Those have existed for a long time. CO2 capture systems are the newest thing, but of course they are unfunded. Only a few plants have been retrofitted with them in the US.
If these eco types were truly concerned about the environment, they would focus on scrubbers that break down the exhaust into inert or reusable matter.
Then we can burn as much coal as we want and use the byproduct for another useful application.
If they were concerned about the environment, they wouldn't destroy beautiful landscapes with ugly windmills and service roads. If they cared one whit about wildlife, they wouldn't chop up hundreds of thousands of endangered raptors and other birds each year. Just like BLM, its all about money and control, using leftist rhetoric to harness the power of gullible useful idiots.
And the technology is there. Obama even said at one point that he had solutions "right off the shelf". They know. The Sierra Club opposes solid storage of carbon but that may have something to do with the use of biomass or other things to get the process to net zero. At the end of the day, scrubbing CO2 is a lot less hard on the planet than producing wind turbines and solar farms.
They kinda did that with 2008 era diesel engines. They were fitted with extra large EGR feed tubes and coolers, a large catalytic converter, a DPF, and an air intake heater with a variable vane turbocharger and variable intake.
Together it all catches 99% of the soot, produces 50% less nOX than traditional diesels, no carbon monoxide with the palladium catalytic converter, and has soot filter pressure differential sensors to sense when it needs to be cleaned, then puts the engine in "regen mode" where it injects diesel fuel between the engine cycles to dose fuel downstream to the catalytic converter that ignites it and heats up the soot filter so hot it burns the captured soot off as ash at 40+ MPH for about 35mins given or take
In part. The original intent during the time the term came about was to capture carbon but that never happened. Environmentalists were against it because they wanted coal itself stopped so instead of having byproducts in solid or other form we still have it in the air. But fortunately the environmentalists have not blocked the cleaning up of other bad gases. And oddly enough they were very quickly bought off when we discovered that VW had been pumping tons of that stuff into the air for decades but hid it from regulators.
Yes and no. It can also refer to the grade of coal. Clean coal having few contaminants in the fuel itself. But the most often used terminology is indeed in the systems and filters that clean the fumes created by burning coal.
Most gas turbines, unless they are peaker plants, are a combined cycle plant, which is a gas turbine combined with a HRSG and steam turbine.
Coal plants use steam, CC plants use steam, nuke plants use steam, even CSP solar plants use steam. Everything but hydro, PV solar, and wind turbines use steam.
Yep, steam drives the turbine to spin, then the kinetic energy from the turbine is converted into electricity through movement in a magnetic field. That's how electricity is generated. Whatever power source you use, the purpose is always the same, which is to boil water and create steam.
I've often wondered if the net effect of humans was global cooling until we started to clean up the particulates from our industrial/heating emissions.
CO2 is a small fraction of a percent of the atmosphere. It’s a greenhouse gas but to see the temperature rises we’ve seen there’s no way you can attribute more than a minuscule portion of it to CO2.
Nuclear burns cleaner than literally any other form of energy. AND SAFER!!! You have to account for all cost, deaths given from the ENTIRE process, from mining, sourcing, storage, transport, secondary storage, burning, waste streams, waste transport, etc.
If you DO account for it all then nuclear wins by about 100,000 per capita deaths and billions in supply and waste cost per year.
And, of course, "green energy" bullshit fails entirely with the highest per capita death rates and lifecycle cost of any source.
Nope, more deaths per capita, by a fairly significant amount, throughout the last 60ish years of each. Hydro loses due to massive loss of life in comparison.
Hoover dam alone was 96 people killed. That level of death, even back then, would have permanently shut down every nuclear plant in the country.
Paul Allen makes me think of Bill Gates who is apparently into the TWR (traveling wave reactor), but I don't remember TWR even mentioned in the film, for what that's worth.
I also recommend watching Pandora's Promise, especially if nuclear "worries" you, because it shouldn't.
Also check out Kirk Sorensen on YouTube. He did a great TED talk about 10 years ago talking about nuclear which I highly recommend if you have 9 minutes:
Cool. Thanks for the link. It sounds very promising and if produced on mass scale (per city, per town, per neighborhood, per building), the cost per plant could come way down.
Also, if broadly accepted, it could replace the electric power grid, natural gas, green energy, and petroleum-based industries. I can't imagine why we haven't adopted this technology sooner.
