<DrumBeat: February 5, 2007The Oil DrumDrumBeat: February 6, 2007>

96 comments on Coal in an Engine does not need Fischer Tropsch

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BerryBob on February 5, 2007 - 11:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My initial reaction to the "new" fuel (coal) was to post something to do with Choo Choos: http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern12.htm

Most of coal grinding schemes currently in use are primarily rather dodgy tax scams intended to gain govt subsidies.

Practically speaking, there is still an important place for coal. Logically, used to produce stationary electricity. If clean coal burning plants were actually built, CO2 properly sequestered, coal becomes more practical then ever more scarce, natural gas. With one new coal burning power plant going up in China each week, no wonder many here are frightened. Even this aberrant growth may be self regulating.
Party aperachicks, like 19th century London power elite are just as unwilling to see their children sicken and die in orange air..

Let's encourage any new technology that will afford the world truly clean (burning) coal. If we don't, WHEN (cheap) NG runs out, with little or no progress replacing aging nuclear, the air will be too dirty to hang out that wash in any case.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pickyreader on February 5, 2007 - 8:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I keep hearing and reading people mention carbon sequestration, but I have yet to hear about a working power-plant that sequesters its carbon and is net energy positive. I have also not heard a viable plan to create said power-plant. It is possible, of course, that one exists and I just haven't heard of it, but I doubt it. If anyone has some intel for me, I would appreciate it.
Until then, any mention of carbon sequestration as a solution will be filed along with fusion reactors under "Check back in a couple of decades".

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on February 6, 2007 - 10:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Dec/15-595073.html

Weyburn, Saskatchewan, whose CO2 comes from:

http://www.dakotagas.com/

which is a gasification plant, but in principle no difference from a gasification power plant like

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/summaries/wabsh/waba...

So the technology exists. There are about 20 operational IGCC power plants in the world. What remains is to hook the pieces up.

It might be 20+ years from universal use, but it's 10 years or less from practical wide scale deployment.

Fusion by contrast is 50 years out. Even the advocates think it is 50 years out.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.