Clean Coal

[bhurt]

I will start off by saying I know very little about this, hence why I am asking the EXPERTS on this site about it.

 

Recently Watching alot of american channels I have seen alot of proagranda (sp?) coming out of the States saying don'tt use natural gas or oil but use their new clean coal.

 

My question is I always thought coal produced more polution then oil or natural gas, am I wrong?

 

Also if coal does produce more polution then how can you have clean coal??????

 

Now please remeber I know very little about this and am asking a question.

[ÜberFly]

Brad, no expert, but I think the descriptor "clean coal" refers to the amount of sulfer that is contained within the coal and therefore the amount of heat it can prodouce when oxidized (burned)... Alberta has realatively "clean coal" vs say the UK... So it's a "realtive" term... Natural gas is definitely "cleaner burning" with less pollutants...

 

Others can expand, clarify, educate...

 

Thx,

 

P

 

[bhurt]

I'm just trying to understand the whole thing cause all the information I have seen on the television in the form of commerical is very vague and doesn't give alot of information. All it really does is paint a pretty picture of a nice clean life.

[ÜberFly]

Yeah it's called "spin"... Kinda like what the AB Gov't is trying to do with the "Tar Sands"

 

P

 

I'm just trying to understand the whole thing cause all the information I have seen on the television in the form of commerical is very vague and doesn't give alot of information. All it really does is paint a pretty picture of a nice clean life.

 

[ÜberFly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal

 

Yeah it's called "spin"... Kinda like what the AB Gov't is trying to do with the "Tar Sands"

 

P

 

[bhurt]

I don't really see this as putting a spin on things, I see this as propaganda, if in fact their coal does produce more polution then who are they to call our Oil sands dirty oil...

 

The thing that really gets me is that the oil sands produce less then 1% of the world's pollution and we are the bad guys.

 

Now I do not disagre that their are enviromental issuses dealing with the oil sands (which I will admit I know very little about) but is it just me or is it ALBERTA vs the World..........

 

I also think the only reason why green peace attacks alberta so hard is because they can't go to some of these other countries and protest about pollution because they would probably be killed.

 

*edit*

 

Thanks for the infor peter, but correct me if I am wrong, but isn't coal still a fossil fuel and if all of a suddenly we stopped using oil and gas and went to coal, would we not one day use up all of this resource and would it just not be the same as using up all the oil supplies?

 

Also I understand that the method of using the coal and the way it is refiendend might be better but what about getting it out from the ground, what kind of eviromental issuses arise from this?

[ÜberFly]

That's what "spin" is... "Propoganda" (positive spin)

 

And yes you bring up valid questions about coal extraction and environmental impact... That debate has been going on for hundreds of years!

 

Look back at to the days of the "industrial revolution" and all the old photos of jolly 'ol England - lots of dirty faces, landscapes, etc. - gives you a perspecitive of how "dirty" coal is when no regulations are in place!!

 

*Edit* Coal like oil & gas is a fossil fuel and there are "finite" resources (limited amounts) available..

 

I don't really see this as putting a spin on things, I see this as propaganda, if in fact their coal does produce more polution then who are they to call our Oil sands dirty oil...

 

The thing that really gets me is that the oil sands produce less then 1% of the world's pollution and we are the bad guys.

 

Now I do not disagre that their are enviromental issuses dealing with the oil sands (which I will admit I know very little about) but is it just me or is it ALBERTA vs the World..........

 

I also think the only reason why green peace attacks alberta so hard is because they can't go to some of these other countries and protest about pollution because they would probably be killed.

 

*edit*

 

Thanks for the infor peter, but correct me if I am wrong, but isn't coal still a fossil fuel and if all of a suddenly we stopped using oil and gas and went to coal, would we not one day use up all of this resource and would it just not be the same as using up all the oil supplies?

 

Also I understand that the method of using the coal and the way it is refiendend might be better but what about getting it out from the ground, what kind of eviromental issuses arise from this?

[Pipestoneflyguy]

I stayed at St Andrews Univeristy for a while in the late 80's, seemed like every building in Scotland was stained dark from coal - it was incredible, in large urban centres like Edinburgh the effect was even worse. hard to imagine how coal can be called clean.

 

BTW golfers, I did poach the old nine one night, just so I could say I've golfed it.

[Bowcane]

Coal in a nut shell from hardest to softest, cleanest to dirtiest burning;

 

-Coke, almost pure carbon with little or no volatiles, smokeless. This is usually Bituminous coal heated to 2000° in a air (oxygen) free oven to drive (burn) off the volatiles. Mostly used in steel making.

-Anthracite, cleanest burning hard coal, approx 22-28 million BTU/ton. This is the coal from Pennsylvaina sometimes called 'Blue coal'.

-Bituminous coal, next cleanest burning, approx 21-30 million BTU/ton

-Sub-Bituminous, this is the Powder river basin coal of Wyoming burned in a lot of US power plants

-Lignite, soft very dirty coal, high in sulfur and other volatiles, approx 9-17 million BTU/ton

 

As stated the clean burning coal refers to sulfur, ash and volatile content, however, burning the carbon produces, well, carbon dioxide...use that however you wish! Its the sulfur which is the cause of acid rain and the blackening of limestone buildings.

[bhurt]

Coal in a nut shell from hardest to softest, cleanest to dirtiest burning;

 

-Coke, almost pure carbon with little or no volatiles, smokeless. This is usually Bituminous coal heated to 2000° in a air (oxygen) free oven to drive (burn) off the volatiles. Mostly used in steel making.

-Anthracite, cleanest burning hard coal, approx 22-28 million BTU/ton. This is the coal from Pennsylvaina sometimes called 'Blue coal'.

-Bituminous coal, next cleanest burning, approx 21-30 million BTU/ton

-Sub-Bituminous, this is the Powder river basin coal of Wyoming burned in a lot of US power plants

-Lignite, soft very dirty coal, high in sulfur and other volatiles, approx 9-17 million BTU/ton

 

As stated the clean burning coal refers to sulfur, ash and volatile content, however, burning the carbon produces, well, carbon dioxide...use that however you wish! Its the sulfur which is the cause of acid rain and the blackening of limestone buildings.

 

I guess I may have phrased my question wrong, I wanted to know what makes coal any cleaner then oil or natural gas, if so is it that much more and is it infact cleaner then other methods or are these company just using the term CLEAN COAL for sales purpose.

 

[Bowcane]

You beat me to my edit;

 

Overall mining and burning of coal has more impact the oil and gas, however because of its BTU rating, which some say is higher than oil and gas (it is the apple and orange comparision though) is the fuel of choice for power plants. It is the only fuel in the form of coke which can be used the the mass production of steel, that high BTU rating.Plus there is way more coal than oil and gas suppositly. Clean coal simply refers to low sulfur, ash and volitiles. Its still a dirty fuel. So yes it is a sales pitch. Bituminous coal and better is refered to as 'clean coal', but its still coal. Go look at downtown Coleman down by the CPR next time you're at the crow.

[bhurt]

You beat me to my edit;

 

Overall mining and burning of coal has more impact the oil and gas, however because of its BTU rating, which some say is higher than oil and gas (it is the apple and orange comparision though) is the fuel of choice for power plants. It is the only fuel in the form of coke which can be used the the mass production of steel, that high BTU rating.Plus there is way more coal than oil and gas suppositly. Clean coal simply refers to low sulfur, ash and volitiles. Its still a dirty fuel. So yes it is a sales pitch. Bituminous coal and better is refered to as 'clean coal', but its still coal. Go look at downtown Coleman down by the CPR next time you're at the crow.

Thanks for the info, it is pretty much what I thought it was but I didn't want to say something and make me look like a ass.

 

Anyways I am starting to dislike obma more and more, he may have done some stuff for the USA Health Care system which is a huge step forward, but his stand against Canada's Dirty Oil is really starting to piss me off.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

IMHO gotta agree with Bowcane...what industry is calling clean coal has traditionally meant coal with less sulphur in it. That means less sulphur dioxide which is a leading cause of smog, acid rain etc. While some coal burns better than others...the quality of the coal will impact how much of the mass gets burned versus remains as a clinker. Coal does not burn away to zero but rather leaves a glob of melted rock remains behind. The better the coal the more efficient the burn, the more heating value and the better bang for the buck. In third world countries when they burn coal they end up sending soot into the air and that particulate is partially responsible (up to 90%) for the Himalaya's glaciers melting. In North America there are stringent air quality laws that limit particulate matter and other gases which often need to be treated or injected. CO2 is currently expelled in all processes but carbon sequestration projects are attempting to capture coal derived CO2 for injection and secondary oil or CBM gas recovery schemes. Just to be clear...clean coal does not give off less CO2. The higher the quality coal...the more combustable it is the more CO2 you will get per ton.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[H2O]

Ironically, Cape Breton Island just announced yesterday plans to open the Donkin coal mine that contains type A bituminous coal which is considered the dirtiest of all coals and worst polluting coal in the world with high levels of sulfur, mercury and uranium. Due to the environmental standards set by the Nova Scotia government they won't even be able to sell this coking coal to Nova Scotia's Lingan Coal fired Power Plant which is basically just down the road from the mine. Most all the coal will be shipped to Europe, South America, India and China to pollute their countries. It really is all about jobs.

[ÜberFly]

Why don't they just mine it and put it in the Sydney tar ponds!!

 

LoL

 

P

Ironically, Cape Breton Island just announced yesterday plans to open the Donkin coal mine that contains type A bituminous coal which is considered the dirtiest of all coals and worst polluting coal in the world with high levels of sulfur, mercury and uranium. Due to the environmental standards set by the Nova Scotia government they won't even be able to sell this coking coal to Nova Scotia's Lingan Coal fired Power Plant which is basically just down the road from the mine. Most all the coal will be shipped to Europe, South America, India and China to pollute their countries. It really is all about jobs.

