SmartieParts Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 I just want to step in to defend coal... Its not all bad Really... its not. Or at least it doesn't have to be, and it is changing (slowly). There ARE currently in operation coal-fired power plants that are near-zero emission rated. The technology is there to be extremely efficient and clean. Some argue that coal is the power of the future, if we can get our acts together. The US is actually taking the lead on this, believe it or not, committing $1B to build the world's first Zero Emissions coal-based plant (supposedly to be completed 2013). I saw an hour-long show on it on Discovery Channel.... there are tons of links too. Here's one and here's an excerpt: If I recall correctly, there are already several coal-fired plants in the US that pollute in-line with hydro-electric. What I don't know (remember) is if they were focusing on particulate emissions or if they included GHG in that. In any event, we can all appreciate that discussions are fluid - and this one has clearly turned into a discussion about environmental impact. So I'm moving it to the appropriate thread now. - Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kwaldron Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 There ARE currently in operation coal-fired power plants that are near-zero emission rated. The technology is there to be extremely efficient and clean. Some argue that coal is the power of the future, if we can get our acts together.How do they manage to eliminate the CO2 emissions? Burning anything to generate power is always going to relaese huge amounts of CO2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartieParts Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Well, of course the chemical byproducts get produced... but that's not to say they can't be managed. Thinking back to first-year chem... the C02 can be converted chemically into other forms and/or products. They don't need to be released into the atmosphere as GHGs.And that goes with the arguments above that say that a centralized energy production system is better than a distributed one... a large plant CAN scrub out nearly all the polutants (when properly motivated) whereas millions of micro-plants (car engines) can't possibly do that nearly as effectively. Not without us all driving $500M cars anyway.The "long tailpipe" theory is something to consider, but we always have to look forward. Yes, producing the electricity to run cars still pollutes - but not nearly to the same scale as individual internal combustion engines do. Giving up on electric cars just because they still polute indirectly is just being defeatist. Its a step in the right direction, just like the smart is a step in the right direction. Its not perfect... but it'll get there.Think positively and make choices to effect change! - Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dang Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Right, that becomes the problem. The term "pollution" seems to be getting grayer by the minute. A hydro dam doesn't put out any CO2 (well, maybe the workers that work there, etc.), coal does.You can certainly put scrubbers and the like to remove "pollution" (particulates and the like), but no matter how "clean" you make coal, it's always going to put out CO2. All some of these places are doing is capturing it, so it doesn't go into the atmosphere. (or, sequestering it as they like to say). That doesn't decrease the amount produced, and you still have to do "something" with it. You could argue the same with nuclear. It's 100% emissions free, provided you don't take into account the heavy water you have to do something with. The plan I think for the coal CO2 is much like nuclear, the theory is to bury it. I don't want to scoff at some of these coal initiatives, that idea is great! It does tend to 'delay' a problem rather than fix it, but burying CO2 in some form is probably better than burying radioactive water. Also, there are many places, like Alberta, where something like Hydro really isn't an option, so it is a good solution.My 2.5 cents..... Dang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartieParts Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Well... yeah, but I don't think there is anything inherently bad with producing CO2 - its just bad that it goes into the atmosphere. Now... I dropped out of Chemistry after first year, so someone with some credentials can feel free to correct/expand on this, but if you can change the C02 into C and O2, then don't we have oxygen and carbon? Make that carbon into diamonds and we have an economically self-satisfying problem :)I'm sure it isn't that simple, but I don't think its an absolute truth that burning fossil fuels has to be a bad thing... just the WAY we are doing it is bad.I'm basing most of what I'm saying on a 1-hour Discovery Channel piece. I'd like to learn more. But they were sure making it sound like we have the technology to make a completely 100% emission free coal burning power plant if we have the political and economical will to do so. - Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kwaldron Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Now... I dropped out of Chemistry after first year, so someone with some credentials can feel free to correct/expand on this, but if you can change the C02 into C and O2, then don't we have oxygen