Talk:Clean coal

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I was about to edit this article some more when I noticed the line in the introduction:

CO2 is still released into the atmosphere so "clean" does not mean carbon neutral, but sulphurous impurities can be dramatically cut using "clean" coal.

I'm pretty sure that the idea of "clean coal" is to remove the CO2 - see this New Scientist article which I was about to reference: NS on Clean Coal--Bobbing up 22:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] What Clean Coal Really Is

Since this is something I am intimately familiar with (I do IGCC development and engineering for GE) I will tell you what clean coal, as a term, really stands for. "Clean coal" is actually a combination, solely for political purposes, of two different concepts: IGCC and sequestering.

  • IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) is the less-controversial-but-far-more-complex process of producing cleaner energy from coal though converting it to syngas, which increases turbine fuel efficiency approximately 40% and produces approximately 50% less overall pollution and 20% overall less CO2 emission.
  • Sequestering, however, is a bunch of bullshit, but is the one most promoted by utilities (as IGCC is 20% more expensive than regular old "filthy" coal). The idea with sequestering is that, if you pump all the CO2 underground into coarse rock, it will stay there. Sort of like a ostrich burying its head in the sand. However, in reality, it usually will seep back up to the surface. It will also fuse with any underground water and change it into carbonic acid.

That, folks, is "Clean Coal" in a nutshell.The Goonie 1 07:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Explaining My Lack Of Resources

Unfortunately, I cannot disclose most of my resources on IGCC and sequestering are classified by the United States Department of Energy as "Confidential" and "Export Controlled", and the other ones I have are GE proprietary information, so I cannot disclose the sources. Boy, do I love my security clearance, though.The Goonie 1 (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not an eternity

There is research into turning CO2 into an energy source[1] in a way outside of conventional biofuels. If this becomes viable, I suspect that we might tap into the CO2 storage facilities as an energy source (kind of like how sometimes we sometimes turn nuclear waste back into fuel). This has the unfortunate draw back[2] of not lowering CO2 in the atmosphere directly, but it might mitigate the amount of storage necessary as would also lower the consequences of a leak. I am largely ignorant on how both the storage process works and how the CO2 into energy conversion is going to work. Corpse in the bed (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

  1. http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20142909-26254.html
  2. opportunity cost wise
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support