So what is the plan for clean coal? Underground gassification? Carbon capture plants? Scrubbers? Biocoal (pic related)?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 5C7A29A6D51EA39D2593B13693F5EA19-187528.png (183.1 KB, 1182x669, 1504814872445.png)
Biogasification all the way
http://news.siu.edu/2016/01/011516tjc15064.php
>Yanna Liang, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, and Satya Harpalani, professor of mining and mineral resources engineering, are using biology to convert coal to methane, which burns much cleaner than coal and produces half the carbon dioxide emissions
http://news.siu.edu/2016/01/011516tjc15064.php
>Yanna Liang, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, and Satya Harpalani, professor of mining and mineral resources engineering, are using biology to convert coal to methane, which burns much cleaner than coal and produces half the carbon dioxide emissions
>>112740
>Nuclear power would be nice, but that would be even harder to push than clean coal.
Harder, sure. Thing is, nuclear can be more powerful, and more effect if the tech is developed.
>Nuclear power would be nice, but that would be even harder to push than clean coal.
Harder, sure. Thing is, nuclear can be more powerful, and more effect if the tech is developed.
>>112740
True, but that's why we need to break the hold oil has on our country and invest into companies who will make them more efficient and affordable.
True, but that's why we need to break the hold oil has on our country and invest into companies who will make them more efficient and affordable.
>>112741
>Thing is, nuclear can be more powerful, and more effect if the tech is developed.
True, but we are pretty close to the technology that would allow us to break down coal into methane using microbes. We can also use methane for more than just power. It is useful in chemical manufacturing.
>>112743
Wouldn't clean coal break the hold oil has on our country? I mean we have a shit load of coal.
>Thing is, nuclear can be more powerful, and more effect if the tech is developed.
True, but we are pretty close to the technology that would allow us to break down coal into methane using microbes. We can also use methane for more than just power. It is useful in chemical manufacturing.
>>112743
Wouldn't clean coal break the hold oil has on our country? I mean we have a shit load of coal.
>>112764
>There's also a shit load of sunlight hitting the ground that goes unused every day.
This is true, but we still aren't very good at capturing it.
>There's also a shit load of sunlight hitting the ground that goes unused every day.
This is true, but we still aren't very good at capturing it.
>>112766
actually the issues are storing it, and finding a cheap and clean way to produce solar panels
actually the issues are storing it, and finding a cheap and clean way to produce solar panels
File (): DD95350E18E38658E5AC14E648AF5A80-29883.png (29.2 KB, 800x600, 1510008315594.png)
Here again to crush hopes and dreams.
>>112737
Bacterial cycle is really inefficient, meaning you would need retarded sized plants to get bacteria to produce enough methane for commercial use, not even thinking industrial use. Also doesn't help that volume wise methane has almost double lower energy density as coal, meaning you need to burn almost twice the amount of methane to get same out that you would get from liter of coal. Science wise this is nice to research none the less.
In general coal is starting to be just plain bad option energy wise and as cycle it should be fully used as industrial carbon source which it's really good for. Specifically if USA wants to use coal, then stop buying chinese steel and start producing it yourselves.
>>112737
Bacterial cycle is really inefficient, meaning you would need retarded sized plants to get bacteria to produce enough methane for commercial use, not even thinking industrial use. Also doesn't help that volume wise methane has almost double lower energy density as coal, meaning you need to burn almost twice the amount of methane to get same out that you would get from liter of coal. Science wise this is nice to research none the less.
In general coal is starting to be just plain bad option energy wise and as cycle it should be fully used as industrial carbon source which it's really good for. Specifically if USA wants to use coal, then stop buying chinese steel and start producing it yourselves.
>>113369
As it is, yes. It will need some serious technological investment to become viable for mass-use.
As it is, yes. It will need some serious technological investment to become viable for mass-use.
>>113365
>you would need retarded sized plants to get bacteria to produce enough methane for commercial use
Couldn't you just pump nutrients and bacteria underground? The bacteria would multiply on their own.
>Also doesn't help that volume wise methane has almost double lower energy density as coal, meaning you need to burn almost twice the amount of methane to get same out that you would get from liter of coal.
Yeah, but there is a lot of coal that we can't reach anyways or the quality of it is too poor for us to use. Bacteria could make this coal profitable.
>you would need retarded sized plants to get bacteria to produce enough methane for commercial use
Couldn't you just pump nutrients and bacteria underground? The bacteria would multiply on their own.
