Anti "clean coal" short by the Coen brothers
New PSA directed by acclaimed filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen for ThisIsReality.org, with the aim of debunking "clean coal" industry propaganda. It was produced in partnership with Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection. Just released today.
the latest
latest episodes
Where was the elaborate money-making scheme involving murder and sex? I want my money back.
"Clean" coal is just further evidence that the "green" economy is a mere fad, can and will be exploited no end. There's just too much messy complications that require science and stuff to understand completely. Add to the list of other "non-green" pipe dreams, Corn Ethanol, Tar-sand oil extraction, the "hydrogen" economy.
I drink your milkshake?
Nice video.
I see what they did there.
@Jason,
"There's just too much messy complications that require science and stuff to understand completely"
Clean coal == false;
That's too hard to understand?
PBS's Frontline had a great episode about "clean" coal. You can watch the whole thing at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/themes/cleancoal.html.
Is there something wrong with my computer's sound or were the voices in that video nearly inaudible while the music and sound effects were blaring? I mean I literally could barely even tell there were any voices in the commercial, let alone tell what they were saying.
Its a fine line between clever and stupid.
- David St. Hubbins
Very Very CLEVER
I see a clear parallel between this short and the great Homeric odes. The coal obviously represents the Trojan horse, the pitchman Odysseus.
There's a fine line between propaganda and ignorance. Not once has either political party announced the existence of a clean coal plant in the U.S. There are, however, many possible technologies to adopt that would significant decrease the particulates and emissions in new modern coal burning processes. Perhaps this is the goal of the "clean coal" initiative? Regardless, there doesn't exist a source for energy in the U.S. that can be tapped. When economy fails and the poor are hungry, you don't care where the power comes from, just that it's there and cheap!
It's important to scrutinize, but it's even more important to be practical.
They should do many of these, on varying, similar lies. Intelligent Design next, please?
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, it's true that currently deployed technology does not mitigate the atmospheric carbon burden of coal-based power generation. On the other hand, the goal of "clean coal" is a realistic one, and it requires an incredibly ambitious technology development effort. In particular, it requires the development of reliable carbon sequestration technologies. Once developed, these technologies have the potential to greatly mitigate the atmospheric impact of fossil fuels. They could be a powerful tool in fighting global warming (though only one aspect of a total strategy). I'm concerned that these advertisements denigrate this very real approach to minimizing our carbon footprint.
Could also be an ad against diesel fumes which choke out even more cities than the coal fired plants do. The emissions off heavy trucks are so nasty. Rather than new roads, new roads, new roads, how about putting better filters on the tailpipes? I know the technology is available.
Anyway, a great, visceral PSA.
WOLFIESMA
Take a look at the EPA 07 and EPA 2010 emissions regulations, and I think you'll be surprised at how much diesel emissions have gone down in the past few years. Unfortunately, those recent changes don't direct affect older trucks. To solve that problem, California is providing grants to retrofit older trucks with DPFs and SCR systems to reduce their emissions.
oooh! do "cheap nuclear" next!
Actually there is a plant in Europe that scrubs the smokestack emissions and cools the CO2 down then it is piped underground. In which case the plant would not have any emissions and technically be as clean as a nuclear plant. But like much technology, you can do anything but whether it is economical to do anything is another question entirely.
Even is coal could be burned with zero CO2 output, it would still be filthy.
Does "clean coal" eliminate mercury and all the other filthy stuff associated with burning coal?
Does it make mining the stuff cleaner? Will coal mining areas no longer have to store giant heaps of toxic black sludge?
Will coal power plants no longer create kilotons of ash?
Brilliant!
Jason Rizos@2: The green economy is not a fad. It is actually vastly underutilized as of yet. There are just too many wolves out there donning sheep's clothing trying to pretend to be "eco-friendly." The pipe dreams you list are the old guard in actuality, trying to add spin because their past and present activities are indefensible with what we know now about how we are destroying the ecosystems of the planet. And let's be clear, the Earth will go on just fine w/o us. It's save the humans time, folks.
Thanks, Scuba. I used to live near some freeways, and I guess I'm still a little bitter over the air quality problems I experienced. Hopefully, the grungy transport trucks that used to rattle through my old neighborhood will apply for some of those grants.
"Clean coal == false;
That's too hard to understand?"
It's not too hard to understand, but it is too simple to be accurate. Noah, in post #11, put it well. If we're not careful, environmentalism can become a dogmatic religion, with bogeymen like "coal" taking the place of devils, or at least infidels. The human psyche loves dogma and it loves moral absolutes. You have to be careful to keep yourself in check. (When was the last time you changed your mind about something you feel strongly about? Etc.)
