Environmentalists question coal's place in Obama policy

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/02/28/1279338/environmentalists-question-coals.html

Environmentalists question coal's place in Obama policy

By RENEE SCHOOF
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted: Sunday, Feb. 28, 2010

WASHINGTON President Barack Obama, a longtime believer in "clean coal," is launching an ambitious and expensive plan to help the energy industry lock climate-changing gases from coal-fired power plants deep underground.

...

However, some scientists, clean-energy advocates and electricity producers are questioning Obama's approach. Instead, some argue, the world should phase out coal, use natural gas more efficiently and put more emphasis on renewable energy.

Critics of the administration's coal strategy also say it will be too expensive to retrofit existing plants with new technology, capture the carbon dioxide, compress it and pipe it to underground storage. More coal also would be needed to run the capture equipment.

What's more, the process wouldn't reduce coal's other pollution problems: smog, mercury, and the toxic metals such as lead and selenium in coal ash. Continuing to rely on coal also would do nothing to end the environmental damage of mining the coal itself.

...

[polichick]

1. We ALL should question it - there is no such thing as "clean coal." k&r

[amborin]

2. no such thing as "clean" coal

follow the $$$$

[Statistical]

3. No coal period.

All fossil fuels are not created equally.

Coal emits more CO2 per kWh than natural gas. Coal contains far more impurities than any other form of fossil fuel. Impurities that end up in air, water, and earth. Coal plants require a massive amount of coal to operate each year (millions of tons) and due to law of conservation of mass & energy that doesn't "go away" it ends up as millions of tons of fly ash and particulate matter.

Capturing CO2 won't change that.

PRO COAL IS PRO DEATH.

[PHIMG]

4. Clean Coal = Obama's UNICORN

A real energy policy:

1. Have the government buy all the coal mines in the country and ban coal imports.
2. Mine 5-10 years of coal and then cap the mines.
3. Give coal operators no-interest loans for each plant they decommission to use for alternatives.
3. Transport the decommissioned steam turbines to the dessert.
4. Build out a massive solar reflector field to support each relocated formerly coal turbine.
5. Nationalize the grid and connect it to Europe, Asia, and China so we have a global grid. The sun is always shining somewhere.
6. Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency.
7. Price floor on gasoline ($4 a gallon) so that cheap recession oil can't ice out alternatives.
8. Create a battery X-Prize program to increase innovation in this space.
9. Create a national battery recycling infrastructure to ensure that sub-prime batteries do not wind up landfilled.
10. Create a trigger. If the private market does not fix the problem then the government will fix energy prices, and start building nationalized solar and wind plants with public funds.

[Statistical]

5. #1 would be difficult and very expensive.

Proven coal reserves in the United States are 246 billion tons (27% of world reserves). At $40 per ton the value of coal is roughly $10 trillion in current market value.

Now there is extraction cost (isn't like coal companies extract coal for free). I have no idea what the coal to get coal out of the ground is. Say it is $25 to 30 per ton then the "profit potential" is about $10 to $15 per ton = $2.5 to $4 trillion. That doesn't account for escalating market prices in the future nor does it discount the time value (money today is worth more than coal sold next year, or next decade). Still it gets you in the ballpark. Step #1 is a multi-trillion dollar cost. While you potentially could do it would be very expensive. $4 trillion would make coal owners very rich but overnight wouldn't change anything about power in the United States.

If govt tried to seize it for substantially less than market value I don't see them winning eminent domain fight.
It really sucks that we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.

A simpler (although less perfect) solution would be a carbon tax.

"New Coal" is currently more expensive than wind (cost of plant + interest + coal fuel) which means very few new coal plants will be built due to economics (utilities want to maximize profit).

"Old Coal" however is very cheap. For the 700 coal plants in the United States the plant is already a s sunk cost. The marginal cost of coal is about $0.02 per kwh well below any other form of power.

