Bush’s Clean Coal, Remember That: A Cleaner Way to Use Coal

February 13, 2013

Obummer not impressed as he tries for his tax on carbon BS.

Does Obumbler even know what science is?

MIT Technology review writes — 

Technology for generating electricity from coal without pollution achieves a milestone.

Coal is abundant and cheap, but burning it is a dirty business. This week researchers at Ohio State University announced a milestone in the development of a far cleaner way to use the energy in coal — a process called chemical looping that has the potential to reduce or eliminate a wide range of pollutants, including carbon dioxide and smog-forming nitrogen oxides.

So why not do this, refit our coal fired electricity plants with this technology once it is ready, than wasting Billions on junk science. Fortunately someone in his energy department does, please don’t let Obumbler know.

One version of the technology ran continuously for over a week in a 25-kilowatt test facility, the researchers reported, the longest any such process has run. The successful test clears the way to ramp up the technology in a one-megawatt demonstration plant that’s being planned in collaboration with the energy company Babcock and Wilcox.

In ordinary coal plants, coal is pulverized to make a fine powder and then burned in air to produce steam to drive turbines. This process makes very hot flames that can create the pollutant nitrogen oxide, and the carbon dioxide generated is difficult to isolate and capture because it makes up only a small fraction of the exhaust gases.

In chemical looping, coal doesn’t react with air. Instead, it’s exposed to oxygen-bearing materials such as iron oxide. The coal reacts with these materials, and the energy bound up in coal breaks the bond between the oxygen and the iron. The reaction produces nearly pure carbon dioxide gas and iron metal (along with the mineral wüstite). Electricity is generated when the iron is moved out of the reaction chamber and is essentially burned—that is, allowed to react with oxygen in air. This releases heat to produce steam.

This rather convoluted process has at least two advantages. It produces a pure stream of carbon dioxide that’s easy to capture and ready to be stored underground. And the burning of iron in air also takes place at lower temperatures that don’t produce nitrogen oxide.

The process was originally suggested as a way to improve the efficiency of power plants. Now the hope is that it could, if deployed at a large scale, be one of the cheapest ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, leading to only a small increase in the cost of electricity.

Doesn’t coal gasification technology do the same thing? Or how about just using natural gas …?

Cheap electricity, something Obumbler doesn’t want you to know about…

An alternative approach to producing high-purity carbon dioxide streams is to burn coal in pure oxygen. But the equipment for producing pure oxygen is expensive.

Liang-Shih Fan, a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Ohio State, says that his process could prove inexpensive. He says others have had difficulty using iron oxide because of its limited ability to carry oxygen. But he’s developed a new type of reactor that enhances the practical oxygen-carrying capacity of the iron oxide, decreasing the amount of material needed and improving the economics.

The Ohio State researchers are also pursuing another version of chemical looping, in which coal is gasified and the resulting combination of hydrogen and carbon monoxide gases, called syngas, reacts with the iron oxide (see “Using Rust to Capture CO2 from Coal Plants”). Construction has started on a 250-kilowatt pilot plant to test that approach. The recent test eliminates the gasification step by using pulverized coal instead of syngas, so it could potentially be cheaper.

The work is funded by the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, which helped develop the fracking technology behind the current natural gas boom in the United States. NETL is also funding another approach to chemical looping, which uses calcium sulfate rather than iron oxide. That technology, which is being developed by Alstom, was demonstrated in a three-megawatt facility last year. The Ohio State work is at an earlier stage, but Fan says his approach could use far less material, making it more practical.

So you see the promise of new technology is the answer, not Obumbler and his high taxing big government carbon taxes. I would bet  he is not going to be pleased.


How Much Electricity Do Solar And Wind Make On A Global Scale? Answer: “Not much”

August 20, 2012

‘Hydroelectricity produces 16% of the total. But all the vanity renewables bundled together make about 3.5% of total. Wind power is a major global industry but it’s only making 1.4% of total electricity. And solar is so pathetically low that it needs to be bundled with ‘tidal & wave’ power to even rate 0.1% (after rounding up). If world’s solar powered units all broke tonight, it would not dent global electricity production a jot. No one connected to a grid would notice’.

But all the vanity ‘renewables’ worldwide bundled together make about 3.5% of the total.

Didn’t anybody learn physics … Energy is not renewable.

If you were the electricity grid, you would hardly notice the electricity generated by this non-sense waste of money.

