The 'Clean Coal' Myth and the possibility of America becoming independent of 'fossil oil'
Displaying all 18 posts by 8 people.
Post #1
Thomas wroteon October 4, 2008 at 9:40am
Firstly, let's debunk the "clean coal myth".
StevenMafsun
Newsweek
October 2, 2008
The phrase "clean coal" is polluting the energy debate. The phrase is an oxymoron. We can come up with ways to clean up after coal - many of them very expensive and, in the case of coal's greenhouse gas emissions, untried. And we can use coal more efficiently than in the past. But coal itself is not clean and never will be. That is a matter of chemistry and geology.
That hasn't stopped the phrase "clean coal" from seeping into politics like coal dust on a Beijing morning. Indeed it's likely viewers will hear the phrase at least a couple of times in Thursday's vice presidential debate.
Sarah Palin used the phrase "clean coal" at least twice during her speech at the Republican National Convention.
And last weekend the Obama campaign tried to defuse a controversy set off when Sen. Joe Biden was quoted as saying that he and Obama did not support any new coal plants in the United States, including "clean coal."
The McCain campaign quickly put up radio ads in places like Colorado and Ohio highlighting Biden's comment. "Clean Coal is important to America. And to Ohio," said the script. "For Ohioans, coal means thousands of jobs. Economic growth. More affordable electricity. For America, coal means energy independence. And clean coal means cleaner air. But Obama-Biden and their liberal allies oppose clean coal."
The Obama campaign did not respond by saying there's no such thing as clean coal. That would be too subtle for the intense campaign season. In Colorado, The Denver Post quoted an Obama campaign spokesman, Matt Chandler, as saying that "Sens. Obama and Biden are committed to investing in clean coal and developing five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale clean coal-fired plants in the U.S."
But the truth is this: There is simply no such thing as clean coal. Prying it loose from the ground is a dirty business and burning it produces a variety of pollutants and greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act and subsequent regulations have sharply reduced nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions that caused smog, soot and acid rain by forcing utilities to build expensive scrubbers. Now many environmentalists are trying to block new coal-fired power plants because the existing ones produce 36 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
This is controversial because half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired plants, and if U.S. electricity consumption keeps rising the way it has for most of this decade, the country will need more electricity-generating plants. Then there are all the coal mining jobs in the country, especially in swing states like Ohio and Colorado.
To be sure, there are cleaner ways to burn coal, all things being relative. New coal plants operate more efficiently than old ones and therefore burn about a third less coal. And companies have been trying to come up with ways to isolate carbon dioxide from exhaust gases and bury it in the ground.
What do politicians and coal boosters mean when they talk about "clean coal?"
To some politicians, the phrase "clean coal" may seem like shorthand for technology that would separate carbon dioxide out of the exhaust of a coal-fired plant and bury it in the ground. So far, however, no coal plant like that exists in the United States, though a handful of companies are interested in building one. Such plants are expensive and untested. The Energy Department recently announced that it would hand out billions to a few firms to try out technology to capture and bury carbon dioxide in the ground. The financial rescue bill passed by the Senate Wednesday night included tax credits to firms that do that. But it will be many, many years before any carbon sequestration plant is in operation.
I've also heard many utilities, coal companies and politicians use the phrase "clean coal" to describe certain coal plants that convert coal to energy with an efficiency rate of over 40 percent, compared to older plants that function just over 30 percent. These plants, called "supercritical" plants, operate at higher pressures and higher temperatures and burn coal more efficiently, thus requiring less coal to generate the same amount of electricity. But either kind of plant still produces emissions.
The way big coal companies and industry associations use the phrase "clean coal" often makes coal seem like an easy and relatively harmless way out of our energy and climate change problems. Take the group "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity." (And who wouldn't be for clean coal electricity?)
On their web site: "Thanks to an abundance of coal, combined with American ingenuity and advanced technologies, we don't have to choose between affordable energy and improved air quality," the ACCCE says. "That's right -- electricity from coal is getting even cleaner everyday."
But we do have to make choices about our energy future. And we're not really making them.
I'm not saying that we should switch off all the coal plants. Our current dependence on coal-fired electricity can't be denied or wished away. But let's have an honest, more dispassionate debate about the future.
Whether we want to continue building new coal plants should be a question that weighs: Americans' desire for cheap electricity, the steep costs and uncertain technology for capturing carbon dioxide and burying it in the ground, the cost of renewable energy sources, our capacity to use existing electricity supplies more efficiently, and the uncertain but potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change.
Those issues are tough enough without hinting at easy solutions that don't exist
He added in the comments below the article:
The whole intent of the devious "clean coal" marketing campaign is to justify the continued use of coal. Of course we won't be able to stop using coal all at once. What we have to stop doing right now, though, is wasting any more research money on trying to develop clean coal technologies, CCS, or anything that would rely on the future use of coal. Sure, coal is here and available. But energy from the sun is even more widely available. Tidal energy is available. Wind energy is available. And we don't have to tear apart the earth and pollute our land, water, and air to use them.
What we need is an intensive effort - full steam ahead - developing and improving truly green, non-fossil fuel alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal). This has to happen in both the public and private sectors, although it will require a strong "moonshot" policy at the top to get it going and sustain it. Some of the money will come from diverting the subsidies now showered on big oil/gas/coal. Some will come from a carbon tax, which will not only level the playing field when the alternatives compete with coal, but will be an incentive for coal plants to find ways to improve their operations until they are decommissioned. We've got to develop and improve (and thereby make much cheaper) the green technologies (A) for our own use and (B) to sell to the rest of the world (esp. India and China). Wouldn't it be great if America could start leading on this issue, and start making things that the rest of the world wants and needs.
"Clean coal" is a boondoggle we cannot afford and a distraction from what really needs to be done.
http://newsweek.washington
__________________________
Now let's look at weaning ourselves off the "fossil oil" addiction...
Ailgoil:
Imagine saying to someone in the early 18th century that the steam they see when they're boiling their potatoes will be used to light their house. They'd think you were a whacko, wouldn't they? Well, just because a concept is outside of someone's frame of reference, this doesn't mean that it's impossible.
I liken the difference between the 1st generation of biofuel (maize etc) and algoil (the next generation) to the discovery of steam power leading to the internal combustion engine.
There is a valid argument that goes along the lines of, "we need oil to make plastics". True, but if fossil oil is replaced with algoil to fuel the country, the fossil oil resources for plastic production will last a heck of a lot longer.
If you're interested in the exciting possibilities that this 'new concept' has to offer, please take a couple of mins to watch this short vid and read on...
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Algae fuel
From Wikipedia
Algae fuel, also called algal fuel, oilgae, algaeoleum or third generation biofuel, is a biofuel from algae. Compared with second generation biofuels, algae are high-yield high-cost (30 times more energy per acre than terrestrial crops) feedstocks to produce biofuels. Since the whole organism uses sunlight to produce lipids, or oil, algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two-car garage than an entire football field of soybeans.
Though there are many factors to overcome for algae to be a wide-spread source of energy, several positive factors can already be considered. Algal fuels do not impact fresh water resources, and can use ocean and wastewater. The cost of various algae species is typically between US$5–10 per kg dry weight[citation needed], with research actively looking to reduce capital and operating costs and make algae oil production commercially viable.
With the record oil price increases since 2003, competing demands between foods and other biofuel sources and the world food crisis, there is much interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels.
The production of biofuels to replace oil and natural gas is in active development, focusing on the use of cheap organic matter (usually cellulose, agricultural and sewage waste) in the efficient production of liquid and gas biofuels which yield high net energy gain. One advantage of many biofuels over most other fuel types is that they are biodegradable, and so relatively harmless to the environment if spilled.
The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 square kilometers), which is a few thousand square miles larger than Maryland, or 1.3 Belgiums. This is less than 1/7th the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.
Much details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
This is being taken very seriously by big business. For example, Richard Branson's airline flew a Virgin Atlantic flight not long ago using algoil for fuel...
http://www.google.com/sear
To find out about more about leading industry contributors here's some of the top players that can be googled..
1 Fuel:Bio
2 AlgaeLink
3 GS CleanTech
4 GreenFuel Technologies
5 PetroAlgae
6 Solix Biofuels
7 LiveFuels
8 Infinifuel
9 Algae Biofuels
10 Energy Farms
For further info, I've found that the term with the most Google results is:
"algae biofuel"
__________________________
Solar Power:
Did you know that a 100 square mile solar farm in the Nevada desert would generate enough electricity for the whole of America?
"A CSP farm large enough to capture the solar energy radiating on an area of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide can produce about 50 times more electricity in a day than California consumes in a 24-hour period. For example, 50 x 912,000 = 45,600,000 megawatt-hours per day"
From: America's Solar Energy Potential:
http://www.americanenergyi
Electricity And Gas Consumption At A Glance:
http://www.sciencedaily.co
Al Gore: A Generational Challenge to Repower America:
http://www.wecansolveit.or
StevenMafsun
Newsweek
October 2, 2008
The phrase "clean coal" is polluting the energy debate. The phrase is an oxymoron. We can come up with ways to clean up after coal - many of them very expensive and, in the case of coal's greenhouse gas emissions, untried. And we can use coal more efficiently than in the past. But coal itself is not clean and never will be. That is a matter of chemistry and geology.
That hasn't stopped the phrase "clean coal" from seeping into politics like coal dust on a Beijing morning. Indeed it's likely viewers will hear the phrase at least a couple of times in Thursday's vice presidential debate.
Sarah Palin used the phrase "clean coal" at least twice during her speech at the Republican National Convention.
And last weekend the Obama campaign tried to defuse a controversy set off when Sen. Joe Biden was quoted as saying that he and Obama did not support any new coal plants in the United States, including "clean coal."
The McCain campaign quickly put up radio ads in places like Colorado and Ohio highlighting Biden's comment. "Clean Coal is important to America. And to Ohio," said the script. "For Ohioans, coal means thousands of jobs. Economic growth. More affordable electricity. For America, coal means energy independence. And clean coal means cleaner air. But Obama-Biden and their liberal allies oppose clean coal."
The Obama campaign did not respond by saying there's no such thing as clean coal. That would be too subtle for the intense campaign season. In Colorado, The Denver Post quoted an Obama campaign spokesman, Matt Chandler, as saying that "Sens. Obama and Biden are committed to investing in clean coal and developing five 'first-of-a-kind' commercial scale clean coal-fired plants in the U.S."
But the truth is this: There is simply no such thing as clean coal. Prying it loose from the ground is a dirty business and burning it produces a variety of pollutants and greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act and subsequent regulations have sharply reduced nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions that caused smog, soot and acid rain by forcing utilities to build expensive scrubbers. Now many environmentalists are trying to block new coal-fired power plants because the existing ones produce 36 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
This is controversial because half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired plants, and if U.S. electricity consumption keeps rising the way it has for most of this decade, the country will need more electricity-generating plants. Then there are all the coal mining jobs in the country, especially in swing states like Ohio and Colorado.
To be sure, there are cleaner ways to burn coal, all things being relative. New coal plants operate more efficiently than old ones and therefore burn about a third less coal. And companies have been trying to come up with ways to isolate carbon dioxide from exhaust gases and bury it in the ground.
