From the site below we can see that the demand for coal will out pace any co2 limiting or removal projects proposed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_...A0G9Cu0kasE1vAI
So what can be done to use coal in a cleaner way. From a chemical stand point how much difference is there between coal and oil.
Paul
I looked at your important link and this quote struck me with much concern.
You see people seek relief from pain and suffering.
To find this we seek easy solutions.
If the solution is burning coal and you gain by receiving money, land, food, or pleasure, you feel comfortable overlooking any negative side effects.
Even if the side effect is adding to the one thing that will destroy the system that you are using to gain.
I wish I know who wrote this: I think it is a very old quote from Japan or China.
You see people seek relief from pain and suffering.
To find this we seek easy solutions.
If the solution is burning coal and you gain by receiving money, land, food, or pleasure, you feel comfortable overlooking any negative side effects.
Even if the side effect is adding to the one thing that will destroy the system that you are using to gain.
I wish I know who wrote this: I think it is a very old quote from Japan or China.
For a while in the world someone is fat.For a while in the world someone is hungry
I looked at your important link and this quote struck me with much concern.
QUOTE
Not very many people are talking about what do we do to live with the consequences of what's happening," said James Brock, a longtime industry consultant in the Beijing office of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "The polar bears are doomed — they're going to museums. At the end of this century the Arctic ice cap will be gone. That means a lot of water rising, not by inches but meters."
You see people seek relief from pain and suffering.
To find this we seek easy solutions.
If the solution is burning coal and you gain by receiving money, land, food, or pleasure, you feel comfortable overlooking any negative side effects.
Even if the side effect is adding to the one thing that will destroy the system that you are using to gain.
I wish I know who wrote this: I think it is a very old quote from Japan or China.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not very many people are talking about what do we do to live with the consequences of what's happening," said James Brock, a longtime industry consultant in the Beijing office of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. "The polar bears are doomed — they're going to museums. At the end of this century the Arctic ice cap will be gone. That means a lot of water rising, not by inches but meters." |
You see people seek relief from pain and suffering.
To find this we seek easy solutions.
If the solution is burning coal and you gain by receiving money, land, food, or pleasure, you feel comfortable overlooking any negative side effects.
Even if the side effect is adding to the one thing that will destroy the system that you are using to gain.
I wish I know who wrote this: I think it is a very old quote from Japan or China.
For a while in the world someone is fat.For a while in the world someone is hungry
QUOTE (rethinker+Oct 29 2007, 09:58 PM)
Paul
I looked at your important link and this quote struck me with much concern.
You see people seek relief from pain and suffering.
To find this we seek easy solutions.
If the solution is burning coal and you gain by receiving money, land, food, or pleasure, you feel comfortable overlooking any negative side effects.
Even if the side effect is adding to the one thing that will destroy the system that you are using to gain.
I wish I know who wrote this: I think it is a very old quote from Japan or China.
Yea I noticed that quote too. (didn't care too much for that either)
The point to that not so important link was that no matter how much Liberalous stupiticous preach about the GW thingy this shows that nothing will change.
But what I was hoping for here was info on perhaps cracking coal into something cleaner.
I looked at your important link and this quote struck me with much concern.
You see people seek relief from pain and suffering.
To find this we seek easy solutions.
If the solution is burning coal and you gain by receiving money, land, food, or pleasure, you feel comfortable overlooking any negative side effects.
Even if the side effect is adding to the one thing that will destroy the system that you are using to gain.
I wish I know who wrote this: I think it is a very old quote from Japan or China.
Yea I noticed that quote too. (didn't care too much for that either)
The point to that not so important link was that no matter how much Liberalous stupiticous preach about the GW thingy this shows that nothing will change.
But what I was hoping for here was info on perhaps cracking coal into something cleaner.
QUOTE (paul h+Oct 29 2007, 08:22 PM)
From the site below we can see that the demand for coal will out pace any co2 limiting or removal projects proposed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_...A0G9Cu0kasE1vAI
So what can be done to use coal in a cleaner way. From a chemical stand point how much difference is there between coal and oil.
First of all, its not between Coal and Oil, its between Coal and Natural Gas.
On a percentage basis very little Oil is used for electrical generation (and very little coal is used for propulsion)
When one compares Natural Gas to Coal, except for cost, Gas is BY FAR the better fuel producing more energy per unit of CO2 and in comparison to coal, almost no pollution.
While we have been doing a decent job in the US in lowering pollution from Coal plants, they still are the biggest point sources of pollution we have generating megatons of NOx, SOx and Fly Ash (which includes the heavy metals Uranium and Mercury) each year.