"Clean Coal harnesses the awesome power of the word 'clean'!" Brilliant.
Eclectro@15: As Stefan Jones pointed out, just because it isn't being piped into the atmosphere doesn't mean it's clean and / or good. The carbon footprint is not the only index to measure pollutants. Toxins seeping into the groundwater anyone?
The millions being spent on technologies to get us defendant upon another fuel besides oil are just switching heroine for methadone addiction, and are just to fatten more corporate coffers.
What the hell is wrong with Solar? It would be cheaply available to all is the answer, and has no ecological aftertaste (just like marijuana if decriminalized, to further the drug analogy, seeing as Big Pharma is the main obstacle to this.)
Moriarty@17: Sure, but the pendulum always swings the other way before it finds middle ground. I see no dogma in clean coal==false. It is simple refutation of a misleading label.
"Clean coal == false;
That's too hard to understand?"
For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-- H. L. Mencken
I am very clad the Coens did this. I was horrified to hear our new Prez and VP campaign in favor of CC, falling for the label hook, line and sinker. Let us hope they show more wisdom in practice.
The US is bigger in coal than the Middle East is in oil. It is a valuable natural resource, and a cheap source of power. Why the hell would an environmentalist fight against attempts to make it cleaner? Wake up from your solar/wind dream. There are no magic fixes. Progressive improvement is the way forward.
Me@21: Oops, that should have read: dependent.
Matt Deckard@22: I saw what you just did there, and the same could be applied to your quote in this context.
Where's Lizardman?
Coal is simply unsustainable. Period. That's not even taking into account the destruction strip-mining causes to the environment, decimating hillsides and mountains, etc. Or the impact of transporting the coal here and there.
The industry seems to have done a good job of focusing on emissions. Lets not forget the ash or sludge that is produced. Tennessee is still dealing with the ash spill in December.
The other oxymoron from presidential campaign energy discussions: "Safe Nuclear"
Me@23: Ok, I am typing too fast. I am very glad...
I am wearing clothing, but no more than usual for Texas in Feb. ;D
Didn't realize boing boing had so many readers from the coal lobby. Interesting.
Mark Jaquith@24: Again, what have you got against Solar / Wind and other renewable resources? Even if it could be completely cleaned up somehow (at an expense of billions of dollars) it is still a finite resource. Why bother just to make someone rich when we can have cheap renewable energy for all? Wouldn't that help the world economy immeasurably?
Amazing that as the PSA argues that people are falling for the word "clean" it also expects us to simply accept that it's "not clean". If either side would actually try to inform people that would go a lot further than a very childlike "He Said/She said".
@24, and yet Mark there is not one clean plant or blueprints for one in existence. Right now "clean" coal is--as you so succinctly put it--a magic fix.
/unicorn chaser please to go with the magic coal
Sholms@26: Yes indeed!
I hate to dish out such cynicism, but the bottom line is that the only thing that will make truly "green" technologies succeed is economic feasibility. They simply must be profitable. There is no capital in ethics. And nothing is cheaper (right now) than oil and coal, and nothing has (right now) such a low ratio of energy expended vs. energy gained.
So until these finite resources go away, until we build oil platforms on every stretch of coastline, explode every mountaintop, we will continue to exploit these resources due to simple economic reality.
Cinemajay@33: Yes, a unicorn pooting out magical sparkly rainbow coal!
Duke Energy is building a new coal fired plant in my area. Their plan is to shut down several older, relatively inefficient units.
Protesters are out in full force. By their actions, it appears they would PREFER for Duke to keep the old units online. Of course, I know this really isn't what the protesters want. What they'd really like is for Duke to shut the power off and put us all back in the 1800s.
The point, though, is that Duke WILL build this new plant with modern technology, OR they're going to keep running the old plants that produce more pollution. What the protesters will accomplish should they prevent this plant from being built is more pollution than ever from the continued use of old units.
In an ideal world, we'd collect all the energy we need to function from solar and wind. We may actually get there some day.
This intermediate step, though, makes the most practical sense for the here and now.
Of course "clean" isn't the best word for selling a technology that pollutes by its own nature. CleanER technology, though, is an intermediate step that makes a great deal of sense.
Jason Rizos@35: Ahem...
Are you really trying to say that there is no money to be made by providing the technology to cheaply and efficiently provide energy for all? Wow! Are you really that unimaginative? 120 years or so ago somebody probably said that about light bulbs too.
