Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions 107
sbszine writes "Australian newspaper The Age has an interesting story on squeezing coal before burning it in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The process, discovered by Victorian scientists, is expected to make brown coal (lignite) burn 30% cleaner. Good news, as Australia is the world's number one exporter of coal."
bring on the science!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:bring on the science!! (Score:1)
Re:bring on the science!! (Score:2)
Re:bring on the science!! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm saying we need to hire Superman. Sheesh, pay attention everybody!
Victorian scientists... my goodness (Score:5, Funny)
I know Slashdot posts the occasional late story, but this is over 100 years old... that must be a record.
Re:Victorian scientists... my goodness (Score:1, Funny)
Took that long to get posted, with all the damn 503's
Re:Victorian scientists... my goodness (Score:1)
from the new-age-of-mankind dept.
ug writes "The Stone Age Times is reporting [afunk.com] that the Aegeans have discovered a new malleable metal substance they're calling "Bronze.".'
Huh-huh-huh, You said "Squeeze" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Huh-huh-huh, You said "Squeeze" (Score:1)
It makes perfect sense... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It makes perfect sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at the energy balance (Score:3, Interesting)
This doesn't reduce the carbon emissions per unit of carbon, but it does increase the recoverable energy per unit of car
Re:Look at the energy balance (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Look at the energy balance (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to be a lab monkey at a coal-fired power plant in Baltimore.
They pulverized the coal before feeding the furnace, both for ease of handling and for more complete combustion. We used to run tests on the lubrication of the pulverizer units. You think the oil in your '88 Olds gets dirty? Try using it to lubiricate a coal pulverizer.
Keep looking (Score:4, Insightful)
Why you don't want to heat the coal: The goal of the exercise is to not waste the energy required to evaporate the moisture. If pressing removes water with less energy expenditure than heating, that's a more efficient way to do it. (If the coal can be dried with the heat from nearly-spent steam, maybe that's better - but it would take lab work to tell which method is superior, and plenty of engineering to make a machine which can uniformly heat a fine powder and then transfer it to the boiler.)
Re:It makes perfect sense... (Score:1)
Re:It makes perfect sense... (Score:1)
dork
make some real contributions to science before ditching the work of others.
Re:It makes perfect sense... (Score:2)
How many brilliant people
Well, let the research continue.
But here in the USA, we have an election year and populist politicians in the mix.
There are a bunch of voting coal miners on the one hand.
There are a whole lot of semi-intelligent SUV-driving people that are wondering why the hell America has to get most of its oil from Saudi Arabia, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, where the ruling government is not democratically elected but if it were it would like more like Afghanistan did 4 years ago in
Question (Score:2, Interesting)
And if you don't believe in mad made climate change, why bother? It's going to be less efficient, and therefore will create even more nasty emissions other than CO2, which isn't the only pollutant released by coal burning.
(No, I haven't RTFA, as it requires registration.)
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how much it would cost to migrate off of fossil fuels. Last year we spend $8.5e9 on the Iraq war, during a relatively slack economy with a huge deficit, and barely batted an eye
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately I know of nothing with the energy density of fossil fue
Re:Question (Score:1)
Personally, I believe ALL of us have underestimated what the War on Terror really is. It has been largely cast as US vs Al Quaeda, et al. But IMHO it's really the concept of Western Civilization vs Tribalism. Unfortunately our side is badly divided. I'd really hate to see the centuries-long mess if Tribalism (especially as currently implemented) were to actually win.
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. Lots of us have known this for years [google.com].
Of course, the jihadists probably wouldn't be jihading if we weren't so dependent on fossil fuels. We wouldn't be impinging on their turf, and they wouldn't have the cash to buy weapons.Jihad vs McWorld (Score:1)
Makes me wish we really had space travel. There's been the obvious 'eggs out of just one environmental basket' in science fiction, but there have also been a fair amount of 'eggs out of Earth's political basket' stories, too. Really a good solution, assuming the right level of difficulty for the technology. Jihad develops no technology, but rather pigg
McWorld (Score:1)
McWorld is well-phrased. I hadn't put my arguments into those words, though I had been thinking that currently the US isn't doing too good a job of being the Champion of Civilizaton. For that matter, the rest of Western Civilization is acting rather badly with regards to excessive economic control, too.
