Clean Coal[?]

[DGS49]

I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."

Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.

Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.

But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?

In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.

It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.

Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?

 

[OldLady]

It's an oxymoron, I think.
I'm not sure selling coal to the third world is such a great idea, not as long as the third world is on this planet. Not unless we can find some way to actually make it environment neutral. Do you think it's a good idea to pursue it just so people will have jobs and the U.S. will make money? That's never a bad thing, but we can do it without selling coal to the third world. It is only "clean" if it's burned with "clean" technology. We have no control over how coal is used in foreign countries.

 

[Old Rocks]

About a quarter of the airborne mercury in Oregon originates in China. So you have a very good point, Old Lady.

 

[Old Rocks]

Environmental impact of the coal industry - Wikipedia

The environmental impact of the coal industry includes issues such as land use, waste management, water and air pollution, caused by the coal mining, processing and the use of its products. In addition to atmospheric pollution, coal burning produces hundreds of millions of tons of solid waste products annually, including fly ash,[1] bottom ash, and flue-gas desulfurization sludge, that contain mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals.

There are severe health effects caused by burning coal.[2][3] According to a report by the World Health Organization in 2008, coal particulates pollution are estimated to shorten approximately 1,000,000 lives annually worldwide.[4] A 2004 study commissioned by environmental groups, but contested by the US EPA, concluded that coal burning costs 24,000 lives a year in the United States.[5] Coal mining generates significant adverse environmental impacts.

Historically, coal mining has been a very dangerous activity and the list of historical coal mining disasters is a long one. Underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions. Open cut hazards are principally mine wall failures and vehicle collisions. In the United States, an average of 26 coal miners per year died in the decade 2005-2014.[6]

A mountaintop removal mining operation in the United States

Coal is very polluting.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."

Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.

Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.

But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?

In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.

It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.

Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?

Have you ever heard of the Tooele Army Depot, South Area CMDS (Chemical Munitions Disposal Site). Today I believe it is call the Deseret Munitions Depot.

To make a long story short the CMDS was designed to burn our chemical stockpile of nerve agents, mustard gas, and all of our chemical and biological weapons from 1980 through 2004. The scrubber technology used in that system is employed in most every coal fired plant in the US today. It removes heavy metal, sulfur, and other acids and chemicals leaving the burn chambers and what went out the final stack was 99.999% water vapor. (monitored to the ppm level)

Even Kenocott Copper smelting operations used this scrubbing technology in their smoke stack just off the Great Salt Lake where they capture sulfuric acid from the burn process and refine it for use in other industries.

Clean coal is the use of these technologies to scrub the output from the burn chamber and capture all of the heavy metals, mercury, sulfurs, and other particulates from their outputs. They too emit 99.999% water from their stack today.

Not only is it true, but it has a very long history of successful operations.

Some here think coal is polluting but its far less than the idiots who sit at their desks as internet warriors on their keyboards. As some one who works in the mining areas the capture systems they use to catch run off and other impacts are watched closely and many who post here don't have a dam clue what care is taken in this industry.

 

[Billy_Bob]

About a quarter of the airborne mercury in Oregon originates in China. So you have a very good point, Old Lady.

Ok idiot.. Force China to use known technology to stop this. we've been using it here for 20 years or so.. 98% off all coal fired plants in the US have zero emissions of heavy metals, acids, or particulates.

Slicing our throats because someone else is stupid, Is f'ing stupid!

 

[Old Rocks]

Mercury in U.S. Coal -- Abundance, Distribution, and Modes of Occurrence


INTRODUCTION
In February 1998, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1998a, b) issued a report citing mercury emissions from electric utilities as the largest remaining anthropogenic source of mercury released to the air. EPA officials estimated that about 50 tons of elemental mercury are emitted each year from U.S. coal-burning powerplants, with lesser amounts coming from oil- and gas-burning units. According to EPA estimates, emissions from coal-fired utilities account for 13 to 26 percent of the total (natural plus anthropogenic) airborne emissions of mercury in the United States. On December 14, 2000, the EPA announced that it will require a reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants, with regulations proposed by 2003 and final rules for implementation completed by 2004 (EPA, 2000).


ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MERCURY
The mercury (Hg) directly emitted from powerplants generally is not considered harmful; however, in the natural environment, mercury can go through a series of chemical transformations that convert elemental mercury to a highly toxic form that is concentrated in fish and birds (fig. 1). The most toxic form of mercury is methylmercury, an organic form created by a complex bacterial conversion of inorganic mercury. Methylation rates (creation of methylmercury) in ecosystems are a function of mercury availability, bacterial population, nutrient load, acidity and oxidizing conditions, sediment load, and sedimentation rates (National Research Council, 1978).
Figure 1. Simplified geochemical cycle of mercury (Hg).

Methylmercury enters the food chain, particularly in aquatic organisms, and bioaccumulates. Bioaccumulation is the enrichment of a substance in an organism and includes bioconcentration from environmental concentrations and additional uptake via the food chain. Cases of mercury poisoning have been documented in people who eat contaminated fish for prolonged periods, both in the United States and abroad. Pregnant women and subsistence fishermen are particularly vulnerable. Because high levels of mercury have been detected in fish, many U.S. States have issued advisories that restrict fishing.

Reduction in mercury emissions fromU.S.coal-fired powerplants may help minimize or avoid health problems caused by exposure to excess mercury. There are several ways in which this reduction can be accomplished. One option to reduce the quantity of mercury in the atmosphere is to use high-rank coals. Generally, moisture in coal decreases and calorific value (thermal energy) increases as coal rank (degree of maturation) increases. Therefore, powerplants that burn high-rank coal in their boilers require less coal for a given thermal output. Thus, for coals having similar mercury concentrations, the higher rank coals will contribute less mercury to the environment. Additional options include selective mining of coal (avoiding parts of a coal bed that are higher in mercury content), coal washing (to reduce the amount of mercury in the coal delivered to the powerplants), switching from coal to natural gas, and postcombustion removal of mercury from the powerplant stack emissions. Information on the abundance, distribution, and forms of mercury in coal may be helpful in selecting the most efficient and cost-effective options for mercury reduction.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html

50 tons is not insignificant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mercury in U.S. Coal -- Abundance, Distribution, and Modes of Occurrence


INTRODUCTION
In February 1998, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1998a, b) issued a report citing mercury emissions from electric utilities as the largest remaining anthropogenic source of mercury released to the air. EPA officials estimated that about 50 tons of elemental mercury are emitted each year from U.S. coal-burning powerplants, with lesser amounts coming from oil- and gas-burning units. According to EPA estimates, emissions from coal-fired utilities account for 13 to 26 percent of the total (natural plus anthropogenic) airborne emissions of mercury in the United States. On December 14, 2000, the EPA announced that it will require a reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants, with regulations proposed by 2003 and final rules for implementation completed by 2004 (EPA, 2000).


ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MERCURY
The mercury (Hg) directly emitted from powerplants generally is not considered harmful; however, in the natural environment, mercury can go through a series of chemical transformations that convert elemental mercury to a highly toxic form that is concentrated in fish and birds (fig. 1). The most toxic form of mercury is methylmercury, an organic form created by a complex bacterial conversion of inorganic mercury. Methylation rates (creation of methylmercury) in ecosystems are a function of mercury availability, bacterial population, nutrient load, acidity and oxidizing conditions, sediment load, and sedimentation rates (National Research Council, 1978).
Figure 1. Simplified geochemical cycle of mercury (Hg).

Methylmercury enters the food chain, particularly in aquatic organisms, and bioaccumulates. Bioaccumulation is the enrichment of a substance in an organism and includes bioconcentration from environmental concentrations and additional uptake via the food chain. Cases of mercury poisoning have been documented in people who eat contaminated fish for prolonged periods, both in the United States and abroad. Pregnant women and subsistence fishermen are particularly vulnerable. Because high levels of mercury have been detected in fish, many U.S. States have issued advisories that restrict fishing.