When you subtract the cost of repair of various power generation installations, it adds up to nothing useful. Might I suggest a calculator before we spend the money. How about we do some actual engineering, less the government subsidies. It might surprise you how much less it costs to use a calculator, before building manufacturing plans which will stand empty, as now is Solyndra’s plant.

What a waste, chase your tail some more. Unless you want to turn into Kenya …


The USA’s Spain: The high cost of more Renewable Energy is Expensive for Oregon: a State that Already Leads the Nation in Renewable Power Generation.

November 17, 2011

The State that gave us dishwashers and dishwasher powder which doesn’t clean dishes, now into renewable energy, BIG TIME. The high cost of liberal ideas … which have never worked — unknown.

The result is dishwashers which don’t flow enough water, and diashwaher soap with no natural cleaning power .. ie phosphates.

There are problems with handicapping Oregon’s renewable numbers. If we were to believe that 98% of our electricity is generated from non-renewable sources, then it would seem to follow that we pollute more than the average state. If you were to believe that, you would be wrong. Ranking the states for pollution emissions from the 1st being the highest polluting state and the 50th being the least, Oregon ranks 46th for sulfur dioxide, 48th for nitrogen oxide, and 48th for carbon. We are way ahead of the country!

So why handicap Oregon’s renewable energy numbers? It helps policy makers create the appearance of a dire need for the rapid development of more renewable energy. In 2007 the Oregon legislature passed SB838 which requires 25% of our electricity generation to come from renewable sources. If we include hydro power we have overshot the goal. If we don’t include hydro power, we have a lot of expensive work to do. That bill of course excluded hydro power.

What are the costs of adding renewable energy? Frankly they are substantial. By measuring the price per megawatt hour natural gas is the cheapest at $63 followed by hydro at $86.4. Coal, which dominates American electrical generation, is actually more expensive at $94.8. We are really lucky to have so much hydro power available, because it is both cleaner and cheaper than coal. The other renewables are not so cheap. Wind is $97. Geothermal is $101.7. Solar PV is $210.7. Biomass is $112. And solar thermal is a whopping $311.8!

Oregon’s demand for electricity will grow by 30% from population growth alone; to meet that growth 77% of construction of new electric generation capacity is on wind farms. This has already driven up costs, and it will continue into the foreseeable future. What are the consequences of expensive electricity? One in four Oregonian households is past due on their electric bill. Of them, one in twenty has had their electricity shut off. For those that do pay, their consumption of other products is reduced, just like they had paid a tax. From 2015 to 2025 the average household will pay an additional $1,706. The average commercial business will pay an additional $9,641, and the average industrial business will pay an additional $80,115. These additional costs reduce the demand for goods and services that would otherwise be consumed with that money, but are wasted on more expensive electricity generation methods. In sum, it will result in the destruction of $6.8 billion dollars in Oregon GDP. That money could have supported 10,025 jobs.


EPA To Shut Down 28 GW of Electricity Production, Causing Major Electricity Shortage IN USA

October 8, 2011

Obama’s EPA, eco-nut central in the USA, is about to finalize plans to shutter 28 GW of electric power production over an imaginary problem … 9% of our entire electricity generating capacity to be shut down.

Now I submit only a communist nut would do this. Yes you heard me, only a nutcase central planner would do this. That’s Obama.

Meanwhile, they continue to line evry mountain ridge with useless windmills.

Before becoming President, Barak Obama promised to bankrupt coal companies. As President, he has tried various strategies to force Americans to use less coal. After failing to pass a national energy tax (cap-and-trade), the President vowed to continue his attack on coal stating, there is “more than one way to skin a cat.”

Currently, EPA is leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations. Two of the most important are the “transport rule” and the “toxics rule” (Utility MACT). Combined, these regulations will systematically reduce access to affordable and reliable energy.

According to our report:

  • EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW of Generating Capacity

EPA modeling and power-plant operator announcements show that EPA regulations will close at least 28 gigawatts (GW) of American generating capacity, the equivalent of closing every power plant in the state of North Carolina or Indiana. Also, 28 GW is 8.9 percent of our total coal generating capacity.

  • Current Retirements Almost Twice As High As EPA Predicted

EPA’s power plant-level modeling projected that Agency regulations would close 14.5 GW of generating capacity.  That number rises to 28 GW when including additional announced retirements related to EPA rules, almost twice the amount EPA projected.  Moreover, this number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.

New production of electricity? None?

May I suggest we shut down Obama in 2012, so the lights stay on?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 135 other followers

%d bloggers like this: