Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Science

Can Coal Be Green? 137

Posted by michael from the not-really dept.
wap writes "A coal-industry sponsored group, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices thinks coal is green, and has been running television ads to make its point. The ad shows an eagle unable to fly because of smog, and then talks about how much cleaner coal is now and will be in the future, with a sub-title saying that this is because of EPA regulation. Coal burning is much cleaner now than it was due to new scrubbing technologies, but it still emits just as much carbon dioxide as ever. Carbon emissions can be reduced by increased efficiency through gasification, but the only way to stop coal from emitting carbon dioxide is carbon sequestration. Everyone agrees that sequestration is expensive, but not everyone agrees that it's even effective in the long term. Should we instead follow the suggestion of James Lovelock and go nuclear as has been discussed here before?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Can Coal Be Green? More

Can Coal Be Green?

Comments Filter:

  • Sorry (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:45PM (#10445992) Journal

    This is an astroturfing [disinfopedia.org]-free zone, people. Move along, nothing to see here...

  • hmm. (Score:1)

    by thhamm ( 764787 )
    missed it:

    from the not-really dept.

    figures.

  • what about... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jeif1k ( 809151 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @06:55PM (#10446073)
    simply using less energy? Becoming a lot more energy efficient results in no decrease in the quality of life (actually, it improves quality of life), can be done using proven technologies, and creates jobs.

    In different words: the answer is that we should neither build more nuclear plants nor more coal power plants because neither is necessary.
    • I love it... Creates jobs, no decrease in the quality of life, proven technologies... That I would like to see. If it creates jobs, that implies that the costs are higher (to pay for all of those new workers right - they aren't free) therefor lowering my quality of life (energy costs go up, free cash flow goes down - I know, money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure can rent it)

      That said, as the population increases, you will have to increase efficiency at least as quickly as the population grows, just to

      • The problem is that given where most of the excess energy comes from (coal, natural gas) it actually is more efficient in a net-energy sense to build a powerplant within a few miles of the coal mine/gas gathering system, and ship the electricity via transmission lines than it is to truck the coal or LNG to a powerplant all the way Southern California.

        You're probably thinking that natural gas, at least, can be piped there with little transmission losses, and no trucks involved. Well, perhaps. But even if yo
        • When we 'run out' of natural gas, it'll be because we're *really* out.
          Until we figure out how to extarct methane hydrates.
        • Nope, solar, wind, and hydroelectric power is definitely the way to go if you're thinking long term.
          does this include the long term where energy usage and population continue to increase?
          • does this include the long term where energy usage and population continue to increase?

            No. If humans can't figure out their current rate of growth is unsustainable, then there isn't much hope for us, is there? We'll run out of space, we'll run out of food, we'll run out of power, we'll run out of fresh water, we'll run out of oxygen. Besides, all developed nations that I know of are either very close to, or have fallen below the rate of self-sustaining childbirth. They are all growing only because of immi

            • Re:what about... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by jerde ( 23294 )
              There's only so much easily obtainable uranium before we start to run into the same problems as fossil fuels

              Well, not really. According to this FAQ [stanford.edu] on nuclear energy, with efficient reprocessing of nuclear fuel the Earth's uranium supplies will last upwards of a billion years. That's a million times longer than the longest estimates for how long our fossil fuel supply will last us.

              And excluding nuclear weapons, nuclear power has caused very few deaths compared to the coal industry from mining alone, neve
      • If it creates jobs, that implies that the costs are higher

        Generating energy has high non-wage costs associated with it, while energy conservation does not. That's how energy conservation can create jobs and still save money.

        So yes, new sources of energy will have to be created

        I don't see why. We should instead adapt our energy usage to what we can generate sustainably and without too much risk.

      • Actually [plus.com], you can easily reduce the amount of energy your house uses by about 2/3, largely by not being a total frickin' bonehead and also taking advantage of some newish technology like programmable thermostats and compact flourescents.

        Compared to that, transmission losses are nothing. I mean it.

        As per your population increasing, that's a bunch of bull too. Energy consumption is increasing by about 3% per year in the US. That might not sound like a lot, but you're not able to build new power plants fast
        • Compact fluorescents are a placebo, at least at my latitude (40N). My energy use due to lighting is small. #1 (by far) energy use is HVAC, #2 is the fridge. And I don't care to shiver in the dark or swelter in the heat, nor give up refrigerated foods.

          A programmable thermostat helps, but in the summer, not as much as you might think due to some nonlinear effects (that is, allowing the temperature to rise 20 degrees and then cooling it by 20 degrees may use as much energy than holding it at the lower temp

    • Ok, and what of the energy we do need? Shall that come from coal anyway?

