Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Beijing's Showcase "Clean Coal" Power Plant

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

20 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 20
January 9, 2009
Clean Coal

Clean coal an imaginary creature,
"Clean" is not to be a likely feature,
Burning coal releases and steadily increases,
Polluting stuff that's harmful to the world and people,
Whom ever should take coal to scrubbing,
That piece of coal will give him a drubbing,
For once consumed by fire, the products will be dire,
And our health will be robbing.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
2 of 20
January 9, 2009
Thank you for this very informative article.
Comment
3 of 20
January 9, 2009
I agree with your thoughts regarding the uncleanliness of coal, but I am a bit less sure of the potential for geothermal energy to replace it. It seems to me that deep drilling is problematic, that the challenges of water supplies are not easy to overcome, and that the power source is not widely available near population centers. It also seems a bit risky in terms of geologic stability, but I know less about that particular facet of the technology.

On the other hand, we have a well proven, reliable, economic replacement for coal. Nuclear fission has been known for about 70 years, but in that short time it has captured a significant share of the electricity market, reaching a penetration as high as 80% in some large markets.

Of course, the powerful coal lobby that you mention does not much like the fact that uranium is cleaner, cheaper and produces a tiny volume of waste that is relatively simple to capture and isolate from the environment.
Comment
4 of 20
January 9, 2009
Rod: Please read my previous article that makes a case for geothermal as a simpler, cleaner way to harness nuclear energy.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/reinsider/story?id=53803

Geothermal is no more of a threat to geologic stability than the similar fracting technique used to extract oil and natural gas. Here is link to a movie about how it works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEmadgNz9vI

Geothermal heat is everywhere. It's simply deeper in the Eastern US. Better deep drilling technology such as that being developed by Potter Drilling will make it economical everywhere.
Comment
5 of 20
January 9, 2009
For an understanding of hidden costs, please visit www.thestoryofstuff.com

There has to be a global agreement, at least a voluntary standard, on carbon taxes, Europe is way ahead of on this already. The taxes should not be excise taxes (cents per gallon) but instead, should be a sales tax (cents per dollar of sale). Excise taxes allow increased marginal profit as prices rise, rewarding high pricing, while sales taxes are profit neutral and tend to keep prices stable. Excise taxes cause volatility and have to be adjusted when inflation hits, while sales taxes suppress volatility and are self-adjusting. Remember, adjusting an excise tax higher is politically impossible.

The hidden costs of carbon can be expressed in a sales tax at an appropriate level and can be incrementally adjusted more easily, or phased in. Calculating and collecting sales tax is fine for everything else, so it can't be impossible for carbon based energy.
Comment
6 of 20
January 9, 2009
Clean Coal be Carbon Capture and Sequestration is really a difficult proposition but there are some (potential) alternatives. Burning coal underground (Underground Coal Gasification), especially from "stranded" coal, has a future (see Linc Energy), as does Coal Bed Methane extraction from what seems to be a continuous process using microbes to convert coal, and other carbon sources, to methane) see Luca Technologies) and GreatPoint Energy's low temperature coal to methane process via a catalyst. The latter two technologies are still in the development phase but UCG is well proven.
Greenfuel's oil via algae fed on CO2 also has great potential and may remove (accordind to them) around 40% of the CO2 from typical coal or gas power plants.
Comment
7 of 20
January 9, 2009
Clean coal is an oxymoron. Coal is part of the problem, certainly not part of the solution. I would be suspect of building any new coal fired energy producers, and we need to start retiring the old ones now and replacing them with 0 carbon systems.
Comment
8 of 20
January 9, 2009
A question to Thomas: some power plants have an algae facility attached to them to take care of the CO2. Most likely that's just experimental, but in any case I would like to know if from the point of view of space requirements and monetary investment this would make sense? This thought came up when you mentioned that captioning all the CO2 for soft drink makers would require a plant bigger than the original power plant.
Comment
9 of 20
January 9, 2009
I respectfully take issue with this author's position. As an environmental leader doing practical things that actually work in my community to improve the quality of life for all species, acting inclusively and not divisively works better. Clean Coal is not an oxymoron. All technology improvements have to start somewhere. People of the earth need coal and every other current energy sources until we can evolve technology inventions to replace those that deplete. Scientists and engineers have demonstrated the skill and capability to improve the emission controls on all types of energy sources over the last 50 years. What we need less of is this continuous carping and complaining about about what works today and what we need more of is encouraging our scientists and engineers and energy industries to continue to improve their emission controls and continue the development of new energy sources. All of us pulling in the same direction will bring more success sooner than all this ying and yang about this or that energy source.
Let's put special interests aside and work together for a better quality of life for all species.
Comment
10 of 20
January 9, 2009
Americans RE conscience is in-escapeably tied to the gas pump price. The hits on my solar site have reduced 2.5 fold since Fall of last year till now, almost exactly the same fold drop in gas prices. The extension of the tax credits did not alter this relationship. Scary but true….
Second, you can not escape the strangle hold of money from the conventionals. Bush was oil, Obama coil at the very least. Token RE $ will be offered but will pale compared to the money given to the conventionals or nuke's… Money owns the political system, and the making of laws, therefore money will buy the allocation of tax dollars…
You can not escape this…. It is logically impossible….
Look at the success of SUV's. Congress was lobbied (Bought) to allow them to be licensed as cars even though they are nothing more then trucks with tops… truck wheels, truck tires, truck suspension, truck chassis, truck bumper height, truck weight, etc… because the auto marketing people knew that the social climbing suburb people by the numbers, would never go for plates with the word TRUCK on them, and the associated social connotations… oh, and I have nothing against trucks BTW… They are currently Essential to our infrastructure…
I guess what I am trying to say is that after 40 years of RE trying to stay in the spotlight, if it has really EVER been there, it gets very old to here people in the business still complaining about getting wet when they go swimming… the game is swimming and it has always been so since the idea of money was created (just a few years back) and until it changes, you are going to get wet...... baring a SUPER, SUPER severe and fast, 20% + population loss, world wide kind of disaster…