Example, in 1980 we burned ~500 MILLION tons of coal, and in doing so we produced about 6 million tons of NOx and about 11 million tons of SOx. Two decades later our use of Coal had approx doubled to 1 BILLION tons of coal but even so our levels of pollution had decreased to ~ 3 million tons of NOx and about 6 million tons of SOx. Fly ash was similarly reduced.
Still ~9 MILLION TONS of SOx/NOx pollution is nothing to dismiss lightly, nor are the heavy metals in the fly ash.
Here's a practical example. CFLs contain mercury, and thus should be disposed properly so as to prevent the mercury from entering the environment, BUT, even if you don't, the energy savings from the use of the CFL over its normal lifetime will STILL reduce the amount of mercury entering the environment simply because 50% of our electricity comes from coal. (note: please recycle though as we really need to reduce Hg emissions)
So, as you can see, we are burning coal in a cleaner way, but we have LOTs of room for improvement.
In general this is referred to as Clean Coal Technology.
In general this refers to using some of the energy in the coal to turn it into a gas, essentially the same as natural gas, and then burning that gas to produce electricity.
Done this way not only do the BTUs generated per lb of CO2 increase but the amount of pollution released approaches the levels of Natural gas.
From a CO2 perspective though, it is only with a clean coal plant that one can seriously consider capture/sequestration of the resulting CO2 as normal Coal plants produce too much pollution to be able to do so. Generally this involves using the energy in Coal to generate hydrogen gas and then burning that as the fuel.
More here:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powe...tems/cleancoal/
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/aboutus/fe_cl...ochure_web2.pdf
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/
http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5356683
Arthur
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071028/ap_on_...A0G9Cu0kasE1vAI
So what can be done to use coal in a cleaner way. From a chemical stand point how much difference is there between coal and oil.
First of all, its not between Coal and Oil, its between Coal and Natural Gas.
On a percentage basis very little Oil is used for electrical generation (and very little coal is used for propulsion)
When one compares Natural Gas to Coal, except for cost, Gas is BY FAR the better fuel producing more energy per unit of CO2 and in comparison to coal, almost no pollution.
While we have been doing a decent job in the US in lowering pollution from Coal plants, they still are the biggest point sources of pollution we have generating megatons of NOx, SOx and Fly Ash (which includes the heavy metals Uranium and Mercury) each year.
Example, in 1980 we burned ~500 MILLION tons of coal, and in doing so we produced about 6 million tons of NOx and about 11 million tons of SOx. Two decades later our use of Coal had approx doubled to 1 BILLION tons of coal but even so our levels of pollution had decreased to ~ 3 million tons of NOx and about 6 million tons of SOx. Fly ash was similarly reduced.
Still ~9 MILLION TONS of SOx/NOx pollution is nothing to dismiss lightly, nor are the heavy metals in the fly ash.
Here's a practical example. CFLs contain mercury, and thus should be disposed properly so as to prevent the mercury from entering the environment, BUT, even if you don't, the energy savings from the use of the CFL over its normal lifetime will STILL reduce the amount of mercury entering the environment simply because 50% of our electricity comes from coal. (note: please recycle though as we really need to reduce Hg emissions)
So, as you can see, we are burning coal in a cleaner way, but we have LOTs of room for improvement.
In general this is referred to as Clean Coal Technology.
In general this refers to using some of the energy in the coal to turn it into a gas, essentially the same as natural gas, and then burning that gas to produce electricity.
Done this way not only do the BTUs generated per lb of CO2 increase but the amount of pollution released approaches the levels of Natural gas.
From a CO2 perspective though, it is only with a clean coal plant that one can seriously consider capture/sequestration of the resulting CO2 as normal Coal plants produce too much pollution to be able to do so. Generally this involves using the energy in Coal to generate hydrogen gas and then burning that as the fuel.
More here:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powe...tems/cleancoal/
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/aboutus/fe_cl...ochure_web2.pdf
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/
http://www.uic.com.au/nip83.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5356683
Arthur
Arthur,
Thanks for the links they have led to an answer to my question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process
A bit of poking around and I found a company in mississippi that are working on this now.
http://www.rentechinc.com/rentech-projects.htm#4
Thanks for the links they have led to an answer to my question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process
A bit of poking around and I found a company in mississippi that are working on this now.
http://www.rentechinc.com/rentech-projects.htm#4
About 50% world energy is used for electricity generation and about 50% world energy used for transport. For transport is used about 95% from oil. I think if to build electric cars then at least oil will be burned in farther place from people to produce energy and not on the street. About 50% electricity is from coal and about 30% from nuclear power and about 20% from over. Also very much coal used for warm in winter. Overall world energy is this: ~45% oil; 40% coal; ~10% nulear fission; ~5% over. So it's looks funny when everywhere claims that nuclear fission is very powerfull energy 
Sun energy effiency is about 2-3% and about 2-3% is converted to wind, so I think wind is the best energy. Or enough this energy for humans is hard to say and about cost of this energy. Also need many place.