The irony of it all... The folks that wave the flag, trumpet freedom, and thump their Bibles, by their words and actions, appear to stand for restriction of personal rig
Re:Question (Score:1)
Re:Question (Score:1)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Energy density of fossil fuels (Score:2)
Looking at energy density is somewhat misleading, because the conversion efficiency of these fuels into work is typically less than 40%, often less than 20% (I've read that personal vehicles average a lousy 17%). If an alternate energy source has a higher conversion efficiency, it could store more useful energy in a
Re:Energy density of fossil fuels (Score:2, Insightful)
(UPDATE) Energy density of coal (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
First, you don't need to believe in man made climate change to consider less pollution "good". Also, I agree that we should be moving to non-polluting (or as nearly as possible) energy sources, but that isn't going to happen until clean energy sources are reasonably cost competitive on a scale that allows similar capacity. So realistically the two options are: keep burning coal the old way until alternatives are adopted; or burn significantly cleaner until alternatives are adopted.
Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I agree that we should be moving to non-polluting (or as nearly as possible) energy sources, but that isn't going to happen until clean energy sources are reasonably cost competitive on a scale that allows similar capacity.
And clean energy sources aren't going to be cost competitive until dirty energy sources include all the costs of their product into the price of the product. As it is now, they export those costs onto the public at large making them seem cheaper than they actually are. [a-p-e-x.org] Atmosphe
Re:Question (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:2)
nuclear was ready decades ago, we just weren't ready to accept it. Funny how irrationaly hysteria starts to diminish as cost becomes a factor, no?
Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is ti so hard to make artificial plants, and not the plastic kind?
A plant consumes CO2, produces O2 and converts sunlight to energy. Why can't we do all that, but change the chemical to eletrical energy?
That way the moer enery we make, the more we clean out the greenhouse gasses. And I'm sure we could scale it down to household size and let the general public both supplement their power usage and help clean the atmosphere at the same time.
Seems like a win-win to me.
My question.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My question.... (Score:2)
stop-gap (Score:1, Redundant)
This isn't an argument for "nuclear forever". But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacit
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Actually, as well, since it would be "produced", hydrogen isn't really a source of "power" it's actually more of a distribution system and in light of that, I'm not exactly sure I can trust your appraisal of the state of integrity and safety within the entire global nuclear power industry
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
re: hydrogen: nitpicking. The point is, That Set Of Entities Colloquially Named As Alternative Energy Sources.
re: "entire global nuclear power industry"
not what i meant.
not saying all existing plants are safe;
saying that the technology exists to build new plants
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Hydrogen Fuel for Surface Transportation
http://www.altfuels.com/hfst.php [altfuels.com]
From where I am , it clearly seems that you possess only a layperson's understanding of these issues, which, logically led to my second point.
However, with a little effort on your part, I'm sure you'll be able to hold up your end of this discussion. At that time, if you're still o
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
I don't understand why you're doggedly obssessing on my having used the word "hydrogen".
My OP clearly said, "(***E.G.*** solar, hydrogen, nuclear)".
And then I explained in a follow-up that I was generically referring to "Alternative Energy Sources".
"it clearly seems that you possess only a layperson's understanding of these issues."
I never claimed, nor meant to create an impression, otherwise.
OTOH, one needn't necessarily be incapable of en
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
It was objectionable only in respect to the hyper-focus on the reference to hydrogen as energy source versus distribution system.
Thanks for the link. I read (skimmed) it, but found no place where they make the link between human/software failures and the *kind* of risks exposed, in the context of passive designs.
Certainly, no one would say that even a "perfect" passive design would mean that there are no residual risks of any kind: if a plant fails but safely "fizzle
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.
I do agree designs are better. Are they perfect? Hardly. Every engineer will tell you there's no such thing as a perfe
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
By the way, just to be clear. After much study and thought I have found that there is no perfectly safe, or even acceptably safe method of building nuclear power plants on earth.
There is no completely safe way of doing anything. Do you consider coal power (cf. 1,000,000 deaths per year) acceptably safe? How about personal transportation? How about DIY?
Once you've read through as many studies on operator error in control rooms as I have, then we can talk.
How many people have actually died as a resu
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Untrue rhethoric.
Do you consider coal power (cf. 1,000,000 deaths per year) acceptably safe?
No, but the problem isn't coal per se, from what I can see, it is the greed and irresponsibility of the power planet owners that cause these deaths.
"How many people have actually died as a result?"
Way to many. Of couse, since it doesn't seem to affect you personally, you continue merrily on in denial.
If major industrial concerns carried their own weight a
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Untrue rhethoric
Do you mean there is a zero risk way of doing ANYTHING? Seriously, life involves risks, and therefore every activity involves a risk vs. utility judgement and calculation. Otherwise you'd have to oppose everything.
No, but the problem isn't coal per se, from what I can see, it is the greed and irresponsibility of the power planet owners that cause these deaths.
