Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Energy Secretary Chu Endorses "Clean Coal"

Posted by timothy on from the was-then-is-now dept.

DesScorp writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Energy Secretary Steven Chu is endorsing 'clean coal' technology and research, and is taking a pragmatic approach to coal as an energy supply. '"It absolutely is worthwhile to invest in carbon capture and storage because we are not in a vacuum," Mr. Chu told reporters Tuesday following an appearance at an Energy Information Administration conference. "Even if the United States or Europe turns its back on coal, India and China will not," he said. Mr. Chu added that "quite frankly I doubt if the United States will turn its back on coal. We are generating over 50% of our electrical energy from coal."' The United States has the world's largest reserves of coal. Secretary Chu has reversed his positions on coal and nuclear power, previously opposing them, and once calling coal 'My worst nightmare.'"

7 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. The cleaner the coal... by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The dirtier the fly ash.

  2. What is so bad about "clean" coal? by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I understand that there is no such thing as truly clean coal, but what is so bad about trying to produce cleaner coal for electricity generation?
    Yes I do support nuclear, but we are pretty efficient at digging up and combusting coal. Why not work harder to scrub it better and deliver more electricity for the plug in hybrids?

    --
    If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    1. Re:What is so bad about "clean" coal? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of the problems is mining of coal. That isn't as clean or safe as it could (or should) be. The mass strip mine operations have given way to mountaintop removal which gets really ugly if the mining company can't (or won't) control runoff from the site. That's a very good way for people's water supply to turn orange if they use local wellwater for anything.

      The other problem is the amount of energy it takes to store up CO2 somewhere. Realistically speaking we're going to need lots of dense (preferably mineral) carbon in the future for when carbon nanotubes (and similar carbon nanomaterials) take off, and burning coal sort of makes it harder to utilize all the raw carbon locked inside. Anthracite can be up to 98% pure carbon. Converting all that into CO2 + energy and then attempting to produce nanotubes from all that CO2 is sort of backwards. Better just to harvest all the raw carbon and throw the rest away.

      Understandably that is a different application than energy production but coal will be one of the most attractive sources of carbon for nanotubes in my opinion (up there with graphite).

  3. Global warming by mangu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what is so bad about trying to produce cleaner coal for electricity generation?

    In one formula, CO2. Coal is the fuel that produces more CO2 per joule than any other energy source.

    1. Re:Global warming by Tyr.1358 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Absolutely right. CO2 is the one chemical that can't seem to be scrubbed out. I work for Babcock Power, and I can tell you that Alcoa Is working with us on some technology to handle that. But the guys I know working in that department say that the technology is at least 7 years away. Management won't task more of us on the project either. We sell systems that we can guarantee will remove 98% of mercury, several SOX, carbon, sulfur and Sulphuric Acid, aluminum, but not CO2. It's the one thing left coming out of smoke stacks in america. I love how we sell 90 of these things every year but people keep complaining that there is no clean coal. After we get rid of the CO2 I swear I expect them to complain about the water vapor next. And no that was not a joke. I would like to point out that the real problem is in how the government classifies a station as "clean". Lets say that power company a has 30 stations. They each generate "points" on a point system developed by the feds. There is a chart that says they must have a certain number of points, depending on the number of stations, that will qualify them to be clean. These companies will invest in our systems to the minimum extent possible to qualify, and then leave the other stations dirty. It is usually less than half of their systems. There is so much I could tell you guys, I had no idea you were interested in clean power. I thought this was a technology site, but I guess it is more broad than that. BTW those wikipedia articles are almost completely wrong, the systems I am working on don't work anything like how they describe, not even close. The ones from our competitors don't work that way either. If those articles are what slashdot is basing it's opinions on I can understand why there is so much confusion. The funny thing is that we are based in MA, and we are selling more of these in the middle east than we are here in the US. They pay us in gold. Real gold. They have so much money floating around over there that they can invest in hundreds of these systems every year, and that is where the real innovation is happening. The power industry in India far outpaces our own, it's actually amazing how much work they have done in the last two decades. If the point system went away, if a legislator grew the balls to do it that is, then all of the power grid in america could be clean within 5 years. The problem is they don't have to buy any more than they need to qualify for the tax credit. That is equivalent to Toyota only putting in enough seat belts to qualify for a tax credit, instead of putting them in every seat because it is the right thing to do.

  4. Re:This is what happens when... by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ideology is all well and good... but the whole concept of a "progressive" president having an energy secretary that claims to oppose nuclear power as well as coal, is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

    Renewable energy is all well and good, but the fact is that at the moment, it's not going to provide us with all the energy that we need. So while we should be adapting our infrastructure to support more renewable resources (solar, I am looking at you), we cannot afford to forget that it is nuclear power that promises us the quickest (and cleanest) way to combat our oil dependency. Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, burning any petroleum-derived products for electricity generation borders on the criminal, because while we have plenty of other ways to spin the turbines when the oil runs out, we're going to be deeply screwed when it comes to producing something we've come to take for granted in the modern age - plastics.

  5. Re:Peak Oil by dwiget001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In or out of context, message is the same.

    And, I am thoroughly against the idiotic "Cap and Trade" gimmick. It is a farce, in the extreme.

    Oh, and for the record, in response to your "...conservative tool..." rant:

    I support neither of the two major parties.

    They are both are **only** interested in getting and staying in and expanding their power.

    They **are not** interested in doing what would benefit the country and citizenry as a whole. They could really care less as they drive the country into the ground with massive amounts of debt, which will result in hyper-inflation and tax burdens that make the current taxes look like change you carry around in your pockets.