 

[firefrog]

Hello

There is nothing clean about coal. The term 'clean coal' should rather be 'cleaner coal'. It also refers to the overall process, from mining to recaptuing gases and fly ash. As with all research, people find bits and pieces of information, take it out of context, and use it to their advantage. It's kinda like saying electric cars pollute less than gasoline cars. But if the only source of electricity is coal generators, the overall picture isn't so pretty. You can't really get something for nothing. What you gain in one respect (say, cheap available heat), you lose somewhere else (more pollution, hazardous waste disposal). It's tempting to throw your arms in the air and say 'nothing makes any difference'. But that's not the answer. We have to keep trying.

Cheers

 

[bhurt]

Hello

There is nothing clean about coal. The term 'clean coal' should rather be 'cleaner coal'. It also refers to the overall process, from mining to recaptuing gases and fly ash. As with all research, people find bits and pieces of information, take it out of context, and use it to their advantage. It's kinda like saying electric cars pollute less than gasoline cars. But if the only source of electricity is coal generators, the overall picture isn't so pretty. You can't really get something for nothing. What you gain in one respect (say, cheap available heat), you lose somewhere else (more pollution, hazardous waste disposal). It's tempting to throw your arms in the air and say 'nothing makes any difference'. But that's not the answer. We have to keep trying.

Cheers

 

I agree 100%, but what gets me is how hard the USA and Evirmonetal groups are attacks tour "Dirty Oil" but yet they are not much better, I guess when I was growing up this was called double standards now I guess its just called accatable

[midgetwaiter]

I agree 100%, but what gets me is how hard the USA and Evirmonetal groups are attacks tour "Dirty Oil" but yet they are not much better, I guess when I was growing up this was called double standards now I guess its just called accatable

 

 

You do know who the two retailers that decided to try and eliminate Alberta Oil from their operations are don't you?

 

It's Whole Foods and Bed, Bath and Beyond. Their business models are built on clueless idiots clamoring after organic granola and $300 quilts. Seeing as though it is chic among such idiots to feign concern over environmental issues it makes sense for these companies to do whatever they can to look like they are leaders on the issue. How exactly BB&B is going to get all those crappy curtains from sweatshop to store shelves isn't relevant, it's an appearance thing. You can't really consider these 2 companies to be the feeling of the entire country on the matter though and it's kind of silly to try.

 

Additionally I'd say that your criticism of Obama's stand on the issue off the mark. They used the word "meritocracy" to describe the policies they want to put together. As far as the Oil Sands is concerned the only thing it really has going for it is that it's there. Otherwise it's complicated, expensive and requires a lot of emissions to get at it, little merit to be found IMO. Should someone come up with an energy source that has more "merits" like lower emissions then the Oils Sands is out of the picture. I find this disappointing because if you really consider the situation this magic "lower emission to obtain" energy source would HAVE to be cheaper to produce, as such the market will dictate a speedy resolution to the issue. They will have to do nothing to encourage this. Given that what he's basically saying is that if somebody comes up with a cold fusion recipe or maybe a perpetual motion machine then he'll give those dirty Canadians the boot, until then it's necessary. It's not a stand against anything it is again nothing but appearances.

 

Until Whole Foods tells their customers they can't have any Chilean Grapes because they take too much energy to transport none of this matters.

 

 

 

 

[Bowcane]

The whole issue has to do with the size and scale of the operation. For example, as a former Ontario guy and left about the time Dalton McStupid showed up, his big thing was to fight smog by shutting down Ontario's coal fired power plants, Lambton near Sarnia, Nanticoke near Long point and Lakeview at the centre of the universe (Toronto). Dont get me going on his alternatives! However on a scale of 'clean' they were the cleanest and biggest coal plants around, but the total volume/wieght of emissions were the highest going by single source. (high bang for the ton) Now in the US of A, just about anyone with enough cash can build and run thier own power plant and sell it to the grid. Therfore you have a lot of small operators using a lot of coal to generate relitivly little power(low bang for the ton) but can claim to have low emissions. So you need a lot of small plants to generate the same power of Ontario's three. As far as where they get thier coal, the powder river basin, it isnt no garden of eden anymore, they just do a better job of hiding and spreading the mess out. For example there are roughly 30-35 train loads per day shipped, 320000 net tons, it roughly takes that much horsepower to move those trains. The average distance travelled is 1000 miles, 1280000 gallons of diesel fuel...per day, 365 days a year. Ever heard of death by a thousand stabs? But you really dont notice a single stab do you? Those ontario plants burned mostly eastern, cleaner, coal, shorter routes and a lot by ship. Still not great but cleaner on a scale of dirty. So the tar/oil sands is like a great big puss filled zit out there were the whole world can see it, mean while the world has undetected high blood pressure!

[Guest Sundancefisher]

One thing people miss considering in environmental effects of coal versus oil sands is the release of methane. I am not sure what methane if any is left in the oil sands (I doubt any due to the porous nature of the formations) but the coal seams have a lot of coalbed methane in them and it is the cause of coal mine fires and explosions. Methane is like 100% worse for global warming than CO2.

[mvdaog]

And this is the process by which Alberta gets its reputation.........