[Vo]:U.S. Revives Coal-Fired Power Plant (FutureGen)

2009-06-14 Thread Horace Heffner
The Department of Energy committed yesterday to spend $1 billion in  
economic stimulus funds to restart plans for a controversial coal- 
fired power plant that promises to capture 60 percent of its carbon  
dioxide emissions and trap them underground.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/ 
AR2009061202120.html?hpid=sec-nation


http://tinyurl.com/m228mq


What a waste of a billion dollars. Carbon dioxide gas left in that  
form will eventually reappear, and it will be even more difficult to  
clean up then.


A more promising technology might be a vast solar plus oil burner  
power plant complex, where a cellulose containing algoil (algae minus  
water) slurry is produced and burned in a pure oxygen environment so  
as to produce pure CO2 for feeding the algae.  The nitrogen byproduct  
can then, in part at least,  be used to combine with hydrogen to  
produce ammonia products.


I think research on ways to produce building materials (replacing  
wood for example) from coal might be more productive for the economy  
long term.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/






Re: [Vo]:U.S. Revives Coal-Fired Power Plant (FutureGen)

2009-06-14 Thread Edmund Storms
Unfortunately, here is were politics get into the act and this is why  
politics need to be discussed if any sense is to be made of the energy  
problem.  The US will not and cannot give up the use of coal. Too many  
jobs are at risk and the material supplies too much energy that cannot  
be replaced rapidly. The other energy sources you suggest will  
gradually take the place of coal. Meanwhile, the government has to  
make political points by pandering to the coal industry.  The country  
is locked into many political approaches, both energy as well as  
foreign policy (i.e. Israel), that cannot be changed without  
overwhelming objection, regardless of the advantages.  Once a country  
starts down a path based on irrational beliefs, it is doomed.  We  
started on this path about 10 years ago with respect to outsourcing of  
manufacturing, energy sources, banking policy, and Middle East  
policies.  There is no turning back until the resulting pain gets so  
bad that changes must be made.  We are not there yet, but these times  
are rapidly approaching. The only defense is to be located, both  
physically and financially, in a safe place.  Science is not going to  
solve this problem because it takes too long to be implemented. We  
have run out of time.  Anything we do now is simply like rearranging  
the chairs on the Titanic while debating how the ship should have been  
better designed.  As the ship gets lower in the water, you will hear  
the debate getting louder and louder, but with the obvious  
consequence. The people who are not yelling at each other are spending  
their energy finding life boats. Sorry to be so depressing, but these  
are the times we are experiencing.


Ed



On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Horace Heffner wrote:

The Department of Energy committed yesterday to spend $1 billion in  
economic stimulus funds to restart plans for a controversial coal- 
fired power plant that promises to capture 60 percent of its carbon  
dioxide emissions and trap them underground.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/12/AR2009061202120.html?hpid=sec-nation

http://tinyurl.com/m228mq


What a waste of a billion dollars. Carbon dioxide gas left in that  
form will eventually reappear, and it will be even more difficult to  
clean up then.


A more promising technology might be a vast solar plus oil burner  
power plant complex, where a cellulose containing algoil (algae  
minus water) slurry is produced and burned in a pure oxygen  
environment so as to produce pure CO2 for feeding the algae.  The  
nitrogen byproduct can then, in part at least,  be used to combine  
with hydrogen to produce ammonia products.


I think research on ways to produce building materials (replacing  
wood for example) from coal might be more productive for the economy  
long term.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/