.....Bill
Comment
11 of 20
January 9, 2009
I know this may be unpopular but I am sick to death hearing about CO2! You are either converted by now or you are not. All the parrots in the world won't change some people's mind.

In this case it means you are not using your best weapon.

To kill coal the magic words are arsenic and mercury.

All the people who like to eat fish are angry about the mercury. All the moms with small children fear for mercury in the drinking water. I don't know of any case where one can defend either mercury or arsenic - yet consuming coal releases what was trapped in the ground.

The recent ash spill is plenty of ammunition without going into the CO2 falderal.
Comment
12 of 20
January 9, 2009
The TREAL Solution to CLEAN Power was not coal,clean or un-clean.
Coal is not a renewable energy source.
If,we are really,concerned with the environment and reducing GHG gases,it is only the renewable energy .
while we must promote solar,and wind energy,we must not forget biomass energy.
it is the clean energy source,can be converted to energy as and when you need,as much as you need and is not dependent on every day sun or rain.
we have enough of biomass,we have enough land in world to go for massive plantation etc.
again ,bio-diesel also is in a way,biomass energy as the bio-diesel is a plant extract and those plants can be grown even on barren land.
hence the solution is ;
solar,wind and biomass energy.
Comment
13 of 20
January 9, 2009
Interesting point about Mercury and Arsenic, R t. The fact that coal blankets the eastern US, Europe, and Asia with enormous amount of these metals only adds to the argument that society is massively subsidizing coal through externalities. The true cost of coal is extraordinarily high when the cost of mercury pollution, arsenic pollution, and CO2 is included.

I'd like to hear more about the mercury pollution from coal...

Fred
Comment
14 of 20
January 9, 2009
As an avid supporter of hot rock technology I cannot agree more with the comments posted, the major reason given for non pursual of this form of energy is the remote sites and lack of infrastructure. The monies spent propping up the dirty industries would cover the cost of transporting the BASE load energy available from the sources.
In Australia it is estimated that there is 2000 years of energy available from our central australian region.
But we have coal fired stations feeding the energy to the uranium mines!!
In the same region of the uranium mines is some of the closest hot rocks available on the planet, just 5k from the surface.
Wind, solar and biomass should all be utilised with the hot rock (geothermal) as a base.

Harvey
South Australia
Comment
15 of 20
January 10, 2009
Obama is proving to be more of the same. Look at his recent appointments to positions in his Administration. No hope.

What does it take for us understand the long term problems with nuclear, oil and coal? The transition to wind, solar, waves, and other energy sources that do no harm should be committed to at all levels. The sooner the better. We keep beating dead horses and leaving huge problems for future generations.
Comment
16 of 20
January 10, 2009
Hi Tim:

Its not about understanding, its about money, power and control.....
It is the driver of capitalism and its FATAL flaw as well....
Anyone thought of a truly new form of human kind management lately...??..

.....Bill
Comment
17 of 20
January 10, 2009
More than 1/2 of US Coal is from Wyoming (Cheney). Deep water wind and Pickens, midwest new wind energy electric grid ought beviewed by Obama as the necessary Manhanttan Project of this time.
Identify political leaders being paid to play by coal.
Comment
18 of 20
January 10, 2009
Fred,

This is a 10 year old bit from the government.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs095-01/

Certainly a simple search will reveal much more.

As usual I find the rest of the discussion to be political instead of analytical.
Comment
19 of 20
January 10, 2009
I meant to mention this article that uses the the CO2 emissions FOR a coal plant - e.g. if we don't they will.

Notice the lack of any mention of arsenic or mercury.

http://www.kansas.com/781/story/656466.html
Comment
20 of 20
January 12, 2009
One ironic point:

Where do you think even that 3300 tons of CO2/year
will end after you have gulped down a bottle of Chinese soft drink, and then emitted a big loud burp?

Growing algae makes more sense, as then one burns the same coal twice, so to speak.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Thomas Blakeslee

View Thomas Blakeslee's Profile
About: Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in P... more »

Advertise With Us

Fairtrade-Messe Poet ClearEnergy Inc. POWER-GEN Africa HelioSage 350 Media AWS Truepower, LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters