zero emission coal fired power plant

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by leopold, Jan 22, 2006.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Promising, though one billion is hardly a large sum of money in energy terms.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the program was announced last month.
    it's a prototype.

    yes it does sound promising, i hope they can expand it because it is estimated the us coal reserve is approx. 250 years at current consumption.

    what really amazed me was the number of coal fired plants already in operation.
    half of the of our electric stations burn coal.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,383
    Why can't the exhaust be "sequestered"? It would just cost a little more.
     
  8. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I am unsure what you are asking. The whole purpose of the project is to sequester any undesirable gasesous products.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what would really be the cats meow is if they could bio-engineer some sort of oganism to convert the waste into something useful

    since the plant generates hydrogen maybe the organism can use it
    in combination with the carbon to produce octane
     
  10. ferrand Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Another two great advantages of coal fired power stations over [say] nuclear are that they are much more thermally efficient, and because there seems little danger of local pollution, could be built as Combined Heat and Power units in/near cities , so the output would be Electricity, Hydrogen and District/process Heating. The Hydrogen can then be applied to Coal [ or Carbon Monoxide if available] to produce liquid fuels [petroleum] see Organic Chemistry by Hill & Kelly, Pub Blakiston Company 1943 page 95 Also being nearer the users, electricity line [grid] losses would be reduced
    see also www.grunweb.org.uk
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    At present, I beleive, coal powered fire stations expel more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear. Google it if you have your doubts.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    Second, although not as well known, releases from coal combustion contain naturally occurring radioactive materials--mainly, uranium and thorium.

    Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine

    For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
    http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html


    learn something new every day
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2006
  13. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Wow. Bush is doing something for the environment...
    HEY! DID I JUST SAW A FLYING PIG THROUGH THE WINDOW!?!?!?!!??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yaba Daba! :m:
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it's apparent that most people are more concerned with bashing bush than doing something for the environment
     
  15. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    THEY say they will put the co2 underground.... hummm...

    and then what??? what do they do with it???

    sell it???? which will just release it all over again.. but after it is used in some way.

    it all sounds like a lie to me...

    it just produces more product. besides energy.

    -MT
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    there are plants that absorb co2 in there roots

    i was hopeing for the co2 in conjuction with the hydrogen to be converted into some starting material for gasoline or plastics
     
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    They do nothing with it. It remains there in reservoirs, sealed in by impermeable cap rocks. No escape till plate tectonics carries it down into the mantle, to be erupted in volcanoes a few million years later. Happy with that?
     
  18. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    and where is this giant reservoir??? .... and seriously...

    do you know how much gas we are talking about???

    if it was to leak up to the surface.... in volume.. it could wipe out entire cities.

    co2 is heavy.... and if 10 billion cu meters of it rises up into the san fernando valley... it would kill 7 million people...

    its insane.. its a disaster in the making...

    -MT
     

Share This Page