      The point is, that we do need energy, and it has to come from somwhere. However much energy this is, we could always choose to either use coal or nuclear, so which do you want. Whether we're choosing to use it for one Watt or one million Watts doesn't really matter. Each Watt needs to come from somwhere, and it is absolute retardation to think that using half as much energy will some how make the energy we do use miraculously come from
      • The point is, that we do need energy, and it has to come from somwhere

        Yes: in the long term, we should move to a mixture of biologically grown fuel, wind, and solar energy (transported in the form of hydrogen).

        Coal, oil, and nuclear simply are not sustainable.

        Basically, these are two different problems,

        The two problems are quite related: there is a limit to how much energy we can generate sustainably using current technologies.
      • (Yes, I know I'm being trolled and I shouldn't be qualifying the parent by responding to it. But I will anyway. weeeeeee.)

        The reason for looking for cleaner energy and reducend energy consumption isn't so we can all sit around and pretend our farts smell like roses.

        The idea is to reduce pollution and all of the bad things it does. (And if you don't think pollution from burning things like coal is a problem, go look at any old sculpture or building in an area where acid rain is an issue and try to say t
        • Your assertion that we shouldn't try to pollute less because we will always pollute at least a little bit is asinine.

          That's not what he said at all. In fact, if you actually read both your and the parent post, you'd see that you two don't actually disagree very much.

          He said that whether or not you conserve energy, you still need to look for cleaner sources of energy, because you still need energy (which reduces pollution, so apparently you are for it). By contrast, the grandparent seemed to be implying t
    • Ya know I had an academic answer all written out... instead I'll just say in regards to 'using less energy':

      The next time you want to post to a website and expect an international audience of millions of readers... you better be hand delivering a hand written letter having used hand made ink and paper, otherwise you're a hypocrite...

      or

      The next time you want to post to a website and expect an international audience of millions of readers... you better be sitting on a bike generator in the dark while you u
    • Maybe the solution is to have the #1 energy user in the US scale down and cut back, the US government.

      If the US government leads the way with solar panels, compact flourescent light, and simply cutting consumption and waste, I wouldn't mind doing my part to help.

      On the other hand, if the government would spend a whole lot less, and tax a whole lot less, maybe I could afford to buy those solar panels and get my house off the grid. If enough people do this, the prices would drop overall.

      Until then, I'll s
  • I love it... from the "not-really dept". Of course, I agree. Time to leave coal and all other fossil fuels behind, and under ground, and move on to something else: nuclear or renewable. All else should be abandoned, the sooner the better.
  • "Can Coal Be Green?" misses the point.

    Coal can still be "Green" by some standards and yet still be a horrible source of pollution.

    The question should be "Can coal be green enough that we should choose it over other 'green' technologies?'
    • It can at least be green enough that we should choose it over what we have now.

    • The question should be "Can coal be green enough that we should choose it over other 'green' technologies?'

      I suggest that the question should be "Given that we cannot eliminate coal use in less than 20 years, what are the greenest technologies available for using it?"

      I expect that we are going to wind up powering our transportation with coal again (but via electric power rather than on-board coal-fired steam; it only takes 200 GW or so [blogspot.com]) before we can move to nuclear and renewables. We'll do this to deal

  • Coal *Is* clean! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ColaMan ( 37550 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @07:03PM (#10446139) Journal
    Coal *is* a clean renewable resource, it's just got a 100 million year cycle :-)

  • No, it can't... (Score:4, Funny)

    by brunson ( 91995 ) * on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @07:11PM (#10446193) Homepage
    Coal is black. Hence the phrase, "black as coal".

  • Ok, first the obvious.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by adeyadey ( 678765 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @07:15PM (#10446215) Journal
    Coal can be Black or maybe Brown, but never Green..

    But seriously, there is now a massive power struggle for power - all the different interest groups are jockeying for position to be the next big "green" fuel.

    My own 2c (per kw/hour) is that the very simple obvious non-polluting green alternatives - wind, tide, wave, solar, etc - have quietly evolved to a stage where they could take over as the western worlds main source of energy. Why do we need to mess around with nuclear/coal/oil? All the supporting technologies have developed sufficiently that they are either already economical, or at worse should be soon with a little more work. If you just take wind alone, the latest batch of offshore wind farms are contracted to supply power to the UK grid at 0.03 pounds/kilowatt/hour - pretty competitive, and set to come down with scale. (British Wind Energy Association page) [bwea.com] (American Wind Energy Association page) [awea.org]

    The latest windmills do not present loading problems for the grid, probably kill less wildlife than other things (ie tall structures in general, glass windows, cars, oil rigs etc..) & do not really mess up the landscape for 99.99% of people.

    The UK alone has many times its energy needs already available in potential off-shore sites. The USA and Australia have similar huge (and worryingly largely unsurveyed) potentials - off & on shore.

    And then you can look at other sources - tide, wave, solar.. For instance, Australia is building 1 km high towers [wired.com] that can generate power by solar power.

