4 ms·

"Clean coal" - are we really going to carry on flogging this dead horse ?

by stuaxo 5y ago

devaler 5y ago
Indeed. I cringe each time I see the phrase.
keewee7 5y ago
There is "Clean coal" - a political lie that coal from US swing states is more "clean" than coal from China. However this article describes CO2 capturing and storage technology. Something that could definitely help us in the coming decade.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Am I looking at the right article? The one I read was about using CO2 in generators instead of steam. edit: ah it was text on an image at the top that mentioned "clean coal" I didn't find it by text search so was confused.
- engineer_22 5y ago
  Article has nothing to do with CO2 Capture and Storage.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
roenxi 5y ago
You've got to make an actual argument rather than dismissing a technology out of hand. I'm put in mind of immortal quotes like "While most companies dumped gasoline in rivers (this was before the automobile was popular), Standard used it to fuel its machines" [0]. I'm not holding my breath, but there is nothing wrong with an energy department facilitating new energy technologies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Argument: Coal is made of carbon, and any combustion of it contributes to carbon dioxide, the primary driver of anthropogenic climate change. Putting the word "clean" behind it refers only to reduction of sulfur/nitrogen oxides, and does nothing to solve the carbon dioxide. It's a solution to the acid rain problem from several decades ago, but has minimal bearing on the current problem of climate change. At this point, it's a marketing term designed to confuse and confuddle the issue, and to imply that it's even possible for coal to be "clean". There is everything wrong with an energy department facilitating the same old energy technologies that have no substantial differences in the ways that matter.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    But given that we appear to be burning the carbon anyway, it does make sense to burn it at the highest attainable efficiencies. Ignoring clever tech just means more coal burnt for nothing, in defiance of the fact that 85% of our energy comes from fossil fuel. If the tech doesn't reduce carbon emissions then it isn't exactly a dead horse. They just aren't investigating it in an effort to reduce carbon emissions.
infogulch 5y ago
This is turbine technology. Turbines are energy source agnostic (gas, nuclear, solar concentration, etc) and will continue to be used for many years. They are basically the only viable way to reliably turn a heat gradient into electricity. Any advancement in this fundamental technology is welcome. The mention of clean coal in an image at the top of the article is irrelevant except for political messaging reasons, which I agree is a dumb reason for it to be there but here we are.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
darksaints 5y ago
The article has absolutely nothing to do with clean coal.

"Clean coal" - are we really going to carry on flogging this dead horse ?

by stuaxo 5y ago

"Clean coal" - are we really going to carry on flogging this dead horse ?

devaler 5y ago

Indeed. I cringe each time I see the phrase.

keewee7 5y ago

There is "Clean coal" - a political lie that coal from US swing states is more "clean" than coal from China. However this article describes CO2 capturing and storage technology. Something that could definitely help us in the coming decade.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Am I looking at the right article? The one I read was about using CO2 in generators instead of steam. edit: ah it was text on an image at the top that mentioned "clean coal" I didn't find it by text search so was confused.
engineer_22 5y ago
Article has nothing to do with CO2 Capture and Storage.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

roenxi 5y ago

You've got to make an actual argument rather than dismissing a technology out of hand. I'm put in mind of immortal quotes like "While most companies dumped gasoline in rivers (this was before the automobile was popular), Standard used it to fuel its machines" [0]. I'm not holding my breath, but there is nothing wrong with an energy department facilitating new energy technologies. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil

MereInterest 5y ago
Argument: Coal is made of carbon, and any combustion of it contributes to carbon dioxide, the primary driver of anthropogenic climate change. Putting the word "clean" behind it refers only to reduction of sulfur/nitrogen oxides, and does nothing to solve the carbon dioxide. It's a solution to the acid rain problem from several decades ago, but has minimal bearing on the current problem of climate change. At this point, it's a marketing term designed to confuse and confuddle the issue, and to imply that it's even possible for coal to be "clean". There is everything wrong with an energy department facilitating the same old energy technologies that have no substantial differences in the ways that matter.
- roenxi 5y ago
  But given that we appear to be burning the carbon anyway, it does make sense to burn it at the highest attainable efficiencies. Ignoring clever tech just means more coal burnt for nothing, in defiance of the fact that 85% of our energy comes from fossil fuel. If the tech doesn't reduce carbon emissions then it isn't exactly a dead horse. They just aren't investigating it in an effort to reduce carbon emissions.

infogulch 5y ago

This is turbine technology. Turbines are energy source agnostic (gas, nuclear, solar concentration, etc) and will continue to be used for many years. They are basically the only viable way to reliably turn a heat gradient into electricity. Any advancement in this fundamental technology is welcome. The mention of clean coal in an image at the top of the article is irrelevant except for political messaging reasons, which I agree is a dumb reason for it to be there but here we are.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

darksaints 5y ago

The article has absolutely nothing to do with clean coal.