Yes, we must stay enslaved to the old paradigms that are no longer working for us no matter the cost!
So until these finite resources go away, until we build oil platforms on every stretch of coastline, explode every mountaintop, we will continue to exploit these resources due to simple economic reality.
Which is why governments need to act to make the markets account for the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels. If regulations (carbon taxes, cap and trade) force the market to price these technologies according to their true costs, rather than discounting their environmental impact, green technologies will have a chance.
http://th01.deviantart.com/fs25/300W/i/2008/141/a/8/Happy_unicorn_by_kangel.jpg
"Americans can do anything!"
—Bobby Jindal
DBM@37: Why is the choice only between "old coal" and "new coal?" Why isn't "no coal" on the menu? Why spend so much money and resources on something that has proven to not be viable? Do you have no sun, wind, or moving water in your area that could be harnessed?
Ahem:
The term "clean coal" is typically referencing the process of gasifying coal and then using it in gas turbine/combined cycle units. Why is this process supposedly "clean"? Because you heat and pressurize the coal in a way that the combustibles (hydrogen, oxygen, methane, and similar alkanes) can be easily separated from noncombustibles and compounds that will create undesirable substances if burnt. Nitrogen, sulfur, mercury, and ash (which is naturally present in coal) can be "easily" removed before combustion, especially if the gas is at a relatively low temperature. Additionally, the combustion gases that are exhausted are mostly CO2, which can be separated and sequestered. The technology exists, but not always in an economical package.
Now, is this a sustainable, green, clean, smart, economical, or whatever means of producing energy? Any of it is arguable.
But please, know what you're talking about before you make asinine comments about the ash and sludge and NOx and SOx, etc., coming out of a "clean coal" plant.
@42 I think folks are still stuck on the idea that power must be produced at huge plants. If we spread the power production across the country we would be better off.
Lets say each house in the US had solar panels and each house both pulled and contributed to the grid. Add wind and hydro to the mix I think we be moving in the right direction.
Noah@39: FTW!
Jeepercreepers#44: You're absolutely right.
The ad's compelling argument that clean coal equates to spraying a can of black smoke around my house was more than I needed to make my mind up on the subject.
I prefer not to have to think about difficult trade-offs between resource availability, political and socioeconomic costs, and environmental effects.
Phikus,
There are other choices. I'm simply pointing out the course that Duke Energy is taking in this particular case. They either will build this new plant and take the old plants that are indisputably less efficient offline, or they will not build the new plant and keep those old plants online. Building the new plant is the lesser of the two evils.
Hydro is a good option. Why don't we see generators in more streams or built into dams? I don't know the answer to that question, but it seems there would be more.
Meanwhile, consumers in this area are free to purchase solar panels or wind turbines or any other technology that will help them offset their electric bill.
People tend to go the path of least resistance unless there's a clear cost saving incentive to switch. We pay Duke Energy 8-9 cents per KWH using existing infrastructure.
Wind turbine technology for the home still seems to be over-priced in comparison. If prices ever drop to $1500-3000 for a turbine with enough output to cut your electric bill by $80-120 per month or a similar price for an array of solar panels with similar output, then people can see a very real advantage to investing in alternate power.
I personally like the idea of solar better than wind in this area, because the sun shines more consistency than the air moves here. Someone living near the coast might fare better with wind consistency.
But I don't know...and the cost of finding out is too steep.
As long as the price remains $5000-12000 for technology that only meets 1/3 of a typical household's needs, people are going to continue to rely on incoming wires for their electricity. The typical homeowner can pay electric bills to Duke of $100-200 per month for quite a few years without taking a risk on an array of solar panels or a wind turbine that may or may not meet all of my needs. Plus, there's very little maintenance compared to owning a solar array or a wind turbine when Duke's alternative is consistently on with very rare exceptions.
If you're spraying your house with air freshener and air cleaners you might as well be spraying it with 'clean coal'.
@JeffersonJ
Lots of water and energy goes into the gasification process. The EROI is very unattractive given the amount of effort and the whole process should be canned in favor of pursuing other forms of alternative "green" energy.
I agree that inordinate amounts of government subsidy goes into unsustainable, dirty energy, and removing that might give green energy a level playing field, but it will be a long time before renewable energy is as attractive as oil and coal, economically.
DBM@48: That paints a more complete picture. Thanks. It is Duke that is being unimaginative then, trying to save their obsolete business. I would have to agree with the environmentalists in your area. Shut them all down, one at a time, and don't build more even though it would be more eco-friendly in the short term than the old plants that will eventually be shut down anyway.
