Arguments
The Myth of 'Clean Coal'
Posted on 6 April 2017 by Guest Author
This is video was created by Adam Levy (ClimateAdam on YouTube)
Donald Trump has promised to create clean coal, but does it even exist? And even if it helped climate change, what other problems does coal come with?
www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coal-is-king-among-pollution-that-causes-heart-disease-study-says/2015/12/01/3fb88194-9840-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?utm_term=.67896903cabf
This research finds coal is a much larger factor in heart disease than previously realised.
Clean coal is never going to happen. Firstly clean coal would require very, very expensive systems to filter particulate emissions, and filter and bury the carbon dioxide, and it doesn’t make sense to do this, as there are more cost effective alternatives with gas or renewable energy already available.
And the only way to get clean coal would be government regulation making this cleaning process happen. The Trump Administration is never going to regulate to ensure they have clean coal. Trump has an open agenda to reduce regulation, and which has already acted against all sorts of environmental initiatives. Clean coal is another illogical and empty promise that won’t happen, just like other recent policy failures.
One has to be realistic about what they mean when they say "clean".
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-pride-vies-with-sadness-as-britains-last-coal-pit-closes-2015-12?IR=T
I don't think it means what they think it means :-)
[PS] Fixed link. Please learn do it yourself with the link tool.
Ironically some of the best research into the inefficiencies of producing energy from coal has been produced by US government researchers.
They spotted the obvious in that no powerplant can extract all the energy from a piece of coal and that is even before taking into account the losses created from the energy that can be extracted.
Humanity has wasted a lot of potential that was ever in coal even before you take into account it's horrendous polluting qualities.
One obvious flaw is the poor thermal energy efficiency of power stations. Most power stations would be better off as CHP plants with the main product being heat and refigeration from the 60% wasted energy. That leaves 40% for electricity production - a secondary product (or it should be).
That of course requires a near socialist attitude towards energy production as the heat and cooling products MUST be used by local residents and businesses without much competition!
This is done at one location in the UK (Southampton) and many Scandanavian locations.
Should have said in my comment at (3) that the Southampton CHP plant uses gas not coal. It provides heat to local domestic customers and refrigeration and heat to a large retail complex, the electricity is sold to the docks.