and carbon? - StevenTrue but you'll use almost as much energy to split that molecular bond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartieParts Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 Well no... you'll use MORE energy to split it (law of conservation of energy) but "energy" comes in different forms and from different sources, no? And anyway, that was one hypothetical question as to what could be done with the gas. Another could be to turn it into a solid... or react it with some other XXX to produce XXX. Which is a bigger problem, GHG or filling landfills with nice uniform cubes of C02SUV34H40?The best solution is to reduce consumption. Don't drive... period. Gas, diesel, electric... whatever. But that's a longer term goal. In the interim, we should manage our effects on this earth.Hey, how about this... freeze the CO2, then rocket it out to space in between the Earth and the sun. once it gets smoggy enough out there, perhaps we won't have any more warming An Ice Age could do wonders for the ski industry. - Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100MPGUS Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 The engine weighs 70 kg, Is that 154 US pounds? Good news for me and my project (only in the planning stages, in my head) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 That sounds about right, and the old gas engine was 11 kg lighter......I am not sure what the new one weighs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dang Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Make that carbon into diamonds and we have an economically self-satisfying problem Great idea!Actually that is a good point. In the future there might be a way to release the good oxygen out of the CO2. Don't know if they can do it today efficiently, but some scientist will probably come up with some microbe that eats carbon or something like that. I'm liking this idea. I wonder how hard it would be to "capture" the CO2 from the plants here in Alberta????....hmmm... got me thinking.....Later! Dang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedie Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Back in the 70's a certain large Cat dealership used to generate their own power using a natural gas engine - the exhaust was run through another co-generation engine to burn off the remaining usable carbon. The result was power at a really cheap price (cheaper then the local utility) and you could hang a white sheet over the stack.It was strongly suggested by the local utility that the practice be discontinued if the dealership ever wanted to sell them anymore equipment. Of course you know which path they took.So in answer to your question - the technology exists to strip off a lot of the residual energy in fuel after the combustion process but it is not widely used. From what I understood the process used a high heat level (special engine) to break down the CO + O -> CO2 - maybe not the best for the enviroment but extracted pretty much everything the fuel had to give.Trying to get CO2 to convert to C and O would be a challenge - they bond pretty good together. Best bet might be organic chemistry - get the Carbon to split off - say - photosynthesis works that way doesn't it ? LOL - beat to the punch by Mother Nature.Cheers,Cameron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesys Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Back in the 70's a certain large Cat dealership used to generate their own power using a natural gas engine - the exhaust was run through another co-generation engine to burn off the remaining usable carbon. The result was power at a really cheap price (cheaper then the local utility) and you could hang a white sheet over the stack. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) works on this principle, doesn't it?Detroit Diesel's Series 50 engines with EGR actually seem to have less power compared to the non-EGR versions though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Back in the 1980s, Peugeot's 405 Diesel in most EU markets had no EGR. But Germany, Austria and Switzerland demanded EGR for Diesels, and so the Germanic version of the 405 D had better fuel consumption than the other one, believe it or not! I think the power was slightly lower though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedie Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 EGR is not quite the same - the principle behind what I was talking about was taking the chemical process one step further to release more energy. This process requires really high temperatures and a special engine that runs off the exhaust of the other engine.EGR is an attempt to reduce emissions by sending gases back into the mix - usually this results in the fuel charge being leaned out (i.e. the exhaust gas being sent in isn't really a fuel) which can result in less power (i.e. less punch per piston stroke) but better sometimes better economy (diesels like heat).Thermodynamics is a pretty interesting field - in Engineering school it tends to be the thickest text book. Cheers,Cameron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesys Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Ah - thanks for the info! Thick textbooks suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deezle Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Electricity is certainly the way of the future. Fuel