The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Clean coal’ process is not so clean cut > Comments

‘Clean coal’ process is not so clean cut : Comments

By John Harborne, published 16/1/2009

It doesn't take an Einstein to realise the immense difficulties of dealing with the CO2 resulting from the 'clean coal' process.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Good one John, what a lot of us suspect, another government and industry short term political solution, hoping it is vague long enough to be re-elected and not harm any of their funding source, that is, the unions. Mind you a lot of the Liberal Party seem to think the same way, dear old Petro Georgio is a champion of seqestration as well .. thankfully he's leaving parliament at the next election.

Really, the only way forward if you want to reduce CO2, I don't believe all the AGW hysteria but do believe we should continue to advance our community, is nuclear power.

There is no way we will suddenly stop producing coal fired power stations to give us power, the other methods, wind, solar just aren't up to it and are hobby methods at best. It is just not going to happen, so stop beating yourselves into a frenzy about it, we're not going back to living without electricity!

To tonykevin1, please stop worrying about climate, what you are seeing and what you write "there is heaps of evidence ..etc" is just climate and weather, don't take it out of context to be "proof" that the world is in trouble. There have always been extreme weather events, always will be - it's not our fault, you folks have to stop trying to make the human race responsible and get off the guilt trip, start liking yourselves and those around you instead of the dislike and hate (I'm not saying you hate, but lot's do)

Even if australia were to stop coal fired power stations tomorrow, it would take a month or two of China building more, to make up - face it, we're irrelevant in the big scheme of things .. but I do think we should tidy up down here as it is nice place to live.
Posted by rpg, Saturday, 17 January 2009 8:34:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i forgot to mention the whole geology- paleontology analysis written about extensively by dr andrew glikson in his writing. this work 'proves' from geological analysis that periods of high carbon content in the atmosphere - above 350 ppm - have been associated with the long eras of much higher average earth temperatures - 6 degrees higher - than now, leading to an unfriendly environment for human life. good for dinosaurs, maybe, but not for us. we are trying to hold onto the global climate we still - just - have.

these CO2 ppm data are really crucial in this area. to simply shrug them off is ignorant and irresponsible. when john trots out the old turkey of the world average being cooler now than 11 years ago - everyone knows by now that 11 years ago was an exceptionally hot year. look at the trendline from the graph of the past 30 years, or better still look at the 300 -year graph. these are readily available, and entirely convincing that CO2- equivalent levels are rising in the industrial era from around 250 ppm to now nearly 400 ppm.

as for the argument that it cannot be 'proved' that this is the cause of global warming, that it's 'just a theory' ... ! nor can darwin's theory of evolution be proved. he simply spent a lifetime amassing data that is consistent with it. yes, some people still prefer to believe the world was created by God in seven days. good luck to them and good luck to john too.
Posted by tonykevin 1, Saturday, 17 January 2009 8:54:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John's article is both concise and timely; the proposed remedies for AGW, including Clean Coal, are as illusionary and deceitful as the concept itself. The criticisms of John's comments about AGW are derisory; I note Kevin has referred to Glikson; Professor Glikson had a recent article published at Barry Brook's site and this article was also published at Jennifer Marohasy's blog; Glikson's article was seminal alarmism and confused regionalism effects with global tipping points based on abrupt and catastrophic climate changes related to variations in CO2; papers by Luthi et al and Shindell show otherwise. As for the idea that CO2 and temperature are causally connected, this cog in the AGW chimera has well and truly been demolished; perhaps the best example is the famous Scotese and Berner based graph;

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 17 January 2009 9:18:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi John, I'm a recently graduated chemical engineer who completed a final year project designing an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant - the new-generation station that you have described in your article. I don’t mean to be critical, it’s a complex process to understand, but the power generation steps need to be made clear to understand the benefits of the new process; hydrogen gas is combusted in gas turbines and heat from the combusted gas is used to produce steam which is sent through steam turbines. These two power generation steps give the power station a higher efficiency than older plants. This equates to a massive gain in electricity production – which is ‘lost’ when used to compress the CO2 and other waste gases.
John, your assessment of carbon dioxide being a hazard is correct however why have you focused on it as a contaminant to potable water supplies? The ability of it to produce carbonic acid in strong enough concentrations to be a significant danger should be slim to none (that’s not to say that a geo-sequestration site should be located next to a dam or other water source). A real problem that is being weighed up currently is what to do with the H2S (hydrogen sulphide) by-product which is toxic to the environment in very low concentrations (CO2 gas isn’t toxic, it just asphyxiates).
Another issue, is that while most of the CO2 technologies are mature and have been used in industry for decades, they are not proven on the scales that would be required for large power plants. To my knowledge the largest CO2 sequestration project has been undertaken by Statoil, but that only would be able process about one fifth of the waste gas processed by a 1000MW power plant.
I don't think that clean coal is a long term solution, but an important short term solution, to allow time for the development of other technologies while still combating CO2 emissions - unless you want to take the nuclear option.
Posted by davey, Saturday, 17 January 2009 8:24:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John,

A very informative article on CCS as others have noted. And, as others have noted too it is a pity you had to spoil it at the end by your gratuitous effort to deny the climate science.

Did you follow PhilipM's link and read up on the physics of the greenhouse phenomena? You should as should the other deniers.
Posted by kulu, Saturday, 17 January 2009 10:40:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John: Given the problems you describe, why do you think the Rudd government is both committed and determined to proceed with development and use of CCS? Why would anyone, let alone a government desperately trying to ward off recession, throw $500m. at the development of technology which seems destined to fail?

I have argued that the financial cost of applying CCS technology is such that the price of electricity generated from coal would be unable to compete with electricity generated from geothermal heat – based on Geodynamics generating cost estimates.

That not so little problem can of course be overcome by government subsidies. Rudd has stated that he is more than willing to provide those subsidies in the form of cash ($3.9 billion) and free emission licenses. That may make electricity produced from fossil fuels ‘affordable’ and ‘competitive’ with geothermal power until 2015. But thereafter?

Clearly, government believes that CCS will be able to effectively deal with global CO2 emissions. However, it has yet to explain why major emitters (China, USA) would consider using technology which is a logistic nightmare, expensive and could put their economies at a competitive disadvantage.
Posted by Mike Pope, Monday, 19 January 2009 2:33:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy