DU Chemists! Is there a "safe" way to burn coal to produce electricity?

[theophilus]

Can the smoke stack emissions be scrubbed so that mercury and other dangerous chemicals don't rain down on the environment? Can anything be done with the carbon dioxide being given off? Is there work in this area? Is it promising? Thanks. :hi:

[Stephanie]

1. Gov Schweitzer of Montana

this is what he talks about - I don't quite understand it but if you look up his speeches this is what he wants to do

[BrotherBuzz]

11. Schweitzer's deal sounds neat, only he doesn't burn the coal...

He's promoting the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process for generating synthetic petroleum substitutes from coal. In layman terms, he wants to make diesel from coal. ;)

[theophilus]

13. That sounds like something to look into.

We still need to solve the CO2 problems, though.

[BrotherBuzz]

14. I understand CO2 can be pumped into the earth.

something to look into. :shrug:

[Poiuyt]

12. I believe Gov. Schweitzer wants to extract oil from coal

It's from a process that's been know for a long time, but it wasn't economically feasible before. Not that oil is over $35/barrel, it is.

[Mass]

2. NO

if you want a good explanation about what can be done concerning global warming, I suggest " the Weather Makers" by Flannery. Excellent.

Concerning resequestration of CO2, a few major problems:

- the rocks which contain the coal typically are ill-suited for resequestration,
- transporting the CO2 to better places spends more energy,
- We do not really know how to do that with huge quantities. If there were leaks, it would be more dangerous for people than nuclear waste.

The solution is to increase the production of carbon-free energies or carbon light energies like natural gaz.

But the coal lobby is very strong in this country and in the world (more than in oil lobby).

[theophilus]

3. Is there any hope that we can develop a process to break down

the CO2 to carbon and oxygen? Isn't photosynthessis in plants where simple sugars are made and O2 released? Is there a chance we could come up with an engineered process that would do this quickly for vast quantities of CO2?

[immoderate]

15. We burn carbon in oxygen to get the energy.

It takes the same amount of energy to break the CO2 back into oxygen and carbon. Actually, more, since no process is 100% efficient. No free lunch here.

We could us renewable energy, but we might as well use it on water to get hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is a clean fuel but scientific breakthroughs are needed to be able to store it.

--IMM

[Robbien]

4. Doesn't the process also use an extraordinary amount of water

It is just another scam. Clean coal, bah!

[Mass]

5. I dont know all the details, but the main point is that nobody knows

how the process would work on the quantities that are concerned. If there was a leak, it would really kill a huge number of people immediately.

[buzzard]

16. It does as does extraction from the oil sands.

[Botany]

6. No. Not a chemist but a botany background

No matter how you burn coal; lump, liquified, gas, or some other way you get CO 2.
Which is the # 1 greenhouse gas. For years the coal biz has been paying for junk science*
to muddy the waters about the problems associated w/ coal.

Plants sequester CO 2 by photosynthesis however once the plants die and their tissues break
down the CO 2 is then released. Prairies plants tend to tie up lots of Carbon in their roots.





* Long study that said only Red Spruce was effected by acid rain (1984 ????)
But they didn't say that Red Spruce was on the tops of the mountains in the east
and if you kill the top of the mountain ..... the whole mountain suffers.

[SeaBob]

7. Coal

actually coal can be made to burn surprisingly clean. what traditionally happens is that when a boiler that produces steam to power a turbine to produce electricity burns coal it is generally in the form of a very fine powder or in small lumps the size of pea gravel. after the coal is burned the "smoke" is sent through a series of filters in a structure called a bage house then up a stack (Chimney). These stacks are huge some well over 100 feet tall as the gass from combustion (smoke) rise that cool and strike baffles placed in the chimney that help cool the gasses and collect the contents of the gases. As the contents of the gasses collect on the baffles they form a fine powder on the baffle. Every eight hours or so the baffles are vibrated and the matter that has collected on them falls to the bottom of the stack into a structure that is designed to catch this falling matter. Additionally most stacks have a water system in them that sprays a fine mist into the stack so as the gases rise they pass through this mist and the particlates adhere to the water and also fall to the bottom of the stack. This also cools the gasses which hepls the particulates to fall to the bottom of the stack. Some stacks also have fine mesh filters that cover the top of the stack to prevent particulates from escaping into the atmosphere.

The problems arise on the human side of this process. 1 this is very expensive to manufacture, install and maintain. 2 not every company is willing to spend the money neccessary to make this happen. 3. These companies wont spend the money neccessary to accomplish this unless they are forced to do so by the EPA.

In sum the answer to your question is yes and no but thanks for asking.
PS
I forgot to mention that to these companies mining coal generally means open pit mines whch rape mother earth. also there is the question of CO2 everything that burns produces CO@ so I guss the question is is it the best way to produce energy

[Gregorian]

8. Not to mention, burning coal releases radioactive particulates.

And not in a small way. I remember hearing a prof in one of my thermo classes talking about the amount of radiation released by coal fired plants, in terms of how many Chernobyls per year. It's very ugly.

[theophilus]

9. I remember hearing about that, now. That is very interesting and

is just one more stumbling block to coal use. That is a big problem, for sure! Thanks for reminding me.

[OzarkDem]

10. Why governments need scientific peer review panels

before voting to allocate billions in taxpayer funds for these kinds of programs.

[MadHound]

17. Why bother with coal?

A 1991 DOE report on the US national wind inventory found that there is enough harvestabe wind energy in Texas, Kansas and North Dakota to supply the entire US demand for electricity, including the growth factor, through the year 2030. Not that we would want to cluster all of those tower there, it is better to spread them out, and we have a vast enough country with enough abundant wind resources to eleminate any need for coal, gas, and nusclear plants.

This is off the shelf technology, an emerging energy source that we can not only power our nation with electrically, but economically as well. Establish ourselves as the leading renewable energy manufacturer and innovator in the world, rebuild our manufacturing base and our economy.

Couple this by providing for our fuel needs at home with biodiesel. Much cleaner than petroleum, a boon to farmers and aquaculturists, and making biodiesel at home from algae and hemp will decouple our economy from the need for petrodollars to stabilize our economy, hence no need of wars for oil and ME hegemony.

We have the means, we have the technology available. It is now just a matter of exercising our collective will in order to bring change to both commerce and politics.

[zeemike]

18. Yes there is

You capture and use the energy that makes the coal before it becomes coal
Directly from the sun Photo voltaic panels produce no emissions at all.