Comments on: “This is Reality” Takes On the Clean Coal Lie http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/ Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:27:06 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: jeff http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-71102 jeff Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:05:31 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-71102 we are turning water into dust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BVHKrEG-X8 we are turning water into dust

]]> By: Chubbs http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69965 Chubbs Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:57:05 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69965 Mitsubishi is not the company with the technology. Try again. Maybe you need a course of how a boiler works. Sulfur is one of the main by products directly associated with burning coal. The government and coal companies around the world wouldn't of poured money into removing it from the exhaust gas. The technology used to obtain the Co2 actually traps it and as of right now they pump it straight down into a very deep well in the earth. Not up but down. True, still not a great idea but it's a work in progress. There has been technology to clean particulates out of exhaust gasses for years and technology that is beginning to surface to clean the mercury. Clean coal technology does exist like I said it is not 100%. If my doctor were to tell me I have several harmful chemicals in my body and if I were to take these two drugs it would remove chemical A and chemical B with out any harmful side effects. Of course I would. And if my doctor also told me that drugs will be available in a couple of years to remove the rest.... I'm already excited. Yes burning coal is dirty, digging it out of the ground is dirty, even transportation of coal is dirty. It's not the coal companies business to clean the coal. They cant. Coal is dirty by nature. They are responsible to dig it up and transport it to where it gets burned. They already throw out tons of high sulfur coal that is not allowed to be burned. I do agree, that until Co2 is removed it will not be at 100%. But guess what? They can remove it but its not nearly efficient enough to apply it on every plant in the nation. The technology we have in place and the technology soon to surface is a step in the right direction. Give credit where credit is due. Maybe we should call it Cleaner coal than what it was 10 years ago Technology.If you really want someone to point the finger towards, point it at your government. More money needs to be funneled into the research and construction of these technologies. Mitsubishi is not the company with the technology. Try again. Maybe you need a course of how a boiler works. Sulfur is one of the main by products directly associated with burning coal. The government and coal companies around the world wouldn’t of poured money into removing it from the exhaust gas. The technology used to obtain the Co2 actually traps it and as of right now they pump it straight down into a very deep well in the earth. Not up but down. True, still not a great idea but it’s a work in progress. There has been technology to clean particulates out of exhaust gasses for years and technology that is beginning to surface to clean the mercury.

Clean coal technology does exist like I said it is not 100%. If my doctor were to tell me I have several harmful chemicals in my body and if I were to take these two drugs it would remove chemical A and chemical B with out any harmful side effects. Of course I would. And if my doctor also told me that drugs will be available in a couple of years to remove the rest…. I’m already excited. Yes burning coal is dirty, digging it out of the ground is dirty, even transportation of coal is dirty. It’s not the coal companies business to clean the coal. They cant. Coal is dirty by nature. They are responsible to dig it up and transport it to where it gets burned. They already throw out tons of high sulfur coal that is not allowed to be burned.

I do agree, that until Co2 is removed it will not be at 100%. But guess what? They can remove it but its not nearly efficient enough to apply it on every plant in the nation. The technology we have in place and the technology soon to surface is a step in the right direction. Give credit where credit is due. Maybe we should call it Cleaner coal than what it was 10 years ago Technology.If you really want someone to point the finger towards, point it at your government. More money needs to be funneled into the research and construction of these technologies.

]]> By: Richard Graves http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69946 Richard Graves Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:37:58 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69946 Dear Nick, Ah, if only it were so easy. Sulphur is a waste by-product of fossil fuel consumption, not the result of burning the fuel to produce energy. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, does produce an Hindered Amines flue gas solvent that absorbs CO2 at the smokestack ---> whereupon it is heated and released somewhere else. It is a processing cycle, with no storage capabilities. Basically, it is a marginally improved process on where they get the CO2 for soda. So they use it in soda or urea for chemical plants. Guess where the CO2 goes? Back into the atmosphere. If your doctor told you had high cholesterol and they gave you a drug that didn't reduce your cholesterol...but transported a tiny percentage of it to different parts of your body, you probably wouldn't call it safe. Clean Coal doesn't exist and without a safe, secure storage place for C02, it never will. Also, on the other side of the cycle, you are from West Virginia, tell me if Mountain Top Removal looks 'clean'. Dear Nick,

