Government Watchdog Scolds U.S. Department of Energy for Support of "Clean Coal"

[Nathanael]

The latest to file a grievance against the idea and promotion of carbon capture and storage is the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticizes the Department of Energy (DOE) on carbon capture and storage in the report "Opportunities Exist for DOE to Provide Better Information on the Maturity of Key Technologies to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions."

Link: http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/government-accountability-office-criticizes-department-energy-carbon-capture-storage

[HillbillyBob]

1. There is no such thing as clean coal its a joke on us.

from the mining to the disposal of ash its filthy. I remember my grandparents home being coal heated as a kid, the soot is everywhere..and think what it does to lungs.

[Radical Activist]

2. A nice wakeup call before the vote on a climate change bill.

Clean coal is a wasteful scam.

[lib_wit_it]

3. Clean coal=Oxymoron.

[zeaper]

4. Clean Coal is real.

It is too bad you need to go to Chemical Engineering school to understand this.

[Nihil]

5. Bullshit.

> It is too bad you need to go to Chemical Engineering school to understand this.

The only way you can claim that coal is clean is when you go to marketing school
(where they teach you how to lie for a living).

[zeaper]

6. Why can’t there be clean coal?

Please go to Chemical Engineering School and report back. Or better yet, forget about your eco sound bite and ask yourself why there can’t be clean coal.

[Nihil]

7. Well, my little sleeping friend ...

... if you'd actually been reading here since 2002 then you would
have seen your fake claim shot down in flames many, many times.

If, on the other hand, you had just registered a name for later
activation - perhaps until you received the impression that the
phrase "Chemical Engineering School" meant something - then you
can go back to your bridge and wait for another flash of idiocy
inspiration to strike you in the next 8 years ...

:eyes:

[zeaper]

8. You really don’t have a clue do you.

I’m not sure how to classify that response. It’s either an appeal to a higher authority or just plain stupid.

Hint: if you don’t know don’t respond.

[Nihil]

9. That's exactly what I thought about your .4

> You really don’t have a clue do you.
> I’m not sure how to classify that response. It’s either an appeal to a higher
> authority or just plain stupid.

From your subsequent posts, it looks like you were just plain stupid.


> Hint: if you don’t know don’t respond.

Oh, I know - not just what you are but also the answers that you hate to
see in black & white.

Which particular part of "clean" don't you understand?

The part at which "coal burns efficiently"?
Well, that's if you consider an efficiency of 37.5% to be good and are
happy to accept the company PR about a hopeful (read "prayed for") forecast
of an improvement to the mid 40% range ... probably in about the same time
that commercial fusion kicks in ...

The part involving "coal washing"?
There's nothing quite like moving the pollution around to allow slippery
industry marketeers to claim process X is now "cleaner" whilst the total
pollution is marginally worse (e.g., instead of picking up sulphur from
the waste gases and dropping it in the river, the rain now picks it up
from the slurry heaps/puddles and dropping it in the river ... along with
the heavy metals and other leachates).

The part where particulates are "trapped for disposal"?
(i.e., trapped and dumped in landfills or even building materials rather
than just dumped in the air)

The part where mercury removal is still not happening?
(i.e., not beyond the prohibitively expensive experimental stage with
quotes "efficiencies" of $761,000/kg removed - and that isn't 100% of
the mercury in the waste stream even then).


Like I said, go back to sleep little industry apologist and save the
electrons for your "Chemical Engineering School" daydreams ...

:hi:

[zeaper]

10. Obviously do not understand-your response was nonsense

As I stated you need to go to Chemical Engineering School to understand that there is clean coal. In your case I would recommend starting with a High School Science class.

Again, can you tell me why there cannot be clean coal? None of the crap in your post addresses this simple question. The technology for clean coal exists and has been proven.

BTW-You are confusing burn efficiency with total plant efficiency. Keep studying I know you will get it eventually. Hint: look up the Carnot cycle that’s where your 37.5% efficiency number came from.

[Nihil]

11. The answers are there in .9 ...

Sadly it appears that you are too stupid to understand them.

(BTW, I have two degrees - BA + BSc(Hons) - so you might as well
drop your "you need to go to Chemical Engineering School" (sic)
bullshit and start dealing with the science involved.)


How about *you* try to explain to *me* what you believe "clean coal" is?
:think:

> The technology for clean coal exists and has been proven.