Coal dosen't have to account for it's externalities. Nuclear does, pretty much uniquely amongst all energy sources considered.
Re:stop-gap (Score:1)
Most of the early cost's where R&D much of which went to making bomb's. Now as to the gov giving 2billion a year to the nuclear power that's not realy that out of bounds either look what we have given the airlines. But, in anycase as money was spend on R&D USING that money would make more sence than saying well this is working teck but it cost alot of money to
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Let me rephrase this. There was never any real need for any subsidies. These companies spent public funds while generating massive private wealth for a privileged few.
Funny how people get upset when someone steals their bike / car / wallet etc. but they seem ok when others steal thier lives, savings and freedoms.
Well, enjoy yourself. You seem quite good at it.
This is long but you might find it interesting. (Score:1)
Umm, first off are you talking about an article other than Squeezing Coal To Reduce Emissions? cuz unless i missed something it's not talking about nukes at all.
And 2nd I am sorry but I know money changes hands all the time honestly everybody's hand is in the government pot. It's realy the basic inificency of representive government. But, for those who wish to trade there "vote" for money fine with me I have other isues I want addressed. So I will vote for your powerplant if you wi
Re:This is long but you might find it interesting. (Score:2)
Re:This is long but you might find it interesting. (Score:1)
While it's a little hard to respond to someone who point's to a book and say's "this is what I think" I am going to try and come up with one. While "young" I have been exposed to a wide variety of eastern and western belief systems. I have yet to form a consistent set of beliefs nor have I adapted any belief system. Yet like most people who think about such things I have tried to move beyond "
Re:stop-gap (Score:3, Interesting)
The only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost.
But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacity to COMPLETELY eliminate our dependence on petro sources which are actually or potentially volatile or unreliable -- e.g., the Middle East...
I doubt it would help much, because we don't use a lot of oil (relatively speaking) for electic generation. Coal is the big player there. Most of our oil consumption is for
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
which makes it not ready.
QED.
And this was part of my point, i.e. re-invest the savings (from leaving the Middle East) into making other alternatives ready for wide-spread use.
"our oil consumption is for transportation -- something for which both nuclear and solar are poorly suited."
nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS (versus technology).
It's fine for mass-transit and for hybrid cars.
"I thought the bi
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
The barrier to widespread use of nuclear is that it is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar.
nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS
And infrastructure. Electricity is fine for trains and trolleys, but another major component of mass transit (especially if you're talking about replacing a significant portion of private vehicles) is an extensive bus system. What kind of hy
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
I think you already realize that these are two different senses of "ready".
I'm talking about "ready", technologically and financially, i.e. no MATERIAL barriers.
You're speaking of attitudinal/policy issues, which is EXACTLY the point of my OP:
that we must change our attitudes and be open and willing to re-evaluate the state of nuclear power, at least as an interim measure.
re: hybrid, you're ri
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Absolutely. And given the fact that cost per KW of solar power has declined steadily for many years, while popular acceptability of nuclear power hasn't seemed to change much indicates to me that solar is probably more ready than nuclear.
Nuc-gen'd electric could be used to power cars TODAY.
Very true. And we don't need to change the way we generate electricity to make that happen. In fact, there are thousands of electric vehicle
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
I'm not sure that it need be.
How long does it take to build a new nuc plant?
Let's say 5 years. Then we could legislate today, that we start building enough plants to replace all the energy from Middle East petro, and that, starting 5 years from now, there will be an extra tax on every NEW petro car sold in the USA, for every maker who hasn't sold its "fair share" of the number of electric cars needed to remove the need for that amount of Middle East petro.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
I'd say that is extremely optimistic. In fact, I could easily conceive a number of realistic scenarios in which you'd be lucky to break ground in 5 years. You'd be better off subsidizing something like this [changingworldtech.com] (crude oil from industrial waste). I'm not sure what kind of cost per barrel they're getting, as it is primarily being marketed as waste disposal rather than energy production. Combine legislation favorable to that technology with ser
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
I was just saying, "schedule the Detroit change to be phased-in at 'x' years, where 'x' = the time to build a plant."
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Anyway, that's a digression. Westinghouse is trying to get a 1000MW reactor design based on an already-approved 600MW design through the US NRC. That's the only way to get the costs down to 4.5 cents per KWh, which is where it starts to get competitive for a one-off
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Well, that would have to change, of course. I think the key would be to allow the populace to present a consensus of their *needs*, but for the Western financiers to directly hire the contractors to fulfill the needs, eliminating the corrupt middle-men.
It might be ne
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Nitpick - Hybrid cars do not use grid power, all their electric needs are filled by onboard generators driven by the gas engine (or by regenerative braking).
