Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coal will always come back

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Coal will always come back

    Because it's cheap and it works and people will burn anything to avoid freezing. In recent years we have seen people proudly bragging about shutting down coal mines and running coal operations out of business. This is a completely false notion simply because the coal has been sitting there for thousands of years and will sit there for thousands more. So anyone who thinks they can "get rid of coal" is deluding themselves.

    All it takes to get into the coal business is a lamp and a shovel. Blocking mineral rights sounds good politically, but the physical reality completely negates the effort. Another thing that costs a lot of money is jumping the gun on the long game. Both coal and nuclear fuel are long games that require massive infrastructure (a power plant uses a mile-long trainload of coal daily). So trying to isolate it without an adequate replacement plan, is a disaster in slow motion.

    I've never liked the way utilities try to pass off their craft as "clean". If your fire requires air from the atmosphere, it's creating pollution. So methane (natural gas as it's called), while substantially less polluting than coal, is still not "clean" and produces CO and NOx as it is burned. However, the pollution controls for both coal and methane-fueled power plants has advanced substantially since the 1990s.

    Today a coal plant can inject vaporized ammonia into the exhaust stream and catalyze the reaction to reduce NOx by well over 90%. And the same system works on gas plants as well. Carbon sequestration also works as does coal gasification, but the only serious effort to build a production plant using this technology was destroyed by corruption and graft in Meridian Mississippi. It would have been started on methane until steam could be generated, then the superheated steam (2000F+) is used to convert the coal to synthetic gas which is fed to a gas turbine engine. The exhaust from the gas turbine is captured to make steam and then the methane is shut off and the plant runs exclusively on gasified coal.

    It's technology that would have solved domestic energy needs for a century. If we really want electric cars, coal and nuclear are the only way to get there at the moment. Renewable energy is still in its infancy even though we have been using hydro and wind power for centuries. Lately the political answer seems to be "let's force it to happen" which means the people at the bottom of the economy get fucked the most. Our current rates for electricity and methane are easily twice what they should be and should have been flat for the last 50 years.

    Instead, the environmental movement has been hijacked into a bureau that spends its days looking for ways to fuck energy producers to score a buck. As opposed to actually cleaning pollution anywhere. They're simply bought off and the "superfund" sites remain polluted and waiting for reclamation (often for decades).


    #2
    Saw him in concert in Louisville...1987 I think.
     

    Comment


    • WritersPanic
      WritersPanic commented
      Editing a comment
      Yea, strip mining is a double-edged sword. It's much safer for the miners, but it adds a layer of environmental impact that underground mining lacks. West Virginia has a mix of above and below ground mines as well. I was passing through Birmingham on the way to Memphis back in the 80s and stopped at a light. A truck was turning left in front of me and it was missing the roof and windows, as if sliced off. And it didn't have a tag. The two guys in the truck were miners covered with coal dust.

    #3
    I'm an advocate for nuclear ("nuke-u-ler") power. Which means that it is doomed as anything that I advocate for is immediately defeated.

    Comment


      #4
      Originally posted by WritersPanic View Post
      Because it's cheap and it works and people will burn anything to avoid freezing. In recent years we have seen people proudly bragging about shutting down coal mines and running coal operations out of business. This is a completely false notion simply because the coal has been sitting there for thousands of years and will sit there for thousands more. So anyone who thinks they can "get rid of coal" is deluding themselves.

      All it takes to get into the coal business is a lamp and a shovel. Blocking mineral rights sounds good politically, but the physical reality completely negates the effort. Another thing that costs a lot of money is jumping the gun on the long game. Both coal and nuclear fuel are long games that require massive infrastructure (a power plant uses a mile-long trainload of coal daily). So trying to isolate it without an adequate replacement plan, is a disaster in slow motion.

      I've never liked the way utilities try to pass off their craft as "clean". If your fire requires air from the atmosphere, it's creating pollution. So methane (natural gas as it's called), while substantially less polluting than coal, is still not "clean" and produces CO and NOx as it is burned. However, the pollution controls for both coal and methane-fueled power plants has advanced substantially since the 1990s.