I'm not sure what country you are located in, but it is federal law in the US that money you produce through generating more energy than you can use HAS to be bought back by the utilities at the same rate they sell it to you at, which means that solar and wind systems built into homes will eventually pay for themselves. A great investment if you ask me, economically and environmentally.
The problem with hydroelectric power is that it has the capability to alter or damage surroundings. There is also often a significant change in water quality. Because of the nature of hydroelectric systems, the water often takes on a higher temperature, loses oxygen content, experiences siltation, and gains in phosphorus and nitrogen content.
Another major problem is the obstruction of the river for aquatic life. Salmon, which migrate upstream to spawn every year, are especially impacted by hydroelectric dams. Fortunately, this problem has been dealt with by the production of "fish ladders". These structures provide a pathway for fish to navigate past the hydroelectric dam construction.
In short, hydroelectric is better than any non-renewable energy sources, but not nearly as clean or sustainable to ecosystems as wind and solar.
Given that there is no scientific basis for global warming predictions, I think most people would prefer to keep the lights on.
The Japanese just got off the AGW bandwagon, and the Chinese (the largest polluter) find the whole thing hilarious. Maybe further crippling our economy in the middle of a severe recession isn't good policy.
We may have fusion power relatively soon (google Polywell fusion) but in the meantime I don't feel like sacrificing my lifestyle to Gaia for no reason.
Given that there is no scientific basis for global warming predictions
Gravity and electromagnetism debunked - film at eleven.
There options between huge, centralized power generation and power generation on "every rooftop." Huge plants are vulernable, monopolistic, and lose most of their output in transmission. Rooftop wind turbines and the like are just plain inefficient, for the most part. Small, "community power plants" would be the best of both worlds. You can get much cheaper and more reliable power from one giant wind turbine than ten thousand little ones.
TALLDAVE@52: Yeah, take the word of that guy who was probably paid to reach that conclusion over a panel of 99 UN and Nobel prize winning scientists working for years collecting data objectively. If that's the best you can do for citation then you need to return your troll diploma, dude.
Antinous@53: You have made my day once again! =D
Anyone who thinks solar is the solution clearly hasn't tried using it. The technology just isn't there. And it's moving at a pace closer to flying car technology than computer technology. I say this as someone who loves playing around with it as a hobby. But like most hobbies, it's something you dump money into with no expectation of return.
New technologies are constantly announced, but all of them turn out to have hidden bugs in the end. Or can't be created in enough quantity to bring prices down.
In fact, the average price/watt has gone up over the last couple of years, and are only recently starting to drop by 1% or so. In order to be economical, they need to drop by 50-75%. Right now, the manufacturing process is so resource and energy-intensive that any panel you buy barely manages to pay for itself over several decades. That's not counting the other costs. Solar also consumes a lot of space. Unless you have an expensive, pain-in-the-ass tracking mechanism, it's not that efficient. You have to keep it clean, too. More maintenance and expense.
If it were cheap and efficient, we'd already be using it. Right now it's just a toy for people who already have money to burn. I hope it will become more efficient, but I'm not holding my breath, either.
lemmee fix that post of yers ther Talldave:
Given that there is scientific basis for global warming predictions, I think most people would prefer to keep their grandchildren alive.
The Japanese just got off the AGW bandwagon at face value, but they are acting quietly behind the scenes to ensure Japan will HAVE a tomorrow, and the Chinese (the largest polluter) find the whole thing too frightening to face because of their political situation at home, and the Party is willing too kill Humanity to keep power. Maybe intelligently adjusting our economy in the middle of a severe recession is good policy.
We may have fusion power one day (google Polywell fusion and many others) but in the meantime I think sacrificing my ludicrously wasteful lifestyle to ensure a fit world for the next generation is my basic duty.
see? ya just made a few small errors, all better now!
@54 yep, small community plants is the way to go.
Ernunnos@56: I'd like to put you in touch with my solar installer. Things have progressed quite a bit since the technology that may have helped you form that opinion. It is far more efficient these days, when installed correctly (you can pay for the cost of most installations in under 3 years down heyah in Austin town), and then there is the recent MIT breakthrough I linked to earlier you didn't bother to click, which, when mass produced has far more potential to change everything than waiting for fusion (and hoping it doesn't blow up and kill millions of people in the process.) Also, it only takes up space on your rooftop. How many people really use the space on their roof as usefully as producing their own energy.
Takuan@57: FTMFW!