Ah, if only it were so easy. Sulphur is a waste by-product of fossil fuel consumption, not the result of burning the fuel to produce energy. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, does produce an Hindered Amines flue gas solvent that absorbs CO2 at the smokestack —> whereupon it is heated and released somewhere else. It is a processing cycle, with no storage capabilities. Basically, it is a marginally improved process on where they get the CO2 for soda. So they use it in soda or urea for chemical plants. Guess where the CO2 goes? Back into the atmosphere.

If your doctor told you had high cholesterol and they gave you a drug that didn’t reduce your cholesterol…but transported a tiny percentage of it to different parts of your body, you probably wouldn’t call it safe. Clean Coal doesn’t exist and without a safe, secure storage place for C02, it never will. Also, on the other side of the cycle, you are from West Virginia, tell me if Mountain Top Removal looks ‘clean’.

]]> By: Chubbs http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69944 Chubbs Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:58:58 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69944 Google flue gas desulfurization. Nearly all plants are retro fitted to have these. The same company that leads the nation and world in the construction of these units also have a system to remove Co2. A system which is in use in only a few plants but also they spend millions into making the system more efficient. Clean coal does currently exist and is in use. It is not 100% perfect but with time it will get there. Google flue gas desulfurization. Nearly all plants are retro fitted to have these. The same company that leads the nation and world in the construction of these units also have a system to remove Co2. A system which is in use in only a few plants but also they spend millions into making the system more efficient. Clean coal does currently exist and is in use. It is not 100% perfect but with time it will get there.

]]> By: James Norris http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69747 James Norris Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:42:32 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69747 Danawv, I agree that we need to balance things but being nostalgic for a simpler time, or simply saying we must stop producing electricity is not the answer. I for one would love to be able to create perfectly clean energy with no harm to anyone or anything but is this a realistic possibility? The answer is no because if you take away all the things that are being challenged now you would still have the heat balance. In fact if you know much about thermodynamics, and we could get incredibly technical here, you will find that entropy is continually increasing in the universe and - if Newtonian physics is to hold - at some point entropy wins.... The Earth was here long before humans and it is my personal opinion that it will be here long after humans are gone. The Earth has a great capacity to self regulate and though this regulation occurs on a geologic time scale it still occurs. We as humans should strive to do as little harm as possible but by our very nature we are going to create harm to the planet, whether that is by cutting down trees, warming water, whatever, it is still harm. The Earth will eventually return itself to a static equilibrium state. I personally, being from a rural background am appalled and saddened by the paving of our farms and fields but I can only do what I can do to convince others that this is the wrong approach. By being an alarmist and saying we can't build another highway, bridge, or building will not be successful, rather showing people their affect on our planet would be much more effective. Just so you know I do believe that global warming is occurring and I think we should do our best to control this phenomenon within the limits of the society we live in. As for the comment about the air and water you should be directing your ire and focus on the regulatory agencies that are not doing their jobs. It is illegal to allow heavy metal to contaminate waterways and when it occurs the companies should be fined, forced to remediate the situation, and their leaders (CEOs, etc) should go to jail. It is not the industry that is so vial it is the bad actors within the industry that are not being policed by the regulators that are the problem. Danawv, I agree that we need to balance things but being nostalgic for a simpler time, or simply saying we must stop producing electricity is not the answer. I for one would love to be able to create perfectly clean energy with no harm to anyone or anything but is this a realistic possibility? The answer is no because if you take away all the things that are being challenged now you would still have the heat balance. In fact if you know much about thermodynamics, and we could get incredibly technical here, you will find that entropy is continually increasing in the universe and – if Newtonian physics is to hold – at some point entropy wins…. The Earth was here long before humans and it is my personal opinion that it will be here long after humans are gone. The Earth has a great capacity to self regulate and though this regulation occurs on a geologic time scale it still occurs. We as humans should strive to do as little harm as possible but by our very nature we are going to create harm to the planet, whether that is by cutting down trees, warming water, whatever, it is still harm. The Earth will eventually return itself to a static equilibrium state. I personally, being from a rural background am appalled and saddened by the paving of our farms and fields but I can only do what I can do to convince others that this is the wrong approach. By being an alarmist and saying we can’t build another highway, bridge, or building will not be successful, rather showing people their affect on our planet would be much more effective. Just so you know I do believe that global warming is occurring and I think we should do our best to control this phenomenon within the limits of the society we live in. As for the comment about the air and water you should be directing your ire and focus on the regulatory agencies that are not doing their jobs. It is illegal to allow heavy metal to contaminate waterways and when it occurs the companies should be fined, forced to remediate the situation, and their leaders (CEOs, etc) should go to jail. It is not the industry that is so vial it is the bad actors within the industry that are not being policed by the regulators that are the problem.

]]> By: R Margolis http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69732 R Margolis Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:02:20 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69732 This post reminded me of this recent article on energy transitions: http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-december-magazine/moore2019s-curse-and-the-great-energy-delusion My guess is that we are not going to give up electricity [my late father also lived in a small town with no electricity and he was NOT nostalgic :-) ]. We will need more realistic ideas and plans to transition away from carbon-based fuels. This post reminded me of this recent article on energy transitions:

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/november-december-magazine/moore2019s-curse-and-the-great-energy-delusion

My guess is that we are not going to give up electricity [my late father also lived in a small town with no electricity and he was NOT nostalgic :-) ]. We will need more realistic ideas and plans to transition away from carbon-based fuels.

]]> By: Danawv http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69709 Danawv Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:55:02 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69709 James Norris, that's a very long paragraph, but as the grannies in Appalachia say, "We remember a time when we lived without electricity, but we don't think we can live without air and water." In West Virginia, people are already carrying their water to their home for bathing, cooking, drinking in gallon jugs because the water in their homes is full of heavy metals and toxic chemicals from coal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLaH9bxzNU Lets find a way to save our air and water, and the sweet little girls who are bathing in it. Something has to give in this energy equation, and I don't think it should be our respect for human life. James Norris, that’s a very long paragraph, but as the grannies in Appalachia say, “We remember a time when we lived without electricity, but we don’t think we can live without air and water.”

In West Virginia, people are already carrying their water to their home for bathing, cooking, drinking in gallon jugs because the water in their homes is full of heavy metals and toxic chemicals from coal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aLaH9bxzNU

Lets find a way to save our air and water, and the sweet little girls who are bathing in it. Something has to give in this energy equation, and I don’t think it should be our respect for human life.