      Today a coal plant can inject vaporized ammonia into the exhaust stream and catalyze the reaction to reduce NOx by well over 90%. And the same system works on gas plants as well. Carbon sequestration also works as does coal gasification, but the only serious effort to build a production plant using this technology was destroyed by corruption and graft in Meridian Mississippi. It would have been started on methane until steam could be generated, then the superheated steam (2000F+) is used to convert the coal to synthetic gas which is fed to a gas turbine engine. The exhaust from the gas turbine is captured to make steam and then the methane is shut off and the plant runs exclusively on gasified coal.

      It's technology that would have solved domestic energy needs for a century. If we really want electric cars, coal and nuclear are the only way to get there at the moment. Renewable energy is still in its infancy even though we have been using hydro and wind power for centuries. Lately the political answer seems to be "let's force it to happen" which means the people at the bottom of the economy get fucked the most. Our current rates for electricity and methane are easily twice what they should be and should have been flat for the last 50 years.

      Instead, the environmental movement has been hijacked into a bureau that spends its days looking for ways to fuck energy producers to score a buck. As opposed to actually cleaning pollution anywhere. They're simply bought off and the "superfund" sites remain polluted and waiting for reclamation (often for decades).
      Correct me if I interpreted wrong but how is natural gas not cleaner than coal mining and burning? You say it is significantly less polluting, then go on about the pros and cons of both and seem to conclude going with coal is the better option?

      Comment


        #5
        Originally posted by Din Djarin View Post

        Correct me if I interpreted wrong but how is natural gas not cleaner than coal mining and burning? You say it is significantly less polluting, then go on about the pros and cons of both and seem to conclude going with coal is the better option?
        There's really no clean way to burn anything if the process uses regular air (70% nitrogen). But methane is a hydrocarbon, same as coal. Sure it's "cleaner" since it doesn't create ashes, but it still fills the air with carbon, nitrogen oxides and other combustion byproducts. Of course we would not be worrying about this if our combustion processes were more efficient.

        As it is the best you can hope for using pulverized coal is 33%. The most efficient plant on record is in Wales, a GE plant called the 9H which is 60% efficient running on methane. So there's a conversion factor. But when coal is converted into synthetic gas, the process is more efficient than methane. We're way ahead of where we were 30 years ago with plant efficiency. From the 40s to the 80s inefficient coal (and bunker oil) plants were operated on subsidies and never turned an actual profit.

        My whole point to this is that a lot of people complaining about coal do not understand the way electricity is produced and managed. Californians on the other hand do understand because they are suffering from it in real time with outages and rolling blackouts. What really screws them are the weird California solar regulations. If you want panels on your roof, you have to put the power to grid. So if the grid goes down, you can't switch the panels to local for operating your house.

        Coal is one of those ancient fuels that will be around for centuries. Targeting coal is kind of a low hanging fruit kind of lazy environmentalism. When the effort should be how to replace it, not just restrict it out of hand to leave everyone else to figure out how to keep the lights on. It's kind of like the squeezing a balloon example, it only moves the problem to someone else's plate. Kick the can politics.

        Comment


          #6
          How is it lazy environmentalism to conclude coal mining and burning is problematic? What is unfortunate in the minimizing and eventually banning of coal in our countries is that other countries are still investing in it. So globally speaking it doesn't help right away, at best indirectly as an example and/or work in progress (to develop the alternative options through to the point it becomes 1) cheaper and 2) even less polluting and more durable/efficient).
          Besides, now the gas that comes out of the earth is becoming problematic expensive and hard to get from certain regions (Russia, esp for industrial european countries) many of those environmentalists in EU governments get pragmatic again about temporarily using coal more again. I agree when it is obnoxiously set away by certain environmentalists as a complete no go without proper arguments it is lazy environmentalism, but this is in my observation rarely the case.

          But... lots of scientists busy with the climate change and that were arguing in the last decades for reducing CO2 in order to prevent the 1,5 degree raise in temperature, because it would be irreversable and accelerating afterwards, say now that we have been too slow on that and it is by now already deeemed impossible to prevent. Happily I don't have offspring to care about (may take some generations before it really sucks for the majority of the western world, not for many africans though)

          Comment


            #7
            Originally posted by Din Djarin View Post
            How is it lazy environmentalism to conclude coal mining and burning is problematic? What is unfortunate in the minimizing and eventually banning of coal in our countries is that other countries are still investing in it. So globally speaking it doesn't help right away, at best indirectly as an example and/or work in progress (to develop the alternative options through to the point it becomes 1) cheaper and 2) even less polluting and more durable/efficient).
            Besides, now the gas that comes out of the earth is becoming problematic expensive and hard to get from certain regions (Russia, esp for industrial european countries) many of those environmentalists in EU governments get pragmatic again about temporarily using coal more again. I agree when it is obnoxiously set away by certain environmentalists as a complete no go without proper arguments it is lazy environmentalism, but this is in my observation rarely the case.