The only way to get companies to eliminate coal would be a carbon tax. $45 per ton carbon tax works out to about $0.3 per kwh (if my math is right). That raises marginal cost of coal to around $0.05 which is getting close to wind. If govt also taxed coal plants on the amount of fly ash created (it is very toxic and cleanups are expensive) that could be arranged to make it work out to another $0.01 per kWh. Now you are really making wind/nuclear/natural gas more competitive. Utilities will simply abandon the oldest least efficient plants and the number of plants will slowly decline.

[PHIMG]

6. The value of a coal mine is not the total theoretical value of the coal

The government is not obligated to pay the owner the value of all the coal that is supposedly there.

Just pay "fair market value" for the coal mine.

That could be as litle as the amount of money the current owner paid.

With the threat of an outright ban on coal extraction (with $0 compensation) the owners would be best to take the offer.

I say if you buy out the coal mine owners you divide and conquer the coal lobby and that's how you win.

A carbon tax enables the carbon lobby to stay united against you.

We lefties need to fight smarter.

[Statistical]

7. Sorry market value ins't the cost they originally paid decades ago.

That ignores the decades worth of exploration and mine improvements. Also R&D time and money put into coal extraction methods.

The idea that you somehow can pay 1% of the market value of coal and get away with in eminent domain is a joke. I clearly indicates the market value isn't the total value of the coal it is more accurately the profit margin on that coal times the extractable reserves. Thinking you can get it for lsss than that is just pie in the sky fantasy land. An outright ban on coal extraction has even less chance of passing Congress.

Also did you forget about steel? You can't make steel without coal. Will US import 100% of steel in this new "no coal paradise"? Wouldn't that just move coal extraction and steel production overseas?

[PHIMG]

8. Alumnium is refined using electricity

The same could be done with iron ore I'm sure with some research. Or we can let the coal industry and it's legion of paid minions convince us that the devil is in fact, irreplaceable.

[Statistical]

9. What? Coal is ADDED to iron ore to make steel.

Carbon + Iron = Steel. (Overly simplified but I hope it gets the point across).

Since coal contains a lot of non carbon material it is turned into coke by heating it in absence of oxygen. This prevents combustion but causes volatile non-carbon material to leave the coal. What is left behind is "mostly" carbon.

Electric arc furnaces are already used for some steel smelting, mainly melting scrap which requires a higher temperature to melt than raw iron. However that doesn't change the fact that carbon is a raw material in steel.

All steel has varying degrees of carbon in it. Carbon hardens steel. Without carbon pure iron is very soft, it can be easily bent and will not hold its shape under stress.

About 1/4 of all coal mined around the world is used for steel production not energy.

[Statistical]

10. One thing I would add melting aluminum by electricity is not efficient or enviromentally friendly.

Electricity is only used because aluminum oxide has an extremely high melting point of about 3600 deg F. Electricity is the only practical method to generate a high enough heat to separate aluminum metal from strong oxygen bonds in the ore (Al2O3). Iron for example is extracted from ore by "cheating with carbon" and a temperature of about only 2000 deg F.

Melting by electricity is not particularly good for the environment. 2/3 of all electrical power is produced by fossil fuels. Due to inefficiency in the power plant (60%-70%) and inefficiency in transmission (7%-15%) it requires roughly twice as much fossil fuels to produce the electricity that produces the heat compared to just heating with fossil fuels. The CO2 release is roughly double compared to generating heat directly by say a natural gas furnace.

The only reason electricity is used is the ability for it to very rapidly transfer the massive amount of energy into the ore to heat it to the point that is melts and separates oxygen from Aluminum. This can be done with a traditional furnace but is every challenging.

Electrical smelting is used as a matter of practicality and not for any benefit to the environment.

[PHIMG]

11. Depends where you get the electricity no?

And compared to burning coal, just about any alternative is eco-friendly.

But keep telling us we'll never get off coal. I'm not buying.

[Statistical]

12. No coal = no steel.

Man is science no longer taught.
Steel isn't natural. There are no steel mines.
Steel = Iron + Carbon.
Without coal (or more specifically coke = purified coal) there is no steel. Period.

To separate raw iron from its oxygen bond requires carbon (in form of carbon monoxide).
Fe2O3 + 3CO → 2Fe + 3CO2

To get the massive amount of Carbon Monoxide (3 units for every unit of Iron ore) purified carbon is burned in a nearly pure oxygen environment.
C + O2 → CO2
CO2 + C → 2CO


I never said we can't get off coal power. A progressively increasing carbon tax will hit coal hardest and cause a manageable transition from coal to less harmful fossil fuels to no emission sources.

Even still we will need to use some coal to produce steel. Steel will just cost more as a result of carbon tax which will spur innovation into finding alternative material and reducing and recycling steel.

You idea that you can seize all coal mines is just silly
1) How are you going to make steel? Will that be something else we import from China and lose more jobs? How will China make it OH YEAH WITH COAL.
2) We can't afford it. Not even close.

I am not pro-coal I am just anti pie in the sky fantasies that will never work. A carbon tax will make coal less economical to use for generating power which means utilities (who like maximum profit) will burn less of it to produce more $$$$$$. Still even if no coal is used for power anywhere in the world it will still be needed for industrial uses like making steel.

[PHIMG]

13. Nice jargon bomb. Quite an effort from someone who is not pro-coal

But guess what, scientific innovations happen. And last I heard you can recycle steel, and an abundance of coal in the US has not made us the world leader in steel production.

Before somone innovated and figured out that you an use electricity to refine alumnium ore, guess what alumnimum was more expensive than gold. But then there was an innovation.

Neccesity is the mother of invention. When you stop coal production, steel prices will go up and recyling will be increased and eventually someone will find a way to make steel without coal. That my point of view. You apparently are some expert on the physics of making steel and you can prove a negative somehow.

But sure, just to stop feeding this discussion and enduring your jargon bombs, sure...yes ... we can't live without COAL!!! Dig it all out of the ground and BURN IT!!! Remove *all* the mountaintops!!!! COAL FOREVER!!! Congrats...you've won me over to your not pro-coal position.

[Statistical]

14. It is fun to be a purist but generally world doesn't work that way.

So you ban coal use in steel.

Steel plants will close in US and we will import steel from China. Except now we are producing even more CO2 because steel which is heavy will be shipped long distances. You ban steel imports then you cripple the US economy. Carbon tax will make steel more expensive and encourage recycling however it won't completely destroy a vital and central industry.

You seem to love aluminum so much I guess you haven't done the slightest research on the topic. That super cool electrical smelting on aluminum RELEASES CO2.

Aluminum production at the cathode:
Al3+ + 3 e− → Al

The reaction at the anode:
2 O2− → O2 + 4 e−

The O2 causes oxidation of the anode:
O2 + C → CO2

Holy crap batman what is that last symbol? CO2!!!!! Why I think that is Carbon Dioxide! I am sure you were completely unaware that per ton aluminum production creates 5x the CO2 that steel production does.

Coal for power is stupid. There are cleaner ways to produce power. Banning all coal for steel production is equally stupid. We don't have a world govt. Other countries who are less all-or-nothing purists will simply make steel for us and sell it to us.

Your nonsensical ban on coal would do nothing to reduce release of CO2 from Al production. Carbon tax = common sense. Not only would it increase the cost of coal but it would increase the cost of all carbon emitting technologies. The amount of the burden would be directly equal to the amount of carbon they release. It would provide a financial incentive to make industry more efficient. Bean counters would realize that every ton of CO2 release the company prevents would save them $x.

The again purists hate any form of compromise. Foolish ideas like killing US Steel Industry are much "cooler".

[Nihil]

15. Listen ...

He has tried very patiently and very politely in #9, #10, 12 & #14
but you are constantly ignoring what he is saying in the hope that
parroting the same incorrect crap enough times will make it better.

That is a very annoying disease that has taken root in this forum.

Your illiteracy and ignorance are painful.

Either listen & learn or just fuck off.