Phikus,
You are wrong about a few points:
1) There is no federal law requiring the utilities to buy back "excess generation". Here in Hawaii (Maui) the local utility will buy back power at a rate set by the government from a set percentage of homes. (see #2)
2) Wind and solar do not make good "base plants" (a power plant that can reliably supply a set amount of power like a large coal/nuclear/oil/gas plant). Clouds, darkness and non-steady wind are to blame for this.
3) Solar and wind are not so "eco friendly" as you would think: Photovoltaic cells require arsenic and galium for their contruction (very toxic stuff) and windmills (beside being outlawed by so many home associations) kill a lot of birds (including several dozen endangered species here on Maui every week).
4) Solar and wind are not economically feasable for most people: A) They move before the "break-even point (as much as a decade after purchase). B) Both require maintenance (solar panels corrode, get damaged by wind/storms/hail)(windmills are spinning at high speed and just wear out).
5) Once you get up to a certain percentage of your power being supplied by these methods, you have issues like Maui: we have 20-1.5 Megawatt windmills, at maximum output they can supply about 20% of our power. If the wind suddenly slows/stops faster than our regular power plants can pick up the slack, we get brownouts/blackouts (pretty much weekly here, WAY more than before the windmills were put in place).
Anyone who thinks solar is the solution clearly hasn't tried using it.
I live in an area that gets 355 days of sunshine per year. Solar works just fine thanks. If every new construction in the Southwestern US had had solar panels installed over the last decade, we could power the whole country.
#60: TheMage: I did not mean to suggest in any way that these options are without flaws; only that comparatively, they are far more sustainable and responsible to the environment than anything else we've got going, with the possible exception of (and I'd recommend it in your case) geothermal. What else would you like to suggest?
How nice would Hawaii be if strip miners leveled your mountainsides for all time in the name of producing a finite amount of energy and profit (for the mining company exclusively, of course.)
And btw, I was referring to the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978.
If there is a viable solution to radically reducing carbon emissions, CO2 sequestration from coal driven power will almost certainly be part of it.
Yes, massive investment in renewables is required to make these technologies more viable, but the economic incentives for a country like Australia, who get a significant portion of our GDP from coal exports, of being able to promote viable sequestration technology are huge.
Just because it suits established business doesn't necessarily mean its bad, and if the technology is proven, it could be really good.
We won't be switching to renewables only anytime soon, without a massive drop in consumption.
Coal is made of sunlight concentrated by plants.
'Clean coal' is made of sunlight.
K.I.S.S.
#37:
"What they'd really like is for Duke to shut the power off and put us all back in the 1800s."
Oh SURE that's what they'd really like. Nothing like arguing a position by dismissing the opposition as idiots. Check the dictionary for 'ad hominem' lately? Ever actually *ask* them what they'd like?
The energy companies will drag their heels for as long as they're allowed to, and have proven for a century that concern for the environment we all have to live in is the last thing they worry about. (Cf. tetraethyl lead, uranium tailings piles, etc ad nauseum)
The only way we're going to get to the smarter tech is by refusing to accept old tech dressed in new clothes. Clean and cleaner are NOT the same thing. Considering the urgency, the old bogus rhetoric of the 70s is not going to play ... unless we let the same old 'experts' make the decisions.
@#21 & @#61: Unfortunately, even if you ignore all the nasty chemicals involved in creating photovoltaic cells, you can have too much sunlight for solar to work very well. Once a solar panel reaches a certain temperature, it actually starts generating less energy. The hotter it gets, the less power you get. In addition, there is an upper limit to how much solar energy can actually be converted from the absorbed sunlight...you reach that limit and the excess energy becomes heat, which in turn can further negatively impact the solar cell's efficiency and output. In short, in hot sunny climates you reach a point of diminishing returns very quickly.
So, while solar might be great in areas where the temperature in the summer hits the 90s (Farenheit, that is), it's not so useful in areas like Phoenix, AZ (now the 5th largest city in the US by population, so we could definitely benefit from a lot more clean energy) where it gets to 110...115...even 120 or higher at times during the summer.
Phikus said:it is federal law in the US that money you produce through generating more energy than you can use HAS to be bought back by the utilities at the same rate they sell it to you at.
Are you sure? Last time I checked this was regulated on a state by state basis, with "net metering" being the most generous program, and many states buying power back at their lowest rate (even if they were selling to the same producer at their highest rate).
If the US federal government has stepped in on this issue, that makes me very happy!
I am off to sleep, I will check back tomorrow.
