Energy Secretary Chu Endorses "Clean Coal" 464
DesScorp writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Energy Secretary Steven Chu is endorsing 'clean coal' technology and research, and is taking a pragmatic approach to coal as an energy supply. '"It absolutely is worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage because we are not in a vacuum," Mr. Chu told reporters Tuesday following an appearance at an Energy Information Administration conference. "Even if the United States or Europe turns its back on coal, India and China will not," he said. Mr. Chu added that "quite frankly I doubt if the United States will turn its back on coal. We are generating over 50% of our electrical energy from coal."' The United States has the world's largest reserves of coal. Secretary Chu has reversed his positions on coal and nuclear power, previously opposing them, and once calling coal 'My worst nightmare.'"
The cleaner the coal... (Score:5, Interesting)
The dirtier the fly ash.
What is so bad about "clean" coal? (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand that there is no such thing as truly clean coal, but what is so bad about trying to produce cleaner coal for electricity generation?
Yes I do support nuclear, but we are pretty efficient at digging up and combusting coal. Why not work harder to scrub it better and deliver more electricity for the plug in hybrids?
Global warming (Score:5, Interesting)
In one formula, CO2. Coal is the fuel that produces more CO2 per joule than any other energy source.
Re:This is what happens when... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ideology is all well and good... but the whole concept of a "progressive" president having an energy secretary that claims to oppose nuclear power as well as coal, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
Renewable energy is all well and good, but the fact is that at the moment, it's not going to provide us with all the energy that we need. So while we should be adapting our infrastructure to support more renewable resources (solar, I am looking at you), we cannot afford to forget that it is nuclear power that promises us the quickest (and cleanest) way to combat our oil dependency. Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, burning any petroleum-derived products for electricity generation borders on the criminal, because while we have plenty of other ways to spin the turbines when the oil runs out, we're going to be deeply screwed when it comes to producing something we've come to take for granted in the modern age - plastics.
Re:What is so bad about "clean" coal? (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the problems is mining of coal. That isn't as clean or safe as it could (or should) be. The mass strip mine operations have given way to mountaintop removal which gets really ugly if the mining company can't (or won't) control runoff from the site. That's a very good way for people's water supply to turn orange if they use local wellwater for anything.
The other problem is the amount of energy it takes to store up CO2 somewhere. Realistically speaking we're going to need lots of dense (preferably mineral) carbon in the future for when carbon nanotubes (and similar carbon nanomaterials) take off, and burning coal sort of makes it harder to utilize all the raw carbon locked inside. Anthracite can be up to 98% pure carbon. Converting all that into CO2 + energy and then attempting to produce nanotubes from all that CO2 is sort of backwards. Better just to harvest all the raw carbon and throw the rest away.
Understandably that is a different application than energy production but coal will be one of the most attractive sources of carbon for nanotubes in my opinion (up there with graphite).
Re:Global warming (Score:4, Interesting)
In one formula, CO2. Coal is the fuel that produces more CO2 per joule than any other energy source.
I guess you missed the part where he said we need to invest in carbon capture and pointed out that even if we abandon coal (not likely but let's assume so for the sake of the argument) that the Chinese and Indians won't? Seems to me that if we can make carbon capture work we can sell it to them and get some exports going once again. What's not to like?
Re:"Clean Coal" (Score:3, Interesting)
Clean coal is clearly an oxymoron - There's no such thing as clean coal.
Just like there's no such thing as clean nuclear (gotta do something with that waste), clean wind (service roads are a bitch and transporting energy requires infrastructure), clean sun (break-even on solar panels just sucks, but ovens and water-heaters are OK), etc...
We've got tons of coal that's (relatively) easy to mine and (if not clean) not nearly as bad as it used to be and its environmental impact isn't all that much worse than a lot of the "green" sources. It's not as nice as nuclear (assuming you're not scared of the waste) or wind (if you happen to have a consistently windy back yard), but it's cheap, plentiful, and efficient. If you have that big a problem with it, find a better solution and then do the leg-work getting it approved, funded, and implemented. I'll applaud you when you're done.
Re:What is so bad about "clean" coal? (Score:1, Interesting)
Check out images of mountain top removal mining in Kentucky. Very efficient at the removal of coal from the earth. Very destructive too.
I'm not "anti-coal" per se, but just for reference here's a link to "United Mountain Defense" [unitedmoun...efense.org], a Tennesse anti-mountain-top-removal-mining organization.
It wasn't just the enviros on this one.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I generally agree that environmentalists have screwed the planet pretty good on nuclear power, but I think charging them with the crime of driving some steelworks out of business might be a bit off.
I think the deal is really more that steelworks that could make really thick plates just aren't used that much anymore, and I'd bet principally because the world's warships don't use thick steel plates. While, granted, I would feel a lot safer behind a very thick armor belt as found in an Iowa class battleship, than in a different ship, current naval protection doctrine eschews passive protection in favor of active protection. Instead of armouring ships, you build loads of anti-missile system, electronic warfare, and you also try to avoid detection.
But once Navy's made that switch, they didn't need the uber thick plates, and really, they were the only really big customers. Other people that use armor of some kind, such as tanks, tend to layer it up with different things - like composites.
Without the military driving the creation of foot thick plates, who really needs to do it? I really do try and think, just why I would a foot thick steel plate...
Re:Global warming (Score:5, Interesting)
Energy breakeven on photovoltaic is apples/oranges (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like there's no such thing as ... clean sun (break-even on solar panels just sucks,...
Photovoltaic cells actually reach energy breakeven (more energy out than it took to build them) after only a couple years (depending on technology). Claims that it took more than the life of the panel proved bogus.
