3 ms·

Clean coal refers to scrubbing pollutants and possibly CO2 from emissions. It isn't necessarily bullshit.

maxxxxx 8y ago
It is BS because they never put anything behind it.
munk-a 8y ago
Indeed, and to clarify "clean coal" isn't referring to cleaning the coal, it is referring to increased effort put into trying to reduce released pollutants when using the coal. There was a hilarious quote from a while back where a politician referred to train loads of "cleaned coal" heading out of Montana which created a misunderstanding about what clean coal technologies are trying to do. There is no "cleaned coal". (Aside, I believe calling those technologies "clean coal" is quite hyperbolic, but that is a separate issue)
- tlb 8y ago
  Coal mines vary widely in the amount of impurities in the coal they produce. Low-impurity coal requires less scrubbing to meet a give emissions target. Sulfur is the worst of the impurities -- it becomes sulfuric acid in the atmosphere and is precipitated by rain, causing concrete to erode. The cleaner coal is called Anthracite [0]. The dirtier coal is Lignite [1]. Lignite is usually cleaned, by heating it up to drive out the water so it burns better (and weighs less during shipping.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite
stdplaceholder 8y ago
There is no thermodynamically possible way to generate power from burning coal while also removing the primary product of the reaction from the effluent. Clean coal is, necessarily, 100% bullshit.
- fromthestart 8y ago
  That's not true at all. You can, for example, sequester it by injecting it into the earth.
  - mrguyorama 8y ago
    By default you would then end up with less energy than you started with
- avs733 8y ago
  >Clean coal is, necessarily, 100% bullshit Necessarily = chemically and thermodynamically
- adrianN 8y ago
  I think the idea is not to turn the CO2 back into carbon and oxygen, but to store it somewhere other than the atmosphere. That is not thermodynamically impossible.
jlj 8y ago
It can refer to: "reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission" This was a boondoggle near my hometown: sttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healy_Clean_Coal_Project Sheetrock/gypsum board is another byproduct: https://www.buildinggreen.com/primer/synthetic-gypsum https://www.buildinggreen.com/primer/synthetic-gypsum There was a wave of flue gas gypsum emitting acidic gasses around 2009, eating through copper plumbing and wiring. This was in Florida. CO2 still has to go somewhere. Carbonation, industrial gasses, into the ground, or into the air. I'm skeptical of clean or green in any product name. It's more about marketing.
- gruez 8y ago
  >There was a wave of flue gas gypsum emitting acidic gasses around 2009, eating through copper plumbing and wiring. This was in Florida. sounds like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_drywall https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_drywall rather than clean coal
  - jlj 8y ago
    My point was that clean coal can mean a lot of things and sometimes making one part of a product lifecycle "green" just passes the problem down the supply chain. In this case, scrubbing the flue gasses and recycling the coal ash resulted in toxic drywall. This isn't to say all drywall is toxic but it illustrates one illusion of something being clean or green.

It is BS because they never put anything behind it.

Indeed, and to clarify "clean coal" isn't referring to cleaning the coal, it is referring to increased effort put into trying to reduce released pollutants when using the coal. There was a hilarious quote from a while back where a politician referred to train loads of "cleaned coal" heading out of Montana which created a misunderstanding about what clean coal technologies are trying to do. There is no "cleaned coal". (Aside, I believe calling those technologies "clean coal" is quite hyperbolic, but that is a separate issue)

tlb 8y ago
Coal mines vary widely in the amount of impurities in the coal they produce. Low-impurity coal requires less scrubbing to meet a give emissions target. Sulfur is the worst of the impurities -- it becomes sulfuric acid in the atmosphere and is precipitated by rain, causing concrete to erode. The cleaner coal is called Anthracite [0]. The dirtier coal is Lignite [1]. Lignite is usually cleaned, by heating it up to drive out the water so it burns better (and weighs less during shipping.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracite [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite

stdplaceholder 8y ago

There is no thermodynamically possible way to generate power from burning coal while also removing the primary product of the reaction from the effluent. Clean coal is, necessarily, 100% bullshit.

fromthestart 8y ago
That's not true at all. You can, for example, sequester it by injecting it into the earth.
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  By default you would then end up with less energy than you started with
avs733 8y ago
>Clean coal is, necessarily, 100% bullshit Necessarily = chemically and thermodynamically
adrianN 8y ago
I think the idea is not to turn the CO2 back into carbon and oxygen, but to store it somewhere other than the atmosphere. That is not thermodynamically impossible.

jlj 8y ago

It can refer to: "reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission" This was a boondoggle near my hometown: sttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healy_Clean_Coal_Project Sheetrock/gypsum board is another byproduct: https://www.buildinggreen.com/primer/synthetic-gypsum https://www.buildinggreen.com/primer/synthetic-gypsum There was a wave of flue gas gypsum emitting acidic gasses around 2009, eating through copper plumbing and wiring. This was in Florida. CO2 still has to go somewhere. Carbonation, industrial gasses, into the ground, or into the air. I'm skeptical of clean or green in any product name. It's more about marketing.

gruez 8y ago
>There was a wave of flue gas gypsum emitting acidic gasses around 2009, eating through copper plumbing and wiring. This was in Florida. sounds like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_drywall https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_drywall rather than clean coal
- jlj 8y ago
  My point was that clean coal can mean a lot of things and sometimes making one part of a product lifecycle "green" just passes the problem down the supply chain. In this case, scrubbing the flue gasses and recycling the coal ash resulted in toxic drywall. This isn't to say all drywall is toxic but it illustrates one illusion of something being clean or green.