Posted on 02/17/2007 8:40:00 PM PST by SunkenCiv
Coal contains anywhere from 25 to 90 percent carbon, which combines with oxygen when burned to release energy... [C]arbon in coal can also be used to strip oxygen from water, producing clean-burning hydrogen gas... Gasification itself is nothing new. Cut off from petroleum imports, German engineers in World War II used the process to make synthesis gas, or syngas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide that they converted to diesel fuel. Today, about half a dozen American plants burn syngas to generate electricity. They emit about the same amount of CO2 as conventional plants but make capturing the pollutant much easier. Of the 154 new and proposed coal plants in the U.S., 28 will use gasification... Experts agree that the whole notion of trapping carbon is less a long-term solution and more a good stopgap. "Carbon sequestration you can do for 50 or 100 years," Friedmann says. "You do it until you have other options besides burning coal -- which we kind of don't right now."
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
Arctic oil: Facts versus Fiction (ANWR)
Senator Frank Murkowski | unknown
Posted on 10/17/2002 1:52:13 PM EDT by alaskanfan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/770968/posts
Arnold's New Old Frontier: Big Energy Project Has Big Questions
New West Notes | 4/18/06 | Bill Bradley
Posted on 04/18/2006 11:01:21 AM EDT by NormsRevenge
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1617053/posts
Biowaste to fuels, cars that plug in, lithium-ion batteries that don't explode...
MIT Technology Review | 12/28/2006 | By Kevin Bullis
Posted on 12/29/2006 12:56:09 PM EST by Red Badger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759951/posts
BP to build clean-burning power plant
Anchorage Daily News | February 10, 2006 | PAULA DOBBYN
Posted on 02/10/2006 3:51:58 PM EST by thackney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1576114/posts
Bush Cons Greens Knifes OPEC
The Right Scale | Thursday, January 25, 2007 | Ray Kraft
Posted on 01/25/2007 12:15:05 PM EST by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1773575/posts
‘Clean Coal’ Claims Spark Controversy
www.redherring.com | 12/20/2006 | Jennifer Kho
Posted on 12/28/2006 12:43:44 PM EST by Red Badger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1759455/posts
Clean Diesel from Coal
Technology Review | April 19, 2006 | By Kevin Bullis
Posted on 04/19/2006 8:56:25 AM EDT by aculeus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617581/posts
Duke Energy Indiana wants to build clean-coal plant
Business First | 9/7/06 | Business First of Louisville
Posted on 09/08/2006 9:40:40 AM EDT by thackney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1697751/posts
Energy: Making Coal Green
Yahoo -Forbes | Thursday June 20, 7:28 pm Eastern Time | Peter Huber
Posted on 06/23/2002 3:35:52 PM EDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/704698/posts
'Flashy' New Process Turns Soy Oil, Glucose Into Hydrogen
Science Daily.com | November 6, 2006 | Unsigned
Posted on 11/06/2006 9:35:49 AM EST by aculeus
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1733165/posts
Green coal? Process converts coal into diesel fuel
mongabay | April 14, 2006
Posted on 08/16/2006 7:37:58 PM EDT by dennisw
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1684965/posts
Honda's Green (Diesel) Machine
Business Week | Oct 30, 2006 Issue | David Kiley and Ian Rowley
Posted on 10/23/2006 12:24:45 AM EDT by thackney
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724111/posts
Liquid coal: A cheaper, cleaner 21st century fuel?
yahoo.com | 12/17/2006 | Steve James
Posted on 12/18/2006 12:10:18 PM EST by Red Badger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1755261/posts
Novel invention could mean cheaper source of energy from solar power
Science in Africa | 3/1/06 | Mikey_1962
Posted on 03/01/2006 8:25:16 AM EST by Mikey_1962
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587649/posts
OPEC to cut by 500,000 bpd from Feb 1: delegate (How Inconvenient!)
Rooters | Thu Dec 14, 2006 | Peg Mackey
Posted on 12/14/2006 9:42:28 AM EST by rightinthemiddle
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753369/posts
Project to make diesel fuel from coal
Ethanol marketplace | 08.10.05 | unknown
Posted on 08/16/2005 6:43:13 PM EDT by AdmSmith
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1464659/posts
Rentech in New Coal-to-Liquids Fuels Project in West Virginia
www.greencarcongress.com | 12/09/2006 | Staff
Posted on 12/11/2006 1:51:15 PM EST by Red Badger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1751785/posts
Senators Re-Introduce Coal-to-Liquids Legislation
[url deleted] | 01/05/2007 | Staff
Posted on 01/08/2007 10:33:16 AM EST by Red Badger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1764098/posts
So, this idiot has never heard of nuclear fission?
That being the case, how can he be an "expert"?