What do politicians and coal boosters mean when they talk about "clean coal?"
To some politicians, the phrase "clean coal" may seem like shorthand for technology that would separate carbon dioxide out of the exhaust of a coal-fired plant and bury it in the ground. So far, however, no coal plant like that exists in the United States, though a handful of companies are interested in building one. Such plants are expensive and untested. The Energy Department recently announced that it would hand out billions to a few firms to try out technology to capture and bury carbon dioxide in the ground. The financial rescue bill passed by the Senate Wednesday night included tax credits to firms that do that. But it will be many, many years before any carbon sequestration plant is in operation.
I've also heard many utilities, coal companies and politicians use the phrase "clean coal" to describe certain coal plants that convert coal to energy with an efficiency rate of over 40 percent, compared to older plants that function just over 30 percent. These plants, called "supercritical" plants, operate at higher pressures and higher temperatures and burn coal more efficiently, thus requiring less coal to generate the same amount of electricity. But either kind of plant still produces emissions.
The way big coal companies and industry associations use the phrase "clean coal" often makes coal seem like an easy and relatively harmless way out of our energy and climate change problems. Take the group "American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity." (And who wouldn't be for clean coal electricity?)
On their web site: "Thanks to an abundance of coal, combined with American ingenuity and advanced technologies, we don't have to choose between affordable energy and improved air quality," the ACCCE says. "That's right -- electricity from coal is getting even cleaner everyday."
But we do have to make choices about our energy future. And we're not really making them.
I'm not saying that we should switch off all the coal plants. Our current dependence on coal-fired electricity can't be denied or wished away. But let's have an honest, more dispassionate debate about the future.
Whether we want to continue building new coal plants should be a question that weighs: Americans' desire for cheap electricity, the steep costs and uncertain technology for capturing carbon dioxide and burying it in the ground, the cost of renewable energy sources, our capacity to use existing electricity supplies more efficiently, and the uncertain but potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change.
Those issues are tough enough without hinting at easy solutions that don't exist
He added in the comments below the article:
The whole intent of the devious "clean coal" marketing campaign is to justify the continued use of coal. Of course we won't be able to stop using coal all at once. What we have to stop doing right now, though, is wasting any more research money on trying to develop clean coal technologies, CCS, or anything that would rely on the future use of coal. Sure, coal is here and available. But energy from the sun is even more widely available. Tidal energy is available. Wind energy is available. And we don't have to tear apart the earth and pollute our land, water, and air to use them.
What we need is an intensive effort - full steam ahead - developing and improving truly green, non-fossil fuel alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal). This has to happen in both the public and private sectors, although it will require a strong "moonshot" policy at the top to get it going and sustain it. Some of the money will come from diverting the subsidies now showered on big oil/gas/coal. Some will come from a carbon tax, which will not only level the playing field when the alternatives compete with coal, but will be an incentive for coal plants to find ways to improve their operations until they are decommissioned. We've got to develop and improve (and thereby make much cheaper) the green technologies (A) for our own use and (B) to sell to the rest of the world (esp. India and China). Wouldn't it be great if America could start leading on this issue, and start making things that the rest of the world wants and needs.
"Clean coal" is a boondoggle we cannot afford and a distraction from what really needs to be done.
http://newsweek.washington
__________________________
Now let's look at weaning ourselves off the "fossil oil" addiction...
Ailgoil:
Imagine saying to someone in the early 18th century that the steam they see when they're boiling their potatoes will be used to light their house. They'd think you were a whacko, wouldn't they? Well, just because a concept is outside of someone's frame of reference, this doesn't mean that it's impossible.
I liken the difference between the 1st generation of biofuel (maize etc) and algoil (the next generation) to the discovery of steam power leading to the internal combustion engine.
There is a valid argument that goes along the lines of, "we need oil to make plastics". True, but if fossil oil is replaced with algoil to fuel the country, the fossil oil resources for plastic production will last a heck of a lot longer.
If you're interested in the exciting possibilities that this 'new concept' has to offer, please take a couple of mins to watch this short vid and read on...
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Algae fuel
From Wikipedia
Algae fuel, also called algal fuel, oilgae, algaeoleum or third generation biofuel, is a biofuel from algae. Compared with second generation biofuels, algae are high-yield high-cost (30 times more energy per acre than terrestrial crops) feedstocks to produce biofuels. Since the whole organism uses sunlight to produce lipids, or oil, algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two-car garage than an entire football field of soybeans.
Though there are many factors to overcome for algae to be a wide-spread source of energy, several positive factors can already be considered. Algal fuels do not impact fresh water resources, and can use ocean and wastewater. The cost of various algae species is typically between US$5–10 per kg dry weight[citation needed], with research actively looking to reduce capital and operating costs and make algae oil production commercially viable.
With the record oil price increases since 2003, competing demands between foods and other biofuel sources and the world food crisis, there is much interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels.
The production of biofuels to replace oil and natural gas is in active development, focusing on the use of cheap organic matter (usually cellulose, agricultural and sewage waste) in the efficient production of liquid and gas biofuels which yield high net energy gain. One advantage of many biofuels over most other fuel types is that they are biodegradable, and so relatively harmless to the environment if spilled.
The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 square kilometers), which is a few thousand square miles larger than Maryland, or 1.3 Belgiums. This is less than 1/7th the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.
Much details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
This is being taken very seriously by big business. For example, Richard Branson's airline flew a Virgin Atlantic flight not long ago using algoil for fuel...
http://www.google.com/sear
To find out about more about leading industry contributors here's some of the top players that can be googled..
1 Fuel:Bio
2 AlgaeLink
3 GS CleanTech
4 GreenFuel Technologies
5 PetroAlgae
6 Solix Biofuels
7 LiveFuels
8 Infinifuel
9 Algae Biofuels
10 Energy Farms
For further info, I've found that the term with the most Google results is:
"algae biofuel"
__________________________
Solar Power:
Did you know that a 100 square mile solar farm in the Nevada desert would generate enough electricity for the whole of America?
"A CSP farm large enough to capture the solar energy radiating on an area of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide can produce about 50 times more electricity in a day than California consumes in a 24-hour period. For example, 50 x 912,000 = 45,600,000 megawatt-hours per day"
From: America's Solar Energy Potential:
http://www.americanenergyi
Electricity And Gas Consumption At A Glance:
http://www.sciencedaily.co
Al Gore: A Generational Challenge to Repower America:
http://www.wecansolveit.or
Post #2
1 reply
Ray wroteon October 4, 2008 at 9:42am
Clean coal really is a crock. They've been saying they'll come up with this technology for the past 20 years, and it has yet to transpire. It is VERY difficult to purify coal, and converting coal to liquid fuel is especially bad, because it doubles the amount of carbon dioxide released compared to fuels refined from oil.
Unfortunately, the politicians in *both* parties will continue to pander to keep the coal and the corn lobby happy, even though the energy sources they support are not efficient or clean. :(
I am really just waiting for nuclear fusion technology. I'm all about that shit.
Unfortunately, the politicians in *both* parties will continue to pander to keep the coal and the corn lobby happy, even though the energy sources they support are not efficient or clean. :(
I am really just waiting for nuclear fusion technology. I'm all about that shit.
Post #3
Robert wroteon October 4, 2008 at 10:07am
There is such a thing as clean coal now. But it is only a minor step. But hey, if that is all we can get I'll take it.
I want more windmill farms, I want nuclear plants built.
I want more windmill farms, I want nuclear plants built.
Post #4
1 reply
邱偉 wroteon October 4, 2008 at 10:11am
china is investing heavily on wind power, with billion dollar contact with GE and other electric companies around the world. they are planning more wind farm then US. some are pointing to a lack of power grid infrastructure for the slower development in US.
http://edition.cnn.com/200
http://www.workers.org/200
as for nuclear fusion, it is really bogus atm. it wouldn't be ready soon, there is no infrastructure for it.
http://edition.cnn.com/200
http://www.workers.org/200
as for nuclear fusion, it is really bogus atm. it wouldn't be ready soon, there is no infrastructure for it.
Post #5
Thomas replied to Ray's poston October 4, 2008 at 10:23am
The way they are using the "Clean Coal" oxymoron is about taking out & burying the CO2 and having more efficient plants. "Effiicient" is good but not "clean".
http://www.greenpeace.org/
Also, for further reading, http://www.energyjustice.n
Nuclear fusion is exciting but still quite a way off. It's arrival could be sped up if more money was directed it's way instead of massively subsidizing the toxic old school.
Have you heard about Plasma Trash electricity? It's anew one to me and I've just started looking into it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Florida county plans to vaporize landfill trash
FORT PIERCE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida county has grand plans to ditch its dump, generate electricity and help build roads — all by vaporizing garbage at temperatures hotter than the sun.
The $425 million facility expected to be built in St. Lucie County will use lightning-like plasma arcs to turn trash into gas and rock-like material. It will be the first such plant in the nation operating on such a massive scale and the largest in the world.
Supporters say the process is cleaner than traditional trash incineration, though skeptics question whether the technology can meet the lofty expectations.
The 100,000-square-foot plant, slated to be operational in two years, is expected to vaporize 3,000 tons of garbage a day. County officials estimate their entire landfill — 4.3 million tons of trash collected since 1978 — will be gone in 18 years.
No byproduct will go unused, according to Geoplasma, the Atlanta-based company building and paying for the plant.
Synthetic, combustible gas produced in the process will be used to run turbines to create about 120 megawatts of electricity that will be sold back to the grid. The facility will operate on about a third of the power it generates, free from outside electricity.
About 80,000 pounds of steam per day will be sold to a neighboring Tropicana Products Inc. facility to power the juice plant's turbines.
Sludge from the county's wastewater treatment plant will be vaporized, and a material created from melted organic matter — up to 600 tons a day — will be hardened into slag, and sold for use in road and construction projects.
"This is sustainability in its truest and finest form," said Hilburn Hillestad, president of Geoplasma, a subsidiary of Jacoby Development Inc.
For years, some waste-management facilities have been converting methane — created by rotting trash in landfills — to power. Others also burn trash to produce electricity.
But experts say population growth will limit space available for future landfills.
"We've only got the size of the planet," said Richard Tedder, program administrator for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's solid waste division. "Because of all of the pressures of development, people don't want landfills. It's going to be harder and harder to site new landfills, and it's going to be harder for existing landfills to continue to expand."
The plasma-arc gasification facility in St. Lucie County, on central Florida's Atlantic Coast, aims to solve that problem by eliminating the need for a landfill. Only two similar facilities are operating in the world — both in Japan — but are gasifying garbage on a much smaller scale.
Up to eight plasma arc-equipped cupolas will vaporize trash year-round, non-stop. Garbage will be brought in on conveyor belts and dumped into the cylindrical cupolas where it falls into a zone of heat more than 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
"We didn't want to do it like everybody else," said Leo Cordeiro, the county's solid waste director. "We knew there were better ways."
No emissions are released during the closed-loop gasification, Geoplasma says. The only emissions will come from the synthetic gas-powered turbines that create electricity. Even that will be cleaner than burning coal or natural gas, experts say.
Few other toxins will be generated, if any at all, Geoplasma says.
But critics disagree.