            But... lots of scientists busy with the climate change and that were arguing in the last decades for reducing CO2 in order to prevent the 1,5 degree raise in temperature, because it would be irreversable and accelerating afterwards, say now that we have been too slow on that and it is by now already deeemed impossible to prevent. Happily I don't have offspring to care about (may take some generations before it really sucks for the majority of the western world, not for many africans though)
            Banning coal in our countries will just make it cheaper in the other 2/3rds of the world and consumption will just go up by the amount we think we saved anyway

            Comment


            • WritersPanic
              WritersPanic commented
              Editing a comment
              I bid for a project a couple of years ago that was put on eternal hold. It was a carbon-negative power plant that would be fueled with wood waste (75 truckloads per day). What was unique is that the synthetic gas is burned in a sealed oxygen environment for astonishing combustion efficiency with minimal pollutants.

            • WritersPanic
              WritersPanic commented
              Editing a comment
              BUT, the process of extracting pure oxygen was a huge portion of the energy requirement. The plant was to be rated at 50MW, but only 5MW would be sent to the grid. The rest is process overhead.

              BUT, every bit of the carbon is converted to CO2 and injected into the earth about 5 miles down. Coal could make such a process more productive.

            • Loverofcatsandfooty
              Loverofcatsandfooty commented
              Editing a comment
              Try burning coal and watch the emissions from it cause smog.
              Don't use coal.

            #8
            Oldsmobile made a coal turbined powered car 40 years ago.

            Behold the "Coaldsmobile"

            This will be the future. Once the green energy industry collapses on itself.
             

            Comment


              #9
              Coal is done this time. Technology is advancing and understanding the threat posed by excess carbon emissions - the coal fired power stations being the worst offenders. Other coal uses can be done in other ways - steel creation for example. Science has advanced in leaps and bounds and it is possible to make renewable energy work. All it requires is investment. This is the hold back - investment, or lack thereof.

              Naturally occurring energy isn't just about wind and solar. They are the obvious ones of course. Hydro is the oldest version of it, but it only works with natural height. This doesn't help countries in Africa, or Australia. It also only works with plenty of rain.

              Science can harness other forms of energy. The pressure of the deep sea for instance. Yes that might seem like science fiction, but pressure is a form of energy.

              Then of course there is rechargeable battery power. We've had that for decades on a small scale (double A batteries and the like), and the question is can it be done on a king sized scale. I say it can and it's the key to covering for windless nights where solar and wind power can't function. But here again we have a monetary restraint - nickel is not cheap and not plentiful (almost $20 per kilo) and yet it is a key ingredient in them.

              The first thing that needs to happen is to get conservative governments out of office. Australia did that in May. Hopefully the UK will do it next time they go to the polls. This requires investment and it deserves to get it.

              Comment


                #10
                Coal is something you don't want in the air.
                It produces too much smog and it causes bad air quality.

                Comment


                #11
                Cola is delectable.

                Comment


                  #12
                  Wind and solar are junk anyway

                  The best green energy source is geothermal

                  What better way to get an endless supply of energy than by getting it from Earth’s core?

                  The main obstacle is to dig holes deep enough to extract said energy

                  Comment


                    #13
                    Originally posted by 6-eyed View Post
                    Wind and solar are junk anyway

                    The best green energy source is geothermal

                    What better way to get an endless supply of energy than by getting it from Earth’s core?

                    The main obstacle is to dig holes deep enough to extract said energy
                    I have over 1,000 watts of solar panels now. I spent the last 3 years with 6 smaller, 15-watt panels to figure out the best placement for covering the most electricity demand periods over the year. What it means is that I'll never have 1,000 watts of production at a single moment, so I have to be content with the best compromise. BUT, when the shit hits the fan, I only need to drop 5 trees to double my solar harvesting average.