Are you aware of any working Thorium-based plants?
Nuclear power is clean and efficient, but the fuel is too scarce to be a major part of the world's power supply indefinitely. Given known and estimated supplies, and trends in increasing efficiency of use, at current levels (11% of current world electrical production), the world's primary supplies of uranium will last about 90 years. After that, further supplies could only be gotten by extraction from granite and similar rocks, or extraction from seawater, both of which would be enormously inefficient and expensive.
Realistically, the only fuel source currently viable indefinitely is wood, although future technologies may alter that reality.
Big money is going into the fusion reactor technology race. Hydrogen (split from water) is far more plentiful than wood.
We are finding natural gas and oil are being made through an abiotic process deep down in the earth.
We have plenty of fuel for the next several centuries, if needed.
The only problem we have with it are people dead set on making millions die over the years, needlessly, by denying these fuel sources to power our grid.
Get rid of the unnecessary red tape and useless regs...let's power our grids right.
Coal plants are burning clean as steam these days. But muh CO2.
Pretty much all thermal power plants use steam as the working fluid, only places without gas turbines are super super rural.
No I meant that the filters on the fumes from coal plants basically cause them to emit H20 and inert gasses.
Shhh don't hurt the narrative with your mean facts.
Facts are racist!
Coal Scrubber is the word you're looking for.
Those have existed for a long time. CO2 capture systems are the newest thing, but of course they are unfunded. Only a few plants have been retrofitted with them in the US.
Heres one in Norway
Knowing liberals they probably think that's a racial slur.
If these eco types were truly concerned about the environment, they would focus on scrubbers that break down the exhaust into inert or reusable matter.
Then we can burn as much coal as we want and use the byproduct for another useful application.
If they were concerned about the environment, they wouldn't destroy beautiful landscapes with ugly windmills and service roads. If they cared one whit about wildlife, they wouldn't chop up hundreds of thousands of endangered raptors and other birds each year. Just like BLM, its all about money and control, using leftist rhetoric to harness the power of gullible useful idiots.
And the technology is there. Obama even said at one point that he had solutions "right off the shelf". They know. The Sierra Club opposes solid storage of carbon but that may have something to do with the use of biomass or other things to get the process to net zero. At the end of the day, scrubbing CO2 is a lot less hard on the planet than producing wind turbines and solar farms.
They kinda did that with 2008 era diesel engines. They were fitted with extra large EGR feed tubes and coolers, a large catalytic converter, a DPF, and an air intake heater with a variable vane turbocharger and variable intake.
Together it all catches 99% of the soot, produces 50% less nOX than traditional diesels, no carbon monoxide with the palladium catalytic converter, and has soot filter pressure differential sensors to sense when it needs to be cleaned, then puts the engine in "regen mode" where it injects diesel fuel between the engine cycles to dose fuel downstream to the catalytic converter that ignites it and heats up the soot filter so hot it burns the captured soot off as ash at 40+ MPH for about 35mins given or take
coal gassification is what is needed. Turns coal into something similar to natural gas called "synth-gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwardsport_Power_Station#IGCC_units
If they were concerned about the environment and CO2, they would expand nuclear. If the future is electric cars and trucks, we need lots of power.
Is this what clean coal refers to?
In part. The original intent during the time the term came about was to capture carbon but that never happened. Environmentalists were against it because they wanted coal itself stopped so instead of having byproducts in solid or other form we still have it in the air. But fortunately the environmentalists have not blocked the cleaning up of other bad gases. And oddly enough they were very quickly bought off when we discovered that VW had been pumping tons of that stuff into the air for decades but hid it from regulators.
Yes and no. It can also refer to the grade of coal. Clean coal having few contaminants in the fuel itself. But the most often used terminology is indeed in the systems and filters that clean the fumes created by burning coal.
Gas turbines don't use steam. Those are steam turbines. Gas turbines use combustion gasses.
Correct in the most technical sense!
Most gas turbines, unless they are peaker plants, are a combined cycle plant, which is a gas turbine combined with a HRSG and steam turbine.
Coal plants use steam, CC plants use steam, nuke plants use steam, even CSP solar plants use steam. Everything but hydro, PV solar, and wind turbines use steam.
Yep, steam drives the turbine to spin, then the kinetic energy from the turbine is converted into electricity through movement in a magnetic field. That's how electricity is generated. Whatever power source you use, the purpose is always the same, which is to boil water and create steam.