]]> By: James Norris http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69672 James Norris Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:46:02 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69672 I think those who produced this advertisement should come and visit an open pit coal mine. I will show you the before, the in process, and the after and you make the decision. Not only that talk to the people who have lived in the area before the mine arrived and how useful and productive the land was before being mined and after being mined. The fact is the land is in better shape after mining than before the mining took place, at least in our area. That does not mean everyone performs up to these standards, and that is where the government regulators should do their jobs. That however has nothing to to with clean coal and clean coal technology. Clean coal is the process of taking the coal from the ground, "filtering" the coal to remove rocks, pyrites, etc. that increase ash content, SO2 emissions, and all the other things that are in the coal when it is removed from the ground. I agree that power plants should have emissions control equipment installed and operating correctly to limit the environmental impact. I am an engineer in the power industry and am very familiar with all these issues so I am not espousing something I do not know about. My question to all of you is what method do you propose to produce the electricity that society and each of you demand. I know that the first suggestion is that we use wind power and that should be part of the solution but wind power does not provide reliable, consistent power, in fact the high production time for wind power is the low power demand and since you cannot store electricity as you can other power sources this presents tremendous problems. Yes, you could use batteries, or even capacitors but just do a first run calculation on the size and numbers of capacitors or batteries and you will quickly see how impractical this solution is. Next the choice might be solar, now do the same first run calculation on the number of solar cells required to replace just one power plant ( a small power plant produces 150 MW per hour) and again you see with the current efficiencies of solar cells that this is not the complete answer. As a person in the power industry I think we should be using all possible sources, wind, solar, nuclear, and fossil power. There is a place for each of these and we should improve each of the technologies. My final comment on this is those of you who are so adamantly against the nuclear solution should do some real research because if you knew anything about the nuclear industry you would know how safe it is and how much it has improved since its inception, and those of you who would like to argue the facts I would be more than happy to oblige. I think those who produced this advertisement should come and visit an open pit coal mine. I will show you the before, the in process, and the after and you make the decision. Not only that talk to the people who have lived in the area before the mine arrived and how useful and productive the land was before being mined and after being mined. The fact is the land is in better shape after mining than before the mining took place, at least in our area. That does not mean everyone performs up to these standards, and that is where the government regulators should do their jobs. That however has nothing to to with clean coal and clean coal technology. Clean coal is the process of taking the coal from the ground, “filtering” the coal to remove rocks, pyrites, etc. that increase ash content, SO2 emissions, and all the other things that are in the coal when it is removed from the ground. I agree that power plants should have emissions control equipment installed and operating correctly to limit the environmental impact. I am an engineer in the power industry and am very familiar with all these issues so I am not espousing something I do not know about. My question to all of you is what method do you propose to produce the electricity that society and each of you demand. I know that the first suggestion is that we use wind power and that should be part of the solution but wind power does not provide reliable, consistent power, in fact the high production time for wind power is the low power demand and since you cannot store electricity as you can other power sources this presents tremendous problems. Yes, you could use batteries, or even capacitors but just do a first run calculation on the size and numbers of capacitors or batteries and you will quickly see how impractical this solution is. Next the choice might be solar, now do the same first run calculation on the number of solar cells required to replace just one power plant ( a small power plant produces 150 MW per hour) and again you see with the current efficiencies of solar cells that this is not the complete answer. As a person in the power industry I think we should be using all possible sources, wind, solar, nuclear, and fossil power. There is a place for each of these and we should improve each of the technologies. My final comment on this is those of you who are so adamantly against the nuclear solution should do some real research because if you knew anything about the nuclear industry you would know how safe it is and how much it has improved since its inception, and those of you who would like to argue the facts I would be more than happy to oblige.

]]> By: Mike http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69671 Mike Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:32:17 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69671 I agree with this effort, BUT I am concerned that this particular commercial is *VERY* ineffective. I am only here at this website because my wife and I had a disagreement over the AD. I honestly thought it was a "feel good" ad about clean coal.... not an educational spot against it. And I am an intelligent, college educated guy. The tongue-in-cheek quality of this ad is simply too subtle... I agree with this effort, BUT I am concerned that this particular commercial is *VERY* ineffective. I am only here at this website because my wife and I had a disagreement over the AD. I honestly thought it was a “feel good” ad about clean coal…. not an educational spot against it. And I am an intelligent, college educated guy. The tongue-in-cheek quality of this ad is simply too subtle…

]]> By: Jake Brewer http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/05/this-is-reality-takes-on-the-clean-coal-lie/#comment-69656 Jake Brewer Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:38:58 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/?p=7555#comment-69656 Jesse, I think that's a great idea to have more ads in this series that focus on MTR. Absolutely. I suspect that there will be quite a few ads to follow, and that really should be a focal point of one of them (or all of them) One thing I disagree on is that I don't think the false veil Big Coal has pulled down over the eyes of legislators on clean coal - convincing them that it's possible - is any less bad than their perpetration of MTR. They're both despicable in different ways. Hopefully, the next ads and campaign focus will bring MTR into full view - figuratively and literally. Jesse, I think that’s a great idea to have more ads in this series that focus on MTR. Absolutely. I suspect that there will be quite a few ads to follow, and that really should be a focal point of one of them (or all of them)

One thing I disagree on is that I don’t think the false veil Big Coal has pulled down over the eyes of legislators on clean coal – convincing them that it’s possible – is any less bad than their perpetration of MTR. They’re both despicable in different ways.

Hopefully, the next ads and campaign focus will bring MTR into full view – figuratively and literally.

]]>