cells aren't...Before the fuel cell is written off with a few strokes on the keyboard, it should be noted that the fuel-cell does not need to be packed around in the vehicle. It's considerable size and weight could be permanently installed beside your house to recharge your car's batteries (and power your home). As batteries become smaller and quicker to recharge, this becomes more and more feasable. Hydrogen delivery for the fuel-cell could be as easy as home heating oil delivery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilgladstone Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Before the fuel cell is written off with a few strokes on the keyboard, it should be noted that the fuel-cell does not need to be packed around in the vehicle. It's considerable size and weight could be permanently installed beside your house to recharge your car's batteries (and power your home). As batteries become smaller and quicker to recharge, this becomes more and more feasable. Hydrogen delivery for the fuel-cell could be as easy as home heating oil delivery.Indeed. Much consideration has been given to distributed generation. Monolithic utility providers are not necessarily tomorrow's inevitable paradigm!B:sun: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesys Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Point taken, and I'd be happy to see fuel cell technology advance so that we could have a cleaner environment. However, doesn't it require pure hydrogen to operate? There are different sources but also drawbacks to some. In the case of pure hydrogen, it needs to be split by electrolysis, which requires electricity in the first place. Since no process is 100% efficient, you are losing energy at each step, so to go from electricity to hydrogen, back to electricity, seems pretty wasteful. "In addition to onboard storage problems, our current system for getting liquid gasoline to consumers can't be used for gaseous hydrogen. Therefore, new facilities and systems would have to be built, requiring significant time and resources. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deezle Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think that hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. I suspect that there are a myriad of ways to get it in a usable form, many of which scientists and engineers haven't even discovered yet. I remember in grade 6 (which was some time ago!), that the best teacher I ever had taught us how to fill balloons with hydrogen. As I recall, we simply used lye (drano) in a pop bottle with water, and then dropped in pieces of aluminum foil. We stretched a balloon over the bottle top and watched it fill with hydrogen. Slightly dangerous, but awfully fun!I think we should all expect the oil industry to use it's considerable resources to ensure that fuel-cells never become cheap and easy to use. Expect small companies to be bought out, patent rights bought up and buried, negative media releases, political lobbying, scare tactics, and many other obstacles to the development of a clean energy source. I don't think this is an overly pessimistic opinion. However, I do think that the free spread of information (ie: the internet) might win the battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesys Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 That's for sure - a good point about oil companies dominating everything was made in "Who Killed The Electric Car".74% of the Sun's mass is hydrogen. I agree that it does take time to find different methods, but I hope that time comes sooner than later! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedie Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Point also made in "WKTEC" also was that extraction of hydrogen is energy heavy and not that simple - and that the Oil companies have shown a strong interest in monopolizing hydrogen production/distribution as well. It may be the most common element in the universe but getting it to release it's bonds from the rest of the universe is the challenge.Hydrogen is a difficult fuel to work with - I did my thesis in tech school on storage of hydrogen based fuels in metal hydrides - that was in the early '80s with still nothing earth shattering introduced up to now. Using metal hydrides to store hydrogen as a fuel (i.e. bound to a substrate) to prevent catastrophic release limits the range and efficiency of the vehicle - they are heavy and take a lot of room. Hydrogen is very reactive (goes boom - does nasty things to metals like steel) - has a very small molecule size (leaks really easy through otherwise leak proof joints) - and if reacted in air still produces NOx emissions. True it may become an altenative fuel for some applications at some point but it is by no means the magic bullet everyone is looking for. Piping it to homes would be sheer folly - and not as efficient as turning it into electricity in a central plant (sorry gang - thermodynamic processes (including fuel cells reacting) are more efficient on a larger scale). And as for a hydrogen electrolytic plant in your basement or garage or even home delivery - I sure as hell wouldn't want to live next to you. Even the fun things of tin foil + lye as a kid producing a tiny amount of hydrogen makes for rather dramatic (but low energy output caloriewise) boom. (note - the hydrogen produced by that process would still have to be scrubbed and