I know it may not be fair, but the way the original reads, it implies that Friedman is one of theose "experts". But he is still an idiot.
I work for AEP in their FossilGen division-we're very excited about this new plant. However, this new tech isn't free. Be prepared to pay for it if you're an electricity user.
Rates WILL be getting higher and higher in the years to come. Damn near impossible to site a coal plant these days. That's why gas-fired peaking units are sprouting like mushrooms, REGARDLESS OF THE HIGHER FUEL COSTS! Never ceases to amaze me that liberals think we can produce clean energy at little or no cost to the economy.
Well, it might be greener in the immediate vicinity of your car, but it would produce more CO2 stripping hydrogen from water than it would if you just burned the coal directly.
Basically, you would burn coal to produce the hydrogen, which you would then burn in turn, to revert to water.
The First Law of Thermodynamics says that you can't get more energy out of a process than you put in. And the Second Law of Thermodynamics says you will get less energy out than you put in.
Ergo, more energy will be used, and more CO2 produced, because the two step process will inevitably be less energy efficient.
Thank goodness for the Second Amendment. No reason.
We are all ex-spurts, just ask your Momma, she'll explain it to you. The MSM for some reason has a hard time getting the spelling correct.
LOL!
The liberals who support alternative energy most strongly are limousine liberals who have no idea or don't care what things cost, and health food store types who are used to paying more, way more, for things. Not the folks who have much of a clue about the economics of their energy solutions.
If When it drives prices up, all we have to do is raise the minimun wage, and increase welfare benefits for those who can't afford it.
Maybe add an energy tax, too, which could go to subsidize the power bills of the poor.
I am not at all convinced that the cost of the energy source correlates in any way with the market price of electricity. For example, in the late '70s, coal - on contract, not spot - sold in the low $30s/ton. By the early '90s, that same coal was in the single digits. This is simplified because in the end, coal price is based on BTUs/ton and perhaps a premium for minimal trace elements or ash fusion temperature. Anyway, I don't recall any drop in electricity prices over that period, in fact, just the opposite.
The economy does not matter, it is the enviroment that matters above all else. /s
Yep...no one ever talks about how much CO2 it takes to take the natural gas out of the ground during CO2 gelled fracturing of the reservoir. No one talks about the amount of CO2 created during the gas clean-up in a sweetening plant. No talks about the amount of CO2 created during the IGCC process that they are talking about here. The amount of CO2 created is going to match the amount of H2S in the waste flue gas...so around 25 to 30% CO2.
Syngas generates around 30,000 ppm CO2.
I see no problem burning lot and lots of coal. The real problem is not CO2 but smog and suffer output.
What the have come up with is a way to make it easy to have a plant with no real smoke stack.
Yes there is a cost but it does solve one problem air borne emissions. They will have to look closely at what all that CO2 will to the ground water too.
Global warming may or may not be something to worry about but smog in the cities is. If any number of electric cars are ever going to be used the need for power plants that are mostly clean will have to be met.
Right now we can't build any thing except peaker plants which run on natural gas which should be used as a car fuel not for electric power.
We could in ten years make every city in the country almost smog free buy using a little of all the options we have now.
1) For short trip use an electric car will be fine. The batteries will need to be made for recycling from the start. For a second car with less than 30 miles to and from work this would be fine for lots of people.
2) All heavy trucks that drive mainly in town need to be natural gas. It burns 80% cleaner than gasoline.
3) Hybrids should be electric cars with a super efficient generator to extend the range.
4) True lean burn engines are out there. I see no reason a full sized car can get 40 mpg city. The fed mandated catalytic converter must go. Right now if you lean out your engine then there is not enough un-burnt fuel to light up the converter so they have to add more fuel to the mix just to make it work. If you lean out your car you are breaking federal law!
A link to some lean burn ideas.
http://fuelvapors.com/best/main_pages/10_examples.htm
Water injection will reduce emissions by 20% to 30% or more and allow for even leaner mixtures.
I'm not green in any way but what we have been doing the last 15 years or so is not cutting in Phoenix any how. Vally of the smog.
"it would produce more CO2 stripping hydrogen from water than it would if you just burned the coal directly."
I believe what he said was that the carbon that is produced is easier to trap, not that there was less produced. Not certain what the technical reasons for that are.
Well, the article talks about pumping the CO2 underground, where it would be held. That's even crazier, since plants require CO2 for photosynthesis. Take it out of circulation artificially, and you are playing with the whole Oxygen/Carbon Dioxide interchange between the earth's plants and animals. That's insane.
It would work better with some plants than others, but the amount of greenhouse needed would be enormous. This would be better:
The Prophet of Garbage
[url deleted] | March 2007 issue | Michael Behar
Posted on 02/16/2007 8:07:13 AM EST by Red Badger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1785861/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