Phikus,
No coal/oil/gas here in Hawaii (too geologically young). Plus volcanoes tend to be VERY hard to harness geothermally (lava is really hard on people and pipes). Most geothermal plants are on nice, stable hot springs that have been there for millions of years (most of the islands here are under 1 million years old).
And PURPA is pretty much ignored by most of the states (dont ask me why, I just know this from working for So Cal Edison).
Antinous,
How much did your system cost and how much of your bills are covered? Are you totally "off the grid"? How much are your typical electric bills?
Al Gore,
How much are you making selling "carbon credits"? Can I get in on your *cough*scam*cough* business?
I am a mechanical engineering PhD student at Stanford working on combustion systems, and my roommate works on clean coal technologies. Neither he nor I have any association with energy companies. I can assure you that "clean coal" is not a pipe dream as portrayed by the Coen short. I think it should be given careful consideration and not treated as a pariah simply because of the scary sounding word “coal.”
It is possible to sequester all (or very nearly all) of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, as well as the other gaseous pollutants from burning coal. There is a penalty: it takes about 30% more energy to do this, but since this extra energy can be produced the same way, without greenhouse gasses or pollutants, it is an economical consideration, rather than an environmental one.
Are there still problems? Yes--in particular, coal mines still damage the environment around them, and coal ash must be stored or used (in roads, cinder blocks, etc). The issue of polluting groundwater with trapped emissions is rather moot. The groundwater that CO2 (and other pollutants) would be pumped into is by nature very well sealed off from anything that humans or other parts of the environment interact with. In fact, for the most part it is too salty to drink and trapped miles underground. I also remind you that the "pollutants" that come from coal are in the end natural parts of the environment. They were originally a part of the surface rocks, water, and air that were then deposited as coal millions of years ago. I'm not promoting spewing all of it back into the environment, but just providing some perspective.
Even renewable alternatives have similar problems. Making a gigawatt of solar cells or wind turbines (the equivalent of a large coal plant) requires an enormous amount of mined natural resources (silicon and rare-earth dopants, metals, concrete, petroleum for composite turbine blades, etc), which comes at a cost of destroying the mine sites. These types of power generation are not very energy-dense, so you have to have very large structures of solar cells or turbines to generate the same power output as a coal plant. They also pollute during fabrication, as there are some very nasty chemicals involved, and when they are thrown away (because they are retired, damaged by a storm or accident, or superceeded by better technology) they create a toxic disposal problem. This is not to mention that solar only works during the day when there are no clouds, and wind only when there is wind. A 100% solar and wind power grid is a pipe dream without some sort of enormous energy storage technology, which we don't know how to do, and the technology is much farther away than clean coal.
What do we gain from clean coal? In particular, we gain energy independence for a long time while we work out better renewable power schemes. The US has a large portion of the world's coal reserves (hundreds of years worth at current rates), equivalent to the middle east for oil. Coal is a well known technology, and CO2 sequestration is a reasonably understood, if not entirely demonstrated, technology. So such a clean coal intermediate step is something that makes sense right now to invest in.
One commonly ignored fact in the "clean coal" debate is that coal-fired power plants releases more nuclear waste than nuclear power plants:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99402.HTM
So if you really want to reduce the amount of nuclear waste, you should replace coalfired plants with anything available - even nuclear plants.
I am a mechanical engineering PhD student at Stanford working on combustion systems, and my roommate works on clean coal technologies.
And I'm the Empress of India.
I also remind you that the "pollutants" that come from coal are in the end natural parts of the environment.
Pollutants like mercury and uranium, you mean?
"Natural" does not equal "healthy", "harmless" or "good".
Heck, pregnant women can't eat fish anymore because of all the "natural" mercury spewed forth by coal-burning power plants.
cost of electrical generation per kilowatt-hour based on method of production:
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour
Solar isn't looking so good. Wind is cheap per kwh, but problematic in scaling it larger.
tidal could be interesting.
nuclear is still cheap.
We will not see a change from the energy status quo as long as any half-dozen malcontents with a lawyer can tie up any new project of any kind in the courts, effectively forever.
This applies just as much to wind, solar and hydro (think you could get a big new dam built today?) every bit as much as it does to those eeeeeeeevil coal and nuke plants.
The NIMBY "activists", the lawyers, and the save-the-endangered-dust-mite environmentalists are all solid elements of the Obama base, and until he is willing to throw some of them under the bus look for fossil fuels to remain our energy mainstay.