"We've found projects similar to this being misrepresented all over the country," said Monica Wilson of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.
Wilson said there aren't enough studies yet to prove the company's claims that emissions will likely be less than from a standard natural-gas power plant.
She also said other companies have tried to produce such results and failed. She cited two similar facilities run by different companies in Australia and Germany that closed after failing to meet emissions standards.
"I think this is the time for the residents of this county to start asking some tough questions," Wilson said.
Bruce Parker, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based National Solid Wastes Management Association, scoffs at the notion that plasma technology will eliminate the need for landfills.
"We do know that plasma arc is a legitimate technology, but let's see first how this thing works for St. Lucie County," Parker said. "It's too soon for people to make wild claims that we won't need landfills."
Louis Circeo, director of Georgia Tech's plasma research division, said that as energy prices soar and landfill fees increase, plasma-arc technology will become more affordable.
"Municipal solid waste is perhaps the largest renewable energy resource that is available to us," Circeo said, adding that the process "could not only solve the garbage and landfill problems in the United States and elsewhere, but it could significantly alleviate the current energy crisis."
He said that if large plasma facilities were put to use nationwide to vaporize trash, they could theoretically generate electricity equivalent to about 25 nuclear power plants.
Americans generated 236 million tons of garbage in 2003, about 4.5 pounds per person, per day, according to the latest figures from the Environmental Protection Agency. Roughly 130 million tons went to landfills — enough to cover a football field 703 miles high with garbage.
Circeo said criticism of the technology is based on a lack of understanding.
"We are going to put emissions out, but the emissions are much lower than virtually any other process, especially a combustion process in an incinerator," he said.
Circeo said that both plants operating in Japan, where emissions standards are more stringent than in the U.S., are producing far less pollution than regulations require.
"For the amount of energy produced, you get significantly less of certain pollutants like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter," said Rick Brandes, chief of the Environmental Protection Agency's waste minimization division.
Geoplasma expects to recoup its $425 million investment, funded by bonds, within 20 years through the sale of electricity and slag.
"That's the silver lining," said Hillestad, adding that St. Lucie County won't pay a dime. The company has assumed full responsibility for interest on the bonds.
County Commissioner Chris Craft said the plasma process "is bigger than just the disposal of waste for St. Lucie County."
"It addresses two of the world's largest problems — how to deal with solid waste and the energy needs of our communities," Craft said. "This is the end of the rainbow. It will change the world."
http://www.usatoday.com/ne
The Ultimate Garbage Disposal
http://discovermagazine.co
What is Plasma Gasification?
http://www.tech-faq.com/pl
http://www.greenpeace.org/
Also, for further reading, http://www.energyjustice.n
Nuclear fusion is exciting but still quite a way off. It's arrival could be sped up if more money was directed it's way instead of massively subsidizing the toxic old school.
Have you heard about Plasma Trash electricity? It's anew one to me and I've just started looking into it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Florida county plans to vaporize landfill trash
FORT PIERCE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida county has grand plans to ditch its dump, generate electricity and help build roads — all by vaporizing garbage at temperatures hotter than the sun.
The $425 million facility expected to be built in St. Lucie County will use lightning-like plasma arcs to turn trash into gas and rock-like material. It will be the first such plant in the nation operating on such a massive scale and the largest in the world.
Supporters say the process is cleaner than traditional trash incineration, though skeptics question whether the technology can meet the lofty expectations.
The 100,000-square-foot plant, slated to be operational in two years, is expected to vaporize 3,000 tons of garbage a day. County officials estimate their entire landfill — 4.3 million tons of trash collected since 1978 — will be gone in 18 years.
No byproduct will go unused, according to Geoplasma, the Atlanta-based company building and paying for the plant.
Synthetic, combustible gas produced in the process will be used to run turbines to create about 120 megawatts of electricity that will be sold back to the grid. The facility will operate on about a third of the power it generates, free from outside electricity.
About 80,000 pounds of steam per day will be sold to a neighboring Tropicana Products Inc. facility to power the juice plant's turbines.
Sludge from the county's wastewater treatment plant will be vaporized, and a material created from melted organic matter — up to 600 tons a day — will be hardened into slag, and sold for use in road and construction projects.
"This is sustainability in its truest and finest form," said Hilburn Hillestad, president of Geoplasma, a subsidiary of Jacoby Development Inc.
For years, some waste-management facilities have been converting methane — created by rotting trash in landfills — to power. Others also burn trash to produce electricity.
But experts say population growth will limit space available for future landfills.
"We've only got the size of the planet," said Richard Tedder, program administrator for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's solid waste division. "Because of all of the pressures of development, people don't want landfills. It's going to be harder and harder to site new landfills, and it's going to be harder for existing landfills to continue to expand."
The plasma-arc gasification facility in St. Lucie County, on central Florida's Atlantic Coast, aims to solve that problem by eliminating the need for a landfill. Only two similar facilities are operating in the world — both in Japan — but are gasifying garbage on a much smaller scale.
Up to eight plasma arc-equipped cupolas will vaporize trash year-round, non-stop. Garbage will be brought in on conveyor belts and dumped into the cylindrical cupolas where it falls into a zone of heat more than 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
"We didn't want to do it like everybody else," said Leo Cordeiro, the county's solid waste director. "We knew there were better ways."
No emissions are released during the closed-loop gasification, Geoplasma says. The only emissions will come from the synthetic gas-powered turbines that create electricity. Even that will be cleaner than burning coal or natural gas, experts say.
Few other toxins will be generated, if any at all, Geoplasma says.
But critics disagree.
"We've found projects similar to this being misrepresented all over the country," said Monica Wilson of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.
Wilson said there aren't enough studies yet to prove the company's claims that emissions will likely be less than from a standard natural-gas power plant.
