessing b
Re: (Score:2)
True Radioactive Waste, the stuff that is left over after nuclear reprocessing, is about not much more radioactive than Uranium Ore. We could store it in the same mines
Re: (Score:2)
This is all interesting but there is one thing that I generally see ignored in the whole green house gas debate and quite frankly it confuses me. Quite often an alternative is critisized for generating CO2 and then it is compared to another source that produces water vapor which is also a green house gas. Why is CO2 bad and water vapor good?
Water vapor is part of the water cycle. You aren't changing the net balance of water in the environment if you burn hydrogen. Let's assume that the World adopts nuc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not at all a nuke booster, but this isn't true. If you use breeder reactors you can convert non-fissile U238 to Plutonium, which multiplies your available fuel (U235) by a factor of hundreds. And it's not hard to transport electricity, it's just how efficient it is. Aside from cop
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm very sceptical about hyd
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was "easy to store". And laptops are a trivial use of electricity, convenience, weight are much more important than cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The security implications of plutonium breeding make it unsuitable as a solution. And if you imagine fission scaling up to be the primary energy source, even with breeder reactors you still run out of uranium within decades [fraw.org.uk], perhaps a century. Reactor safety is a huge issue (no, pebble bed reators are not as safe as fission fans tell you [wikipedia.org]). And the waste problem
Re: (Score:2)
The security implications of plutonium breeding make it unsuitable as a solution
Says who? If the United States doesn't do it then do you really think we can stop China or India from doing it? They aren't afraid of nuclear power. They seem to know that the fossil fuel gravy train is going to run out sooner or later. You could say the same thing about doing research with ebola, anthrax, smallpox or HIV, yet the last time I checked there were lots of civilian labs working with them.
And if you imagine
Re: (Score:2)
A solution that only certain nations are allowed to implement, under threat of military action, is no solution.
Perhaps if those nations hadn't declared an intent to wipe a sovereign nation (Israel) off the map the West wouldn't be so concerned with their attempts to obtain breeder technology. Japan uses it quite heavily and given their technology ability could probably start building bombs in less then a year. Yet, I don't hear anybody complaining about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, unlike oil which has never caused any security problems or conflict.
And if you imagine fission scaling up to be the primary energy source, even with breeder reactors you still run out of uranium within decades, perhaps a century.
As I said, I'm not a booster, but the source you cite is obviously pushing an anti-nuclear agenda. I think it would last a century at least. By then there are a lot of alternatives that shoul
Re: (Score:2)
The supply of uranium is not infinite.
Uranium mining is a fairly "dirty" process that produces a lot of secondary contamination, since there tend to be a variety of toxic/radioactive components in the same stretch of rocks.
There are already chunks of the SoCal desert, where uranium is found/mined, that are regarded as unfit for human use because of radioactivity. (That was why they put Edwards AFB out here in the first place -- it could do no harm to ground already unfit for habitation. Y
Re: (Score:2)
These are already being put to use in various areas. They are high temperature super conductors, just not room temperature super conductors. (High temperature as in above 10 kelvin). Here's an article on one instance.
http://www.physorg.com/news77909735.html [physorg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That assumes that you use "traditional" (modern) farming methods. Although many naysayers will step up and tell me that I'm crazy, every aspect of o
Re: (Score:2)
Over half the world's population lives near the coast, and for those who don't, we're working hard to bring the coast to them!
Re:The issue is not the pollution (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue is whether we can sustain our usage at current levels indefinitely. The answer is of course, no.
Sure we can. It's called Nuclear Fission.
What would you rather deal with? An energy source that dumps massive amounts of CO2 and radioactivity into the atmosphere or an energy source that is carbon neutral and produces nuclear waste that can be reprocessed into more fuel and/or stored somewhere (i.e: it's not released into the atmosphere)?
There's no reason to accept a reduction in our standard of living and there's certainly no compelling reason to use coal over fission. We know that the waste can be reprocessed (the US just chooses not to), we know that the technology works and is safe. We also know that coal dumps massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Nuclear no longer an option (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, coal is about the only buffer fuel left that would take us over that hump that depleting oil supplies will leave. The hump gets worse every single day we wait
People should have demanded Manhattan Project style investment in
Re: (Score:2)
Barring serious economic recession (always a possibility), nuclear isn't really an option anymore. It takes awhile to get the plants online, and there would have to be a very large number of them built in a very short period of time. As an engineer, that'd be great news.