Pure electric vehicles would be a good recipient of that nuclear power, however.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
agreed.
see latest post.
Not up on your history, are you? (Score:2)
That's flat-out wrong. Osama bin Laden takes years to research, design and carry out attacks; his first attack on the WTC was in 1993. US troops only entered Saudi Arabia in 1990-91 to remove Saddam from Kuwait; ObL would have had to start his apparatus before Iraq invaded to have met his timetable.
I recall seeing statements by ObL stating that the U
Re:Not up on your history, are you? (Score:2)
I suggest you google this.
Virtually every commentator/analyst I've seen/heard/read, says that OBL's biggest beef is our presence on "holy" soil in Saudi.
"doesn't like" is very different from "wants to attack on their home soil".
Americans "don't like" the practice of forced female circumcision, but we'd never go to war to prevent it.
Do you really believe that 9/11 would have happened if we'd COMPLETELY left the region IMMEDIATELY after GW#1, and had NO troops in the reg
Re:Not up on your history, are you? (Score:1)
Re: "Hubris" (Score:2)
"Hubris"?
I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'm not sure to whom you're referring.
Regardless, I personally find it useful, whether done by myself or others.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Most definitely. Electricity generated from any source could. The issue is that vehicles using advanced batteries or fuel cells are not available and probably won't be for several years. Thus the point that neither nuclear nor solar are well suited to replace oil as our primary energy source for transportation.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
This surprises me. I thought that battery cars are available (or at least feasible) today.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Cost of solar (Score:2)
The initial estimate for a system that worked was about ten Iraqs. At the end of that, you'd not only have grid solar power for less than current prices but also a working space industry.
On one hand, prices have gone up, on the other, technology has improved. On the gripping hand, if Michael Laine has his way [liftport.com], that cost will plummet in the next decade or two.
Re:stop-gap. REDUNDANT?! (Score:2)
check your time-stamps before modding, jerk.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
That is what it will take to get us on nuclear- cheap, reliable, but most importantly MOBILE sources of energy.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
I was thinking of batteries charged by nuc-gen'd electric coming over conventional power-lines.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
Re: nuclear batteries (Score:2)
YIKES! That's what I call getting up-close-and-personal with nuclear.
Personally, I'd NEVER feel safe about all that radioactive stuff being carried around in cars.
And there isn't enough lead on the planet to get the public to accept it.
I much prefer my nuc
Re: nuclear batteries (Score:2)
The
Re: nuclear batteries (Score:2)
Yes, but my house doesn't go rolling around the highways and exposing itself to collisions.
And don't the nuc batts carry a lot more of the stuff?
Re: nuclear batteries (Score:2)
However it's the same principle- you simply engineer the shielding to the situation. Like I said- lead is a great collision force absorbtion material.
And don't the nuc batts carry a lot more of the stuff?
Depends on the engineering, how much power you want, etc. But we're talking FAR less than critical mass- and not even enough to cause radiation burns with limited exposure. You could easily work with the elem
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
One example is given here. [atomicinsights.com] Output was 75W (30A @2.5V), for a 25kg unit.
So that would only really work if you had a battery electric car - the car would auto-charge whilst stationary. Probably not really an option, for obvious reasons (public paranoia, accident safety).
It is slightly surprising that we don't already use electric cars for short journeys; the only reason they cost more is lack of mass production, and they are cheaper to run. Only problem is the ~100 mile range.
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
The second bit- using electric vehicles for short journeys- surprises me too- after all, an electric scooter only costs $100-$250, depending on model, and is great for urban driving (in fact, it's better than a car- d
Re:stop-gap (Score:2)
True, the isotope of plutonium is relatively safe compared with the weapons grade P236, but surface temperature of the fuel rod is 500 degrees C- which means basically factory assembly and total sealing/shielding would be REQUIRED for a civilian version. This would raise problems for the "cold" side of the thermocouple- which would have to be external.
Re:they DO hate liberty and democracy (Score:2)
I don't dispute that.
(In fact it reminds me of the Japanese overlord of the galley-slaves in "Eric The Viking", who says, "You incomprehensible, horizontal-eyed, Western trouser-wearers! Eurgh! You all look the same to me! How I despise your lack of subtlety and your joined-up writing!")
BUT I do dispute that they would be exporting terrorism purely for those reasons.
Also, you fail to distinguish "they" from "Islam". "They" (the rabid variety) are a minority.
"requires t
FYI: Reg free links (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/03/1091
Burning coal into the future
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/04/1091
Re:FYI: Reg free links (Score:2)