Also oil maybe is more harmful for human than coal, but maybe it's more depend that distance is from human and fabric or engine.
Here more precisly world energy:
34% oil; 25% coal; 21% natural gas; 6.5% nuclear; 13.5% over.
Sun energy effiency is about 2-3% and about 2-3% is converted to wind, so I think wind is the best energy. Or enough this energy for humans is hard to say and about cost of this energy. Also need many place.
Also oil maybe is more harmful for human than coal, but maybe it's more depend that distance is from human and fabric or engine.
Here more precisly world energy:
34% oil; 25% coal; 21% natural gas; 6.5% nuclear; 13.5% over.
DavidD,
I am a big fan of wind power. also I like small water generators for the home. Industry will not market a small home sized generator. except for backup power. It seems that they only want to make large 2-5 megawatt units. Pv cells are ok but costly, then the battery maintenance is a pain. I plan to do some workshop experiments with rectennas soon. I would like to see if there is a way to convert existing EM waves into usable electricity. There are some companies doing research on these in the visible light range, but I think it possible to get a multi-spectrum device that would convert on both sides of the light band. I had started a thread on this but no response.
I am a big fan of wind power. also I like small water generators for the home. Industry will not market a small home sized generator. except for backup power. It seems that they only want to make large 2-5 megawatt units. Pv cells are ok but costly, then the battery maintenance is a pain. I plan to do some workshop experiments with rectennas soon. I would like to see if there is a way to convert existing EM waves into usable electricity. There are some companies doing research on these in the visible light range, but I think it possible to get a multi-spectrum device that would convert on both sides of the light band. I had started a thread on this but no response.
QUOTE (DavidD+Nov 10 2007, 10:34 AM)
I think if to build electric cars then at least oil will be burned in farther place from people to produce energy and not on the street.
That is like sweeping the toxic dust under the rug. Burning crap in far away places only dilutes it, so people don't see it, but it is bad for EVERYBODY, directly or not. Birth defects, respiratory illnesses, cancer, etc. The stuff you burn, actually does not matter where, is released into the air. Plenty of it is deadly. Billions of tons of toxic garbage. It spreads and contaminates the air, the soil, the fields, the animals, the lakes, rivers and streams, the fish, the entire food chain, and ends up on your dinner plate. Yuck! You will find bad chemicals, toxins, and carcinogenic dioxins in the average person today. You will find probably 40 different very bad things like mercury and lead for starters. POISON. Do you not think that is gross? I think it is disgusting.
That is like sweeping the toxic dust under the rug. Burning crap in far away places only dilutes it, so people don't see it, but it is bad for EVERYBODY, directly or not. Birth defects, respiratory illnesses, cancer, etc. The stuff you burn, actually does not matter where, is released into the air. Plenty of it is deadly. Billions of tons of toxic garbage. It spreads and contaminates the air, the soil, the fields, the animals, the lakes, rivers and streams, the fish, the entire food chain, and ends up on your dinner plate. Yuck! You will find bad chemicals, toxins, and carcinogenic dioxins in the average person today. You will find probably 40 different very bad things like mercury and lead for starters. POISON. Do you not think that is gross? I think it is disgusting.
Here http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php claiming that if you burn oil in station then it would be more effecient than burning directly in ibust oil engine. But according to my calculation effeciency is the same, becouse about 25% effeciency has oil engine and about 30% effeciency is to convert thermal power into electricity. And about 90% effeciency of electric engine. But maybe to create specific oil for engine is less efiecnt than for burning station, but I don't think that it's can be very big diferent (maybe then in station burning oil will be more poluted) and also need pay for recharge Li ion batteries, which are 80% of car cost. So to me it's don't look like rechargebale batteries solving polution problem, except if all electricity would be from clear energy sources like wind and sun. But it's looking stupid to don't use energy, which is inside earth and maybe reproducing faster than humans can take it. More deafs perhaps are from some desease than from polutate air...
Perhaps yes of course, why not. Cancer rates have skyrocketed the world over. It is not a secret and it is obvious what caused it. Polluted air triggers and exacerbates health problems. Also the OZONE HOLE in atmosphere is very bad.
>Cancer rates have skyrocketed the world over. It is not a secret and it is obvious what caused it.
You mean all of those above ground atomic bomb tests don't you?
You mean all of those above ground atomic bomb tests don't you?
QUOTE (paul h+Nov 18 2007, 02:54 PM)
You mean all of those above ground atomic bomb tests don't you?
Plus everything else, DU included. I read there are still artificial radiation belts in space above those nuclear test sites.
Plus everything else, DU included. I read there are still artificial radiation belts in space above those nuclear test sites.