And it doesn't take awhile to build new coal power plants? Tell me, what's the better investment for the future?
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't take awhile to build new coal power plants? Tell me, what's the better investment for the future?
A new coal boiler can be brought online quickly, as the regulatory requirements - security, environmental, and supply - are much lower. Adding onto an existing plant can be done even faster.
As far as investments for the future go, funding fusion research en masse 20 years ago would seem like a pretty good deal, compared to the little skirmish we have in the middle east now. I'm worried about the m
Re: (Score:2)
A new coal boiler can be brought online quickly, as the regulatory requirements - security, environmental, and supply - are much lower. Adding onto an existing plant can be done even faster.
And a new nuclear power plant can be built in four or five years. Do you really think our electrical grid is going to collapse in four or five years?
As far as investments for the future go, funding fusion research en masse 20 years ago would seem like a pretty good deal, compared to the little skirmish we have in t
Re: (Score:2)
And a new nuclear power plant can be built in four or five years.
Scaling up the uranium mines is the main problem in the scenario I am talking about. I would also question the ability to get nuclear approvals, even in a crisis, in 5 years. Coal, at least here, is already being expanded.
Coal fields require little processing and are already capable of scaling in dramatic fashion. Uranium needs a lot of processing.
I could care less if we burned coal 100% for 10 years, if at the end of the 10 years, we had Fusi
Re: (Score:2)
Scaling up the uranium mines is the main problem in the scenario I am talking about. I would also question the ability to get nuclear approvals, even in a crisis, in 5 years. Coal, at least here, is already being expanded.
The cost of the fuel (and the effort that goes into obtaining it) is a minor cost in the overall scheme of nuclear power. The approvals comes down to a NIMBY problem, to which I have no easy solution. I would also note though that coal power plants, transmission lines, cell towers, ai
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear fusion also results in radioactive waste.
Sure, often the products of nuclear fusion aren't radioactive (for the most part), but there structure tends to get a good dose of radioactivity.
The true solution would be a population that is educated about nuclear power, radiation and risk.
Maybe people will wise up if energy prices start to rise. There a
Re: (Score:2)
You can't whack all those costs, but if push comes to shove many can be cut down by a lot. If we need a lot of plants, we'll standardize the design. The litigation costs can be basically el
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason we don't have nuclear is because our government is in love with foreign oil. They ~talk~ about alternatives, but their action speaks volumes.
For instance, no tariff on imported oil, but a 100% tariff on imported biodiesel. Then there is the IRS regulation section 179 that requires your vehicle be a
Only helps with central electric generation (Score:2)
You could have battery-powered cars recharged from nuclear electric plants, but that wouldn't help much with air or sea transportation.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you really want to use fission for vehicle propulsion.
I mentioned this. The hydrogen economy may or may not provide the answer to mobile traffic. Obtaining hydrogen from sea water using fission as the power source. The other stumbling blocks (storage problems of hydrogen) are outside my area of expertise.
In any case, bio-diesel or hydrogen can power cars. Ships can be powered by nuclear propulsion. Airplanes pose a problem, as I don't know if hydrogen/bio-diesel/etc would scale well (energy
Re: (Score:2)
So who told you nuclear fuel supply is unlimited?
Future energy development - Nuclear Power [wikipedia.org].
A few quotes:
Mod this guy up (Score:2)
The "if" is the big part. Because are closer to what can be used to produce weapons-grade materials, breeder reactors always get the boogeyman attached to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Current natural reserves of uranium will last for about another 60 years. Just like coal, gas and oil.
See this [slashdot.org] post.
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if we'd stop burning it before we even mine it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia%2C_Pennsylv ania [wikipedia.org]
http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centrali a.htm [offroaders.com]
Seriously, that's a cool place to explore. No, strike that, it's a _warm_ place to explore. Bring good boots...and fortitude.