                    The only way the panels are going to be useful will be charging batteries and driving inverters. I've already replaced all of the incandescent bulbs (except the one in the oven) and I'm working on appliances and most of my yard tools are electric now. I can make electricity easier than I can make liquid fuel.

                    I doubt I'll ever come off the grid in a rural neighborhood, but I can put a dent in the cost. If I still lived in Florida I'd have a better chance and wind power works better there as well. I'm approaching this slowly and keeping everything as portable as I can.

                    New Zealand invested a great deal in geothermal since they have volcanic ports very near the surface. The down side is that the underground environment is a distillery for chemicals that readily attack metals. Heat exchangers have a limited life, so while it works at a massive scale, it's limited by geography and maintenance requirements. This will change as steam turbines are made more efficient. At present their preferred steam is around 3,000 PSI because the turbine is the size of a bus or two.

                    Closer to home I have been looking into burying PEX tubing to keep my shed above freezing in the winter.

                    Comment


                      #14
                      Originally posted by Ravynswood View Post
                      Coal is done this time. Technology is advancing and understanding the threat posed by excess carbon emissions - the coal fired power stations being the worst offenders. Other coal uses can be done in other ways - steel creation for example. Science has advanced in leaps and bounds and it is possible to make renewable energy work. All it requires is investment. This is the hold back - investment, or lack thereof.

                      Naturally occurring energy isn't just about wind and solar. They are the obvious ones of course. Hydro is the oldest version of it, but it only works with natural height. This doesn't help countries in Africa, or Australia. It also only works with plenty of rain.

                      Science can harness other forms of energy. The pressure of the deep sea for instance. Yes that might seem like science fiction, but pressure is a form of energy.

                      Then of course there is rechargeable battery power. We've had that for decades on a small scale (double A batteries and the like), and the question is can it be done on a king sized scale. I say it can and it's the key to covering for windless nights where solar and wind power can't function. But here again we have a monetary restraint - nickel is not cheap and not plentiful (almost $20 per kilo) and yet it is a key ingredient in them.

                      The first thing that needs to happen is to get conservative governments out of office. Australia did that in May. Hopefully the UK will do it next time they go to the polls. This requires investment and it deserves to get it.
                      This time, sure. But it will be back. After decades of investing in gas turbine power to retire the nuclear plants Europe has been caught with their pants down on the gas supply and are considering re-commissioning plants that were essentially abandoned in place instead of being dismantled. And because they can burn coal, something Europe has plenty of.

                      I'd prefer to see coal retired, but I don't have any faith that will happen. The policies against it now are fads for political expediency. There's no science behind the argument. The sheer number of people dictates our energy policy. Killing off a substantial portion of the population would fix that quickly. Some day they'll get around to that solution. Once they figure out how to balance a budget.

                      Comment


                        #15
                        Originally posted by WritersPanic View Post

                        This time, sure. But it will be back. After decades of investing in gas turbine power to retire the nuclear plants Europe has been caught with their pants down on the gas supply and are considering re-commissioning plants that were essentially abandoned in place instead of being dismantled. And because they can burn coal, something Europe has plenty of.

                        I'd prefer to see coal retired, but I don't have any faith that will happen. The policies against it now are fads for political expediency. There's no science behind the argument. The sheer number of people dictates our energy policy. Killing off a substantial portion of the population would fix that quickly. Some day they'll get around to that solution. Once they figure out how to balance a budget.
                        There's plenty of science. The thing about gas is it is a fossil fuel, and burning it is as bad for the atmosphere as car, truck and bus fumes. And it also had limitations in availability, especially after fracking was banned in multiple places because of the damage it was doing. That's the thing. Anything damaging is going to be banned. That includes coal. The only issue right now is the mining industry including the unions looking for solutions for them if it is banned (perhaps I should say when). Mining can switch easily to other substances - nickel being the obvious one. Unions want jobs - that where the political will is being stymied.

                        I don't know where you live, but just in case - in Australia our federal election threw out a government that was not doing enough about climate change. But they also sent a message to the opposition on it. The Green influence increased, because the people want it. The new Prime Minister has promised to make Australia a renewable energy superpower.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X