[hinckley buzzard]

This isn't ideology, this is engineering. It would be worthwhile for you and other freepers who don't bother to read the actual article, to learn to recognize the difference.

[FreedomOfExpression]

This isn't ideology, this is engineering.

It's engineering based on an ideology.
From the article: “In the simplest sense, combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat,” Fan said. “Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning."

[neverdem]

This isn't ideology, this is engineering. It would be worthwhile for you and other freepers who don't bother to read the actual article, to learn to recognize the difference.

I read the press release and what I linked in comment# 1. I wrote in comment# 1: "Expensive carbon capture and sequestration technology is needed only if you believe the anthropogenic global warming, AGW, hypothesis."

Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL), might be good for reducing real pollution. I don't see a need for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) unless manmade climate change is proven. I'm still waiting for some evidence.

[Pontiac]

Since the process captures nearly all the carbon dioxide, it exceeds the goals that DOE has set for developing clean energy. New technologies that use fossil fuels should not raise the cost of electricity more than 35 percent, while still capturing more than 90 percent of the resulting carbon dioxide.

Ideology or engineering it doesn’t make a difference once you look at the bottom line.

Our economy can not afford a 35% increase in the price of electricity and still compete on the world market.

The Chinese are working very hard to reduce the cost of the energy in their economy. They have built the largest Hydro-electric dam in the world, they building a fleet of modern nuclear power plants and buy up oil leases world wide. They are aggressively expanding their access to cheap energy. We simply can not afford this kind of navel gazing idealistic non-sense that does nothing useful and raises the cost of everything.

[TXnMA]

OTOH, the article also neglects that pulverizing coal is not energy-neutral, either...

And it says nothing about the thermal energy conversion efficiency of the process...

[AFPhys]

I see that they carefully avoid the subject of comparing the amount of electricity per ton of coal that can be obtained using this process to current technology. They also avoid the topic of what they are going to do with that CO₂ so they can save Gaia from the terrible effects.

To me that smacks of furthering ideology, not engineering prowess.