Like a political season which never ends... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, is this how the energy companies are spending their windfall profits? Campaign style fantasies, and 'facts', I just can't wait for the negative advertising, like how wind farms slow down the earth's rotation.
The future is here now! (Score:2)
A modern coal based power plant doesn't polute, unless you count CO2 as a polutant. Older coal based power plants were quite messy though.
If you combine power generation with a community heating system, the energy use efficiency is also very high.
Re: (Score:2)
How many of these so-called modern coal-based power plants do we have in the US? Last I heard none of them were achieving 0 PPM soot output.
Also, if you don't count CO2 as a pollutant, you must be insane. It's a known greenhouse gas and we know (for example) that we (humans) put out several times more CO2 than active volcanoes do every year. Since volcanism is often cited as a vehicle for climate change, I'd say that C
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to MHD? (Score:2)
Talked to a plasma dude about MHD (Score:2)
As a North Dakotan (Score:4, Insightful)
I can appreciate the impact the coal industry can have on areas with depressed economies, but development must be done in an environmentally responsible manner; once the coal's gone, it's gone, but pollution damage can last a long time.
Clean coal isn't bullshit (Score:2)
You're off base (Score:2)
That's actually what the coal industry lobbiest are saying.
Clean coal burning power plants can be made. Gasification, scrubbers, hydrocarbon eating algees, these are technologies that exist. The problem is that they are expencive! And grand father clauses. The EPA ratchets down limits every year so that NEW coal burning plants must be cleaner. The problem is that it is so much more expensive to build a clean efficient plant than to repair and continue in the old plant, that mo
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is there are 60 lobbyist's for each politician, so it's hard for common sense or the voice of the people to be heard.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We need more CO2 anyway ... (Score:1, Funny)
We're at the end of the current 20,000-year interglacial, so it's back down to the brrrrr of another 80,000 years of ice in the 100,000-year cycle any time now.
Pouring CO2 into the atmosphere may soon be our only way of keeping the US free of glaciers!
Hg, S, Fe, NOx & CO (Score:5, Informative)
Releasing more Carbon from the carbon sink is just one more addition to the ever-increasing load of greenhouse gasses on the planet.
Iron - in its various forms will "poison" any catalytic converter small enough to fit on a vehicle.
The cost of scrubbing or converting Coal into a cleaner-burning fuel is problematic and the energy used to scrub may well exceed the energy realized from the converted coal.
Re:Hg, S, Fe, NOx & CO (Score:3, Informative)
Coal is a hydrocarbon. It is possible to extract the hydrogen from it and use it as a fuel just as you can extract hydrogen from natural gas.
You can convert it into coal gas and filter that to remove the sulfur and mercury.
The big question is will it be practical?
You have one really big technical error.
"About 75% of the coal-fired power plants scrub NOx out of the exhaust - but there appear to be no small-scale scrubbers consistent with vehicle use."
NOx doesn't come from from coal. If you burn any f
Re:Hg, S, Fe, NOx & CO (Score:2)
Extracting H2 frm Coal is an energy-intensive process that, at present, cannot be accomp
Re:Hg, S, Fe, NOx & CO (Score:2)
They are called 3-way catalytic converters while not a scrubber they serve much the same function. Instead of capturing the NOx as some scrubbers do, they convert it back into N2 and O2.
All modern cars have them. As I pointed out any liquid fuel made from coal that you would put in to a car would be chemically not very different than gasoline or diesel and would not have any more issues with NOx than we already have. That is one of the reasons that the US is m
Correction (Score:2)
Coal is mostly just carbon, 92-98% in the case of anthracite. There will be some hydrocarbons left over from its organic origins but they're a minority. Asphalt is an example of a solid hydrocarbon.
>NOx is made when atmosphere nitrogen is held at too high a temperature for too long.
Thank you for setting that straight, by the way. You don't even need fuel: lightning storms generate enough nitrates to be a noticeable source of fertilizer.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that by mass or by mole?
Carbon is a lot more massive than Hydrogen. Even a very Hydrogen rich compound like methane, CH4 is 75% carbon by mass.
Just asking because I know that coal gas is made of CH4, CO, and a small amount of Hydrogen.