QUOTE (PJParent001+Nov 18 2007, 02:37 PM)
Cancer rates have skyrocketed the world over. It is not a secret and it is obvious what caused it.
Actually, the primary reason is that life expectancy is RISING globally and cancer is predominately a disease that occurs more in an older population.
Consider it the "good news/bad news" disease.
From the UN:
The predicted sharp increase in new cases – from 10 million new cases globally in 2000, to 15 million in 2020 - will mainly be due to steadily ageing populations in both developed and developing countries and also to current trends in smoking prevalence and the growing adoption of unhealthy lifestyles.
This is NOT to say that pollution is not a bad thing, its simply that most widely dispersed pollutants are not carcinogenic in the levels we encounter them.
As to doing something about cancer:
Simple: Quit Smoking, tobacco consumption remains the most important avoidable cancer risk.
Second: get screened for common cancers at appropriate ages (breast, PAP, Colo-Rectal)
Third: Eat a healthy diet, exercise and keep weight down to reasonable levels (fat people have much higher cancer rates and then do less well).
Arthur
Actually, the primary reason is that life expectancy is RISING globally and cancer is predominately a disease that occurs more in an older population.
Consider it the "good news/bad news" disease.
From the UN:
The predicted sharp increase in new cases – from 10 million new cases globally in 2000, to 15 million in 2020 - will mainly be due to steadily ageing populations in both developed and developing countries and also to current trends in smoking prevalence and the growing adoption of unhealthy lifestyles.
This is NOT to say that pollution is not a bad thing, its simply that most widely dispersed pollutants are not carcinogenic in the levels we encounter them.
As to doing something about cancer:
Simple: Quit Smoking, tobacco consumption remains the most important avoidable cancer risk.
Second: get screened for common cancers at appropriate ages (breast, PAP, Colo-Rectal)
Third: Eat a healthy diet, exercise and keep weight down to reasonable levels (fat people have much higher cancer rates and then do less well).
Arthur
adoucette,
>Simple: Quit Smoking, tobacco consumption remains the most important avoidable cancer risk.
Second: get screened for common cancers at appropriate ages (breast, PAP, Colo-Rectal)
Third: Eat a healthy diet, exercise and keep weight down to reasonable levels (fat people have much higher cancer rates and then do less well).
Just think, If I do all of this I could live an extra 3 years.
(in a $1500.00 per day nursing home).
>Simple: Quit Smoking, tobacco consumption remains the most important avoidable cancer risk.
Second: get screened for common cancers at appropriate ages (breast, PAP, Colo-Rectal)
Third: Eat a healthy diet, exercise and keep weight down to reasonable levels (fat people have much higher cancer rates and then do less well).
Just think, If I do all of this I could live an extra 3 years.
(in a $1500.00 per day nursing home).
We all die.
But, TRUST ME, dying of CANCER is clealy one of the BAD ways to go.
The REASON to avoid Cancer is not just to live longer.
Arthur
But, TRUST ME, dying of CANCER is clealy one of the BAD ways to go.
The REASON to avoid Cancer is not just to live longer.
Arthur
I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people die of natural causes. 
The government wouldn't let us eat anything bad for us 
Thanks to China burning vast amounts of coal with out scrubbers of any kind we, (in north America) have to contend with a huge increase in mercury, specifically in fish that we harvest. Considering China is bringing a new coal power plant on line every 7 days this is only going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I would suggest economic incentives for China to develop more clean coal technology, starting with installing scrubbers on the coal plants they now have and are continuing to build. The Chinese of course have every right to affordable energy, we also have a right not to be forced to deal with the toxic garbage wafting its way across the pacific ocean...
QUOTE (hawksecho+Dec 5 2007, 08:15 AM)
Thanks to China burning vast amounts of coal with out scrubbers of any kind we, (in north America) have to contend with a huge increase in mercury, specifically in fish that we harvest. Considering China is bringing a new coal power plant on line every 7 days this is only going to get a lot worse before it gets better. I would suggest economic incentives for China to develop more clean coal technology, starting with installing scrubbers on the coal plants they now have and are continuing to build. The Chinese of course have every right to affordable energy, we also have a right not to be forced to deal with the toxic garbage wafting its way across the pacific ocean...
It seems they are not interested or concerned,(not to say everyone) about how they go through their industrial revolution.
Products, people,products and people as fast as they can and as many as they can.
I compare it to putting a screwdriver in the carburetor to hold it in full throttle.
This gets the engine going, but if held at this high RPM for a long period, damage will (and has) occur.
It seems they are not interested or concerned,(not to say everyone) about how they go through their industrial revolution.
Products, people,products and people as fast as they can and as many as they can.
I compare it to putting a screwdriver in the carburetor to hold it in full throttle.
This gets the engine going, but if held at this high RPM for a long period, damage will (and has) occur.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.