But that's good. The only way it's even slightly economical for individauls is because of the tax credits. If we all went solar, the tax credits would be no good. I'd get a credit from my neighbor, he'd get a credit from me, we'd both end up paying the full price in the end. With a cut off the top for government bureaucrats to transfer money back and forth between us. I plan to get a system - and take advantage of the associated tax credit - later this year. I prefer as few other people to do that so that the wealth transfer works as strongly in my favor as possible.
So keep talking about solar rather than doing it. Thanks.
Antinous, How much did your system cost and how much of your bills are covered? Are you totally "off the grid"? How much are your typical electric bills?
I'm in a condo and can't do it. My friends who have done it got 100% financing. The energy feeds into the local power grid. Their loan payments are about 20% less than their energy bills were before they put in the system. Basically, it cost them nothing to put it in and they save $500 to $1K per year, which should at least cover maintenance costs.
I happen to live in one of those places where it's bloody dark half the year, and the wind is ... spiky and local. As of right now, hydro power keeps us going - but there's not that much spare capacity, so we'll need to find something else eventually. The current idea is natural gas + carbon capture (which has some benefits over coal); we'll see how well that works out, but it's treated by a number of different parties as a plausible and technologically workable solution.
My word. Obviously clean coal == false; is too hard for some of you to understand. How about these
coal != clean;
clean != clean;
var hogwash = "clean" + "coal";
This may be of interest; underground coal gasification - first UK licence granted last month. Technology developed from the oil industry used to "drill" for coal - no need for open cast or underground mines and their waste products. CO2 produced can be stored with carbon capture or eliminated by producing hydrogen. Not perfect, but with fusion reactors still a long way off this may be a viable cleaner alternative in the mean time.
http://www.britishcoalgasification.co.uk/index.html
CO2 produced can be stored with carbon capture or eliminated by producing hydrogen.
Not true. Coal gasification produces hydrogen, yes, but there is no way to use CO2 to produce hydrogen without a net energy cost.
CO2 is a byproduct of coal gasification.
you can pay for the cost of most installations in under 3 years down heyah in Austin town
I'd like to see a link to that. I looked into a photovoltaic roof about a year ago and it was only going to produce about 1 kwh a day (ten cents a day) on average. I think it worked out to taking several hundred years to pay for itself.
From what I can tell, both clean coal and photovoltaics are scams.
Solar thermal and hot dry rock geothermal are both promising, but require that the power grid infrastructure be upgraded to transmit from the deserts to the coasts.
If we had to pick a dirty off-the-shelf technology for energy, it seems to that pebble-bed nuclear fission shifts the problem from "die soon of greenhouse effect" to "long-term nuclear waste storage problem".
Switching from gasoline to compressed natural gas (CNG) for transportation (cars and trucking) would also both be less expensive and less harsh on the atmosphere. (Too bad the conversion process is currently convoluted and expensive thanks to the EPA.)
If we had to pick a dirty off-the-shelf technology for energy, it seems to that pebble-bed nuclear fission shifts the problem from "die soon of greenhouse effect" to "long-term nuclear waste storage problem".
While I agree with you, it annoys me to see people act like there is no nuclear waste problem with coal-fired plants.
Apparently people still think dispersing nasty stuff in the atmosphere makes it go away.
@80
Sorry think problem was, in trying to be brief, my sentence structure. Meant to say CO2 produced when burning syngas, produced by UGC, can be stored through carbon capture. Or, alternatively, if the syngas is converted to hydrogen, through steam reforming, the waste product would be H2O (although steam reforming does produce CO2 - this could also be stored through carbon capture. Surely better to have this as by-product of industrial process which would allow capture than produced by individual consumers making capture impossible).
I do admit I'm no expert but this does seem promising. Just watched recent BBC Horizon documentary re fusion based reactors and there were some scary stats re number of wind turbines/hydro plants/solar panels/nuclear plants/etc that would be required to be built to provide global energy requirements - none of which looked remotely achievable. Looks like we will have to consider technologies like underground coal gasification until we develop some form of panacea like nuclear fusion.
Phikus,
Keeping grossly outdated dirty plants going when Duke is more than willing to replace them with a significantly less dirty plant makes no practical sense.
If I failed to express that point clearly before, well, there it is.
There are options. It isn't Duke's job to explore each and every one of those options to an extreme that still won't satisfy any of the protesters before getting around to doing what they know will work...granted, with problems, but it works AND they can do it better with new technology than they're doing it now with plants that are decades old.