>Also doesn't help that volume wise methane has almost double lower energy density as coal, meaning you need to burn almost twice the amount of methane to get same out that you would get from liter of coal.
Yeah, but there is a lot of coal that we can't reach anyways or the quality of it is too poor for us to use. Bacteria could make this coal profitable.
Germany's almost run out of coal. What do we do?
There needs to be an alternate fuel source, not because of muh trees, but because in a few hundred years we'll be out of it. Nuclear power, anyone?
There needs to be an alternate fuel source, not because of muh trees, but because in a few hundred years we'll be out of it. Nuclear power, anyone?
Then to solar.
It as whole is kinda mixed bag of goods, relatively weak meaning it needs just too much space to get enough out of it. Still better than wind power though as there is no heavy mechanical stress involved, but on other hand solar panel production and it's components involve some really toxic chemicals and only reason why they are even as cheap as they are now is that main production is done in china where there is no regulation and waste products are just dumped somewhere. Another type of solar power production is mirror heat farm type plants but even those somewhat fall behind what you get from nuclear plants. Because physics are unforgiving and there are limits how efficient conversions can be done.
So as endline, solar is good to use on roofs and other spaces that don't really have other use to lighten local loads with small battery buffer. But they aren't really environmentalist option due being really toxic to manufacture and literal toxic waste at end of their lifecycle.
It as whole is kinda mixed bag of goods, relatively weak meaning it needs just too much space to get enough out of it. Still better than wind power though as there is no heavy mechanical stress involved, but on other hand solar panel production and it's components involve some really toxic chemicals and only reason why they are even as cheap as they are now is that main production is done in china where there is no regulation and waste products are just dumped somewhere. Another type of solar power production is mirror heat farm type plants but even those somewhat fall behind what you get from nuclear plants. Because physics are unforgiving and there are limits how efficient conversions can be done.
So as endline, solar is good to use on roofs and other spaces that don't really have other use to lighten local loads with small battery buffer. But they aren't really environmentalist option due being really toxic to manufacture and literal toxic waste at end of their lifecycle.
>>113379
Yeah, and that's the long estimate, including all the oil and gas reserves in random places in the world. The issue is, this isn't the case for Europe and if you preach nationalism & self sufficiency relying on someone else's oil isn't a good solution. Even america imports a shitton of oil and gas from Alberta, Canada. There will be some kind of crisis within 70 years if we don't figure this out, and the estimate's at current consumption rates, not the rapidly increasing value that we've seen over the years.
Yeah, and that's the long estimate, including all the oil and gas reserves in random places in the world. The issue is, this isn't the case for Europe and if you preach nationalism & self sufficiency relying on someone else's oil isn't a good solution. Even america imports a shitton of oil and gas from Alberta, Canada. There will be some kind of crisis within 70 years if we don't figure this out, and the estimate's at current consumption rates, not the rapidly increasing value that we've seen over the years.
>>113380
>The issue is, this isn't the case for Europe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593032/Coal-fuel-UK-centuries-Vast-deposits-totalling-23trillion-tonnes-North-Sea.html
>Coal find could fuel UK for centuries: Vast deposits totalling up to 23trillion tonnes found under the North Sea
>The issue is, this isn't the case for Europe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2593032/Coal-fuel-UK-centuries-Vast-deposits-totalling-23trillion-tonnes-North-Sea.html
>Coal find could fuel UK for centuries: Vast deposits totalling up to 23trillion tonnes found under the North Sea
>>113383
I wonder if leaving the EU will actually benefit them economically because then they would have less restrictions on coal.
I wonder if leaving the EU will actually benefit them economically because then they would have less restrictions on coal.
>>113386
Heavily doubt that as UK literally has nothing that cannot be produced in anywhere else and in finland there are talks to stop all coal use in energy production so if there is any other countries doing same, eventually only places they could export it would be countries that went full retard after fukushima scare, aka germany. But UK in general runs on trade deficit goods wise and economics wise it stays float due lot of big corporations and banks keep their headquarters there. If any of those decide to move out because of brexit, there would no longer be even money flow to UK market and at that point there would be harsh wake up to reality for them.
Heavily doubt that as UK literally has nothing that cannot be produced in anywhere else and in finland there are talks to stop all coal use in energy production so if there is any other countries doing same, eventually only places they could export it would be countries that went full retard after fukushima scare, aka germany. But UK in general runs on trade deficit goods wise and economics wise it stays float due lot of big corporations and banks keep their headquarters there. If any of those decide to move out because of brexit, there would no longer be even money flow to UK market and at that point there would be harsh wake up to reality for them.