Not at a commercially viable industrial scale it hasn't.

All that has been achieved at that level is a major marketing exercise
supported by academic prototypes which only concern themselves with a
small isolated element of the overall coal problem, allowing the
displacement activity referred to upthread to be discounted as far as
their results were concerned.

[zeaper]

13. Isn’t Clean Coal non-polluting?

Just asking.

[NickB79]

16. Well, that depends

IF you can guarantee that no more mountain-top removal occurs to mine the coal

AND

IF you find a way to safely dispose of the millions of tons of toxic fly ash that is generated annually in the process

AND

IF you can find a way to safely store the captured CO2 for thousands of years with little chance of an unanticipated release.

[zeaper]

21. Coal can be used without generating pollution

If done properly mountain tops can be removed without polluting. Of course the vast majority of coal can be had without removing or moving mountain tops.

As for fly ash, heck, just replace those mountain tops with it!! Actually, this is probably the biggest issue with coal. However, fairly simple processing can be done to fix metals to stop any potential leaching, then land fill or better yet back fill the mine.

And CO2, well if you really want to perpetuate the hoax that it is a pollutant, you can pump it in the ground. The oil companies have been doing that for 30-40 years now.

Come on guys don’t act so dumb, we all know that clean coal can be had, for a price. Just like alternative energy can be had, for a price. There is no free lunch.

Yawn, maybe time for a little nap.

[NickB79]

22. "And CO2, well if you really want to perpetuate the hoax that it is a pollutant"

Ah, didn't know I was arguing with a denier. Too bad you didn't say something like that sooner, because I wouldn't have wasted my time on someone so uneducated.

[Nihil]

18. Hence "clean coal" does not exist.

Go back to your bridge.

[NickB79]

12. So are energy-positive fusion reactions like the one used to power stars

But damned if we know how to get either one to work here on Earth with our current level of technology.

[zeaper]

14. Hum, ever heard of an H-bomb?

[NickB79]

15. I should have stated CONTROLLABLE energy-positive fusion reactions

Since we were discussing electrical generation from coal-fired power plants, I thought that was obvious.

[Nihil]

17. Nothing is obvious ...

... with a troll who has been keeping a sleeper account since 2002
and who has only been activated now to regurgitate nonsense ...
:shrug:

[Dogmudgeon]

19. If the guy's a sleeper ...

... then he needs more coffee.

"Is too!" is not a very effective argument for clean coal.

--d!

[kgrandia]

23. really?

Would that be the carbon capture and storage that has been 10 years in development for 10 years now or the giant coal ash lakes of toxic waste.

Or is it the mountain-top removal that is clean?

[Dogmudgeon]

20. Here's the REAL big problem in the Clean Coal fracas

A whole lot of people make their living mining and processing coal.

Don Blankenship be damned, but half of West Virginia, Ohio, and a big chunk of Pennsylvania depend on coal. The United Mine Workers represent many of the coal workers, and many more are non-union and vulnerable to exploitation.

THIS is why we have otherwise-responsible people calling for clean coal. Doing away with coal-based energy -- something I personally think is imperative A.S.A.P. -- will cause millions of people a world of hurt unless we plan for their re-training, a lifestyle upgrade, and better future careers. This will probably become a major "externality" in our shift to clean energy, but we've been aware that we would have to deal with such things for at least a decade.

Thus far, we haven't even discussed it.

It's difficult to see our problems in perspective when the problem is so big it overwhelms us. It's why we become so involved in little stuff -- CFLs, corporate greewash advertising, and banning grocery bags -- and avoid the big issues of conversion to new energy systems. We want it to be self-correcting. We want solutions that give us more energy, less pollution, and change our political system, all in one throw -- we want magic. But we don't live in a world of magic.

Clean coal will be a tyrant which obliges us to pay tribute until we confront the problem of what to do with unemployed miners and mine support staff. I strongly suggest we start immediately.

--d!

[Radical Activist]

24. It would be much easier

if we spent taxpayer dollars on real green jobs in coal regions instead of DOE throwing away money on clean coal scams.

[zeaper]

25. As usual the real problem comes down to money

Energy from clean coal will be expensive, at least twice what it costs from a conventional coal plant. That’s going to put it up there with similar costs for most alternate energy sources.

Very few people are willing to double their power bill for the environment. As for industry, well in many cases energy is a leading expense. Guess what they will do.