Reduction in mercury emissions fromU.S.coal-fired powerplants may help minimize or avoid health problems caused by exposure to excess mercury. There are several ways in which this reduction can be accomplished. One option to reduce the quantity of mercury in the atmosphere is to use high-rank coals. Generally, moisture in coal decreases and calorific value (thermal energy) increases as coal rank (degree of maturation) increases. Therefore, powerplants that burn high-rank coal in their boilers require less coal for a given thermal output. Thus, for coals having similar mercury concentrations, the higher rank coals will contribute less mercury to the environment. Additional options include selective mining of coal (avoiding parts of a coal bed that are higher in mercury content), coal washing (to reduce the amount of mercury in the coal delivered to the powerplants), switching from coal to natural gas, and postcombustion removal of mercury from the powerplant stack emissions. Information on the abundance, distribution, and forms of mercury in coal may be helpful in selecting the most efficient and cost-effective options for mercury reduction.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html

50 tons is not insignificant.

Tell that to China..

 

[OldLady]

About a quarter of the airborne mercury in Oregon originates in China. So you have a very good point, Old Lady.

Ok idiot.. Force China to use known technology to stop this. we've been using it here for 20 years or so.. 98% off all coal fired plants in the US have zero emissions of heavy metals, acids, or particulates.

Slicing our throats because someone else is stupid, Is f'ing stupid!

Great idea, Billy Bob, but how do we "force" China (or any other country) to do our bidding? It's about like insisting foreign countries not build nuclear arsenals. We know how that's working.

 

[Billy_Bob]

About a quarter of the airborne mercury in Oregon originates in China. So you have a very good point, Old Lady.

Ok idiot.. Force China to use known technology to stop this. we've been using it here for 20 years or so.. 98% off all coal fired plants in the US have zero emissions of heavy metals, acids, or particulates.

Slicing our throats because someone else is stupid, Is f'ing stupid!

Great idea, Billy Bob, but how do we "force" China (or any other country) to do our bidding? It's about like insisting foreign countries not build nuclear arsenals. We know how that's working.

We don't shoot ourselves in the foot by killing our economy.. We lead by example.. which we are doing.

 

[DGS49]

50 tons IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES? I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Everyone is going to die (100%), so stating that coal emissions cause X-number of deaths a year is nonsense.

NOTE: The third and developing world will require huge amounts of electricity in the coming decades. They are ENTITLED TO reliable electricity, clean water, good sanitation, and YouTube. NONE of this is possible without burning fossil fuels. You can have your fucking windmills, solar panels, and whatnot, but for HUGE amounts of baseload electricity, they are mere novelties and not a reliable, perpetual source. And people are neurotically opposed to Nuke, so Plan B would appear to be out.

Worldwide, COAL is the cheapest source of BTU's, and we in the United States have enough easily accessible coal to fuel the third world for a hundred years plus.

Given all this - which is not my opinion, but fact - does it not make sense to pursue "clean coal"?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mercury in U.S. Coal -- Abundance, Distribution, and Modes of Occurrence


INTRODUCTION
In February 1998, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1998a, b) issued a report citing mercury emissions from electric utilities as the largest remaining anthropogenic source of mercury released to the air. EPA officials estimated that about 50 tons of elemental mercury are emitted each year from U.S. coal-burning powerplants, with lesser amounts coming from oil- and gas-burning units. According to EPA estimates, emissions from coal-fired utilities account for 13 to 26 percent of the total (natural plus anthropogenic) airborne emissions of mercury in the United States. On December 14, 2000, the EPA announced that it will require a reduction in mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants, with regulations proposed by 2003 and final rules for implementation completed by 2004 (EPA, 2000).


ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF MERCURY
The mercury (Hg) directly emitted from powerplants generally is not considered harmful; however, in the natural environment, mercury can go through a series of chemical transformations that convert elemental mercury to a highly toxic form that is concentrated in fish and birds (fig. 1). The most toxic form of mercury is methylmercury, an organic form created by a complex bacterial conversion of inorganic mercury. Methylation rates (creation of methylmercury) in ecosystems are a function of mercury availability, bacterial population, nutrient load, acidity and oxidizing conditions, sediment load, and sedimentation rates (National Research Council, 1978).
Figure 1. Simplified geochemical cycle of mercury (Hg).

