- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is clean coal?
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:52 am to upgrayedd
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:52 am to upgrayedd
quote:
Coal sucks as a power source just because of the residual material that you have to deal with like fly ash. I don't care if it's used but it's not the best choice.
Makes excellent “rocks” for landscaping.
0
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:52 am to The Cool No 9
Low sulphur, I would imagine.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:53 am to The Cool No 9
It's less to do with the mining and more to do with the carbon capture that takes place after a plant has burned the coal.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:55 am to The Cool No 9
quote:
What is clean coal?
Stuff we used to export, then the Dims locked it up. Since, we have been dependent on Indonesian sources. Not to worry, the Clinton’s were getting paid for it.
Then Trump MAGA’d, and we’re going to go get our own coal. Maybe even sell some to China.
Sauces
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:55 am to upgrayedd
Apart from emissions and a dirty byproduct, coal is an incredibly efficient, very cheap power source. There's a reason Germany, who refuses to engage in fracking for natural gas, have turned more towards coal.
In the U.S., coal generation will likely become obsolete due to natural gas and the fact the entire capital market investment apparatus has moved on to other technologies (natural gas and renewables). Coal will still be around for a while, though.
In the U.S., coal generation will likely become obsolete due to natural gas and the fact the entire capital market investment apparatus has moved on to other technologies (natural gas and renewables). Coal will still be around for a while, though.
This post was edited on 1/31/18 at 10:57 am
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:57 am to upgrayedd
quote:which is used in 99% of concrete yet it is considered a hazardous material.
because of the residual material that you have to deal with like fly ash
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:59 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Coal's biggest problem is that natural gas is kicking its arse cost wise.
This ^ and the fact that new power plants are building NG fired turbines or boilers and most coal burning plants are being converted to NG fired so demand is low in the US. But, exporting of US coal could be lucrative to 3rd world nations if regulations and tariffs make it profitable. We will see.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 10:59 am to The Cool No 9
clean coal can be turned into a liquid at a cost of about .35 cents a gallon, this fuel can be run in diesel motors
(with a small adjustment) and if all cars and trucks in North America ran on diesel there is enough CC known in America today to run every vehicle for the next 200 years.
(with a small adjustment) and if all cars and trucks in North America ran on diesel there is enough CC known in America today to run every vehicle for the next 200 years.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:01 am to The Cool No 9
quote:
Common sense tells me it's just a cautious way to mine coal.
I worked on the FGD unit at Indianapolis Power and Light. Pretty clean, but very expensive system.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:02 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I don't care if it's used but it's not the best choice.
What's a "better" choice? Nuclear?
quote:
residual material that you have to deal with
Solar and wind are centuries from being able to supply a majority of developed (and developing, for that matter) countries' demand. They can be great - in certain environments and under certain circumstances. They can be a superior option for low demand power without having to expand the grid - for example. In addition, they can be great supplemental or gap filler power, again, if it is appropriate for the area.
But - CENTURIES - at least 1 century from being a viable alternative (rather than a supplement to), coal, oil, gas and nuclear.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:04 am to RedStickBR
quote:
Apart from emissions and a dirty byproduct, coal is an incredibly efficient, very cheap power source. There's a reason Germany, who refuses to engage in fracking for natural gas, have turned more towards coal.
I think a lot of that has to do with their need to be self reliant on their own energy sources more than anything. They certainly don't want to rely on piping LNG in from Russia.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:06 am to CarRamrod
quote:
which is used in 99% of concrete yet it is considered a hazardous material.
Pretty sure it's typically got pretty high levels of heavy metals.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:07 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
What's a "better" choice? Nuclear?
NG is a better choice by far.
quote:
But - CENTURIES - at least 1 century from being a viable alternative (rather than a supplement to), coal, oil, gas and nuclear.
I never suggested that "green energy" is the alternative answer here.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:08 am to upgrayedd
They get a lot of gas from Russia and are using Russian gas more and more. In fact, they just greenlit a new gas pipeline from Russia today. Still, though, they thought they could retire their nuclear plants and go heavy renewable and they simply can't. They need reliable baseload power - that's why they are building coal plants.
LINK /
LINK
LINK /
LINK
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:10 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Coal's biggest problem is that natural gas is kicking its arse cost wise.
Yep. See Southern Company’s Kemper County MS coal gasification plant (I recommend reading into it). There’s way too many nightmares to get into with the plant itself, but it is designed to run on anthracite and with natural gas prices being what they are they have modified it to run on natural gas.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:13 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I never suggested that "green energy" is the alternative answer here.
Fair enough.
quote:
NG is a better choice by far.
Only because we've made coal so expensive in an unforced error (or self-inflicted wound, if you will).
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:14 am to RedStickBR
quote:
They get a lot of gas from Russia and are using Russian gas more and more. In fact, they just greenlit a new gas pipeline from Russia today. Still, though, they thought they could retire their nuclear plants and go heavy renewable and they simply can't. They need reliable baseload power - that's why they are building coal plants.
I was watching an episode of This Old House and they went to Germany to take a look at some of their energy efficiency efforts for residential structures. Apparently all new construction has to have a certain amount of self generated power. They had solar panels, but some were using wood pellet furnaces for heat generation as well as energy production.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:16 am to upgrayedd
quote:
You mean through reclamation?
Yes. It is pretty highly regulated, about as bad as one can imagine ... but, the results speak for themselves.
I have seen this first-hand, i.e. before vs. after.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:17 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Only because we've made coal so expensive in an unforced error (or self-inflicted wound, if you will).
Maybe. But NG doesn't have the waste products that you have to deal with in perpetuity.
Posted on 1/31/18 at 11:18 am to upgrayedd
Clean coal can best be described as capturing and separating those heavy metals and contaminants as the coal burns but before they are released into the atmosphere. Existing coal plants can be retrofitted with an Air Quality Control System (AQCS).
Coal fired units produce 30-40% more power than their gas counterparts.
Some current gas turbines have the flexibility to burn fluidized coal as an alternative, should the market shift.
Carbon capture is under development currently by a couple companies. There is one scale plant design, but the model plant has yet to be built due to financial difficulties.
Coal fired units produce 30-40% more power than their gas counterparts.
Some current gas turbines have the flexibility to burn fluidized coal as an alternative, should the market shift.
Carbon capture is under development currently by a couple companies. There is one scale plant design, but the model plant has yet to be built due to financial difficulties.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News