What's amazing is people who claim to be in favor of improving the environment trying to prevent Duke from improving the environment in a manner that is most practical at this point in time.
var hogwash = coal.clean = true;
if ( !coal.clean) {
coal.technology();
}
hogwash = coal;
return hogwash;
//possibly returns false
I've always wondered: what is "hogwash"?
Nice. I saw an even better fake coal commercial at a film festival last year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71kckb8hhOQ
"What if the power to sustain your world was right inside a mountain?"
TheMage@69: I see all you've got are criticisms with no alternative suggestions. I am still waiting for your solution...
Erroneous@75:
You forgot pixie dust, probably because you're snorting it.
Everything I have quoted in regards to solar installations is from direct experience. That you assume otherwise betrays your own closed-minded ignorance based on your own locality. I was trying to inform you that a lot what my local solar installer does is fixing installations that were not setup correctly to work efficiently, so your installer might make all the difference, dude.
Greg@81: Again, my experience is directly with solar installation. Tidal looks promising indeed, but it will still not be viable for decades. There have been recent breakthroughs in solar however (as I linked above) that are very promising for the very near future. Relatively, it is still our cleanest, greenest, and most sustainable option, generally speaking, not to mention inexpensive.
The main problem I see is that there is a lot of disinformation being spread about the real viable alternatives like solar, purveyed primarily by those who would exploit their snake oil for short term profit at the expense of the rest of us. (Big Energy has even been buying out solar companies in some states in order to effectively sabotage the technology, like GM did their electric car and long-life electric battery.) All this talk of inefficiency is a simple matter of fine tuning, with the great potential for massive innovation attainable within even a 10 year deadline. Why look to short term half measures? Believe the hype if you want to, but sooner or later the world will have to come around to solar, and it doesn't really take a lifestyle change as some might have you believe.
DBM@85: You expressed your point thoroughly enough. I just completely disagree with it.
Anon@88: That's what I'm talkin' 'bout! =D
Phikus,
Pixy dust is a known human carcinogen.
Would you like to foot the bill for a couple million wind turbines and a couple million acres of solar panels? C'mon. There is no magic fix. We're not there yet. So until we are, lets keep on making incremental improvements to the technology we do have.
Takuan asked "what is hogwash?"
I don't know... I'm guessing antiquated farming term for water from the pig trough, or something along those lines.
Whatever it is, when someone compares your argument to it, they're jolly well not in agreement sir!
@Moriarty
If we're not careful, environmentalism can become a dogmatic religion
Well I'd be glad if environmentalism could replace, let's say Christianity, or Islam. At least our environment would be better of.
I don't get the people who are scared of "environmentalism" taking over the world, not only are they never complaining about the dogmatic crap that has already taken over our society, but they don't realize that it'd be actually a good thing for everybody.
Everything I have quoted in regards to solar installations is from direct experience. That you assume otherwise betrays your own closed-minded ignorance based on your own locality.
Not only is he close-minded, he's been educated stupid
Mark@92: I did not say there was a magic fix. In the context from which you quoted me, I was talking about the choice of whether to invest in building more fossil fuel refineries or in developing renewable resource technology, because we are at that fork in the road right now. There is overwhelming evidence that these two options are in conflict with one another, because Big Energy wants to make sure they can monetize and monopolize the means of energy production, and so they are actively squashing technologies that empower the individual. We can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and let the old obsolete paradigm hold sway when our collective future is at stake. Things will only change if we demand it.
Tak: Hogwash is a diluted solution of malarkey.
yeah, but you can't get malarks any more either. At least, not outside Ireland. I suppose if they ever bring back swine-laundries (another casualty of the urban age) you might make a deal for run-off, but it doesn't keep well.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is that the "Angry Machine" stock sound effect at the end of the ad? Futurama fans may recognize it as being the effect used with the Hypno Toad.
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!
http://r33b.net/
Actually, I've got a sweet hook up for high-grade malarkey and all shenanigan-related compunds. Straight from the source, let me know, yo..
Great prices too!
How about we call it "cleaner coal", to make it clear that it is being compared to current power stations, which aren't going anywhere.
@Ito Kagehisa
Bookmarked. And I thank you...
Can I have the last word?
Bio char! Bio char! Bio char!
I don't think nuclear is cheap
http://www.polymeme.com/search-index?op0=%3D&filter0=COST+OF+NUCLEAR
Methane is the best choice where wind, solar and hydro are impractical.
http://www.ruralcostarica.com/digester-video.html
You can buy methane-powered appliances at your local Mega-Mart (motto: where shopping is a baffling ordeal!) and any place humans live there's at least one natural source of methane.