Methylmercury enters the food chain, particularly in aquatic organisms, and bioaccumulates. Bioaccumulation is the enrichment of a substance in an organism and includes bioconcentration from environmental concentrations and additional uptake via the food chain. Cases of mercury poisoning have been documented in people who eat contaminated fish for prolonged periods, both in the United States and abroad. Pregnant women and subsistence fishermen are particularly vulnerable. Because high levels of mercury have been detected in fish, many U.S. States have issued advisories that restrict fishing.

Reduction in mercury emissions fromU.S.coal-fired powerplants may help minimize or avoid health problems caused by exposure to excess mercury. There are several ways in which this reduction can be accomplished. One option to reduce the quantity of mercury in the atmosphere is to use high-rank coals. Generally, moisture in coal decreases and calorific value (thermal energy) increases as coal rank (degree of maturation) increases. Therefore, powerplants that burn high-rank coal in their boilers require less coal for a given thermal output. Thus, for coals having similar mercury concentrations, the higher rank coals will contribute less mercury to the environment. Additional options include selective mining of coal (avoiding parts of a coal bed that are higher in mercury content), coal washing (to reduce the amount of mercury in the coal delivered to the powerplants), switching from coal to natural gas, and postcombustion removal of mercury from the powerplant stack emissions. Information on the abundance, distribution, and forms of mercury in coal may be helpful in selecting the most efficient and cost-effective options for mercury reduction.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/fs095-01.html

50 tons is not insignificant.

TELL ME MORON, do you have any idea what is naturally occurring in our lakes, streams, and rain NATURALLY. The US part of the 50 tons is next to nothing compared to natural sources.

 

[Billy_Bob]

50 tons IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES? I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Everyone is going to die (100%), so stating that coal emissions cause X-number of deaths a year is nonsense.

NOTE: The third and developing world will require huge amounts of electricity in the coming decades. They are ENTITLED TO reliable electricity, clean water, good sanitation, and YouTube. NONE of this is possible without burning fossil fuels. You can have your fucking windmills, solar panels, and whatnot, but for HUGE amounts of baseload electricity, they are mere novelties and not a reliable, perpetual source. And people are neurotically opposed to Nuke, so Plan B would appear to be out.

Worldwide, COAL is the cheapest source of BTU's, and we in the United States have enough easily accessible coal to fuel the third world for a hundred years plus.

Given all this - which is not my opinion, but fact - does it not make sense to pursue "clean coal"?

Its called working smarter and using our technology wisely. Which the US is doing! Now teaching others is quite a different subject.

 

[mamooth]

It's a boondoggle, "clean coal", a way for the coal industry to get government subsidies. Vast amounts of taxpayer money spent on it, and nothing in return.

And most deniers love such socialism.

 

[skookerasbil]

I am involved in a discussion on another forum about the concept of "Clean Coal."

Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that was doing research on ways to reduce the Sulphur content of burned coal emissions, and I was led to believe that they were making great progress. Obviously, there are other pollutants in coal, as well as sulfur.

Coal is scorned by tree huggers because it emits (let's say) twice as much CO2 as other fossil fuels for a given BTU value. Take that as a given.

But if you discount CO2 as a "pollutant," where does coal stack up against natural gas, oil, wood, and other fossil fuels? Can it be "cleaned up" sufficiently so that, compared to its carbon "cousins" it is no more harmful to PEOPLE?

In my quick search on the Internet, all of the articles focused on CO2 emissions and gave short shrift to other pollutants.

It has been said metaphorically that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, so if "clean coal" is a reality or a real possibility (CO2 emissions aside), then we should be pursuing it further, right? Even if we aren't building any more coal-fired plants here, the third world needs the cheapest fuel sources available, and solar & wind & hydro aren't real possibilities for base load generation in those parts of the world.

Is there any such thing as Clean Coal?

coal production around the world is massive ( China opens 2-3 new plants/month ).........and will be for..........ready for this..........DECADES!!! Same with India ( well, at least according to the most recent Obama EIA Report ). But the k00ks in the US are busting their asses to stop coal to save the environment.

Anybody who has ever stopped for a moment to think about this is also a person who now knows its all a hoax.

 

[mamooth]

Coal production around the world is massive ( China opens 2-3 new plants/month ).........and will be for..........ready for this..........DECADES!!! Same with India ( well, at least according to the most recent Obama EIA Report ).

Even the Indians and Chinese are using less coal. Nobody wants that crap.

But the k00ks in the US are busting their asses to stop coal to save the environment.

There are zero new coal plants being built in the USA. Zilch. Zippo. Nada. There will never be another coal plant built in the USA. Nobody wants that crap.

In 2000, coal generated 53% of power here. It was 33% in 2015, and that number is still dropping like a rock. Nobody wants that crap.

The stone age ended, not because the world ran out of stones, but because of technical advances.

Likewise, the coal age has ended, not because the world ran out of coal, but because of technical advances.

 

[initforme]

Coal is on the way out because of itself.

 

[Old Rocks]

50 tons IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES? I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Everyone is going to die (100%), so stating that coal emissions cause X-number of deaths a year is nonsense.

NOTE: The third and developing world will require huge amounts of electricity in the coming decades. They are ENTITLED TO reliable electricity, clean water, good sanitation, and YouTube. NONE of this is possible without burning fossil fuels. You can have your fucking windmills, solar panels, and whatnot, but for HUGE amounts of baseload electricity, they are mere novelties and not a reliable, perpetual source. And people are neurotically opposed to Nuke, so Plan B would appear to be out.

Worldwide, COAL is the cheapest source of BTU's, and we in the United States have enough easily accessible coal to fuel the third world for a hundred years plus.

Given all this - which is not my opinion, but fact - does it not make sense to pursue "clean coal"?

No, coal is not the cheapest electricity. Especially for nations that are still building their rail and road infrastructure. Solar and wind are both cheaper, and with the new grid scale batteries, 24/7. As for how much Solar and Wind can produce;

2. China: 28,330 Megawatts

Workers walk past solar panels and wind turbines at a newly-built power plant in Hami, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China on September 17, 2015.REUTERS/Stringer CHINA OUT
1. Germany: 38,250 Megawatts

Sheep graze between the panels of a solar park in Waghaeusel, 12 miles southeast of Karlsruhe, Germany, on March 21, 2011.Kai Pfaffenbach/REUTERS

These 10 countries are leading the world in solar energy

 

[Old Rocks]

8 Countries that Produce the Most Wind Energy in the World | REVE

2. The United States of America
Cumulative installed wind power capacity: 74,471 megawatts

Percentage share of total wind power capacity of the world: 17.2%

From almost 45,000 megawatts of Germany to the 74,000 megawatts of the US, the latter is a long way ahead from the former. The USA is playing a very important role in the development of the wind power sector and slowly increasing its percentage of wind power generation to the total electricity produced by the nation. In states like Iowa, 31% of power comes from the wind, which is a giant leap from former years.

1. China
Cumulative installed wind power capacity: 145,362 megawatts

Percentage share of total wind power capacity of the world: 33.6%

The People’s Republic of China has impressed everyone by installing more new wind power capacity in 2015 than the whole of the European Union.

In fact, almost half of the entire new capacity of the world was actually installed by China which is why this country has bagged the number one spot on our list of 8 countries that produce the most wind energy in the world.

Insider Trading & Hedge Fund Data, and Investment Newsletter From Insider Monkey

That is a lot of electricity

 

[Old Rocks]

Low Costs of Solar Power & Wind Power Crush Coal, Crush Nuclear, & Beat Natural Gas

Looks like capitalism will bring the swing to solar and wind.