She also said other companies have tried to produce such results and failed. She cited two similar facilities run by different companies in Australia and Germany that closed after failing to meet emissions standards.
"I think this is the time for the residents of this county to start asking some tough questions," Wilson said.
Bruce Parker, president and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based National Solid Wastes Management Association, scoffs at the notion that plasma technology will eliminate the need for landfills.
"We do know that plasma arc is a legitimate technology, but let's see first how this thing works for St. Lucie County," Parker said. "It's too soon for people to make wild claims that we won't need landfills."
Louis Circeo, director of Georgia Tech's plasma research division, said that as energy prices soar and landfill fees increase, plasma-arc technology will become more affordable.
"Municipal solid waste is perhaps the largest renewable energy resource that is available to us," Circeo said, adding that the process "could not only solve the garbage and landfill problems in the United States and elsewhere, but it could significantly alleviate the current energy crisis."
He said that if large plasma facilities were put to use nationwide to vaporize trash, they could theoretically generate electricity equivalent to about 25 nuclear power plants.
Americans generated 236 million tons of garbage in 2003, about 4.5 pounds per person, per day, according to the latest figures from the Environmental Protection Agency. Roughly 130 million tons went to landfills — enough to cover a football field 703 miles high with garbage.
Circeo said criticism of the technology is based on a lack of understanding.
"We are going to put emissions out, but the emissions are much lower than virtually any other process, especially a combustion process in an incinerator," he said.
Circeo said that both plants operating in Japan, where emissions standards are more stringent than in the U.S., are producing far less pollution than regulations require.
"For the amount of energy produced, you get significantly less of certain pollutants like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter," said Rick Brandes, chief of the Environmental Protection Agency's waste minimization division.
Geoplasma expects to recoup its $425 million investment, funded by bonds, within 20 years through the sale of electricity and slag.
"That's the silver lining," said Hillestad, adding that St. Lucie County won't pay a dime. The company has assumed full responsibility for interest on the bonds.
County Commissioner Chris Craft said the plasma process "is bigger than just the disposal of waste for St. Lucie County."
"It addresses two of the world's largest problems — how to deal with solid waste and the energy needs of our communities," Craft said. "This is the end of the rainbow. It will change the world."
http://www.usatoday.com/ne
The Ultimate Garbage Disposal
http://discovermagazine.co
What is Plasma Gasification?
http://www.tech-faq.com/pl
Post #6
Clay wroteon October 4, 2008 at 10:40am
But...they say it's clean!
-.-
-.-
Post #7
Thomas wroteon October 4, 2008 at 10:45am
Oh, how I'd love to hear what Sarah 'energy expert' Palin would have to say if she was asked about any one of the topics above. All she is is a new generation of fossil fuel shill a la GWB and all she *knows* is how to grovel to, wink at and flirt with the big boys in the oil and gas industry.
McCain "She probably knows more about energy than anyone else in the United States of America". What a delusional fucktard!
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Note to media: Pork queen Palin is an earmark expert, NOT energy expert
http://climateprogress.org
Click on "Planet in Peril" to see who McCain's oil industry lobbyists are:
http://www.mccainslobbyist
McCain "She probably knows more about energy than anyone else in the United States of America". What a delusional fucktard!
http://www.youtube.com/wat
Note to media: Pork queen Palin is an earmark expert, NOT energy expert
http://climateprogress.org
Click on "Planet in Peril" to see who McCain's oil industry lobbyists are:
http://www.mccainslobbyist
Post #8
1 reply
Ray replied to 邱偉's poston October 4, 2008 at 10:52am
I know fusion is still years away, but I am greatly anticipating the day that we get it to work. Then we can just use lithium particles in seawater. It would be great to have actual renewable energy... nuclear fision from enriched uranium is great and all, but it's *not* a renwable source of energy, but fusion would be renewable and CLEAN.
Solar and wind power are definitely good alternative sources as well.
Solar and wind power are definitely good alternative sources as well.
Post #9
1 reply
Thomas replied to Ray's poston October 4, 2008 at 11:09am
Did you have a look at the algae oil stuff I wrote? It'd be interesting to hear your views on it as a substitue to 'fossil oil'.
I hope some Palin-ites come here for an informal education...
I hope some Palin-ites come here for an informal education...
Post #10
1 reply
Ray replied to Thomas's poston October 4, 2008 at 11:16am
I guess algae oil is more 'renewable,' but it doesn't seem to be all that "clean" either (certainly cleaning than most fossil fuels, but still, there are CO2 emissions when biofuels made from algae are burned). I guess you'd have to do a cost-benefit analysis when evaluating whether converting algea to biofuels is worthwhile and see which one is more important right now... having "clean" or "renewable" energy?
Post #11
Carlos wroteon October 4, 2008 at 11:18am
We already have the technology to produce enough energy to completely replaced fossil fuels as energy sources. The two major issues are infrastructure, and storage technology. Working very heavily on the second.
Post #12
Thomas replied to Ray's poston October 4, 2008 at 11:33am
Algae oil production can actaully sequester CO2 due to photosynthesis.
Science Video
Possible Fix For Global Warming?
Environmental Engineers Use Algae To Capture Carbon Dioxide
http://www.sciencedaily.co
Algae: Biofuel of the Future?
http://www.virginia.edu/uv
Science Video
Possible Fix For Global Warming?
Environmental Engineers Use Algae To Capture Carbon Dioxide
http://www.sciencedaily.co
Algae: Biofuel of the Future?
http://www.virginia.edu/uv
Post #13
Ray wroteon October 4, 2008 at 11:41am
Right, I realize algae can capture CO2 emissions and convert it to biofuels. That much I get. But when the biofuels are actually burned (in vehicles, for example), THEN they emit CO2 into the atmosphere. That's better than current fossil fuels (which emit CO2 both at the power plant and in cars, whereas algae-based biofuels only emit CO2's from the latter), but still not ideal when it comes to "clean" energy.