But that's not the point.
The purpose of the panels (and their supporting systems of mounts, batteries, inverters, ..) is to deliver high-quality electric energy to a location. As such the proper comparison is between the costs (energy and otherwise) to do this with the panels versus the alternatives. The main alternatives are grid power and (worse) local fuel-driven generators.
So you don't compare the energy cost of building a panel installation capable of powering your load to what it puts out. You compare it to the energy cost of supplying grid power. Melting and forming metal and other materials for power lines, insulators, wires, support guys and guy anchors, transformers, power meters, enclosure boxes, main breakers, - for the run to the load and the load's share of the generation and common transmission infrastructure. Cutting and chemically treating trees to make poles. Clearing land (and dedicating it to the power line in perpetuity). Shipping the materials, equipment, and workers to (and from) the site. Drilling the holes and setting the poles. And so on.
Then once it's installed, you also have to count the energy cost in raw fuel BTU (or whatever) to MAKE the delivered energy - a cost the panels don't have. For instance: burning fuel to make heat, running it through a heat engine to make horsepower, running that through a generator to make electricity, running that through the generator and transformer coils and transmission lines, etc. You lose in the heat engine, the mechanical friction, electrical resistance in all that copper, hysteresis in the generator and transformer cores, excitation power for the generators, minor loads in the control logic, etc.
So the grid takes FAR more energy input than it delivers. Do you hear anybody claim it should therefore be shut down because it's not some more than 100% efficient perpetual motion machine? Of COURSE not! So why do you hear (and repeat) the "less than breakeven" claim about photovoltaic cells and use it (even if it WERE true, which it isn't) as an argument not to use them?
If someone were fool enough to try to MAKE photovoltaic panels using ONLY the electric output of other photovoltaic panels for ALL the energy of their construction (even getting the raw heat from resitive heaters and eschewing even thermal solar panels), the energy breakeven question might have some merit. (But even in that absurd scenario the panels would more than pay off their own energy cost.)
= = = =
Photovoltaic panels have limited deployment because they're still MORE EXPENSIVE than grid power in many situations - including powering houses in cities and suburbs. But about a 5:1 improvement would bring it to sunny suburbs as well.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't they use it for concrete. (Score:3, Interesting)
A bunch of people are dying in the USA right now because of some Chinese drywall imported from 2001-2008 [chinesedry...center.com], because a bunch of the gypsum was replaced with fly ash. Humid conditions cause it to break down prematurely and release its sulfur dioxide.
Re:"Clean Coal" (Score:1, Interesting)
"The reason why we can't do this separation is because we don't want to encourage rogue nations like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons."
And they are developing their own uranium refining capacity anyway, making the restriction moot.
The most sensible strategy would be to "deep-burn [nextbigfuture.com]" nuclear fuel in a power plant (perhaps using a series of different reactor designs). This extends the fuel supply by at least a factor of 20, reduces the volume of waste by a lot, and eliminated the long term radioactivity of the waste entirely.
Re:Peak Oil (Score:5, Interesting)
In or out of context, message is the same.
And, I am thoroughly against the idiotic "Cap and Trade" gimmick. It is a farce, in the extreme.
Oh, and for the record, in response to your "...conservative tool..." rant:
I support neither of the two major parties.
They are both are **only** interested in getting and staying in and expanding their power.
They **are not** interested in doing what would benefit the country and citizenry as a whole. They could really care less as they drive the country into the ground with massive amounts of debt, which will result in hyper-inflation and tax burdens that make the current taxes look like change you carry around in your pockets.
Re:Peak Oil (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course the whole shell game with so called "carbon credits" is the same as saying "It's OK if I pee in your pool because I filtered the water in your toilet tank." That is what this foolishness is about, an illusion.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it hard to believe that a capital intensive project like a nuclear power plant would have been economically viable in the 70s but isn't now. Of course this is assuming nuclear plants in the 70s were economically viable, and weren't subsidized.
To be economically viable basically means cheaper than base load coal, since both stations produce inflexible base load supply. Short run marginal cost is a far larger component in long run marginal costs for coal plants than nuclear plants.
So in a world of falling technology costs and increasing commodity prices, nuclear is going to become relatively cheaper.
Re:Peak Oil (Score:3, Interesting)
As are all Libertarians. They believe that all costs should be externalized. Dump toxic waste into public waterways. If someone doesn't like it, then they should have bought the waterway. If it somehow leaks onto private property, that shouldn't be illegal, but if the person who is harmed wants to stop it, it will take suing them because everything will be legal. After all, we wouldn't want the government to get in the way of private enterprise. Libertarians want a repeal of just about all environmental regulations, and the environment will be protected because you sue your neighbor if he harms you. That plan even sucks for the ideal case.
If carbon is listed as a pollutant, then making a coal plant that doesn't pollute will cost more than other available power sources. The plants are dumping tons of carbon into the atmosphere that's polluting the planet (if carbon is a pollutant). And of course, the Libertarian nuts say "they should be able to pollute all they want to, that's freedom." Oh, and the toll sidewalks. That's my favorite thing they want, toll sidewalks.
Re:"Clean Coal" (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, is that [nytimes.com] really true [nytimes.com]?
Coal mining is a major environmental catastrophe, always has been, always will be. Blowing the tops off mountains to get at it, and parking the burn waste right on the edge of rivers, it's hard for it not to be.
Now, if Mr. Chu can turn around those practices, I'll applaud him. But nothing I've heard so far leads me to believe they'll address things beyond cap-and-trade.