    Ok, back to coal - can it be green? Well if you can safely bury 100% (or close to) emmissions - dont forget all the other by-products (CO, SO2, mercury, lead.. ) and you mine it in a green manner, you would have something resembling a green source of power for a short while - until all the easily minable resources were gone, then renewables become cheaper anyway..

    Nuclear? Oh sure its "cheap" - until you have to decommission the sites, and get rid of the waste safely - which has to be looked after for centuries.. Billions of pounds were wasted on Nuclear power generation in the UK to no avail - the money would have been much better spent on researching renewables, which have had a pittance by comparison.
    • You might have some good points with the reast of your post, but as far as solar goes, i don't think it it is very feasonable (at least not as a world wide solution).

      The problem lies is the fact that the most effective dies for sensitizing solar cells are Ruthenium baised. And, unfortunately, there is only enough ruthenium in the world to cover an area the size of North Dakota with solar cells.

      While this would be an impressively large array of solar cells, it does not even begin to scratch the surface of
      • RTFA :-)
        These towers do not use cells - they use convection to generate air-flow through 1km high towers that turns 250MW turbines..

        Actually Solar cells will become feasable too as oil pushes >$50/barrel.. You would only need to cover part the deserts of australia with solar to make all the worlds electricity.

        Bio is interesting, although figures I have seen require planting most the worlds arable land to make enough fuel for the USA - and then you need to power all the trators that plant/harvest etc..

  • what i'd like to see (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pizza_milkshake ( 580452 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @07:18PM (#10446240)
    are X Prize-style competitions in the area of renewable energy research. i know it's not as cool as rocket ships, but energy will be a much larger world-wide issue than space flight in the next 50 years.

  • Radiation.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by szyzyg ( 7313 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @07:28PM (#10446318)
    I remember doing the maths once and figuring out that your typical coal power plant emits more radiation per megawatt than an equvalent Gas cooled reactor. Of course the reactor has more radiation locked inside it and in its fuel, but the coal plant is venting it into the air, of course, if the reactor goes wrong then more nasty radiation gets out.

    Anyway, with appropriate scrubbing coal can be greener, but I don't really see it as being an option for the future. Then again, Oil and gas are fossil fuels which have many uses outside of power generation and we should be working to preserve those, so given the shoice between a coal fired station and an Oil/Gas station it's probably a better long term idea to go for the coal. I don't think coal has so many uses in comparison, except maybe as raw materials for Superman cornering the Diamond cartels.

    • There are projects involving coal "refining" to extract chain hydrocarbons like gasoline and even catalytic cracking into raw methane/propane/butane, they are very inefficent at this point but coal liquefication/gasification can be done if the price is right.

  • how about biodiesel? (Score:3, Informative)

    by josepha48 ( 13953 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @07:43PM (#10446427) Journal
    I have heard that you can make biodiesel, and it burns cleaner than diesel. I'm sure that rather than burning coal, we could use biodiesel instead. Of course this would mean plant conversions. Not sure what else. Coal is a limited thing and once it is gone its gone. Biodiesel well from dictionary.com http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=biodi esel&action=Search+OMD [ncl.ac.uk] I don't see why it couldn't be used instead. Give some farmers something to grow.

  • Oh, this I trust (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @08:23PM (#10446703) Homepage Journal
    A coal-industry sponsored group, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices

    Shouldn't their name be 'Americans for Coal Power'?

    Never support a group that needs a mask.
  • Why not nuclear?

    Hmmmm?

  • Coal is great! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sensei_knight ( 177557 ) <.sensei_knight. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @08:33PM (#10446768) Homepage
    Coal is a very versatile resource. It can be cracked and liquified for home delevery and it's even more abundant that crude oil albeit harder to gather. But advances in robotics should, if corporations really cared about their workes, make mineing it safer and more efficent. As for the emmisions, why cant we just pump is back where we got it in the first place. Or perhaps some form of plant reactor could be created to resolidify it through natural processes and then the plants( a form of alge imagine) could be used a fertlizer. I could go on and on... It just seem sucudial to polute the air we breath fot the sake of the bottom line.

  • Not Coal Extraction (Score:5, Informative)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @08:40PM (#10446806) Homepage
    Head down the Appalachian Mountains of Kentucky and ask the people who live there. Coal mining has done substantial damage to the environment, and to people's lives.

    Coal mining today is not about underground mines - it is about strip mines and mountain top removal [appvoices.org]. Instead of digging holes underground you blast the top few hundred feet off of a mountain and dig straight down. Of course the blast debris - thousands of tons of it - has to go somewhere. Usually into the neighbouring valley, destroying homes and watersheds.

    The Industry says that today's coal burns cleaner. Do they tell you how?

    That's because the coal is washed before being trucked to users. Where do you think the solvent laden waste water goes? Into large holding ponds, dozens of which are known to be on the brink of collapsing.

    One such pond broke in 2002. The Martin County slurry spill [appalshop.org], at over 300 million gallons, was the largest disaster of its kind ever in the southeastern United States. The spill released nearly 30 times more liquid than the Exxon Valdez.

    You also need to factor in the coal company's history of just abandoning mines [tinyurl.com], leaving them for local and state governments to clean up. And the ongoing damage and injuries caused by coal trucks [appalshop.org] hauling grossly overwieght loads - by ten or twenty tons - on narrow highways.

    There's more to being clean than measuring smokestack emmisions.
    • "Mountaintop removal" also known as "scrape and fill" produces useable land for farming and development in the most economically depressed area in the US. They don't just blindly backfill a valley, they contour the land to produce "natural" drainage paterns into existing watersheds.

      Coal is a dirty business, but it is getting better and it can be a valuable addition to meeting our energy needs until nuclear or "green aproved" techs like solar/wind are finished.

      As for the Martin County spill, that was an

      • Just between us (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Engineer-Poet ( 795260 )
        I would rather have the mountain than something flat enough for conventional farming. There is a reason that people are more eager to live in the Cascades than Iowa and Kansas.

        When farms are being abandoned because farm products are in surplus, destroying a mountain to make another field is waste several times over.


      • "Mountaintop removal" also known as "scrape and fill" produces useable land for farming and development in the most economically depressed area in the US.

        I offer all due respect to you when I say that you are a liar. Show me a farm on a mountaintop removal site. These are barren, rocky landscapes that can barely grow grass, let alone a productive food crop. Mountaintop removal mining illegally destroys streams and good hardwood forestland. The reclaimed sites may look green from a distance but they ar
        • Last time I checked, there is a very nice housing development and golf course in pikeville sitting on a hollow fill. Land can and is being reclaimed from mine sites.

          • Fine. Where's the farm?
            • If you can get bermuda grass to grow in the EKY climate at 2500', getting corn or tobacco to grow shouldn't be a problem.

              • If you can get bermuda grass to grow in the EKY climate at 2500', getting corn or tobacco to grow shouldn't be a problem.

                So, no farms then. Just admit it -- you made that crap up. Just like the the valley fills in eastern KY "at 2500'." There might be some at 1000 ft. but I'd call that a pretty high altitude fill for that area.
                It's the mark of a truly enlightened person who can alter his beliefs when confronted with evidence that contradicts his closely-held assumptions. Your assumptions obviously are

  • nuclear? no. Wind, yes. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by js7a ( 579872 ) <james@COMMAbovik.org minus punct> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:06PM (#10446936) Homepage Journal
    Why nuclear? The U.S. could get more than 95% of its electricity demand from wind turbines on less than 3% of its farmland. The law of averages over the continent's grid smooths out the inherent unreliability of localized wind power, and the rest of the shaping can be taken care of with existing hydropower. There is no need for coal or nuclear.

    • Why nuclear? The U.S. could get more than 95% of its electricity demand from wind turbines on less than 3% of its farmland.

      Not until you have solved one of two issues:

      1. Storing electrical energy at high efficiency and at a few cents per KWH at most.
      2. Scheduling the wind to correspond to demand.

      If you don't understand the difference between supplying energy and supplying load, your conclusions will be faulty.

      The law of averages over the continent's grid smooths out the inherent unreliability of localize

    • Where do the materials come from to build all those wind mills? What is done to the environment to get those materials?
  • clean energy?

    Assuming that one's hands get dirty when mining coal.
  • Don't trees (and [ugh] mosquitos) produce valuable oxygen as a by-product of carbon dioxide consumption?

    Let grow mosquito's (and a few more trees)!!!

  • The Irony (Score:4, Insightful)

    by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:34PM (#10447449) Homepage
    From the blurb:
    The ad shows an eagle unable to fly because of smog, and then talks about how much cleaner coal is now and will be in the future, with a sub-title saying that this is because of EPA regulation

    The great irony is that the coal industry fought tooth and nail to oppose these very regulations. They never would never be able to make these claims if it weren't for "those damn liberal treehuggers".
    • Really the 'key words' in the ad are "in part".
      Thanks in part to clean coal technology....
      I check out their webpage the 70% reduction is vaporware becuase the claim is 'with new EPA regulation'.
  • All coal was not created equal, and the location where the coal comes from makes a big difference when it comes to emissions. Coal mined in the eastern US tends to be much worse than that mined in the western US, for example. In Ontario, they switched to using coal from the western US some years ago to help lower the emissions.

    I have nothing against continuing to develop cleaner coal power in principle, but there needs to be a balance. In Ontario, nuclear and hydroelectric provides the baseline power and c
  • Yes, we should. Does this group have any propositions about what to do with the sulphur extracted from burned coal fumes by the electricity plants filters?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close