desicated to make it fit for fuel other than a big boom). The latent energy of hydrogen is also low so you have to have lots of it around to fuel anything that requires peak energy on demand. Fuel cells also are disadvantaged by this (energy in = energy out) as you have to have a rather larger vehicle to haul the volume of fuel required around.Perhaps a better use of hydrogen would be to store energy created through solar or wind power for peak electrical production requirements. The areas where this would probably take place are typically not very urbanized so an accident may stunt the cactus a bit but not level a neighbourhood.In my mind we need to diversify how we use energy and not look for a single solution that we are so fond of in western society. Powering a car with electricity means you can draw on multiple sources - making use of the best sources of that power geographically, enviromentally and economically. There in lies the rub though - most electricity production is on the mega scale and controlled by the same mind sets that control the other parts of the "energy" industry - a pardigm you are not likely to upset with a grass-roots movement. Not to say you can't put in a low head water turbine or a windmill - just don't expect BC Hydro to pat you on the back for it.Cheers,Cameron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awesys Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Good point about the reactiveness - I was thinking about that yesterday. Remember The Hindenburg? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedie Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Not so much the explosive reactions but the interesting reactions it has with a lot of materials - it can make steel brittle, interact with plastics, change otherwise benign compounds into really interesting ones (peroxides and such). Trying to provide an infrastructure that can contain hydrogen safely and then exposing the general public (read - accidents waiting to happen) to handling of this material would be challenge both logistically and economically. I wouldn't want to be the guy that hands Bubba the match to check for leaks . Heck look at all the accidents with the relatively well behaved electricity or propane or even gasoline.It's all fun until your garage goes into orbit - Cheers,Cameron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 May I respectfully introduce another alternative fuel to this thread?Given that we live in N. America, and given that N. America has more coal that Saudi Arabia has oil, should we not revisit history and explore the potential of liquid coal (CTL - coal-to-liquid). It was used successfully during WWII, when oil was unavailable, and was developed in the 1920's... in 1944 Germany produced 6.5 million tons, or about 125,000 barrels a day.And currently, the USAF is testing it in a B-52 Stratofortress. If it works in planes, it'll work in cars.I especially like the geo-political opportunity to wean ourselves off of imported oil. And to give both BC and Nova Scotia a chance to match Alberta in the energy game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedie Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Coal based liquid fuel has some downsides - it takes a fair bit of energy to extract and the resulting fuel is a bit low for energy value (i.e. you need a bigger engine for similar performance). During WWII they used coal to produce rubber and other products as well - and of course it is a critical element in the production of coke for steel production.The other issue is the amount of pollution produced in extraction and burning - back then it really didn't matter and obviously is not a concern for the US Military (pretty minor when you consider how much fuel they use or the deployment of depleted uranium shells).As for BC and NS knocking Alberta out of the energy high spot with coal - Alberta has a lot of the black stuff as well (Saskabush too). Be aware though that not all coal is suited for energy production and there is a big difference in emissions for coal from different sources (the cheaper stuff polutes more - but guess what the power companies favour). Most of BC's coal is commited to Japan - at subsidized rates (Gee thanks Bill Bennett). For coal the best bet is fluidized bed combustion with introduction of carbonates to reduce emissions. This is best achieved in a powerhouse scenario. The technology exists but is expensive so much hesitation by the power companies (who are trying to make even more profit).Here again we should look at this as part of the solution - not the only solution. Another possible solution may be natural gas - it is probably one of the most under utilized resource Canada has and burns much cleaner than most other fossil fuels. But of course you still have to burn it and that is not a good thing emissions-wise.You can even power a vehicle off of wood - there was a early 50's truck in Thunder Bay I saw at a fall fair - had a boiler like contraption on the side - generated methane that was piped to the carburetor. They started on gas then switched over - again the downside was lack of power and emissions.There are lots of solutions - we just have to embrace them on a smaller scale than what the Corporate types would like (damn - how the heck are they going to maintain a monopoly).Cheers,Cameron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.