>>113375
>Nutrients and bacteria underground.
This would need lot lot more scientific research to see how it would work, because that starts to be really complex system.
>Low quality coal would be usable.
Kinda same story as with bioethanol, lower efficient stuff in fuel use, didn't really kick off, currently there is bacterial research to see if it would be better way to produce it. And all this started because USA produced too much corn and needed something to keep it's price higher and farming profitable. Talk about bioethanol just has faded to sidelines now.
So no, bacterial approach is fun and nice but this literally is trying to breath life to nearly dead animal. One of downsides of capitalism is that you can't stop doing something even if it is stupid if it circulates enough money.
>Nutrients and bacteria underground.
This would need lot lot more scientific research to see how it would work, because that starts to be really complex system.
>Low quality coal would be usable.
Kinda same story as with bioethanol, lower efficient stuff in fuel use, didn't really kick off, currently there is bacterial research to see if it would be better way to produce it. And all this started because USA produced too much corn and needed something to keep it's price higher and farming profitable. Talk about bioethanol just has faded to sidelines now.
So no, bacterial approach is fun and nice but this literally is trying to breath life to nearly dead animal. One of downsides of capitalism is that you can't stop doing something even if it is stupid if it circulates enough money.
>>112690
How about carbon based fossil fuels to carbon nanotubes(CNTs) + electricity?
https://phys.org/news/2016-06-power-co2-emissions-carbon-nanotubes.html
>tl;dr version
Proposed system to use special electrolyzer to convert CO2 into carbon nanotubes, and send oxygen back to generator, increasing burning efficiency and creating a cheap way to produce CNTs
>"The researchers' assessment shows that, for every metric ton of methane fuel consumed, a conventional CC power plant produces $909 of electricity and emits 2.74 tons of CO2. In contrast, the proposed CC CNF plant would produce about $835 of electricity, which is about 8% less than the CC plant. But the CC CNF plant would also produce about 0.75 tons of CNTs, which is worth an estimated $225,000, and emits no CO2."
How about carbon based fossil fuels to carbon nanotubes(CNTs) + electricity?
https://phys.org/news/2016-06-power-co2-emissions-carbon-nanotubes.html
>tl;dr version
Proposed system to use special electrolyzer to convert CO2 into carbon nanotubes, and send oxygen back to generator, increasing burning efficiency and creating a cheap way to produce CNTs
>"The researchers' assessment shows that, for every metric ton of methane fuel consumed, a conventional CC power plant produces $909 of electricity and emits 2.74 tons of CO2. In contrast, the proposed CC CNF plant would produce about $835 of electricity, which is about 8% less than the CC plant. But the CC CNF plant would also produce about 0.75 tons of CNTs, which is worth an estimated $225,000, and emits no CO2."
>>113392
>This would need lot lot more scientific research to see how it would work, because that starts to be really complex system.
Seems like it would be something worth researching. We have A LOT of coal in the U.S.
>This would need lot lot more scientific research to see how it would work, because that starts to be really complex system.
Seems like it would be something worth researching. We have A LOT of coal in the U.S.
>>112743
Oil is not limited to just energy. The chemical precursors found in oil are so fundamental to our way of life that trying to wean off of it would be disastrous at the moment. The alternatives are way too expensive at the moment and do not scale up well. More R&D is necessary.
There are few options more economical than oil and our lives are cheap to live thanks to it. Many of our medicines are made from it, many dyes and pigments also have an oil precursor, not to mention our dependency on plastics are primarily oil based.
Oil is not limited to just energy. The chemical precursors found in oil are so fundamental to our way of life that trying to wean off of it would be disastrous at the moment. The alternatives are way too expensive at the moment and do not scale up well. More R&D is necessary.
There are few options more economical than oil and our lives are cheap to live thanks to it. Many of our medicines are made from it, many dyes and pigments also have an oil precursor, not to mention our dependency on plastics are primarily oil based.
File (): 869B38A73442345C0FA73E820E0EE7C1-23040.jpg (22.5 KB, 200x301, Power-hungry.jpg)
Read this book if you get the chance. Natural gas is the cleanest fuel we have that can satisfy energy demands. We're already moving towards it.
28 replies | 3 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived