Mixing Coal and Solar To Produce Cheaper Energy

Al writes "It might not please many environmentalists, but a major energy company is adding solar-thermal power to a coal plant and says this could be the cost-effective way to produce energy while lowering CO2 emissions. Abengoa Solar and Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest electrical utility, have begun modifying the coal plant, which is based near Grand Junction, Colorado. Under the design, parabolic troughs will be used to preheat water that will be fed into the coal plant's boilers, where coal is burned to turn the water into steam. Cost savings comes from using existing turbines and generators and from operating at higher efficiencies, since the turbines and generators in solar-thermal plants are normally optimized to run at the lower temperatures generated by parabolic mirrors."

Comments

Re:who would object?

[sunderland56]

Burning less coal is like eating less cyanide: sounds great in theory, but in practice you're still dead.

Coal is incredibly bad for the environment: both mining it and burning it. The proposal will burn less coal per year, but will delay the total shutdown of coal-burning power plants - so you have the same toxins spread over a longer period.

Re:who would object?

[GameMaster]

This is how the logic of the discussion works out:

• OP says he doesn't know why any environmentalist would object to this technology.
• A poster responds with the premise that this technology might be used by the coal industry to justify continued implementatin of new coal plants or to claim we don't need to work so hard on alternative techologies
• You interject suggesting that his comment doesn't matter ("So?") and add in the ludicrous suggestion that fossil fuels are just another form of solar energy. Were you, seriously, trying to suggest that burning fossil fuels is no worse that solar power? That's sure what it seemed like. You also suggest that we shouldn't bother to try to find ways to stop using fossil fuels completely.
• I point out that there's no reason that we shouldn't be trying to eliminate all fossil fuel use (eventually, and if possible) and also try to point out the fact that whether you happen to think it will happen or not, THE ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO THE OP WAS CORRECT. IT PRESENTED A VALID REASON FOR WHY AN ENVIRONMENTALIST WOULD OBJECT TO THIS TECHNOLOGY (granted, OP made the general statement "burning less coal", rather than specify this specific technology, but I'm comfortable in responding relative to the article as that's the topic at hand and anything else is either off topic or a straw-man argument). Whether you like it or not, it is possible for a slight improvement in the situation to be used as a road-block for more significant changes.

  Speaking of straw-man arguments, how, exactly, did the nutbag groups like Earth Liberation Front get pulled into this conversation? That has nothing to do with the discussion or anything anyone else in this thread said. You assume that just because some of us choose to be wary realists about the situation, rather than hold a feel good circle jerk over every minor improvement and walk away believing that it implies we're on the right track, that we all must be eco-terrorists?