Re:Hg, S, Fe, NOx & CO (Score:2)
Re:Hg, S, Fe, NOx & CO (Score:2)
Simply cooling the air to the mercury condensation temperature does not remove it from the exhaust. The microscopic particles will continue to float in the air stream. You have to actually capture it, while letting the huge volumes of exhaust through. There is actually no technology at the present time for accomplishing this to high puriti
Thought experiment (Score:2)
The water vapor condenses.
What happens to it? Does it fall down as rain, or does it drift away in a fog of microscopic particles?
Mercury is way heavier, but if the particles are small enough then Brownian motion will keep them suspended.
Oldnews....... (Score:1)
Sasol [sasol.com] has been doing this for years [wikipedia.org].
I don't see how this could be new
Fisher Tropsch (Score:4, Informative)
Isn't the Fisher-Trops 65 years old already? Germans used it in WWII for aux fuel, and so did South Africa during the boycott (SASOL).
The Club of Rome also named this as possibility in 1980 (I never read the first report, only the revised one)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it doesn't help for netto CO2 emissions. (or not much. It depends on conversion costs of both, but since C is further from C7Hx, I'd guess that converting coal is less efficient than crude oil)
It's also possible to convert it into hydrogen (water-shift reaction followed by an additional step to convert the CO (+H2O) into more H2), but I don't know if this is re
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nothing new. (Score:1, Informative)
green coal (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah, that's green all right.
"Eh, it's a living." (Score:2)
I'm tagging this one bullshit. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're careful about "archiving" whatever topsoil there was, strip-mined land can be returned to productivity, or ev
What a loathsome article (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not until the 16th paragraph when then happen to mention that, oh yeah, this "green fuel" process will release "massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" - four times as much. But don't worry, they'll be able to use a carbon-catching technology that doesn't even exist yet to make sure none of that CO2 actually escapes the factory. Right. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of coal plants operating in the US that aren't using the emissions reduction technology that's available now.
Just point out (Score:4, Informative)
Most of our electricity is used to create or move heat from one place to another. It's highly ironic that power stations produce more energy as heat than they do as electricity. With District Heating and District Cooling it's possible to distribute heat and cold such that the requirement for space heating and air conditioning is massively reduced.
This isn't going to happen any time soon, economically it simply isn't worth while, it's much cheaper to dig up coal or pipe oil or gas. That could change with the flick of a pen though. At the moment every working individual pays 30%-40% of their income as taxation, get rid of it and add the equivalent level of taxation to fuel sources, in particular the non green methods of generation. The utilities will then squeeze every Watt out of the fuel, and customers will make sure they don't waste any energy either. As a side effect, people will become much cheaper to employ.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Every person in the housing block paid a percentage of the hot water bill (including amounts that leaked out) depending on the number of occupants in the individual apartment, since it was only metered at ea
Re: (Score:2)
That none of our power stations (including nuclear, fission and fusion) are going to get much above 40% efficient until we stop treating waste heat as waste. Overall efficiency can be doubled to the 80%-90% region by selling the heat for industrial processes, domestic water, space heating and to power chillers which can distribute cold water in hot regions.
I don't believe that's correct. Power plants can achieve 40% because they vent heat to the environment. If that heat instead goes into industrial pro
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of venting, it can be distributed through a heat distribution network. District heating is an old technology, insulated pipes can tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the problem is the Carnot efficiency of the turbines, they're limited to about 40% efficient, the rest of the energy is exhausted as waste heat. District heating takes this waste heat, sells it to customers and increases the overall efficiency of the system to close to around 85%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, yes... You know the whole idea is to replace the condenser with a heat distribution network... So instead of condensing the exhausted steam with seawater and thereby wasting the heat, you heat up a hot water distribution network and sell the heat. You lose a little efficiency from the steam turbine and gain a huge efficiency boos
Re: (Score:2)
There are numerous reasons why power plants are located in the places they are- some NIMBY, some regulatory, some thermodynamic, some supply chain.
You would undo or override all those countless valid and important reasons in your quest for perfect efficiency? You're
Re: (Score:2)
Lol. In fact I'm a liberal, in the true sense of the word rather than the American one (you'
Re: (Score:2)