Ehmahgerd! H2O is 100000x the greenhouse gas that CO2 is!
Actually you could argue scientifically that water vapor does cause more heat trapping than CO2...Im not kidding.
I've often wondered if the net effect of humans was global cooling until we started to clean up the particulates from our industrial/heating emissions.
2010’s-2020’s was climate change scam
2000’s-2010’s was global warming scam
1990’s-2000’s was the hole in the ozone layer scam
1980’s-1990’s was acid rain scam
1970’s-1980’s was global cooling scam
Yes, the step up in the 70's coincides with clean air laws.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming
Yes. This is why Bill Gates wants to block out the sun.
Hey man your facts aren’t welcome here. Emotions only.
Yup, it's called cloud cover. If CO2 were was a significant greenhouse gas, its activity would be as detectable as cloud cover.
CO2 is a small fraction of a percent of the atmosphere. It’s a greenhouse gas but to see the temperature rises we’ve seen there’s no way you can attribute more than a minuscule portion of it to CO2.
I know right? Cant argue with these clowns, except by not producing anything at all.
Nuclear burns cleaner than literally any other form of energy. AND SAFER!!! You have to account for all cost, deaths given from the ENTIRE process, from mining, sourcing, storage, transport, secondary storage, burning, waste streams, waste transport, etc.
If you DO account for it all then nuclear wins by about 100,000 per capita deaths and billions in supply and waste cost per year.
And, of course, "green energy" bullshit fails entirely with the highest per capita death rates and lifecycle cost of any source.
I will vote for a nuclear power plant in my back yard every day for the rest of my life if I could.
Hydro has Nuclear beat
Nope, more deaths per capita, by a fairly significant amount, throughout the last 60ish years of each. Hydro loses due to massive loss of life in comparison.
Hoover dam alone was 96 people killed. That level of death, even back then, would have permanently shut down every nuclear plant in the country.
Technically water vapor has an even higher greenhouse factor than CO2. But I like clouds so I’m ok with clean coal.
Imagine a nice stream of HOT CLOUDS pushing against that cold front in texas.
Fissile materials don’t exactly grow on trees either but I am a big fan of nuclear.
I worry about nuclear I wish a pede in the industry would make an honest video.
Pandora's Promise is interesting but I believe it was funded by Paul Allen, so it is probably shilling for some project he was involved in.
It’s so sad we have to sift through the garbage heap of content and hucksters for one iota of truth to keep the soul warm.
We are like the garbage kids of India
Paul Allen makes me think of Bill Gates who is apparently into the TWR (traveling wave reactor), but I don't remember TWR even mentioned in the film, for what that's worth.
I also recommend watching Pandora's Promise, especially if nuclear "worries" you, because it shouldn't.
Also check out Kirk Sorensen on YouTube. He did a great TED talk about 10 years ago talking about nuclear which I highly recommend if you have 9 minutes:
https://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel
Love you fren will do.
Keep up new posts I’m sick of garbage.
Cool. Thanks for the link. It sounds very promising and if produced on mass scale (per city, per town, per neighborhood, per building), the cost per plant could come way down.
Also, if broadly accepted, it could replace the electric power grid, natural gas, green energy, and petroleum-based industries. I can't imagine why we haven't adopted this technology sooner.
Are you aware of any working Thorium-based plants?
Nuclear power is clean and efficient, but the fuel is too scarce to be a major part of the world's power supply indefinitely. Given known and estimated supplies, and trends in increasing efficiency of use, at current levels (11% of current world electrical production), the world's primary supplies of uranium will last about 90 years. After that, further supplies could only be gotten by extraction from granite and similar rocks, or extraction from seawater, both of which would be enormously inefficient and expensive.
Realistically, the only fuel source currently viable indefinitely is wood, although future technologies may alter that reality.
Big money is going into the fusion reactor technology race. Hydrogen (split from water) is far more plentiful than wood.
We are finding natural gas and oil are being made through an abiotic process deep down in the earth.
We have plenty of fuel for the next several centuries, if needed.
The only problem we have with it are people dead set on making millions die over the years, needlessly, by denying these fuel sources to power our grid.
Get rid of the unnecessary red tape and useless regs...let's power our grids right.
Yeah, and we ran out of oil 3 decades ago
How quaint. We are in an icarus moment