I guess it's definitely a viable option in the short-run though. Until we can come up with completely clean technology, we should continue to pursue nuclear energy as well as cleanER types of energy.
I guess it's definitely a viable option in the short-run though. Until we can come up with completely clean technology, we should continue to pursue nuclear energy as well as cleanER types of energy.
Post #14
Thomas wroteon October 4, 2008 at 11:41am
More info on algae oil. In fact, algae oil is simply fresh oil. 'Fossil oil' is actually algae that fossilized many millions of years ago...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: I am a bio-physicist, not an organic chemist. The explanation that follows is not meant to be 100% chemically accurate or complete, it is more of a guide for those who aren’t familiar with fuel production, so please hold your comments regarding my lacking double bonds and absent nitrates. If you have any additional information or corrections, please feel free to add them here.
The process of using algae as a source of fuel is by no means a new technology. The vast, vast majority of all petrol oil originated in ancient algae blooms that covered vast expanses of the ocean millions of years ago. This algae eventually died (for many reasons), and wound up buried under the oceans. The stuff in your car today was in a single celled plant, oh so long ago.
The first issue that needs to be addressed is this: Which type of fuel do you wish to produce? The main uses of petrol in terms of fuel are diesel and gasoline. The difference between the 2 fuels is the length of the hydrocarbon chain (HC) that composes the fuel. A hydrocarbon is simply a chain of carbon atoms that are linked to each other through different chemical bonds. The carbon chain has attached hydrogen atoms (please refer to the attached picture):
This is an exceedingly and, quite frankly, painfully simple illustration of a single octane molecule. Octane rating of course being the standard of measure for quality of common gasoline.
Diesel engines benefit from very high compression rates, and therefore are most efficient using fuels that have lower flash points. Thus, diesel fuel is made up primarily of hydrocarbons in the range of C(10-20) which is considerably longer than the chains used for common gasoline. These hydrocarbon lengths are perfect for extraction from algae, and can easily be extracted from the algal oil using a simple process known as transesterification. This process is so simple that many people are performing it in their homes to produce diesel fuel from waste cooking oil. There are many types of algae that produce hydrocarbons of these lengths. Many of these strains are extremely fast in terms of cell division, with some needing only a few hours to double. While others are extremely impressive in terms of net oil production per cell, with some species producing up to 60% of their cell mass in pure oil.
Gasoline on the other hand, needs a much higher flash point because ICEs have far lower compression ratios. Thus, gasoline length hydrocarbons are far shorter than diesel HCs, typically in the C(6-9) range. Due to the volatile nature of short-length HCs, they are rarely, if ever, found naturally occurring in plants, and instead need to be made by breaking apart very long HC chains. This process is called catalytic cracking, and typically takes a very long HC, say something in the range of C34, and breaks it into smaller HCs like 2C8s and 2C9s. While there is still the same net number of carbon and hydrogen atoms, they have been split from a very thick viscous liquid into a mixture of liquids that is appropriate for use as fuel. The long hydrocarbon chains needed for the process of catalytic cracking are far rarer than the shorter ones needed for diesel production, as there aren’t as many algae species that create them. The species that has most of the attention for being a viable replacement of gasoline is botryococcus braunii. Despite being able to produce gasoline length hydrocarbons, botryococcus braunii is far slower to grow than the fast strains that are used for diesel.
One additional thing to note is that while the main goal is to make fuel from algae, there is more to algae than oil. In most algae species, the biomass of the non oil component of the algae is higher than the oil itself. Luckily, this left over cell mass is not only environmentally friendly, but a viable product. The algae cake (algae cells after oil extraction) can be used as a high grade feed for livestock, can be used as fertilizer for certain crops, is marketed as a health food, and can be distilled into ethanol. There are certain algae strains that are cultivated based on their algae cake properties alone, with little/no attention paid to the oil component at all. Extracting the oil from the algae cell is not a trivial task either, and the energy requirements for doing this must also be considered.
What does all of this stuff mean? It means that there are above all, a great deal of choices to make when selecting algae strains, as you clearly want to have a strain of algae with all the best qualities. Certain bio-tech companies have been working to genetically engineer the perfect algae strain, one that produces large concentrations of high quality oils that are easily extractable from a high grade algae cake. With patents already filed for genetically modified strains of fuel-grade algae, you can bet it won’t be long before the names of these strains are public knowledge.
The use of algae for biofuel production helps alleviate a lot of these challenges.
1. With extremely high fuel yields being produced on small tracts of cheap non-arable land, algae production is the perfect decentralized fuel crop. This process has started as a completely decentralized process with dozens of startup companies investing in the technology, as well as thousands of homeowners (myself included) who have been experimenting with home-made bio-reactors designed for algae production. Additionally, the equipment and land needed to start producing respectable amounts of oil is exponentially cheaper than the amount of capitol needed to drill for oil. Instead of oil rigs costing tens of billions of dollars that bring in finite amounts of product, you could invest a few thousand in a bio-reactor that can produce a never ending supply of oil.
2. Algae diesel is the easiest of the algae fuels to produce, and is already being sold in limited quantities. Millions of gallons of algae derived jet fuel is also being sold on the commercial market over the next few months. The commercial community has already started to embrace algae as a viable fuel source.
3. Being that algae does not need "good" land to be grown (there are pilot plants currently operating in the desert of the American southwest) there is virtually no competition between algae production and food production.
In short, no other bio-fuel crop has the advantage of being the single most viable alternative to petrol. Estimates show that the entirety of America’s fuel needs can be placed on algae in as short a time as 5-10 years if sufficient $ and time is invested in developing the infrastructure!
http://push.pickensplan.co
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: I am a bio-physicist, not an organic chemist. The explanation that follows is not meant to be 100% chemically accurate or complete, it is more of a guide for those who aren’t familiar with fuel production, so please hold your comments regarding my lacking double bonds and absent nitrates. If you have any additional information or corrections, please feel free to add them here.
The process of using algae as a source of fuel is by no means a new technology. The vast, vast majority of all petrol oil originated in ancient algae blooms that covered vast expanses of the ocean millions of years ago. This algae eventually died (for many reasons), and wound up buried under the oceans. The stuff in your car today was in a single celled plant, oh so long ago.
The first issue that needs to be addressed is this: Which type of fuel do you wish to produce? The main uses of petrol in terms of fuel are diesel and gasoline. The difference between the 2 fuels is the length of the hydrocarbon chain (HC) that composes the fuel. A hydrocarbon is simply a chain of carbon atoms that are linked to each other through different chemical bonds. The carbon chain has attached hydrogen atoms (please refer to the attached picture):
This is an exceedingly and, quite frankly, painfully simple illustration of a single octane molecule. Octane rating of course being the standard of measure for quality of common gasoline.
Diesel engines benefit from very high compression rates, and therefore are most efficient using fuels that have lower flash points. Thus, diesel fuel is made up primarily of hydrocarbons in the range of C(10-20) which is considerably longer than the chains used for common gasoline. These hydrocarbon lengths are perfect for extraction from algae, and can easily be extracted from the algal oil using a simple process known as transesterification. This process is so simple that many people are performing it in their homes to produce diesel fuel from waste cooking oil. There are many types of algae that produce hydrocarbons of these lengths. Many of these strains are extremely fast in terms of cell division, with some needing only a few hours to double. While others are extremely impressive in terms of net oil production per cell, with some species producing up to 60% of their cell mass in pure oil.
Gasoline on the other hand, needs a much higher flash point because ICEs have far lower compression ratios. Thus, gasoline length hydrocarbons are far shorter than diesel HCs, typically in the C(6-9) range. Due to the volatile nature of short-length HCs, they are rarely, if ever, found naturally occurring in plants, and instead need to be made by breaking apart very long HC chains. This process is called catalytic cracking, and typically takes a very long HC, say something in the range of C34, and breaks it into smaller HCs like 2C8s and 2C9s. While there is still the same net number of carbon and hydrogen atoms, they have been split from a very thick viscous liquid into a mixture of liquids that is appropriate for use as fuel. The long hydrocarbon chains needed for the process of catalytic cracking are far rarer than the shorter ones needed for diesel production, as there aren’t as many algae species that create them. The species that has most of the attention for being a viable replacement of gasoline is botryococcus braunii. Despite being able to produce gasoline length hydrocarbons, botryococcus braunii is far slower to grow than the fast strains that are used for diesel.
One additional thing to note is that while the main goal is to make fuel from algae, there is more to algae than oil. In most algae species, the biomass of the non oil component of the algae is higher than the oil itself. Luckily, this left over cell mass is not only environmentally friendly, but a viable product. The algae cake (algae cells after oil extraction) can be used as a high grade feed for livestock, can be used as fertilizer for certain crops, is marketed as a health food, and can be distilled into ethanol. There are certain algae strains that are cultivated based on their algae cake properties alone, with little/no attention paid to the oil component at all. Extracting the oil from the algae cell is not a trivial task either, and the energy requirements for doing this must also be considered.
What does all of this stuff mean? It means that there are above all, a great deal of choices to make when selecting algae strains, as you clearly want to have a strain of algae with all the best qualities. Certain bio-tech companies have been working to genetically engineer the perfect algae strain, one that produces large concentrations of high quality oils that are easily extractable from a high grade algae cake. With patents already filed for genetically modified strains of fuel-grade algae, you can bet it won’t be long before the names of these strains are public knowledge.
The use of algae for biofuel production helps alleviate a lot of these challenges.
1. With extremely high fuel yields being produced on small tracts of cheap non-arable land, algae production is the perfect decentralized fuel crop. This process has started as a completely decentralized process with dozens of startup companies investing in the technology, as well as thousands of homeowners (myself included) who have been experimenting with home-made bio-reactors designed for algae production. Additionally, the equipment and land needed to start producing respectable amounts of oil is exponentially cheaper than the amount of capitol needed to drill for oil. Instead of oil rigs costing tens of billions of dollars that bring in finite amounts of product, you could invest a few thousand in a bio-reactor that can produce a never ending supply of oil.
2. Algae diesel is the easiest of the algae fuels to produce, and is already being sold in limited quantities. Millions of gallons of algae derived jet fuel is also being sold on the commercial market over the next few months. The commercial community has already started to embrace algae as a viable fuel source.
3. Being that algae does not need "good" land to be grown (there are pilot plants currently operating in the desert of the American southwest) there is virtually no competition between algae production and food production.
In short, no other bio-fuel crop has the advantage of being the single most viable alternative to petrol. Estimates show that the entirety of America’s fuel needs can be placed on algae in as short a time as 5-10 years if sufficient $ and time is invested in developing the infrastructure!
http://push.pickensplan.co
Post #15
Thomas wroteon October 5, 2008 at 5:25am
Bumping in case there's anyone interested online right now...
Post #16
1 reply
Ellen wroteon October 5, 2008 at 8:19am
Don't forget geothermal. Works in Iceland
Post #18
Tom wroteon October 7, 2008 at 3:33pm
bump